From commando at amick.com Mon Aug 1 06:36:34 2005 From: commando at amick.com (Judy) Date: Mon Aug 1 06:39:07 2005 Subject: [blml] stockmarket Small-cap Profile Message-ID: <10904173947.69435126104@213.213.226.129.brutele.be> Investment Times Alert: (STRONG) We Told last week at 1.20 and now its $2.10 and we think it goes to $4.00 on expected news this week. Harbin Pingchuan Pharmaceutical: (PGCN) Current Price: $2.10 Shares Outstanding: 20 Million Market Capitalization: $6 Million Short Term Target: $5.75 12month Target: $10.00 We told you there was going to be a BIG move on THURSDAY and FRIDAY and we where right! PGCN MAKES HUGH MOVE, UP A AMAZING $.90 - ONLY IN 2 DAYS OF TRADING!!! *********INVESTER ALERT ISSUED FOR MONDAY********* (OTC Ticker: PGCN) HARBIN, China, July /Xinhua-PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Harbin Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Holding Co. Ltd. (OTC Bulletin Board: PGCN - News; "PINGCHUAN") announced today that PINGCHUAN signed a Purchase Agreement with the Guangdong Medicine Group Co. Ltd. ("GDMG"). Under the terms of the agreement, PINGCHUAN will authorize GDMG as its franchisee in five southern provinces of China. With respect to the authorization, GDMG intends to purchase approximately US$2.00million worth of PINGCHUAN's pharmaceutical products in 2005. By cooperating with GDMG, PINGCHUAN will greatly enhance the marketing network and sales channels in Southern China. "We are delighted to reach this agreement with the leading medical enterprise in Southern China. This purchase agreement not only increases our sales revenue in these five provinces, but also substantially improves our brand awareness in Southern China. While maintaining the existing marketing network, we are developing and setting up new marketing network and sales channel actively." Said Hu ZhanWu, Chairman and President of Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., "One of our marketing strategies is to establish a connection with medical enterprises such as Guangdong Medicine Group, for the promotion of our products into their commercial networks throughout the entire country." ********* Sick of hedge funds and flippers getting all the great new issues? Most stock brokers give out their new issues to their largest commission paying clients and if you trade through an online broker or discount broker - good luck ever getting 1 share of a new issue. WELL ALL THAT IS CHANGING - THIS IS AN ONLINE INTERNET IPO. IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL, YOU ARE AMONG THE FIRST PUBLIC INVESTORS TO KNOW ABOUT PGCN !!! Remember the gains from our recent "Strong Buy" recommendations... It is only a matter of time before it is released out into the investment community and they take it to the moon. ---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN--- Disclaimer: Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within the meaning of Section 27Aof 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, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, 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", "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, ST0CKs, 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 ST0CKs 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 ST0CK. 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 ST0CK they will sell at anytime without notice. This could have a negative impact on the price of the ST0CK, 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 information to be reliable 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 aureomycin at bostic.org Mon Aug 1 06:37:49 2005 From: aureomycin at bostic.org (Barbara) Date: Mon Aug 1 06:40:19 2005 Subject: [blml] These stocks may make You Money Message-ID: <5029665769.69213114141@213.213.226.129.brutele.be> Investment Times Alert: (STRONG) We Told last week at 1.20 and now its $2.10 and we think it goes to $4.00 on expected news this week. Harbin Pingchuan Pharmaceutical: (PGCN) Current Price: $2.10 Shares Outstanding: 20 Million Market Capitalization: $6 Million Short Term Target: $5.75 12month Target: $10.00 We told you there was going to be a BIG move on THURSDAY and FRIDAY and we where right! PGCN MAKES HUGH MOVE, UP A AMAZING $.90 - ONLY IN 2 DAYS OF TRADING!!! *********INVESTER ALERT ISSUED FOR MONDAY********* (OTC Ticker: PGCN) HARBIN, China, July /Xinhua-PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Harbin Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Holding Co. Ltd. (OTC Bulletin Board: PGCN - News; "PINGCHUAN") announced today that PINGCHUAN signed a Purchase Agreement with the Guangdong Medicine Group Co. Ltd. ("GDMG"). Under the terms of the agreement, PINGCHUAN will authorize GDMG as its franchisee in five southern provinces of China. With respect to the authorization, GDMG intends to purchase approximately US$2.00million worth of PINGCHUAN's pharmaceutical products in 2005. By cooperating with GDMG, PINGCHUAN will greatly enhance the marketing network and sales channels in Southern China. "We are delighted to reach this agreement with the leading medical enterprise in Southern China. This purchase agreement not only increases our sales revenue in these five provinces, but also substantially improves our brand awareness in Southern China. While maintaining the existing marketing network, we are developing and setting up new marketing network and sales channel actively." Said Hu ZhanWu, Chairman and President of Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., "One of our marketing strategies is to establish a connection with medical enterprises such as Guangdong Medicine Group, for the promotion of our products into their commercial networks throughout the entire country." ********* Sick of hedge funds and flippers getting all the great new issues? Most stock brokers give out their new issues to their largest commission paying clients and if you trade through an online broker or discount broker - good luck ever getting 1 share of a new issue. WELL ALL THAT IS CHANGING - THIS IS AN ONLINE INTERNET IPO. IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL, YOU ARE AMONG THE FIRST PUBLIC INVESTORS TO KNOW ABOUT PGCN !!! Remember the gains from our recent "Strong Buy" recommendations... It is only a matter of time before it is released out into the investment community and they take it to the moon. ---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN---PGCN--- Disclaimer: Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within the meaning of Section 27Aof 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, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, 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", "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, ST0CKs, 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 ST0CKs 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 ST0CK. 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 ST0CK they will sell at anytime without notice. This could have a negative impact on the price of the ST0CK, 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 information to be reliable 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 Shapiro at scharff.com Mon Aug 1 12:36:21 2005 From: Shapiro at scharff.com (Matthew) Date: Mon Aug 1 12:38:07 2005 Subject: [blml] The best moments in your life happen suddenly... Message-ID: <2023863175.53422234@c-66-41-102-78.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> Cialis offers you the freedom of choosing the right moment. http://communicators.bestmedsline.info/?deliberatorsxtvuyquarrelzgvCapistrano While you're saving your face, you're losing your ass. DUCK-BILL, n. Your account at your restaurant during the canvas-back season. It is better to be looked over than overlooked. To refrain from imitation is the best revenge. From Melanesian at williamt.com Mon Aug 1 12:36:36 2005 From: Melanesian at williamt.com (Judy) Date: Mon Aug 1 12:38:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Have you ever used an online pharmacy? Message-ID: <3732976237.821247332@c-66-41-102-78.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> Viagra Helps You Have Great Sex! http://errata.bestmedsline.info/?PersianizationxtvuyantithesiszgvAfghans After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music. It's a man's world, and you men can have it. Timesharing just doesn't work. Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer. From rpao at kiev2000.com Tue Aug 2 04:05:42 2005 From: rpao at kiev2000.com (Juliana R.) Date: Mon Aug 1 13:01:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Job. Message-ID: <111101c59706$bbffcb46$d9c06a08@kiev2000.com> Hello, We are Russian marriage agency. We need cooperation with you. You can earn some cash for the small help in one matter. Please contact us only by this e-mail for more details: INFO@ROYALWIFES.COM Thanks, Juliana Ramazanova. Manager. From GUST at acsohio.com Tue Aug 2 09:21:24 2005 From: GUST at acsohio.com (Juliana R.) Date: Mon Aug 1 18:16:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Job. Message-ID: <111001c59732$08800114$5c82122d@acsohio.com> Hello, We are Russian marriage agency. We need cooperation with you. You can earn some cash for the small help in one matter. Please contact us only by this e-mail for more details: INFO@ROYALWIFES.COM Thanks, Juliana Ramazanova. Manager. From RobGTJ.Bosman at xs4all.nl Mon Aug 1 19:09:51 2005 From: RobGTJ.Bosman at xs4all.nl (Rob GTJ Bosman) Date: Mon Aug 1 19:08:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? Message-ID: <001601c596bb$d4a71e60$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> The following occured during the Patton in Deauville last week: J 7 Q J 8 6 3 A J 5 3 8 2 K Q 9 2 10 8 6 4 10 5 4 2 9 7 K Q 6 4 7 6 A Q J 10 9 4 A 5 3 A K 10 9 8 2 K 7 5 3 South plays 3 NT. West leads Spade K, ducked, and Spade Queen - won by South with the Ace. South plays A and K of Hearts, and the 10 of Diamonds, for King and Ace in dummy. Leader continues with the Q of hearts, West plays Diamond 4. Leader continues with J of hearts, west now revokes again by playing Club 6.... The leader plays the last heart from dummy and at this point West calls the TD, explaining that he had revoked..... The obvious happens - the revoke is established, West wins with the 10 of hearts, cashes the 5 of hearts, his Diamond Queen, Spade 9 for the 10 in East who wins the last two tricks with the A of Clubs and 8 of Spades, leaving declarer with only 6 tricks: minus three. According to Law 64 two tricks are transferred, so the result is corrected to 3NT -1, which happens to be the result that the leader would have ended with if West had not revoked at all. There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first time, but there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately revoke the second time - he could see that this would be to his benefit as he would now be able to win two additional tricks and thus would avoid to be hit by the automatic penalty for the revoke. The fact that West called the TD himself as well as the moment upon which he decided to do so support this suggestion. Question: must the TD allow this? Or should we rule that West should not have waited to announce his error until he was in a position to effectively avoid the penalty - so base an artificial result for EW on the situation that would have occured if West had called the TD when the fourth round of hearts was played. That would have given EW only one additional trick and with two tricks to transfer would have given EW the disadvantage of one trick for 3NT just making. For NS the score should in all cases be 3NT -1, as the leader should have realised himself that at least one opponent was revoking as he should have seen that there were two hearts outstanding that were not played at all. If the leader after having played the Q of hearts continues with a club, he will still get his 8 tricks plus in that case one trick transferred from Law 64. Any thoughts?? Rob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050801/0e0abe63/attachment.html From hantha at doneasy.com Tue Aug 2 12:36:39 2005 From: hantha at doneasy.com (Christa Chan) Date: Mon Aug 1 19:40:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rate approval Message-ID: <121.60e558d5.2a9KYS44@nzx.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 $400 a month! Ba(d credit, Bank*ruptcy? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.americanfinancials.net/i/LzMvaW5kZXgvYXJuLzdhY2Z5MW8xNw== Best Regards, Kirsten Neal to be remov(ed: http://www.americanfinancials.net/rem.php this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 1 20:47:48 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Aug 1 21:26:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? References: <001601c596bb$d4a71e60$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob GTJ Bosman To: blml@rtflb.org Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:09 PM Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? The following occured during the Patton in Deauville last week: J 7 Q J 8 6 3 A J 5 3 8 2 K Q 9 2 10 8 6 4 10 5 4 2 9 7 K Q 6 4 7 6 A Q J 10 9 4 A 5 3 A K 10 9 8 2 K 7 5 3 South plays 3 NT. West leads Spade K, ducked, and Spade Queen - won by South with the Ace. South plays A and K of Hearts, and the 10 of Diamonds, for King and Ace in dummy. Leader continues with the Q of hearts, West plays Diamond 4. Leader continues with J of hearts, west now revokes again by playing Club 6.... The leader plays the last heart from dummy and at this point West calls the TD, explaining that he had revoked..... The obvious happens - the revoke is established, West wins with the 10 of hearts, cashes the 5 of hearts, his Diamond Queen, Spade 9 for the 10 in East who wins the last two tricks with the A of Clubs and 8 of Spades, leaving declarer with only 6 tricks: minus three. According to Law 64 two tricks are transferred, so the result is corrected to 3NT -1, which happens to be the result that the leader would have ended with if West had not revoked at all. There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first time, but there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately revoke the second time - he could see that this would be to his benefit as he would now be able to win two additional tricks and thus would avoid to be hit by the automatic penalty for the revoke. The fact that West called the TD himself as well as the moment upon which he decided to do so support this suggestion. Question: must the TD allow this? Or should we rule that West should not have waited to announce his error until he was in a position to effectively avoid the penalty - so base an artificial result for EW on the situation that would have occured if West had called the TD when the fourth round of hearts was played. That would have given EW only one additional trick and with two tricks to transfer would have given EW the disadvantage of one trick for 3NT just making. For NS the score should in all cases be 3NT -1, as the leader should have realised himself that at least one opponent was revoking as he should have seen that there were two hearts outstanding that were not played at all. If the leader after having played the Q of hearts continues with a club, he will still get his 8 tricks plus in that case one trick transferred from Law 64. Any thoughts?? Rob The law specifies that an established revoke [with an exception not applicable here] may not be corrected. In this case the second revoke was not established at the time the TD was called. This revoke must be corrected backing up to W play to the 4th H- except that the TD required play continue thereby establishing the 2nd revoke. TD error. Declarer's equity at the beginning of the hand in 3N is 8 tricks which is what the 2 trick penalty provides 3N-1 [64C]. However- What adjustment [82C] is made considering the case of the 2nd revoke is corrected? The most favorable NS outcome is 7 tricks + 2 tricks penalty for the established revoke. When the revoking side is considered NO I am having difficulty in assessing some inferior declarer play that is ludicrous so EW score is also 3N making. imo, declarer best serves his interest by allowing the revoke become established and thereafter call the TD as soon as an opponent fails to follow to a heart trick so as to maximize control of the hand. I am thinking that this multiple revoke can be construed to smell a bit and probably the best thing to do is for the TD to pull him aside and explain the scope of 72B2 with regard to how players can view such conduct. regards roger pewick From deteriorating at offtheweb.net Mon Aug 1 22:48:28 2005 From: deteriorating at offtheweb.net (Susan) Date: Mon Aug 1 22:50:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Viagra Helps You Have Great Sex! Message-ID: <1916536293.8777478707@84-120-138-227.onocable.ono.com> Prescription Drug Information http://auurgi.mjpf8n4xjemc8nm.gacarpogamee.com Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart. If someone wants a sheep, then that means that he exists. In youth we learn; in age we understand. From parsed at racraft.com Mon Aug 1 22:48:46 2005 From: parsed at racraft.com (Jake) Date: Mon Aug 1 22:51:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Buy Viagra online! It's your best way to buy your medication. Message-ID: <1010476201.6583396533@84-120-138-227.onocable.ono.com> We are the only online pharmacy offering "100% satisfaction guarantee". http://cfe.kh5v63kvhu2ao32.afbumpkinie.info Take rest; a field that has rested gives a bountiful crop. He who has never envied the vegetable has missed the human drama. A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. From mangle at foldthecorners.com Tue Aug 2 04:46:48 2005 From: mangle at foldthecorners.com (Edna) Date: Tue Aug 2 05:19:50 2005 Subject: [blml] We provide top class world wide lifestyle medications, at incredible prices. Message-ID: <3241794116.55114114044@nc-71-2-149-239.dhcp.sprint-hsd.net> Your one stop prescription shop! http://guitars./?coarserxtvuyrandomizeszvtreasonableness Talk to a man about himself and he will listen for hours. Courage is not the absence of fear, but the conquest of it. Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway. Successful leaders have the courage to take action where others hesitate. From embargo at torpor.com Tue Aug 2 04:47:07 2005 From: embargo at torpor.com (Patty) Date: Tue Aug 2 05:20:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Find where to buy online cheap Viagra. Message-ID: <122653130616.12543118991@nc-71-2-149-239.dhcp.sprint-hsd.net> Upgrade your life with our lifestyle medications! http://harmonic./?churchyardsxtvuyaugmentedzvtpantheism Anger is a signal, and one worth listening to. Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. The minute one utters a certainty, the opposite comes to mind. All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors. From Bettie.Gorman at barretts.com Tue Aug 2 11:31:28 2005 From: Bettie.Gorman at barretts.com (Justine Sears) Date: Tue Aug 2 10:32:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Please Call To Confirm Acceptance Message-ID: <65mellie.5Bettie.Gorman@barretts.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050802/179bf415/attachment.html From RobGTJ.Bosman at xs4all.nl Tue Aug 2 10:54:19 2005 From: RobGTJ.Bosman at xs4all.nl (Rob GTJ Bosman) Date: Tue Aug 2 10:50:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Avoid penalty after revoke?? Message-ID: <003e01c5973f$c5174ea0$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> -> resending in plain text <- The following occured during the Patton in Deauville last week: J 7 Q J 8 6 3 A J 5 3 8 2 K Q 9 2 10 8 6 4 10 5 4 2 9 7 K Q 6 4 7 6 A Q J 10 9 4 A 5 3 A K 10 9 8 2 K 7 5 3 South plays 3 NT. West leads Spade K, ducked, and Spade Queen - won by South with the Ace. South plays A and K of Hearts, and the 10 of Diamonds, for King and Ace in dummy. Leader continues with the Q of hearts, West plays Diamond 4. Leader continues with J of hearts, west now revokes again by playing Club 6.... The leader plays the last heart from dummy and at this point West calls the TD, explaining that he had revoked..... The obvious happens - the revoke is established, West wins with the 10 of hearts, cashes the 5 of hearts, his Diamond Queen, Spade 9 for the 10 in East who wins the last two tricks with the A of Clubs and 8 of Spades, leaving declarer with only 6 tricks: minus three. According to Law 64 two tricks are transferred, so the result is corrected to 3NT -1, which happens to be the result that the leader would have ended with if West had not revoked at all. There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first time, but there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately revoke the second time - he could see that this would be to his benefit as he would now be able to win two additional tricks and thus would avoid to be hit by the automatic penalty for the revoke. The fact that West called the TD himself as well as the moment upon which he decided to do so support this suggestion. Question: must the TD allow this? Or should we rule that West should not have waited to announce his error until he was in a position to effectively avoid the penalty - so base an artificial result for EW on the situation that would have occured if West had called the TD when the fourth round of hearts was played. That would have given EW only one additional trick and with two tricks to transfer would have given EW the disadvantage of one trick for 3NT just making. For NS in my mind the score should in all cases be 3NT -1, as the leader should have realised himself that at least one opponent was revoking as he should have seen that there were two hearts outstanding that were not played at all. If the leader after having played the Q of hearts continues with a diamond, he will still get his 8 tricks plus in that case one trick transferred from Law 64. Any thoughts?? Rob From darken at midnightcowboy.com Tue Aug 2 11:53:47 2005 From: darken at midnightcowboy.com (Jerry) Date: Tue Aug 2 11:55:58 2005 Subject: [blml] An awesome way to strengthen your erections Message-ID: <12778228724.251815620@217.119.122.1> Find cheap prescriptions on the internet pharmacy! http://alsbi.o39zs7oz3g6ea76.mefehmicgh.info A large section of the intelligentsia seems wholly devoid of intelligence. PITY, n. A failing sense of exemption, inspired by contrast. I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers. From denotation at feder.com Tue Aug 2 11:54:12 2005 From: denotation at feder.com (Jimmy) Date: Tue Aug 2 11:56:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Viagra is the #1 med to struggle with mens' erectile dysfunction. Message-ID: <11700546661.485286408@217.119.122.1> Best Deals on all Generic Viagra and Generic Cialis Alternatives with guaranteed lowest prices http://kgvk.0f3bmj0bxsi8410.gacarpogamee.com Nothing for preserving the body like having no heart. Mothers are a biological necessity; fathers are a social invention. I have such poor vision I can date anybody. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 2 13:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 2 13:20:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Avoid penalty after revoke?? In-Reply-To: <003e01c5973f$c5174ea0$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> Message-ID: Rob wrote: > There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first > time, but there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately revoke > the second time - he could see that this would be to his benefit as he > would now be able to win two additional tricks and thus would avoid to > be hit by the automatic penalty for the revoke. No, he would not. A second revoke in the same suit, while not subject to penalty, is still subject to "equity restoration" (L64c). Since declarer's "equity" after the establishment of the first revoke and immediately prior to the second offence was 9 tricks that is the minimum score he can be awarded regardless of whether West revokes a second time. Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 2 14:31:35 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Aug 2 14:33:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Avoid penalty after revoke?? References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Avoid penalty after revoke?? > Rob wrote: > > > There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first > > time, but there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately revoke > > the second time - he could see that this would be to his benefit as he > > would now be able to win two additional tricks and thus would avoid to > > be hit by the automatic penalty for the revoke. > > No, he would not. A second revoke in the same suit, while not subject to > penalty, is still subject to "equity restoration" (L64c). Since > declarer's "equity" after the establishment of the first revoke and > immediately prior to the second offence was 9 tricks that is the minimum > score he can be awarded regardless of whether West revokes a second time. > > Tim I believe that equity has something to do with [all] the actions of the players. I note that declarer can be aware of a revoke upon the first revoke [both defenders show out]. I pointed out that it would be in declarer's best interest to allow the revoke to be established in order to establish a penalty trick[s] and then make sure that revoker follows suit for the rest of the hand. That would establish the equity at 9 tricks. Declarer did not do so therefore his equity is not necessarily nine tricks by the time the last trick was played. Tim did me a favor because I went back and read 64C for what seemed like the first time. 64C is not actually about equity. It sets the standard at 'the director deems that the NOS is insufficiently compensated by this law' which can be something far different from equity. Which essentially suggests that 64A doesn't mean as much as most of us presume it to. In such circumstances, the score the players are entitled is an adjusted score [s] since the standard of an adjusted score is 'most favorable likely' and least favorable probable'. And don't forget PP. I am still standing by my assessment that the controlling factor here was TD error and a reasonable adjusted score was 3N=. regards roger pewick From chased at henrikson.com Tue Aug 2 17:43:50 2005 From: chased at henrikson.com (Pete) Date: Tue Aug 2 17:43:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Wall Street Pulse Message-ID: <5234233573.6903541846@61.111.89.175> RadarALERT-Investors: (BUY ALERT) SYMBOL: UAIG UA International Group, Ltd. (OTC:UAIG) Current Price: $.37 Shares Outstanding: 25 Million Market Capitalization: $6 Million Short Term Target: $1.25 ***We told you there was going to be a BIG move ***on MONDAY on PGCN and we where right ! TIME TO FOCUS ON UAIG! (OTC Ticker: UAIG) At these rates, even small amounts of money can grow into literally MILLIONS in just a few years. Read today's RadarALERT-Investors, and do your due diligence and then take action! ***PRESS RELEASE******PRESS RELEASE******PRESS RELEASE******PRESS RELEASE*** UA International Group, Ltd. Announces Signing of Second Contract with AO Engineering KIEV, Ukraine-(BUSINESS WIRE)-July 29, 2005-UA International Group, Ltd., (OTC:UAIG - News), a Ukrainian water and electrical infrastructure, supply, delivery, maintenance and real estate development company today announced it has signed its second contract with AO Engineering. UAIG will provide project design, heating and maintenance for the development of a hotel and office complex in the city of Kiev. Vitaly Zhygun, President of UAIG quotes "The fact that AO Engineering has signed UAIG to an additional contract once again supports our position in the market and client confidence in our products and services. Our relationship with AO Engineering is on firm ground. We expect to sign more contracts and continue to provide key services for the development and maintenance of their projects." About UA International Group: Based in Kiev, Ukraine, UA International Group is an electrical and water infrastructure provider, delivery, supply, maintenance and real estate development company. Management believes that the Company is well positioned to show significant growth in sales and profits in the months and years ahead. UAIG is the prime company in their sector(s) in Ukraine. *** Make no mistake: Our mission at SmallCap-Investors is to claw our way through the thousands of underperforming companies out there to find the golden needle in the haystack the micro-cap DIAMOND that can make you rich. More often than not, the stocks we profile show a significant increase in stock price and sometimes in days, not months or years. Do this often enough, and your portfolio can double, even TRIPLE in value. Disclaimer: Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within the meaning of Section 27Aof 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, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, 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", "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, ST0CKs, 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 ST0CKs 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 ST0CK. 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 ST0CK they will sell at anytime without notice. This could have a negative impact on the price of the ST0CK, 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 information to be reliable 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 distraught at 0downmerchantservices.com Tue Aug 2 17:44:17 2005 From: distraught at 0downmerchantservices.com (Jennie) Date: Tue Aug 2 17:44:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Please Watch this stock Trade Message-ID: <1252132354.5591074861@61.111.89.175> RadarALERT-Investors: (BUY ALERT) SYMBOL: UAIG UA International Group, Ltd. (OTC:UAIG) Current Price: $.37 Shares Outstanding: 25 Million Market Capitalization: $6 Million Short Term Target: $1.25 ***We told you there was going to be a BIG move ***on MONDAY on PGCN and we where right ! TIME TO FOCUS ON UAIG! (OTC Ticker: UAIG) At these rates, even small amounts of money can grow into literally MILLIONS in just a few years. Read today's RadarALERT-Investors, and do your due diligence and then take action! ***PRESS RELEASE******PRESS RELEASE******PRESS RELEASE******PRESS RELEASE*** UA International Group, Ltd. Announces Signing of Second Contract with AO Engineering KIEV, Ukraine-(BUSINESS WIRE)-July 29, 2005-UA International Group, Ltd., (OTC:UAIG - News), a Ukrainian water and electrical infrastructure, supply, delivery, maintenance and real estate development company today announced it has signed its second contract with AO Engineering. UAIG will provide project design, heating and maintenance for the development of a hotel and office complex in the city of Kiev. Vitaly Zhygun, President of UAIG quotes "The fact that AO Engineering has signed UAIG to an additional contract once again supports our position in the market and client confidence in our products and services. Our relationship with AO Engineering is on firm ground. We expect to sign more contracts and continue to provide key services for the development and maintenance of their projects." About UA International Group: Based in Kiev, Ukraine, UA International Group is an electrical and water infrastructure provider, delivery, supply, maintenance and real estate development company. Management believes that the Company is well positioned to show significant growth in sales and profits in the months and years ahead. UAIG is the prime company in their sector(s) in Ukraine. *** Make no mistake: Our mission at SmallCap-Investors is to claw our way through the thousands of underperforming companies out there to find the golden needle in the haystack the micro-cap DIAMOND that can make you rich. More often than not, the stocks we profile show a significant increase in stock price and sometimes in days, not months or years. Do this often enough, and your portfolio can double, even TRIPLE in value. Disclaimer: Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within the meaning of Section 27Aof 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, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, 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", "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, ST0CKs, 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 ST0CKs 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 ST0CK. 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 ST0CK they will sell at anytime without notice. This could have a negative impact on the price of the ST0CK, 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 information to be reliable 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 twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 2 17:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 2 17:58:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Avoid penalty after revoke?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > That would establish the equity at 9 tricks. > Declarer did not do so therefore his equity is not necessarily nine > tricks by the time the last trick was played. There is no "equity" after the last trick has been played. The "equity" we restore is non-offender's reasonable expectation immediately prior to the relevant offence (in this case a second revoke). That equity includes any benefit accruing from prior offences (in this case the first revoke). > Tim did me a favor because I went back and read 64C for what seemed > like the first time. 64C is not actually about equity. It sets the > standard at 'the director deems that the NOS is insufficiently > compensated by this law' which can be something far different from > equity. I don't see how - we aren't going to award an adjusted score unless declarer might have got something worse than the expected score at the time of the offence. > Which essentially suggests that > 64A doesn't mean as much as most of us presume it to. In such > circumstances, the score the players are entitled is an adjusted score Indeed - as opposed to a transfer of a specified number of tricks. Thus if a revoke stops a suit running when declarer might have (after running it) chosen to squeeze/finesse/throw-in we award a score based on the most successful of those choices. > I am still standing by my assessment that the controlling factor here > was TD error If attention was drawn to the 2nd revoke before East played to the trick that is true. Assume for convenience that East did indeed play before West said anything (as I strongly suspect was the case at the table). > and a reasonable adjusted score was 3N=. No TD error now but 3N is still correct. Tim From info at super-cubic.com Tue Aug 2 10:07:14 2005 From: info at super-cubic.com (info@super-cubic.com) Date: Tue Aug 2 18:48:49 2005 Subject: [blml] セックスカウンセラー　出張ホスト完全 Message-ID: <20050802080714.27132.qmail@mail.super-cubic.com> ※貴方も予約待ちのカリスマ出張ホストを目指して見ませんか！ 「収入Upで快適な生活を...」 http://www.awg1.net/?favorite 「人生経験豊富な熟年出張ホストから元気な若手出張ホストまで様々な年齢層の方、 お試し登録をして見ませんか！」 http://www.awg1.net/?favorite 「女性の方の職業は」 学生/専門学校生/大学院生/人妻/OL/会社役員/自営業/公務員/芸能関係/開業医/会社 経営/.ホステス/風俗嬢/フリーター/など http://www.awg1.net/?favorite ※驚きの報酬を可能にしたい方は直に覗いて下さい。 ■□■□■□■□■□■ An unnecessary person please reply at the following. 興味無い方は↓ a245_goawg@poppymail.com ■□■□■□■□■□■ 18歳未満は利用禁止です。 From info at p-suke-soramame.com Tue Aug 2 13:29:50 2005 From: info at p-suke-soramame.com (info@p-suke-soramame.com) Date: Tue Aug 2 20:10:22 2005 Subject: [blml] 性感マッサージを経験した事はあります Message-ID: <20050802112950.2694.qmail@mail.p-suke-soramame.com> ※女性会員にマッサージ（性感を含む）を1時間〜2時間程度するだけでの出張マッ サージサービスです。 ☆勿論、登録は無料です！お試し登録ＯＫ！ 「お好きな女性年齢を選択して下さい。」 10代〜25歳の女性はこちらへ↓ http://www.00-love1.com/?massage1 コメント：若いピチピチ肌も最高（ロリ系好きな男性のは此方をお勧め！） 26歳〜35歳の女性はこちら↓ http://www.00-love1.com/?massage2 コメント：若妻さんが最も多い年齢層です。 36歳以上の女性はこちら↓ http://www.00-love1.com/?massage3 コメント：熟・熟女も・・好きな男性には一番良いかも.... ※女性会員が貴方を気に入れば2週間以上〜長期契約も可能です。 ※契約者続出！！ ※男女共に喜んで頂ければと思い私たち女性でこの番組をつくった次第です。 ※昼は主婦層の方・夜はＯＬ（仕事有）の方のご利用が多いようです。 ※土日祭日が最高の狙い目！！ ※顔写真付で気に入った女性を選べます。 ※先にアポを取り日にちの予約可能です。 拒否する方は↓ The reception refusal of mail send_sweet69@poppymail.com ＊18禁＊ From johns at yahoo.com Tue Aug 2 19:08:41 2005 From: johns at yahoo.com (Grinberg) Date: Wed Aug 3 00:09:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Why seek? Choose any love pi11 you want! Message-ID: <002b01c54b50$10e49590$de01a8c0@wlnfnf> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050803/7decb3da/attachment-0001.html From johns at yahoo.com Tue Aug 2 19:08:43 2005 From: johns at yahoo.com (Friedman) Date: Wed Aug 3 00:09:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Apply 70% discounts on Symantec Software Message-ID: <002b01c54b50$10e49590$de01a8c0@jdkwd7ssa> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050803/993f86db/attachment.html From johns at yahoo.com Tue Aug 2 19:08:45 2005 From: johns at yahoo.com (Hirsch) Date: Wed Aug 3 00:09:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Best love dr@gs at best store! Message-ID: <002b01c54b50$10e49590$de01a8c0@mmwedw> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050803/a6980a95/attachment.html From detain at doneasy.com Wed Aug 3 18:12:38 2005 From: detain at doneasy.com (Royal Russo) Date: Wed Aug 3 01:18:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: <2004087316.MAA02305@mail-hub.mtk.470.jp> 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.812refi.net/?id=a67 Best Regards, Omar Sears to be remov(ed: http://www.812refi.net/book.php this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From njnuuhavcg at glas-fuchs.at Wed Aug 3 07:59:36 2005 From: njnuuhavcg at glas-fuchs.at (Kelle Nguyen) Date: Wed Aug 3 03:14:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Kelle Emerging GrowthSt0ck Profile glean Message-ID: <6813321953829571.7945908652.3@implies-b054.glas-fuchs.at> Hot Investment Newsletter For August! APWL Is A Gold Mine - It is At It's 52 Week Low At The Moment And This is Our Hot Pick This Week, It Can Easily Go Up to $1.25 Very Fast Here Is The Latest News Below. Don't Miss Out On This One Get It Asap For HUGE Pr0fits Like Our Other Picks which return 300 to 750% every week, don't miss this one! A huge fax promotion will begin on Wednesday this week so be sure to get immediately. Ticker: APWL . PK CurrentPrice: . 45 Target_Price- 1. 50 52-WK High: 2.25 52-WK Low:.32 Advanced Powerline Technologies Announces Plans to Launch a Manufacturer Direct to Consumer Web Site. Advanced Powerline Technologies, Inc., (APWL .PK- News) announced today that it plans to launch a new web site for direct manufacturer to consumer sales of its Power Line Communications (PLC) compatible LCD High Definition Digital Televisions (HDTV) and other Power Line Communications (PLC) devices. Through this new web site, consumers will be able to place orders for state of the art high tech LCD High Definition Digital Televisions (HDTV) direct from the American manufacturer, Advanced Powerline Technologies, Inc., in Woodward, Oklahoma, to be delivered in time for Christmas. Advanced Powerline Technologies, Inc.'s, Power Line Communications (PLC) compatible state of the art high tech LCD High Definition Digital Televisions (HDTV) will be the first of its kind to be engineered to meet the new FCC Regulations regarding Broadband over Power Line (BPL) and Power Line Communications (PLC) devices. The Company anticipates sales of its LCD High Definition Digital Televisions (HDTV) to reach twenty thousand (20,000) units per month once the web site is launched. APWL's LCD High Definition Digital Televisions (HDTV) will be assembled in the company's plant in Oklahoma, giving the consumer the opportunity to purchase state of the art high tech LCD High Definition Digital Televisions (HDTV) assembled in the United States at a competitive price to foreign made products. Advanced Powerline Technologies is working hard to put Americans back to work in the high tech consumer electronics industry. The company believes that providing the American consumer the opportunity to purchase state of the art high tech LCD High Definition Digital Televisions (HDTV) assembled by Americans, for Americans, in the United States at a competitive price to foreign made products is the best way to create jobs in America and do our part to help create a thriving American economy. Ticker: APWL . PK CurrentPrice: . 45 Target_Price- 1. 50 52-WK High: 2.25 52-WK Low:.32 * Get In Immediately This Week Will Be Explosive * usurped poisonous proclivity From custsupport at BOW.com Wed Aug 3 03:57:52 2005 From: custsupport at BOW.com (West Inc.) Date: Wed Aug 3 03:53:59 2005 Subject: [blml] BOW Important Notice Message-ID: <20050803015752.5851.qmail@www.banjig.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050803/26a2288f/attachment.html From Gascony at landin.com Wed Aug 3 07:09:37 2005 From: Gascony at landin.com (Raymond) Date: Wed Aug 3 07:16:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Triple Play stocks Message-ID: <12152136445.5746489452@68.143.133.188.nw.nuvox.net> Investment Times Alert Issues: (STRONG BUY) We Told last week at 1.20 to WATCH and now its $2.15 and we think it goes to $4.00 on expected news this week... Harbin Pingchuan Pharmaceutical: (PGCN) Current Price: $2.35 Shares Outstanding: 20 Million Market Capitalization: $6 Million Short Term Target: $5.75 12month Target: $10.00 (!!!) ***We told you there was going to be a BIG move on THURSDAY, FRIDAY, MONDAY, AND TUESDAY and we think WEDNESDAY COULD BE HUGH !!!!!! NEWS RELEASE: PGCN MAKES HUGH MOVE, UP A AMAZING $1.15 - IN 5 DAYS OF TRADING !!! ***WE URGE YOU TO PUT PGCN ON YOUR RADAR FOR WEDNESDAY AUGUST 3, 2005*** HARBIN, China, July /Xinhua-PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Harbin Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Holding Co. Ltd. (OTC Bulletin Board: PGCN - News; "PINGCHUAN") announced today that PINGCHUAN signed a Purchase Agreement with the Guangdong Medicine Group Co. Ltd. ("GDMG"). Under the terms of the agreement, PINGCHUAN will authorize GDMG as its franchisee in five southern provinces of China. With respect to the authorization, GDMG intends to purchase approximately US$2.00million worth of PINGCHUAN's pharmaceutical products in 2005. By cooperating with GDMG, PINGCHUAN will greatly enhance the marketing network and sales channels in Southern China. "We are delighted to reach this agreement with the leading medical enterprise in Southern China. This purchase agreement not only increases our sales revenue in these five provinces, but also substantially improves our brand awareness in Southern China. While maintaining the existing marketing network, we are developing and setting up new marketing network and sales channel actively." Said Hu ZhanWu, Chairman and President of Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., "One of our marketing strategies is to establish a connection with medical enterprises such as Guangdong Medicine Group, for the promotion of our products into their commercial networks throughout the entire country." ****REASON TO WATCH PGCN**** Make no mistake: Our mission at SmallCap-Investors is to claw our way through the thousands of underperforming companies out there to find the golden needle in the haystack the micro-cap DIAMOND that can make you rich. More often than not, the stocks we profile show a significant increase in stock price and sometimes in days, not months or years. Do this often enough, and your portfolio can double, even TRIPLE in value. Disclaimer: Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within the meaning of Section 27Aof 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, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, 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", "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, ST0CKs, 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 ST0CKs 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 ST0CK. 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 ST0CK they will sell at anytime without notice. This could have a negative impact on the price of the ST0CK, 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 information to be reliable 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 premeditated at knie-buffet.ch Wed Aug 3 07:10:11 2005 From: premeditated at knie-buffet.ch (Siegfried) Date: Wed Aug 3 07:16:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Hot Pennystocks Message-ID: <1120154295.10806847767@68.143.133.188.nw.nuvox.net> Investment Times Alert Issues: (STRONG BUY) We Told last week at 1.20 to WATCH and now its $2.15 and we think it goes to $4.00 on expected news this week... Harbin Pingchuan Pharmaceutical: (PGCN) Current Price: $2.35 Shares Outstanding: 20 Million Market Capitalization: $6 Million Short Term Target: $5.75 12month Target: $10.00 (!!!) ***We told you there was going to be a BIG move on THURSDAY, FRIDAY, MONDAY, AND TUESDAY and we think WEDNESDAY COULD BE HUGH !!!!!! NEWS RELEASE: PGCN MAKES HUGH MOVE, UP A AMAZING $1.15 - IN 5 DAYS OF TRADING !!! ***WE URGE YOU TO PUT PGCN ON YOUR RADAR FOR WEDNESDAY AUGUST 3, 2005*** HARBIN, China, July /Xinhua-PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Harbin Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Holding Co. Ltd. (OTC Bulletin Board: PGCN - News; "PINGCHUAN") announced today that PINGCHUAN signed a Purchase Agreement with the Guangdong Medicine Group Co. Ltd. ("GDMG"). Under the terms of the agreement, PINGCHUAN will authorize GDMG as its franchisee in five southern provinces of China. With respect to the authorization, GDMG intends to purchase approximately US$2.00million worth of PINGCHUAN's pharmaceutical products in 2005. By cooperating with GDMG, PINGCHUAN will greatly enhance the marketing network and sales channels in Southern China. "We are delighted to reach this agreement with the leading medical enterprise in Southern China. This purchase agreement not only increases our sales revenue in these five provinces, but also substantially improves our brand awareness in Southern China. While maintaining the existing marketing network, we are developing and setting up new marketing network and sales channel actively." Said Hu ZhanWu, Chairman and President of Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., "One of our marketing strategies is to establish a connection with medical enterprises such as Guangdong Medicine Group, for the promotion of our products into their commercial networks throughout the entire country." ****REASON TO WATCH PGCN**** Make no mistake: Our mission at SmallCap-Investors is to claw our way through the thousands of underperforming companies out there to find the golden needle in the haystack the micro-cap DIAMOND that can make you rich. More often than not, the stocks we profile show a significant increase in stock price and sometimes in days, not months or years. Do this often enough, and your portfolio can double, even TRIPLE in value. Disclaimer: Information within this email contains "forwardlooking statements" within the meaning of Section 27Aof 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, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, 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", "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, ST0CKs, 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 ST0CKs 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 ST0CK. 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 ST0CK they will sell at anytime without notice. This could have a negative impact on the price of the ST0CK, 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 information to be reliable 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 Carla at deen.com Wed Aug 3 19:45:20 2005 From: Carla at deen.com (Evelina) Date: Wed Aug 3 19:47:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Penis enhancement system that works for countless men worldwide. Message-ID: <10336711723.1047395008@pool-151-202-65-215.ny325.east.verizon.net> Hey - Don't get ripped off! http://www.matawe.com/pt/?9&earned He who would leap high must take a long run. Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm. Men are punished by their sins, not for them. I love acting. It is so much more real than life. Vigorous writing is concise. From minimization at brett.com Wed Aug 3 19:45:41 2005 From: minimization at brett.com (Bod) Date: Wed Aug 3 19:48:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Penis Enlargement Patch That Works!!! Message-ID: <7937984689.6287425488@pool-151-202-65-215.ny325.east.verizon.net> New Penis Enlargement Patches! http://www.xtesir.com/pt/?9&share As if there were safety in stupidity alone. When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield. We know accurately only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases. Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting. It is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating. From rasnita at tv24.tv Tue Aug 2 22:39:27 2005 From: rasnita at tv24.tv (markus palmer) Date: Wed Aug 3 22:01:38 2005 Subject: [blml] male muscle boosting system Message-ID: <18FF55C4.71FD647@tv24.tv> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050803/a67f0d53/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Aug 4 01:39:21 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Aug 4 01:43:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief Message-ID: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 days) and opened a three-card major only once. Oddly, both happened in the same session. Having been dealt with sternly by ACBL TDs for such mischief in the past, I was surprised to have no difficulty this time. (1) S A74 H AJ8764 D AK C 53 S K92 S 63 H K3 H 5 D Q875 D J109432 C KJ104 C 9762 S QJ1085 H Q1092 D 6 C AQ8 None vul, North dealer. The bidding 1H-1NT-3H-3NT-4H All pass. This worked rather well, as declarer first played ace and another heart, losing to the king. Somewhat surprised, she next played ace and another spade, losing to that king also. Of course she hollered for the TD, who was a newer TD but one who knows the Laws. Citing L40A, he gently explained to North that psyching is part of the game, and that the 3NT bid removed any suspicion of an explicit or implicit partnership agreement. Good for him. The ACBL holds many seminars for players during NABCs, but defense against psychs is never a subject. Why not? (2) S 954 H 1042 D K8752 C QJ S Q872 S AK3 H Q983 H J D A4 D Q1063 C 762 C A10943 S J106 H AK765 D J9 C K95 I was East and dealer. The bidding went 1S-P*-2S-3D-X, all pass * Break in tempo North thought South surely had short spades, so he chanced the 3D bid. For that he went -1100, maybe that will teach him not to cheat. Had North complained about my three-card spade opening, I might have had another Player Memo added to my dossier. Rapee once wrote a series of three Bridge World articles on the subject of three-card major bids: Openings, Responses, Overcalls. Unfo rtunately Editor Jeff Rubens can't find them, but they were written long before his time, in the middle 50s perhaps. Rapee said they worked better in rubber bridge than in duplicate bridge. I guess that makes sense, as countering this ploy can be dangerous. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From tysor at doramail.com Thu Aug 4 05:48:04 2005 From: tysor at doramail.com (Sanford Gold) Date: Thu Aug 4 04:58:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Cheapest rates around 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.812refi.net/?id=a67 Best Regards, Minnie Myers to be remov(ed: http://www.812refi.net/book.php this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From Fatima at rexandi.com Thu Aug 4 08:48:49 2005 From: Fatima at rexandi.com (Betsy) Date: Thu Aug 4 08:51:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Downloadable software Message-ID: <34827191.3955125366@203-151-140-118.inter.net.th> Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 - $19.95 http://eatings.mytin.com/ DISCLAIMER: A society where such disclaimers are needed is saddening. The universe is made of stories, not atoms. The longer I live the more beautiful life becomes. From info at senbei-norimaki.com Thu Aug 4 05:05:06 2005 From: info at senbei-norimaki.com (info@senbei-norimaki.com) Date: Thu Aug 4 09:01:26 2005 Subject: [blml] 男性デリヘル（副業・専業）登録完全無 Message-ID: <20050804030506.12406.qmail@mail.senbei-norimaki.com> ■-ルックス自慢-■-筋肉自慢-■-優しさ自慢-■-テクニック自慢−■ 【昼コース】↓ http://www.00-love1.com/?deli1 【男性出張デリヘルスタッフ募集中！！】 ※短期・長期どちらでもＯＫ、退会は何時でも自由に出来ます、再登録ＯＫ！！ ※男性出張デリヘルを求めている女性多数登録！！ ※一回2時間程のお付き合いで収入Up！！ 【夜コース】 http://www.00-love1.com/?deli2 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ The reception refusal of mail 今後、受信を拒否する場合は下記までご連絡下さい。 sweet_777@pochta.ru ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ※18歳未満のご利用は出来ません From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Aug 4 14:28:08 2005 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Thu Aug 4 14:30:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c598ef$f8779780$af202b52@Zog> Marvin French wrote: > I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 days) > and opened a three-card major only once. Oddly, both happened in the > same session. Having been dealt with sternly by ACBL TDs for such > mischief in the past, I was surprised to have no difficulty this time. > > (1) S A74 > H AJ8764 > D AK > C 53 > > S K92 S 63 > H K3 H 5 > D Q875 D J109432 > C KJ104 C 9762 > > S QJ1085 > H Q1092 > D 6 > C AQ8 > > None vul, North dealer. The bidding > > 1H-1NT-3H-3NT-4H All pass. > > This worked rather well, as declarer first played ace and another > heart, losing to the king. Somewhat surprised, she next played ace and > another spade, losing to that king also. > > Of course she hollered for the TD, who was a newer TD but one who > knows the Laws. Citing L40A, he gently explained to North that > psyching is part of the game, and that the 3NT bid removed any > suspicion of an explicit or implicit partnership agreement. Good for > him. ... and I thought ACBL TDs were tough on psyching! West is not off the hook once he has bid 3NT. His final pass reeks of collusion - if he knew his partner never (or rarely) psyched he would double in sleep. For good measure, I would rule that after the double, South will read the situation correctly - leading to 4Hx + 3, +890 to NS. Presumably, however, East pulls to 5D, going for a mere 800. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 03/08/05 From Haney at luckyplants.com Thu Aug 4 15:23:37 2005 From: Haney at luckyplants.com (Simon) Date: Thu Aug 4 15:26:01 2005 Subject: [blml] The Bottom Line stocks Message-ID: <65005108126.116762127170@dsl.dynamic81213170176.ttnet.net.tr> TRADING ALERT! SYMBOL: MWIS Timing is everything!!! Profits of 300-400 % EXPECTED TRADING SYMBOL: MWIS Opening Price: $.17 10 Day Target: $.65 >News Alert!!!Press Release m-Wise Ramping Up to Acquire Mobile Content Service Provider Wednesday 11:19 am ET WILMINGTON, Del., (PRIMEZONE) -- m-Wise, Inc. (OTC BB:MWIS.OB - News), a leading technology provider of mobile content solutions for operators, ASPs and content providers, today announced it has identified acquisition candidates in its search to acquire a provider of mobile content and content-related services. The potential acquisition candidate is expected to broaden the service segment of m-Wise's current offering and enhance its direct-to-consumer approach. The acquisition candidates identified by m-Wise are providers of content and content-related services to the mobile industry. The candidates, based in Europe, the U.S. and Israel, are profitable and have substantial yearly revenue of $4 million to $9 million. The acquisition will integrate the synergies of the mobile content provider with m-Wise's robust carrier-grade Mobile Originated Message Applications, known as the MOMA platform, a leading Service Delivery Platform (SDP) for value-added services and content. The MOMA SDP comprises of more than 1,000 value-added services and applications launched through more than 50 European, American and Asian networks with deployment over MMS, SMS, EMS, J2ME, WAP, USSD, IVR, Web, and email. >>> GET IN NOW!!! You know the old saying, buy the rumor and sell on the news. Once the news is out it is time to get ready for next ralley... A $1,000 dollar investment could yield a $5,000 dollar profit in just one trade if you trade out at the top. MWIS should be one of the most profitable stocks to trade this year. In this range the stock has potentialto 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. MWIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. For pennies you can participate in a stock that could yield results over and over again just based on the trading patterns. (WE GAVE YOU PGCN AT $1.00 AND NOW ITS TRADING AT $2.40 AND CLIMBING) If the company is able to effectuate it.s business model, WATCH OUT!!! We could see a GREAT STORY In THE MAKING FOR MWIS. !!!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 the Securities 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". "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", "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, ST0CKs, 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 ST0CKs 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 ST0CK. 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 ST0CK they will sell at anytime without notice. This could have a negative impact on the price of the ST0CK, 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 information to be reliable 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 Tiffany at docboard.org Thu Aug 4 15:24:07 2005 From: Tiffany at docboard.org (Isold) Date: Thu Aug 4 15:26:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Put This Small-Cap on Your Watch Sheet Message-ID: <7635930184.2124131165@dsl.dynamic81213170176.ttnet.net.tr> TRADING ALERT! SYMBOL: MWIS Timing is everything!!! Profits of 300-400 % EXPECTED TRADING SYMBOL: MWIS Opening Price: $.17 10 Day Target: $.65 >News Alert!!!Press Release m-Wise Ramping Up to Acquire Mobile Content Service Provider Wednesday 11:19 am ET WILMINGTON, Del., (PRIMEZONE) -- m-Wise, Inc. (OTC BB:MWIS.OB - News), a leading technology provider of mobile content solutions for operators, ASPs and content providers, today announced it has identified acquisition candidates in its search to acquire a provider of mobile content and content-related services. The potential acquisition candidate is expected to broaden the service segment of m-Wise's current offering and enhance its direct-to-consumer approach. The acquisition candidates identified by m-Wise are providers of content and content-related services to the mobile industry. The candidates, based in Europe, the U.S. and Israel, are profitable and have substantial yearly revenue of $4 million to $9 million. The acquisition will integrate the synergies of the mobile content provider with m-Wise's robust carrier-grade Mobile Originated Message Applications, known as the MOMA platform, a leading Service Delivery Platform (SDP) for value-added services and content. The MOMA SDP comprises of more than 1,000 value-added services and applications launched through more than 50 European, American and Asian networks with deployment over MMS, SMS, EMS, J2ME, WAP, USSD, IVR, Web, and email. >>> GET IN NOW!!! You know the old saying, buy the rumor and sell on the news. Once the news is out it is time to get ready for next ralley... A $1,000 dollar investment could yield a $5,000 dollar profit in just one trade if you trade out at the top. MWIS should be one of the most profitable stocks to trade this year. In this range the stock has potentialto 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. MWIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. For pennies you can participate in a stock that could yield results over and over again just based on the trading patterns. (WE GAVE YOU PGCN AT $1.00 AND NOW ITS TRADING AT $2.40 AND CLIMBING) If the company is able to effectuate it.s business model, WATCH OUT!!! We could see a GREAT STORY In THE MAKING FOR MWIS. !!!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 the Securities 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". "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", "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, ST0CKs, 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 ST0CKs 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 ST0CK. 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 ST0CK they will sell at anytime without notice. This could have a negative impact on the price of the ST0CK, 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 information to be reliable 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 henk at ripe.net Thu Aug 4 16:17:09 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu Aug 4 16:19:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Sp*m filters Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050804155741.05db1d18@localhost> Hi all, I just spent an hour looking at the spam filters on the list and checked all configuration options. I did have to fix one thing (no idea why that was wrong, but it was). As far as I can see, a mail by a non subscriber should now always end up in the reject list. I tested this by creating a few accounts on popular mail services and send mail. It didn't make it. I've cleaned the alias list. In the past, I accepted mails from some addresses that resembled the subscribed address. (i.e. somebody subscribed as "john.smith@foo.com", then changed to "john.smith1@foo.com". The latter was accepted). From now on, the "From:" field in the postings MUST be the same as the address that you subscribed with for a posting to be forwarded automatically. If not, the posting will be subject to manual approval. I've also added approval for new subscribers. This means that if somebody subscribes, his first posting will end up in my queue and has to be manually approved. This should prevent spammers from subscribe, post and unsubscribe cycles. Your first posting from a new address will thus be delayed a bit. (I never saw this happening, but I found that it was a config option in the latest version of the software, and could switch it on in seconds). I hope this helps, 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 hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 4 16:08:06 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 4 16:20:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <000001c598ef$f8779780$af202b52@Zog> References: <000001c598ef$f8779780$af202b52@Zog> Message-ID: <42F22146.6050800@hdw.be> Brambledown wrote: > Marvin French wrote: > > >>I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 days) >>and opened a three-card major only once. Oddly, both happened in the >>same session. Having been dealt with sternly by ACBL TDs for such >>mischief in the past, I was surprised to have no difficulty this time. >> >>(1) S A74 >> H AJ8764 >> D AK >> C 53 >> >>S K92 S 63 >>H K3 H 5 >>D Q875 D J109432 >>C KJ104 C 9762 >> >> S QJ1085 >> H Q1092 >> D 6 >> C AQ8 >> >>None vul, North dealer. The bidding >> >>1H-1NT-3H-3NT-4H All pass. >> >>This worked rather well, as declarer first played ace and another >>heart, losing to the king. Somewhat surprised, she next played ace and >>another spade, losing to that king also. >> >>Of course she hollered for the TD, who was a newer TD but one who >>knows the Laws. Citing L40A, he gently explained to North that >>psyching is part of the game, and that the 3NT bid removed any >>suspicion of an explicit or implicit partnership agreement. Good for >>him. > > > ... and I thought ACBL TDs were tough on psyching! > > West is not off the hook once he has bid 3NT. His final pass reeks of > collusion - if he knew his partner never (or rarely) psyched he would > double in sleep. > That may well be true - let's suppose it is. > For good measure, I would rule that after the double, South will read > the situation correctly - leading to 4Hx + 3, +890 to NS. Presumably, > however, East pulls to 5D, going for a mere 800. > That is however not on. West does not have UI, so we cannot rule back his pass. If there is illicit knowledge of the psyche - we need to rule MI. And I don't see how we can arrive there, but the only possible rulings are along the lines of 6H+1. > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 4 16:57:41 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Aug 4 16:58:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <000001c598ef$f8779780$af202b52@Zog> Message-ID: <001d01c59904$dda93520$2a9868d5@jeushtlj> >> [Marvin French] >> I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 days) >> and opened a three-card major only once. Oddly, both happened in the >> same session. Having been dealt with sternly by ACBL TDs for such >> mischief in the past, I was surprised to have no difficulty this time. > > (1) S A74 > > H AJ8764 > > D AK > > C 53 > > > > S K92 S 63 > > H K3 H 5 > > D Q875 D J109432 > > C KJ104 C 9762 > > > > S QJ1085 > > H Q1092 > > D 6 > > C AQ8 > > None vul, North dealer. The bidding > > 1H-1NT-3H-3NT-4H All pass. > > Of course she hollered for the TD, who was a newer TD but one who > > knows the Laws. Citing L40A, he gently explained to North that > > psyching is part of the game, and that the 3NT bid removed any > > suspicion of an explicit or implicit partnership agreement. Good for > > him. ... and I thought ACBL TDs were tough on psyching! Chas Fellows] > West is not off the hook once he has bid 3NT. His final pass reeks of > collusion - if he knew his partner never (or rarely) psyched he would > double in sleep. For good measure, I would rule that after the double, > South will read the situation correctly - leading to 4Hx + 3, +890 to > NS. Presumably, however, East pulls to 5D, going for a mere 800. [nige1] IMO Branbledown is right in law (even in the absence of damage, I think the TD should award a PP against West) but, in practice, BLML TDs seem to have a soft spot for the psycher. Here they would argue that the well-known psycher-intuition makes it obvious to West that it is partner rather than an opponent who is exaggerating his values. Also, I classify as a psyche the opening or overcalling of a major on a three card suit - as Marvin sometimes does - unless that is part of declared methods . If ever you know you have acquired a partner intelligent enough to become familiar with your favourite ploys -- then I reckon you are cheating to continue with them -- but I suppose that is a different interminable argument. Incidentally, IMO, the law should also be applied to *minor* deviations that partner may expect - as well as to proper psyches (gross deviations). From Bausback at gmx.net Thu Aug 4 16:57:17 2005 From: Bausback at gmx.net (Nikolas Bausback) Date: Thu Aug 4 17:02:59 2005 Subject: AW: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief Message-ID: <00a401c59904$cf428810$6400a8c0@SHARK> > ... and I thought ACBL TDs were tough on psyching! > > West is not off the hook once he has bid 3NT. His final pass reeks of > collusion - if he knew his partner never (or rarely) psyched he would > double in sleep. > > For good measure, I would rule that after the double, South will read > the situation correctly - leading to 4Hx + 3, +890 to NS. Presumably, > however, East pulls to 5D, going for a mere 800. I know in ACBL land there might be some "rule of coincidence" in use, but basing on which bridgerule could you give a corrected score in EBL / WBF or some other national federation? Nikolas Bausback Darmstadt, Germany > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England > > Marvin French wrote: > > > I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 days) > > and opened a three-card major only once. Oddly, both happened in the > > same session. Having been dealt with sternly by ACBL TDs for such > > mischief in the past, I was surprised to have no difficulty this time. > > > > (1) S A74 > > H AJ8764 > > D AK > > C 53 > > > > S K92 S 63 > > H K3 H 5 > > D Q875 D J109432 > > C KJ104 C 9762 > > > > S QJ1085 > > H Q1092 > > D 6 > > C AQ8 > > > > None vul, North dealer. The bidding > > > > 1H-1NT-3H-3NT-4H All pass. > > > > This worked rather well, as declarer first played ace and another > > heart, losing to the king. Somewhat surprised, she next played ace and > > another spade, losing to that king also. > > > > Of course she hollered for the TD, who was a newer TD but one who > > knows the Laws. Citing L40A, he gently explained to North that > > psyching is part of the game, and that the 3NT bid removed any > > suspicion of an explicit or implicit partnership agreement. Good for > > him. > > ... and I thought ACBL TDs were tough on psyching! > > West is not off the hook once he has bid 3NT. His final pass reeks of > collusion - if he knew his partner never (or rarely) psyched he would > double in sleep. > > For good measure, I would rule that after the double, South will read > the situation correctly - leading to 4Hx + 3, +890 to NS. Presumably, > however, East pulls to 5D, going for a mere 800. > > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 03/08/05 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 4 22:47:09 2005 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu Aug 4 22:49:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke then claim Message-ID: A while ago there was a thread about a player who revoked and then claimed before playing to the next trick. As I remember it, as the offending player was doing the claiming, the consensus was that the revoke was established. We had a variation on this last night whereby a defender revoked and declarer made a claim. Contract 3NT N/S have taken 5 out of the first 8 tricks North S: void H: Qxx D: 72 C: void West East Nothing S: void of H: xx importance D: 8 C: xx South S: void H: Kx D: void C: Kxx Declarer had previously played for a 3-3 diamond break but found it was 2-4. With two hearts and a club winner, he decided to give up a diamond to establish the 13th diamond for his ninth trick. He played D2 from dummy and East discarded Cx. South and West now discarded. Declarer said, "I must have miscounted the diamonds. I have the rest now ... two hearts, the club and a diamond". West said, "I miscounted as well. I thought there was another diamond out". "So did I" said dummy. Is the revoke established? If yes, then declarer is awarded one trick for the D8 that will take another trick if it was played out. If no, then the D8 will take the 9th trick when the revoke is corrected. If the revoke is considered established, what would happen if East had a winning two spades. As declarer only stated his "winners" and not a line of play, can the TD force the declarer to play the D7 first losing to the D8 and then East cashing two spade winners. My gut feeling is L64C comes into play and South is awarded 9 tricks. We can't seriously consider the claim "faulty" can we? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 4 23:29:14 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Aug 4 23:31:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke then claim References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 15:47 PM Subject: [blml] Revoke then claim > > A while ago there was a thread about a player who revoked and then > claimed before playing to the next trick. As I remember it, as the > offending player was doing the claiming, the consensus was that the > revoke was established. > > We had a variation on this last night whereby a defender revoked and > declarer made a claim. > > Contract 3NT > N/S have taken 5 out of the first 8 tricks > > North > S: void > H: Qxx > D: 72 > C: void > > West East > Nothing S: void > of H: xx > importance D: 8 > C: xx > > South > S: void > H: Kx > D: void > C: Kxx > > Declarer had previously played for a 3-3 diamond break but found it was > 2-4. With two hearts and a club winner, he decided to give up a diamond > to establish the 13th diamond for his ninth trick. > > He played D2 from dummy and East discarded Cx. South and West now > discarded. > > Declarer said, "I must have miscounted the diamonds. I have the rest now > ... two hearts, the club and a diamond". > > West said, "I miscounted as well. I thought there was another diamond > out". > > "So did I" said dummy. > > Is the revoke established? If yes, then declarer is awarded one trick > for the D8 that will take another trick if it was played out. If no, > then the D8 will take the 9th trick when the revoke is corrected. > > If the revoke is considered established, what would happen if East had a > winning two spades. As declarer only stated his "winners" and not a line > of play, can the TD force the declarer to play the D7 first losing to > the D8 and then East cashing two spade winners. Most players take a dim view of digging into the discards and playing the cards a second time. > My gut feeling is L64C > comes into play and South is awarded 9 tricks. We can't seriously > consider the claim "faulty" can we? > -- > Steve Wright > Leicester, England A cute little hand. The claim isn't 'valid' yet it 'is'. [a] If the revoke is corrected before acquiescence then it isn't established. Note: L64C doesn't provide indemnity if the revoke wasn't established. Assuming east corrects he wins the offending trick per force and [by chance must lead to declarer's winners] declarer ostensibly gets the rest- 2H, 1C, 1D! [b] if not corrected then claimer will lose the claimed D but will still achieve the 2H and 1C plus get one of the tricks from the two trick penalty for an established revoke for apparently 10 tricks. regards roger pewick From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 5 02:20:59 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Aug 5 02:22:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Sp*m filters Message-ID: <002f01c59953$906c9e60$079468d5@jeushtlj> [Henk Uijterwaal] > I just spent an hour looking at the spam > filters on the list and checked all > configuration options. I did have to fix > one thing (no idea why that was wrong, > but it was). As far as I can see, a mail > by a non subscriber should now always end > up in the reject list. I tested this by > creating a few accounts on popular mail > services and send mail. It didn't make it. > I've cleaned the alias list. In the past, > I accepted mails from some addresses that > resembled the subscribed address. (i.e. > somebody subscribed as "mailto:john.smith@foo.com, > then changed to "john.smith1@foo.com". > The latter was accepted). From now on, the > "From:" field in the postings MUST be the > same as the address that you subscribed with > for a posting to be forwarded automatically. > If not, the posting will be subject to > manual approval. I've also added approval for > new subscribers. This means that if somebody > subscribes, his first posting will end up in > my queue and has to be manually approved. > This should prevent spammers from subscribe, > post and unsubscribe cycles. Your first > posting from a new address will thus be > delayed a bit. (I never saw this happening, > but I found that it was a config option in > the latest version of the software, and > could switch it on in seconds). > I hope this helps, [nige1] Thank you Henk! I am sure that will fix it!. We are grateful to Henk for hosting BLML and all the work he does for us. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 5 04:40:32 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Aug 5 08:54:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? In-Reply-To: <200508012156.j71LuYYu004632@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508012156.j71LuYYu004632@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42F2D1A0.4090004@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Rob GTJ Bosman" > There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first time, but > there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately revoke the second time - > he could see that this would be to his benefit as he would now be able to win > two additional tricks and thus would avoid to be hit by the automatic penalty > for the revoke. We discussed a similar case a couple or three years ago. Here there's a slight complication in this case according to whether the second revoke is established or not. If not, it gets corrected, there's a penalty card, and the first revoke is penalized as usual. Should be straightforward. Assuming both revokes were established, as Tim pointed out, you use L64C on the second one. For score adjustment, there's no need to determine whether it was intentional or not. (If you think it was, refer the matter to the appropriate conduct committee.) Just apply L12C2 to the situation immediately prior to the second revoke (or L12C3 if allowed and needed, not relevant here). As Tim says, declarer's equity at that point is seven tricks won plus a two trick revoke penalty for 3NT=. You could also consider using L72B1, but for revokes you don't need it. I confess this view wasn't unanimous last time we discussed the matter, but I don't see how it can be fair to give a player who revokes twice a better score than one who revokes only once. From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Fri Aug 5 12:30:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri Aug 5 12:34:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E0zTX-0tFSEq0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Hi Steve, ... off topic First of all I want to thank Henk for (obviously) fixing our sp*m-problem :)))) since yesterday I didn't get a single mail through blml which was not related to bridge ... off topic end "Steve Wright" wrote: > > A while ago there was a thread about a player who revoked and then > claimed before playing to the next trick. As I remember it, as the > offending player was doing the claiming, the consensus was that the > revoke was established. > > We had a variation on this last night whereby a defender revoked and > declarer made a claim. > > Contract 3NT > N/S have taken 5 out of the first 8 tricks > > North > S: void > H: Qxx > D: 72 > C: void > > West East > Nothing S: void > of H: xx > importance D: 8 > C: xx > > South > S: void > H: Kx > D: void > C: Kxx > > Declarer had previously played for a 3-3 diamond break but found it was > 2-4. With two hearts and a club winner, he decided to give up a diamond > to establish the 13th diamond for his ninth trick. > > He played D2 from dummy and East discarded Cx. South and West now > discarded. > > Declarer said, "I must have miscounted the diamonds. I have the rest now > ... two hearts, the club and a diamond". > > West said, "I miscounted as well. I thought there was another diamond > out". > > "So did I" said dummy. > > Is the revoke established? If yes, then declarer is awarded one trick > for the D8 that will take another trick if it was played out. If no, > then the D8 will take the 9th trick when the revoke is corrected. > > If the revoke is considered established, what would happen if East had a > winning two spades. As declarer only stated his "winners" and not a line > of play, can the TD force the declarer to play the D7 first losing to > the D8 and then East cashing two spade winners. My gut feeling is L64C > comes into play and South is awarded 9 tricks. We can't seriously > consider the claim "faulty" can we? > > -- > Steve Wright > Leicester, England > L 63 A: "A revoke becomes established: [...] 3. when a member of the offending side [...] acquiesces in a claim of tricks [...] orally or by facing his hand (or in any other fashion)." So, first of all, South' claim does not establish the revoke. Second, IMHO West's statement does not constitute an acquiescence in its self; therefore there is no established revoke at this point of the story. But I think we now might get a case of L 63 B: "When there has been a violation of Law 61 B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." When East now gets aware of his diamond, see L 63 B. He gets the diamond trick and L 64 A takes it away --> 10 tricks. When East stays sleeping and either of EW acquiesces in the claim, there will be the same obvious 10 tricks. And - finally - if East now contests the claim without correcting his revoke, I will rule L 63 B either ... together with some grievous PP. regards Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany From blml at blakjak.com Fri Aug 5 14:04:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Aug 5 14:08:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >Blmlers rushed in where angels fear to tread, by >choosing to reopen the auction *before* bothering to >find out who the three opponents were. Perhaps BLMLers assume that other BLMLers will give them all relevant facts when posing problems? -- 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 Aug 5 14:13:44 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Aug 5 14:17:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? In-Reply-To: <001601c596bb$d4a71e60$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> References: <001601c596bb$d4a71e60$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> Message-ID: Rob GTJ Bosman wrote >? >The following occured during the Patton in Deauville last week: >? >??? ??? ??? ??? ??? J 7 >??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Q J 8?6 3 >??? ??? ??? ??? ??? A J 5 3 >??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 8 2 >? >K Q 9 2??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 10 8 6 4 >10 5 4 2??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 9 7 >K Q?6?4 ????????????????????????????7 >6??????????????????????????????????????A Q J 10 9 4 >? >??? ??? ??? ??? ??? A 5 3 >??? ??? ??? ??? ??? A K >??? ??? ??? ??? ??? 10 9 8 2 >??? ??? ??? ??? ??? K 7 5 3 >? >South plays 3 NT. West leads Spade K, ducked, and Spade Queen - won by >South with the Ace. South plays A and K of Hearts, and the 10 of >Diamonds, for King and Ace in dummy. Leader continues with the Q of >hearts, West plays Diamond 4. Leader continues with J of hearts, west >now revokes again by playing Club 6.... The leader plays the last heart >from dummy and at this point West calls the TD, explaining that he had >revoked..... The obvious happens - the revoke is established, West wins >with the 10 of hearts, cashes the 5 of hearts, his Diamond Queen, Spade >9 for the 10 in East who?wins the last two tricks with the A of Clubs >and 8 of Spades, leaving declarer with only 6 tricks: minus three. >According to Law 64 two tricks are transferred, so the result is >corrected to 3NT -1, which happens to be the result that the leader >would have ended with if West had not revoked at all. >? >There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first >time, but there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately >revoke the second time - he could see that this would be to his benefit >as he would now be able to win two additional tricks and thus would >avoid to be hit by the automatic penalty for? the revoke. The fact that >West called the TD himself as well as the moment upon which he decided >to do so support this suggestion. >? >Question: must the TD allow this? Or should we rule that West should >not have waited to announce his error until he was in a position to >effectively avoid the penalty - so base an artificial result for EW on >the situation that would have occured if West had called the TD when >the fourth round of hearts was played. That would have given EW only >one additional trick and with two tricks to transfer would have given >EW the disadvantage of one trick for 3NT just making. For NS the score >should in all cases be 3NT -1, as the leader should have realised >himself that at least one opponent was revoking as he should have seen >that there were two hearts outstanding that were not played at all. If >the leader after having played the Q of hearts continues with a club, >he will still get his 8 tricks plus in that case one trick transferred >from Law 64. >? >Any thoughts?? The law is clear: you may not revoke deliberately, so if the TD judges this has happened he can adjust. However, unlike you, I think it is most unlikely to have been the case. Someone who can see no hearts when a heart is led often can see no hearts when a heart is led to the next trick. Anyway, the Law is clear, and the TD has a judgement decision. -- 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 Aug 5 14:15:46 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Aug 5 14:19:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? In-Reply-To: References: <001601c596bb$d4a71e60$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> Message-ID: Roger Pewick wrote > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Rob GTJ Bosman >To: blml@rtflb.org >Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:09 PM >Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? > > > >The following occured during the Patton in Deauville last week: > > J 7 > Q J 8 6 3 > A J 5 3 > 8 2 > >K Q 9 2 10 8 6 4 >10 5 4 2 9 7 >K Q 6 4 7 >6 A Q J 10 9 4 > > A 5 3 > A K > 10 9 8 2 > K 7 5 3 > >South plays 3 NT. West leads Spade K, ducked, and Spade Queen - won by South >with the Ace. South plays A and K of Hearts, and the 10 of Diamonds, for >King and Ace in dummy. Leader continues with the Q of hearts, West plays >Diamond 4. Leader continues with J of hearts, west now revokes again by >playing Club 6.... The leader plays the last heart from dummy and at this >point West calls the TD, explaining that he had revoked..... The obvious >happens - the revoke is established, West wins with the 10 of hearts, cashes >the 5 of hearts, his Diamond Queen, Spade 9 for the 10 in East who wins the >last two tricks with the A of Clubs and 8 of Spades, leaving declarer with >only 6 tricks: minus three. According to Law 64 two tricks are transferred, >so the result is corrected to 3NT -1, which happens to be the result that >the leader would have ended with if West had not revoked at all. > >There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first time, >but there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately revoke the >second time - he could see that this would be to his benefit as he would now >be able to win two additional tricks and thus would avoid to be hit by the >automatic penalty for the revoke. The fact that West called the TD himself >as well as the moment upon which he decided to do so support this >suggestion. > >Question: must the TD allow this? > >Or should we rule that West should not have waited to announce his error >until he was in a position to effectively avoid the penalty - so base an >artificial result for EW on the situation that would have occured if West >had called the TD when the fourth round of hearts was played. That would >have given EW only one additional trick and with two tricks to transfer >would have given EW the disadvantage of one trick for 3NT just making. For >NS the score should in all cases be 3NT -1, as the leader should have >realised himself that at least one opponent was revoking as he should have >seen that there were two hearts outstanding that were not played at all. If >the leader after having played the Q of hearts continues with a club, he >will still get his 8 tricks plus in that case one trick transferred from Law >64. > >Any thoughts?? > >Rob > >The law specifies that an established revoke [with an exception not >applicable here] may not be corrected. In this case the second revoke was >not established at the time the TD was called. This revoke must be >corrected backing up to W play to the 4th H- except that the TD required >play continue thereby establishing the 2nd revoke. TD error. Declarer's >equity at the beginning of the hand in 3N is 8 tricks which is what the 2 >trick penalty provides 3N-1 [64C]. It seemed reasonable to presume his partner had actually played, thus making the problem interesting. If it is merely TD error it hardly has much interest. -- 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 Aug 5 14:23:27 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Aug 5 14:26:50 2005 Subject: AW: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <00a401c59904$cf428810$6400a8c0@SHARK> References: <00a401c59904$cf428810$6400a8c0@SHARK> Message-ID: Nikolas Bausback wrote >> ... and I thought ACBL TDs were tough on psyching! >> >> West is not off the hook once he has bid 3NT. His final pass reeks of >> collusion - if he knew his partner never (or rarely) psyched he would >> double in sleep. >> >> For good measure, I would rule that after the double, South will read >> the situation correctly - leading to 4Hx + 3, +890 to NS. Presumably, >> however, East pulls to 5D, going for a mere 800. > >I know in ACBL land there might be some "rule of coincidence" in use, >but basing on which bridgerule could you give a corrected score in >EBL / WBF or some other national federation? Under L40 bids are illegal if they misdescribed the hand *and* are subject to a concealed partnership understanding. In the EBU/WBU any adjustment is dealt with by regulation, which is easy: elsewhere adjustment has ot be via L12C which is often difficult, also a PP may be given via L90. The RoC tells you *whether* there has been an infraction, not what to do about it. In the form it finally reached in the ACBL it was against the Laws and natural justice and is no longer recommended, but in its original form has much ot recommend it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Aug 5 14:25:47 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Aug 5 14:29:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steve Wright wrote > >A while ago there was a thread about a player who revoked and then >claimed before playing to the next trick. As I remember it, as the >offending player was doing the claiming, the consensus was that the >revoke was established. > >We had a variation on this last night whereby a defender revoked and >declarer made a claim. > >Contract 3NT >N/S have taken 5 out of the first 8 tricks > > North > S: void > H: Qxx > D: 72 > C: void > > West East > Nothing S: void > of H: xx > importance D: 8 > C: xx > > South > S: void > H: Kx > D: void > C: Kxx > >Declarer had previously played for a 3-3 diamond break but found it was >2-4. With two hearts and a club winner, he decided to give up a diamond >to establish the 13th diamond for his ninth trick. > >He played D2 from dummy and East discarded Cx. South and West now >discarded. > >Declarer said, "I must have miscounted the diamonds. I have the rest now >... two hearts, the club and a diamond". > >West said, "I miscounted as well. I thought there was another diamond >out". > >"So did I" said dummy. > >Is the revoke established? If yes, then declarer is awarded one trick >for the D8 that will take another trick if it was played out. If no, >then the D8 will take the 9th trick when the revoke is corrected. > >If the revoke is considered established, what would happen if East had a >winning two spades. As declarer only stated his "winners" and not a line >of play, can the TD force the declarer to play the D7 first losing to >the D8 and then East cashing two spade winners. My gut feeling is L64C >comes into play and South is awarded 9 tricks. We can't seriously >consider the claim "faulty" can we? In effect we treat that acquiescence establishes the claim. If there is no acquiescence we have a contested claim, but the balance of proof shifts: now doubtful points are decided against the revoker. -- 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 Fri Aug 5 14:31:25 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Aug 5 14:33:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? References: <001601c596bb$d4a71e60$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? > Roger Pewick wrote > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Rob GTJ Bosman > >To: blml@rtflb.org > >Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:09 PM > >Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? > > > > > > > >The following occured during the Patton in Deauville last week: > > > > J 7 > > Q J 8 6 3 > > A J 5 3 > > 8 2 > > > >K Q 9 2 10 8 6 4 > >10 5 4 2 9 7 > >K Q 6 4 7 > >6 A Q J 10 9 4 > > > > A 5 3 > > A K > > 10 9 8 2 > > K 7 5 3 > > > >South plays 3 NT. West leads Spade K, ducked, and Spade Queen - won by South > >with the Ace. South plays A and K of Hearts, and the 10 of Diamonds, for > >King and Ace in dummy. Leader continues with the Q of hearts, West plays > >Diamond 4. Leader continues with J of hearts, west now revokes again by > >playing Club 6.... The leader plays the last heart from dummy and at this > >point West calls the TD, explaining that he had revoked..... The obvious > >happens - the revoke is established, West wins with the 10 of hearts, cashes > >the 5 of hearts, his Diamond Queen, Spade 9 for the 10 in East who wins the > >last two tricks with the A of Clubs and 8 of Spades, leaving declarer with > >only 6 tricks: minus three. According to Law 64 two tricks are transferred, > >so the result is corrected to 3NT -1, which happens to be the result that > >the leader would have ended with if West had not revoked at all. > > > >There is no reason to believe that West revoked on purpose the first time, > >but there is a lot that suggests that West did deliberately revoke the > >second time - he could see that this would be to his benefit as he would now > >be able to win two additional tricks and thus would avoid to be hit by the > >automatic penalty for the revoke. The fact that West called the TD himself > >as well as the moment upon which he decided to do so support this > >suggestion. > > > >Question: must the TD allow this? > > > >Or should we rule that West should not have waited to announce his error > >until he was in a position to effectively avoid the penalty - so base an > >artificial result for EW on the situation that would have occured if West > >had called the TD when the fourth round of hearts was played. That would > >have given EW only one additional trick and with two tricks to transfer > >would have given EW the disadvantage of one trick for 3NT just making. For > >NS the score should in all cases be 3NT -1, as the leader should have > >realised himself that at least one opponent was revoking as he should have > >seen that there were two hearts outstanding that were not played at all. If > >the leader after having played the Q of hearts continues with a club, he > >will still get his 8 tricks plus in that case one trick transferred from Law > >64. > > > >Any thoughts?? > > > >Rob > > > >The law specifies that an established revoke [with an exception not > >applicable here] may not be corrected. In this case the second revoke was > >not established at the time the TD was called. This revoke must be > >corrected backing up to W play to the 4th H- except that the TD required > >play continue thereby establishing the 2nd revoke. TD error. Declarer's > >equity at the beginning of the hand in 3N is 8 tricks which is what the 2 > >trick penalty provides 3N-1 [64C]. > > It seemed reasonable to presume his partner had actually played, thus > making the problem interesting. If it is merely TD error it hardly has > much interest. > -- > 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 ~ > Leader continues with J of hearts, west now revokes again by >playing Club 6.... The leader plays the last heart from dummy and at this >point West calls the TD, explaining that he had revoked..... It was specified that the the OS had not played before the TD call. What is interesting is that you presumed as fact something that was specified otherwise. regards roger pewick From patrick.olgiati at free.fr Fri Aug 5 15:31:51 2005 From: patrick.olgiati at free.fr (patrick olgiati) Date: Fri Aug 5 15:34:13 2005 Subject: [blml] sp*m filter Message-ID: <000a01c599c2$09d42390$557ce052@v789300037> Many many thanks from an anonymous lurker: Henk has solved the sp*m problem with maestria. Suscriber of the digest, i just recieved two whithout a single object other than bridge. Shame on those who complained about the lenghty thread on the question of eradicating the sp*m disease. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 03/08/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Aug 5 16:25:08 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Aug 5 16:33:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American References: Message-ID: <001301c599c9$925f4300$80ac87d9@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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American > > Perhaps BLMLers assume that other BLMLers > will give them all relevant facts when posing problems? < +=+ Oh, is this what TDs assume? +=+ :-) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 5 17:12:24 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Aug 5 17:13:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American References: <001301c599c9$925f4300$80ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <010501c599d0$16143ec0$439468d5@jeushtlj> [David Stevenson] >> Perhaps BLMLers assume that other >> BLMLers will give them all relevant >> facts when posing problems? [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Oh, is this what TDs assume? +=+ :-) [nige1] IMO, it David is right to assume that a BLML legal case report includes ascertainable relevant facts. Cross-examination by email is time-wasting. Tentative comments hedged with provisos about all possible omissions are tedious. From blml at blakjak.com Fri Aug 5 18:13:00 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Aug 5 18:16:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <001301c599c9$925f4300$80ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001301c599c9$925f4300$80ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >> Perhaps BLMLers assume that other BLMLers >> will give them all relevant facts when posing problems? >< >+=+ Oh, is this what TDs assume? +=+ :-) Certainly not - TDs ask to find out. But on the internet it is different. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Aug 5 18:16:29 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Aug 5 18:19:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? In-Reply-To: References: <001601c596bb$d4a71e60$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> Message-ID: <8TGwmIZdD58CFwk3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Roger Pewick wrote >It was specified that the the OS had not played before the TD call. It was not "specified". The wording was normal, ie not necessarily clear. "Specified" would mean he said "Before his partner had bid, he..." >What is interesting is that you presumed as fact something that was >specified otherwise. We have an article on BLML that might dependent on detail mean: *** A TD has made a mistake and the hand is not of much interest as a result *** An interesting problem that people might not have seen before is propounded Pardon me for being so naive as to assume the latter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 5 19:07:40 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Aug 5 19:11:59 2005 Subject: AW: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <00a401c59904$cf428810$6400a8c0@SHARK> Message-ID: <001a01c599e0$346b52e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > Nikolas Bausback wrote >> Someone else wrote: > >> ... and I thought ACBL TDs were tough on psyching! They are, but they do not interfere with psyching that is very infrequent and fielded only thru the AI of the opposing auction. > >> > >> West is not off the hook once he has bid 3NT. His final pass reeks of > >> collusion - if he knew his partner never (or rarely) psyched he would > >> double in sleep. The final pass reeks of an understanding of the game of bridge, which you seem to lack. > >> > >> For good measure, I would rule that after the double, South will read > >> the situation correctly - leading to 4Hx + 3, +890 to NS. Presumably, > >> however, East pulls to 5D, going for a mere 800. > > > >I know in ACBL land there might be some "rule of coincidence" in use, > >but basing on which bridgerule could you give a corrected score in > >EBL / WBF or some other national federation? There is no such (legal) thing as the RoC, as Kaplan emphasized very strongly in a Bridge World article. Moreover, the correct title is "Principle of Coincidence." The PoC was published in the ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions", a guide for club directors, as part of a section (also published separately) entitled "ACBL Code of Active Ethics." It had no BoD or LC sanction, and of course is not in the Laws, so it has no legal standing in ACBL-land and never did. It called for an adjusted score if one player takes a seriously off-value action that is seriously accommodated by the partner. E.g., an ultlra-light 1NT opening (13 HCP instead of the system's 16 minimum) that is passed by a hand that has good values for a raise. This is cause for a Player Memo and/or AC decision, not an automatic adjustment. Kaplan was responding to a subscriber who complained that his side was penalized by the TD because he doubled 2D holding a singleton, with partner holding four. He gave what he considered to be good reasons (they weren't) for the double. As Kaplan wrote, one cannot ascribe collusion to pair when there is an alternate explanation such as very poor bidding (illogical, overly timid, overly aggressive, whatever, including AI from the opposing auction). Write up a Player Memo if that seems justifiable, but do not apply any bogus PoC. If collusion is merely suspected, the TD should rule no collusion and inform the other side of their right to appeal. Such matters are better handled by an AC than a TD. > > Under L40 bids are illegal if they misdescribed the hand *and* are > subject to a concealed partnership understanding. In the EBU/WBU any > adjustment is dealt with by regulation, which is easy: elsewhere > adjustment has ot be via L12C which is often difficult, also a PP may be > given via L90. > > The RoC tells you *whether* there has been an infraction, not what to > do about it. > It does not tell you that there has been an infraction, even if it said so, and it did tell you what do do about it. Quote: "The principle of coincidence "allows" automatic adjustment when these infractions occur." > In the form it finally reached in the ACBL it was against > the Laws and natural justice and is no longer recommended, but in its > original form has much ot recommend it. It was always against the Laws and natural justice and is no longer applied by ACBL TDs. What "original form"? It has appeared in only one form that I know of.. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Aug 6 03:29:22 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Aug 6 03:30:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001501c59a26$4700d9c0$019468d5@jeushtlj> {Marvin French] > You hold S:K92 H:K3 D:Q875 C:KJT4 > (1H)1N(3H)3N; > (4H) P( P)? [Nigel] This argument will run and run! What is the BLML concensus? Please answer the following questions. (By all means, suggest other questions but please also answer these questions, as posed). A. What do you call if this auction occurs in a long-standing regular good partnership and partner doesn't shade 1N overcalls as far as you can remember? B. What do you call if partner occasionally makes "comic" 1N overcalls? C. You explained your partnership agreement as "1N overcall shows 15-18 flat, usually with stop". In case B, should you also divulge partner's deviant propensities? :) D. Finally, suppose you decide to pass. When asked about relevant psyching habits, you answered "We have already denied any implicit understanding. Any undivulged implicit understanding to deviate would be an illegal concealed agreement not a psyche". Anyway, as a direct result of partner's 1N overcall and your pass opponents get a poor score and call the director. Suppose further that: This is board one of a national tournament. And you are foreigners or stangers. Also there are no available national psyche records about you. Neither opponents nor the director know partner's deviant habits (if any). How should the director rule on these few facts that he is able to glean? FWIW, my opinions are ... A. Double. B. Double. C. IMO, you do have an implicit agreement to deviate occasionally and should divulge it. D. IMO, if all the pertinent facts are as stated, even if you deny any implicit agreement, then this one board is sufficient for the director to rule against you. The director is not accusing you of cheating. You may well be innocent of any wrong-doing. His adverse ruling is because, when you deviate from system (here the pass) seemingly compensating for partner's earlier deviation on the same hand (the 1N overcall) then this is circumstantial evidence of MI or UI. The director has to decide between you and your putative victims, on the balance of probability. IMO, on the evidence available, that balance is very much against you. If this argument is "the principle of unlikely coincidence" then I'm all for it; IMO, however, it's simple practical justice stemming directly from basic laws against UI and MI. IMO, the director should try to make the same ruling against strangers that he would against locals. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Aug 6 20:41:08 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Aug 6 20:43:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <200508042110.j74LAuuW021852@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508042110.j74LAuuW021852@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42F50444.2080702@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Steve Wright > A while ago there was a thread about a player who revoked and then > claimed before playing to the next trick. As I remember it, as the > offending player was doing the claiming, the consensus was that the > revoke was established. No need for a consensus. L63A3 is clear. > We had a variation on this last night whereby a defender revoked and > declarer made a claim. This was dealt with in a thread several years ago. It turns out that the Laws don't say what should happen if neither defender acquiesces to the claim. (If there is acquiescence, L63A3 tells us the revoke is established.) The WBFLC issued an interpretation to cover this case; I expect the exact text is available on David's site. The upshot is that the revoke is corrected, and the TD rules on the claim, but doubt is resolved against the revoker rather than against the claimer. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Aug 6 20:48:27 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Aug 6 20:50:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <200507271408.j6RE8sYU006583@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200507271408.j6RE8sYU006583@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42F505FB.3010605@cfa.harvard.edu> From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > Deliberate actions are treated differently from inadvertent > ones elsewhere in the law and a pscyher/misbidder knows which he is. While normally I agree with Tim, I think he has missed the boat here. The problem is that nobody besides the psycher/misbidder knows which he is -- it is entirely a matter of his intent. Rules that need mind reading to enforce are bad rules. Even more important, there is no good reason to treat misbids and psychs differently. Both are legal; both form part of partnership experience and must be disclosed. What's the problem? As for those other places in the law that treat deliberate actions differently from inadvertent ones, my opinion is that they ought to be changed. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Aug 6 20:52:35 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Aug 6 20:54:49 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU 2003 casebook appeal number 6 In-Reply-To: <200507221616.j6MGGLnP023003@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200507221616.j6MGGLnP023003@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42F506F3.2030702@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Ed Reppert > Law 73A1 speaks of "communication", but that word has several > meanings - at least one of which requires the receiver to act on the > information communicated. I am sure that is not the meaning intended for L73A/B. Saying "Lead a heart," is illegal, regardless of whether partner acts on the instruction or not. This is an important point, because there may be an adjusted score even if partner "carefully avoids taking any advantage." From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 7 20:02:33 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Aug 7 20:05:05 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU 2003 casebook appeal number 6 In-Reply-To: <42F506F3.2030702@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200507221616.j6MGGLnP023003@cfa.harvard.edu> <42F506F3.2030702@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <50853DEC-F141-487E-B08B-C610BA2447AB@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 6, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > I am sure that is not the meaning intended for L73A/B. Saying > "Lead a heart," is illegal, regardless of whether partner acts on > the instruction or not. This is an important point, because there > may be an adjusted score even if partner "carefully avoids taking > any advantage." Hm. Maybe. If "lead a heart" is considered illegal deception. If not, Law 73F1 is clear - you can only adjust if partner acts. You might appeal to Law 72B1, on the grounds offender "could have known" opponents might be damaged, but again, that law requires the offending side to have actually gained an advantage. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 5 13:34:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Aug 7 20:30:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <000001c598ef$f8779780$af202b52@Zog> Message-ID: Brambledown wrote: > > West is not off the hook once he has bid 3NT. His final pass reeks of > collusion - if he knew his partner never (or rarely) psyched If I knew partner had never psyched I would assume from the auction that he had just done so for the first time. Besides, I am no more entitled to base my call on the knowledge that partner "never" psychs than that he does so "frequently". For evidence of a partnership understanding we need a player to have made a call that a person playing with a stranger would not have chosen. > he would double in sleep. I have found that playing while asleep seldom gives optimal results. Nobody with any general knowledge of psyching would double while awake (partner can't be making a forcing pass when we have no agreed suit). Tim From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Aug 5 13:56:35 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun Aug 7 20:30:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 4 Aug 2005, at 00:39, Marvin French wrote: > I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 days) > and opened a three-card major only once. You don't think opening a three-card major is a psych? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 7 21:25:30 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Aug 7 21:27:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? References: <001601c596bb$d4a71e60$6600a8c0@dellxpst450> <8TGwmIZdD58CFwk3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Avoid penalty after revoke?? > Roger Pewick wrote > > >It was specified that the the OS had not played before the TD call. > > It was not "specified". The wording was normal, ie not necessarily > clear. Saying so does not necessarily make it so and it does not make it so here: ... The leader plays the last heart from dummy and at this point West calls the TD, explaining that he had revoked..... The above was presented as fact and hence specifies. It specifies that upon the lead of the fifth heart the TD was called. > "Specified" would mean he said "Before his partner had bid, > he..." > >What is interesting is that you presumed as fact something that was > >specified otherwise. > > We have an article on BLML that might dependent on detail mean: > > *** A TD has made a mistake and the hand is not of much interest as a > result > *** An interesting problem that people might not have seen before is > propounded > > Pardon me for being so naive as to assume the latter. > > -- > 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 ~ Perhaps you have misunderstood the point I was seeking. You have gone to some length to point out that a fact that was presented as a fact was not a fact at all but means the opposite of was what was said where there is no basis to legitimately found such an assertion. I have pointed it out and in spite of doing so you persist. I find it interesting that someone of your talent would do so. And more to the point, the interesting part of cases is sifting through what is told and getting at the appropriate conclusion. In this case it was 'suggested' as fact that the TD ruling was correct as in play proceeds thereby establishing the second revoke. It seemed that not everyone had recognized the incongruency/ conflict with proper application of law and jumped to the conclusion that the facts did not need to be taken one by one. What truly makes the case intereesting is that it points out that the law has taken what ought to be a situation that is remedied simply and turns it into a conflagration. regards roger pewick From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Aug 7 23:30:58 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Aug 7 23:35:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Rainsford" > > Marvin French wrote: > > > I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 days) > > and opened a three-card major only once. > > You don't think opening a three-card major is a psych? > Certainly not. I play four-card majors, so three cards is not a gross distortion of length, especially since I do it only with at least one high card, usually two or three. Also, partner never suspects I have just three, because the bid is so rare, and freely raises with three-card support. One carried me to 7S with J108x support for my AKQ, leading to a cold top on a high crossruff. You would have called the TD, I'm sure. I guess you think that opening 1S with four cards AKQJ when playing a five-card major system is a psych. It amazes me that people who will open 1C or 1D with 432, or respond 1H or 1S with 5432, are so intolerant of those who don't bid like that. I didn't realize that the UK tolerates only LOL bridge. Maybe the YC is an exception? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 8 03:31:22 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 8 03:33:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >You don't think opening a three-card major is a psych? Richard Hills: Maybe, maybe not. If one plays a four-card major system in the B.J. Becker style (which style was predicated on suit quality), then opening 1H when holding: 765432 AKQ KQ KQ would not be a psychic call, since it would not be a *gross* misstatement of honour strength or suit length. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 8 04:21:08 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 8 04:23:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT Pass 3D Pass ? (1) 12-14 You, South, hold: A52 K74 KT8 QT75 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 8 05:31:26 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon Aug 8 05:52:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> At 10:21 PM 8/7/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT >Pass 3D Pass ? > >(1) 12-14 > >You, South, hold: > >A52 >K74 >KT8 >QT75 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? The corresponding sequence with 3C rather than 3D has been discussed as a sequence in which partner's impossible bid is allowed to wake you up even without an alert. Thus I will bid 3NT, alert or no alert. The weak NT actually makes it less likely that partner has the only logical meaning of 3D by someone who hasn't forgotten the agreement; if he has 13 HCP with six diamonds, he would have opened 1D and rebid 2D. (In contrast, a strong NT player with 16 HCP and six bad diamonds who opens 1D has no proper bid, since 2D shows a minimum and 3D shows a good suit). But if partner does have six bad diamonds, I would still bid 3NT with this hand; I have the other three suits stopped and a fit for partner's diamonds. I lose if partner psyched, but I don't think I can infer that he psyched on this auction. From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Aug 8 01:49:15 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Aug 8 09:05:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7 Aug 2005, at 22:30, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Gordon Rainsford" >> >> Marvin French wrote: >> >>> I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 > days) >>> and opened a three-card major only once. >> >> You don't think opening a three-card major is a psych? >> > Certainly not. I play four-card majors, so three cards is not a gross > distortion of length, especially since I do it only with at least one > high card, usually two or three. Also, partner never suspects I have > just three, because the bid is so rare, and freely raises with > three-card support. One carried me to 7S with J108x support for my > AKQ, leading to a cold top on a high crossruff. You would have called > the TD, I'm sure. Your certainty is based on what? I wonder if you read the words I wrote, since you seem to be replying to some other post than mine. > I guess you think that opening 1S with four cards AKQJ when playing a > five-card major system is a psych. > > It amazes me that people who will open 1C or 1D with 432, or respond > 1H or 1S with 5432, are so intolerant of those who don't bid like > that. > > I didn't realize that the UK tolerates only LOL bridge. Maybe the YC > is an exception? What a strange reaction, perhaps influenced by your playing in a culture that is hostile to psyching. Over here, we're not embarrassed to call a psych a psych - because we don't regard it as a bad thing, we don't need to pretend we're not doing it when we are. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon Aug 8 04:26:09 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Mon Aug 8 09:05:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: Message-ID: <002101c59bc0$899078e0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> 3nt; 3nt Is this a trick question or a mispost from alt.sex.lesbos? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 10:21 PM Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike > > > > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Doghoward at aol.com Mon Aug 8 05:29:46 2005 From: Doghoward at aol.com (Doghoward@aol.com) Date: Mon Aug 8 09:05:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike Message-ID: If I may delurk for this hand -- in my weak NT partnerships, this isn't a possible bid, so I'd have to take a guess: probably a non-maximum hand with a long (6-card, not allowed in my preferred partnerships) suit. Since I have a fit and stoppers elsewhere , I'd take a shot at 3NT, being sure to mark this auction for post-game discussion. Passing is a close second choice. So, if partner had alerted 2N as anything but natural and invitational, pass would be the "not suggested" LA. I don't think that partner's tempo would suggest anything, since 3D is an unusual call in itself. Ed In a message dated 08/07/2005 10:21:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050808/8e2ce8e8/attachment.htm From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Aug 8 09:11:03 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Aug 8 09:11:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <42F70587.4090903@hdw.be> Marvin French wrote: > From: "Gordon Rainsford" > >>Marvin French wrote: >> >> >>>I only psyched once during the entire Atlanta NABC (playing 10 > > days) > >>>and opened a three-card major only once. >> >>You don't think opening a three-card major is a psych? >> > > Certainly not. I play four-card majors, so three cards is not a gross Is playing canap?-style and opening a three card major legal in the ACBL? If not, then I'd rather rethink your styling opening 3-card majors as systemic. Also - does you CC include the possibility? Is there a case for MI here? > distortion of length, especially since I do it only with at least one > high card, usually two or three. Also, partner never suspects I have > just three, because the bid is so rare, and freely raises with > three-card support. One carried me to 7S with J108x support for my > AKQ, leading to a cold top on a high crossruff. You would have called > the TD, I'm sure. > > I guess you think that opening 1S with four cards AKQJ when playing a > five-card major system is a psych. > > It amazes me that people who will open 1C or 1D with 432, or respond > 1H or 1S with 5432, are so intolerant of those who don't bid like > that. > > I didn't realize that the UK tolerates only LOL bridge. Maybe the YC > is an exception? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Mon Aug 8 09:49:28 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon Aug 8 09:51:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6500@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 04:21 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike > > > > > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? My partners who open NT (weak or strong) don't suddenly bid a suit out of the blue when I raise a natural NT. Unless either I forgot that 2NT is a diamond transfer, or partner forgot that it is not. In which case I found out in a legal way that there is some misunderstanding (by partner making an impossible bid), and I am free to bid 3NT. -- Martin Sinot From toddz at att.net Mon Aug 8 09:49:57 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Aug 8 10:10:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42F70EA5.3050900@att.net> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? 3NT. If we play strong NTs in other positions and 2NT is a transfer to diamonds over a strong NT, I have to give this more thought. -Todd From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Aug 8 11:23:32 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Aug 8 11:32:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com><748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003d01c59bfa$f04f3820$29a787d9@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: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief > Certainly not. I play four-card majors, so three > cards is not a gross distortion of length, especially > since I do it only with at least one high card, usually > two or three. Also, partner never suspects I have > just three, because the bid is so rare, and freely > raises with three-card support. One carried me to > 7S with J108x support for my AKQ, leading to a > cold top on a high crossruff. You would have > called the TD, I'm sure. > +=+ There are aspects of the above that Marvin should reconsider: 1. "partner never suspects I have just three" The test is not whether partner does suspect at the instant but whether the situation arises frequently enough or is repeatedly experienced enough to create a heightened awareness in partner that Marvin may have only a three card suit. Moreover, the awareness may arise through knowledge mutually shared of a matter outside of the partnership playing experience. Thus if it is the case that Marvin's partner (or any partner he may play with) has read this public correspondence then clearly enough he is now conscious that Marvin's method includes this characteristic. The partner would have the duty of disclosure as much as would Marvin. 2. 'A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed'. For example, if conscious that the trump suit might be A K Q opposite J 10 8 x an opponent might be more encouraged to lead a trump. Marvin plays in tournaments regulated by the ACBL. Determination whether he recognizes and fully discharges his responsibilities to his opponents in those events is a matter for the ACBL. If he were to play in an international tournament, or in an EBL tournament, there can be no doubt that he would need to make a more complete disclosure than is seemingly his practice at present. He describes his addiction as not being "a gross distortion of length", a question to be judged by the regulating body, but this has no relevance to the question whether it should be disclosed as implicitly (and now explicitly) a feature of his methods. I should add that in disclosure there is a significant difference between 'never' and 'rare', and this is especially so in durable partnerships. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From eyquemjg at free.fr Mon Aug 8 11:32:35 2005 From: eyquemjg at free.fr (Jean Galtier) Date: Mon Aug 8 11:35:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42F726B3.2040908@free.fr> richard.hills@immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT >Pass 3D Pass ? > >(1) 12-14 > >You, South, hold: > >A52 >K74 >KT8 >QT75 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > > > I would have bid 3NT at my first turn. In my system, 3D says that opener wants to play in diamonds, and should be passed. As I have good diamonds, I will bid 3NT. My bid : 3NT Other call considered : pass (but not seriously) Jean Galtier From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Aug 8 11:38:21 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Aug 8 11:39:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: Message-ID: <003901c59bfc$eb11bfc0$369468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > Imps Non-vul: A52 K74 KT8 QT75 > -- 1N(P)2N; > (P)3D(P)? > 1N = 12-14 [nige1] Assuming that 3D is antisystemic then either (a) Partner psyched 1N on a weak hand with diamonds or (b) Partner thinks 2N is conventional (perhaps a diamond transfer) and has made what he imagines is the right conventional response (c) Partner is improvising with a good hand and long diamonds but lacking major suit stop(s). (For example xx Jx AJxxxx AKx He is offering you a choice of games or the chance to show a major stop if you have one. IMO (c) is by far the most likely explanation so I bid 3N. 5D seems a long way away. Given my reading of the auction, pass is not a logical alternative for me. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Aug 8 11:20:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Aug 8 11:59:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have fitting cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something like Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. This is a rare sequence but hardly "impossible". Tim From nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk Mon Aug 8 12:37:09 2005 From: nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) Date: Mon Aug 8 12:38:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F726B3.2040908@free.fr> References: <42F726B3.2040908@free.fr> Message-ID: <1bdef1le07nupqamrljj7fh749f8e5pl74@mail.stofanet.dk> Jean Galtier skrev: >>The bidding has gone: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT >>Pass 3D Pass ? >>(1) 12-14 >>You, South, hold: >>A52 >>K74 >>KT8 >>QT75 >>What call do you make? >I would have bid 3NT at my first turn. So would I. -- Bertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Aug 8 12:46:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Aug 8 12:47:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have fitting > cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something like > Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. > > This is a rare sequence but hardly "impossible". > Come off it, guys. Everyone and his dog has realized that there is something fishy here. Clearly partner has understood our 2NT as a transfer to diamonds. That is AI. Combine it with the fact that we probably realize that we're in the dark about playing transfers to the minors (also AI), and the information that partner was just replying to a transfer is so 100% authorized that I do not need to be convinced that pass is no LA. If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is sufficient AI present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk Mon Aug 8 12:48:52 2005 From: nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) Date: Mon Aug 8 12:50:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads skrev: >Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have fitting >cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something like >Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. >This is a rare sequence but hardly "impossible". My partner would have shown that he miscounted his hand, but I agree both that it is a rare event and that it is not impossible. -- Bertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Mon Aug 8 13:22:56 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon Aug 8 13:25:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6501@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 12:47 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have > > fitting cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something > > like Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. > > > > This is a rare sequence but hardly "impossible". > > > > Come off it, guys. > Everyone and his dog has realized that there is something fishy here. > Clearly partner has understood our 2NT as a transfer to diamonds. > That is AI. Combine it with the fact that we probably realize > that we're in the dark about playing transfers to the minors > (also AI), and the information that partner was just replying > to a transfer is so 100% authorized that I do not need to be > convinced that pass is no LA. > > If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is > sufficient AI present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. My idea. Don't know how it is in Belgium, but in the Netherlands, if someone bids 3D in such an auction, it is clear to me that at least he/she thinks that 2NT is a diamond transfer. 2NT as a diamond transfer is played a lot here. But maybe the situation is different elsewhere in the world. -- Martin Sinot From john at asimere.com Mon Aug 8 16:35:20 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Aug 8 16:39:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F70EA5.3050900@att.net> References: <42F70EA5.3050900@att.net> Message-ID: In article <42F70EA5.3050900@att.net>, Todd M. Zimnoch writes >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT >> Pass 3D Pass ? >> >> (1) 12-14 >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> A52 >> K74 >> KT8 >> QT75 >> >> What call do you make? Pass, I told partner I have 12. He wants to play in 3D. Is this a problem? I'm going to lose the post mortem if I bid now, even if 3N makes. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Aug 8 12:12:59 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Aug 8 21:15:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8 Aug 2005, at 10:20, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have > fitting > cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something like > Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. > > This is a rare sequence but hardly "impossible". It's impossible for players who don't bid such hands that way. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Mon Aug 8 12:38:12 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Mon Aug 8 21:15:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: Message-ID: <001101c59c05$4818c6c0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> My initial reaction was that I would bid 3NT, but I waited to see what others said first and find the various thought processes interesting. I haven't changed my opinion this time - still 3NT. However it has dawned on me that when a TD consults with others at an event - he extracts their initial thoughts. He doesn't present them with the thoughts of others with whom he has also consulted. It may be that while this forum is excellent in so many ways, it may be that any consultation exersise, it that is what it was, should be viewed with certain caution. Replies in this case are pretty much the same - but this is not always the case. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:21 AM Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike > > > > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Aug 8 16:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Aug 8 21:15:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Come off it, guys. > Everyone and his dog has realized that there is something fishy here. > Clearly partner has understood our 2NT as a transfer to diamonds. Yes Herman, that is probably the reason for the question in this form in this forum - I know that (and doubtless the 2N was alerted). However, I have played a large amount of weak NT, no transfer bridge and I know exactly what type of hand partner would be showing for this sequence. As such I am obliged to ignore the UI and a select a call based only on the AI from the sequence. Happily this accords with the LA suggested by the UI but that is not my problem - pass is just not an LA. Had I held 2 small diamonds I'd be obliged to pass (unlikely to work well given pard has just denied decent D!). Tim From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Aug 8 16:18:41 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Aug 8 21:16:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Aug 08, 2005 11:31:22 AM Message-ID: <200508081418.j78EIfkZ024897@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >You don't think opening a three-card major is a psych? > > Maybe, maybe not. > > If one plays a four-card major system in the B.J. Becker > style (which style was predicated on suit quality), then > opening 1H when holding: > > 765432 > AKQ > KQ > KQ > > would not be a psychic call, since it would not be a > *gross* misstatement of honour strength or suit length. > Ivan Erdos played briefly with Tobias Stone in the 60s. He'd probably have opened the hand 1C. Mind you, when Edgar Kaplan commented on this he didn't call it a psych as a concealed partnership understanding. Roth/Stoners (and that's what Erdos/Stone were nominally playing) basically never passed 1C. Made for a more convenient way to handle a hand that you'd never really be able to describe well (strong hand, poor suits are often difficult) I remember one Austrian pair used to alert their 1S calls as something close to "Can be a three card suit with certain awkward hand types. Fairly rare." This "Fairly rare" came up 3 times in one set. (I'm pretty sure the phrase fairly rare was actually used by them because I recall Eric Kokish using it in his match report) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Aug 8 22:36:15 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Aug 8 22:46:01 2005 Subject: Fw: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief Message-ID: <007a01c59c59$9401de60$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > Certainly not. I play four-card majors, so three > > > cards is not a gross distortion of length, especially > > > since I do it only with at least one high card, usually > > > two or three. Also, partner never suspects I have > > > just three, because the bid is so rare, and freely > > > raises with three-card support. One carried me to > > > 7S with J108x support for my AKQ, leading to a > > > cold top on a high crossruff. You would have > > > called the TD, I'm sure. > > > > > +=+ There are aspects of the above that Marvin should > > reconsider: > > 1. "partner never suspects I have just three" > > The test is not whether partner does suspect at > > the instant but whether the situation arises frequently > > enough or is repeatedly experienced enough to create a > > heightened awareness in partner that Marvin may have > > only a three card suit. > > It does not, haven't I made that clear??? Do you think I am lying?? > > > Moreover, the awareness may arise through > > knowledge mutually shared of a matter outside of the > > partnership playing experience. Thus if it is the case that > > Marvin's partner (or any partner he may play with) has > > read this public correspondence then clearly enough he > > is now conscious that Marvin's method includes this > > characteristic. The partner would have the duty of > > disclosure as much as would Marvin. > > It would be a disservice to opponents to pre-warn them that once in a > blue moon I will open the bidding in a strong three-card major. > Guarding against such a rarity, they are quite likely to do themselves > great harm. > > > 2. 'A partnership may not defend itself against an > > allegation that its psychic action is based upon an > > understanding by claiming that, although the partner had > > an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given > > situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic > > have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to > > an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit > > or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and > > for this reason the understanding must be disclosed'. > > I disagree. Opponents are entitled only to undisclosed information > that may affect partner's actions. Partner must not field a > non-systemic action unless the AI to do so is very clear. > > Is Zia supposed to pre-warn opponents about the many non-standard > actions he takes? No, because Michael Rosenberg will not base his > actions on Zia's propensities absent overwhelming AI that tells him to > do so. If Zia doubles a splinter, supposedly showing strength but > lacking that strength, Michael will lead the suit unless no one would > do so. > > > For example, if conscious that the trump suit > > might be A K Q opposite J 10 8 x an opponent might > > be more encouraged to lead a trump. > > > > Marvin plays in tournaments regulated by the ACBL. > > Determination whether he recognizes and fully discharges > > his responsibilities to his opponents in those events is a > > matter for the ACBL. If he were to play in an international > > tournament, or in an EBL tournament, there can be no > > doubt that he would need to make a more complete > > disclosure than is seemingly his practice at present. He > > describes his addiction as not being "a gross distortion > > of length", a question to be judged by the regulating body, > > but this has no relevance to the question whether it should > > be disclosed as implicitly (and now explicitly) a feature of > > his methods. I should add that in disclosure there is a > > significant difference between 'never' and 'rare', and this > > is especially so in durable partnerships. > > An "addiction"? Do you know what the word means? > > I play in the ACBL and follow its regulations to the letter, so get > off my case. What the EBL would make of all this is irrelevant to me. > > Anyone who considers a one-card variance in length a "gross > distortion of length," therefore a psych, lives in a world that is > foreign to me. My rare small departures from what is on the CC are > matters of style and judgment, which must not be restricted (L40E1). > They are certainly not an addiction. > > I am known in San Diego for the soundness of my bidding, which is > often ridiculed as being old-fashioned and out of tune with the times. > That is my only addiction. > > John Probst, where are you when I need you?? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Aug 8 22:44:02 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Aug 8 22:48:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief Message-ID: <007e01c59c59$eb0f5480$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> > > From: "Grattan Endicott" Marv wrote, replying to an implication that opening the bidding in a strong three-card major is a psych. > > > > > Certainly not. I play four-card majors, so three > > > cards is not a gross distortion of length, especially > > > since I do it only with at least one high card, usually > > > two or three. Also, partner never suspects I have > > > just three, because the bid is so rare, and freely > > > raises with three-card support. One carried me to > > > 7S with J108x support for my AKQ, leading to a > > > cold top on a high crossruff. You would have > > > called the TD, I'm sure. > > > > > +=+ There are aspects of the above that Marvin should > > reconsider: > > 1. "partner never suspects I have just three" > > The test is not whether partner does suspect at > > the instant but whether the situation arises frequently > > enough or is repeatedly experienced enough to create a > > heightened awareness in partner that Marvin may have > > only a three card suit. > > It does not, haven't I made that clear??? > > > Moreover, the awareness may arise through > > knowledge mutually shared of a matter outside of the > > partnership playing experience. Thus if it is the case that > > Marvin's partner (or any partner he may play with) has > > read this public correspondence then clearly enough he > > is now conscious that Marvin's method includes this > > characteristic. The partner would have the duty of > > disclosure as much as would Marvin. > > It would be a disservice to opponents to pre-warn them that once in > a blue moon I will open the bidding in a strong three-card major. > By guarding against that possibility, they are quite likely to do > themselves great harm. > > > 2. 'A partnership may not defend itself against an > > allegation that its psychic action is based upon an > > understanding by claiming that, although the partner had > > an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given > > situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic > > have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to > > an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit > > or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and > > for this reason the understanding must be disclosed'. > > I disagree. Opponents are entitled only to undisclosed information > that may affect partner's actions. Partner must not field a > non-systemic action unless the AI to do so is very clear. > > Is Zia supposed to pre-warn opponents about the many non-standard > actions he takes? No, because Michael Rosenberg will not base his > actions on Zia's propensities absent overwhelming AI that tells him > to do so. If Zia doubles a splinter, supposedly showing strength but > lacking that strength, Michael will lead the suit unless no one > would do so. > > > For example, if conscious that the trump suit > > might be A K Q opposite J 10 8 x an opponent might > > be more encouraged to lead a trump. > > > > Marvin plays in tournaments regulated by the ACBL. > > Determination whether he recognizes and fully discharges > > his responsibilities to his opponents in those events is a > > matter for the ACBL. If he were to play in an international > > tournament, or in an EBL tournament, there can be no > > doubt that he would need to make a more complete > > disclosure than is seemingly his practice at present. He > > describes his addiction as not being "a gross distortion > > of length", a question to be judged by the regulating body, > > but this has no relevance to the question whether it should > > be disclosed as implicitly (and now explicitly) a feature of > > his methods. I should add that in disclosure there is a > > significant difference between 'never' and 'rare', and this > > is especially so in durable partnerships. > > An "addiction"? Do you know what the word means? > > I play in the ACBL and follow its regulations to the letter, so get > off my case. What the EBL would make of all this is irrelevant to > me. > > Anyone who considers a one-card variance in length a "gross > distortion of length," therefore a psych, lives in a world that is > foreign to me. My rare small departures from what is on the CC are > matters of style and judgment, which must not be restricted (L40E1). > They are certainly not an addiction. > > I am known in San Diego for the soundness of my bidding, which is > often ridiculed as being old-fashioned and out of tune with the > times. That is my only addiction. > > John Probst, where are you when I need you?? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California From hermy at hdw.be Mon Aug 8 23:50:42 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Mon Aug 8 23:51:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42F7D3B2.4000206@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >>Come off it, guys. >>Everyone and his dog has realized that there is something fishy here. >>Clearly partner has understood our 2NT as a transfer to diamonds. > My point being that all the contributors in this forum have recognised the problem. Discounting for the moment the valid argument that we are attuned to looking for the legal problem, this might well suggest that the AI is there in the problem in front of us. > > Yes Herman, that is probably the reason for the question in this form in > this forum - I know that (and doubtless the 2N was alerted). However, I > have played a large amount of weak NT, no transfer bridge and I know > exactly what type of hand partner would be showing for this sequence. Maybe that is true, Tim, but you are not the player in this problem. The player in this problem (probably) has not played a large amount of weak NT, has (probably) played with transfers and without, and may (probably) not know what normal hand would be shown. > As such I am obliged to ignore the UI and a select a call based only on > the AI from the sequence. You, as player, would have AI that allows for this auction to be "normal", so you, as player, must ignore the UI and select pass if that is a LA. The rela player, OTOH, may not be in the same situation as you. It is up to you, as Director, to determine whether this player is in a partnership where the "normal" meaning for 3Di still exists or not. You should not, as Director, impose on the player what you, as player, would need to do. > Happily this accords with the LA suggested by > the UI but that is not my problem - pass is just not an LA. Had I held 2 > small diamonds I'd be obliged to pass (unlikely to work well given pard > has just denied decent D!). > It seems as if most of the world do indeed believe that pass is not a LA. I felt we did not need to go that far and allow 3NT for other reasons as well. > Tim > > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 9 00:13:01 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Aug 9 00:15:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <007a01c59c59$9401de60$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 15:36 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief > > I disagree. Opponents are entitled only to undisclosed information > > that may affect partner's actions. Partner must not field a > > non-systemic action unless the AI to do so is very clear. What I fail to grasp is just how a player with th einclination can be expected to not do something 'anti-systemic' after his partner has done something anti-systemic UNLESS he not only has UI telling that is the case but then uses UI to base his actions. regards roger pewick > > Is Zia supposed to pre-warn opponents about the many non-standard > > actions he takes? No, because Michael Rosenberg will not base his > > actions on Zia's propensities absent overwhelming AI that tells him > to > > do so. If Zia doubles a splinter, supposedly showing strength but > > lacking that strength, Michael will lead the suit unless no one > would > > do so. > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Aug 9 00:55:30 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Aug 9 00:57:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: Message-ID: <005c01c59c6c$486e8210$dc0e1d53@kocurzak> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:21 AM Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike > > > > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What call do you make? Pass > What other calls do you consider making? > None. 3D declines the invitation and says partner prefers a diamond partial to 2NT. Don't see any problem here. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 9 00:47:58 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 9 01:17:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian National Championships ANC Swiss (Butler) Pairs Wednesday 3rd August 2005 Round Two Board 25 Imps Dlr: North Vul: East-West 9843 A86 64 AKJ3 KT76 QJ QJT3 952 952 AQJ73 62 984 A52 K74 KT8 QT75 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3D Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to diamonds. (No MI was given, as this was the actual North-South partnership agreement, which South had forgotten.) After suboptimal defence, 3NT made. Martin Sinot wrote: >My partners who open NT (weak or >strong) don't suddenly bid a suit >out of the blue when I raise a >natural NT. > >Unless either I forgot that 2NT is >a diamond transfer, or partner >forgot that it is not. > >In which case I found out in a >legal way that there is some >misunderstanding (by partner >making an impossible bid), and I >am free to bid 3NT. After the table director consulted with the other directors, Martin Sinot's reasoning was used to justify a ruling of no adjustment to the score. East-West appealed. The prime mover in the East-West partnership, brilliant young Aussie champion Kieran Dyke, was the only player to attend the appeal. The table director also attended the appeal, but the Appeals Committee saw no need to request the attendance of other players, since the facts were not in dispute. Tim West-Meads: >Partner has just shown a hand that >thinks 3N will make if I have >fitting cards in diamonds and 2N >may go off if I do not. Something >like Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My >hand is suitable so I bid 3N. > >Had I held 2 small diamonds I'd be >obliged to pass The Appeals Committee adopted Tim West-Meads' reasoning, believing that a diamond holding of KT8 made a raise to 3NT the only logical alternative, so voted 5-0 to uphold the director's ruling. The AC then voted 3-2 that the appeal was without merit, giving Kieran Dyke the finger by fining his partnership one victory point. An unusual feature of the appeal was that the chair of the AC also wanted to fine North-South for their "offence" of convention disruption. Fortunately another member of the AC was a grognard who could quote the WBF Code of Practice's deprecation of such punishment of convention disruption. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 9 01:35:13 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Aug 9 01:37:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 7, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Over here, we're not embarrassed to call a psych a psych - because > we don't regard it as a bad thing, we don't need to pretend we're > not doing it when we are. On what grounds do you consider opening 1S with S AKQ and 14 HCP, when playing 4 card majors, a psych? Just curious. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 9 01:40:48 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Aug 9 01:43:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is > sufficient AI present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. Hm. What law allows this? From blml at blakjak.com Tue Aug 9 03:23:44 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 03:27:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <42F505FB.3010605@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200507271408.j6RE8sYU006583@cfa.harvard.edu> <42F505FB.3010605@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5+bh9LIgWA+CFwGI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Willner wrote >While normally I agree with Tim, I think he has missed the boat here. >The problem is that nobody besides the psycher/misbidder knows which he >is -- it is entirely a matter of his intent. Rules that need mind >reading to enforce are bad rules. You have said this so often over the years that I finally feel it is time to object. One of the essences of ruling our game is that TDs and ACs make judgements. There is nothing wrong with that. Mind reading as you put it - it is not mind reading at all, of course, but a judgement on available evidence, but it sounds so much more as though it is wrong to call it mind reading - is merely one of the judgements that are made. If we delete all the mind reading rules then we do one of two things. [1] Allow what is currently perceived as cheating, or [2] Treat innocent people as though they are cheats. Both of these solutions are ***far worse*** than allowing judgement decisions, including "mind reading". Incidentally, in passing, let me point out that the allegation that I have seen a few times that such "mind reading" applies solely to bridge is certainly not true. For example, in soccer, the rules are different when a player's hand touches the ball dependent on whether he intended to touch it or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Aug 9 03:29:03 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 03:32:21 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU 2003 casebook appeal number 6 In-Reply-To: <50853DEC-F141-487E-B08B-C610BA2447AB@rochester.rr.com> References: <200507221616.j6MGGLnP023003@cfa.harvard.edu> <42F506F3.2030702@cfa.harvard.edu> <50853DEC-F141-487E-B08B-C610BA2447AB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <7O0hB0IfbA+CFwkN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote >On Aug 6, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> I am sure that is not the meaning intended for L73A/B. Saying "Lead >>a heart," is illegal, regardless of whether partner acts on the >>instruction or not. This is an important point, because there may be >>an adjusted score even if partner "carefully avoids taking any advantage." > >Hm. Maybe. If "lead a heart" is considered illegal deception. If not, >Law 73F1 is clear - you can only adjust if partner acts. You might >appeal to Law 72B1, on the grounds offender "could have known" >opponents might be damaged, but again, that law requires the offending >side to have actually gained an advantage. True. Steve seems to be confusing penalties and adjustments. if a player says "Lead a heart" we can penalise him whatever his partner does, but it takes damage in partner's use of UI or the opponents action through being misled for an adjustment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 9 03:40:01 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Aug 9 03:42:14 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU 2003 casebook appeal number 6 In-Reply-To: <200508081521.j78FLgu0027699@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508081521.j78FLgu0027699@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42F80971.2040903@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > Maybe. If "lead a heart" is considered illegal deception. If not, > Law 73F1 is clear - you can only adjust if partner acts. Do we agree that "Lead a heart," (by a defender) is illegal? If so, what Law says you don't adjust the score if opponents are damaged? Yes, there are other laws that apply more commonly, but I see nothing restricting the application of L73B1 or L12A1. From blml at blakjak.com Tue Aug 9 03:42:04 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 03:45:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner wrote >At 10:21 PM 8/7/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > >>Imps >>Dlr: North >>Vul: East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT >>Pass 3D Pass ? >> >>(1) 12-14 >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>A52 >>K74 >>KT8 >>QT75 >> >>What call do you make? >>What other calls do you consider making? > >The corresponding sequence with 3C rather than 3D has been discussed >as a sequence in which partner's impossible bid is allowed to wake you >up even without an alert. Thus I will bid 3NT, alert or no alert. > >The weak NT actually makes it less likely that partner has the only >logical meaning of 3D by someone who hasn't forgotten the agreement; >if he has 13 HCP with six diamonds, he would have opened 1D and rebid >2D. (In contrast, a strong NT player with 16 HCP and six bad diamonds >who opens 1D has no proper bid, since 2D shows a minimum and 3D shows >a good suit). But if partner does have six bad diamonds, I would still >bid 3NT with this hand; I have the other three suits stopped and a fit >for partner's diamonds. I do not understand this logic at all. Playing Acol and a weak NT I might decide to open 1NT with a long weak diamond suit. On the other hand, and totally differently, playing Standard American and a strong NT I might decide to open 1NT with a long weak diamond suit. Not only can I see no difference, but they are both irrelevant. 3D over 2NT on a long weak diamond suit is foolish, leading to unnecessary minus scores. On the other hand 3D is a perfectly normal bid, showing a fair six-card diamond suit and a minimum. Obviously partner can bid 3NT with a diamond fit. It always amazes me that people think 3D "shows" something has happened, like a wheel falling off. I have assumed 3D means the above, with or without agreement, all my career. What else? Undiscussed bids are surely natural, no bridge player is going to introduce six small, nor is a bridge player going to mention six solid. It is a losing policy at this game to assume a wheel has fallen off because partner makes an "impossible" bid. When your part passes his eight solid spades, and later triumphantly introduces them and I doubled, he will say some very nasty words to you when you pull to some six-card suit or other, changing +790 into -300 for no better reason than "a wheel must have come off". Aha, you say, but a wheel often has come off. Yes, and it has come off before, that's how pairs get to understand these positions. Success in such positions often [or greater] indicates a CPU. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 9 03:44:20 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Aug 9 03:46:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <200508081926.j78JQiAO019458@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508081926.j78JQiAO019458@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42F80A74.3040408@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > However, I > have played a large amount of weak NT, no transfer bridge and I know > exactly what type of hand partner would be showing for this sequence. I've played a lot of weak NT no-transfer bridge, too, and I'd never have guessed that the sequence means what Tim thinks. Nevertheless, I am quite confident that _with a familiar partner_, I would always know what partner meant -- even behind screens or over the internet. What it would mean would be different, of course, with different partners. With an unfamiliar partner, there would be a variety of possibilities, as others have mentioned. From blml at blakjak.com Tue Aug 9 03:43:58 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 03:47:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have >>fitting cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something >>like Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. >> This is a rare sequence but hardly "impossible". >> > >Come off it, guys. >Everyone and his dog has realized that there is something fishy here. >Clearly partner has understood our 2NT as a transfer to diamonds. >That is AI. Combine it with the fact that we probably realize that >we're in the dark about playing transfers to the minors (also AI), and >the information that partner was just replying to a transfer is so 100% >authorized that I do not need to be convinced that pass is no LA. > >If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is sufficient AI >present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. This is the sort of argument that worries me. Everyone and his dog understands 3D to mean diamonds ***except*** people who have had this sequence before, and ***know*** what has happened. It's a CPU, folks. -- 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 mustikka at charter.net Tue Aug 9 03:46:29 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue Aug 9 03:49:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <005c01c59c6c$486e8210$dc0e1d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <005301c59c84$2c227900$8e65d642@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:21 AM Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike > > > > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > > You, South, hold: > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > What call do you make? Pass > What other calls do you consider making? > None. 3D declines the invitation and says partner prefers a diamond partial to 2NT. Don't see any problem here. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland I strongly disagree. I believe 3D suggests going to 3NT if pd has diamond help to fill up the five or six card suit, and here is help = 3NT. I can see no other reason to bid 3D. Even without agreements, if I don't know what partner's bid means, pass is out of the question. That has been a well-working ground rule for me for years. What if he meant it as transfer to hearts with a 5-card suit? Or miscounted his points and has some odd 17 count and made a bid for which there is no meaning? Or some other esoterica from another planet? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 9 06:12:31 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 9 06:14:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <5+bh9LIgWA+CFwGI@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >Mind reading as you put it - it is not mind >reading at all, of course, but a judgement on >available evidence, but it sounds so much more as >though it is wrong to call it mind reading - is >merely one of the judgements that are made. > >If we delete all the mind reading rules then we do >one of two things. > >[1] Allow what is currently perceived as cheating, > >or > >[2] Treat innocent people as though they are cheats. > >Both of these solutions are ***far worse*** than >allowing judgement decisions, including "mind >reading". [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, David's argument is unsupported by history. In the bad old days, before the phrase "could have known" was inserted into Law 72B1, TDs had to "allow what is currently perceived as cheating" since ruling against cheats required the TD to determine intent to cheat ("mind reading"). This meant that any adverse ruling would cause a TD to be sued for defamation. Ergo, Alcatraz Coups and other subtle cheating strategies were unpunished. Law 72B1, as currently written with the "could have known" phrase, precludes any need for a TD to determine intent to cheat ("mind reading") Both solutions "far worse"? In my opinion David is putting forward a straw man argument by using emotive wording for option [2]. I argue is false to imply that this "could have known" addition to Law 72B1 "treats innocent people as though they are cheats" when innocent people get an adverse score adjustment after they inadvertently perpetrate an Alcatraz Coup . Rather, the "could have known" phrase mean that option [2] should be worded as: [2] Treat both a lucky innocent and also a deliberate cheat as having perpetrated a technical error, with an automatic technical score adjustment. This is ***far better*** than "mind reading", as it both prevents cheating and also prevents costly defamation actions. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 9 08:50:14 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 9 08:57:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <001101c59c05$4818c6c0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Anne Jones: [snip] >However it has dawned on me that when a TD consults with >others at an event - he extracts their initial thoughts. He >doesn't present them with the thoughts of others with whom >he has also consulted. > >It may be that while this forum is excellent in so many >ways, it may be that any consultation exercise, it that is >what it was, should be viewed with certain caution. [snip] Richard Hills: Many blmlers apparently read new threads in chronological order, so it seems that blml amy be useful for rule-of-thumb assessment of logical alternatives. On the other hand, since the context of blml is rulings, rather than the context being a bidding contest, there are heightened suspicions by respondents that UI might be involved, which may have distorted the judgement of some blmlers. By that reasoning, blml is less useful for rule-of- thumb assessment of logical alternatives. Distortions in the judgement of logical alternatives could occur at both extremes: (a) Some blmlers could be subconsciously influenced by holier- than-thou desires, so might vote for a Pass as an LA when they would always bid 3NT at the table. (b) Some blmlers could know by the context that 2NT must be a transfer, so might vote for an automatic 3NT when they might sometimes Pass at the table if screens were in use. {See the archived thread "Groundhog Day" for experimental evidence that context distorts TDs' judgements of LAs.} On balance, Anne is right to urge caution. Furthermore, even a cautious assessment of blml responses suggests that the actual AC's 5-0 vote to rule "only one logical alternative" was a borderline judgement decision. The number of blmlers choosing or considering a Pass approached the 25% threshold for logical alternatives in Australia. Therefore, it seems that my casting vote backing the majority 3-2 decision that the appeal was without merit was definitely a poor judgement of mine. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 9 02:10:50 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Aug 9 09:05:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9 Aug 2005, at 00:35, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Aug 7, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> Over here, we're not embarrassed to call a psych a psych - because >> we don't regard it as a bad thing, we don't need to pretend we're not >> doing it when we are. > > On what grounds do you consider opening 1S with S AKQ and 14 HCP, when > playing 4 card majors, a psych? I don't think the original post I was replying to specified such a particular hand. Nevertheless, playing a 4 card major system, a biddable major is 4 cards or longer - hence the name of the system. To start by bidding a suit you don't hold, in preference to bidding one you do hold, is a gross distortion of your hand description. Before Marv starts misinterpreting me again, let me say that it doesn't follow that I think it's wrong, illegal or fattening to deliberately do so, but I do think it's a psych. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From adam at tameware.com Tue Aug 9 05:15:50 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue Aug 9 09:05:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We have not discussed the bid, so it must be natural, with doubt that we can make exactly 2NT. I expect a minimum in high cards with long, weak diamonds and shaky majors, something like Jx Ax xxxxxx AKx I don't open such hands 1NT myself, but many of my partners do. I would pass. NV at IMPs we don't need to bid marginal games. I'd also consider 3NT. On, and with 11.4 "CCCC" points I would certainly have bid 2NT. See http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/#software -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 09:53:09 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 09:53:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > It always amazes me that people think 3D "shows" something has > happened, like a wheel falling off. I have assumed 3D means the above, > with or without agreement, all my career. What else? Undiscussed bids > are surely natural, no bridge player is going to introduce six small, > nor is a bridge player going to mention six solid. > > It is a losing policy at this game to assume a wheel has fallen off > because partner makes an "impossible" bid. When your part passes his > eight solid spades, and later triumphantly introduces them and I > doubled, he will say some very nasty words to you when you pull to some > six-card suit or other, changing +790 into -300 for no better reason > than "a wheel must have come off". > > Aha, you say, but a wheel often has come off. Yes, and it has come > off before, that's how pairs get to understand these positions. Success > in such positions often [or greater] indicates a CPU. > Exactly David, except that it is not a (C)PU, when the player says to the table, apparently my partner thinks we are playing transfers. A player knows which parts of the system his partner (and he himself) is likely to forget, and this is AI. I am quite certain that such awakening will also happen when using screens, and I consider that there is always some AI in addition to the UI. It is up to the Director to find out whether or not the AI is sufficiently strong, but arguments such as yours that you always trust your partner are only valid in your partnership and for those sequences that you feel confident enough about. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 09:55:07 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 09:55:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is sufficient >> AI present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. > > > Hm. What law allows this? > Common sense and practice. I bid 2H transfer to spades. My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". This is UI. Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Aug 9 10:39:11 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Aug 9 10:41:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be><9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is sufficient AI >>> present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. >> >> >> Hm. What law allows this? >> > > Common sense and practice. > I bid 2H transfer to spades. > My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". > This is UI. > Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and > that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? > No I don't see at all. You had forgotten your system and you may have remembered yourself, or because your partner's alert reminded you. Are you SURE it was the former? I believe the TD will be SURE it was the latter :-) I know of no Law that speaks of the magnitude of UI, neither of a Law that allows us to use what we think is common sense. Anne > > -- > HermY DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > Fifth Friday homepage: > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 10:56:35 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 10:57:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be><9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <42F86FC3.8070803@hdw.be> Sorry Anne, but you are reacting on the wrong message. Let me explain what I mean by this: Anne Jones wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > >> Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is >>>> sufficient AI present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. >>> >>> This is where we began - I said there was enough AI to counter the UI. >>> >>> Hm. What law allows this? >>> This is what Ed asked - why should AI counter UI? >> >> Common sense and practice. >> I bid 2H transfer to spades. >> My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >> This is UI. >> Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and >> that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? >> This is my reply to Ed. In many instances do we have UI (partner's alert) and also AI (our knowledge of our system). We are then not restircted by the UI. This seems like self-evident to me, but: > No I don't see at all. > You had forgotten your system and you may have remembered yourself, > or because your partner's alert reminded you. You are going back to the beginning - This thread was about there being AI, and its consequences on the also-present UI. > Are you SURE it was the former? I believe the TD will be SURE it was the > latter :-) > I know of no Law that speaks of the magnitude of UI, neither of a Law > that allows > us to use what we think is common sense. > If you want to argue that there was not enough AI in the original, please post an asnwer on that original - not here. This sub-thread ought to be clear to everyone, including Ed (I hope). > Anne > >> >> -- >> HermY DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> Fifth Friday homepage: >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 11:03:36 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 11:04:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be><9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be> I'll also react to something Anne Jones wrote: > You had forgotten your system and you may have remembered yourself, > or because your partner's alert reminded you. > Are you SURE it was the former? I believe the TD will be SURE it was the > latter :-) Why are you criticising me that I am sure of something? Apparently you are sure of the other. > I know of no Law that speaks of the magnitude of UI, neither of a Law > that allows > us to use what we think is common sense. > I am not talking about the magnitude of the UI, I am talking about the magnitude of the also present AI. And surely we are allowed, as TDs, to use common sense? Are you really one of those TDs who tells their players that it is no use trying to convince you of the presence of AI, since you have already made up your mind and are no longer willing to listen? I really get tired of people criticising my posts because I wish to give the players a chance to present their case. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk Tue Aug 9 11:29:24 2005 From: nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) Date: Tue Aug 9 11:30:38 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU 2003 casebook appeal number 6 In-Reply-To: <42F80971.2040903@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508081521.j78FLgu0027699@cfa.harvard.edu> <42F80971.2040903@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner skrev: >Do we agree that "Lead a heart," (by a defender) is illegal? Absolutely. >If so, what Law says you don't adjust the score if opponents are damaged? How can they be damaged by this request if partner does not act on it (but carefully avoids any lead that might be ... throughout the play.)? >Yes, there are other laws that apply more commonly, but I see nothing >restricting the application of L73B1 or L12A1. There is no restriction, but it does not kick in if partner did not act on the UI and there therefore is no damage - other than what they may have caused themselves by using the AI (for them) that the blabbermouth wanted a heart lead. -- Bertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Aug 9 11:38:57 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Aug 9 11:41:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6502@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:04 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > I'll also react to something > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > You had forgotten your system and you may have remembered > yourself, or > > because your partner's alert reminded you. > > Are you SURE it was the former? I believe the TD will be > SURE it was > > the latter :-) > > Why are you criticising me that I am sure of something? > Apparently you are sure of the other. > > > I know of no Law that speaks of the magnitude of UI, > neither of a Law > > that allows us to use what we think is common sense. > > > > I am not talking about the magnitude of the UI, I am talking > about the magnitude of the also present AI. And surely we are > allowed, as TDs, to use common sense? > > Are you really one of those TDs who tells their players that > it is no use trying to convince you of the presence of AI, > since you have already made up your mind and are no longer > willing to listen? > > I really get tired of people criticising my posts because I > wish to give the players a chance to present their case. Maybe the following is a better example: Suppose you have a balanced 20-count and want to open 2NT. To your suprise you see partner alert and explain it as five spades, four cards in a minor and weak. This is UI, of course. When you look down, you see 2S on the table, instead of 2NT. You clearly misspulled here. This information reached you as UI through partner, but also as AI by looking at the auction. -- Martin Sinot From john at asimere.com Tue Aug 9 11:44:56 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Aug 9 11:48:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <+6kuSJAYsH+CFw3c@asimere.com> In article <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be>, HermY De Wael writes >I'll also react to something > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> You had forgotten your system and you may have remembered yourself, >> or because your partner's alert reminded you. >> Are you SURE it was the former? I believe the TD will be SURE it was the >> latter :-) > >Why are you criticising me that I am sure of something? Apparently you >are sure of the other. > >> I know of no Law that speaks of the magnitude of UI, neither of a Law >> that allows >> us to use what we think is common sense. >> > >I am not talking about the magnitude of the UI, I am talking about the >magnitude of the also present AI. And surely we are allowed, as TDs, >to use common sense? > >Are you really one of those TDs who tells their players that it is no >use trying to convince you of the presence of AI, since you have >already made up your mind and are no longer willing to listen? > >I really get tired of people criticising my posts because I wish to >give the players a chance to present their case. In the uk, and this is a weak NT where 2N is not often transfer to diamonds, the bid shows diamonds. Now TimWM will bid 3NT based on his diamond fit, which is fine, not because he's got a UI/AI problem but his reading of pard's hand is different from mine. I, OTOH will pass 3D because that's where partner wants to play. Kx Kx xxxxxx KQx type of hand. Were I in hermY-land I'd be far more inclined to recognise the AI aspect and be far more inclined to allow 3N. This one's cultural. 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 Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Aug 9 12:06:47 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Aug 9 12:09:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> > In the uk, and this is a weak NT where 2N is not often > transfer to diamonds, the bid shows diamonds. Now TimWM will > bid 3NT based on his diamond fit, which is fine, not because > he's got a UI/AI problem but his reading of pard's hand is > different from mine. I, OTOH will pass 3D because that's > where partner wants to play. Kx Kx xxxxxx KQx type of hand. > Were I in hermY-land I'd be far more inclined to recognise > the AI aspect and be far more inclined to allow 3N. This > one's cultural. john You are probably right. Here in the Netherlands there are not many people opening 1NT with a sixcard diamonds; on the other hand, there are a lot of people playing 2NT as a diamond transfer. So here I would suspect that somebody forgot the agreement. In the UK, where the sixcard diamonds is more common and the transfer fairly rare, it is probably the sixcard variety. So no need to fight over the suggested action over 3D; it all depends on where you are :) -- Martin Sinot From hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 12:24:17 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 12:24:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <+6kuSJAYsH+CFw3c@asimere.com> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be> <+6kuSJAYsH+CFw3c@asimere.com> Message-ID: <42F88451.1010702@hdw.be> Thank you John, for at least having some understanding for my point of view. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be>, HermY De Wael > writes > >>I'll also react to something >> >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >> >>>You had forgotten your system and you may have remembered yourself, >>>or because your partner's alert reminded you. >>>Are you SURE it was the former? I believe the TD will be SURE it was the >>>latter :-) >> >>Why are you criticising me that I am sure of something? Apparently you >>are sure of the other. >> >> >>>I know of no Law that speaks of the magnitude of UI, neither of a Law >>>that allows >>>us to use what we think is common sense. >>> >> >>I am not talking about the magnitude of the UI, I am talking about the >>magnitude of the also present AI. And surely we are allowed, as TDs, >>to use common sense? >> >>Are you really one of those TDs who tells their players that it is no >>use trying to convince you of the presence of AI, since you have >>already made up your mind and are no longer willing to listen? >> >>I really get tired of people criticising my posts because I wish to >>give the players a chance to present their case. > > > In the uk, and this is a weak NT where 2N is not often transfer to > diamonds, the bid shows diamonds. OK, maybe it does. It strikes me as odd that when both partners try to describe their hand as being suited to NT-contracts, 3D can still be passed, but if that is the way bridge is played in the UK, I'll rule that way for a pair in the UK. > Now TimWM will bid 3NT based on his > diamond fit, which is fine, not because he's got a UI/AI problem but his > reading of pard's hand is different from mine. I, OTOH will pass 3D > because that's where partner wants to play. Kx Kx xxxxxx KQx type of > hand. Here John makes a valid point: if this happens in the UK, where 3D is that kind of hand, maybe even that hand accross the table is NOT enough to bid 3NT on. Maybe in the UK, the alert _is_ UI, not countered enough by AI, _and_ passing is a LA. > Were I in hermY-land I'd be far more inclined to recognise the AI > aspect and be far more inclined to allow 3N. This one's cultural. john > It certainly is. What I'm trying to make you see is that the determinition of the AI aspect is the cultural thing. If this happens in Belgium, where 2NT is either transfer or invitational, 3Di is _always_ acceptance of the transfer, _never_ contract enhancement. Thus the TD needs to determine whether the pair in question is a Belgian or a UK pair. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 9 12:45:59 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Aug 9 12:48:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F88451.1010702@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be> <+6kuSJAYsH+CFw3c@asimere.com> <42F88451.1010702@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 9 Aug 2005, at 11:24, HermY De Wael wrote: > OK, maybe it does. It strikes me as odd that when both partners try to > describe their hand as being suited to NT-contracts, 3D can still be > passed, I agree. > but if that is the way bridge is played in the UK, I'll rule that way > for a pair in the UK. I've never seen such a sequence outside of a beginner's class. > >> Now TimWM will bid 3NT based on his >> diamond fit, which is fine, not because he's got a UI/AI problem but >> his >> reading of pard's hand is different from mine. I, OTOH will pass 3D >> because that's where partner wants to play. Kx Kx xxxxxx KQx type of >> hand. > > Here John makes a valid point: if this happens in the UK, where 3D is > that kind of hand, maybe even that hand accross the table is NOT > enough to bid 3NT on. Maybe in the UK, the alert _is_ UI, not > countered enough by AI, _and_ passing is a LA. > >> Were I in hermY-land I'd be far more inclined to recognise the AI >> aspect and be far more inclined to allow 3N. This one's cultural. >> john > > It certainly is. What I'm trying to make you see is that the > determinition of the AI aspect is the cultural thing. If this happens > in Belgium, where 2NT is either transfer or invitational, 3Di is > _always_ acceptance of the transfer, _never_ contract enhancement. > Thus the TD needs to determine whether the pair in question is a > Belgian or a UK pair. I don't think that's enough: the TD also needs to determine whether the assertions of cultural behaviour by others are persuasive. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 9 12:46:58 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Aug 9 12:50:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <007a01c59c59$9401de60$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006a01c59ccf$c1c45500$928187d9@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: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:36 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief > > > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > > > Certainly not. I play four-card majors, so three > > > > cards is not a gross distortion of length, especially > > > > since I do it only with at least one high card, usually > > > > two or three. Also, partner never suspects I have > > > > just three, because the bid is so rare, and freely > > > > raises with three-card support. One carried me to > > > > 7S with J108x support for my AKQ, leading to a > > > > cold top on a high crossruff. You would have > > > > called the TD, I'm sure. > > > > > > > +=+ There are aspects of the above that Marvin should > > > reconsider: > > > 1. "partner never suspects I have just three" > > > The test is not whether partner does suspect at > > > the instant but whether the situation arises frequently > > > enough or is repeatedly experienced enough to create a > > > heightened awareness in partner that Marvin may have > > > only a three card suit. > > > > It does not, haven't I made that clear??? Do you think > > I am lying?? > > +=+ It is not for you to judge. Your assertion is self-serving. +=+ < > > > Moreover, the awareness may arise through > > > knowledge mutually shared of a matter outside of the > > > partnership playing experience. Thus if it is the case that > > > Marvin's partner (or any partner he may play with) has > > > read this public correspondence then clearly enough he > > > is now conscious that Marvin's method includes this > > > characteristic. The partner would have the duty of > > > disclosure as much as would Marvin. > > > > It would be a disservice to opponents to pre-warn them > > that once in a blue moon I will open the bidding in a strong > > three-card major. Guarding against such a rarity, they are > > quite likely to do themselves great harm. > > +=+ Your opinion on this is immaterial. Your duty is to meet the requirements of the laws of the game. +=+ < > > > 2. 'A partnership may not defend itself against an > > > allegation that its psychic action is based upon an > > > understanding by claiming that, although the partner had > > > an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given > > > situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic > > > have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to > > > an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit > > > or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and > > > for this reason the understanding must be disclosed'. > > > > I disagree. Opponents are entitled only to undisclosed information > > that may affect partner's actions. Partner must not field a > > non-systemic action unless the AI to do so is very clear. > +=+ Your disagreement is founded on ignorance. Opponents are entitled to be fully informed of your partnership understandings, whether explicit or implicit. What you partner knows of your methods, not the way in which he responds to them, determines the information to which opponents are absolutely entitled. +=+ < > > Is Zia supposed to pre-warn opponents about the many non-standard > > actions he takes? No, because Michael Rosenberg will not base his > > actions on Zia's propensities absent overwhelming AI that tells him > > to do so. If Zia doubles a splinter, supposedly showing strength but > > lacking that strength, Michael will lead the suit unless no one > > would do so. > > +=+ I believe that Zia and Michael disclose their methods fully. Imputations as to alleged practices of another partnership do nothing for your case. +=+ < > > > For example, if conscious that the trump suit > > > might be A K Q opposite J 10 8 x an opponent might > > > be more encouraged to lead a trump. > > > > > > Marvin plays in tournaments regulated by the ACBL. > > > Determination whether he recognizes and fully discharges > > > his responsibilities to his opponents in those events is a > > > matter for the ACBL. If he were to play in an international > > > tournament, or in an EBL tournament, there can be no > > > doubt that he would need to make a more complete > > > disclosure than is seemingly his practice at present. He > > > describes his addiction as not being "a gross distortion > > > of length", a question to be judged by the regulating body, > > > but this has no relevance to the question whether it should > > > be disclosed as implicitly (and now explicitly) a feature of > > > his methods. I should add that in disclosure there is a > > > significant difference between 'never' and 'rare', and this > > > is especially so in durable partnerships. > > > > An "addiction"? Do you know what the word means? > > +=+ Inter alia 'a weakness for' +=+ < > > I play in the ACBL and follow its regulations to the letter, > > so get off my case. What the EBL would make of all this is > > irrelevant to me. > > +=+ But not irrelevant to many of those to whom you are publishing arguments that apply, if they apply at all, internally to the ACBL. +=+ < > > Anyone who considers a one-card variance in length a "gross > > distortion of length," therefore a psych, lives in a world that is > > foreign to me. My rare small departures from what is on the CC are > > matters of style and judgment, which must not be restricted (L40E1). > > They are certainly not an addiction. < +=+ I did not suggest that the requirement to disclose rested on the question whether the bid was psychic. 'Rare' and 'small' are personal judgements concerning matters that you have demonstrated by your quoted example to be potentially significant. You may exercise style and judgement but when these lead to a systemic pattern of action known to your partner the information is disclosable. +=+ < > > I am known in San Diego for the soundness of my bidding, which > > is often ridiculed as being old-fashioned and out of tune with the > > times. > > That is my only addiction. > > +=+ My only reflection on that is, as I have said, that what you do in ACBL territory is a matter for the ACBL. My point is that in the larger world outside of the ACBL domain your attitude to disclosure would need to improve. +=+ > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > +=+ I copied my earlier comments to the WBF CTD. His comment was "Quite right." ~ G ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Aug 9 12:53:46 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Aug 9 12:56:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <005c01c59c6c$486e8210$dc0e1d53@kocurzak> <005301c59c84$2c227900$8e65d642@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <002701c59cd0$9e223620$fc1a1d53@kocurzak> >I strongly disagree. I believe 3D suggests going to 3NT if pd has diamond >help to fill up the five or six card suit, and here is help = 3NT. I can >see no other reason to bid 3D. I can. In principle in the part-score zone suit partials should be preferred over NT partials. Partner might hold A52 K74 KT8 QT75 xx Qxx AQJxx Kxx 3D is far, far superior to 2NT. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Startuj z INTERIA.PL! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f186c From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Aug 9 13:51:35 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Aug 9 13:53:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6502@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <000e01c59cd8$b2e94c30$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sinot Martin" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:38 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Finger in the dike > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 11:04 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > I'll also react to something > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > You had forgotten your system and you may have remembered > yourself, or > > because your partner's alert reminded you. > > Are you SURE it was the former? I believe the TD will be > SURE it was > > the latter :-) > > Why are you criticising me that I am sure of something? > Apparently you are sure of the other. > > > I know of no Law that speaks of the magnitude of UI, > neither of a Law > > that allows us to use what we think is common sense. > > > > I am not talking about the magnitude of the UI, I am talking > about the magnitude of the also present AI. And surely we are > allowed, as TDs, to use common sense? > > Are you really one of those TDs who tells their players that > it is no use trying to convince you of the presence of AI, > since you have already made up your mind and are no longer > willing to listen? > > I really get tired of people criticising my posts because I > wish to give the players a chance to present their case. Maybe the following is a better example: Suppose you have a balanced 20-count and want to open 2NT. To your suprise you see partner alert and explain it as five spades, four cards in a minor and weak. This is UI, of course. When you look down, you see 2S on the table, instead of 2NT. You clearly misspulled here. This information reached you as UI through partner, but also as AI by looking at the auction. -- Martin Sinot =============== I don't think this is a better example because haven't we discussed this before and agreed (if we ever do) that Law 25A allows you to change your inadvertant call as soon as you realise that you have made it provided your partner has not called. As you said the fact that it was your partners alert that made you look down and see the wrong bidding card is irrelevant - the seeing of it is AI. However in the case of forgetting the system, where it is partners alert that wakes you up, there is no hard evidence other than partners action that guides you, and the original call was not inadvertant, so not subject to Law 25A but Law 25B. The player should request that he be allowed to change his call under that Law, and pay the penalty it imposes, not temper his subsequent calls to rectify the situation at no cost to anyone other than his opponents. Anne _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue Aug 9 10:05:33 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:13:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> It always amazes me that people think 3D "shows" something has >> happened, like a wheel falling off. I have assumed 3D means the above, >> with or without agreement, all my career. What else? Undiscussed bids >> are surely natural, no bridge player is going to introduce six small, nor >> is a bridge player going to mention six solid. >> >> It is a losing policy at this game to assume a wheel has fallen off >> because partner makes an "impossible" bid. When your part passes his >> eight solid spades, and later triumphantly introduces them and I doubled, >> he will say some very nasty words to you when you pull to some six-card >> suit or other, changing +790 into -300 for no better reason than "a >> wheel must have come off". >> >> Aha, you say, but a wheel often has come off. Yes, and it has come off >> before, that's how pairs get to understand these positions. Success in >> such positions often [or greater] indicates a CPU. >> > > Exactly David, except that it is not a (C)PU, when the player says to the > table, apparently my partner thinks we are playing transfers. > > A player knows which parts of the system his partner (and he himself) is > likely to forget, and this is AI. > It is AI for the opps Herman but I don't believe it is AI for the partnership. Otherwise why do we penalise a pair for fielding a psyche in a WBF event when the propensity to psyche is on the CC. It isn't any longer a CPU but such disclosure doesn't absolve the partnership from acting according to their system. > > I am quite certain that such awakening will also happen when using > screens, and I consider that there is always some AI in addition to the > UI. It is up to the Director to find out whether or not the AI is > sufficiently strong, but arguments such as yours that you always trust > your partner are only valid in your partnership and for those sequences > that you feel confident enough about. > AI in this case must come from the opps - and it may indeed happen. Questions like "Is that supposed to be a transfer" etc. Anne > > -- > HermY DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > Fifth Friday homepage: > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 9 12:14:17 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:14:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <7f10bf701418a84006fa720f27eac959@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 Aug 2005, at 11:06, Sinot Martin wrote: > You are probably right. Here in the Netherlands there are not > many people opening 1NT with a sixcard diamonds; on the other > hand, there are a lot of people playing 2NT as a diamond transfer. > So here I would suspect that somebody forgot the agreement. In > the UK, where the sixcard diamonds is more common and the transfer > fairly rare, it is probably the sixcard variety. So no need > to fight over the suggested action over 3D; it all depends on > where you are :) That would be true if the information you were given had been correct. However I, who play all my bridge in the UK, am sure I meet more players who play 2NT as a diamond transfer than those who open 1NT with a six-card diamond suit. The problem is that "where you are" is much more localised than which country you are in. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 9 12:09:49 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:14:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be><9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <000d01c59cbd$d22b9230$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F87168.4050305@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 9 Aug 2005, at 10:03, HermY De Wael wrote: > I really get tired of people criticising my posts because I wish to > give the players a chance to present their case. It's probably because you appear to go rather further than that in the case of the infractors. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 14:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:15:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > On 8 Aug 2005, at 10:20, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have > > fitting > > cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something like > > Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. > > > > This is a rare sequence but hardly "impossible". > > It's impossible for players who don't bid such hands that way. Which helps how? It seems extremely unlikely that one knows partner well enough to know he doesn't bid that way but not well enough to know that he will take 2N as a transfer. The bid has a perfectly logical meaning in standard Acol and, in possession of UI, one is obliged to treat it as such. With some of my partners it has become quite likely that 1N was psyched with a diamond suit and out (probably short hearts). I'll duly alert the 3D bid but my hand is *still* suitable for 3N (notwithstanding I'd get done for fielding if didn't bid it!). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 14:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:15:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <007e01c59c59$eb0f5480$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > I disagree. Opponents are entitled only to undisclosed information > that may affect partner's actions. That is simply not true. Opps are entitled to full disclosure of what partner knows (by discussion or experience) not what he will act on. > Anyone who considers a one-card variance in length a "gross > distortion of length," therefore a psych, lives in a world that is > foreign to me. My rare small departures from what is on the CC are > matters of style and judgment, which must not be restricted (L40E1). But on this you have my full support. Indeed even if the departures were less than rare they could still be based on judgement rather than system. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 14:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:15:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Wrote: > I don't think the original post I was replying to specified such a > particular hand. Nevertheless, playing a 4 card major system, a > biddable major is 4 cards or longer - hence the name of the system. > > To start by bidding a suit you don't hold, in preference to bidding one > you do hold, is a gross distortion of your hand description. It's just that some us idiots are, apparently, easily confused - we look at hand like 753,AKQ,5432,A43 and we *believe* that we hold a good Heart suit. We apply our, albeit deluded, judgement and open 1H instead of 1D because hearts looks more like a 4 card suit than does diamonds. We know we are promising partner 4 hearts but we don't mind. We are not deliberately distorting the hand we are trying to describe to the best of our abilities. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 14:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:15:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > > but if that is the way bridge is played in the UK, I'll rule that way > > for a pair in the UK. > > I've never seen such a sequence outside of a beginner's class. Just out of interest Gordon how much "non-transfer" bridge *do* you see outside of beginner's classes? I haven't seen the sequence more than a few times myself despite playing in a non-transfer environment but when it has occurred it has always been a non-forcing re-invite looking for a diamond fit. Like DWS it has never occurred to me to use it (or respond to it) in any other way (although he and I may disagree as whether J9xxxx constitutes a description of "fair"). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 14:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:15:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <002701c59cd0$9e223620$fc1a1d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: Konrad wrote: > I can. In principle in the part-score zone > suit partials should be preferred over NT > partials. Partner might hold > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > xx > Qxx > AQJxx > Kxx > > 3D is far, far superior to 2NT. Perhaps, but at Butler scoring I'd rather be in the "unmakeable" 3N getting a non-spade lead enough of the time to make me happy. At pairs I'd take the risky +120 over the safer (but still not guaranteed) +110. Indeed The NT strain is much to be preferred if pard does not have the DK so I would not consider this hand suitable for a 3D bid. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 14:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:15:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F7D3B2.4000206@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Yes Herman, that is probably the reason for the question in this form > > in this forum - I know that (and doubtless the 2N was alerted). > > However, I have played a large amount of weak NT, no transfer bridge > > and I know exactly what type of hand partner would be showing for > > this sequence. > > Maybe that is true, Tim, but you are not the player in this problem. I know - and neither are you. I don't have a problem with a Belgian TD ruling "this is so obvious pard would wake up" if that reflects Belgian bridge. But the problem was Australian, not Belgian, where it seems the situation is closer (the TD having ruled as you did, the AC as I did). However I feel the AWMW to be very unfair. The appellant argued that the auction should not "wake up" partner. The AC agreed with *that* assertion even though they then ruled that 3N would be bid anyway. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 14:52:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:15:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <003d01c59bfa$f04f3820$29a787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > If he were to play in an international > tournament, or in an EBL tournament, there can be no > doubt that he would need to make a more complete > disclosure than is seemingly his practice at present. Definitely. > He describes his addiction as not being "a gross distortion > of length", a question to be judged by the regulating body, Absolutely not. Players exercise judgement as to selecting the best bid to describe their hands and a bid should never be ruled a psych if the player believes it to be the best descriptive bid on the hand. Psych are deliberate distortions (as well as gross ones) and it can't be a deliberate distortion unless the player thinks it is a distortion. > but this has no relevance to the question whether it should > be disclosed as implicitly (and now explicitly) a feature of > his methods. It is irrelevant, for disclosure purposes, whether this is a feature of his methods (although lacking a means for partner to enquire it probably isn't). It is disclosable as relevant partnership experience (L75C) even if it is *not* part of the methods. Whether the habit should be dsclosed on the CC or merely in answer to questions is dependent on what requirements the SO has set under L40e1. The distinction between "method" and "style" is vital when it comes to the authority of the SO to regulate directly (in terms of what is allowed) but has nothing to do with disclosure. Tim From henk at ripe.net Tue Aug 9 15:38:22 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue Aug 9 15:40:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Postings from non-subscribers to blml@rtflb.org. Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050809152354.02ce7980@localhost> Hi all, Just a reminder. With the new spam filters, the "From:" address in your mail _MUST_ be _EXACTLY_ the same as the address that you used to subscribe to the list, in order for the mail to go through automatically. All other mail must be approved by hand. The old spam filters were much less restrictive in this respect. Anything somehow resembling your mail address was accepted automatically. Some of you used this "feature" by subscribing once, then posting from several addresses (for example, subscribe as john@foo.com, post as john@bar.com). These postings used to go through automatically. They don't anymore. As a poster, you'll notice this by (a) having to wait for a few hours before your posting appears, or (b) receiving messages saying "your posting has been queued for moderator approval. If you see this, please resubscribe with your current address. If this causes a problem on your end, contact me offline. 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 hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 16:17:01 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 16:17:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> Anne Jones wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:53 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> >>> It always amazes me that people think 3D "shows" something has >>> happened, like a wheel falling off. I have assumed 3D means the >>> above, with or without agreement, all my career. What else? >>> Undiscussed bids are surely natural, no bridge player is going to >>> introduce six small, nor is a bridge player going to mention six solid. >>> >>> It is a losing policy at this game to assume a wheel has fallen off >>> because partner makes an "impossible" bid. When your part passes his >>> eight solid spades, and later triumphantly introduces them and I >>> doubled, he will say some very nasty words to you when you pull to >>> some six-card suit or other, changing +790 into -300 for no better >>> reason than "a wheel must have come off". >>> >>> Aha, you say, but a wheel often has come off. Yes, and it has come >>> off before, that's how pairs get to understand these positions. >>> Success in such positions often [or greater] indicates a CPU. >>> >> >> Exactly David, except that it is not a (C)PU, when the player says to >> the table, apparently my partner thinks we are playing transfers. >> >> A player knows which parts of the system his partner (and he himself) >> is likely to forget, and this is AI. >> > It is AI for the opps Herman but I don't believe it is AI for the > partnership. Your own system is UI to you? The particular knowledge of you partner is UI to you? Certainly not - or bridge would become unplayable. And of course this knowledge must be revealed to opponents, but that makes it PU, not CPU. All PU must by force be AI or bridge is no longer the game it is. > Otherwise why do we penalise a pair for fielding a psyche in a WBF event > when the propensity to psyche is on the CC. > What WBF is that - the Welsh Bridge Federation. Fielding a psyche is not an offence in any World BF that I know of. Only the EBU have created this to be an offence. > It isn't any longer a CPU but such disclosure doesn't absolve the > partnership > from acting according to their system. > I don't see why not. If I have AI that suggests my partner has forgotten the system, such as completing a transfer that wasn't one, then I can bid whatever I like. >> > >> I am quite certain that such awakening will also happen when using >> screens, and I consider that there is always some AI in addition to >> the UI. It is up to the Director to find out whether or not the AI is >> sufficiently strong, but arguments such as yours that you always trust >> your partner are only valid in your partnership and for those >> sequences that you feel confident enough about. >> > > AI in this case must come from the opps - and it may indeed happen. > Questions like "Is that supposed to be a transfer" etc. > No Anne, when I bid something that I believe to be a sign-off, and my partner completes a "transfer", I don't need the alert to realize what has happened. I may have UI about that as well, but it's up to the TD to determine how much AI I have as well. If the TD determines that I have enough AI to counter the UI, then he will allow me to bid on. Your insistence that such AI cannot exist, or that it can never be enough, shows that you have an incomplete grasp of the duties of the TD. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 9 09:32:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 9 16:18:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <007a01c59c59$9401de60$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French rhetorical question: >Is Zia supposed to pre-warn opponents about the many non- >standard actions he takes? Richard Hills: Yes. But of course Zia's opponents are already pre-warned about Zia's style, due to extensive publicity in newspaper columns and books. Marvin French rhetorical answer: >No, because Michael Rosenberg will not base his actions >on Zia's propensities absent overwhelming AI that tells >him to do so. If Zia doubles a splinter, supposedly >showing strength but lacking that strength, Michael will >lead the suit unless no one would do so. Richard Hills: Incorrect. Laws 40B and 75 still require disclosure of the Rosenberg-Zia implicit agreement. WBF LC minutes 30th August 2000: >>If psyches in a partnership are frequent enough for a >>player to be aware that his partner might have psyched >>in a particular position then there is an agreement. >> >>**It does not matter whether the player uses that >>agreement.** >> >>It is then dealt with as any other agreement as far as >>disclosure is concerned. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 9 16:28:52 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Aug 9 16:31:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 Aug 2005, at 13:52, Tim West-Meads wrote: > It's just that some us idiots are, apparently, easily confused - we > look > at hand like 753,AKQ,5432,A43 and we *believe* that we hold a good > Heart > suit. We apply our, albeit deluded, judgement and open 1H instead of > 1D > because hearts looks more like a 4 card suit than does diamonds. And then you get surprised when not only does your "four-card" heart suit fail to deliver four tricks despite you having all the top ones, but your side suit in diamonds also fails to deliver any tricks because partner's fit with them means they get ruffed, by those opponents who mysteriously seem to have too many trumps. I'm just a simple soul who believes in bidding my hand, but I'm happy for you to use your superior judgment, even though it's all far too clever for me to understand. I'm not going to find it easy as a TD though, to accept your assertion that you didn't psych in doing so. Fortunately for you, I'm not someone who thinks there's necessarily anything wrong with psyching. I also find it interesting how many people seem to have to bolster Marv's original "three-card major" to make it AKQ with a side ace, in order to give weight to their argument. I wonder at what point of strength a three-card major stops being a description and starts to become a distortion? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 9 16:33:44 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Aug 9 16:36:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8c63749a66cd7a6e6968491f583d8b82@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 Aug 2005, at 13:52, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >> On 8 Aug 2005, at 10:20, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>> Partner has just shown a hand that thinks 3N will make if I have >>> fitting >>> cards in diamonds and 2N may go off if I do not. Something like >>> Kx,Ax,Jxxxxx,Axx perhaps. My hand is suitable so I bid 3N. >>> >>> This is a rare sequence but hardly "impossible". >> >> It's impossible for players who don't bid such hands that way. > > Which helps how? It helps in listening to those of you who are imposing particular idiosyncratic bidding methods on to players we don't know. > It seems extremely unlikely that one knows partner well > enough to know he doesn't bid that way but not well enough to know > that he > will take 2N as a transfer. The bid has a perfectly logical meaning in > standard Acol and, in possession of UI, one is obliged to treat it as > such. "Standard" Acol? Hah! It's amusing that even those of you who produce this argument don't all produce the same "standard" meaning. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 9 09:17:24 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 9 16:50:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <007e01c59c59$eb0f5480$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ There are aspects of the above that Marvin should >>>reconsider: >>> 1. "partner never suspects I have just three" >>> The test is not whether partner does suspect at >>>the instant but whether the situation arises frequently >>>enough or is repeatedly experienced enough to create a >>>heightened awareness in partner that Marvin may have >>>only a three card suit. Marvin French: >>It does not, haven't I made that clear??? WBF Code of Practice: >.....it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that >it cannot have faded from mind..... Richard Hills: Marv's argument is that Alice is such an obtuse partner that Marv's psyches and semi-psyches always fade from her mind before the next one is perpetrated. I am not sure whether Marv's loophole is valid. A literal parsing of the above words of the Code of Practice is that Alice's *actual* memory is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether a TD or AC *considered* that Alice has a fresh and not faded memory. Perhaps the 2007 Laws should have a "could have remembered" clause for Law 75B implicit agreements, following the precedent set by the "could have known" clause for Law 72B1 beneficial irregularities? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 9 16:52:43 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Aug 9 16:55:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 Aug 2005, at 13:52, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Gordon wrote: > >>> but if that is the way bridge is played in the UK, I'll rule that way >>> for a pair in the UK. >> >> I've never seen such a sequence outside of a beginner's class. > > Just out of interest Gordon how much "non-transfer" bridge *do* you see > outside of beginner's classes? This sequence (INT-2NT) is quite frequently played as natural, even by those who play transfer bids. > I haven't seen the sequence more than a > few times myself despite playing in a non-transfer environment but > when it > has occurred it has always been a non-forcing re-invite looking for a > diamond fit. Like DWS it has never occurred to me to use it (or > respond > to it) in any other way (although he and I may disagree as whether > J9xxxx > constitutes a description of "fair"). Yet your regular partner seems to have another interpretation, albeit one also based on opener having a long diamond suit. All this seems a long way from the "standard" you asserted in another post. From blml at blakjak.com Tue Aug 9 17:46:18 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 17:50:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: References: <5+bh9LIgWA+CFwGI@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote > > > > >David Stevenson: > >[snip] > >>Mind reading as you put it - it is not mind >>reading at all, of course, but a judgement on >>available evidence, but it sounds so much more as >>though it is wrong to call it mind reading - is >>merely one of the judgements that are made. >> >>If we delete all the mind reading rules then we do >>one of two things. >> >>[1] Allow what is currently perceived as cheating, >> >>or >> >>[2] Treat innocent people as though they are cheats. >> >>Both of these solutions are ***far worse*** than >>allowing judgement decisions, including "mind >>reading". > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, David's argument is unsupported by >history. In the bad old days, before the phrase >"could have known" was inserted into Law 72B1, TDs >had to "allow what is currently perceived as >cheating" since ruling against cheats required the >TD to determine intent to cheat ("mind reading"). > >This meant that any adverse ruling would cause a TD >to be sued for defamation. Ergo, Alcatraz Coups and >other subtle cheating strategies were unpunished. > >Law 72B1, as currently written with the "could have >known" phrase, precludes any need for a TD to >determine intent to cheat ("mind reading") > >Both solutions "far worse"? In my opinion David is >putting forward a straw man argument by using emotive >wording for option [2]. > >I argue is false to imply that this "could have >known" addition to Law 72B1 "treats innocent people >as though they are cheats" when innocent people get >an adverse score adjustment after they inadvertently >perpetrate an Alcatraz Coup . > >Rather, the "could have known" phrase mean that >option [2] should be worded as: > >[2] Treat both a lucky innocent and also a deliberate > cheat as having perpetrated a technical error, > with an automatic technical score adjustment. > >This is ***far better*** than "mind reading", as it >both prevents cheating and also prevents costly >defamation actions. > >What's the problem? In the tiny minority of cases to which you refer, L72B1 is fine, and we need nothing better. In the 99% of other cases where we currently judge people's actions it would be worse. I am sorry, but examples are never a particularly good method of proving things at bridge, whether how to bid, how to rule, or what the rules are. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Aug 9 17:54:51 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 17:58:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Aug 7, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> Over here, we're not embarrassed to call a psych a psych - because >>we don't regard it as a bad thing, we don't need to pretend we're not >>doing it when we are. > >On what grounds do you consider opening 1S with S AKQ and 14 HCP, when >playing 4 card majors, a psych? > >Just curious. The problem is, Ed, that some came up with a "rule" that rogues love that if you are fewer than two points or fewer than one card out it is not a psyche [sic]. Now when anyone is defending this absurd rule they ***of course*** give a clever example. The people who follow this rule would say that, playing four card majors, it is not a psyche to open 1H on QJT65 432 AK3 AK because it is only one card out. It's ridiculous. But if *ever* anyone challenges the rule, they always quote AKQ QJ3 5432 KQ2 in its defence as a 1S opening. The point is that a psyche is a gross distortion. Being a card out ***often*** is a gross distortion, but neither never nor always. It is a silly rule because it ignores other matters, like, opening your longest suit, which you probably have not when you open a three-card suit. So, when Marv, who loves word games, says he bid a three card major, either it was a psyche, or it wasn't: but saying it *was* a psyche because it was a three-card major, or saying it *was not* a psyche because it was a three-card major and that's only one card out, are both wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Aug 9 17:56:54 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 18:00:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: <003d01c59bfa$f04f3820$29a787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote >Absolutely not. Players exercise judgement as to selecting the best bid >to describe their hands and a bid should never be ruled a psych if the >player believes it to be the best descriptive bid on the hand. Psych are >deliberate distortions (as well as gross ones) and it can't be a >deliberate distortion unless the player thinks it is a distortion. Interesting. If you deliberately make a bid that you know others will believe to be a distortion, is it a psyche? If you deliberately make a bid that you know your partner will believe to be a distortion, is it a psyche? -- 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 Aug 9 18:00:26 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 18:04:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> Message-ID: HermY De Wael wrote >I am quite certain that such awakening will also happen when using >screens, and I consider that there is always some AI in addition to the >UI. It is up to the Director to find out whether or not the AI is >sufficiently strong, but arguments such as yours that you always trust >your partner are only valid in your partnership and for those sequences >that you feel confident enough about. The latter, yes, but not the former. If partner bids 1N, I bid 2N natural, and he bids 3D, i don't think "I wonder if he thinks 2N is a transfer" even if i have never played with him before. I think either he has diamonds or he is an idiot, and I am not going to treat him as an idiot. It is nothing to do with partnership that strange bids are natural: that's the only way to play bridge in my view. -- 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 Aug 9 18:02:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 18:06:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> Message-ID: HermY De Wael wrote >What WBF is that - the Welsh Bridge Federation. >Fielding a psyche is not an offence in any World BF that I know of. >Only the EBU have created this to be an offence. Fielding a psyche is a breach of L40. Even in the WBF I think you will find that players are required to follow L40. The difference in the EBU is how we deal with it, not whether it is illegal. -- 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 Aug 9 18:06:45 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 9 18:10:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4nGxrcYVSN+CFwXQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> HermY De Wael wrote >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is sufficient >>>AI present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. >> Hm. What law allows this? >> > >Common sense and practice. >I bid 2H transfer to spades. >My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >This is UI. >Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and >that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? This is a completely naive way of looking at the Law. When a player has UI he may not choose amongst LAs etc etc etc. Any AI he has affects what are LAs, of course, but there is no Law [certainly not one labelled "Common sense and practice" which does not appear in my Law book] that says L16 applies except when we have AI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 9 21:52:17 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Aug 9 21:49:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050809154207.02e76070@pop.starpower.net> At 12:00 PM 8/9/05, David wrote: >HermY De Wael wrote >>I am quite certain that such awakening will also happen when using >>screens, and I consider that there is always some AI in addition to >>the UI. It is up to the Director to find out whether or not the AI is >>sufficiently strong, but arguments such as yours that you always >>trust your partner are only valid in your partnership and for those >>sequences that you feel confident enough about. > > The latter, yes, but not the former. If partner bids 1N, I bid 2N > natural, and he bids 3D, i don't think "I wonder if he thinks 2N is a > transfer" even if i have never played with him before. I think > either he has diamonds or he is an idiot, and I am not going to treat > him as an idiot. > > It is nothing to do with partnership that strange bids are natural: > that's the only way to play bridge in my view. That overlooks the third possibility: that you are the idiot, having agreed to play 2NT as a transfer but having forgotten and bid 2NT thinking it is natural. But then when partner bids 3D, you remember that you had agreed transfers. If you are behind a screen, and unaware of partner's alert, you have no UI, and can act on the AI you now have by virtue of having remembered your agreement. But if you heard partner's alert, your knowledge is automatically treated as UI conveyed by the alert. All Herman is saying is that if the TD is convinced that you would have taken the same action behind a screen ("the AI is sufficiently strong"), with no UI, he should not adjust your result on the grounds that you used the UI you actually had. That may not be workable in practice, but is certainly sound in theory. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 21:51:55 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 21:52:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42F9095B.2050102@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > HermY De Wael wrote > >> What WBF is that - the Welsh Bridge Federation. >> Fielding a psyche is not an offence in any World BF that I know of. >> Only the EBU have created this to be an offence. > > > Fielding a psyche is a breach of L40. Even in the WBF I think you > will find that players are required to follow L40. > Yes David. Fielding a psyche _can_ be proof of some more understanding than is being revealed. I'll even grant you that is is proof, given the definition you use on "fielding". But the EBU are then guilty of providing two different rulings on infractions of the same law. On the one hand you have the "fielded psyche". You say to the table that the infracting pair are guilty of a breach of law 40, which is called "partnership understandings". For that reason, their bidding is called invalid and an artificial score is given. On the other hand you have the "forgotten alert". You say to the table that the infracting pair are guilty of a breach of law 40, which is called "partnership understandings". For that reason, their opponent's bidding is checked and an adjusted score is given. Really David, your insistence that the EBU have gotten this one right is wearing thin. > The difference in the EBU is how we deal with it, not whether it is > illegal. > Exactly. Now from where did we come into this thread? -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 21:56:01 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 21:56:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42F90A51.40709@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > HermY De Wael wrote > >> I am quite certain that such awakening will also happen when using >> screens, and I consider that there is always some AI in addition to >> the UI. It is up to the Director to find out whether or not the AI is >> sufficiently strong, but arguments such as yours that you always trust >> your partner are only valid in your partnership and for those >> sequences that you feel confident enough about. > > > The latter, yes, but not the former. If partner bids 1N, I bid 2N > natural, and he bids 3D, i don't think "I wonder if he thinks 2N is a > transfer" even if i have never played with him before. I think either > he has diamonds or he is an idiot, and I am not going to treat him as an > idiot. > > It is nothing to do with partnership that strange bids are natural: > that's the only way to play bridge in my view. > Well David, that's not the way my partners play bridge. You seem to have nothing but partners with whom every possible sequence has been pre-arranged, and in which you are completely certain about every single sequence. I play in far less certain partnerships than that. If I bid 2NT over 1NT, already I am wondering "did we agree transfers or not?". And when partner bids 3Di (or even 3Cl - a positive response) my thought is "apparently we do" not "partner must have started with 6 diamonds". And that thought is automatic, and does not need confirmation by alerting. Now we may not be able to convince you of the truth of this matter, but if we are not, then you may well falling short in your ability to read our minds, something which you so proudly state to be one of your abilities. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Tue Aug 9 21:59:44 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 9 22:00:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <4nGxrcYVSN+CFwXQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <4nGxrcYVSN+CFwXQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <42F90B30.1050207@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > HermY De Wael wrote > >> Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>> On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is sufficient >>>> AI present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. >>> >>> Hm. What law allows this? >>> >> >> Common sense and practice. >> I bid 2H transfer to spades. >> My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >> This is UI. >> Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and >> that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? > > > This is a completely naive way of looking at the Law. > > When a player has UI he may not choose amongst LAs etc etc etc. Any > AI he has affects what are LAs, of course, but there is no Law > [certainly not one labelled "Common sense and practice" which does not > appear in my Law book] that says L16 applies except when we have AI. > So next time you are directing in a tournament that I am playing in, I'll call you on the following auction: 1NT - pass - 2He (alerted) - pass 2Sp - pass - pass - pass and ask that you have third hand's pass changed to 4Sp because he has received illegal information from his partner (the alert) which meant he could deduce 2Sp was a bid not showing a spade fit. Of course UI is rendered AI if there is sufficient legal information to go with it! This is such a basic fact that you don't even consider it. I don't know how you get out from applying L16 however, since the alert is always UI, and nothing in the laws is there to render it AI. Except the common sense I am referring to above, of course. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 10 01:17:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 10 01:19:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F8615B.50503@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of >my own system) and that the sum of both means that >I am not restricted by the UI? Richard Hills: Knowledge of your own system is *not* AI if you have temporarily forgotten your own system, but are reminded by partner's alert. Footnote to Law 40E2: >>A player is not entitled, during the auction and >>play periods, to any aids to his memory, >>calculation or technique. However, sponsoring >>organisations may designate unusual methods and >>allow written defences against opponents' unusual >>methods to be referred to at the table. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 10 01:43:46 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 10 01:45:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: [snip] >However I feel the AWMW to be very unfair. The >appellant argued that the auction should not "wake >up" partner. The AC agreed with *that* assertion >even though they then ruled that 3N would be bid >anyway. Richard Hills: (1) Australia does not use Appeal Without Merit Warnings; rather contestants who launch meritless appeals receive victory point fines. (2) The AC and the appellant were in agreement that an alert was UI; the appellant (somewhat of a student of the Laws) agreed with the AC that the appeal hinged on whether or not a Pass was a logical alternative. (3) The appellant agreed that the South hand was a maximum raise to 2NT, and if he had held the South hand he would have raised immediately to 3NT, rather than inviting. The appellant did not give any answer to the proposition that North apparently holding five diamonds improved the value of South's already-maximum invite, given that South held KT8 in diamonds. (4) The appellant asserted that an expert he polled passed 3D. This is consistent with several experts on blml (such as Adam Wildavsky) passing 3D. So, it is possible that the 1 vp fine was very unfair. On the other hand, the actual South player was a mediocre player, not an expert. All the mediocre players on blml (such as myself) believe that passing 3D is not a logical alternative. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 10 02:36:37 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 10 02:38:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>[2] Treat both a lucky innocent and also a deliberate >> cheat as having perpetrated a technical error, >> with an automatic technical score adjustment. >> >>This is ***far better*** than "mind reading", as it >>both prevents cheating and also prevents costly >>defamation actions. >> >>What's the problem? David Stevenson: >In the tiny minority of cases to which you refer, >L72B1 is fine, and we need nothing better. > >In the 99% of other cases where we currently judge >people's actions it would be worse. > >I am sorry, but examples are never a particularly >good method of proving things at bridge, whether how >to bid, how to rule, or what the rules are. Richard Hills: Law 16 UI rulings are *not* a mere 1% of TD rulings. The above wording of option [2] has been used for thirty years as the philosophical basis for the Kaplan-inspired design of Law 16. In the 1950s, before Kaplan, the former version of Law 16 required TDs to judge a player's intent. TDs were reluctant to "mind read" a player as a Law 16 cheat. Ergo, that "Old Black Magic" was rife in the 1950s. Now that Law 16 infractions are technical errors, innocent self-deceivers and deliberate cheats get the same automatic technical score adjustment. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 10 03:28:29 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Aug 10 03:30:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <42F90A51.40709@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001601c59d4a$d10f2aa0$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> [HermY De Wael] > If I bid 2NT over 1NT, already I am > wondering "did we agree transfers > or not?". And when partner bids 3Di > (or even 3Cl - a positive response) > my thought is "apparently we do" not > "partner must have started with 6 > diamonds". And that thought is > automatic, and does not need > confirmation by alerting. [nige1] Herman and Marvin's partnership deductions about suspect bids depend on their own and partnership history. (For example that with their mates they play four suit transfers, say). These inferences seem more or less logical in their partnerships but they are not necessarily obvious to opponents. When one partner smells a rat about a peculiar bid by partner, he often does not need to take any abnormal action to "field the psyche/deviation". Nevertheless, opponents are entitled to the shared knowledge. A particular partnership's rapport is hardly ever "General Knowledge and Experience" however much the partners pretend it is. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 10 03:35:37 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Aug 10 03:37:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: Message-ID: <002801c59d4b$cfa17460$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > All the mediocre players on blml (such > as myself) believe that passing 3D is > not a logical alternative. [nige1] A useful convention in this context is that undiscussed calls are forcing. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 10 03:56:39 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Aug 10 03:58:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American References: Message-ID: <003001c59d4e$bfe39460$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > Now that Law 16 infractions are technical > errors, innocent self-deceivers and > deliberate cheats get the same automatic > technical score adjustment. What's the > problem? [nige1] Mad Dog states this principle in a way I can understand (I hope I'm not misrepresenting him): When a director considers a likely infraction he should ask himself "Might a cheat deliberately do that". If the answer is "Yes", he should probably rule against the alleged offender, even a stranger who may be pure as the driven snow. It is important to make clear, however, that the ruling is independent of the person involved and carries no cheating implication. From adam at irvine.com Tue Aug 9 17:51:36 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Aug 10 04:19:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:53:46 +0200." <002701c59cd0$9e223620$fc1a1d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <200508091551.IAA16134@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > >I strongly disagree. I believe 3D suggests going to 3NT if pd has diamond > >help to fill up the five or six card suit, and here is help = 3NT. I can > >see no other reason to bid 3D. > > I can. In principle in the part-score zone > suit partials should be preferred over NT > partials. Partner might hold > > A52 > K74 > KT8 > QT75 > > xx > Qxx > AQJxx > Kxx > > 3D is far, far superior to 2NT. I think there's about two too many "far"'s in your assertion. Besides the possibility that you might not even get a spade lead, there's also the possibility that spades are 4-4 (in which case I think 2NT is a very likely make but you still need to find a ninth trick in 3D), or that spades are 5-3 and the defender with the long spades does not hold either missing ace, which gives you good chances in 2NT. Anyway, although I'm not a weak notrumper (so maybe my judgment is off), I can't imagine pulling 2NT to 3D with this opening hand; and I would not be unhappy to see the bidding go 1NT-3NT on these cards. Actually, I'd suspect that in a good American field (with strong notrumps more popular), most of the field would be in 3NT holding these hands. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Tue Aug 9 01:03:31 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Aug 10 04:19:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:55:30 +0200." <005c01c59c6c$486e8210$dc0e1d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <200508082303.QAA10280@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > > Imps > > Dlr: North > > Vul: East-West > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > > Pass 3D Pass ? > > > > (1) 12-14 > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > A52 > > K74 > > KT8 > > QT75 > > > > What call do you make? > > Pass > > > What other calls do you consider making? > > > > None. 3D declines the invitation > and says partner prefers a diamond > partial to 2NT. Don't see any problem here. How many hands are there for opener, consistent with opener's bidding, that make nine tricks in diamonds and only eight in notrump? Given your flat distribution and stoppers in the other three suits, not to mention the likelihood that the diamond suit is running, it seems that there can't be many such hands. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Tue Aug 9 00:02:23 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Aug 10 04:19:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:37:09 +0200." <1bdef1le07nupqamrljj7fh749f8e5pl74@mail.stofanet.dk> Message-ID: <200508082202.PAA09819@mailhub.irvine.com> Bertel wrote: > Jean Galtier skrev: > > >>The bidding has gone: > > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>--- 1NT(1) Pass 2NT > >>Pass 3D Pass ? > > >>(1) 12-14 > > >>You, South, hold: > > >>A52 > >>K74 > >>KT8 > >>QT75 > > >>What call do you make? > > >I would have bid 3NT at my first turn. > > So would I. Count me in on this too. An ace, a couple kings, and a couple tens make this worth more than 12 in my estimation, so 3NT has to have good play even opposite a 12-count. Especially with my regular partner playing the dummy. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 10 04:45:09 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 10 04:47:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F8BADD.2060601@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Your own system is UI to you? > >Certainly not - or bridge would become unplayable. Richard Hills: Which Law says that bridge must be playable? I have reached lots of ridiculous contracts after applying Law 73C when pard's alert or explanation has reminded me of my (temporarily forgotten) agreed methods. In my opinion, the footnote to Law 40E2 requires me to permanently forget the temporarily forgotten agreed method for the duration of the deal if my memory was jogged by pard's alert or explanation. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 19:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 10 09:12:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > On 9 Aug 2005, at 13:52, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Gordon wrote: > > > >>> but if that is the way bridge is played in the UK, I'll rule that > > way > >>> for a pair in the UK. > >> > >> I've never seen such a sequence outside of a beginner's class. > > > > Just out of interest Gordon how much "non-transfer" bridge *do* you > > see > > outside of beginner's classes? > > This sequence (INT-2NT) is quite frequently played as natural, even by > those who play transfer bids. But by very few players who know what any sequence means - at least in my experience. > Yet your regular partner seems to have another interpretation, albeit > one also based on opener having a long diamond suit. So he's clueless. He would be forgiven at the Wood only if diamonds were Ax onside (bunch of result merchants). > All this seems a long way from the "standard" you asserted in another > post. That not everybody knows the standard meaning is no great surprise - there are plenty of Acol sequences where that seems to be the case. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 19:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 10 09:12:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > And then you get surprised when not only does your "four-card" heart > suit fail to deliver four tricks despite you having all the top ones, > but your side suit in diamonds also fails to deliver any tricks because > partner's fit with them means they get ruffed, by those opponents who > mysteriously seem to have too many trumps. So it happens - unlucky to find partner with a hand suitable for a 3-card raise to 2H rather than 1S/1N/2C/2D all of which I would happily pass. The next few times I'll get a safe lead against opps NT contract and be able to find a switch - or play in a good 43 fit when pard raises, or.. There are plenty of possible upsides, just as there are possible downsides with opening 1D. > I also find it interesting how many people seem to have to bolster > Marv's original "three-card major" to make it AKQ with a side ace, in > order to give weight to their argument. I wonder at what point of > strength a three-card major stops being a description and starts to > become a distortion? That's a matter for personal judgement. Like you I see nothing wrong with psyching so if I bid a 3 card major I will simply tell you whether it was an attempt to mislead (psych) or describe. Psych's are personal things - somebody else might open 1H on the same hand and consider it a psych, I don't have a problem with that either. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 9 19:16:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 10 09:12:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DWS wrote: > > The difference in the EBU is how we deal with it, not whether it is > illegal. IIRC correctly "fielding a psych" is not illegal in the EBU either. Fielding may provide evidence that a pair is playing an illegal system but in such cases it is the psych which is illegal (and penalised) not the field. Indeed the psych would be just as illegal were it not fielded but considered part of an illegal system - albeit one might lack any evidence in the latter case. Tim From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 10 09:19:27 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 10 09:19:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42F9AA7F.2050707@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > > >>Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of >>my own system) and that the sum of both means that >>I am not restricted by the UI? > > > Richard Hills: > > Knowledge of your own system is *not* AI if you > have temporarily forgotten your own system, but are > reminded by partner's alert. > That one is true - but I was talking more in general. When I do know my system, partner's alert is _still_ UI, so we do need some AI or every single auction turns into a L16 case. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 10 09:30:10 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 10 09:30:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42F9AD02.1020302@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>Your own system is UI to you? >> >>Certainly not - or bridge would become unplayable. > > > Richard Hills: > > Which Law says that bridge must be playable? > > I have reached lots of ridiculous contracts after > applying Law 73C when pard's alert or explanation > has reminded me of my (temporarily forgotten) > agreed methods. > Very true. But you are missing my point. Alerts are UI. When the players do know their system, that system is AI to them. The AI counters the UI and there are no L16 restrictions. When the players do not know their system, that AI is not available to them. However, there might be other information available that is AI. A bid of 3Di is AI. As a response to 2NT, the conclusion that partner thought it was transfer is very easy to make, and it is AI. This AI _may_ be enough to also counter the UI. My examples were there to show that AI counters UI, and that the TD has the power to rule that in a particular situation the AI is strong enough so that he need not rule L16. > In my opinion, the footnote to Law 40E2 requires > me to permanently forget the temporarily forgotten > agreed method for the duration of the deal if my > memory was jogged by pard's alert or explanation. > In my opinion, this is not so permanent. I am entitled to be awakened by the auction. This is especially true if I am insecure in the first place. If my partner overcalls 1NT and I am unsure whether or not we are still playing transfers, and he then responds 2Sp over my 2He, I think I have enough AI to conclude that he thought my 2He _was_ a transfer. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 10 11:48:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 10 11:51:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F9AD02.1020302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c59d90$b6dc0090$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael ............. > In my opinion, this is not so permanent. I am entitled to be awakened > by the auction. > This is especially true if I am insecure in the first place. > > If my partner overcalls 1NT and I am unsure whether or not we are > still playing transfers, and he then responds 2Sp over my 2He, I think > I have enough AI to conclude that he thought my 2He _was_ a transfer. Alerts are not part of the auction! You are not permitted to base your subsequent calls on the fact that partner alerted or did not alert! So if you are unsure whether or not you are still playing transfers . . . . . Regards Sven From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 10 12:11:02 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 10 12:11:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000201c59d90$b6dc0090$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c59d90$b6dc0090$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42F9D2B6.7020509@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > > ............. > >>In my opinion, this is not so permanent. I am entitled to be awakened >>by the auction. >>This is especially true if I am insecure in the first place. >> >>If my partner overcalls 1NT and I am unsure whether or not we are >>still playing transfers, and he then responds 2Sp over my 2He, I think >>I have enough AI to conclude that he thought my 2He _was_ a transfer. > > > Alerts are not part of the auction! > Tell me something I don't know. > You are not permitted to base your subsequent calls on the fact that partner > alerted or did not alert! > My point is that you are permitted to base your calls on the fact that partner made a call which is consistent with a particular meaning of you previous call. Really Sven, if all you are going to do is restate the obvious, better stay out of a discussion ... This is what you get when people start reading only the last message of a thread; Don't do it. > So if you are unsure whether or not you are still playing transfers . . . . > . Yes, precisely if you are unsure - the fact that he completes the transfer makes you sure!!!! Again, I'm not saying it is always enough - but you seem to be saying that it can never be enough - and that is just plain wrong !!!! -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 10 12:41:37 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Aug 10 12:44:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 Aug 2005, at 18:01, Tim West-Meads wrote: > So it happens - unlucky to find partner with a hand suitable for a > 3-card > raise to 2H rather than 1S/1N/2C/2D all of which I would happily pass. You play changes of suit as non-forcing? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 10 12:44:35 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Aug 10 12:47:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b144c3e165c52a7a9dca3acf89c7fe@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 9 Aug 2005, at 18:01, Tim West-Meads wrote: > That not everybody knows the standard meaning is no great surprise - > there > are plenty of Acol sequences where that seems to be the case. I'd be surprised if you can find a *single* Acol text in which these sorts of sequences are ascribed the meaning you present. Or is "standard meaning" defined as "what Tim wants it to mean"? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 10 13:10:49 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 10 13:13:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F9D2B6.7020509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c59d9c$2a517e50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Sent: 10. august 2005 12:11 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > > > > ............. > > > >>In my opinion, this is not so permanent. I am entitled to be awakened > >>by the auction. > >>This is especially true if I am insecure in the first place. > >> > >>If my partner overcalls 1NT and I am unsure whether or not we are > >>still playing transfers, and he then responds 2Sp over my 2He, I think > >>I have enough AI to conclude that he thought my 2He _was_ a transfer. > > > > > > Alerts are not part of the auction! > > > > Tell me something I don't know. > > > You are not permitted to base your subsequent calls on the fact that > partner > > alerted or did not alert! > > > > My point is that you are permitted to base your calls on the fact that > partner made a call which is consistent with a particular meaning of > you previous call. > > Really Sven, if all you are going to do is restate the obvious, better > stay out of a discussion ... > > This is what you get when people start reading only the last message > of a thread; Don't do it. > > > So if you are unsure whether or not you are still playing transfers . . > . . > > . > > Yes, precisely if you are unsure - the fact that he completes the > transfer makes you sure!!!! > > Again, I'm not saying it is always enough - but you seem to be saying > that it can never be enough - and that is just plain wrong !!!! So in your system the auction: 1NT - 2H - 2S - does not exist unless you use transfers? Sven PS. I did read your entire posting, and it did not appear obvious to me from what you wrote that you knew alerts are not part of the auction. It seemed as if the alert was the fact assuring you that partner understood your 2H bid to be transfer. From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Wed Aug 10 13:46:40 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed Aug 10 13:49:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6504@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:11 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > > > > ............. > > > >>In my opinion, this is not so permanent. I am entitled to > be awakened > >>by the auction. > >>This is especially true if I am insecure in the first place. > >> > >>If my partner overcalls 1NT and I am unsure whether or not we are > >>still playing transfers, and he then responds 2Sp over my > 2He, I think > >>I have enough AI to conclude that he thought my 2He _was_ a > transfer. > > > > > > Alerts are not part of the auction! > > > > Tell me something I don't know. > > > You are not permitted to base your subsequent calls on the > fact that > > partner alerted or did not alert! > > > > My point is that you are permitted to base your calls on the > fact that partner made a call which is consistent with a > particular meaning of you previous call. > > Really Sven, if all you are going to do is restate the > obvious, better stay out of a discussion ... > > This is what you get when people start reading only the last > message of a thread; Don't do it. > > > So if you are unsure whether or not you are still playing > transfers . . . . > > . > > Yes, precisely if you are unsure - the fact that he completes > the transfer makes you sure!!!! > > Again, I'm not saying it is always enough - but you seem to > be saying that it can never be enough - and that is just > plain wrong !!!! If you happen to live in an area where people don't open 1NT with six diamonds, and the 2NT is very commonly a transfer, then the fact that partner bids 3D is sufficient evidence of a misunderstanding. That would be the "sufficient AI" you are referring to: partner cannot have long diamonds (he wouldn't open 1NT with those), hence there must be something wrong. In Belgium and the Netherlands, the 3D bid after 2NT is so common as a diamond transfer, that the first thing I would think of is someone forgetting an agreement (either me or partner). In areas where the transfer is less common and people open 1NT with six diamonds regularly, this "AI" is not present. Now you would suspect partner to have diamonds rather than a compulsory completion of the transfer. That transfer may or may not be part of your system (which is AI), but either you or partner is temporarily playing a different system, and the fact that partner tells you that that is the case is UI. And if it is you who forgot the agreement, then the real agreement is temporarily UI to you, since you were playing a different agreement at that time. (Which, of course, does not mean that pass is now the suggested action, only that now must be considered whether bidding after this UI is still allowed. I leave that to the experts :) ) -- Martin Sinot From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 10 14:17:15 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 10 14:17:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000301c59d9c$2a517e50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c59d9c$2a517e50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42F9F04B.8030901@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Yes, precisely if you are unsure - the fact that he completes the >>transfer makes you sure!!!! >> >>Again, I'm not saying it is always enough - but you seem to be saying >>that it can never be enough - and that is just plain wrong !!!! > > > So in your system the auction: > > 1NT - 2H - > 2S - > > does not exist unless you use transfers? > No it does not. If I were to play in an environment where transfers are not yet fully systemic, then 2H is a sign-off. If I were uncertain whether my present partner played transfers or not, the 2S bid would show me 100% certain that partner thought 2H were transfer. I would not infer a six-card spade suit, which in that environment would not be opened 1NT anyway. It is always difficult to construct cases that are globally workable, but surely you understand the environment this example would be in. > Sven > > PS. I did read your entire posting, and it did not appear obvious to me from > what you wrote that you knew alerts are not part of the auction. Give me a bit of credit, Sven! If even those things need to spelt out, I'm not sure we should be in the same mailing list! > It seemed > as if the alert was the fact assuring you that partner understood your 2H > bid to be transfer. > Of course not - my point is precisely that there are other pieces of information (AI) that show the same thing. If the TD determines that those pieces of information are sufficiently clear and unambiguous, he is no longer bound to rule UI. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 10 14:37:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 10 14:39:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F9F04B.8030901@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c59da8$371f9390$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Sent: 10. august 2005 14:17 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> > >>Yes, precisely if you are unsure - the fact that he completes the > >>transfer makes you sure!!!! > >> > >>Again, I'm not saying it is always enough - but you seem to be saying > >>that it can never be enough - and that is just plain wrong !!!! > > > > > > So in your system the auction: > > > > 1NT - 2H - > > 2S - > > > > does not exist unless you use transfers? > > > > No it does not. If I were to play in an environment where transfers > are not yet fully systemic, then 2H is a sign-off. If I were uncertain > whether my present partner played transfers or not, the 2S bid would > show me 100% certain that partner thought 2H were transfer. I would > not infer a six-card spade suit, which in that environment would not > be opened 1NT anyway. > > It is always difficult to construct cases that are globally workable, > but surely you understand the environment this example would be in. > > > Sven > > > > PS. I did read your entire posting, and it did not appear obvious to me > from > > what you wrote that you knew alerts are not part of the auction. > > Give me a bit of credit, Sven! If even those things need to spelt out, > I'm not sure we should be in the same mailing list! Yes, I was indeed a bit surprised. > > It seemed > > as if the alert was the fact assuring you that partner understood your > 2H > > bid to be transfer. > > > > Of course not - my point is precisely that there are other pieces of > information (AI) that show the same thing. If the TD determines that > those pieces of information are sufficiently clear and unambiguous, he > is no longer bound to rule UI. And we are completely in line! Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 10 15:34:08 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Aug 10 15:37:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 9 Aug 2005, at 18:01, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> So it happens - unlucky to find partner with a hand suitable for a >> 3-card >> raise to 2H rather than 1S/1N/2C/2D all of which I would happily pass. > >You play changes of suit as non-forcing? A 1H opener is by agreement with Tim, 4 cards. If Tim thinks the best systemic description of his hand, per system, is to open with 3 cards wtp? There's no agreement to do so, and it's general bridge knowledge that very occasionally one opens a 3 card suit. I wouldn't even bother to alert and explain our proclivities (he's never done it in the 3,000 or so hands we've played together, and it will come as no surprise to me when he does, it's part of judgement and style) - it's a total red herring. John > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Aug 10 15:40:23 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Aug 10 15:43:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <003001c59d4e$bfe39460$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <003001c59d4e$bfe39460$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article <003001c59d4e$bfe39460$1c9468d5@jeushtlj>, Guthrie writes >[Richard James Hills] >> Now that Law 16 infractions are technical >> errors, innocent self-deceivers and >> deliberate cheats get the same automatic >> technical score adjustment. What's the >> problem? > >[nige1] >Mad Dog states this principle in a way I can >understand (I hope I'm not misrepresenting him): Nope, when ruling these cases it is one of the questions I ask myself. It is not the only question by any means. John >When a director considers a likely infraction he >should ask himself "Might a cheat deliberately do >that". If the answer is "Yes", he should probably >rule against the alleged offender, even a stranger >who may be pure as the driven snow. It is >important to make clear, however, that the ruling >is independent of the person involved and carries >no cheating implication. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Aug 10 16:14:34 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed Aug 10 16:16:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05918000894808b39a5d4ed9fb86f949@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 10 Aug 2005, at 14:34, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article , > Gordon Rainsford writes >> >> On 9 Aug 2005, at 18:01, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>> So it happens - unlucky to find partner with a hand suitable for a >>> 3-card >>> raise to 2H rather than 1S/1N/2C/2D all of which I would happily >>> pass. >> >> You play changes of suit as non-forcing? > > A 1H opener is by agreement with Tim, 4 cards. If Tim thinks the best > systemic description of his hand, per system, is to open with 3 cards > wtp? There's no agreement to do so, and it's general bridge knowledge > that very occasionally one opens a 3 card suit. I wouldn't even bother > to alert and explain our proclivities (he's never done it in the 3,000 > or so hands we've played together, and it will come as no surprise to > me > when he does, it's part of judgement and style) - it's a total red > herring. John Were you replying to something other than my contribution above? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 10 18:17:40 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 10 18:20:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > To start by bidding a suit you don't hold, in preference to bidding > one you do hold, is a gross distortion of your hand description. We're getting into esoterica here, but... a distortion, yes, but a "gross" distortion? I disagree. For one thing, if opening a three card suit when your system says it should be four is a psych, then it seems to me so is opening a four card suit when your system says it should be five, or a five card suit when it should be six, and I don't buy either of the latter. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 10 18:24:48 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 10 18:27:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <7B89EBB8-3AF1-4FA3-80A3-A9758498F9FC@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:55 AM, HermY De Wael wrote: > Common sense and practice. So, no law. Okay. :-) > I bid 2H transfer to spades. > My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". > This is UI. > Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) > and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? I bid 2H natural. My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". This is UI. Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? How do you tell the difference? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 10 18:31:54 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 10 18:34:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2005, at 6:06 AM, Sinot Martin wrote: > So no need to fight over the suggested action over 3D; it all > depends on > where you are :) I agree with this, as far as it goes - but it doesn't answer the fundamental question in my mind - the law says that when you have UI you are not permitted to take certain actions if you have a logical alternative. It says nothing about AI mitigating this. So how can a TD rule based on some judgement that "the AI outweighs the UI"? If what Herman really means by this is that "in my judgement there is no logical alternative to the action taken", *that* I can understand - but that's not what he said. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 10 18:49:36 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 10 18:52:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2005, at 10:17 AM, HermY De Wael wrote: > Your insistence that such AI cannot exist, or that it can never be > enough, shows that you have an incomplete grasp of the duties of > the TD. This is not called for, Herman. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 10 19:09:02 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 10 19:11:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2005, at 11:54 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > The point is that a psyche is a gross distortion. Being a card > out ***often*** is a gross distortion, but neither never nor always. Hm. Not sure I agree with "often", but certainly I agree with the rest. > It is a silly rule because it ignores other matters, like, > opening your longest suit, which you probably have not when you > open a three-card suit. > > So, when Marv, who loves word games, says he bid a three card > major, either it was a psyche, or it wasn't: but saying it *was* a > psyche because it was a three-card major, or saying it *was not* a > psyche because it was a three-card major and that's only one card > out, are both wrong. You seem to be saying you have to look at the whole hand, not just the suit bid. With that I agree. But to say "that call is a psych" is to say the player made it deliberately, *knowing* that it was a "gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length". If he doesn't know it, well, he might be wrong, but that makes it a misbid, not a psych. So it seems to me, anyway. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 10 19:12:39 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 10 19:15:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050809154207.02e76070@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050809154207.02e76070@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <75B88130-EAF4-4687-AD0A-68A5A25C051A@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > That overlooks the third possibility: that you are the idiot, > having agreed to play 2NT as a transfer but having forgotten and > bid 2NT thinking it is natural. If forgetting an agreement makes one an idiot, then I submit that we are *all* idiots. From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 10 19:32:52 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 10 19:33:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <42FA3A44.4070702@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> To start by bidding a suit you don't hold, in preference to bidding >> one you do hold, is a gross distortion of your hand description. > > > We're getting into esoterica here, but... a distortion, yes, but a > "gross" distortion? I disagree. For one thing, if opening a three card > suit when your system says it should be four is a psych, then it seems > to me so is opening a four card suit when your system says it should be > five, or a five card suit when it should be six, and I don't buy either > of the latter. > There is a crucial difference there however. When you are opening a 2Sp (normally 6) on a five-card suit, you are still bidding your longest suit. But 4-cards are not only the longest, but also either the lowest, or some other combination of suits. Thus, in (dutch) acol, one opens 1Sp on a 4-card only when 4333. Opening 1H on a 4-card means there is no minor there, and so on. In that system, to open 1He on a 3-card not only belies the heart suit, but also the other ones. That is a far more gross distortion than opening 2Sp on XXXXX XXX XXX XX. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 10 19:34:15 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 10 19:34:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42FA3A97.3040806@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Aug 9, 2005, at 10:17 AM, HermY De Wael wrote: > >> Your insistence that such AI cannot exist, or that it can never be >> enough, shows that you have an incomplete grasp of the duties of the TD. > > > This is not called for, Herman. > Well, neither was the opinion that was voiced by Anne. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 10 19:37:36 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 10 19:38:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <7B89EBB8-3AF1-4FA3-80A3-A9758498F9FC@rochester.rr.com> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <7B89EBB8-3AF1-4FA3-80A3-A9758498F9FC@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <42FA3B60.6060308@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:55 AM, HermY De Wael wrote: > >> Common sense and practice. > > > So, no law. Okay. :-) > Well, indeed it is like that. Law 16 does not mention that if one perceives an expected alert, this is not UI. Yet UI is never ruled by any TD. If that's not "common sense and practice" then please tell me the law. >> I bid 2H transfer to spades. >> My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >> This is UI. >> Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) >> and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? > > > I bid 2H natural. > My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". > This is UI. > Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and > that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? > > How do you tell the difference? > Indeed, how do you? That's exactly why we are asking the question. Do you question my example? Don't you agree that I am not restricted by UI? How do you get around L16? Please tell me, how do you? Indeed, I ask you - what is the difference? -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 10 19:40:32 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 10 19:41:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <42FA3C10.8050002@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2005, at 6:06 AM, Sinot Martin wrote: > >> So no need to fight over the suggested action over 3D; it all depends on >> where you are :) > > > I agree with this, as far as it goes - but it doesn't answer the > fundamental question in my mind - the law says that when you have UI > you are not permitted to take certain actions if you have a logical > alternative. It says nothing about AI mitigating this. So how can a TD > rule based on some judgement that "the AI outweighs the UI"? If what > Herman really means by this is that "in my judgement there is no > logical alternative to the action taken", *that* I can understand - but > that's not what he said. > No it is indeed _not_ what I said. You make a call, and your partner describes it - correctly. This explanation is UI to you, is it not? If you think it is not, then please tell me where in L16 this is stated. I'm telling you - nowhere. So there must be some other way this UI is not to be ruled against. I'm telling you what that way is - by calling some other piece of information AI, and by stating that the AI overrides the UI. If you know of another way to rule sensibly; please tell me. I'm serious, tell me! -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 10 20:06:03 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Aug 10 20:10:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <05918000894808b39a5d4ed9fb86f949@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <05918000894808b39a5d4ed9fb86f949@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <8pAeWQCLIk+CFwHV@asimere.com> In article <05918000894808b39a5d4ed9fb86f949@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 10 Aug 2005, at 14:34, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> In article , >> Gordon Rainsford writes >>> >>> On 9 Aug 2005, at 18:01, Tim West-Meads wrote: >>> >>>> So it happens - unlucky to find partner with a hand suitable for a >>>> 3-card >>>> raise to 2H rather than 1S/1N/2C/2D all of which I would happily >>>> pass. >>> >>> You play changes of suit as non-forcing? >> >> A 1H opener is by agreement with Tim, 4 cards. If Tim thinks the best >> systemic description of his hand, per system, is to open with 3 cards >> wtp? There's no agreement to do so, and it's general bridge knowledge >> that very occasionally one opens a 3 card suit. I wouldn't even bother >> to alert and explain our proclivities (he's never done it in the 3,000 >> or so hands we've played together, and it will come as no surprise to >> me >> when he does, it's part of judgement and style) - it's a total red >> herring. John > >Were you replying to something other than my contribution above? nope. I'm suggesting that we have no agreements to open 3 card suits and are not therefore constrained to further actions. > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Aug 10 20:59:04 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 10 21:01:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FA3B60.6060308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c59ddd$943ff580$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Ed Reppert wrote: .................. > Well, indeed it is like that. Law 16 does not mention that if one > perceives an expected alert, this is not UI. Yet UI is never ruled by > any TD. If that's not "common sense and practice" then please tell me > the law. If we have strong indications ("evidence") to the fact that a player has forgotten his system and that he could have been (!) awoken by some action not part of the auction from his partner then we tend to apply Law 16 and rule use of UI in Norway. Such actions by the partner include alert (or missing alert), explanations to opponents and any kind of "extraordinary" mannerism. However we allow him to realize that he had indeed forgotten the system as long as his partner does not give any such UI. > > >> I bid 2H transfer to spades. > >> My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". > >> This is UI. > >> Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) > >> and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? > > > > > > I bid 2H natural. > > My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". > > This is UI. > > Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and > > that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? > > > > How do you tell the difference? > > > > Indeed, how do you? That's exactly why we are asking the question. > Do you question my example? Don't you agree that I am not restricted > by UI? How do you get around L16? Please tell me, how do you? > > Indeed, I ask you - what is the difference? You will in Norway always be considered restricted by the UI from partner's alert, missing alert, explanation or other mannerism. However when there is no case of a forgotten system then the action suggested by such UI will correspond exactly to the action "suggested" by your system and there exists no other logical alternative action. (If the UI reveals that partner has forgotten the system then you will of course just stick to your system and apply the corresponding logical alternatives). Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical alternative. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 10 14:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 10 21:35:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > > Tim West-Meads: > > [snip] > > >However I feel the AWMW to be very unfair. The > >appellant argued that the auction should not "wake > >up" partner. The AC agreed with *that* assertion > >even though they then ruled that 3N would be bid > >anyway. > > Richard Hills: > > (1) Australia does not use Appeal Without Merit > Warnings; rather contestants who launch meritless > appeals receive victory point fines. Whatever :) Warning/penalty who cares? > (2) The AC and the appellant were in agreement > that an alert was UI; the appellant (somewhat of a > student of the Laws) agreed with the AC that the > appeal hinged on whether or not a Pass was a > logical alternative. Previously you said that the TD ruling was based on the 3D call being a "wake-up" ("Martin Sinot's" reasoning were your actual words) rather than 3N not being an LA given a natural 3D bid. An appeal against the former reasoning is, IMO, absolutely cast iron. An appeal against pass being an LA comes much closer to deserving an AWMP. > (3) The appellant agreed that the South hand was a > maximum raise to 2NT, and if he had held the South > hand he would have raised immediately to 3NT, > rather than inviting. The appellant did not give > any answer to the proposition that North apparently > holding five diamonds improved the value of South's > already-maximum invite, given that South held KT8 > in diamonds. And why should he if the ruling was justified on the basis that it was "obvious a wheel had come off"? > (4) The appellant asserted that an expert he polled > passed 3D. This is consistent with several experts > on blml (such as Adam Wildavsky) passing 3D. So, > it is possible that the 1 vp fine was very unfair. Was he lying (not hard to check)? Assuming he was telling the truth this alone should be enough to avoid an AWMP - notwithstanding the fact that I have never seen the treatment espoused by Adam (and indeed my regular partner) ever used, Hxxxxx being the weakest I can recall. > On the other hand, the actual South player was a > mediocre player, not an expert. All the mediocre > players on blml (such as myself) believe that > passing 3D is not a logical alternative. I'm not sure it's the difference between mediocre and expert that counts. A player in either category might have come across players who bid 3D on 6 small. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 10 14:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 10 21:35:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F9D2B6.7020509@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Yes, precisely if you are unsure - the fact that he completes the > transfer makes you sure!!!! Of course. If pard bids 2S after alerting I am sure he thinks it was a transfer. If he bids 2S without alerting I am equally sure that he is showing a maximum with a heart fit and decent spades (as it would be any partner with whom I don't play transfers). If I want to have the freedom to "guess" I'd better hope we are playing with screens. > Again, I'm not saying it is always enough - but you seem to be saying > that it can never be enough - and that is just plain wrong !!!! The auction alone *can* be enough to indicate a wheel has come off. However, it can never be enough if the actual auction has a reasonable interpretation in the unalerted form. Whether the unalerted auction is "reasonable" in Belgium is not a question I can answer but how would non transfer players bid over (1D)-1N-(P)-2H holding AKxx,KJTx,AQx,xx (if showing a doubleton is more common as game try than showing values switch the black suits). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 10 14:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 10 21:35:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > > > So it happens - unlucky to find partner with a hand suitable for a > > 3-card raise to 2H rather than 1S/1N/2C/2D all of which I would > > happily pass. > You play changes of suit as non-forcing? I play weak NT in 1st/2nd so if I open a 3 card major on this sort of hand it will be opposite a passed partner. With a 15+ count in 1st/2nd seat I'm much less worried about getting partner off to a bad lead so am less likely to open a 3 card suit (unless psyching a lead averter). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 10 14:46:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 10 21:35:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <98b144c3e165c52a7a9dca3acf89c7fe@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > > I'd be surprised if you can find a *single* Acol text in which these > sorts of sequences are ascribed the meaning you present. Or is > "standard meaning" defined as "what Tim wants it to mean"? I doubt there are *any* texts on this sequence. Lacking such I rely on the custom and practice of those who have been playing Acol largely unaltered for 30-40+ years. But go ahead - find a reference which gives some other meaning as standard, or find some other group of traditional Acol players who use it as something other than constructive with diamonds. Just don't try and pretend it has *no* natural meaning. Tim From toddz at att.net Wed Aug 10 18:18:51 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Aug 10 21:35:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42FA28EB.1020602@att.net> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > A 1H opener is by agreement with Tim, 4 cards. If Tim thinks the best > systemic description of his hand, per system, is to open with 3 cards > wtp? There's no agreement to do so, and it's general bridge knowledge > that very occasionally one opens a 3 card suit. I wouldn't even bother > to alert and explain our proclivities (he's never done it in the 3,000 > or so hands we've played together, and it will come as no surprise to me > when he does, it's part of judgement and style) - it's a total red > herring. John There might be a fine line between acquiescing to partner's style and judgment, even being unsurprised by it, and agreeing to it. But I can see arguments that line doesn't exist. If it didn't, and you lived in an area where opening bids of fewer than 4 cards in a major or 3 cards in a minor are considered unnatural for the purposes of regulations, such as the ACBL, there might be a problem. -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 10 21:54:54 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Aug 10 21:54:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6504@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6504@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050810153415.02a82eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:46 AM 8/10/05, Sinot wrote: >If you happen to live in an area where people don't open 1NT >with six diamonds, and the 2NT is very commonly a transfer, >then the fact that partner bids 3D is sufficient evidence of >a misunderstanding. That would be the "sufficient AI" you are >referring to: partner cannot have long diamonds (he wouldn't >open 1NT with those), hence there must be something wrong. >In Belgium and the Netherlands, the 3D bid after 2NT is so >common as a diamond transfer, that the first thing I would >think of is someone forgetting an agreement (either me or >partner). > >In areas where the transfer is less common and people open >1NT with six diamonds regularly, this "AI" is not present. >Now you would suspect partner to have diamonds rather than >a compulsory completion of the transfer. That transfer may >or may not be part of your system (which is AI), but either >you or partner is temporarily playing a different system, >and the fact that partner tells you that that is the case >is UI. And if it is you who forgot the agreement, then the >real agreement is temporarily UI to you, since you were >playing a different agreement at that time. Right. Where I live, playing 1NT-P-2NT natural with no alerts, the only sensible interpretation of 1NT-P-2NT-P-3D is "partner must think we're playing transfers". Unfortunately, where I live that isn't sufficient to tell me what he thinks 3D means; some play it as denying DA, K or Q (or as denying some sort of undefined "diamond support"), others as showing a preference for diamonds over clubs. So even if partner says "alert" when I bid 2NT, I still feel entitled to know that he mistakenly thinks I have long diamonds, but I have to guess what he has for his 3D call. However, what do I do if the opponents asked him what 2NT meant, and his reply (either "shows diamonds, any strength" or "shows diamonds, either weak or game-forcing, or any hand with 5-5 or better in the minors") told me which kind of transfers he thinks we're playing, and it could matter? IMO, I must take the call I would have taken anyhow, namely whatever will best cater to both possibilities. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 10 22:19:54 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Aug 10 22:16:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000201c59ddd$943ff580$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <42FA3B60.6060308@hdw.be> <000201c59ddd$943ff580$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050810160813.02ea5210@pop.starpower.net> At 02:59 PM 8/10/05, Sven wrote: >You will in Norway always be considered restricted by the UI from >partner's >alert, missing alert, explanation or other mannerism. However when >there is >no case of a forgotten system then the action suggested by such UI will >correspond exactly to the action "suggested" by your system and there >exists >no other logical alternative action. Sven can't mean this. It says that one can never have more than one logical call unless one has forgotten one's system. >(If the UI reveals that partner has >forgotten the system then you will of course just stick to your system and >apply the corresponding logical alternatives). If that's true, than it will *not* generally be the case that "the action... will correspomd exactly to the action 'suggested' by your system and there exists no other logical alternative..." >Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical >alternative. But it also has no effect if there are multiple logical alternatives, but no reason to think that the player in question forgot anything, indeed, no reason to suspect that partner's alert (or whatever) has had any effect whatsoever. That's all Herman is saying. The alternative is to apply L16 to every call ever made, as partner's alert, or non-alert, being UI, would require considering the possbility of a L16 adjustment every time. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 10 23:08:01 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 10 23:10:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050810160813.02ea5210@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000701c59def$97cdf910$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 02:59 PM 8/10/05, Sven wrote: > > >You will in Norway always be considered restricted by the UI from > >partner's > >alert, missing alert, explanation or other mannerism. However when > >there is > >no case of a forgotten system then the action suggested by such UI will > >correspond exactly to the action "suggested" by your system and there > >exists > >no other logical alternative action. > > Sven can't mean this. It says that one can never have more than one > logical call unless one has forgotten one's system. OK. What I tried to say is this: Partner gives me UI by correctly alerting (or not alerting) or by informing opponents correctly on the interpretation of my call. This UI then suggests to me that I continue to call according to our agreements simply because there is no discrepancy between his UI and our system. In other words his UI does not "demonstrably suggest" any action by me over any logical alternative action that I might seriously consider (unless I consider deviating from our agreed system with my next call). Notice that if I have more than one logical alternative action available according to our system they are all equally suggested by his UI in this situation! However, if partner has forgotten our agreements and incorrectly alerts (or fails to alert) or gives opponents an incorrect interpretation of our system then this UI "demonstrably suggests" that I continue calling according to what he apparently and incorrectly believes are our agreements. But according to Law 16 I am now prohibited to call according to his understanding of our system because such calls by me are only suggested by his UI to me. Does this make sense? > >(If the UI reveals that partner has > >forgotten the system then you will of course just stick to your system > and > >apply the corresponding logical alternatives). > > If that's true, than it will *not* generally be the case that "the > action... will correspomd exactly to the action 'suggested' by your > system and there exists no other logical alternative..." > > >Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical > >alternative. > > But it also has no effect if there are multiple logical alternatives, > but no reason to think that the player in question forgot anything, > indeed, no reason to suspect that partner's alert (or whatever) has had > any effect whatsoever. That's all Herman is saying. The alternative > is to apply L16 to every call ever made, as partner's alert, or > non-alert, being UI, would require considering the possbility of a L16 > adjustment every time. If we consider that some given UI demonstrably suggested one logical alternative action over another and the player who received such UI selected that suggested action then we are very close to ruling that he has used that UI in selecting his action. Regards Sven From blml at blakjak.com Thu Aug 11 00:22:29 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Aug 11 00:25:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote > > > > >Richard Hills: > >[snip] > >>>[2] Treat both a lucky innocent and also a deliberate >>> cheat as having perpetrated a technical error, >>> with an automatic technical score adjustment. >>> >>>This is ***far better*** than "mind reading", as it >>>both prevents cheating and also prevents costly >>>defamation actions. >>> >>>What's the problem? > >David Stevenson: > >>In the tiny minority of cases to which you refer, >>L72B1 is fine, and we need nothing better. >> >>In the 99% of other cases where we currently judge >>people's actions it would be worse. >> >>I am sorry, but examples are never a particularly >>good method of proving things at bridge, whether how >>to bid, how to rule, or what the rules are. > >Richard Hills: > >Law 16 UI rulings are *not* a mere 1% of TD rulings. Exactly - my very point - glad you agree. L72B1 rulings, as accidentally deleted by you in the quotes, are not the important ones. -- 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 Aug 11 00:24:05 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Aug 11 00:27:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2FiSjF6F6n+CFw1O@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote > >On Aug 9, 2005, at 11:54 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > >> The point is that a psyche is a gross distortion. Being a card out >>***often*** is a gross distortion, but neither never nor always. > >Hm. Not sure I agree with "often", but certainly I agree with the rest. > >> It is a silly rule because it ignores other matters, like, opening >>your longest suit, which you probably have not when you open a >>three-card suit. >> >> So, when Marv, who loves word games, says he bid a three card >>major, either it was a psyche, or it wasn't: but saying it *was* a >>psyche because it was a three-card major, or saying it *was not* a >>psyche because it was a three-card major and that's only one card out, >>are both wrong. > >You seem to be saying you have to look at the whole hand, not just the >suit bid. With that I agree. But to say "that call is a psych" is to >say the player made it deliberately, *knowing* that it was a "gross >misstatement of honor strength or suit length". If he doesn't know it, >well, he might be wrong, but that makes it a misbid, not a psych. So >it seems to me, anyway. Trust me: when Marv bids a 3-card major, *he* knows what he is doing. -- 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 Aug 11 00:25:39 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Aug 11 00:29:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F9095B.2050102@hdw.be> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> <42F9095B.2050102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <+lrQ7j6j7n+CFwWw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> HermY De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> HermY De Wael wrote >> >>> What WBF is that - the Welsh Bridge Federation. >>> Fielding a psyche is not an offence in any World BF that I know of. >>> Only the EBU have created this to be an offence. >> Fielding a psyche is a breach of L40. Even in the WBF I think >>you will find that players are required to follow L40. >> > >Yes David. Fielding a psyche _can_ be proof of some more understanding >than is being revealed. I'll even grant you that is is proof, given the >definition you use on "fielding". > >But the EBU are then guilty of providing two different rulings on >infractions of the same law. > >On the one hand you have the "fielded psyche". You say to the table >that the infracting pair are guilty of a breach of law 40, which is >called "partnership understandings". For that reason, their bidding is >called invalid and an artificial score is given. > >On the other hand you have the "forgotten alert". You say to the table >that the infracting pair are guilty of a breach of law 40, which is >called "partnership understandings". For that reason, their opponent's >bidding is checked and an adjusted score is given. > >Really David, your insistence that the EBU have gotten this one right >is wearing thin. Your deliberate mis-quoting of people is wearing thin. If you look back I did not say anything like what you are saying. -- 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 Aug 11 00:28:18 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Aug 11 00:31:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F90A51.40709@hdw.be> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <42F90A51.40709@hdw.be> Message-ID: HermY De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> HermY De Wael wrote >> >>> I am quite certain that such awakening will also happen when using >>>screens, and I consider that there is always some AI in addition to >>>the UI. It is up to the Director to find out whether or not the AI is >>>sufficiently strong, but arguments such as yours that you always >>>trust your partner are only valid in your partnership and for those >>>sequences that you feel confident enough about. >> The latter, yes, but not the former. If partner bids 1N, I bid >>2N natural, and he bids 3D, i don't think "I wonder if he thinks 2N >>is a transfer" even if i have never played with him before. I think >>either he has diamonds or he is an idiot, and I am not going to treat >>him as an idiot. >> It is nothing to do with partnership that strange bids are >>natural: that's the only way to play bridge in my view. >> > >Well David, that's not the way my partners play bridge. > >You seem to have nothing but partners with whom every possible sequence >has been pre-arranged, and in which you are completely certain about >every single sequence. I do ***actively dislike*** this new idea of yours that if you mis-quote people completely it proves such people are wrong. As you know perfectly well if you read what I said I consider it obvious to treat unagreed bids as natural. In what way does that mean I have no unagreed bids? >I play in far less certain partnerships than that. As do I , which is obvious form what I posted. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 10 06:37:05 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Aug 11 00:40:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson asked: >Interesting. > >If you deliberately make a bid that you know others will >believe to be a distortion, is it a psyche? > >If you deliberately make a bid that you know your partner >will believe to be a distortion, is it a psyche? Richard Hills replies: In my opinion, the answer to David Stevenson's first question is Not Necessarily, and the answer to David Stevenson's second question is Yes. In the Chapter 1 Definition of Psychic Call, I interpret the words "deliberate and gross misstatement" as actually meaning "deliberate and gross misstatement of (explicit and/or implicit) partnership agreement". In an earlier thread Ton Kooijman supported that interpretation, but Grattan Endicott implied that it was possible to interpret the definition in such a way that an unconditional Yes could be given in answer to David Stevenson's first question. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 10 07:05:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Aug 11 00:44:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>Fielding a psyche is not an offence in any World BF that I >>know of. Only the EBU have created this to be an offence. David Stevenson: >Fielding a psyche is a breach of L40. Even in the WBF I think >you will find that players are required to follow L40. > >The difference in the EBU is how we deal with it, not whether >it is illegal. Richard Hills: Both Herman De Wael and David Stevenson are guilty of somewhat oversimplifying via sweeping statements. (1) If David Stevenson is using "fielding" with its EBU meaning of "illegal fielding", then he is being tautological. (2) Law 40B mentions neither legal fielding nor illegal fielding. Rather, Law 40B prohibits concealed partnership understandings. (3) The EBU rules that if a notional psyche is fielded, then that fielding is evidence that the notional psyche may be actually not a psyche, but instead be actually a concealed partnership understanding. (4) Therefore, Herman De Wael is incorrect in stating that the EBU has determined that fielding a psyche is an illegal offence. Rather, both the WBF and the EBU rule that a concealed partnership understanding is an illegal offence, whether or not it is fielded. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 11 00:51:59 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Aug 11 00:53:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <42FA28EB.1020602@att.net> Message-ID: <00e001c59dfe$1e2ac2a0$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> [Todd M Zimnoch] > There might be a fine line between > acquiescing to partner's style and > judgment, even being unsurprised by it, > and agreeing to it. But I can see > arguments that line doesn't exist. > If it didn't, and you lived in an area > where opening bids of fewer than 4 > cards in a major or 3 cards in a minor > are considered unnatural for the > purposes of regulations, such as the > ACBL, there might be a problem. [nige1] The EBU Orange Book regulations also outlaw agreement (explicit or implicit) about Major suit canap? at most levels of play. This affects only the tiny minority of masochists (myself among them) who (a) read the regulations (b) interpret them literally (c) abide by them. Even some British tournament directors refuse to handicap themselves in this way -- When playing, they interpret Orange Book rules that they don't like with "judgement" From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 11 01:53:04 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Aug 11 01:54:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000701c59def$97cdf910$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00ee01c59e06$a6f20b40$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > OK. What I tried to say is this: Partner > gives me UI by correctly alerting (or not > alerting) or by informing opponents > correctly on the interpretation of my > call. This UI then suggests to me that I > continue to call according to our > agreements simply because there is no > discrepancy between his UI and our > system. In other words his UI does not > "demonstrably suggest" any action by me > over any logical alternative action that > I might seriously consider ... > However, if partner has forgotten our > agreements and incorrectly alerts (or > fails to alert) or gives opponents an > incorrect interpretation of our system > then this UI "demonstrably suggests" that > I continue calling according to what he > apparently and incorrectly believes are > our agreements. But according to Law 16 > I am now prohibited to call according to > his understanding of our system because > such calls by me are only suggested by > his UI to me. > If we consider that some given UI > demonstrably suggested one logical > alternative action over another and the > player who received such UI selected > that suggested action then we are very > close to ruling that he has used that > UI in selecting his action. [nige1] Sven has outlined what some players like me believe - even if many directors judge that Law 16 is somehow inapplicable to this situation. When it appears that "A wheel has come off" in an auction by an experienced partnership, It seems wrong for you to guess an indulged *artificial* interpretation of partner's peculiar bid, basing your deduction on knowledge of the particular conventions with which you know partner is familiar. No matter how much Herman pleads. this knowledge is rarely "General". Typically, you can make a much better stab at such inferences than opponents can. Hence it amounts to a concealed partnership understanding. Some players would agree with Richard Hills that an exception to Sven's first case arises when it is you who forget the system. For example, such players would try not allow partner's alert or non-alert to wake them up to a *correct* partnership agreement that they had forgotten. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Aug 11 02:09:39 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu Aug 11 02:12:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <7B89EBB8-3AF1-4FA3-80A3-A9758498F9FC@rochester.rr.com> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <7B89EBB8-3AF1-4FA3-80A3-A9758498F9FC@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810200234.03960580@mail.comcast.net> At 12:24 PM 8/10/2005, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:55 AM, HermY De Wael wrote: > >>Common sense and practice. > >So, no law. Okay. :-) > >>I bid 2H transfer to spades. >>My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >>This is UI. >>Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) >>and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? > >I bid 2H natural. >My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >This is UI. >Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) >and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? > >How do you tell the difference? In this situation, you can tell the difference by looking at the hand of the 2H bidder. However, the principle still applies when you can't tell the difference. The following once happened to me: I had four spades and 6 HCP. Partner opened 2NT. I bid 3C, intending it as Stayman. Partner alerted and explained as Puppet Stayman (our correct agreement; it was on our card). Partner bid 3D, which I properly explained as showing a four-card major. Avoiding use of UI, I bid 3NT, which is what I would have bid without the alert, and we played in 3NT while the field was in 4S. It would have been a violation of the Laws for me to bid 3H instead of 3NT. There is no way that a TD or AC could have ruled against me for the bid (unless I confessed), because I would have bid exactly the same if I had remembered the system. However, the Law and principles of active ethics still apply. From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Aug 11 02:11:38 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Aug 11 02:14:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <8pAeWQCLIk+CFwHV@asimere.com> References: <05918000894808b39a5d4ed9fb86f949@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <8pAeWQCLIk+CFwHV@asimere.com> Message-ID: <8d454d328cb26c4a144dcdcaaea59cd9@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 10 Aug 2005, at 19:06, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <05918000894808b39a5d4ed9fb86f949@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, > Gordon Rainsford writes >> >> On 10 Aug 2005, at 14:34, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> In article , >>> Gordon Rainsford writes >>>> >>>> On 9 Aug 2005, at 18:01, Tim West-Meads wrote: >>>> >>>>> So it happens - unlucky to find partner with a hand suitable for a >>>>> 3-card >>>>> raise to 2H rather than 1S/1N/2C/2D all of which I would happily >>>>> pass. >>>> >>>> You play changes of suit as non-forcing? >>> >>> A 1H opener is by agreement with Tim, 4 cards. If Tim thinks the best >>> systemic description of his hand, per system, is to open with 3 cards >>> wtp? There's no agreement to do so, and it's general bridge knowledge >>> that very occasionally one opens a 3 card suit. I wouldn't even >>> bother >>> to alert and explain our proclivities (he's never done it in the >>> 3,000 >>> or so hands we've played together, and it will come as no surprise to >>> me >>> when he does, it's part of judgement and style) - it's a total red >>> herring. John >> >> Were you replying to something other than my contribution above? > > nope. I'm suggesting that we have no agreements to open 3 card suits > and > are not therefore constrained to further actions. And you did so in reply to my asking Tim if he plays changes of suit as non-forcing! -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 11 02:49:49 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Aug 11 02:51:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: Message-ID: <011e01c59e0e$94310b20$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> Several BLMLers (myself included) have advocated an expanded vocabulary for discussing "psychs" that allows for (A) "calls" rather than "bids". (B) "minor deviations" as well as "gross". (C) postponing the judgement of aspects such as whether there is a "concealed partnership understanding" or "intent". As I understand it, by current definition, a bid subject to a concealed partnership understanding cannot be a psych. Nor can a minor deviation. But "gross deviation" is a phrase that is hard to pin down. Do Marvin French, Tim West-Meades, John MadDog Probst and David Stevenson interpret this phrase to allow you to open a three card major, occasionally? -- Even when your overt agreement says at least four? -- And the rules appear to ban such an understanding in most events? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 11 07:29:36 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Aug 11 07:32:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FA3A97.3040806@hdw.be> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> <42FA3A97.3040806@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:34 PM, HermY De Wael wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote: > > >> On Aug 9, 2005, at 10:17 AM, HermY De Wael wrote: >> >>> Your insistence that such AI cannot exist, or that it can never >>> be enough, shows that you have an incomplete grasp of the duties >>> of the TD. >>> >> This is not called for, Herman. >> > > Well, neither was the opinion that was voiced by Anne. Anne addressed your message. You're attacking the messenger. Still. Perhaps you need a time out. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 11 07:30:29 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Aug 11 07:32:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FA3B60.6060308@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> <7B89EBB8-3AF1-4FA3-80A3-A9758498F9FC@rochester.rr.com> <42FA3B60.6060308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5F665846-C245-4812-8E97-9545003B9604@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:37 PM, HermY De Wael wrote: > Indeed, I ask you - what is the difference? I asked you first. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 11 07:49:33 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Aug 11 07:51:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FA3C10.8050002@hdw.be> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> <42FA3C10.8050002@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:40 PM, HermY De Wael wrote: > You make a call, and your partner describes it - correctly. > This explanation is UI to you, is it not? No. What's unauthorized to me is the fact that partner has not forgotten our agreement. > If you think it is not, then please tell me where in L16 this is > stated. I'm telling you - nowhere. You don't need to tell me what Law 16 says - I already know. Do you really think any law should contain a list of all possible situations to which it may apply? > So there must be some other way this UI is not to be ruled against. > I'm telling you what that way is - by calling some other piece of > information AI, and by stating that the AI overrides the UI. > If you know of another way to rule sensibly; please tell me. Nope. Don't buy it. If you judge that the UI doesn't suggest any particular action over a logical alternative, or that there *is* no logical alternative, then, *and only then*, you can rule "no infraction". There is no way, in the law, to say "AI overrides UI". If partner opens 1S, I bid 2NT, partner alerts and says "Jacoby", describing the convention fully, and bids 3C, I have five potential logical alternatives: 3S, 4S, 6S, 4NT (Blackwood), or a slam try. Can you show me *any* way in which partner's explanation suggests one of those alternatives over another? If I have a minimum game force and KQJx in clubs, partner's 3C bid showing a singleton in that suit, can you show me *any* logical alternative to a bid of 3S? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 11 07:52:45 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Aug 11 07:55:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000201c59ddd$943ff580$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c59ddd$943ff580$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <092EDB33-08CA-42CD-8D2D-0B9227524AC2@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 10, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >> Ed Reppert wrote: >> > .................. > >> Well, indeed it is like that. Law 16 does not mention that if one >> perceives an expected alert, this is not UI. Yet UI is never ruled by >> any TD. If that's not "common sense and practice" then please tell me >> the law. This looks to me like an assertion that I wrote the paragraph above. I didn't. > If we have strong indications ("evidence") to the fact that a > player has > forgotten his system and that he could have been (!) awoken by some > action > not part of the auction from his partner then we tend to apply Law > 16 and > rule use of UI in Norway. > > Such actions by the partner include alert (or missing alert), > explanations > to opponents and any kind of "extraordinary" mannerism. > > However we allow him to realize that he had indeed forgotten the > system as > long as his partner does not give any such UI. [snip] > You will in Norway always be considered restricted by the UI from > partner's > alert, missing alert, explanation or other mannerism. However when > there is > no case of a forgotten system then the action suggested by such UI > will > correspond exactly to the action "suggested" by your system and > there exists > no other logical alternative action. (If the UI reveals that > partner has > forgotten the system then you will of course just stick to your > system and > apply the corresponding logical alternatives). > > Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical > alternative. Exactly. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 11 07:57:35 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Aug 11 08:00:02 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <459E625A-7DF1-4D65-8BFF-139A9F782AE0@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 10, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > An appeal against the former reasoning is, IMO, absolutely cast > iron. An appeal against pass being an > LA comes much closer to deserving an AWMP. This brings up an interesting point. When the ruling consists solely of "Score it as 3NT down one", how in the Hell can you know how to formulate an appeal? Easy answer: ask the TD for the basis of his ruling. Problem: you don't get an answer to that request. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 11 08:09:54 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Aug 11 08:12:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> <42FA3C10.8050002@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Aug 11, 2005, at 1:49 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > f I have a minimum game force and KQJx in clubs, partner's 3C bid > showing a singleton in that suit, can you show me *any* logical > alternative to a bid of 3S? Oops. That should be "4S". :-/ From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 09:03:20 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 09:03:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <+lrQ7j6j7n+CFwWw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> <42F9095B.2050102@hdw.be> <+lrQ7j6j7n+CFwWw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <42FAF838.3040904@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > HermY De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> HermY De Wael wrote >>> >>>> What WBF is that - the Welsh Bridge Federation. >>>> Fielding a psyche is not an offence in any World BF that I know of. >>>> Only the EBU have created this to be an offence. >>> >>> Fielding a psyche is a breach of L40. Even in the WBF I think >>> you will find that players are required to follow L40. >>> >> >> Yes David. Fielding a psyche _can_ be proof of some more understanding >> than is being revealed. I'll even grant you that is is proof, given >> the definition you use on "fielding". >> >> But the EBU are then guilty of providing two different rulings on >> infractions of the same law. >> >> On the one hand you have the "fielded psyche". You say to the table >> that the infracting pair are guilty of a breach of law 40, which is >> called "partnership understandings". For that reason, their bidding is >> called invalid and an artificial score is given. >> >> On the other hand you have the "forgotten alert". You say to the table >> that the infracting pair are guilty of a breach of law 40, which is >> called "partnership understandings". For that reason, their opponent's >> bidding is checked and an adjusted score is given. >> >> Really David, your insistence that the EBU have gotten this one right >> is wearing thin. > > > > Your deliberate mis-quoting of people is wearing thin. If you look > back I did not say anything like what you are saying. > I did not see any """""" in my previous message. I did not believe I was quoting, so how can I be mis-quoting. If you believe that any of the two sentences above does not reflect the way the EBU handles these two cases (and I stress that by 'you' above I am not talking of you personally but of 'an EBU Director') then please tell me where I have misinterpreted. I really wish I had misinterpreted, because what results is a method of ruling that I cannot fathom. So please enlighten me David, am I wrong in stating what I stated? Regardless of whether you said it in those words or others? -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 11 09:06:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Aug 11 09:08:59 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] In-Reply-To: <459E625A-7DF1-4D65-8BFF-139A9F782AE0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c59e43$350cdcc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Aug 10, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > An appeal against the former reasoning is, IMO, absolutely cast > > iron. An appeal against pass being an > > LA comes much closer to deserving an AWMP. > > This brings up an interesting point. When the ruling consists solely > of "Score it as 3NT down one", how in the Hell can you know how to > formulate an appeal? > > Easy answer: ask the TD for the basis of his ruling. Problem: you > don't get an answer to that request. I don't see that as a problem, at least not the way we handle appeals in Norway: 1: You inform the Director (in time) that you want to appeal his ruling. 2: The Director prepares an appeals form with the facts of the case (as he has understood them), his reasoning and his ruling. 3: You fill in your comments. 4: Your opponents fill in their comments. And then the appeal goes to the AC (unless the CTD at this time decides to change the original ruling in which case the new ruling can be subject to an appeal by either side). So you see failure by the Director to disclose his reasoning simply makes him more vulnerable. Regards Sven From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 09:16:45 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 09:17:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000201c59ddd$943ff580$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c59ddd$943ff580$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FAFB5D.9000707@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >>Ed Reppert wrote: > > .................. > >>Well, indeed it is like that. Law 16 does not mention that if one >>perceives an expected alert, this is not UI. Yet UI is never ruled by >>any TD. If that's not "common sense and practice" then please tell me >>the law. > > > If we have strong indications ("evidence") to the fact that a player has > forgotten his system and that he could have been (!) awoken by some action > not part of the auction from his partner then we tend to apply Law 16 and > rule use of UI in Norway. > > Such actions by the partner include alert (or missing alert), explanations > to opponents and any kind of "extraordinary" mannerism. > This is of course the correct ruling, but are there never any exceptions? > However we allow him to realize that he had indeed forgotten the system as > long as his partner does not give any such UI. > Well that is just saying that you don't rule UI if there is no UI. That's a bit superfluous as a statement, don't you think? > >>>>I bid 2H transfer to spades. >>>>My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >>>>This is UI. >>>>Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) >>>>and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? >>> >>> >>>I bid 2H natural. >>>My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >>>This is UI. >>>Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) and >>>that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? >>> >>>How do you tell the difference? >>> >> >>Indeed, how do you? That's exactly why we are asking the question. >>Do you question my example? Don't you agree that I am not restricted >>by UI? How do you get around L16? Please tell me, how do you? >> >>Indeed, I ask you - what is the difference? > > > You will in Norway always be considered restricted by the UI from partner's > alert, missing alert, explanation or other mannerism. However when there is > no case of a forgotten system then the action suggested by such UI will > correspond exactly to the action "suggested" by your system and there exists > no other logical alternative action. (If the UI reveals that partner has > forgotten the system then you will of course just stick to your system and > apply the corresponding logical alternatives). > No Sven, that is not correct. The action suggested by the UI is still one course of action. There are logical alternatives to that action. L16 still tells you you are not allowed to do that action. You simply cannot say that since the AI also suggests the same action, there are no more LA's. The LA's don't vanish because there is AI suggesting a particular action. The only way you can get out from under your L16 obligations is by saying that the UI is no longer UI if it is accompanied by AI that says the same thing. Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". Apart from the fact that it might carry additional UI, this statement adds nothing to the AI that partner can also look at the board and know the vulnerability. Surely you don't expect to rule L16 on someone who hears his partner uttering these words? > Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical alternative. > But in the cases we are talking of there are still LA's available. > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 09:27:38 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 09:28:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000701c59def$97cdf910$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c59def$97cdf910$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FAFDEA.7090904@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Eric Landau >>At 02:59 PM 8/10/05, Sven wrote: >> >> >>>You will in Norway always be considered restricted by the UI from >>>partner's >>>alert, missing alert, explanation or other mannerism. However when >>>there is >>>no case of a forgotten system then the action suggested by such UI will >>>correspond exactly to the action "suggested" by your system and there >>>exists >>>no other logical alternative action. >> >>Sven can't mean this. It says that one can never have more than one >>logical call unless one has forgotten one's system. > > > OK. What I tried to say is this: > > Partner gives me UI by correctly alerting (or not alerting) or by informing > opponents correctly on the interpretation of my call. This UI then suggests > to me that I continue to call according to our agreements simply because > there is no discrepancy between his UI and our system. In other words his UI > does not "demonstrably suggest" any action by me over any logical > alternative action that I might seriously consider (unless I consider > deviating from our agreed system with my next call). Notice that if I have > more than one logical alternative action available according to our system > they are all equally suggested by his UI in this situation! > Sven is saying in fact: A player has 2 logical alternatives: bidding according to his system and bidding according to some other system. Sven then says that if the player bids according to his system, then he has not used the UI. Sadly Sven cannot get under from it that easily. When there is 'real' UI, a player could also be saying 'I could have used the UI but I did not'. Sadly the TD will not agree, as he will not rule that using the UI is the infraction, but rather bidding 3NT. > However, if partner has forgotten our agreements and incorrectly alerts (or > fails to alert) or gives opponents an incorrect interpretation of our system > then this UI "demonstrably suggests" that I continue calling according to > what he apparently and incorrectly believes are our agreements. But > according to Law 16 I am now prohibited to call according to his > understanding of our system because such calls by me are only suggested by > his UI to me. > No Sven, those calls are not 'only suggested'. They might be perfectly normal LA's in the absence of the UI. It is because the calls are suggested by the UI that you are no longer allowed to perform them. My point is that it does not matter whether you have forgotten your system or not. The info coming from partner is always UI, and it (almost) always suggests one call over another. The suggested call is not allowed. That makes playing bridge without screens virtually impossible. The only way you can get out of this is to rule that the UI which a player also knows from some other (authorized) source, is no longer UI. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 09:41:28 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 09:41:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6503@rama.micronas.com> <42FA3C10.8050002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42FB0128.8070206@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:40 PM, HermY De Wael wrote: > >> You make a call, and your partner describes it - correctly. >> This explanation is UI to you, is it not? > > > No. What's unauthorized to me is the fact that partner has not > forgotten our agreement. > Indeed - but look what you are doing. You are taking the information that partner has provided and you deduct the information that you already knew. That is exactly like saying that UI which is accompanied by AI is no longer UI. Which is what I've been saying all along. >> If you think it is not, then please tell me where in L16 this is >> stated. I'm telling you - nowhere. > > > You don't need to tell me what Law 16 says - I already know. Do you > really think any law should contain a list of all possible situations > to which it may apply? > Yes, I do happen to think it should. But I don't mind that it doesn't. As long as the TD's all understand it in the same manner. And I do believe all TD's understand this one correctly, as I've never seen anyone apply L16 on a correct explanation of a correct bid. >> So there must be some other way this UI is not to be ruled against. >> I'm telling you what that way is - by calling some other piece of >> information AI, and by stating that the AI overrides the UI. >> If you know of another way to rule sensibly; please tell me. > > > Nope. Don't buy it. If you judge that the UI doesn't suggest any > particular action over a logical alternative, or that there *is* no > logical alternative, then, *and only then*, you can rule "no > infraction". There is no way, in the law, to say "AI overrides UI". > Well, I don't buy that one. A LA does not cease to be a LA because partner explains your auction correctly. And the suggested auction does not cease to be suggested. I agree there is nothing in L16 that says AI overrided UI, yet that is what we all apply. > If partner opens 1S, I bid 2NT, partner alerts and says "Jacoby", > describing the convention fully, and bids 3C, I have five potential > logical alternatives: 3S, 4S, 6S, 4NT (Blackwood), or a slam try. Can > you show me *any* way in which partner's explanation suggests one of > those alternatives over another? If I have a minimum game force and > KQJx in clubs, partner's 3C bid showing a singleton in that suit, can > you show me *any* logical alternative to a bid of 3S? > Well, from the explanation, you know that partner knows you have spades, and thus his 3C bid is not based on a good second suit. Without that knowledge, you might have 4C as an extra LA. The UI suggests to you that 4C is not a good bid, so with the UI, I could rule that you should now bid 4C. If you are then saying that 4C is not a LA because of the AI that you also possess, then are you not simply saying that the AI overrides the UI? -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 11 11:33:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Aug 11 11:36:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FAFB5D.9000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c59e57$cc710730$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: .................. > > If we have strong indications ("evidence") to the fact that > > a player has forgotten his system and that he could have > > been (!) awoken by some action not part of the auction from > > his partner then we tend to apply Law 16 and rule use of UI > > in Norway. > > > > Such actions by the partner include alert (or missing alert), > > explanations to opponents and any kind of "extraordinary" > > mannerism. > > > > This is of course the correct ruling, but are there never any > exceptions? The only exception I can think of is a player getting away with remembering his system in time without any assistance of UI from his partner. To achieve that he must provide some extremely convincing reasoning, and I have never heard of anybody successful in that. > > However we allow him to realize that he had indeed forgotten > > the system as long as his partner does not give any such UI. > > > > Well that is just saying that you don't rule UI if there is no UI. > That's a bit superfluous as a statement, don't you think? Sure. And from my experience with blml such superfluous statements seem warranted. .............. > > > > You will in Norway always be considered restricted by the UI > > from partner's alert, missing alert, explanation or other > > mannerism. However when there is no case of a forgotten system > > then the action suggested by such UI will correspond exactly to > > the action "suggested" by your system and there exists no other > > logical alternative action. (If the UI reveals that partner has > > forgotten the system then you will of course just stick to your > > system and apply the corresponding logical alternatives). > > > > No Sven, that is not correct. The action suggested by the UI is still > one course of action. There are logical alternatives to that action. > L16 still tells you you are not allowed to do that action. You simply > cannot say that since the AI also suggests the same action, there are > no more LA's. The LA's don't vanish because there is AI suggesting a > particular action. If the UI reveals that partner remembers and explains the system correctly then whatever action is suggested by this UI is an action "suggested" by the system. If the system allows a variety of actions then all such actions are equally suggested by the UI. As a consequence no action "suggested" by the UI is "demonstrably suggested" over any (other) action that could be suggested by the system. > > The only way you can get out from under your L16 obligations is by > saying that the UI is no longer UI if it is accompanied by AI that > says the same thing. No! The UI is still UI, but it does not "demonstrably suggests" any action over any action "suggested" by the system which in this case is AI (system remembered). > > Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". Apart > from the fact that it might carry additional UI, this statement adds > nothing to the AI that partner can also look at the board and know the > vulnerability. Surely you don't expect to rule L16 on someone who > hears his partner uttering these words? Most certainly I will!!!!! A reminder like that at a time of choosing between sacrificing and passing and then passing "demonstrably suggests" that partner also should pass. If there could be any doubt whatsoever whether a player would sacrifice or pass I would rule him into an unsuccessful sacrifice contract (if there is one) if he had received such a remark from his partner. > > > Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical > alternative. > > > > But in the cases we are talking of there are still LA's available. And as I have tried to indicate they are all equally "suggested" by the UI. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 11 11:53:49 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Aug 11 11:56:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FAFDEA.7090904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c59e5a$944c49c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ............... > > OK. What I tried to say is this: > > > > Partner gives me UI by correctly alerting (or not alerting) > > or by informing opponents correctly on the interpretation > > of my call. This UI then suggests to me that I continue to > > call according to our agreements simply because there is no > > discrepancy between his UI and our system. In other words > > his UI does not "demonstrably suggest" any action by me over > > any logical alternative action that I might seriously consider > > (unless I consider deviating from our agreed system with my > > next call). Notice that if I have more than one logical > > alternative action available according to our system they are > > all equally suggested by his UI in this situation! > > > > Sven is saying in fact: A player has 2 logical alternatives: bidding > according to his system and bidding according to some other system. > Sven then says that if the player bids according to his system, then > he has not used the UI. > Sadly Sven cannot get under from it that easily. No, I have not said that the player has not used the UI; I said that there was no logical alternative available to him that was not also "suggested" by his system in this case. The UI cannot possibly "demonstrably suggest" any logical alternative over another alternative not part of their system. Or do you seriously consider an action in conflict with the agreed upon system a logical alternative in a situation where both players in the partnership apparently abide by their system? > > When there is 'real' UI, a player could also be saying 'I could have > used the UI but I did not'. Sadly the TD will not agree, as he will > not rule that using the UI is the infraction, but rather bidding 3NT. ????????? > > However, if partner has forgotten our agreements and incorrectly > > alerts (or fails to alert) or gives opponents an incorrect > > interpretation of our system then this UI "demonstrably suggests" > > that I continue calling according to what he apparently and > > incorrectly believes are our agreements. But according to Law 16 > > I am now prohibited to call according to his understanding of our > > system because such calls by me are only suggested by his UI to me. > > > > No Sven, those calls are not 'only suggested'. They might be perfectly > normal LA's in the absence of the UI. It is because the calls are > suggested by the UI that you are no longer allowed to perform them. If the action "suggested" by the UI corresponds to the action "suggested" by the agreed system then I don't see how any action that is in conflict with the system shall become promoted to a logical alternative action? > > My point is that it does not matter whether you have forgotten your > system or not. The info coming from partner is always UI, and it > (almost) always suggests one call over another. The suggested call is > not allowed. That makes playing bridge without screens virtually > impossible. The only way you can get out of this is to rule that the > UI which a player also knows from some other (authorized) source, is > no longer UI. I have lost count of how many cases have been rejected by either the Director or by the AC on the ground that the player in question had no logical alternative action to the one (possibly) suggested by UI. If your partner in third or fourth hand when initially looking at his cards gives you UI suggesting that you pass and you pick up a Yarborough I should like to see the Director or AC that will force you to bid because you may no longer pass due to that UI? Sven From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 13:01:34 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 13:02:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000301c59e5a$944c49c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c59e5a$944c49c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FB300E.1090703@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >>Sven Pran wrote: > > ............... > >>>OK. What I tried to say is this: >>> >>>Partner gives me UI by correctly alerting (or not alerting) >>>or by informing opponents correctly on the interpretation >>>of my call. This UI then suggests to me that I continue to >>>call according to our agreements simply because there is no >>>discrepancy between his UI and our system. In other words >>>his UI does not "demonstrably suggest" any action by me over >>>any logical alternative action that I might seriously consider >>>(unless I consider deviating from our agreed system with my >>>next call). Notice that if I have more than one logical >>>alternative action available according to our system they are >>>all equally suggested by his UI in this situation! >>> >> >>Sven is saying in fact: A player has 2 logical alternatives: bidding >>according to his system and bidding according to some other system. >>Sven then says that if the player bids according to his system, then >>he has not used the UI. >>Sadly Sven cannot get under from it that easily. > > > No, I have not said that the player has not used the UI; I said that there > was no logical alternative available to him that was not also "suggested" by > his system in this case. The UI cannot possibly "demonstrably suggest" any > logical alternative over another alternative not part of their system. > I believe I understand your point, Sven, and am trying to put it in other words. You are calling "bidding according to system" and "bidding against the system" as alternatives, and you suggest that "bidding against the system" is not a logical alternative. But sadly those are not the actions the TD should look at, rather he will look at "bidding 3NT" and "passing", and there is nothing in the AI (your system) that makes "passing" not al logical alternative. So if the UI suggests "bidding 3NT" then L16 says the player must pass. > Or do you seriously consider an action in conflict with the agreed upon > system a logical alternative in a situation where both players in the > partnership apparently abide by their system? > No I don't, but "passing" is not in conflict with the system (as an example). > >>When there is 'real' UI, a player could also be saying 'I could have >>used the UI but I did not'. Sadly the TD will not agree, as he will >>not rule that using the UI is the infraction, but rather bidding 3NT. > > > ????????? > Yet this is precisely what you are trying to have us believe happens in the case of a correct explanation. The player will say 'I did not use the UI because I bid according to my system'. That should not help him out either. > > >>>However, if partner has forgotten our agreements and incorrectly >>>alerts (or fails to alert) or gives opponents an incorrect >>>interpretation of our system then this UI "demonstrably suggests" >>>that I continue calling according to what he apparently and >>>incorrectly believes are our agreements. But according to Law 16 >>>I am now prohibited to call according to his understanding of our >>>system because such calls by me are only suggested by his UI to me. >>> >> >>No Sven, those calls are not 'only suggested'. They might be perfectly >>normal LA's in the absence of the UI. It is because the calls are >>suggested by the UI that you are no longer allowed to perform them. > > > If the action "suggested" by the UI corresponds to the action "suggested" by > the agreed system then I don't see how any action that is in conflict with > the system shall become promoted to a logical alternative action? > Where in L16 does it say that it is alright to use the suggested action when that action is based on the agreed system? You can't argue your way out of this, Sven. L16 simply does not say that UI is not UI if it is also AI. There is no way you can get around this except by accepting that L16 includes something we all know but yet has not been written down. > >>My point is that it does not matter whether you have forgotten your >>system or not. The info coming from partner is always UI, and it >>(almost) always suggests one call over another. The suggested call is >>not allowed. That makes playing bridge without screens virtually >>impossible. The only way you can get out of this is to rule that the >>UI which a player also knows from some other (authorized) source, is >>no longer UI. > > > I have lost count of how many cases have been rejected by either the > Director or by the AC on the ground that the player in question had no > logical alternative action to the one (possibly) suggested by UI. > But the cases I am interested in do not even reach the TD, because they happen a number of times on every board. Every non-alert, every alert, every explanation, is in fact UI. Yet the TD does not get called. And it is not because the players accept that the partner receiving the UI had only one available LA. It is because they don't see the UI as such. And that is what I've been calling common practice. > If your partner in third or fourth hand when initially looking at his cards > gives you UI suggesting that you pass and you pick up a Yarborough I should > like to see the Director or AC that will force you to bid because you may no > longer pass due to that UI? > No Sven, absolutely not what I'm talking about. You are giving a case where there is no LA. I'm talking about cases where there ale lots of LA's. You are talking about "real UI", I am talking about "UI that also exists as AI". Don't muddle the argument, please. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 13:19:44 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 13:20:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000201c59e57$cc710730$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c59e57$cc710730$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FB3450.9000306@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >>Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". Apart >>from the fact that it might carry additional UI, this statement adds >>nothing to the AI that partner can also look at the board and know the >>vulnerability. Surely you don't expect to rule L16 on someone who >>hears his partner uttering these words? > > > Most certainly I will!!!!! > No you won't. > A reminder like that at a time of choosing between sacrificing and passing > and then passing "demonstrably suggests" that partner also should pass. > I am not talking about this statement at the time partner is choosing between sacrificing and not. I am talking about such a statement, totally innocuous, at the beginning of the bidding. > If there could be any doubt whatsoever whether a player would sacrifice or > pass I would rule him into an unsuccessful sacrifice contract (if there is > one) if he had received such a remark from his partner. > You would be right if the statement were made at that point. But suppose the decision on sacrificing happens 5 minutes after the innocuous statement above. Do you still rule that way? The UI is the same, the suggested action is the same, the logical alternatives are the same. No, you don't rule that way, because the information is available to the player making the decision as AI as well as as UI. The reason why you rule in your case is because the UI is larger than the AI - there is added emphasis at an important moment. > >>>Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical >> >>alternative. >> >>But in the cases we are talking of there are still LA's available. > > > And as I have tried to indicate they are all equally "suggested" by the UI. > And as I've tried to indicate that is not true, or always true. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 11 14:05:30 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Aug 11 14:02:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000701c59def$97cdf910$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050810160813.02ea5210@pop.starpower.net> <000701c59def$97cdf910$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050811073845.02d159b0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:08 PM 8/10/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > At 02:59 PM 8/10/05, Sven wrote: > > > > >You will in Norway always be considered restricted by the UI from > > >partner's > > >alert, missing alert, explanation or other mannerism. However when > > >there is > > >no case of a forgotten system then the action suggested by such UI > will > > >correspond exactly to the action "suggested" by your system and there > > >exists > > >no other logical alternative action. > > > > Sven can't mean this. It says that one can never have more than one > > logical call unless one has forgotten one's system. > >OK. What I tried to say is this: > >Partner gives me UI by correctly alerting (or not alerting) or by >informing >opponents correctly on the interpretation of my call. This UI then >suggests >to me that I continue to call according to our agreements simply because >there is no discrepancy between his UI and our system. In other words >his UI >does not "demonstrably suggest" any action by me over any logical >alternative action that I might seriously consider (unless I consider >deviating from our agreed system with my next call). Notice that if I have >more than one logical alternative action available according to our system >they are all equally suggested by his UI in this situation! > >However, if partner has forgotten our agreements and incorrectly >alerts (or >fails to alert) or gives opponents an incorrect interpretation of our >system >then this UI "demonstrably suggests" that I continue calling according to >what he apparently and incorrectly believes are our agreements. But >according to Law 16 I am now prohibited to call according to his >understanding of our system because such calls by me are only suggested by >his UI to me. > >Does this make sense? > > > >(If the UI reveals that partner has > > >forgotten the system then you will of course just stick to your system > > and > > >apply the corresponding logical alternatives). > > > > If that's true, than it will *not* generally be the case that "the > > action... will correspomd exactly to the action 'suggested' by your > > system and there exists no other logical alternative..." > > > > >Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical > > >alternative. > > > > But it also has no effect if there are multiple logical alternatives, > > but no reason to think that the player in question forgot anything, > > indeed, no reason to suspect that partner's alert (or whatever) has had > > any effect whatsoever. That's all Herman is saying. The alternative > > is to apply L16 to every call ever made, as partner's alert, or > > non-alert, being UI, would require considering the possbility of a L16 > > adjustment every time. > >If we consider that some given UI demonstrably suggested one logical >alternative action over another and the player who received such UI >selected >that suggested action then we are very close to ruling that he has >used that >UI in selecting his action. I think that perhaps the "extra-legal" principle Herman is looking for is this: If a player has no logical alternative to believing that partner has misunderstood his call, he is not subject to the constraints of L16. That is far from the same thing as "no logical alternative action", but if we equate their effects, then Sven and Herman are on the same page. Partner opens 1NT, I bid 2H, intending it as a signoff (we don't care about MI issues here, so it doesn't matter what our actual agreement is). Partner bids a "non-systemic" 2S. There are two possibilities; call them "wheels on" -- partner has correctly interpreted 2H, but is making a forward-going move, presumably with good hearts and good spades -- and "wheels off" -- partner thought 2H was a transfer. If wheels are on, I should sign off at 3H. If the wheels are off, I can pass 2S with my reasonable spade holding and hope that it's playable, or I can bid 3H, forcing, showing secondary hearts with my spades, and hope that partner will prefer hearts at the four-level. My subjective assessment of the probabilities is (a) 20% that the wheels are on, (b) if the wheels are off, 75% that passing will be better than 3H. So unconstrained I will choose to pass (which I assess as a 60% action). But if partner has alerted 2H as a transfer, my LAs are pass and 3H, and I have UI suggesting that I pass, so I must bid 3H. My subjective assessment of the probabilities has no bearing on the application of L16. But suppose I believe (and can convince the TD/AC) that this particular partner would never ever think about bidding over a signoff, so it is certain that the wheels are off. My LAs are still pass and 3H, I still have the same UI, and I still want to pass (now assessed as a 75% action). With "no logical alternative" to assuming that the wheels are off, however, the UI no longer makes passing any more attractive than it would have been absent the UI, so I should be allowed to pass without risking a L16 adjustment. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From toddz at att.net Thu Aug 11 12:14:51 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Aug 11 14:28:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000301c59e5a$944c49c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c59e5a$944c49c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FB251B.8080201@att.net> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >>Sven is saying in fact: A player has 2 logical alternatives: bidding >>according to his system and bidding according to some other system. >>Sven then says that if the player bids according to his system, then >>he has not used the UI. >>Sadly Sven cannot get under from it that easily. > > No, I have not said that the player has not used the UI; I said that there > was no logical alternative available to him that was not also "suggested" by > his system in this case. The UI cannot possibly "demonstrably suggest" any > logical alternative over another alternative not part of their system. > > Or do you seriously consider an action in conflict with the agreed upon > system a logical alternative in a situation where both players in the > partnership apparently abide by their system? You can get out of it even easier. Sloppy though they are, L40A & B authorize a partnership to have and use a bidding system. L16 authorizes a player to base his next call on the legal calls that preceded. None of this is UI. -Todd From blml at blakjak.com Thu Aug 11 14:41:46 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Aug 11 14:45:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FAF838.3040904@hdw.be> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> <42F9095B.2050102@hdw.be> <+lrQ7j6j7n+CFwWw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <42FAF838.3040904@hdw.be> Message-ID: HermY De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> HermY De Wael wrote >> >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>> HermY De Wael wrote >>>> >>>>> What WBF is that - the Welsh Bridge Federation. >>>>> Fielding a psyche is not an offence in any World BF that I know of. >>>>> Only the EBU have created this to be an offence. >>>> >>>> Fielding a psyche is a breach of L40. Even in the WBF I think >>>>you will find that players are required to follow L40. >>>> >>> >>> Yes David. Fielding a psyche _can_ be proof of some more >>>understanding than is being revealed. I'll even grant you that is is >>>proof, given the definition you use on "fielding". >>> >>> But the EBU are then guilty of providing two different rulings on >>>infractions of the same law. >>> >>> On the one hand you have the "fielded psyche". You say to the table >>>that the infracting pair are guilty of a breach of law 40, which is >>>called "partnership understandings". For that reason, their bidding >>>is called invalid and an artificial score is given. >>> >>> On the other hand you have the "forgotten alert". You say to the >>>table that the infracting pair are guilty of a breach of law 40, >>>which is called "partnership understandings". For that reason, their >>>opponent's bidding is checked and an adjusted score is given. >>> >>> Really David, your insistence that the EBU have gotten this one >>>right is wearing thin. >> Your deliberate mis-quoting of people is wearing thin. If you >>look back I did not say anything like what you are saying. >> > >I did not see any """""" in my previous message. I did not believe I >was quoting, so how can I be mis-quoting. > >If you believe that any of the two sentences above does not reflect the >way the EBU handles these two cases (and I stress that by 'you' above I >am not talking of you personally but of 'an EBU Director') then please >tell me where I have misinterpreted. I really wish I had >misinterpreted, because what results is a method of ruling that I >cannot fathom. > >So please enlighten me David, am I wrong in stating what I stated? >Regardless of whether you said it in those words or others? As you know perfectly well, I was not talking about this, and I am not going to get drawn in by your tactics. -- 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 hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 14:44:56 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 14:45:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FB251B.8080201@att.net> References: <000301c59e5a$944c49c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42FB251B.8080201@att.net> Message-ID: <42FB4848.3000905@hdw.be> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >>> Sven is saying in fact: A player has 2 logical alternatives: bidding >>> according to his system and bidding according to some other system. >>> Sven then says that if the player bids according to his system, then >>> he has not used the UI. >>> Sadly Sven cannot get under from it that easily. >> >> >> No, I have not said that the player has not used the UI; I said that >> there >> was no logical alternative available to him that was not also >> "suggested" by >> his system in this case. The UI cannot possibly "demonstrably suggest" >> any >> logical alternative over another alternative not part of their system. >> >> Or do you seriously consider an action in conflict with the agreed upon >> system a logical alternative in a situation where both players in the >> partnership apparently abide by their system? > > > You can get out of it even easier. Sloppy though they are, L40A & B > authorize a partnership to have and use a bidding system. L16 > authorizes a player to base his next call on the legal calls that > preceded. None of this is UI. > I'm sorry Todd, but that won't work. The explanation your partner is giving to the bidding must be called UI, or else there is no place for a ruling when you did get your system wrong. So it must also be called UI when you did know your system. And there must be some other reason why L16 does not apply tot that particular type of UI. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From blml at blakjak.com Thu Aug 11 14:44:01 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Aug 11 14:47:17 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] In-Reply-To: <459E625A-7DF1-4D65-8BFF-139A9F782AE0@rochester.rr.com> References: <459E625A-7DF1-4D65-8BFF-139A9F782AE0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <7a3h0YLRg0+CFwFt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote > >On Aug 10, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> An appeal against the former reasoning is, IMO, absolutely cast iron. >>An appeal against pass being an >> LA comes much closer to deserving an AWMP. > >This brings up an interesting point. When the ruling consists solely of >"Score it as 3NT down one", how in the Hell can you know how to >formulate an appeal? > >Easy answer: ask the TD for the basis of his ruling. Problem: you don't >get an answer to that request. Then you write on the appeal form: Basis of appeal: we asked for the basis of the ruling but our request was not acceded to. I would l-o-o-o-v-e to see that one when our Committee reviews all EBU appeals. Of course that also means the TD has left the "Basis of ruling" bit of the form blank. -- 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 Aug 11 14:47:10 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Aug 11 14:50:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <092EDB33-08CA-42CD-8D2D-0B9227524AC2@rochester.rr.com> References: <000201c59ddd$943ff580$6400a8c0@WINXP> <092EDB33-08CA-42CD-8D2D-0B9227524AC2@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Aug 10, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical >>alternative. > >Exactly. Many times discussed here: the above is the minority viewpoint. The majority viewpoint has always been that we can adjust if an illogical alternative suggested by the UI is chosen and successful. Of course, this is the only exception to the above. -- 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 hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 14:57:03 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 14:57:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050811073845.02d159b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050810160813.02ea5210@pop.starpower.net> <000701c59def$97cdf910$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050811073845.02d159b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <42FB4B1F.7020705@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I think that perhaps the "extra-legal" principle Herman is looking for > is this: If a player has no logical alternative to believing that > partner has misunderstood his call, he is not subject to the constraints > of L16. That is far from the same thing as "no logical alternative > action", but if we equate their effects, then Sven and Herman are on the > same page. > Of course Sven and I are on the same page - we have both been ruling this one correctly (ie NOT ruling) for the past 20 years. Our difference only comes from the legal reasons behind this non-ruling. > Partner opens 1NT, I bid 2H, intending it as a signoff (we don't care > about MI issues here, so it doesn't matter what our actual agreement > is). Partner bids a "non-systemic" 2S. There are two possibilities; > call them "wheels on" -- partner has correctly interpreted 2H, but is > making a forward-going move, presumably with good hearts and good spades > -- and "wheels off" -- partner thought 2H was a transfer. > > If wheels are on, I should sign off at 3H. I would have made this example different - make it accept to 4H. > If the wheels are off, I can > pass 2S with my reasonable spade holding and hope that it's playable, or Why would you? If the wheels are off, then partner does not have spades, so hearts is the retreat. After all, he certainly has hearts, no? Don't forget that this example is a hypothetical one, in which you have no UI. The fact that partner has bid over a sign-off is AI to you, so why should you not now bid 3H. In fact, in both cases, in your example, you should bid 3H. Which is why I wanted to change the first example to 4H. > I can bid 3H, forcing, showing secondary hearts with my spades, and hope > that partner will prefer hearts at the four-level. > > My subjective assessment of the probabilities is (a) 20% that the wheels > are on, (b) if the wheels are off, 75% that passing will be better than > 3H. So unconstrained I will choose to pass (which I assess as a 60% > action). > No, unconstrained you would bid hearts. > But if partner has alerted 2H as a transfer, my LAs are pass and 3H, and > I have UI suggesting that I pass, so I must bid 3H. My subjective > assessment of the probabilities has no bearing on the application of L16. > or rather the exact opposite. You are creating an example about how the info affects your legal obligations, and then you use those legal obligations into that example. > But suppose I believe (and can convince the TD/AC) that this particular > partner would never ever think about bidding over a signoff, so it is > certain that the wheels are off. My LAs are still pass and 3H, I still > have the same UI, and I still want to pass (now assessed as a 75% > action). With "no logical alternative" to assuming that the wheels are > off, however, the UI no longer makes passing any more attractive than it > would have been absent the UI, so I should be allowed to pass without > risking a L16 adjustment. > > > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 14:57:53 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 14:58:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> <42F9095B.2050102@hdw.be> <+lrQ7j6j7n+CFwWw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <42FAF838.3040904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <42FB4B51.4090707@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > As you know perfectly well, I was not talking about this, and I am not > going to get drawn in by your tactics. > If you are not going to give an opinion, then don't enter the thread in the first place. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk Thu Aug 11 15:50:49 2005 From: nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) Date: Thu Aug 11 15:52:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FB300E.1090703@hdw.be> References: <000301c59e5a$944c49c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42FB300E.1090703@hdw.be> Message-ID: HermY De Wael skrev: >> No, I have not said that the player has not used the UI; I said that there >> was no logical alternative available to him that was not also "suggested" by >> his system in this case. The UI cannot possibly "demonstrably suggest" any >> logical alternative over another alternative not part of their system. >I believe I understand your point, Sven, and am trying to put it in >other words. You are calling "bidding according to system" and >"bidding against the system" as alternatives, and you suggest that >"bidding against the system" is not a logical alternative. No, that is not his point. Suppose partner makes a bid and questioned explains its strength and the possible answers. I randomly choose 2H, 3C, 4S and PASS. Before hearing the UI, the player had four logical alternatives: 2H, 3C, 4S and PASS, because he remembered their system perfectly well. The UI suggests 2H, 3C, 4S and PASS. The UI does *not* suggest 2H, 3C, 4S and PASS over any logical alternative - there are none! It does not suggest 4S stronger than say 3C because that is a question of which hand the player has. Therefore he is free to choose among the (only) four possible answers. He is also free to break the system and bid anything he pleases since that in no way could be suggested by the UI. >But sadly those are not the actions the TD should look at, rather he >will look at "bidding 3NT" and "passing", and there is nothing in the >AI (your system) that makes "passing" not al logical alternative. >So if the UI suggests "bidding 3NT" then L16 says the player must pass. (Forget my example from here) The system does not only suggest 3NT. It suggests 3NT with a suitable hand and PASS with a non-suitable hand. Both choices are part of the agreement, and both are suggested by the UI. -- Bertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/ From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Thu Aug 11 16:21:35 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Thu Aug 11 16:24:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> <42F9095B.2050102@hdw.be> <+lrQ7j6j7n+CFwWw@blakjak.demon.co.uk><42FAF838.3040904@hdw.be> <42FB4B51.4090707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000f01c59e7f$fbf108c0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> How many more are you going to insult ,or invite to leave BLML Herman? Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> As you know perfectly well, I was not talking about this, and I am not >> going to get drawn in by your tactics. >> > > If you are not going to give an opinion, then don't enter the thread in > the first place. > > -- > HermY DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > Fifth Friday homepage: > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 17:12:13 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 17:12:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000f01c59e7f$fbf108c0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050807231027.03948d48@mail.comcast.net> <42F860E5.9050208@hdw.be> <000401c59cb9$1f2e2d90$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <42F8BADD.2060601@hdw.be> <42F9095B.2050102@hdw.be> <+lrQ7j6j7n+CFwWw@blakjak.demon.co.uk><42FAF838.3040904@hdw.be> <42FB4B51.4090707@hdw.be> <000f01c59e7f$fbf108c0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <42FB6ACD.5070500@hdw.be> Well Anne, in your case, I do wish to offer an apology. I did write something which was somewhat less than polite. I did think you were quite wrong however, and I stand by that opinion. In David's case however, I am a bit miffed at him. First of all he tells me I have said something stupid, but then when I ask him to comment - he tells me he does not want to get drawn into the discussion. Then he should not have started in the first place. I have asked a valid question, and I have received no other replies than "it's like that because it's like that", except from those who have refused to see a problem when there is one. Ah, I guess I'd better stop. People on blml are not interested in discussion, I fear, only in proving Herman wrong. Maybe I'm being paranoid, of course. Anne Jones wrote: > How many more are you going to insult ,or invite to leave BLML Herman? > Anne > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:57 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> >>> As you know perfectly well, I was not talking about this, and I am >>> not going to get drawn in by your tactics. >>> >> >> If you are not going to give an opinion, then don't enter the thread >> in the first place. >> >> -- >> HermY DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> Fifth Friday homepage: >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 11 17:30:21 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Aug 11 17:32:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FB3450.9000306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c59e89$963f82e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > >>Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". Apart > >>from the fact that it might carry additional UI, this statement adds > >>nothing to the AI that partner can also look at the board and know the > >>vulnerability. Surely you don't expect to rule L16 on someone who > >>hears his partner uttering these words? > > > > > > Most certainly I will!!!!! > > > > No you won't. NEVER ask me what I would do and then tell me that I would do something else than what I answer. This is a plain, deliberate insult. > > A reminder like that at a time of choosing between sacrificing and > passing > > and then passing "demonstrably suggests" that partner also should pass. > > > > I am not talking about this statement at the time partner is choosing > between sacrificing and not. I am talking about such a statement, > totally innocuous, at the beginning of the bidding. If I find that his statement "could have had" any influence on his partner's calls to the effect that opponents "could have been damaged" I repeat: Most certainly I will! > > If there could be any doubt whatsoever whether a player would sacrifice > or > > pass I would rule him into an unsuccessful sacrifice contract (if there > is > > one) if he had received such a remark from his partner. > > > > You would be right if the statement were made at that point. But > suppose the decision on sacrificing happens 5 minutes after the > innocuous statement above. Do you still rule that way? The UI is the > same, the suggested action is the same, the logical alternatives are > the same. > No, you don't rule that way, because the information is available to > the player making the decision as AI as well as as UI. > The reason why you rule in your case is because the UI is larger than > the AI - there is added emphasis at an important moment. My answer is still exactly the same as above: If I find that his statement "could have had" any influence on his partner's calls to the effect that opponents "could have been damaged" I repeat: Most certainly I will! Sorry for the repetitions, they appear necessary in this situation. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 11 17:44:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Aug 11 17:46:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c59e8b$812474e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Ed Reppert wrote > >On Aug 10, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Remember that Law 16 has no effect if there is only one logical > >>alternative. > > > >Exactly. > > Many times discussed here: the above is the minority viewpoint. > > The majority viewpoint has always been that we can adjust if an > illogical alternative suggested by the UI is chosen and successful. > > Of course, this is the only exception to the above. I just do not understand why this is any exception to my "minority" viewpoint? If the UI suggests an illogical alternative then there must be at least one logical (other) alternative for the situation? Or do you say that there are situations where a player simply has no logical alternatives at all, all his alternatives are illogical? (And even worse: His only alternative is illogical) If your statement is to the effect that the player has only one logical alternative and selected an illogical alternative suggested by the UI then IMO this is a self-contradicting statement because the alternative suggested by the UI is definitely different from the logical alternative I assume you will rule that the player should have chosen. (I had to read this twice to make sure I didn't mess up the logic in the statement) This fits nicely with my statement that the player had indeed more alternatives than the one suggested by the UI. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 11 19:18:13 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Aug 11 19:20:58 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] In-Reply-To: <000101c59e43$350cdcc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c59e43$350cdcc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6D391586-FF00-4F24-B086-6B7B4A2EBB73@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 11, 2005, at 3:06 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I don't see that as a problem, at least not the way we handle > appeals in > Norway: [snip procedures] > So you see failure by the Director to disclose his reasoning simply > makes > him more vulnerable. At a tournament here (Sectional or higher level) I would not expect this kind of failure on the part of a TD, but if it did happen, ACBL procedures are, AFAIK, similar to Norways. At a club game, however, procedures are much less formal - and it's club games of which I was writing. From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 11 22:25:57 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 11 22:26:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000001c59e89$963f82e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c59e89$963f82e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FBB455.3050302@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >> >>>>Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". Apart >>> >>>>from the fact that it might carry additional UI, this statement adds >>> >>>>nothing to the AI that partner can also look at the board and know the >>>>vulnerability. Surely you don't expect to rule L16 on someone who >>>>hears his partner uttering these words? >>> >>> >>>Most certainly I will!!!!! >>> >> >>No you won't. > > > NEVER ask me what I would do and then tell me that I would do something else > than what I answer. This is a plain, deliberate insult. > It is not meant as such. See below. > >>>A reminder like that at a time of choosing between sacrificing and >> >>passing >> >>>and then passing "demonstrably suggests" that partner also should pass. >>> >> >>I am not talking about this statement at the time partner is choosing >>between sacrificing and not. I am talking about such a statement, >>totally innocuous, at the beginning of the bidding. > > > If I find that his statement "could have had" any influence on his partner's > calls to the effect that opponents "could have been damaged" I repeat: > > Most certainly I will! > Please read again the first word fo your own sentence : IF. This means that even you can imagine that there are circumstances under which even you find that there could simply have been no influence. OK? Now just believe that the case I am talking about is one in which these circumstances are met. So in this case you will not rule against this pair. And now please tell me why you won't. Why L16, which is of application, is yet not applied by yourself. The UI brings absolutely nothing more to the knowledge of the player than what he also has as AI. Tell me where in L16 it says that you do not need to look for LA's and suggested alternatives. And don't comu up with there being no suggested alternative. You cite lots of ways in which the knowledge of the vulnerability might affect someones bidding. > >>>If there could be any doubt whatsoever whether a player would sacrifice >> >>or >> >>>pass I would rule him into an unsuccessful sacrifice contract (if there >> >>is >> >>>one) if he had received such a remark from his partner. >>> >> >>You would be right if the statement were made at that point. But >>suppose the decision on sacrificing happens 5 minutes after the >>innocuous statement above. Do you still rule that way? The UI is the >>same, the suggested action is the same, the logical alternatives are >>the same. >>No, you don't rule that way, because the information is available to >>the player making the decision as AI as well as as UI. >>The reason why you rule in your case is because the UI is larger than >>the AI - there is added emphasis at an important moment. > > > My answer is still exactly the same as above: > > If I find that his statement "could have had" any influence on his partner's > calls to the effect that opponents "could have been damaged" I repeat: > > Most certainly I will! > > Sorry for the repetitions, they appear necessary in this situation. > And I will not do so as well. Please re-read my example and look at it under those circumstances that would allow you not to rule agains the pair. From the word 'if' in your very own sentence I deduce that there are such circumstances, even if you believe them to be very rare. > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 11 22:42:51 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Aug 11 22:47:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com><748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk><002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com><2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> <2FiSjF6F6n+CFw1O@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c59eb5$883c9cb0$4ba0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief >> >>You seem to be saying you have to look at the > >whole hand, not just the suit bid. With that I agree. > >But to say "that call is a psych" is to say the player > >made it deliberately, *knowing* that it was a "gross > > misstatement of honor strength or suit length". If he > > doesn't know it, well, he might be wrong, but that > > makes it a misbid, not a psych. So it seems to me, > > anyway. > > Trust me: when Marv bids a 3-card major, *he* > knows what he is doing. > +=+ Probably true. However, the question is not material to the question whether he has an implicit (or indeed explicit) understanding with partner which must be disclosed as part of his system. When he does something repeatedly, even at long intervals, his practice eventually becomes known to his partner. It is then not relevant whether partner caters for it or not in his actions. The judgement whether this situation exists is not left to the partnership to determine; all Marv's protestations are floss in the wind. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 12 00:57:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Aug 12 01:00:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FBB455.3050302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c59ec8$14031000$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > >> > >>>> Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". > >>>> Apart from the fact that it might carry additional UI, this > >>>> statement adds nothing to the AI that partner can also look > >>>> at the board and know the vulnerability. Surely you don't > >>>> expect to rule L16 on someone who hears his partner uttering > >>>> these words? > >>> > >>> > >>> Most certainly I will!!!!! > >>> > >> > >>No you won't. > > > > > > NEVER ask me what I would do and then tell me that I would do > > something else than what I answer. This is a plain, deliberate > > insult. > > It is not meant as such. See below. At least I am grateful for that. But a summary of what you elaborated appears to be: You have forgotten or overlooked that ruling L16 is NOT the same as convicting. L16 applies in all cases where UI has been given and ruling L16 simply implies first investigating whether such UI has been illegally used. L16 then specifies (among other possible reactions) that WHEN the director finds that UI can have been illegally used THEN he should award an adjusted score IF he considers that such use has resulted in damage to opponents. So my final answer is the same: Yes I shall most certainly rule L16 whenever UI might exist (and I am aware that happens pretty often). Whether my ruling will result in an adjusted score (or in some other reaction) depends upon what I find. No ILLEGAL use or no DAMAGE, no adjustment. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 12 01:12:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 12 01:15:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F9F04B.8030901@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>So in your system the auction: >> >>1NT - 2H - 2S - >> >>does not exist unless you use transfers? Herman De Wael: >No it does not. If I were to play in an >environment where transfers are not yet >fully systemic, then 2H is a sign-off. Richard Hills: It is not the case that 2H *must* be either a signoff or a transfer. In Sydney there is a third possibility. If Herman were to play in the environment of Sydney's Double Bay Rubber Bridge Club, its "Backroom" bidding system uses 2H as a natural and forcing bid. So, if Herman noticed his pard's lack of an alert of Herman's 2H bid, then noticed that his pard bid 2S, that would give UI to Herman that: (a) he was currently visiting Sydney, and (b) his partnership had a 5-5 spade fit. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 12 03:07:11 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 12 03:09:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000301c59e5a$944c49c0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran throws gauntlet: [snip] >If your partner in third or fourth hand when initially >looking at his cards gives you UI suggesting that you >pass and you pick up a Yarborough I should like to see >the Director or AC that will force you to bid because >you may no longer pass due to that UI? Richard Hills retrieves gauntlet: Easy. You and your partner used to be regular Precision players, but have switched to Acol for the first time in this session. On the first board of the session you are hung over, so erroneously believe that you are still playing Precision. Partner opens 1C in fourth seat, saying, "Damn, I wish we were still playing Precision - we could play in the right partscore if pard has a very weak hand opposite my balanced 20 hcp." Ergo, you are required to respond a negative Precision 1D on your yarborough, reaching a ridiculous game when pard expects you to hold diamonds with at least 6 hcp. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 12 03:40:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 12 03:43:04 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] In-Reply-To: <459E625A-7DF1-4D65-8BFF-139A9F782AE0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote: >An appeal against the former reasoning is, IMO, absolutely cast >iron. An appeal against pass being an LA comes much closer to >deserving an AWMP. Richard Hills responds: In my opinion, one does not appeal against reasoning, one appeals against an outcome. The TD ruled the right outcome for the wrong reason. The appellant was a Law-versed Aussie champion who was well aware that alternative reasoning to the TD's reasoning was likely to give the same outcome. Why, then, should the appellant escape a fine for a meritless appeal? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 12 03:48:40 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Aug 12 03:51:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <200508091431.j79EVr8f005148@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508091431.j79EVr8f005148@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42FBFFF8.1030209@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: David Stevenson > One of the essences of ruling our game is that TDs and ACs make > judgements. Indeed. No doubt many of those judgments are even correct. > There is nothing wrong with that. This is the point under dispute, though I certainly grant that some kinds of judgments cannot be avoided without introducing worse problems. > If we delete all the mind reading rules then we do one of two things. > [1] Allow what is currently perceived as cheating, or > [2] Treat innocent people as though they are cheats. I don't see how either one of these follows. The relevant question is whether, _in a particular type of case_, judgment rulings improve the game or not. I use the term "mind reading" for the particular class of judgments that depend solely on the internal state of mind of a player. I have yet to see an example where judgment of that type improves the game, but I am willing to be shown some. In the present thread, the question was whether to treat misbids differently from psychs. How does doing so improve the game? Both are legal, and in both cases relevant partnership experience must be disclosed. Why would you wish to treat them differently? David, you even agree with me (or at least did in the past) on another example: L25A. As the Laws stand now, calls can be changed if inadvertent (provided certain other conditions apply). But the judgment of inadvertent is mind reading. Much better to have a recognizeable instant when a call is "made," and before then it can be changed for any reason, after then not at all. This is easier for the players to understand, and I think most will think it fairer. Another example is L16A, which requires judgment about LAs and "suggested over another" but no mind reading. We do not ask what the player would have done absent UI nor whether he "used" the UI. We give a strictly technical ruling involving (perhaps difficult) judgments. Don't you think this is both easier and fairer than the situation prior to 1975, when a player's intent had to be determined? As I say, I'm willing to be convinced, but so far have seen nothing remotely persuasive. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 12 03:56:03 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Aug 12 03:58:26 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU 2003 casebook appeal number 6 In-Reply-To: <200508091439.j79EdBbM005957@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508091439.j79EdBbM005957@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42FC01B3.3080503@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> Do we agree that "Lead a heart," (by a defender) is illegal? > From: Bertel Lund Hansen > Absolutely. SW> If so, what Law says you don't adjust the score if opponents are damaged? > How can they be damaged by this request if partner does not act > on it (but carefully avoids any lead that might be ... throughout > the play.)? Suppose partner's normal lead is a heart, but instead he leads something else ("carefully avoiding" as you say), which happens to work well? In a normal L16A case, defenders keep their score, but that is because in normal cases "making the UI available" is not an infraction. This case is different, and L16A has nothing to do with it. The statement is _in itself_ an infraction. If that infraction causes damage, opponents are entitled to redress, just as they are for any other infraction. Just because there are other Laws that apply to entirely different situations is no reason to deny redress in this one. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 12 04:09:56 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Aug 12 04:12:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <200508102226.j7AMQEwW021791@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508102226.j7AMQEwW021791@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42FC04F4.1040301@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Partner gives me UI by correctly alerting (or not alerting) or by informing > opponents correctly on the interpretation of my call. This UI then suggests > to me that I continue to call according to our agreements simply because > there is no discrepancy between his UI and our system. In other words his UI > does not "demonstrably suggest" any action by me over any logical > alternative action This is the heart of the matter. It is nearly always correct, but can we construct a situation where it isn't? If so, what do we do then? Suppose after a few rounds of bidding, I decide I have a hand that might make slam. Suppose further that I have logical alternatives of blasting into slam (hoping poor defense will let it make if the slam isn't good) or bidding scientifically to find out if partner has the right cards. If partner has correctly alerted and explained previous calls, doesn't that suggest the scientific approach over blasting? If you don't like this example and can't construct another, I guess there is no problem. This is a good place to bring up a radical suggestion from Jeff Rubens. I've been meaning to inquire about it for awhile now. In a BW editorial, he suggests that all _correct_ alerts and answers to questions should be considered AI. As I say, this is radical, though really it isn't too far from the situation that prevailed from 1975 to 1987. My first reaction, as yours probably will be too, is that this is nuts, but on consideration I see it solves some otherwise difficult problems. One is that a question from an opponent cannot put our side in an invidious UI position as long as we answer correctly. Another is that the TD no longer has to invent a fantasy bidding system for a pair who misbid. (Of course an _incorrect_ explanation is still UI; no dispute about that.) So is Jeff onto something, or was my original impression correct? I recommend not answering too quickly. As I say, I know what everyone's first thought will be... a little mind reading of my own, I guess. :-) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Aug 12 04:24:33 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Aug 12 04:27:02 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] In-Reply-To: References: <459E625A-7DF1-4D65-8BFF-139A9F782AE0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050811215915.0395dad0@mail.comcast.net> At 09:40 PM 8/11/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >An appeal against the former reasoning is, IMO, absolutely cast > >iron. An appeal against pass being an LA comes much closer to > >deserving an AWMP. > >Richard Hills responds: > >In my opinion, one does not appeal against reasoning, one >appeals against an outcome. > >The TD ruled the right outcome for the wrong reason. The >appellant was a Law-versed Aussie champion who was well aware >that alternative reasoning to the TD's reasoning was likely to >give the same outcome. Why, then, should the appellant escape >a fine for a meritless appeal? Given the discussion we have had on BLML, the appellant should not have been expected to know the outcome of the alternative argument. Several people on BLML have already said that they would have ruled the other way. My standard for an appeal without merit is that the appellants should have known that the appeal could not change the results in their favor. This is based on the level of the appellants, and on the information they already have. If the TD rules on an issue, there is a presumption that he is correct; if the TD makes a ruling but does not mention an issue, there is no such presumption. And if the TD gives a basis for the ruling, such as, "I asked four players, and three of the four would have passed not knowing about the slow pass," there is an even stronger presumption that he is correct. The appellants have different information about whether the appeal has merit. Unfortunately, TD's do make mistakes (such as ruling on MI only when there are both UI and MI), and an appeal which attempts to correct a TD mistake normally has merit. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 12 04:42:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 12 04:45:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the river In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon: >>I'd be surprised if you can find a *single* Acol text in which these >>sorts of sequences are ascribed the meaning you present. Or is >>"standard meaning" defined as "what Tim wants it to mean"? Tim: >I doubt there are *any* texts on this sequence. Lacking such I rely >on the custom and practice of those who have been playing Acol >largely unaltered for 30-40+ years. Richard: In my opinion, "largely unaltered" begs the question. Acol is not _a_ system, but _many_ systems constantly evolving in different ways in different locations. Aussie Acol 2005 has little resemblance to Tim West-Meads Acol 2005, which in turn has little resemblance to the Acol of Acol Road 1935. Heraclitus: >>>Everything flows and nothing stays. You can't step twice into the >>>same river. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 12 04:55:14 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Aug 12 04:57:56 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 20:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >An appeal against the former reasoning is, IMO, absolutely cast > >iron. An appeal against pass being an LA comes much closer to > >deserving an AWMP. > > Richard Hills responds: > > In my opinion, one does not appeal against reasoning, one > appeals against an outcome. > > The TD ruled the right outcome for the wrong reason. The > appellant was a Law-versed Aussie champion who was well aware > that alternative reasoning to the TD's reasoning was likely to > give the same outcome. Why, then, should the appellant escape > a fine for a meritless appeal? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac imo it is not merely imperative that the TD to get the reason correct, it is important to provide it to the players. The reasoning is something that the players can trust- and see for themselves that it is correct. And if they see for themselves that it is not correct it is right to appeal so as to achieve the correct outcome for the correct reasons. To fail to provide the reasoning the player is helpless should he bring an appeal since he is left to mind read what the AC thinks is relevant- and he is particularly ill suited to mind read. Providing the reasoning is the best route for players to learn so as to avoid the need for rulings in the first place. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 12 06:48:08 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 12 06:50:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FC04F4.1040301@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >This is a good place to bring up a radical suggestion from Jeff >Rubens. I've been meaning to inquire about it for awhile now. >In a BW editorial, he suggests that all _correct_ alerts and >answers to questions should be considered AI. [snip] >(Of course an _incorrect_ explanation is still UI; no dispute >about that.) > >So is Jeff onto something, or was my original impression >correct? I recommend not answering too quickly. As I say, I >know what everyone's first thought will be... a little mind >reading of my own, I guess. :-) Richard Hills: Not a radical suggestion by Jeff Rubens; rather a Back to the Future suggestion. If one read Edgar Kaplan's "How Would You Rule?" feature in The Bridge World circa 1970-1971, Edgar interpreted the just-introduced Alert rules then the way that Jeff wants the tried-and-true Alert rules interpreted now. Of course, Edgar Kaplan was soon forced to modify his initial interpretation that correct alerts were AI. An unintended consequence of Edgar's initial naive interpretation was that circa 1970-1971 Alerts were used to _create_ an agreement at the table when a pair had not arranged any prior agreement. A classic case was an undiscussed 4C bid in an auction when the 4C bid could be either Gerber or natural. If the partner of the 4C bidder Alerted 4C, then bid 4H, the 4C bidder now knew that the partnership had an agreement that 4H was artificial, showing one ace. If the partner of the 4C bidder did not Alert 4C, then bid 4H, the 4C bidder now knew that the partnership had an agreement that 4H showed a natural suit. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 12 07:11:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 12 07:13:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050810200234.03960580@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner revealed: >However, the principle still applies when you can't tell the >difference. The following once happened to me: > >I had four spades and 6 HCP. Partner opened 2NT. I bid 3C, >intending it as Stayman. Partner alerted and explained as >Puppet Stayman (our correct agreement; it was on our card). >Partner bid 3D, which I properly explained as showing a >four-card major. Avoiding use of UI, I bid 3NT, which is >what I would have bid without the alert, and we played in >3NT while the field was in 4S. > >It would have been a violation of the Laws for me to bid 3H >instead of 3NT. There is no way that a TD or AC could have >ruled against me for the bid (unless I confessed), because I >would have bid exactly the same if I had remembered the >system. However, the Law and principles of active ethics >still apply. Richard Hills asks: In my opinion, this real-life example is what *should* resolve the (partly semantic) debate on this thread between Sven Pran and Herman De Wael. But *is* the debate resolved? Does Herman De Wael agree with the statement, "It would have been a violation of the Laws for me to bid 3H instead of 3NT"? If "There is no way that a TD or AC could have ruled against me", does that make such an action Lawful under the De Wael School philosophy? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From adam at tameware.com Fri Aug 12 05:36:17 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:01:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> References: <42F73811.5050203@hdw.be> <9ABE9011-0A4A-4327-A018-E041BD6BB346@rochester.rr.com> <42F8615B.50503@hdw.be> Message-ID: At 9:55 AM +0200 8/9/05, HermY De Wael wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >>On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>If, as I presume, this is a UI case, I rule that there is >>>sufficient AI present to counter the UI, and I will not rule UI. >> >> >>Hm. What law allows this? >> > >Common sense and practice. >I bid 2H transfer to spades. >My partner alerts and says "transfer to spades". >This is UI. >Don't you see that I also have AI (the knowledge of my own system) >and that the sum of both means that I am not restricted by the UI? I find the "common sense and practice" explanation unsatisfying. The alert must by UI. Likewise partner's failure to alert would also be UI. I'd like to understand better how the laws function when every player has UI on every deal. We've discussed this before. See the "Phoenix Case 2" threads here: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2003-February/thread.html Direct links: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2003-February/004172.html http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2003-February/004177.html http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2003-February/004189.html -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 12 03:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:01:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <2FiSjF6F6n+CFw1O@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: DWS wrote: > Trust me: when Marv bids a 3-card major, *he* knows what he is doing. And when I bid a 3 card suit I certainly know what I am doing. Sometimes I know I'm making a marginally anti-systemic bid because I think it will describe the "texture" of the hand better (a "deviation" is the EBU term) and sometimes I am psyching (ie intending to paint a misleading picture of my hand). OK very, very occasionally I mis-sort my hand and it's a misbid - to err is human. While I believe others would understand my rationale for deviating I don't actually give a tinkers cuss whether they agree with it. It's *my* judgement and mine alone and, good or bad, it's me that backs that judgement day-in, day-out in every game of bridge I play whether for money or matchpoints. The guideline David quoted about "1 card out" can be a useful starting point - but, as he said, not if it is treated as a "rule". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 12 03:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:02:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <011e01c59e0e$94310b20$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > But "gross deviation" is a phrase that is hard to > pin down. Do Marvin French, Tim West-Meades, John > MadDog Probst and David Stevenson interpret this > phrase to allow you to open a three card major, > occasionally? The laws allow for deliberate departures from system. These may be gross (and thus psychic) or minor (and thus not psychic). In either case partner is required to disclose (in answer to questions) any awareness/experience he has relevant to such departures. Relatively frequent departures may (but need not) create systemic agreements which may (or may not) be restricted by SO regulations. Tim (and that's Meads!) From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 12 03:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:02:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FB4848.3000905@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > So it must also be called UI when you did know your system. > And there must be some other reason why L16 does not apply tot that > particular type of UI. Quite simple really. It is so seldom logical to base one's decisions on partner having forgotten the system that "confirmatory" UI generally doesn't suggest any action over another. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 12 03:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:02:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <7f10bf701418a84006fa720f27eac959@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > > You are probably right. Here in the Netherlands there are not > > many people opening 1NT with a sixcard diamonds; on the other > > hand, there are a lot of people playing 2NT as a diamond transfer. > > So here I would suspect that somebody forgot the agreement. In > > the UK, where the sixcard diamonds is more common and the transfer > > fairly rare, it is probably the sixcard variety. So no need > > to fight over the suggested action over 3D; it all depends on > > where you are :) > > That would be true if the information you were given had been correct. > However I, who play all my bridge in the UK, am sure I meet more > players who play 2NT as a diamond transfer than those who open 1NT with > a six-card diamond suit Likewise. But, unless the latter group is near zero, not strictly relevant. Behind screens one might make a judgement as to whether partner thinks one is playing transfers and bid accordingly. But in possession of UI, and given a reasonable natural meaning for the bid if one does not play transfers, that "choice" no longer exists. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 12 03:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:02:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <000001c59eb5$883c9cb0$4ba0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Probably true. However, the question is not material > to the question whether he has an implicit (or indeed > explicit) understanding with partner which must be disclosed > as part of his system. It must be disclosed if his partner is aware of it. Whether it is part of his system or not is irrelevant. Why do we have to blur words - the laws require disclosure of known deviancy (minor or gross) just as much as they require disclosure of "system". Tim From hermy at hdw.be Fri Aug 12 09:03:15 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:03:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000201c59ec8$14031000$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c59ec8$14031000$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FC49B3.2040600@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >> >>>>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". >>>>>>Apart from the fact that it might carry additional UI, this >>>>>>statement adds nothing to the AI that partner can also look >>>>>>at the board and know the vulnerability. Surely you don't >>>>>>expect to rule L16 on someone who hears his partner uttering >>>>>>these words? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Most certainly I will!!!!! >>>>> >>>> >>>>No you won't. >>> >>> >>>NEVER ask me what I would do and then tell me that I would do >>>something else than what I answer. This is a plain, deliberate >>>insult. >> >>It is not meant as such. See below. > > > At least I am grateful for that. > > But a summary of what you elaborated appears to be: > > You have forgotten or overlooked that ruling L16 is NOT the same as > convicting. L16 applies in all cases where UI has been given and ruling L16 > simply implies first investigating whether such UI has been illegally used. > > L16 then specifies (among other possible reactions) that WHEN the director > finds that UI can have been illegally used THEN he should award an adjusted > score IF he considers that such use has resulted in damage to opponents. > > So my final answer is the same: Yes I shall most certainly rule L16 whenever > UI might exist (and I am aware that happens pretty often). Whether my ruling > will result in an adjusted score (or in some other reaction) depends upon > what I find. No ILLEGAL use or no DAMAGE, no adjustment. > Cleverly done, Sven. By snipping the entire second half of my post you manage to make it seem as if you haven't changed your mind. If it is that difficult for you to admit that maybe Herman is right after all, I shall not press any further. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Fri Aug 12 09:14:37 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:15:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42FC4C5D.5010208@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>So it must also be called UI when you did know your system. >>And there must be some other reason why L16 does not apply tot that >>particular type of UI. > > > Quite simple really. It is so seldom logical to base one's decisions on > partner having forgotten the system that "confirmatory" UI > generally doesn't suggest any action over another. > No sorry Tim, that won't work. The UI is still there, and it will suggest one action over one other. It is only because there is some AI as well, that the UI gets negated. Consider the following example: 2NT - pass - 3Cl - pass 3Di 3Cl is asking about the majors, either stayman or puppet. Opener alerts and explains it is puppet (so he has shown a 4-card major). Holding 4 hearts, responder should now bid 3 Spades, so 3Sp is now suggested over 3NT. If responder were to reveal that he was uncertain which of the two conventions he were playing, the explanation is UI to him, so he should now bid 3NT. But even when the player does know what system he is playing, he might contemplate bidding 3NT immediately (he was checking for 5-cards but does not believe 4He is better than 3NT on a mere 4-4 fit). So he still has 2 logical alternatives: 3NT and 3Sp, and one action which is suggested by the UI: 3Sp. And he still has UI - although he also has AI - the correct knowledge of his system. So you really cannot get out from under applying L16, except by subtracting the AI from the UI and see if there is any UI left. > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Fri Aug 12 09:21:50 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 12 09:22:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42FC4E0E.4030708@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > David J. Grabiner revealed: > >> >>It would have been a violation of the Laws for me to bid 3H >>instead of 3NT. There is no way that a TD or AC could have >>ruled against me for the bid (unless I confessed), because I >>would have bid exactly the same if I had remembered the >>system. However, the Law and principles of active ethics >>still apply. > > > Richard Hills asks: > > In my opinion, this real-life example is what *should* > resolve the (partly semantic) debate on this thread between > Sven Pran and Herman De Wael. > > But *is* the debate resolved? Does Herman De Wael agree > with the statement, "It would have been a violation of the > Laws for me to bid 3H instead of 3NT"? If "There is no way > that a TD or AC could have ruled against me", does that make > such an action Lawful under the De Wael School philosophy? > Of course not - I never advocate doing one action rather than another because the TD could not tell whether you were being cheatful! Of course the explanation is and remains UI if it tells you something you did not know already. And of course it is always possible to say that you did know it when there is nothing in your hand to reveal the opposite. And of course it is difficult to convince the TD that you knew when your hand does reveal the opposite. But we are not talking proof here, but principle. If you hear from an unauthorized source something which you also know from an authorized one - is that knowledge still UI to you? I say it is not. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 12 10:37:54 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Aug 12 10:39:34 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] References: Message-ID: <001201c59f19$22cbaf60$199868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > In my opinion, one does not appeal > against reasoning, one appeals against > an outcome. The TD ruled the right > outcome for the wrong reason. The > appellant was a Law-versed Aussie > champion who was well aware > that alternative reasoning to the TD's > reasoning was likely to give the same > outcome. Why, then, should the appellant > escape a fine for a meritless appeal? [nige1] IMO You appeal against a "ruling", which should contain both an "outcome" and the "reasons" that justify it. Hence if the director's reasoning is faulty your appeal cannot be meritless. From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 12 10:47:19 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Aug 12 10:49:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FC49B3.2040600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c59f1a$72ebf6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > >> > >>>>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". > >>>>>>Apart from the fact that it might carry additional UI, this > >>>>>>statement adds nothing to the AI that partner can also look > >>>>>>at the board and know the vulnerability. Surely you don't > >>>>>>expect to rule L16 on someone who hears his partner uttering > >>>>>>these words? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Most certainly I will!!!!! > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>No you won't. > >>> > >>> > >>>NEVER ask me what I would do and then tell me that I would do > >>>something else than what I answer. This is a plain, deliberate > >>>insult. > >> > >>It is not meant as such. See below. > > > > > > At least I am grateful for that. > > > > But a summary of what you elaborated appears to be: > > > > You have forgotten or overlooked that ruling L16 is NOT the same as > > convicting. L16 applies in all cases where UI has been given and ruling > L16 > > simply implies first investigating whether such UI has been illegally > used. > > > > L16 then specifies (among other possible reactions) that WHEN the > director > > finds that UI can have been illegally used THEN he should award an > adjusted > > score IF he considers that such use has resulted in damage to opponents. > > > > So my final answer is the same: Yes I shall most certainly rule L16 > whenever > > UI might exist (and I am aware that happens pretty often). Whether my > ruling > > will result in an adjusted score (or in some other reaction) depends > upon > > what I find. No ILLEGAL use or no DAMAGE, no adjustment. > > > > Cleverly done, Sven. > By snipping the entire second half of my post you manage to make it > seem as if you haven't changed your mind. > > If it is that difficult for you to admit that maybe Herman is right > after all, I shall not press any further. I thought I was done with this discussion summing up why I still are of the opinion that L16 ALWAYS applies when there is a question of UI. However as you insult me of tactically snipping away a large amount of text which really did not bring anything further to the discussion, here it is then with my comments: (The "old" texts are prefixed with initials, my current comments are not) SP: A reminder like that at a time of choosing between sacrificing and passing and then passing "demonstrably suggests" that partner also should pass. HdW: I am not talking about this statement at the time partner is choosing between sacrificing and not. I am talking about such a statement, totally innocuous, at the beginning of the bidding. SP: If I find that his statement "could have had" any influence on his partner's calls to the effect that opponents "could have been damaged" I repeat: Most certainly I will! HdW: Please read again the first word fo your own sentence : IF. This means that even you can imagine that there are circumstances under which even you find that there could simply have been no influence. OK? Of course I do. I never said anything else. But I still rule L16, investigate and in such cases conclude that the UI has not been illegally used or that there is no damage to opponents so there is no reason for any adjustment. HdW: Now just believe that the case I am talking about is one in which these circumstances are met. So in this case you will not rule against this pair. And now please tell me why you won't. Why L16, which is of application, is yet not applied by yourself. The UI brings absolutely nothing more to the knowledge of the player than what he also has as AI. Tell me where in L16 it says that you do not need to look for LA's and suggested alternatives. When there is a question on UI you apply L16. In your case here you will (hopefully) end up with "yes the player has received UI" and "but the action selected was not one demonstrably suggested by the UI over another logical alternative action" or "but there was no damage to opponents from the selected action" and thus you rule "no adjustments". THIS IS STILL L16 RULING!!!!! HdW: And don't comu up with there being no suggested alternative. You cite lots of ways in which the knowledge of the vulnerability might affect someones bidding. SP: If there could be any doubt whatsoever whether a player would sacrifice or pass I would rule him into an unsuccessful sacrifice contract (if there is one) if he had received such a remark from his partner. HdW: You would be right if the statement were made at that point. But suppose the decision on sacrificing happens 5 minutes after the innocuous statement above. Do you still rule that way? The UI is the same, the suggested action is the same, the logical alternatives are the same. No, you don't rule that way, because the information is available to the player making the decision as AI as well as as UI. The reason why you rule in your case is because the UI is larger than the AI - there is added emphasis at an important moment. SP: My answer is still exactly the same as above: If I find that his statement "could have had" any influence on his partner's calls to the effect that opponents "could have been damaged" I repeat: Most certainly I will! I just wonder: It happens from time to time that a "Result stands" ruling in UI cases becomes appealed. When I prepare the appeals form in such cases I fill in the facts as I see them, my reasoning for ruling "result stands" and a reference to L16 (with sub-paragraphs) for the law I have applied (possibly also other laws if relevant). Which law do you refer to as applied for your ruling in such cases? Sven From hermy at hdw.be Fri Aug 12 11:21:28 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 12 11:21:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000001c59f1a$72ebf6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c59f1a$72ebf6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FC6A18.7020501@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Cleverly done, Sven. >>By snipping the entire second half of my post you manage to make it >>seem as if you haven't changed your mind. >> >>If it is that difficult for you to admit that maybe Herman is right >>after all, I shall not press any further. > > > > I thought I was done with this discussion summing up why I still are of the > opinion that L16 ALWAYS applies when there is a question of UI. > Did I ever say anything else? Of course L16 applies. The problem is that in some cases we don't apply it. I want to find out why. Mind you, I feel we are totally on the same wavelength here. I doubt if there are cases where you would rule UI and I would not. Or vice versa. But I want to show you that what you are doing. > However as you insult me of tactically snipping away a large amount of text > which really did not bring anything further to the discussion, here it is > then with my comments: (The "old" texts are prefixed with initials, my > current comments are not) > > SP: A reminder like that at a time of choosing between sacrificing and > passing and then passing "demonstrably suggests" that partner also should > pass. > HdW: I am not talking about this statement at the time partner is choosing > between sacrificing and not. I am talking about such a statement, totally > innocuous, at the beginning of the bidding. > SP: If I find that his statement "could have had" any influence on his > partner's calls to the effect that opponents "could have been damaged" I > repeat: Most certainly I will! > HdW: Please read again the first word fo your own sentence : IF. This means > that even you can imagine that there are circumstances under which even you > find that there could simply have been no influence. OK? > > Of course I do. I never said anything else. But I still rule L16, > investigate and in such cases conclude that the UI has not been illegally > used or that there is no damage to opponents so there is no reason for any > adjustment. > OK Sven, this is the crux of the matter. You say you apply L16, and yet you do not rule against this pair. Let me first tell you that I absolutely agree with you not ruling UI. But your reasons are not correct. You give two possible reasons. This makes me believe that you think either of these reasons could apply or not. What do you do is neither reason applies? Let me explain: - You conclude that there is no damage to opponents. Well, if there is no damage, there would be no reason to complain in the first place, iwould there - so let's assume there is damage. - or you conclude that the UI has not been illegally used. What does that mean? There is UI, there is a suggested alternative, and there are logical alternatives to the suggested one. The player in possession of the UI has chosen the suggested alternative. Where in L16 do you find that there is 'legal' and 'illegal' use of UI? Don't you see Sven, that what you call 'legal' use of UI is nothing more or less than what I call 'UI which has been superseded by AI'? I want you to take a deep look into the wording of L16 and tell me where you find anything that allows you not to rule against this pair? I've looked, and I haven't found anything. But I've tried to explain why all the directors in the world rule the same way: they find that there is AI which tells the same thing as UI. You have also looked, but you've come up with 'no illegal use of UI'. Permit me to find that wording too vague. > HdW: Now just believe that the case I am talking about is one in which these > circumstances are met. So in this case you will not rule against this pair. > And now please tell me why you won't. Why L16, which is of application, is > yet not applied by yourself. The UI brings absolutely nothing more to the > knowledge of the player than what he also has as AI. Tell me where in L16 it > says that you do not need to look for LA's and suggested alternatives. > > When there is a question on UI you apply L16. In your case here you will > (hopefully) end up with "yes the player has received UI" and "but the action > selected was not one demonstrably suggested by the UI over another logical > alternative action" or "but there was no damage to opponents from the > selected action" and thus you rule "no adjustments". > THIS IS STILL L16 RULING!!!!! > I agree that what we end up with is always a L16 ruling. But the rulings you suggest above are not the ones you can use. See my example below. > HdW: And don't comu up with there being no suggested alternative. You cite > lots of ways in which the knowledge of the vulnerability might affect > someones bidding. > > SP: If there could be any doubt whatsoever whether a player would sacrifice > or pass I would rule him into an unsuccessful sacrifice contract (if there > is one) if he had received such a remark from his partner. > HdW: You would be right if the statement were made at that point. But > suppose the decision on sacrificing happens 5 minutes after the innocuous > statement above. Do you still rule that way? The UI is the same, the > suggested action is the same, the logical alternatives are the same. No, you > don't rule that way, because the information is available to the player > making the decision as AI as well as as UI. The reason why you rule in your > case is because the UI is larger than the AI - there is added emphasis at an > important moment. > SP: My answer is still exactly the same as above: If I find that his > statement "could have had" any influence on his partner's calls to the > effect that opponents "could have been damaged" I repeat: Most certainly I > will! > > I just wonder: It happens from time to time that a "Result stands" ruling in > UI cases becomes appealed. When I prepare the appeals form in such cases I > fill in the facts as I see them, my reasoning for ruling "result stands" and > a reference to L16 (with sub-paragraphs) for the law I have applied > (possibly also other laws if relevant). > > Which law do you refer to as applied for your ruling in such cases? > None - I have always said that there is a flaw in L16. A flaw which no-one has ever stumbled over, because it is so logical that we don't rule UI over 'correct and expected explanations'. That's just the point. A new example: three cases with the same cards and bidding. Case A: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He looks at the board and checks the vulnerability. He thinks for 2 minutes longer and makes his call. Case B: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. His partner says "we're vulnerable". The player thinks for 2 minutes longer and makes his call. Case C: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He remembers that his partner has said, at the beginning of the deal "board 2. E dealer. NS vulnerable". He thinks for 2 minutes longer and makes his call. In Case A, there is no UI, so of course no ruling. But from it, we learn that there are apparently LAs, and that the vulnerability, while suggesting one action over another, is not enough to rule out an alternative as being logical. Let's carry those conclusions over to cases B and C. In case B, there is UI, which of course suggests one action over the other. Both actions are LAs, so the player should now certainly choose the non-suggested action. In case C, there is also UI. This again suggests one action, and there are LA to that action. Yet you would not rule against this player. Why not? It cannot be because the AI clearly suggests one action, so the other is no longer an LA. It cannot be because the opponents are not damaged, because of course, when the board is finished, it turns out that the suggested (and taken) action yields the better result. The only reason why you should not rule against this pair is because they have available to them, AI which is exactly as large as the UI. Please tell me otherwise, Sven, if you can. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 12 12:57:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Aug 12 12:59:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FC6A18.7020501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c59f2c$9d435460$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael > > I thought I was done with this discussion summing up > > why I still are of the opinion that > > L16 ALWAYS applies when there is a question of UI. > > > > Did I ever say anything else? Of course L16 applies. The problem is > that in some cases we don't apply it. I want to find out why. I simply do not understand what you try to express here? Law 16 is a law that prescribes among other things certain procedures to be followed by the Director in order to determine whether he should adjust a result or let the result stand. When a Director "rules" Law 16 he just acknowledges that UI may have been received by a player and then investigates to determine what if anything should be done with that. But we ALWAYS rule (apply) L16 in UI cases whether the final verdict is "result stands" or some adjustment. .............. > > HdW: Please read again the first word fo your own sentence : IF. > > This means that even you can imagine that there are circumstances > > under which even you find that there could simply have been no > > influence. OK? > > > > SPR: Of course I do. I never said anything else. But I still rule L16, > > investigate and in such cases conclude that the UI has not been > > illegally used or that there is no damage to opponents so there > > is no reason for any adjustment. > > OK Sven, this is the crux of the matter. You say you apply L16, and > yet you do not rule against this pair. Let me first tell you that I > absolutely agree with you not ruling UI. But your reasons are not correct. > > You give two possible reasons. This makes me believe that you think > either of these reasons could apply or not. What do you do is neither > reason applies? > Let me explain: > - You conclude that there is no damage to opponents. Well, if there is > no damage, there would be no reason to complain in the first place, > iwould there - so let's assume there is damage. Wrong! I have had many cases where a competitor thinks he has been damaged but where the investigation revealed that he was in fact not. > - or you conclude that the UI has not been illegally used. What does > that mean? There is UI, there is a suggested alternative, and there > are logical alternatives to the suggested one. The player in > possession of the UI has chosen the suggested alternative. Where in > L16 do you find that there is 'legal' and 'illegal' use of UI? If we rule that the selected alternative, although "demonstrably suggested" by the UI was NOT suggested over any other alternative because we do not consider any such other alternative to exist, then the ruling is in other words that UI was not illegally used. > > Don't you see Sven, that what you call 'legal' use of UI is nothing > more or less than what I call 'UI which has been superseded by AI'? No, it is not a matter of UI being superseded by AI, it is a matter of the existence of any alternative(s) to what is suggested by the UI. > > I want you to take a deep look into the wording of L16 and tell me > where you find anything that allows you not to rule against this pair? L16A2: ...... who had a logical alternative ..... > > I've looked, and I haven't found anything. But I've tried to explain > why all the directors in the world rule the same way: they find that > there is AI which tells the same thing as UI. I certainly hope that that is not their reason! If a player has two logical alternatives, both "suggested" by AI and then receives UI which suggests one of these alternatives over the other then he is no longer free to select either of his alternatives ignoring the UI. ................. > > I just wonder: It happens from time to time that a > > "Result stands" ruling in UI cases becomes appealed. > > When I prepare the appeals form in such cases I > > fill in the facts as I see them, my reasoning for > > ruling "result stands" and a reference to L16 > > (with sub-paragraphs) for the law I have applied > > (possibly also other laws if relevant). > > > > Which law do you refer to as applied for your ruling > > in such cases? > > None - I have always said that there is a flaw in L16. A flaw which > no-one has ever stumbled over, because it is so logical that we don't > rule UI over 'correct and expected explanations'. That's just the point. "None"? So you want the AC to understand that you have not used L16? Astonishing. > A new example: three cases with the same cards and bidding. > > Case A: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He looks > at the board and checks the vulnerability. He thinks for 2 minutes > longer and makes his call. No UI, no adjustment. > > Case B: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. His > partner says "we're vulnerable". The player thinks for 2 minutes > longer and makes his call. UI, result adjusted if opponents were damaged. > Case C: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He > remembers that his partner has said, at the beginning of the deal > "board 2. E dealer. NS vulnerable". He thinks for 2 minutes longer and > makes his call. Investigation will reveal whether the UI could be considered sufficiently connected to the situation to having influenced the choice of action. My verdict will depend on the result of such investigation. > In Case A, there is no UI, so of course no ruling. But from it, we > learn that there are apparently LAs, and that the vulnerability, while > suggesting one action over another, is not enough to rule out an > alternative as being logical. Let's carry those conclusions over to > cases B and C. > > In case B, there is UI, which of course suggests one action over the > other. Both actions are LAs, so the player should now certainly choose > the non-suggested action. > > In case C, there is also UI. This again suggests one action, and there > are LA to that action. Yet you would not rule against this player. Why > not? Your assumption on how I would rule case C is unfounded, see above. > > It cannot be because the AI clearly suggests one action, so the other > is no longer an LA. > It cannot be because the opponents are not damaged, because of course, > when the board is finished, it turns out that the suggested (and > taken) action yields the better result. > The only reason why you should not rule against this pair is because > they have available to them, AI which is exactly as large as the UI. > > Please tell me otherwise, Sven, if you can. I have done so above. Sven From hermy at hdw.be Fri Aug 12 13:39:13 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 12 13:39:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000101c59f2c$9d435460$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c59f2c$9d435460$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FC8A61.4090006@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >> >>>I thought I was done with this discussion summing up >>>why I still are of the opinion that >>>L16 ALWAYS applies when there is a question of UI. >>> >> >>Did I ever say anything else? Of course L16 applies. The problem is >>that in some cases we don't apply it. I want to find out why. > I see whyu this statement baffles you - allow me to rephrase, and accept my apologies for the sloppy wording: Of course L16 applies. The problem is that in some cases we don't rule against a pair that have very clearly exchanged UI. I want to find out why. OK in that phrasing? > > I simply do not understand what you try to express here? > > Law 16 is a law that prescribes among other things certain procedures to be > followed by the Director in order to determine whether he should adjust a > result or let the result stand. When a Director "rules" Law 16 he just > acknowledges that UI may have been received by a player and then > investigates to determine what if anything should be done with that. > > But we ALWAYS rule (apply) L16 in UI cases whether the final verdict is > "result stands" or some adjustment. > > .............. > OK, we are on the same wavelength. >>>HdW: Please read again the first word fo your own sentence : IF. >>>This means that even you can imagine that there are circumstances >>>under which even you find that there could simply have been no >>>influence. OK? >>> >>>SPR: Of course I do. I never said anything else. But I still rule L16, >>>investigate and in such cases conclude that the UI has not been >>>illegally used or that there is no damage to opponents so there >>>is no reason for any adjustment. >> >>OK Sven, this is the crux of the matter. You say you apply L16, and >>yet you do not rule against this pair. Let me first tell you that I >>absolutely agree with you not ruling UI. But your reasons are not correct. >> >>You give two possible reasons. This makes me believe that you think >>either of these reasons could apply or not. What do you do is neither >>reason applies? >>Let me explain: >>- You conclude that there is no damage to opponents. Well, if there is >>no damage, there would be no reason to complain in the first place, >>iwould there - so let's assume there is damage. > > > Wrong! I have had many cases where a competitor thinks he has been damaged > but where the investigation revealed that he was in fact not. > Sorry, but the WBF have defined damage as "scoring less". The investigation might reveal that the damage was not "caused" by some infraction, but damage is damage. > >>- or you conclude that the UI has not been illegally used. What does >>that mean? There is UI, there is a suggested alternative, and there >>are logical alternatives to the suggested one. The player in >>possession of the UI has chosen the suggested alternative. Where in >>L16 do you find that there is 'legal' and 'illegal' use of UI? > > > If we rule that the selected alternative, although "demonstrably suggested" > by the UI was NOT suggested over any other alternative because we do not > consider any such other alternative to exist, then the ruling is in other > words that UI was not illegally used. > But that is exactly what I'm telling you is not the case. Consider the following set of conditions, all of which are quite possible. - A player receives from his partner some UI (say an alert) - The player has the same information as AI (because he knows his system) - The player has 2 possible calls available, he has to choose - The UI can be said to suggest one of the calls Now your total reasoning above just falls apart. The player has 2 LA's with the UI and with the AI. The chosen action is the one suggested. You cannot rule that "we do not consider any such other alternative to exist" because it does exist! You cannot have a L16 ruling on the UI and also at the same time have a L16 case without LA's. Since the AI and the UI lead to the same information, the LA's are the same. So you cannot NOT rule L16 on the basis of there not being LA's!!! > >>Don't you see Sven, that what you call 'legal' use of UI is nothing >>more or less than what I call 'UI which has been superseded by AI'? > > > No, it is not a matter of UI being superseded by AI, it is a matter of the > existence of any alternative(s) to what is suggested by the UI. > But those alternatives also exist with the AI! > >>I want you to take a deep look into the wording of L16 and tell me >>where you find anything that allows you not to rule against this pair? > > > L16A2: ...... who had a logical alternative ..... > > >>I've looked, and I haven't found anything. But I've tried to explain >>why all the directors in the world rule the same way: they find that >>there is AI which tells the same thing as UI. > > > I certainly hope that that is not their reason! > > If a player has two logical alternatives, both "suggested" by AI and then > receives UI which suggests one of these alternatives over the other then he > is no longer free to select either of his alternatives ignoring the UI. > But that is not the situation. The two alternatives are LA's both with the UI and the AI. You cannot be in a situation where the AI reduces 2 LA's to only one, since we are talking about cases where the AI is exactly the same (or a bit smaller) than the UI. > ................. > > >>>I just wonder: It happens from time to time that a >>>"Result stands" ruling in UI cases becomes appealed. >>>When I prepare the appeals form in such cases I >>>fill in the facts as I see them, my reasoning for >>>ruling "result stands" and a reference to L16 >>>(with sub-paragraphs) for the law I have applied >>>(possibly also other laws if relevant). >>> >>>Which law do you refer to as applied for your ruling >>>in such cases? >> >>None - I have always said that there is a flaw in L16. A flaw which >>no-one has ever stumbled over, because it is so logical that we don't >>rule UI over 'correct and expected explanations'. That's just the point. > > > "None"? So you want the AC to understand that you have not used L16? > > Astonishing. > No, I'm expecting the AC to also know how every single TD in history has ruled despite the literal wording of L16. > >>A new example: three cases with the same cards and bidding. >> >>Case A: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He looks >>at the board and checks the vulnerability. He thinks for 2 minutes >>longer and makes his call. > > > No UI, no adjustment. > > >>Case B: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. His >>partner says "we're vulnerable". The player thinks for 2 minutes >>longer and makes his call. > > > UI, result adjusted if opponents were damaged. > > >>Case C: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He >>remembers that his partner has said, at the beginning of the deal >>"board 2. E dealer. NS vulnerable". He thinks for 2 minutes longer and >>makes his call. > > > Investigation will reveal whether the UI could be considered sufficiently > connected to the situation to having influenced the choice of action. My > verdict will depend on the result of such investigation. > Sven, I've given you every piece of information that you need. Please give a ruling. Don't hide behind insufficient information. if you do believe there is something you want to know then ask me, I'll tell you. > >>In Case A, there is no UI, so of course no ruling. But from it, we >>learn that there are apparently LAs, and that the vulnerability, while >>suggesting one action over another, is not enough to rule out an >>alternative as being logical. Let's carry those conclusions over to >>cases B and C. >> >>In case B, there is UI, which of course suggests one action over the >>other. Both actions are LAs, so the player should now certainly choose >>the non-suggested action. >> >>In case C, there is also UI. This again suggests one action, and there >>are LA to that action. Yet you would not rule against this player. Why >>not? > > > Your assumption on how I would rule case C is unfounded, see above. > Sven. You have already admitted that there are cases in which you would not rule. I'm saying that this is one of those cases. Surely you don't consider a player saying "board 2, East dealer, NS vulnerable" at the start of a deal as doing something "wrong". > >>It cannot be because the AI clearly suggests one action, so the other >>is no longer an LA. >>It cannot be because the opponents are not damaged, because of course, >>when the board is finished, it turns out that the suggested (and >>taken) action yields the better result. >>The only reason why you should not rule against this pair is because >>they have available to them, AI which is exactly as large as the UI. >> >>Please tell me otherwise, Sven, if you can. > > > I have done so above. > No you haven't. You have refused to admit that you would not rule against this pair, and you have not explained why you wouldn't if you wouldn't. > Sven > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 10 10:25:38 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Aug 12 15:41:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: Message-ID: <000201c59f43$265ef630$2b9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief > > That's a matter for personal judgement. Like you > I see nothing wrong with psyching so if I bid a 3 card > major I will simply tell you whether it was an attempt > to mislead (psych) or describe. Psych's are personal > things - somebody else might open 1H on the same > hand and consider it a psych, I don't have a problem > with that either. > +=+ All of which is no doubt true. It should be added that all of these personal judgements by players are subordinate to the judgement of the regulatory process. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 12 16:18:19 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Aug 12 16:20:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FC8A61.4090006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c59f48$b0a80430$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of HermY De Wael ........... > Of course L16 applies. The problem is that in some cases we don't rule > against a pair that have very clearly exchanged UI. I want to find out > why. > > OK in that phrasing? Sure .............. > > Wrong! I have had many cases where a competitor thinks he has been > damaged > > but where the investigation revealed that he was in fact not. > > > > Sorry, but the WBF have defined damage as "scoring less". The > investigation might reveal that the damage was not "caused" by some > infraction, but damage is damage. So do I. Not long ago I had a situation where UI had indeed been used (illegally) and where my investigation revealed that if the player in question had not used UI the contract would have been different but the score for the innocent side would not have been less. They had summoned me because they believed that they had been damaged but when seeing my analysis they agreed that they had in fact not. In that particular case it didn't matter if they received say 200 for two down or 140 for three just made in major. The scores they were competing against were say 100 and 300 and they were the only table between these two scores. (MP) No damage, no adjustment. > >>- or you conclude that the UI has not been illegally used. What does > >>that mean? There is UI, there is a suggested alternative, and there > >>are logical alternatives to the suggested one. The player in > >>possession of the UI has chosen the suggested alternative. Where in > >>L16 do you find that there is 'legal' and 'illegal' use of UI? > > > > > > If we rule that the selected alternative, although "demonstrably > suggested" > > by the UI was NOT suggested over any other alternative because we do not > > consider any such other alternative to exist, then the ruling is in > other > > words that UI was not illegally used. > > > > But that is exactly what I'm telling you is not the case. > Consider the following set of conditions, all of which are quite possible. > - A player receives from his partner some UI (say an alert) > - The player has the same information as AI (because he knows his system) > - The player has 2 possible calls available, he has to choose > - The UI can be said to suggest one of the calls > > Now your total reasoning above just falls apart. The player has 2 LA's > with the UI and with the AI. The chosen action is the one suggested. I break in here. This situation is completely covered by me in another pass: A player who has two logical alternatives (both suggested by AI) and receives UI "demonstrably suggesting" one of these alternatives over the other is no longer free to choose between these alternatives ignoring the UI. I have said so already, I should not need to repeat that. > You cannot rule that "we do not consider any such other alternative to > exist" because it does exist! You cannot have a L16 ruling on the UI > and also at the same time have a L16 case without LA's. > Since the AI and the UI lead to the same information, the LA's are the > same. > So you cannot NOT rule L16 on the basis of there not being LA's!!! > > > > >>Don't you see Sven, that what you call 'legal' use of UI is nothing > >>more or less than what I call 'UI which has been superseded by AI'? > > > > > > No, it is not a matter of UI being superseded by AI, it is a matter of > the > > existence of any alternative(s) to what is suggested by the UI. > > > > But those alternatives also exist with the AI! That is irrelevant if the UI "demonstrably suggests" one alternative over the other. (repeating myself) > > > > >>I want you to take a deep look into the wording of L16 and tell me > >>where you find anything that allows you not to rule against this pair? > > > > > > L16A2: ...... who had a logical alternative ..... > > > > > >>I've looked, and I haven't found anything. But I've tried to explain > >>why all the directors in the world rule the same way: they find that > >>there is AI which tells the same thing as UI. > > > > > > I certainly hope that that is not their reason! > > > > If a player has two logical alternatives, both "suggested" by AI and > then > > receives UI which suggests one of these alternatives over the other then > he > > is no longer free to select either of his alternatives ignoring the UI. > > > > But that is not the situation. The two alternatives are LA's both with > the UI and the AI. You cannot be in a situation where the AI reduces 2 > LA's to only one, since we are talking about cases where the AI is > exactly the same (or a bit smaller) than the UI. Of course we can. UI demonstrably suggesting one of the alternatives over the other limits the freedom of the player to select just that alternative. (I do not say "inhibits" or "prevents", I say "limits".) > > ................. > > > > > >>>I just wonder: It happens from time to time that a > >>>"Result stands" ruling in UI cases becomes appealed. > >>>When I prepare the appeals form in such cases I > >>>fill in the facts as I see them, my reasoning for > >>>ruling "result stands" and a reference to L16 > >>>(with sub-paragraphs) for the law I have applied > >>>(possibly also other laws if relevant). > >>> > >>>Which law do you refer to as applied for your ruling > >>>in such cases? > >> > >>None - I have always said that there is a flaw in L16. A flaw which > >>no-one has ever stumbled over, because it is so logical that we don't > >>rule UI over 'correct and expected explanations'. That's just the point. > > > > > > "None"? So you want the AC to understand that you have not used L16? > > > > Astonishing. > > > > No, I'm expecting the AC to also know how every single TD in history > has ruled despite the literal wording of L16. > > > > >>A new example: three cases with the same cards and bidding. > >> > >>Case A: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He looks > >>at the board and checks the vulnerability. He thinks for 2 minutes > >>longer and makes his call. > > > > > > No UI, no adjustment. > > > > > >>Case B: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. His > >>partner says "we're vulnerable". The player thinks for 2 minutes > >>longer and makes his call. > > > > > > UI, result adjusted if opponents were damaged. > > > > > >>Case C: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He > >>remembers that his partner has said, at the beginning of the deal > >>"board 2. E dealer. NS vulnerable". He thinks for 2 minutes longer and > >>makes his call. > > > > > > Investigation will reveal whether the UI could be considered > sufficiently > > connected to the situation to having influenced the choice of action. My > > verdict will depend on the result of such investigation. > > > > Sven, I've given you every piece of information that you need. Please > give a ruling. Don't hide behind insufficient information. if you do > believe there is something you want to know then ask me, I'll tell you. You cannot give me the "being there" feeling of what happened. But I'll give you this much: If the remark was made by partner before anybody had looked at their cards (i.e. before the auction per definition had started) I would probably tend to allow the remark as no UI. But if the remark was made after at least one player had looked at his cards I am much closer to consider that remark improper and rule UI. > >>In Case A, there is no UI, so of course no ruling. But from it, we > >>learn that there are apparently LAs, and that the vulnerability, while > >>suggesting one action over another, is not enough to rule out an > >>alternative as being logical. Let's carry those conclusions over to > >>cases B and C. > >> > >>In case B, there is UI, which of course suggests one action over the > >>other. Both actions are LAs, so the player should now certainly choose > >>the non-suggested action. > >> > >>In case C, there is also UI. This again suggests one action, and there > >>are LA to that action. Yet you would not rule against this player. Why > >>not? > > > > > > Your assumption on how I would rule case C is unfounded, see above. > > > > Sven. You have already admitted that there are cases in which you > would not rule. I'm saying that this is one of those cases. "Would not rule" ????? If I have been called as a Director it is my duty to rule, duty I NEVER neglect. > Surely you don't consider a player saying "board 2, East dealer, NS > vulnerable" at the start of a deal as doing something "wrong". Not if he says so before anybody has looked at their cards. Was that the case in your example C? You didn't say that. > > > > >>It cannot be because the AI clearly suggests one action, so the other > >>is no longer an LA. > >>It cannot be because the opponents are not damaged, because of course, > >>when the board is finished, it turns out that the suggested (and > >>taken) action yields the better result. > >>The only reason why you should not rule against this pair is because > >>they have available to them, AI which is exactly as large as the UI. > >> > >>Please tell me otherwise, Sven, if you can. > > > > > > I have done so above. > > > > No you haven't. You have refused to admit that you would not rule > against this pair, and you have not explained why you wouldn't if you > wouldn't. But I cannot say that I would not rule against the pair in your example because depending upon what reveals with my investigation I might very well rule against them. Sven From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Aug 12 16:37:19 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri Aug 12 16:39:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12 Aug 2005, at 02:27, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Gordon wrote: >> That would be true if the information you were given had been correct. >> However I, who play all my bridge in the UK, am sure I meet more >> players who play 2NT as a diamond transfer than those who open 1NT >> with >> a six-card diamond suit > > Likewise. But, unless the latter group is near zero, not strictly > relevant. Of course it's relevant: it was written in response to a post that said "In the UK, where the sixcard diamonds is more common and the transfer fairly rare..." -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From hermy at hdw.be Fri Aug 12 17:58:38 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 12 17:59:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000401c59f48$b0a80430$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c59f48$b0a80430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <42FCC72E.6060800@hdw.be> Sven has done me the great service of reading through my post and agreeing with most of it. I'll snip the pieces of agreement. Sven Pran wrote: >> >>But that is exactly what I'm telling you is not the case. >>Consider the following set of conditions, all of which are quite possible. >>- A player receives from his partner some UI (say an alert) >>- The player has the same information as AI (because he knows his system) >>- The player has 2 possible calls available, he has to choose >>- The UI can be said to suggest one of the calls >> >>Now your total reasoning above just falls apart. The player has 2 LA's >>with the UI and with the AI. The chosen action is the one suggested. > > > I break in here. This situation is completely covered by me in another pass: > A player who has two logical alternatives (both suggested by AI) and > receives UI "demonstrably suggesting" one of these alternatives over the > other is no longer free to choose between these alternatives ignoring the > UI. I have said so already, I should not need to repeat that. > But in that case, you will rule against a completely innocent pair as in my case C - see below. >>> >> >>But those alternatives also exist with the AI! > > > That is irrelevant if the UI "demonstrably suggests" one alternative over > the other. (repeating myself) > My point is that if there are 2 LAs with the UI, then there are also 2 LAs with the same AI, so you cannot rule 'no UI' in your opinion. > >> >>But that is not the situation. The two alternatives are LA's both with >>the UI and the AI. You cannot be in a situation where the AI reduces 2 >>LA's to only one, since we are talking about cases where the AI is >>exactly the same (or a bit smaller) than the UI. > > > Of course we can. UI demonstrably suggesting one of the alternatives over > the other limits the freedom of the player to select just that alternative. > (I do not say "inhibits" or "prevents", I say "limits".) > Indeed, but the you have to rule against the pair in case C. see below. >>> >>> >>>>Case C: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He >>>>remembers that his partner has said, at the beginning of the deal >>>>"board 2. E dealer. NS vulnerable". He thinks for 2 minutes longer and >>>>makes his call. >>> >>> >>>Investigation will reveal whether the UI could be considered >> >>sufficiently >> >>>connected to the situation to having influenced the choice of action. My >>>verdict will depend on the result of such investigation. >>> >> >>Sven, I've given you every piece of information that you need. Please >>give a ruling. Don't hide behind insufficient information. if you do >>believe there is something you want to know then ask me, I'll tell you. > > > You cannot give me the "being there" feeling of what happened. I have told you exactly what happened. the remark was made totally innocently and before the player saw his own cards. OK? > But I'll give you this much: If the remark was made by partner before > anybody had looked at their cards (i.e. before the auction per definition > had started) I would probably tend to allow the remark as no UI. But if the > remark was made after at least one player had looked at his cards I am much > closer to consider that remark improper and rule UI. > So, let's assume the first is true. You will not 'rule UI'. >> >>Sven. You have already admitted that there are cases in which you >>would not rule. I'm saying that this is one of those cases. > > > "Would not rule" ????? If I have been called as a Director it is my duty to > rule, duty I NEVER neglect. > forgive me my error in writing. I meant you would not rule against. > >>Surely you don't consider a player saying "board 2, East dealer, NS >>vulnerable" at the start of a deal as doing something "wrong". > > > Not if he says so before anybody has looked at their cards. Was that the > case in your example C? You didn't say that. > I meant it. I gather that you would not rule against this player. OK? > >>>>It cannot be because the AI clearly suggests one action, so the other >>>>is no longer an LA. >>>>It cannot be because the opponents are not damaged, because of course, >>>>when the board is finished, it turns out that the suggested (and >>>>taken) action yields the better result. >>>>The only reason why you should not rule against this pair is because >>>>they have available to them, AI which is exactly as large as the UI. >>>> >>>>Please tell me otherwise, Sven, if you can. >>> >>> >>>I have done so above. >>> >> >>No you haven't. You have refused to admit that you would not rule >>against this pair, and you have not explained why you wouldn't if you >>wouldn't. > > > But I cannot say that I would not rule against the pair in your example > because depending upon what reveals with my investigation I might very well > rule against them. > Suppose that the conditions are met and you don't rule against them. How do you do this without saying that there is 'no UI'. Which is just another way of saying that the AI negates the UI. The UI is still there, is it not? -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Sat Aug 13 05:07:06 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Sat Aug 13 05:09:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000101c59f2c$9d435460$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42FC8A61.4090006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001a01c59fb4$17ba1d50$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > Sven Pran wrote: > >>>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >>> >>>>I thought I was done with this discussion summing up why I still are of >>>>the opinion that >>>>L16 ALWAYS applies when there is a question of UI. >>>> >>> >>>Did I ever say anything else? Of course L16 applies. The problem is >>>that in some cases we don't apply it. I want to find out why. >> > > I see whyu this statement baffles you - allow me to rephrase, and accept > my apologies for the sloppy wording: > > Of course L16 applies. The problem is that in some cases we don't rule > against a pair that have very clearly exchanged UI. I want to find out > why. > > OK in that phrasing? > >> >> I simply do not understand what you try to express here? >> >> Law 16 is a law that prescribes among other things certain procedures to >> be >> followed by the Director in order to determine whether he should adjust a >> result or let the result stand. When a Director "rules" Law 16 he just >> acknowledges that UI may have been received by a player and then >> investigates to determine what if anything should be done with that. >> >> But we ALWAYS rule (apply) L16 in UI cases whether the final verdict is >> "result stands" or some adjustment. >> >> .............. >> > > OK, we are on the same wavelength. > >>>>HdW: Please read again the first word fo your own sentence : IF. This >>>>means that even you can imagine that there are circumstances >>>>under which even you find that there could simply have been no >>>>influence. OK? >>>> >>>>SPR: Of course I do. I never said anything else. But I still rule L16, >>>>investigate and in such cases conclude that the UI has not been >>>>illegally used or that there is no damage to opponents so there >>>>is no reason for any adjustment. >>> >>>OK Sven, this is the crux of the matter. You say you apply L16, and >>>yet you do not rule against this pair. Let me first tell you that I >>>absolutely agree with you not ruling UI. But your reasons are not >>>correct. >>> >>>You give two possible reasons. This makes me believe that you think >>>either of these reasons could apply or not. What do you do is neither >>>reason applies? >>>Let me explain: >>>- You conclude that there is no damage to opponents. Well, if there is >>>no damage, there would be no reason to complain in the first place, >>>iwould there - so let's assume there is damage. >> >> >> Wrong! I have had many cases where a competitor thinks he has been >> damaged >> but where the investigation revealed that he was in fact not. > > Sorry, but the WBF have defined damage as "scoring less". The > investigation might reveal that the damage was not "caused" by some > infraction, but damage is damage. > The wording differentiates damage which is consequent upon, as well as that which is subsequent to an infraction. Damage which is subsequent to an infraction, but not consequent upon it is still damage but it is not necessarily compensated for in the same way. the paragraph above suggests that the writer thinks all damage should be considered in the same way. Anne From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Aug 13 05:41:26 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Aug 13 05:44:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000401c59f48$b0a80430$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c59f48$b0a80430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006A74F4-9EE1-4410-83DA-B60C39C4868E@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 12, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > But if the remark was made after at least one player had looked at > his cards I am much > closer to consider that remark improper and rule UI. One player *of that side*. :-) From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 13 07:33:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Aug 13 07:36:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <006A74F4-9EE1-4410-83DA-B60C39C4868E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c59fc8$9ade6970$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Aug 12, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > But if the remark was made after at least one player had looked at > > his cards I am much > > closer to consider that remark improper and rule UI. > > One player *of that side*. :-) Not necessarily! Opponent's reaction after seeing his cards "could" give cause for "reminding" partner of the vulnerabilities or even indicating a certain desired activity. It all depends upon in what kind of manner the remark is presented and whether I eventually consider it possible that the remark could constitute UI. This of course is another matter of judgment. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Aug 12 11:24:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Aug 13 19:56:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FB3450.9000306@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Consider the quite innocuous statement "ah, we're vulnerable". > You would be right if the statement were made at that point. But > suppose the decision on sacrificing happens 5 minutes after the > innocuous statement above. Do you still rule that way? The UI is the > same, the suggested action is the same, the logical alternatives are > the same. I'm sure Sven would agree that reminding partner of the vulnerability *before* looking at ones hand (and before the auction starts) does not create any UI. But after looking (or after the auction starts) the comment "ah, we're vulnerable" is no longer innocuous. It suggests that the hand is more defensive and less offensive than the auction is likely to make it appear (or at least that's what it would mean were I the sort of person to make such comments). Similar UI is created when playing Chicago (sorry Sven for the allusion to another game) by the question "What hand are we on?" - because vulnerability varies with hand the question draws attention to the fact that pard's call will be vulnerability sensitive. Tim From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 12 14:16:30 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Sat Aug 13 19:56:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000101c59f2c$9d435460$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42FC8A61.4090006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c59f37$ad57b070$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > Sven Pran wrote: > >>>On Behalf Of HermY De Wael >>> >>>>I thought I was done with this discussion summing up why I still are of >>>>the opinion that >>>>L16 ALWAYS applies when there is a question of UI. >>>> >>> >>>Did I ever say anything else? Of course L16 applies. The problem is >>>that in some cases we don't apply it. I want to find out why. >> > > I see whyu this statement baffles you - allow me to rephrase, and accept > my apologies for the sloppy wording: > > Of course L16 applies. The problem is that in some cases we don't rule > against a pair that have very clearly exchanged UI. I want to find out > why. > > OK in that phrasing? > >> >> I simply do not understand what you try to express here? >> >> Law 16 is a law that prescribes among other things certain procedures to >> be >> followed by the Director in order to determine whether he should adjust a >> result or let the result stand. When a Director "rules" Law 16 he just >> acknowledges that UI may have been received by a player and then >> investigates to determine what if anything should be done with that. >> >> But we ALWAYS rule (apply) L16 in UI cases whether the final verdict is >> "result stands" or some adjustment. >> >> .............. >> > > OK, we are on the same wavelength. > >>>>HdW: Please read again the first word fo your own sentence : IF. This >>>>means that even you can imagine that there are circumstances >>>>under which even you find that there could simply have been no >>>>influence. OK? >>>> >>>>SPR: Of course I do. I never said anything else. But I still rule L16, >>>>investigate and in such cases conclude that the UI has not been >>>>illegally used or that there is no damage to opponents so there >>>>is no reason for any adjustment. >>> >>>OK Sven, this is the crux of the matter. You say you apply L16, and >>>yet you do not rule against this pair. Let me first tell you that I >>>absolutely agree with you not ruling UI. But your reasons are not >>>correct. >>> >>>You give two possible reasons. This makes me believe that you think >>>either of these reasons could apply or not. What do you do is neither >>>reason applies? >>>Let me explain: >>>- You conclude that there is no damage to opponents. Well, if there is >>>no damage, there would be no reason to complain in the first place, >>>iwould there - so let's assume there is damage. >> >> >> Wrong! I have had many cases where a competitor thinks he has been >> damaged >> but where the investigation revealed that he was in fact not. > > Sorry, but the WBF have defined damage as "scoring less". The > investigation might reveal that the damage was not "caused" by some > infraction, but damage is damage. > The wording differentiates damage which is consequent upon, as well as that which is subsequent to an infraction. Damage which is subsequent to an infraction, but not consequent upon it is still damage but it is not necessarily compensated for in the same way. the paragraph above suggests that the writer thinks all damage should be considered in the same way. Anne >> >>>- or you conclude that the UI has not been illegally used. What does >>>that mean? There is UI, there is a suggested alternative, and there >>>are logical alternatives to the suggested one. The player in >>>possession of the UI has chosen the suggested alternative. Where in >>>L16 do you find that there is 'legal' and 'illegal' use of UI? >> >> >> If we rule that the selected alternative, although "demonstrably >> suggested" >> by the UI was NOT suggested over any other alternative because we do not >> consider any such other alternative to exist, then the ruling is in other >> words that UI was not illegally used. >> > > But that is exactly what I'm telling you is not the case. > Consider the following set of conditions, all of which are quite possible. > - A player receives from his partner some UI (say an alert) > - The player has the same information as AI (because he knows his system) > - The player has 2 possible calls available, he has to choose > - The UI can be said to suggest one of the calls > > Now your total reasoning above just falls apart. The player has 2 LA's > with the UI and with the AI. The chosen action is the one suggested. You > cannot rule that "we do not consider any such other alternative to exist" > because it does exist! You cannot have a L16 ruling on the UI and also at > the same time have a L16 case without LA's. > Since the AI and the UI lead to the same information, the LA's are the > same. > So you cannot NOT rule L16 on the basis of there not being LA's!!! > >> >>>Don't you see Sven, that what you call 'legal' use of UI is nothing >>>more or less than what I call 'UI which has been superseded by AI'? >> >> >> No, it is not a matter of UI being superseded by AI, it is a matter of >> the >> existence of any alternative(s) to what is suggested by the UI. >> > > But those alternatives also exist with the AI! > >> >>>I want you to take a deep look into the wording of L16 and tell me >>>where you find anything that allows you not to rule against this pair? >> >> >> L16A2: ...... who had a logical alternative ..... >> >> >>>I've looked, and I haven't found anything. But I've tried to explain >>>why all the directors in the world rule the same way: they find that >>>there is AI which tells the same thing as UI. >> >> >> I certainly hope that that is not their reason! >> >> If a player has two logical alternatives, both "suggested" by AI and then >> receives UI which suggests one of these alternatives over the other then >> he >> is no longer free to select either of his alternatives ignoring the UI. >> > > But that is not the situation. The two alternatives are LA's both with the > UI and the AI. You cannot be in a situation where the AI reduces 2 LA's to > only one, since we are talking about cases where the AI is exactly the > same (or a bit smaller) than the UI. > >> ................. >> >> >>>>I just wonder: It happens from time to time that a "Result stands" >>>>ruling in UI cases becomes appealed. >>>>When I prepare the appeals form in such cases I >>>>fill in the facts as I see them, my reasoning for ruling "result stands" >>>>and a reference to L16 >>>>(with sub-paragraphs) for the law I have applied >>>>(possibly also other laws if relevant). >>>> >>>>Which law do you refer to as applied for your ruling in such cases? >>> >>>None - I have always said that there is a flaw in L16. A flaw which >>>no-one has ever stumbled over, because it is so logical that we don't >>>rule UI over 'correct and expected explanations'. That's just the point. >> >> >> "None"? So you want the AC to understand that you have not used L16? >> >> Astonishing. >> > > No, I'm expecting the AC to also know how every single TD in history has > ruled despite the literal wording of L16. > >> >>>A new example: three cases with the same cards and bidding. >>> >>>Case A: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He looks >>>at the board and checks the vulnerability. He thinks for 2 minutes >>>longer and makes his call. >> >> >> No UI, no adjustment. >> >> >>>Case B: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. His >>>partner says "we're vulnerable". The player thinks for 2 minutes >>>longer and makes his call. >> >> >> UI, result adjusted if opponents were damaged. >> >>>Case C: a player has to decide whether or not to sacrifice. He >>>remembers that his partner has said, at the beginning of the deal >>>"board 2. E dealer. NS vulnerable". He thinks for 2 minutes longer and >>>makes his call. >> >> >> Investigation will reveal whether the UI could be considered sufficiently >> connected to the situation to having influenced the choice of action. My >> verdict will depend on the result of such investigation. >> > > Sven, I've given you every piece of information that you need. Please give > a ruling. Don't hide behind insufficient information. if you do believe > there is something you want to know then ask me, I'll tell you. > >> >>>In Case A, there is no UI, so of course no ruling. But from it, we >>>learn that there are apparently LAs, and that the vulnerability, while >>>suggesting one action over another, is not enough to rule out an >>>alternative as being logical. Let's carry those conclusions over to >>>cases B and C. >>> >>>In case B, there is UI, which of course suggests one action over the >>>other. Both actions are LAs, so the player should now certainly choose >>>the non-suggested action. >>> >>>In case C, there is also UI. This again suggests one action, and there >>>are LA to that action. Yet you would not rule against this player. Why >>>not? >> >> >> Your assumption on how I would rule case C is unfounded, see above. >> > > Sven. You have already admitted that there are cases in which you would > not rule. I'm saying that this is one of those cases. > Surely you don't consider a player saying "board 2, East dealer, NS > vulnerable" at the start of a deal as doing something "wrong". > >> >>>It cannot be because the AI clearly suggests one action, so the other >>>is no longer an LA. >>>It cannot be because the opponents are not damaged, because of course, >>>when the board is finished, it turns out that the suggested (and >>>taken) action yields the better result. >>>The only reason why you should not rule against this pair is because >>>they have available to them, AI which is exactly as large as the UI. >>> >>>Please tell me otherwise, Sven, if you can. >> >> >> I have done so above. >> > > No you haven't. You have refused to admit that you would not rule against > this pair, and you have not explained why you wouldn't if you wouldn't. > >> Sven >> > > -- > HermY DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > Fifth Friday homepage: > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 13 20:59:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Aug 13 21:02:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c5a039$241e9050$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............... > I'm sure Sven would agree that reminding partner of the vulnerability > *before* looking at ones hand (and before the auction starts) does not > create any UI. But after looking (or after the auction starts) the > comment "ah, we're vulnerable" is no longer innocuous. It suggests that > the hand is more defensive and less offensive than the auction is likely > to make it appear (or at least that's what it would mean were I the sort > of person to make such comments In general I would agree with you (and with Ed). However I can imagine situations like: An opponent looks at his cards and makes an opening bid or at least shows some kind of reaction before our side has looked at our cards. A "reminder" of the vulnerability from either me or my partner could then very well carry highly unauthorized information. That is why I shall not indiscriminately accept "Hey we are (not) vulnerable!" as an innocuous remark once at least one player around the table has looked at his cards. Example: Say that my partner has had a tendency of sacrificing a bit too often during the session and an opponent opens 2C (strong). Neither my partner nor I have yet looked at our cards. Now I say: "Hey we are red against white". Although the auction has not yet started for our side would you not consider this to be a highly improper reminder to my partner and would you not consider adjusting if my partner later during that auction luckily refrains from sacrificing on a hand that say half the other competitors have sacrificed with in a similar auction? Regards Sven From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Sat Aug 13 23:07:13 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Sat Aug 13 23:09:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000501c5a039$241e9050$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001e01c5a04a$fbba6cd0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:59 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Finger in the dike > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............... > I'm sure Sven would agree that reminding partner of the vulnerability > *before* looking at ones hand (and before the auction starts) does not > create any UI. But after looking (or after the auction starts) the > comment "ah, we're vulnerable" is no longer innocuous. It suggests that > the hand is more defensive and less offensive than the auction is likely > to make it appear (or at least that's what it would mean were I the sort > of person to make such comments In general I would agree with you (and with Ed). However I can imagine situations like: An opponent looks at his cards and makes an opening bid or at least shows some kind of reaction before our side has looked at our cards. A "reminder" of the vulnerability from either me or my partner could then very well carry highly unauthorized information. That is why I shall not indiscriminately accept "Hey we are (not) vulnerable!" as an innocuous remark once at least one player around the table has looked at his cards. Example: Say that my partner has had a tendency of sacrificing a bit too often during the session and an opponent opens 2C (strong). Neither my partner nor I have yet looked at our cards. Now I say: "Hey we are red against white". Although the auction has not yet started for our side would you not consider this to be a highly improper reminder to my partner and would you not consider adjusting if my partner later during that auction luckily refrains from sacrificing on a hand that say half the other competitors have sacrificed with in a similar auction? >Regards >Sven The auction starts for your side when either you or your partner looks at the face of the cards. Law 17A The fact that opps have called suggests to me that this has happened. We are talking about communication other than through calls and plays and this is explicitly prohibited.Law 73A1 Anne _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 13 23:51:29 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Aug 13 23:54:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <001e01c5a04a$fbba6cd0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000601c5a051$293c4ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Anne Jones > From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............... > > I'm sure Sven would agree that reminding partner of the vulnerability > > *before* looking at ones hand (and before the auction starts) does not > > create any UI. But after looking (or after the auction starts) the > > comment "ah, we're vulnerable" is no longer innocuous. It suggests that > > the hand is more defensive and less offensive than the auction is likely > > to make it appear (or at least that's what it would mean were I the sort > > of person to make such comments > > In general I would agree with you (and with Ed). However I can imagine > situations like: An opponent looks at his cards and makes an opening bid > or > at least shows some kind of reaction before our side has looked at our > cards. > > A "reminder" of the vulnerability from either me or my partner could then > very well carry highly unauthorized information. That is why I shall not > indiscriminately accept "Hey we are (not) vulnerable!" as an innocuous > remark once at least one player around the table has looked at his cards. > > Example: > > Say that my partner has had a tendency of sacrificing a bit too often > during > the session and an opponent opens 2C (strong). Neither my partner nor I > have > yet looked at our cards. Now I say: "Hey we are red against white". > > > > Although the auction has not yet started for our side would you not > consider > this to be a highly improper reminder to my partner and would you not > consider adjusting if my partner later during that auction luckily > refrains > from sacrificing on a hand that say half the other competitors have > sacrificed with in a similar auction? > > >Regards > >Sven > > The auction starts for your side when either you or your partner looks at > the face of the cards. Law 17A > The fact that opps have called suggests to me that this has happened. Although that is usually the case I explicitly stated that in the situation I envisaged the auction had not started for "our" side. And I have sufficient experience to know that this happens occasionally from time to time. > We are talking about communication other than through calls and plays > and this is explicitly prohibited. Law 73A1 L73A1 explicitly applies only during the auction and play. This law is NOT applicable on communication before the start of the auction or after the end of the play. So in order to rule illegal use of UI on a remark that occurred before the auction had started for the offending side I would require (strong) indication that the remark was somehow connected to communication from the non-offending side after looking at their cards. In addition I shall have to establish a relevant connection between the remark and a choice among alternatives made by partner to the player who made the remark. A very rare event indeed, but an event that cannot completely be excluded. Regards Sven From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Sun Aug 14 03:19:20 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Sun Aug 14 03:21:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000601c5a051$293c4ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c5a06e$33df0df0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:51 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Finger in the dike > On Behalf Of Anne Jones > From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............... > > I'm sure Sven would agree that reminding partner of the vulnerability > > *before* looking at ones hand (and before the auction starts) does not > > create any UI. But after looking (or after the auction starts) the > > comment "ah, we're vulnerable" is no longer innocuous. It suggests that > > the hand is more defensive and less offensive than the auction is likely > > to make it appear (or at least that's what it would mean were I the sort > > of person to make such comments > > In general I would agree with you (and with Ed). However I can imagine > situations like: An opponent looks at his cards and makes an opening bid > or > at least shows some kind of reaction before our side has looked at our > cards. > > A "reminder" of the vulnerability from either me or my partner could then > very well carry highly unauthorized information. That is why I shall not > indiscriminately accept "Hey we are (not) vulnerable!" as an innocuous > remark once at least one player around the table has looked at his cards. > > Example: > > Say that my partner has had a tendency of sacrificing a bit too often > during > the session and an opponent opens 2C (strong). Neither my partner nor I > have > yet looked at our cards. Now I say: "Hey we are red against white". > > > > Although the auction has not yet started for our side would you not > consider > this to be a highly improper reminder to my partner and would you not > consider adjusting if my partner later during that auction luckily > refrains > from sacrificing on a hand that say half the other competitors have > sacrificed with in a similar auction? > > >Regards > >Sven > > The auction starts for your side when either you or your partner looks at > the face of the cards. Law 17A > The fact that opps have called suggests to me that this has happened. Although that is usually the case I explicitly stated that in the situation I envisaged the auction had not started for "our" side. And I have sufficient experience to know that this happens occasionally from time to time. > We are talking about communication other than through calls and plays > and this is explicitly prohibited. Law 73A1 L73A1 explicitly applies only during the auction and play. This law is NOT applicable on communication before the start of the auction or after the end of the play. So in order to rule illegal use of UI on a remark that occurred before the auction had started for the offending side I would require (strong) indication that the remark was somehow connected to communication from the non-offending side after looking at their cards. In addition I shall have to establish a relevant connection between the remark and a choice among alternatives made by partner to the player who made the remark. A very rare event indeed, but an event that cannot completely be excluded. Regards Sven I cannot understansd that you think the auction has not started for your side, Are you telling me that both you and your partner have taken your cards from the board and not looked at them when the opening call has been made? Anne _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 14 05:59:57 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Aug 14 06:02:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000001c59fc8$9ade6970$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c59fc8$9ade6970$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <70281634-5C7A-4355-9843-E8C91865604D@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 13, 2005, at 1:33 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Not necessarily! Opponent's reaction after seeing his cards "could" > give > cause for "reminding" partner of the vulnerabilities or even > indicating a > certain desired activity. So what? Opponents mannerisms are AI. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 14 06:01:55 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Aug 14 06:04:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A78D595-6B21-41DC-ADFF-04DEBCB0CDBE@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 12, 2005, at 5:24 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > because vulnerability varies with hand the > question draws attention to the fact that pard's call will be > vulnerability sensitive. More accurately, I think, the question suggests that pard's call might be vulnerability sensitive. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Aug 14 06:09:31 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Aug 14 06:12:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000801c5a06e$33df0df0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <000601c5a051$293c4ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000801c5a06e$33df0df0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <08D78429-5419-49D5-A3CA-67C2615348DA@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 13, 2005, at 9:19 PM, Anne Jones wrote: > I cannot understansd that you think the auction has not started for > your side, > Are you telling me that both you and your partner have taken your > cards from the board and not looked at them when the opening call > has been made? It can happen. Once, delayed at the end of a round, we moved to the next table, to find that both opponents had their cards in hand, and the opening bid (using bidding boxes) was on the table. Highly irregular, of course, but there it is - or was. :-) From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 14 09:21:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Aug 14 09:23:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000801c5a06e$33df0df0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000101c5a0a0$bc341ab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Anne Jones ............... > A very rare event indeed, but an event that cannot completely be excluded. > > Regards Sven > > I cannot understansd that you think the auction has not started for your > side, > Are you telling me that both you and your partner have taken your cards > from > the board and not looked at them when the opening call has been made? > > Anne I used "me and my partner" as an example, but YES - I have seen situations where the dealer made his opening call before neither second nor fourth hand had looked at their cards. There is nothing wrong with that. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 14 09:24:53 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Aug 14 09:27:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <70281634-5C7A-4355-9843-E8C91865604D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c5a0a1$43e2c100$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Aug 13, 2005, at 1:33 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Not necessarily! Opponent's reaction after seeing > > his cards "could" give cause for "reminding" > > partner of the vulnerabilities or even indicating > > a certain desired activity. > > So what? Opponents mannerisms are AI. Sure, but that doesn't open a door for exchanging UI with partner. Regards Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sun Aug 14 15:19:52 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun Aug 14 15:25:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000601c5a051$293c4ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000801c5a06e$33df0df0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <006201c5a0d3$5284b6a0$36063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:51 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Finger in the dike > > > > On Behalf Of Anne Jones > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > ............... > > > I'm sure Sven would agree that reminding partner of the vulnerability > > > *before* looking at ones hand (and before the auction starts) does not > > > create any UI. But after looking (or after the auction starts) the > > > comment "ah, we're vulnerable" is no longer innocuous. It suggests that > > > the hand is more defensive and less offensive than the auction is likely > > > to make it appear (or at least that's what it would mean were I the sort > > > of person to make such comments > > > > In general I would agree with you (and with Ed). However I can imagine > > situations like: An opponent looks at his cards and makes an opening bid > > or > > at least shows some kind of reaction before our side has looked at our > > cards. > > > > A "reminder" of the vulnerability from either me or my partner could then > > very well carry highly unauthorized information. That is why I shall not > > indiscriminately accept "Hey we are (not) vulnerable!" as an innocuous > > remark once at least one player around the table has looked at his cards. > > > > Example: > > > > Say that my partner has had a tendency of sacrificing a bit too often > > during > > the session and an opponent opens 2C (strong). Neither my partner nor I > > have > > yet looked at our cards. Now I say: "Hey we are red against white". > > > > > > > > Although the auction has not yet started for our side would you not > > consider > > this to be a highly improper reminder to my partner and would you not > > consider adjusting if my partner later during that auction luckily > > refrains > > from sacrificing on a hand that say half the other competitors have > > sacrificed with in a similar auction? > > > > >Regards > > >Sven > > > > The auction starts for your side when either you or your partner looks at > > the face of the cards. Law 17A > > The fact that opps have called suggests to me that this has happened. > > Although that is usually the case I explicitly stated that in the situation > I envisaged the auction had not started for "our" side. And I have > sufficient experience to know that this happens occasionally from time to > time. > > > We are talking about communication other than through calls and plays > > and this is explicitly prohibited. Law 73A1 > > L73A1 explicitly applies only during the auction and play. This law is NOT > applicable on communication before the start of the auction or after the end > of the play. > > So in order to rule illegal use of UI on a remark that occurred before the > auction had started for the offending side I would require (strong) > indication that the remark was somehow connected to communication from the > non-offending side after looking at their cards. In addition I shall have to > establish a relevant connection between the remark and a choice among > alternatives made by partner to the player who made the remark. > > A very rare event indeed, but an event that cannot completely be excluded. > > Regards Sven > > I cannot understansd that you think the auction has not started for your > side, > Are you telling me that both you and your partner have taken your cards from > the board and not looked at them when the opening call has been made? > > What is the reason that the sentence "The auction period on a deal begins when a player makes a call on that deal" in the 1987 edition Law 17A is cancelled? Now we have a problem. Ben From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 14 15:48:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Aug 14 15:51:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <006201c5a0d3$5284b6a0$36063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000301c5a0d6$e1019530$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > > > ............... > What is the reason that the sentence "The auction period on a deal begins > when a player makes a call on that deal" in the 1987 edition Law 17A is > cancelled? > Now we have a problem. Under the 1987 laws a dealer could cut off opponents' last minute discussion on agreements by rushing his first call. I suspect the change was to prevent such tactics, but as you say: Now we have a problem. Technically under the current laws a pair can discuss their agreements and in particular their defense against the opening call made by the opponent designated as dealer on that board if they delay looking at their cards. I'd say I prefer the 1987 laws. 8-) Regards Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sun Aug 14 19:07:40 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun Aug 14 19:11:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000301c5a0d6$e1019530$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001b01c5a0f2$d35c52a0$4a063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 3:48 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Finger in the dike > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > > > ............... > What is the reason that the sentence "The auction period on a deal begins > when a player makes a call on that deal" in the 1987 edition Law 17A is > cancelled? > Now we have a problem. Under the 1987 laws a dealer could cut off opponents' last minute discussion on agreements by rushing his first call. I suspect the change was to prevent such tactics, but as you say: Now we have a problem. Technically under the current laws a pair can discuss their agreements and in particular their defense against the opening call made by the opponent designated as dealer on that board if they delay looking at their cards. I'd say I prefer the 1987 laws. 8-) > > Last minute discussions can last more than a minute and maybe opponents need any second for the next board. Not to mention Law74A2. So you need now to summon the director in case the discussion is more than a minute.:-) I think the 1987 Law17A had sense. Ben From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 14 20:50:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Aug 14 20:52:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <001b01c5a0f2$d35c52a0$4a063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000001c5a101$013fba00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > > > > ............... > > What is the reason that the sentence "The auction period > > on a deal begins when a player makes a call on that deal" > > in the 1987 edition Law 17A is cancelled? > > Now we have a problem. > > Under the 1987 laws a dealer could cut off opponents' last > minute discussion on agreements by rushing his first call. > I suspect the change was to prevent such tactics, but as you > say: Now we have a problem. > > Technically under the current laws a pair can discuss their > agreements and in particular their defense against the opening > call made by the opponent designated as dealer on that board > if they delay looking at their cards. > > I'd say I prefer the 1987 laws. 8-) > > > > > Last minute discussions can last more than a minute and maybe > opponents need any second for the next board. > Not to mention Law74A2. > So you need now to summon the director in case the discussion > is more than a minute. :-) Why wait a full minute? > I think the 1987 Law17A had sense. > > Ben Agreed. But as I have already indicated: If I as a summoned Director judge that the players in a pair have exchanged remarks relevant to their auction after learning the first call made by an opponent designated as dealer I shall still apply Law 16A2 on that auction even when the auction technically has not yet begun for this pair. So far I have never been in such a situation and I doubt if I ever will. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 15 01:59:21 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 15 02:01:34 2005 Subject: [blml] The basis of an appeal [was: Finger in the dike] In-Reply-To: <001201c59f19$22cbaf60$199868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO You appeal against a "ruling", which should >contain both an "outcome" and the "reasons" that >justify it. Hence if the director's reasoning is >faulty your appeal cannot be meritless. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Nigel's opinion is not congruent with reality. For example, in another case discussed in an earlier thread on blml, an AC reasoned differently from a TD to award the appellants a *worse* score than the TD awarded. The AC also deemed that the appeal was meritless, despite the AC overturning the TD's reasoning. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 15 02:41:58 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 15 02:44:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I find the "common sense and practice" explanation >unsatisfying. The alert must by UI. Likewise partner's >failure to alert would also be UI. I'd like to understand >better how the laws function when every player has UI on >every deal. > >We've discussed this before. See the "Phoenix Case 2" >threads here: [snip] In the "Phoenix Case 2" thread, Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >>>the wording of 16A is quite explicit that a player put >>>in possession of 'extraneous information that may >>>suggest a call or play' is precluded for the remainder >>>of the hand (such being the effect of "after") from >>>choosing 'among logical alternative actions one that >>>could demonstrably have been suggested over >>>another by the extraneous information'. In the "Phoenix Case 2 thread, David Burn replied: >>Does this mean that if I bid Blackwood, and my partner >>says "5H - that shows two aces, you know", I may not do >>anything suggested by the information that he has two >>aces? Richard Hills thoughts: I note that I have occasionally used Blackwood, gained a correct response from partner, then bid a slam off two aces because I miscounted the number of aces shown. :-) David Burn is only stating a paradox *if* one assumes that one's partnership agreements are authorised information to oneself. It seems to me that one's partnership agreements are only authorised information to the opponents. References: Law 40E2 and its footnote. Law 75A. Law 16. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 15 03:09:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 15 03:11:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <001b01c5a0f2$d35c52a0$4a063dd4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ben Schelen asked: >>What is the reason that the sentence "The auction period on a >>deal begins when a player makes a call on that deal" in the >>1987 edition Law 17A is cancelled? Current 1997 edition of Law 17A: >The **auction** period on a deal begins for a side when either >partner looks at the face of his cards. Current 1997 edition of Law 73A1: >Communication between partners during the **auction** and >play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays >themselves. Richard Hills replies: It seems to me that the 1987 version of Law 17A had a loophole; a window of opportunity for cheats to legally exchange information about their cards after the cheats looked at their cards but before the auction started. The 1997 version of Law 17A is fully consistent with Law 73A1 (and is also fully consistent with Law 82B2, if the TD should wish to postpone the play of an unplayed board). Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Aug 15 03:51:08 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon Aug 15 03:53:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <200508141451.j7EEpFHg019960@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508141451.j7EEpFHg019960@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42FFF50C.3010606@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Opponent's reaction after seeing his cards "could" give > cause for "reminding" partner of the vulnerabilities or even indicating a > certain desired activity. Indeed, but as long as neither player on the side has looked at his own cards, the auction period has not begun for them. It seems to me they are fully entitled to communicate anything they wish within the bounds of courtesy. > I can imagine > situations like: An opponent looks at his cards and makes an opening bid or > at least shows some kind of reaction before our side has looked at our > cards. > > A "reminder" of the vulnerability from either me or my partner could then > very well carry highly unauthorized information. Why do you think this? It seems entirely proper for the players to communicate in these circumstances. I hope you aren't ruling on the basis of your own views despite what the Laws say. After all, it was discourteous for the "opponent" to bid before "our side" has even looked at our cards. If they want to prevent the kind of communication you dislike, all they have to do is wait a few seconds, as polite players would. Unlike you and Ben, I see no problem at all. The 1987 Laws were clearly flawed in this area, but they were fixed in 1997. From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Aug 15 03:57:24 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon Aug 15 03:59:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <200508121446.j7CEk7jQ007892@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508121446.j7CEk7jQ007892@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <42FFF684.6070909@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > Behind screens one might make a judgement as to whether partner > thinks one is playing transfers and bid accordingly. But in possession of > UI, and given a reasonable natural meaning for the bid if one does not > play transfers, that "choice" no longer exists. Do you really think so? I claim that behind screens with a familiar partner, one will "guess" right nearly 100% of the time in the original sequence (1NT-2NT-3D). It is easy to find bidding sequences where this is not so -- indeed they are probably more common. However, we shouldn't let the common cases taint our rulings in uncommon cases. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 15 04:04:09 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Aug 15 04:07:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <006201c5a0d3$5284b6a0$36063dd4@c6l8v1> References: <000601c5a051$293c4ce0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000801c5a06e$33df0df0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <006201c5a0d3$5284b6a0$36063dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2005, at 9:19 AM, Ben Schelen wrote: > What is the reason that the sentence "The auction period on a deal > begins > when a player makes a call on that deal" in the 1987 edition Law > 17A is > cancelled? > Now we have a problem. The reason is that the 1997 Laws don't include that sentence. Instead, they say "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards." If you're asking "why was it changed?" I don't know, but I would imagine there were problems with the previous formulation. IAC, *why* the law says what it says isi not really relevant, IMO. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 15 04:11:57 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Aug 15 04:14:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000301c5a0d6$e1019530$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c5a0d6$e1019530$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <60BA7FAE-9D68-4DC4-BB6E-2DA4492A7BC2@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 14, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Technically under the current laws a pair can discuss their > agreements and > in particular their defense against the opening call made by the > opponent > designated as dealer on that board if they delay looking at their > cards. > > I'd say I prefer the 1987 laws. 8-) That, I submit, is a question for the Drafting Committee. Here, we are (well, I am, anyway :) concerned with what the law *is*. As for your hypothetical situation above, I've never seen or heard of it happening, but I suppose it's possible. Perhaps we should cross that bridge when we come to it, though. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 15 04:29:16 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Aug 15 04:32:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000001c5a101$013fba00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5a101$013fba00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Agreed. But as I have already indicated: If I as a summoned > Director judge > that the players in a pair have exchanged remarks relevant to their > auction > after learning the first call made by an opponent designated as > dealer I > shall still apply Law 16A2 on that auction even when the auction > technically > has not yet begun for this pair. > > So far I have never been in such a situation and I doubt if I ever > will. The question is, I think, dependent on the information conveyed, and what other information is available. I agree with your doubt above - which makes the argument rather pointless, I think. Going back to your other case, where one member of a pair reminds his partner of the vulnerability before the auction has started for that pair, I would again think it very unlikely that a circumstance would arise in which I would rule against them. I think, though, that it's a case of "you had to be there" - I would not so rule based on the sole fact that the player made the statement. Looking at Law 16 and Law 73, I note an interesting point: Law 73 addresses communication *during the auction and play* only. Communication outside that period is not addressed at all. Can we then infer that such communication is perforce legal? I don't think so - Law 16 doesn't specify any period, which might be interpreted to mean that *any* communication, *ever* which affects its recipient's action on a hand is illegal. That's going way too far, IMO - it would make discussions of system before (or after) the session illegal. I think in the vast majority of cases, if the auction has not started for a side, they can say what they like. I will concede that there might be circumstances where this would not be the case, but I would expect them to be rare enough that I'm not going to worry about them. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 15 05:43:44 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 15 05:46:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phoenix NABC Case 2 Subject: Unauthorized Information Event: Life Master Open Pairs, Nov. 29, First Qualifying Session Bd: 10 Dlr: East AQJ72 Vul: Both A942 76 QJ KT4 8 KJT4 KT632 West North East South --- --- Pass Pass Pass 1S Pass 2C(1) Pass 2H Pass 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Not Alerted; intended as Reverse Drury The Facts: 4S made five, +650 for N/S. The opening lead was the S9. East called the Director as soon as dummy came down, saying he did not believe South's hand justified a jump to 3S (in light of the non-Alert of 2C). South had informed E/W of the failure to Alert before the opening lead. After the play ended E/W petitioned the Director for redress saying they did not believe N/S would have reached game without South's jump to 3S. The Director ruled that South had unauthorized information from his partner's failure to Alert 2C, that 2S was a logical alternative to 3S at South's third turn, that the failure to Alert demonstrably suggested the 3S bid, and that if South had bid only 2S North did not have another bid. Therefore, the contract was changed to 2S made five, +200 for N/S. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players at the hearing. N/S said they had played together for 10-15 years, then took a break, and had recently resumed playing together (for the last two years). They play five-card majors in third and fourth seats and reverse Drury. North's 2H bid was natural in their system and forcing for one round, promising a full opening bid. When asked, South said that North frequently forgot to Alert some bids even though he was good at remembering their system. The Committee Decision: The Committee discussed the correct bridge auction (behind screens) after the 2H bid. Some favored rebidding 2S (as South) while others favored rebidding 3S -- which clearly made 2S a logical alternative. They agreed that if unauthorized information had been passed a score adjustment to 2S was appropriate. The Committee members agreed that the failure to Alert conveyed unauthorized information (that North may have forgotten Drury), 2S was a logical alternative to 3S, and the unauthorized information suggested bidding 3S. However, N/S's statements had been remarkably convincing that North was aware of their system but prone to forgetting to Alert. The Committee decided that in this particular case South had not acted upon unauthorized information and made what he deemed to be the right bridge bid which, in the absence of unauthorized information, he was free to do so. The Committee appreciated that it would be normal to impute unauthorized information, since South's statement (that North is prone to forget to Alert even though he remembers his system) is clearly self-serving, but in this case South's reluctance to admit North's failing convinced most of the Committee members of its truth. The Committee restored the table result of 4S made five, +650 for N/S, and warned N/S about the problems inherent in forgetting to Alert. In addition, they determined that this was an appropriate issue to bring to the attention of the recorder in N/S's home District. Dissenting Opinion (Jeff Goldsmith): While it is certainly legal for the Committee to decide as it did, I feel that there is not even close to enough evidence to do so. I do not buy the non- unauthorized information argument at all. Given unauthorized information, South's logical alternatives seem to include 2S, 2NT, 3C, 3S and 4S. The two of these not suggested over the others by the unauthorized information are 2S and 3C. Apparently South never thought about bidding 3C (as an aside, if South's assertion that North never forgot their system but often forgot to Alert were true, then 3C would be a clear choice: it's not suggested by the unauthorized information and if North did forget Drury they would end up in a silly spot while if he did not forget they would reach game and be able to keep their result). Thus 2S should be the action imposed on him. In a poll taken after the hearing I found several good players who would (and some who did) pass 2S with the North hand; so the Directors got this one right. Question: Is a warning or a procedural penalty appropriate for South? I would warn him, firmly making him aware of his responsibilities when playing with someone who often fails to Alert. I'd also award an Appeal Without Merit Warning, although since the Committee decided in N/S's favor perhaps that is too harsh. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Jeff Goldsmith, Richard Popper, Riggs Thayer, Dave Treadwell Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 15 06:31:42 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 15 06:34:18 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION ATLANTA, GEORGIA July 22, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chip Martel, Co-Chairman Ralph Cohen, Co-Chairman Jim Kirkham, Matt Smith, Dan Morse, John Solodar, Eric Rodwell, Roger Stern, Adam Wildavsky ALSO PRESENT: Gary Blaiss, Joan Gerard, Rick Beye, Bill Schoder, Roger Smith The meeting was called to order by Chip Martel at 7:35 PM. The Pittsburgh minutes were approved as amended. Jim Kirkham, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Bob Friend upon his resignation, was welcomed to his first meeting as a member. ACBL President, Roger Smith, was welcomed and thanked for his attendance. Ralph Cohen and Bill Schoder gave a progress report on the status of the work of the WBF laws drafting committee. In the opinion of a majority of the members of the drafting committee, the current draft is not yet close to final. In addition, the process and procedure being used is proving to be less effective than desirable. After considerable discussion, the commission arrived at a consensus on the following suggestion for the drafting committee: 1. Changes to the existing laws should be incremental. 2. The structure, format and numbering of the current laws should be maintained, in so far as possible. 3. The prior practice of presenting the revisions side by side with the current laws noting deletions and additions should be used. This procedure makes it easy to see how the laws have evolved. 4. As in the past, the proposed changes should be circulated to the NBOs and Zones for review and comment. 5. When a nearly final version has been updated in response to comments from the consultation with the NBOs, there should still be a further review by the drafting committee, before the proposed laws are submitted to the Executive Council for a vote. Chip Martel suggested that Bill Schoder submit, for the Denver meeting, 3-6 revised laws about which there is no resolution to the ACBL Laws Commission for its review and comment. These should be sent as soon as possible after the drafting committee's meeting in Estoril. The wording in the present law 69 was discussed. There was a consensus that the reference to play was to the play of the acquiescing side. It is suggested that this wording be clarified in the next version. Law 12 C 3 was discussed. The only consensus reached was that, if this law is in place, both directors and committees should have the authority to use it. There was a brief discussion that rules and regulations related to tournament details are best left to the zonal or sanctioning authorities. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 15 06:45:03 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Aug 15 06:47:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 14, 2005, at 11:43 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The Committee discussed > the correct bridge auction (behind screens) after > the 2H bid. Some favored rebidding 2S (as South) > while others favored rebidding 3S -- which clearly > made 2S a logical alternative. Is this a true statement? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 15 07:12:18 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 15 07:14:51 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL Laws Commission suggested: [snip] >the commission arrived at a consensus on the following >suggestion for the drafting committee: > >1. Changes to the existing laws should be incremental. Richard Hills quibbles: Changes to the *content* of the existing Laws should be incremental. But changes to the *format* of the existing Laws should be fundamental - there are too many unforced errors by club-level TDs due to the difficulties they have in locating and/or understanding particular Laws for particular rulings. ACBL Laws Commission suggested: >2. The structure, format and numbering of the current >laws should be maintained, in so far as possible. > >3. The prior practice of presenting the revisions side >by side with the current laws noting deletions and >additions should be used. This procedure makes it easy >to see how the laws have evolved. Richard Hills quibbles: Points 2 and 3 are convenient for the *drafters* of the Laws; but the convenience of the vast majority of the *users* of the Laws - club-level TDs - should be paramount. A sensible compromise would be for the penultimate draft of the 2007 Laws to be in accordance with Points 2 and 3, but for the ultimate draft of the Laws to be arranged in a more user-friendly format. ACBL Laws Commission suggested: >4. As in the past, the proposed changes should be >circulated to the NBOs and Zones for review and comment. [snip] Richard Hills does not quibble: With point 4 I fully agree. In my opinion there is no good reason for the NBOs and Zones to be presented with a "fait accompli" in the new Laws. Also, in my opinion, there has been no good reason for the WBF LC drafting sub-committee to keep its successive drafts confidential. In my opinion, this has put the WBF LC drafting sub-committee at risk of falling into groupthink, due to lack of diversity of thoughts on the specifics of its drafting. "The confrontation with a dissenting view, logically enough, forces the majority to interrogate its own positions more seriously." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 15 07:20:42 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 15 07:23:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL Committee stated: >>The Committee discussed the correct bridge >>auction (behind screens) after the 2H bid. >>Some favored rebidding 2S (as South) while >>others favored rebidding 3S -- which clearly >>made 2S a logical alternative. Ed Reppert asked: >Is this a true statement? Richard Hills replies: Only if the Committee deemed themselves to be peers of South. And it seems to me that the members of the Committee were all more expert than South. The Committee may therefore have made the right decision for the wrong reason. If all of South's peers would choose a 3S rebid (in the absence of UI), then there is no case for a Law 16 adjustment. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 15 07:43:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 15 07:45:52 2005 Subject: [blml] The umpire strikes back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian Interstate Teams Appeal #3 Youth Teams. Victoria vs Queensland Match 2/4, Bd 15 Dlr: South Vul: North-South J954 KJ65 T6 KT3 Q62 AK3 AT2 743 953 AKQJ872 AJ82 --- T87 Q98 4 Q97654 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Martin Howard Touton Kingham --- --- --- Pass Pass Pass 2C(1) Pass 2NT Pass 3D(2) Pass 4H Pass 5D Pass 6D Pass Pass Pass +920 EW (1) alerted, strong (2) alerted as transfer Director (Mullamphy): I was called by North at the conclusion of play, contending that EW arrived at 6D as a result of the mis- alert. We ruled that East's knowledge that 4H could not be natural is Authorised - West would not bid this way with long hearts. West is not in receipt of any Unauthorised Information and is free to raise 5D to six. NS made no suggestion that there was any reaction by East when 3D was alerted. Result stands. Appellants: (1) Over West's undiscussed 4H, a slam try of 4S is a Logical Alternative, perhaps number one choice. Then West is likely to drive to 6H or higher. (2) Why would West bid 6D over 5D unless he suspected that partner did not have hearts? Respondents: On (2), 5D is a most unlikely cuebid. If East has an extreme 2-suiter, 6D is sensible having already shown heart support. West reflected on the bidding to date and concluded his original interpretation of 3D made little sense. There was no reaction of mannerism by East. Committee (P Gue, J Hoffman, B Jacobs, W Lazer, B Neill): East's 5D bid may have been influenced by UI. Final result uncertain. Score adjusted to 8.9 IMPs to EW, being 90% of the score achieved and 10% of -50. EW were counselled on the implications of UI. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Aug 15 07:53:20 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Aug 15 07:56:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02F5A238-C912-4D8F-8049-08BE268BB157@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 15, 2005, at 1:20 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The Committee may therefore have made the > right decision for the wrong reason. If all > of South's peers would choose a 3S rebid (in > the absence of UI), then there is no case for > a Law 16 adjustment. That's what I thought - though I would have said "most" rather than "all" of South's peers, where the value of "most" depends where you are. From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 15 10:29:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Aug 15 10:31:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5a173$6c9aea50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Ben Schelen asked: > >>What is the reason that the sentence "The auction period on a > >>deal begins when a player makes a call on that deal" in the > >>1987 edition Law 17A is cancelled? > > Current 1997 edition of Law 17A: > > >The **auction** period on a deal begins for a side when either > >partner looks at the face of his cards. > > Current 1997 edition of Law 73A1: > > >Communication between partners during the **auction** and > >play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays > >themselves. > > Richard Hills replies: > > It seems to me that the 1987 version of Law 17A had a > loophole; a window of opportunity for cheats to legally > exchange information about their cards after the cheats looked > at their cards but before the auction started. The 1997 > version of Law 17A is fully consistent with Law 73A1 (and is > also fully consistent with Law 82B2, if the TD should wish to > postpone the play of an unplayed board). Are you sure you haven't got this the wrong way round? 1987 edition of Law 17A: The auction period on a deal begins when a player makes a call on that deal. Even if no player has called, the auction period begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards. If there is a loophole anywhere with L17A I feel it must be in the 1997 version rather than in the 1987 version? As I see it they didn't plug a hole in 1997, they removed a plug. Regards Sven From hermy at hdw.be Mon Aug 15 10:55:24 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Mon Aug 15 10:55:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <001a01c59fb4$17ba1d50$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <000101c59f2c$9d435460$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42FC8A61.4090006@hdw.be> <001a01c59fb4$17ba1d50$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <4300587C.6060300@hdw.be> Anne Jones wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" >>> >>> Wrong! I have had many cases where a competitor thinks he has been >>> damaged >>> but where the investigation revealed that he was in fact not. >> >> >> Sorry, but the WBF have defined damage as "scoring less". The >> investigation might reveal that the damage was not "caused" by some >> infraction, but damage is damage. >> > The wording differentiates damage which is consequent upon, as well as that > which is subsequent to an infraction. > Damage which is subsequent to an infraction, but not consequent upon it is > still damage but it is not necessarily compensated for in the same way. the > paragraph above suggests that the writer thinks all damage should be > considered in the same way. > No it doesn't, and he doesn't. Sven was trying to wriggle out of admitting that I was right by using the argument that perhaps the opponents weren't damaged. I countered this by pointing out that whenever opponents have a bad score, they are, in fact, "damaged". Had Sven tried to say that the damage was not consequential, or some such argument, my response might have been different. But in the sentence above, nothing I say is wrong. The WBF does indeed define damage as a bad score, nothing more. And some statements, although less personalised, are just as hurtful as some personalized ones. It hurts me to think, Anne, that you may believe that I don't know the difference between consequent and subsequent damage. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Mon Aug 15 11:00:20 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Mon Aug 15 11:00:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FCC96E.5080304@att.net> References: <000001c59f1a$72ebf6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42FC6A18.7020501@hdw.be> <42FCC96E.5080304@att.net> Message-ID: <430059A4.1030204@hdw.be> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > HermY De Wael wrote: > >> In case C, there is also UI. This again suggests one action, and there >> are LA to that action. Yet you would not rule against this player. Why >> not? > > > If you choose to rule result stands, seems like it should be because > the UI does not demonstrably suggest any particular action. Partner's > statement at the beginning of the hand is a statement of fact about the > deal. Partner's statement during the hand is an opinion about the > dangerousness of the vulnerability. > I don't see it like that, Todd. Both statements give exactly the same information (the second perhaps slightly more), so both statements suggest the same actions. Demonstrably so, in both cases. In both cases, the player will tell you - I could not fail to check the vulnerability before making my decision. And in both cases, you will agree with him (how could you not). In the second case, you can tell him however, "but the fact that your partner told you at that moment added something, and it is that something that I consider UI". That way, both rulings make sense. But saying that the remark at the beginning of play does not suggest (whatever it is that is being suggested), is not an argument I'm confident about. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Aug 15 14:44:20 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Aug 15 15:27:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <200508141451.j7EEpFHg019960@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <42FFF50C.3010606@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00b701c5a19c$c61a2720$76493dd4@c6l8v1> > > It seems entirely proper for the players to > communicate in these circumstances. I hope you aren't ruling on the > basis of your own views despite what the Laws say. After all, it was > discourteous for the "opponent" to bid before "our side" has even looked > at our cards. If they want to prevent the kind of communication you > dislike, all they have to do is wait a few seconds, as polite players would. > > Unlike you and Ben, I see no problem at all. The 1987 Laws were clearly > flawed in this area, but they were fixed in 1997. > > The problem is that there are now two beginning times, one for each pair, that is not clear. Indeed it is discourteous to bid before the opponents have looked at their cards, but sometimes [ each board :-)] it is the only possiblity to stop a long discussion/divergence of opinion. Such a long discussion is discourteous as well. Ben From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Aug 15 15:07:18 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Aug 15 15:27:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike References: Message-ID: <00b801c5a19c$c68fa540$76493dd4@c6l8v1> > > The Committee members agreed that the failure to > Alert conveyed unauthorized information (that > North may have forgotten Drury), 2S was a logical > alternative to 3S, and the unauthorized > information suggested bidding 3S. However, N/S's > statements had been remarkably convincing that > North was aware of their system but prone to > forgetting to Alert. > > The Committee decided that in this particular case > South had not acted upon unauthorized information > and made what he deemed to be the right bridge bid > which, in the absence of unauthorized information, > he was free to do so. > > The Committee appreciated that it would be normal > to impute unauthorized information, since South's > statement (that North is prone to forget to Alert > even though he remembers his system) is clearly > self-serving, but in this case South's reluctance > to admit North's failing convinced most of the > Committee members of its truth. > > Are the opponents entitled to know that North is prone to forget to alert before the auction period begins? Ben From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 15 15:52:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Aug 15 15:54:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <00b701c5a19c$c61a2720$76493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000601c5a1a0$8c206620$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen ............. > > Unlike you and Ben, I see no problem at all. The 1987 Laws were clearly > > flawed in this area, but they were fixed in 1997. > The problem is that there are now two beginning times, one for each pair, > that is not clear. So there was in 1987 as well as after 1997 but what was the problem? In 1987 the auction period began for a side when either player in that pair looked at his cards or when any call was made at that table whichever occurred first. After 1997 the auction period begins for a side when either player in that pair looks at his cards. If any of these rules is flawed it must be the 1997 law which leaves a window after a side knows opponents' opening call during which they may still discuss their agreements provided neither of them has yet looked at his cards. > Indeed it is discourteous to bid before the opponents have looked at their > cards, but sometimes [ each board :-)] it is the only possiblity to stop a > long discussion/divergence of opinion. Such a long discussion is > discourteous as well. I would say that depends on the actual situation. With all four players busy counting their cards and the dealer becoming ready to call before all the other three players have looked at their cards I have little objection against him presenting his opening call in a natural tempo. To stress an example (but not quite into absurdity!): What I shall always object to although it appears to be legal under the 1997 laws is if the dealer makes an opening bid and then one of his opponents stops his partner (as well as himself) from looking at his cards with words to the effect: "Hold it partner; we need to discuss our agreements against this bid". Can anybody point to a 1997 law that explicitly makes this illegal? Regards Sven From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Mon Aug 15 16:25:10 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon Aug 15 16:27:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6507@rama.micronas.com> On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 15:52 > To stress an example (but not quite into absurdity!): What I > shall always object to although it appears to be legal under > the 1997 laws is if the dealer makes an opening bid and then > one of his opponents stops his partner (as well as himself) > from looking at his cards with words to the effect: > > "Hold it partner; we need to discuss our agreements against this bid". > > Can anybody point to a 1997 law that explicitly makes this illegal? I don't think I would particularly enjoy such a sequence of events, but it appears to be legal. Not that this happens a lot, of course; it requires one side to let the cards in the board and the other side to get bidding. Usually, boths sides will have seen their cards. ** note to self: must try this out at next event ** (this is a joke) :) -- Martin Sinot From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 15 17:01:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Aug 15 17:03:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000601c5a1a0$8c206620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000701c5a1aa$323ce110$6400a8c0@WINXP> I wrote: To stress an example (but not quite into absurdity!): What I shall always object to although it appears to be legal under the 1997 laws is if the dealer makes an opening bid and then one of his opponents stops his partner (as well as himself) from looking at his cards with words to the effect: "Hold it partner; we need to discuss our agreements against this bid". Can anybody point to a 1997 law that explicitly makes this illegal? Martin Sinot commented in a message that I accidentally lost (and instead read from the blml archive files): "I don't think I would particularly enjoy such a sequence of events, but it appears to be legal. Not that this happens a lot, of course; it requires one side to let the cards in the board and the other side to get bidding. Usually, both sides will have seen their cards". To which I shall just note: I agree that usually both sides will have seen their cards, but the situation can occur even when all four players have taken their cards from the board, only the "offenders" must not yet have seen the face of any of their cards. Regards Sven PS. Do I have to say that regardless of technicalities in the laws I shall rule against any pair that tries this "stunt"? From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Aug 15 17:20:02 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon Aug 15 17:18:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Cards from the wrong board Message-ID: Hi all, Round 1, table 1, boards 1 and 2 Auction on board 1: N E S W 1C - 1H - all P Lead by S: C10 Dummy (W) goes on table...with an other C10 (TD!). South picked cards from board 2. IMHO, ruling on board 1 is routine (Law 17D). As dummy is faced up, the TD shall assign artificial scores. What about board 2? C10 has been faced up. Does Law 24 (Card exposed during the auction) applies? Law 17A says that "the auction period on a deal begins for a side when either side looks at the face of his cards". South already looked at the face of his cards on board 2. If auction period began for him, he made an "out of turn" P. East is dealer on board 2. Do you put an other artificial score ? Do we need clarification in Law texts ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From adam at irvine.com Mon Aug 15 17:26:31 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Aug 15 17:29:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:44:20 +0200." <00b701c5a19c$c61a2720$76493dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <200508151526.IAA01513@mailhub.irvine.com> I had quit following this thread some time ago when it looked like it was turning into a shout-fest. But there's an interesting point here, so I'll stick my finger back in the dike long enough to say one thing. Ben wrote: > > It seems entirely proper for the players to > > communicate in these circumstances. I hope you aren't ruling on the > > basis of your own views despite what the Laws say. After all, it was > > discourteous for the "opponent" to bid before "our side" has even looked > > at our cards. If they want to prevent the kind of communication you > > dislike, all they have to do is wait a few seconds, as polite players > would. > > > > Unlike you and Ben, I see no problem at all. The 1987 Laws were clearly > > flawed in this area, but they were fixed in 1997. > > > > > The problem is that there are now two beginning times, one for each pair, > that is not clear. > > Indeed it is discourteous to bid before the opponents have looked at their > cards, but sometimes [ each board :-)] it is the only possiblity to stop a > long discussion/divergence of opinion. Such a long discussion is > discourteous as well. I agree with this last. I do think it is rude to make an opening call before the opponents have had enough time to prepare---but not if the opponents take too much time (usually because they're still arguing over who misdefended the previous hand, in my experience). How much is "enough" and how much is "too much"? I don't know the answer to that one. Regarding Sven's comment: > To stress an example (but not quite into absurdity!): What I shall always > object to although it appears to be legal under the 1997 laws is if the > dealer makes an opening bid and then one of his opponents stops his partner > (as well as himself) from looking at his cards with words to the effect: > > "Hold it partner; we need to discuss our agreements against this bid". I hope Sven doesn't mean "always" when he says "always". If the opening makes an unusual opening bid before the opponents have been given adequate time to look over opener's CC and discuss things, especially if he does it deliberately, then I'd hope Sven would not rule that it's not illegal for the opponents to act as above---otherwise someone could play a very unusual opening bid and prevent the opponents from discussing a defense to it simply by making it very fast. IMHO that cannot be allowed to happen. >From the discussion in this subthread, it looks like the Laws should, ideally, either allow or disallow the defenders to have this sort of discussion, based whose fault it is, in the TD's judgment, that the opening bid was made before the defenders looked at their cards. From all appearances, neither the 1987 nor the 1997 Laws have found this middle ground. So they're both flawed. OK, that's all I have to say. I'm pulling my finger back out again. -- Adam From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 15 16:58:01 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Aug 15 17:31:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000601c5a1a0$8c206620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 8:52 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Finger in the dike > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen ............ > > Unlike you and Ben, I see no problem at all. The 1987 Laws were clearly > > flawed in this area, but they were fixed in 1997. > The problem is that there are now two beginning times, one for each pair, > that is not clear. So there was in 1987 as well as after 1997 but what was the problem? In 1987 the auction period began for a side when either player in that pair looked at his cards or when any call was made at that table whichever occurred first. After 1997 the auction period begins for a side when either player in that pair looks at his cards. If any of these rules is flawed it must be the 1997 law which leaves a window after a side knows opponents' opening call during which they may still discuss their agreements provided neither of them has yet looked at his cards. > Indeed it is discourteous to bid before the opponents have looked at their > cards, but sometimes [ each board :-)] it is the only possiblity to stop a > long discussion/divergence of opinion. Such a long discussion is > discourteous as well. I would say that depends on the actual situation. With all four players busy counting their cards and the dealer becoming ready to call before all the other three players have looked at their cards I have little objection against him presenting his opening call in a natural tempo. Regards Sven I think it is poor practice. Besides being impolite it also invites charges of breach of L16 later in the hand when other players are not ready to proceed. Further, it intimidates other players to 'catch up' thereby inducing errors. Personally, I have seen time and time and time again where these speedy players [of all calibers] go into a lengthy library visit- at their next turn, no less. It solves/reduces by far many problems of players for the auction to not proceed until all players are ready to start it, or at least appear to be ready. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 16 02:13:34 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 16 02:16:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian Interstate Teams Appeal #2 Women's Teams New South Wales vs Australian Capital Territory Round Robin 2, Match 4 Bd 18 Dlr: East Vul: North-South AQJ86 J32 AT 762 973 K5 AQ4 K965 J8764 KQ52 AT KQ9 T42 T87 93 J8543 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Stephens Bashar Pettigrew Liepins --- --- 1NT Pass 3NT Pass* Pass Pass * disputed hesitation Director (S Mullamphy): I was called by East after the play in 3NT. South had led a spade and the contract was defeated. East alleged that North had passed out of tempo over 3NT. This was disputed. We ruled that it was likely that North had not called in tempo and that South's short suit lead may have been suggested by the break in tempo. Score adjusted to +460 EW. Committee (R Grenside, N Francis, P Gue, B Jacobs, C Snashall): Under Law 12C3, the Committee varies the assigned adjusted score in order to restore equity. Adjusted to 3.5 IMPs to NS (NSW). Editor (N Hughes): In the other room, 3NT made 12 tricks. 3.5 IMPs to NSW reflects the Committee's belief that South basically had a 1 in 4 chance of finding the spade lead anyway. - Ed Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 16 02:32:20 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Aug 16 02:36:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000601c5a1a0$8c206620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004401c5a1f9$f7ed9b80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> My spam filter automatically puts all e-mails with this subject line in its Junk file. This puzzled me for a long time, until I just now realized that Mail Frontier may consider them to be possibly obscene. Does anyone else have this problem? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam at irvine.com Tue Aug 16 02:43:02 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Aug 16 02:45:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in that Netherlands water wall thing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:32:20 PDT." <004401c5a1f9$f7ed9b80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200508160042.RAA05266@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > My spam filter automatically puts all e-mails with this subject line > in its Junk file. This puzzled me for a long time, until I just now > realized that Mail Frontier may consider them to be possibly obscene. > Does anyone else have this problem? Well, if they did, they probably wouldn't see your question ... Anyway, perhaps we ought to get Kieran to contact Mail Frontier and drop them a nice little note explaining just what he thinks about them considering his name to be an obscenity.... I guess they wouldn't let you have a discussion about the classic TV show "The Dick Van D*** Show", either. :) :) :) -- Adam From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Aug 16 03:08:56 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue Aug 16 03:11:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050815205445.039650a0@mail.comcast.net> At 08:13 PM 8/15/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Australian Interstate Teams >Appeal #2 >Women's Teams >New South Wales vs Australian Capital Territory >Round Robin 2, Match 4 >Bd 18 >Dlr: East >Vul: North-South > > AQJ86 > J32 > AT > 762 >973 K5 >AQ4 K965 >J8764 KQ52 >AT KQ9 > T42 > T87 > 93 > J8543 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Stephens Bashar Pettigrew Liepins >--- --- 1NT Pass >3NT Pass* Pass Pass > >* disputed hesitation What is the skip-bid rule in Australia? Even if nobody bothers to hesitate on this auction and no skip-bid warning was issued, North should be entitled to the same time that he normally takes over a skip bid. Ten seconds over 1NT-3NT sounds like a long time. The AC needs to look into the hesitation; I don't believe, looking at North's hand, that it would necessarily take him more than ten seconds to decide whether to double. And if West omitted a technically required skip-bid warning, I would be extremely reluctant to grant him a claim of a disputed hesitation. >Director (S Mullamphy): > >I was called by East after the play in 3NT. >South had led a spade and the contract was >defeated. East alleged that North had >passed out of tempo over 3NT. This was >disputed. We ruled that it was likely that >North had not called in tempo and that >South's short suit lead may have been >suggested by the break in tempo. Score >adjusted to +460 EW. What is the LA standard? The auction suggests a major-suit lead, and South's 1 HCP also suggests that he not try to set up his club suit. I would expect most players to lead one of the majors. Under the ACBL's "seriously consider" rule, the spade lead may be an infraction, but under most other jurisdictions' ruling However, if the N-S agreement is that the double demands a *spade* lead (I have seen this in at least one book), then the ruling is clearly correct, as a heart lead would be a LA. And that may be the case, as the South hand makes a heart lead slightly more attractive than a spade lead because of the 8. >Committee (R Grenside, N Francis, P Gue, >B Jacobs, C Snashall): > >Under Law 12C3, the Committee varies the >assigned adjusted score in order to >restore equity. Adjusted to 3.5 IMPs to NS >(NSW). >Editor (N Hughes): > >In the other room, 3NT made 12 tricks. 3.5 >IMPs to NSW reflects the Committee's belief >that South basically had a 1 in 4 chance of >finding the spade lead anyway. - Ed This would be equity if the hesitation were the infraction, but it wasn't. That explains the title of this thread. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 16 04:34:17 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Aug 16 04:37:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000701c5a1aa$323ce110$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c5a1aa$323ce110$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Aug 15, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Do I have to say that regardless of technicalities in the laws I shall > rule against any pair that tries this "stunt"? You can, I suppose, as one club director here once said to me, make any ruling you want. But it seems to me rulings should be made IAW the laws. Under which law will you rule against them? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 16 06:40:35 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 16 06:43:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050815205445.039650a0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 73A2: >>Calls and plays should be made without special >>emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue >>hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring >>organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on >>the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid >>warning, or on the first trick). David J. Grabiner asked: >What is the skip-bid rule in Australia? Even if >nobody bothers to hesitate on this auction and no >skip-bid warning was issued, North should be entitled >to the same time that she normally takes over a skip >bid. Ten seconds over 1NT-3NT sounds like a long >time. The AC needs to look into the hesitation; I >don't believe, looking at North's hand, that it would >necessarily take her more than ten seconds to decide >whether to double. [snip] Richard Hills: I agree that a ten second pause after 1NT - 3NT is an undue hesitation. I also agree that the ACBL has legalised such a ten second undue hesitation by a regulation pursuant to the bracketed exception in Law 73A2. Note that the exception states "...sponsoring organisations _may_ require...", so that it is not compulsory for an SO to so regulate. And the ABF has not introduced (nor is likely to introduce) a skip- bid rule in Australia. It is a moot point whether: (a) in principle a skip-bid rule should be used by all SOs, or (b) in principle a skip-bid rule should never be used by any SOs, or (c) on balance, due to local norms, a skip-bid rule is beneficial in the ACBL but detrimental in the ABF. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that option (c) is closest to being correct. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 16 06:53:14 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 16 06:55:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >>Do I have to say that regardless of technicalities in the >>laws I shall rule against any pair that tries this "stunt"? Ed Reppert: >You can, I suppose, as one club director here once said to >me, make any ruling you want. But it seems to me rulings >should be made IAW the laws. Under which law will you rule >against them? Richard Hills: Surely starting the bidding _before_ the opponents have had a chance to look at their cards is the discourteous "stunt"? An analogous situation occurred some years ago. As TD, I was summoned to the table when dummy put down their cards _before_ the opening lead had been selected. I ruled that this was an infraction which carried its own punishment; that is, I ruled that the opening leader could examine 26 cards (instead of the usual 13) before choosing their lead. :-) Likewise, as TD, I would rule that a premature opening bid carries its own punishment; the opener's opponents can now discuss their specific defences to that specific opening bid before picking up their hands. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Mon Aug 15 12:30:15 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Aug 16 07:12:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <000101c59f2c$9d435460$6400a8c0@WINXP> <42FC8A61.4090006@hdw.be><001a01c59fb4$17ba1d50$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <4300587C.6060300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001e01c5a184$54d509d0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > Anne Jones wrote: > >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" >>>> >>>> Wrong! I have had many cases where a competitor thinks he has been >>>> damaged >>>> but where the investigation revealed that he was in fact not. >>> >>> >>> Sorry, but the WBF have defined damage as "scoring less". The >>> investigation might reveal that the damage was not "caused" by some >>> infraction, but damage is damage. >>> >> The wording differentiates damage which is consequent upon, as well as >> that >> which is subsequent to an infraction. >> Damage which is subsequent to an infraction, but not consequent upon it >> is >> still damage but it is not necessarily compensated for in the same way. >> the >> paragraph above suggests that the writer thinks all damage should be >> considered in the same way. >> > > No it doesn't, and he doesn't. > > Sven was trying to wriggle out of admitting that I was right by using the > argument that perhaps the opponents weren't damaged. > I countered this by pointing out that whenever opponents have a bad score, > they are, in fact, "damaged". > Had Sven tried to say that the damage was not consequential, or some such > argument, my response might have been different. > But in the sentence above, nothing I say is wrong. The WBF does indeed > define damage as a bad score, nothing more. > > And some statements, although less personalised, are just as hurtful as > some personalized ones. It hurts me to think, Anne, that you may believe > that I don't know the difference between consequent and subsequent damage. > For goodness sake, can't you conduct a discussion without wimpering! Anne From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Aug 15 16:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 16 07:12:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <42FFF684.6070909@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > > Behind screens one might make a judgement as to whether partner > > thinks one is playing transfers and bid accordingly. But in > > possession of UI, and given a reasonable natural meaning for the bid > > if one does not play transfers, that "choice" no longer exists. > > Do you really think so? I claim that behind screens with a familiar > partner, one will "guess" right nearly 100% of the time in the original > sequence (1NT-2NT-3D). Well, I'll happily accept that for some people (including, apparently, all those in Benelux) there is no "reasonable" natural alternative. However, I would ask whether you would really be guessing that accurately amongst partners sufficiently *unfamiliar* that one does not know whether 2N was systemically a transfer? I know that in my own case there would always be sufficient ambiguity that I could not allow myself to "wake up" if the call was alerted - even though I think I would guess right in an untainted situation most of the time. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Aug 15 16:41:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 16 07:12:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000601c5a1a0$8c206620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > To stress an example (but not quite into absurdity!): What I shall > always object to although it appears to be legal under the 1997 laws is > if the dealer makes an opening bid and then one of his opponents stops > his partner (as well as himself) from looking at his cards with words to > the effect: > > "Hold it partner; we need to discuss our agreements against this bid". > > Can anybody point to a 1997 law that explicitly makes this illegal? I hope not! If the opponent doesn't wish us to discuss our defences after he has bid then he can wait until one of us looks at the cards. Assume you have arrived at my table and been told we play a weak 2 in C but a forcing 2N (unusual around here) - do you think that I should be able to prevent/truncate your discussion of defences by opening as dealer? Just for the record I am of the opinion that ToX+Leb while reasonable over weak 2M openings is sub-optimal over the (unusual) weak 2C. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 16 09:43:31 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 16 09:46:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050815205445.039650a0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 3C(1) 3H 5C(2) Dble ? (1) Transfer preempt, showing diamonds (2) Fit-showing jump, long clubs with secondary diamonds You, North, hold: 63 75 AKJ8652 J4 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 16 10:02:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Aug 16 10:05:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5a238$daf90bb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: 16. august 2005 04:34 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > > On Aug 15, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Do I have to say that regardless of technicalities in the laws I shall > > rule against any pair that tries this "stunt"? > > You can, I suppose, as one club director here once said to me, make > any ruling you want. But it seems to me rulings should be made IAW > the laws. Under which law will you rule against them? L16A2 Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 16 10:15:19 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Aug 16 10:17:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5a23a$a47d11b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > To stress an example (but not quite into absurdity!): What I shall > > always object to although it appears to be legal under the 1997 laws is > > if the dealer makes an opening bid and then one of his opponents stops > > his partner (as well as himself) from looking at his cards with words to > > the effect: > > > > "Hold it partner; we need to discuss our agreements against this bid". > > > > Can anybody point to a 1997 law that explicitly makes this illegal? > > I hope not! If the opponent doesn't wish us to discuss our defences after > he has bid then he can wait until one of us looks at the cards. Assume > you have arrived at my table and been told we play a weak 2 in C > but a forcing 2N (unusual around here) - do you think that I should be > able to prevent/truncate your discussion of defences by opening as dealer? > Just for the record I am of the opinion that ToX+Leb while reasonable over > weak 2M openings is sub-optimal over the (unusual) weak 2C. As I have tried to express several times: Much depends on the actual situation. If I arrive at a table and am told that 2C is weak and 2N is strong then that is the time for me and my partner to discuss our defense. If we deliberately wait until such an opening bid is made then it is too late. If such a special (to us) opening bid is "shot at us" out of the dark without any previous notification on the convention (verbally or on CC front page) then I shall probably request permission to agree on a defense with my partner. Whether I as a Director would grant such permission? I don't know - it all depends. Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Aug 16 10:17:41 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Aug 16 10:21:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in that Netherlands water wall thing References: <200508160042.RAA05266@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005b01c5a23b$1851a060$fc493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in that Netherlands water wall thing > > Marv wrote: > > > My spam filter automatically puts all e-mails with this subject line > > in its Junk file. This puzzled me for a long time, until I just now > > realized that Mail Frontier may consider them to be possibly obscene. > > Does anyone else have this problem? > > Well, yes my mother has forbidden me to follow this subject any longer and I now realize why. Ben From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 16 13:12:22 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Aug 16 13:18:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 23:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley of the Sith > Law 73A2: > > >>Calls and plays should be made without special > >>emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue > >>hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring > >>organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on > >>the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid > >>warning, or on the first trick). > > David J. Grabiner asked: > > >What is the skip-bid rule in Australia? Even if > >nobody bothers to hesitate on this auction and no > >skip-bid warning was issued, North should be entitled > >to the same time that she normally takes over a skip > >bid. Ten seconds over 1NT-3NT sounds like a long > >time. The AC needs to look into the hesitation; I > >don't believe, looking at North's hand, that it would > >necessarily take her more than ten seconds to decide > >whether to double. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I agree that a ten second pause after 1NT - 3NT is an > undue hesitation. I also agree that the ACBL has > legalised such a ten second undue hesitation by a > regulation pursuant to the bracketed exception in Law > 73A2. I am afraid that it is such an attitude that players have adopted in America where the skip bid pause is abused far more than not. Yes, most players could be said to not pause except when they have something to think about and then they'll be at it for more than 20s. Personally, the 10S standard is a reasonable compromise of interests between providing the opportunity to mask UI [well, it seems all too often that most players need a lot more than 10s] and moving the game along [7 min boards]. The assertion that a 10 s pause after 1N-3N is undue is folly. As with most all skips, there are enough hands that opponents [as well as their opponents if there is competition] would want to weigh the risk of action that to make a distinction not only denies players a solution to their UI problem, it invites them to get the procedure wrong [KISS]. regards roger pewick > Note that the exception states "...sponsoring > organisations _may_ require...", so that it is not > compulsory for an SO to so regulate. And the ABF has > not introduced (nor is likely to introduce) a skip- > bid rule in Australia. > > It is a moot point whether: > > (a) in principle a skip-bid rule should be used by > all SOs, or > > (b) in principle a skip-bid rule should never be > used by any SOs, or > > (c) on balance, due to local norms, a skip-bid rule > is beneficial in the ACBL but detrimental in the ABF. > > My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that > option (c) is closest to being correct. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Aug 16 16:52:14 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue Aug 16 16:54:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Aug 16, 2005 05:43:31 PM Message-ID: <200508161452.j7GEqEmD004704@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3C(1) 3H 5C(2) > Dble ? > > (1) Transfer preempt, showing diamonds > (2) Fit-showing jump, long clubs with > secondary diamonds > > You, North, hold: > > 63 > 75 > AKJ8652 > J4 > > What call do you make? 5D. Two reasons. My diamonds are lead worthy. I doubt that we have any agreement that says the 5D call shows this, but it might tip him towards leading one (assuming he's on lead. I suspect we're playing this one doubled) I've also seen too many, "I thought your pass showed a double-fit" disasters. I don't want to play 5C doubled. > What other calls do you consider making? None. Hand's too flat for adventuring and Jx isn't tolerance (or any other useful meaning) for clubs. From walt1 at verizon.net Wed Aug 17 00:28:19 2005 From: walt1 at verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed Aug 17 00:30:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <004401c5a1f9$f7ed9b80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000601c5a1a0$8c206620$6400a8c0@WINXP> <004401c5a1f9$f7ed9b80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050816182605.0289d4c8@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:32 PM 8/15/2005, Marvin French wrote: >My spam filter automatically puts all e-mails with this subject line >in its Junk file. This puzzled me for a long time, until I just now >realized that Mail Frontier may consider them to be possibly obscene. >Does anyone else have this problem? > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California This is a bit different, but Eudora routinely marks all email messages from Kieren (sp?) with two hot peppers indicating that the message contains possibly offensive language. Walt From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 17 01:23:22 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 17 01:24:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian Interstate Teams Appeal #2 Women's Teams New South Wales vs Australian Capital Territory Round Robin 2, Match 4 Bd 18 Dlr: East Vul: North-South AQJ86 J32 AT 762 973 K5 AQ4 K965 J8764 KQ52 AT KQ9 T42 T87 93 J8543 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Stephens Bashar Pettigrew Liepins --- --- 1NT Pass 3NT Pass* Pass Pass * disputed hesitation Director (S Mullamphy): I was called by East after the play in 3NT. South had led a spade and the contract was defeated. East alleged that North had passed out of tempo over 3NT. This was disputed. We ruled that it was likely that North had not called in tempo and that South's short suit lead may have been suggested by the break in tempo. Score adjusted to +460 EW. Committee (R Grenside, N Francis, P Gue, B Jacobs, C Snashall): Under Law 12C3, the Committee varies the assigned adjusted score in order to restore equity. Adjusted to 3.5 IMPs to NS (NSW). Editor (N Hughes): In the other room, 3NT made 12 tricks. 3.5 IMPs to NSW reflects the Committee's belief that South basically had a 1 in 4 chance of finding the spade lead anyway. - Ed * * * Richard Hills comments: In my opinion, the Appeals Committee ruling was not equitable, but rather paradoxical. (a) If North's hesitation _did not_ demonstrably suggest a non-club lead, then the Appeals Committee should have restored the table score. (b) If North's hesitation _did_ demonstrably suggest a non-club lead, then the Appeals Committee should have upheld the Director's ruling. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 17 01:55:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 17 01:56:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: <200508161452.j7GEqEmD004704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ron Johnson: [snip] >I've also seen too many, "I thought your pass >showed a double-fit" disasters. I don't want >to play 5C doubled. [snip] Australian Interstate Teams Appeal #1 Youth Teams Australian Capital Territory vs Victoria Round Robin 1, Match 4 Bd 17 Dlr: North Vul: Nil 63 75 AKJ8652 J4 J4 T5 QT6 AK9432 T93 Q7 KQT52 987 AKQ9872 J8 4 A63 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Bridgland Hollands Geromboux Munro --- 3C(1) 3H 5C Dble 5D Pass 5S Pass Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Transfer pre-empt, not alerted 5Sx made for +650 NS. Director (S Mullamphy): 3C was a transfer pre-empt, not alerted. North was receipt of UI due to the failure to alert 3C. The Directors believe that passing 5Cx was a logical alternative and adjusted the score to -1400 NS. After the match, the captain of the NS pair informed us that South's jump to 5C was fit-showing - North was obliged to bid 5D. No mention of this was made at the table. NS Appealed: That North is in receipt of Unauthorised Information is not disputed. However, South's 5C systemically shows a fit in diamonds; non-jumps such as 4C would be natural and forcing. The system cards refer to this. Appeals Committee (R Grenside, E Chadwick, N Francis, P Gue, L Kelso): The Committee expressed doubt about the fit- showing nature of 5C. Further, if 5C _did_ indeed show a diamond fit, there is still no compelling reason for North to bid 5D - pass is a logical alternative, leaving further action to South. Disappointingly, this would not be forthcoming. The awarded score of -1400 NS stands. Further, the Committee was unanimous in determining that this appeal lacks merit. The NS team is fined 2VPs. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From swillner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Aug 17 04:28:14 2005 From: swillner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Aug 17 04:30:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <200508151451.j7FEpBG5014455@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508151451.j7FEpBG5014455@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4302A0BE.8010303@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Ben Schelen" > The problem is that there are now two beginning times, one for each pair, > that is not clear. I don't expect players are aware of it, but it is certainly clear enough in the Laws. Why do you think it's a problem? > Indeed it is discourteous to bid before the opponents have looked at their > cards, but sometimes [ each board :-)] it is the only possiblity to stop a > long discussion/divergence of opinion. Such a long discussion is > discourteous as well. Indeed, but it's also impolite to meet rudeness with rudeness (however tempting is surely is). Why not "Could we begin now, please?" From: "Sven Pran" > After 1997 the auction period begins for a side when either player in that > pair looks at his cards. > > If any of these rules is flawed it must be the 1997 law which leaves a > window after a side knows opponents' opening call during which they may > still discuss their agreements provided neither of them has yet looked at > his cards. Why do you think this is a flaw? Suppose opponents come to our table with some unfamiliar methods. Surely you don't think there is any problem with our discussing our defenses (within reasonable time limits)? If one of them makes an opening bid, that just saves us the trouble of discussing what we do over their other openings. What can possibly be wrong with that? > What I shall always > object to although it appears to be legal under the 1997 laws is if the > dealer makes an opening bid and then one of his opponents stops his partner > (as well as himself) from looking at his cards with words to the effect: > > "Hold it partner; we need to discuss our agreements against this bid". Could you explain why you object to this? > PS. Do I have to say that regardless of technicalities in the laws I shall > rule against any pair that tries this "stunt"? Oh, dear. I hope you will reconsider. Or did you mean rule against the side who opened prematurely, though I wouldn't think the possible impoliteness, if impoliteness it is, would normally call for score adjustment. [switching gears here] From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > However, I > would ask whether you would really be guessing that accurately amongst > partners sufficiently *unfamiliar* that one does not know whether 2N was > systemically a transfer? Yes, with an unfamiliar partner I would often have trouble. Quite likely there would be more than one LA in the ACBL and maybe so in other jurisdictions. This proves that we have to judge each case on its own merits, not blithely make the "standard" ruling for that class of irregularity. In particular, in most UI cases, it will be necessary to investigate relevant partnership understandings. This shouldn't surprise anyone! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 17 07:53:13 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 17 07:55:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >Looking at Law 16 and Law 73, I note an interesting point: Law 73 >addresses communication *during the auction and play* only. >Communication outside that period is not addressed at all. Can we >then infer that such communication is perforce legal? I don't think >so - Law 16 doesn't specify any period, which might be interpreted to >mean that *any* communication, *ever* which affects its recipient's >action on a hand is illegal. That's going way too far, IMO - it would >make discussions of system before (or after) the session illegal. I >think in the vast majority of cases, if the auction has not started >for a side, they can say what they like. I will concede that there >might be circumstances where this would not be the case, but I would >expect them to be rare enough that I'm not going to worry about them. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Law 16A (Extraneous Information from Partner) is applicable only during the auction and play of the current deal. For example, I would deem it legal for partners to amend or clarify their partnership agreements between deals. But, in my opinion, Law 16B (Extraneous Information from Other Sources) must be applicable at any time during a session. For example, if one overhears information about a deal that one is yet to play, it does not matter whether or not one is currently between deals. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 17 08:04:59 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 17 08:07:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: <00b801c5a19c$c68fa540$76493dd4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ben Schelen asked: >Are the opponents entitled to know that North is prone >to forget to alert before the auction period begins? Richard Hills replies: Last Monday night, I played a one-off session with someone whom I had not partnered for about five years. Therefore, I agreed to use unaltered the system card of her regular partnership. While perusing the card, I saw a full-disclosure footnote, which stated: "Random acts of insanity." :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Aug 17 08:26:46 2005 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed Aug 17 08:29:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [snip] > Richard Hills comments: > > In my opinion, the Appeals Committee ruling > was not equitable, but rather paradoxical. > > (a) If North's hesitation _did not_ > demonstrably suggest a non-club lead, then > the Appeals Committee should have restored > the table score. Agreed. > > (b) If North's hesitation _did_ demonstrably > suggest a non-club lead, then the Appeals > Committee should have upheld the Director's > ruling. No. If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested a non-club lead (surely it suggested a major suit lead), you have to examine the deal more closely to determine if a club lead is a LA. Given the auction and the south hand, a club lead is NOT a LA to me. I would never lead a club here - always a major suit, normally my shortest. Regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Aug 17 08:39:04 2005 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed Aug 17 08:41:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: References: <200508161452.j7GEqEmD004704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > Australian Interstate Teams > Appeal #1 > Youth Teams > Australian Capital Territory vs Victoria > Round Robin 1, Match 4 > Bd 17 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > 63 > 75 > AKJ8652 > J4 > J4 T5 > QT6 AK9432 > T93 Q7 > KQT52 987 > AKQ9872 > J8 > 4 > A63 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Bridgland Hollands Geromboux Munro > --- 3C(1) 3H 5C > Dble 5D Pass 5S > Pass Pass Pass Dble > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Transfer pre-empt, not alerted > > 5Sx made for +650 NS. > > Director (S Mullamphy): > > 3C was a transfer pre-empt, not alerted. > North was receipt of UI due to the failure to > alert 3C. The Directors believe that passing > 5Cx was a logical alternative and adjusted > the score to -1400 NS. After the match, the > captain of the NS pair informed us that > South's jump to 5C was fit-showing - North > was obliged to bid 5D. No mention of this > was made at the table. > > NS Appealed: > > That North is in receipt of Unauthorised > Information is not disputed. However, > South's 5C systemically shows a fit in > diamonds; non-jumps such as 4C would be > natural and forcing. The system cards refer > to this. > > Appeals Committee (R Grenside, E Chadwick, N > Francis, P Gue, L Kelso): > > The Committee expressed doubt about the fit- > showing nature of 5C. I find it strange (as the AC probably did) that nothing was said about fit jumps to the TD at the table. > Further, if 5C _did_ > indeed show a diamond fit, there is still no > compelling reason for North to bid 5D - pass > is a logical alternative, leaving further > action to South. Here I disagree violently. From south's side there might possibly be a double fit. So north would pass 5Cx if he preferred to play there. If not, north must bid 5D. South should normally pass 5Cx if the fit bid wasn't distorted. Pass is absolutely no LA with the actual north hand. > Disappointingly, this > would not be forthcoming. > > The awarded score of -1400 NS stands. > Further, the Committee was unanimous in > determining that this appeal lacks merit. > The NS team is fined 2VPs. Here too I disagree, given my comments above. The appeal certainly had merit. I would have to see the CC or system file and be present at the AC hearing to know if I would reinstate the table result or not. But I would not fine the NS team unless the fit jump information was found to be fake. Regards Harald Skj?ran > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 17 08:40:16 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 17 08:42:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Cards from the wrong board In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Hi all, > >Round 1, table 1, boards 1 and 2 > >Auction on board 1: >N E S W >1C - 1H - all P > >Lead by S: C10 >Dummy (W) goes on table...with an other C10 (TD!). >South picked cards from board 2. > >IMHO, ruling on board 1 is routine (Law 17D). >As dummy is faced up, the TD shall assign artificial >scores. > >What about board 2? C10 has been faced up. > >Does Law 24 (Card exposed during the auction) >applies? Law 17A says that "the auction period on a >deal begins for a side when either side looks at the >face of his cards". South already looked at the >face of his cards on board 2. > >If auction period began for him, he made an "out of >turn" P. East is dealer on board 2. > >Do you put an other artificial score ? >Do we need clarification in Law texts ? > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City Richard Hills: I disagree that South has made an "out of turn" pass. The first sentence of Law 17D specifically states that the offender's call is cancelled. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 17 08:55:51 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 17 08:58:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050815205445.039650a0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner: [snip] >What is the LA standard? The auction suggests a major- >suit lead, and South's 1 HCP also suggests that he not >try to set up his club suit. I would expect most players >to lead one of the majors. [snip] >However, if the N-S agreement is that the double demands >a *spade* lead (I have seen this in at least one book), >then the ruling is clearly correct, as a heart lead >would be a LA. And that may be the case, as the South >hand makes a heart lead slightly more attractive than a >spade lead because of the 8. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, it is not necessary to deem that N-S have agreed that a double demands a spade lead to enforce the heart lead. (1) It is a common agreement in Australia that the auction 1NT - Pass - 3NT - Double demands a spade lead. (2) It is possible that both North and South were aware of this common agreement. (3) It is possible that North's hesitation was due to North trying to remember whether North-South had adopted this common agreement, before North correctly concluded that North-South had not adopted this common agreement. (4) It is possible that South's general knowledge enabled South to divine the reason for North's hesitation. So, if all of (1), (2), (3) and (4) were hypothetically deemed to be factual by a hypothetical TD, then that hypothetical TD's ruling would be clearly correct despite N-S failing to agree that a double demands a spade lead. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 16 12:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 17 09:21:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000101c5a23a$a47d11b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > If I arrive at a table and am told that 2C is weak and 2N is strong then > that is the time for me and my partner to discuss our defense. If we > deliberately wait until such an opening bid is made then it is too > late. You can't (at least at my table) wait for the opening bid. I'm not opening until you have looked at your cards. > If such a special (to us) opening bid is "shot at us" out of the dark > without any previous notification on the convention (verbally or on CC It may be on the CC *and* verbally notified but the dealer is not *required* to wait for you to discuss it. He may believe, erroneously, that he can circumvent your discussion by opening immediately but he is wrong. > front page) then I shall probably request permission to agree on a > defense with my partner. It's not really up to the director. The auction period hasn't started for your side and you may discuss any defences you wish. > Whether I as a Director would grant such permission? I don't > know - it all depends. To refuse would be TD error. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 16 14:13:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 17 09:21:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000001c5a238$daf90bb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > > > Do I have to say that regardless of technicalities in the laws I > > > shall rule against any pair that tries this "stunt"? It's not a "stunt" nobody can force their opponent to bid before the auction starts for their side. If an opponent *chooses* to bid before then that is *his* lookout - the rights of the side for whom the auction has not started remain fully intact. > > You can, I suppose, as one club director here once said to me, make > > any ruling you want. But it seems to me rulings should be made IAW > > the laws. Under which law will you rule against them? > > L16A2 L16a2 deals with extraneous information from partner. L73 is clear that this must arise during the auction/play. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 16 14:13:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 17 09:21:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3C(1) 3H 5C(2) > Dble ? > > (1) Transfer preempt, showing diamonds > (2) Fit-showing jump, long clubs with > secondary diamonds > > You, North, hold: > > 63 > 75 > AKJ8652 > J4 > > What call do you make? Does "long clubs" mean 7+? Otherwise I can see no alternative to 5D. Pard can hardly have cards worth "protecting" in the majors as he didn't try 3N. XX would show much better C IMO and pass would show worse diamonds and a third C (maybe Kx). > What other calls do you consider making? Pass, XX, 6D - but only briefly and only because this was set as a problem. At the table I'd probably bid 5D on autopilot. Tim From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 17 09:28:35 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 17 09:29:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > I was called by East after the play in 3NT. > South had led a spade and the contract was > defeated. East alleged that North had > passed out of tempo over 3NT. This was > disputed. We ruled that it was likely that > North had not called in tempo and that > South's short suit lead may have been > suggested by the break in tempo. Score > adjusted to +460 EW. > > Committee (R Grenside, N Francis, P Gue, > B Jacobs, C Snashall): > > Under Law 12C3, the Committee varies the > assigned adjusted score in order to > restore equity. Adjusted to 3.5 IMPs to NS > (NSW). > > Editor (N Hughes): > > In the other room, 3NT made 12 tricks. 3.5 > IMPs to NSW reflects the Committee's belief > that South basically had a 1 in 4 chance of > finding the spade lead anyway. - Ed > > * * * > > Richard Hills comments: > > In my opinion, the Appeals Committee ruling > was not equitable, but rather paradoxical. > > (a) If North's hesitation _did not_ > demonstrably suggest a non-club lead, then > the Appeals Committee should have restored > the table score. > Which the AC did not do, so they obviously thought it did suggest. > (b) If North's hesitation _did_ demonstrably > suggest a non-club lead, then the Appeals > Committee should have upheld the Director's > ruling. > Not necessarily. But in their weighing, they should not take into account ANY weight for the suggested action. I have not made the analysis, but from what I read the spade lead is the only one that defeats the contract. It now depends a little on what the AC and TD decide the "suggested alternative" is. if they believe that North's hesitation suggests a spade lead specifically, then they should give a weighted score based on the three other leads. If they believe the hesitation suggests a "major suit lead", then they should give a weighted score based on the minors. If they believe the hesitation suggests a "short suit lead", then they should give a weighted score based on the clubs alone. It doesn't really matter here, as any non-spade lead yields the same result (apparently), but they should not say that he could have found the spade lead as well. Under L16 he is no longer allowed to lead spades and the AS should reflect this. This is a well-known principle in L12C3 rulings in EBL and WBF events. -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermy at hdw.be Wed Aug 17 09:29:23 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 17 09:30:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4302E753.2080506@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Ben Schelen asked: > > >>Are the opponents entitled to know that North is prone >>to forget to alert before the auction period begins? > > > Richard Hills replies: > > Last Monday night, I played a one-off session with > someone whom I had not partnered for about five years. > Therefore, I agreed to use unaltered the system card > of her regular partnership. > > While perusing the card, I saw a full-disclosure > footnote, which stated: > > "Random acts of insanity." > > :-) > Did you act upon the agreed system? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 17 09:41:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 17 09:42:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4302EA43.9040806@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > I was called by East after the play in 3NT. > South had led a spade and the contract was > defeated. East alleged that North had > passed out of tempo over 3NT. This was > disputed. We ruled that it was likely that > North had not called in tempo and that > South's short suit lead may have been > suggested by the break in tempo. Score > adjusted to +460 EW. > > Committee (R Grenside, N Francis, P Gue, > B Jacobs, C Snashall): > > Under Law 12C3, the Committee varies the > assigned adjusted score in order to > restore equity. Adjusted to 3.5 IMPs to NS > (NSW). > > Editor (N Hughes): > > In the other room, 3NT made 12 tricks. 3.5 > IMPs to NSW reflects the Committee's belief > that South basically had a 1 in 4 chance of > finding the spade lead anyway. - Ed > > * * * > > Richard Hills comments: > > In my opinion, the Appeals Committee ruling > was not equitable, but rather paradoxical. > > (a) If North's hesitation _did not_ > demonstrably suggest a non-club lead, then > the Appeals Committee should have restored > the table score. > Which the AC did not do, so they obviously thought it did suggest. > (b) If North's hesitation _did_ demonstrably > suggest a non-club lead, then the Appeals > Committee should have upheld the Director's > ruling. > Not necessarily. But in their weighing, they should not take into account ANY weight for the suggested action. I have not made the analysis, but from what I read the spade lead is the only one that defeats the contract. It now depends a little on what the AC and TD decide the "suggested alternative" is. if they believe that North's hesitation suggests a spade lead specifically, then they should give a weighted score based on the three other leads. If they believe the hesitation suggests a "major suit lead", then they should give a weighted score based on the minors. If they believe the hesitation suggests a "short suit lead", then they should give a weighted score based on the clubs alone. It doesn't really matter here, as any non-spade lead yields the same result (apparently), but they should not say that he could have found the spade lead as well. Under L16 he is no longer allowed to lead spades and the AS should reflect this. This is a well-known principle in L12C3 rulings in EBL and WBF events. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 17 09:42:08 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 17 09:42:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4302EA50.7020102@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Ben Schelen asked: > > >>Are the opponents entitled to know that North is prone >>to forget to alert before the auction period begins? > > > Richard Hills replies: > > Last Monday night, I played a one-off session with > someone whom I had not partnered for about five years. > Therefore, I agreed to use unaltered the system card > of her regular partnership. > > While perusing the card, I saw a full-disclosure > footnote, which stated: > > "Random acts of insanity." > > :-) > Did you act upon the agreed system? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Aug 17 09:54:41 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed Aug 17 10:01:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike References: <200508151451.j7FEpBG5014455@cfa.harvard.edu> <4302A0BE.8010303@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003701c5a301$76305160$7a493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Finger in the dike > > From: "Ben Schelen" > > The problem is that there are now two beginning times, one for each pair, > > that is not clear. > > I don't expect players are aware of it, but it is certainly clear enough > in the Laws. Why do you think it's a problem? > > > Indeed it is discourteous to bid before the opponents have looked at their > > cards, but sometimes [ each board :-)] it is the only possiblity to stop a > > long discussion/divergence of opinion. Such a long discussion is > > discourteous as well. > > Indeed, but it's also impolite to meet rudeness with rudeness (however > tempting is surely is). Why not "Could we begin now, please?" > > You are quite right, but . . . In my experience during sixty years as a player it does not help if this is said three times. Players are viewing and sorting their cards of the new board at a snail's pace while they are still discussing the play of the previous board. It is usual; common practice! Ben From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 17 13:38:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 17 13:39:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <430321C1.7070101@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >>However, if the N-S agreement is that the double demands >>a *spade* lead (I have seen this in at least one book), >>then the ruling is clearly correct, as a heart lead >>would be a LA. And that may be the case, as the South >>hand makes a heart lead slightly more attractive than a >>spade lead because of the 8. > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, it is not necessary to deem that N-S have > agreed that a double demands a spade lead to enforce the > heart lead. > > (1) It is a common agreement in Australia that the auction > 1NT - Pass - 3NT - Double demands a spade lead. > > (2) It is possible that both North and South were aware of > this common agreement. > > (3) It is possible that North's hesitation was due to > North trying to remember whether North-South had > adopted this common agreement, before North correctly > concluded that North-South had not adopted this common > agreement. > I don't buy that North needs time to reflect on whether or not they have the agreement. Either they have the agreement or they don't, and North should know which. One can conclude 2 different things however from the hesitation: a) North thinks the contract will go down, but doesn't dare to double because that would ask for a spade lead which might give the contract away b) North thinks a spade lead might be beneficial, but he doesn't dare to double because he is not certain even a spade lead might defeat the contract. If a) then the suggested lead is a heart one (surely a short suit lead) > (4) It is possible that South's general knowledge enabled > South to divine the reason for North's hesitation. > > So, if all of (1), (2), (3) and (4) were hypothetically > deemed to be factual by a hypothetical TD, then that > hypothetical TD's ruling would be clearly correct despite > N-S failing to agree that a double demands a spade lead. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 17 14:28:02 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Aug 17 14:45:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith References: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley of the Sith > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > > > I was called by East after the play in 3NT. > > South had led a spade and the contract was > > defeated. East alleged that North had > > passed out of tempo over 3NT. This was > > disputed. We ruled that it was likely that > > North had not called in tempo and that > > South's short suit lead may have been > > suggested by the break in tempo. Score > > adjusted to +460 EW. > > > > Committee (R Grenside, N Francis, P Gue, > > B Jacobs, C Snashall): > > > > Under Law 12C3, the Committee varies the > > assigned adjusted score in order to > > restore equity. Adjusted to 3.5 IMPs to NS > > (NSW). > > > > Editor (N Hughes): > > > > In the other room, 3NT made 12 tricks. 3.5 > > IMPs to NSW reflects the Committee's belief > > that South basically had a 1 in 4 chance of > > finding the spade lead anyway. - Ed > > > > * * * > > > > Richard Hills comments: > > > > In my opinion, the Appeals Committee ruling > > was not equitable, but rather paradoxical. > > > > (a) If North's hesitation _did not_ > > demonstrably suggest a non-club lead, then > > the Appeals Committee should have restored > > the table score. > > > > Which the AC did not do, so they obviously thought it did suggest. > > > (b) If North's hesitation _did_ demonstrably > > suggest a non-club lead, then the Appeals > > Committee should have upheld the Director's > > ruling. > Not necessarily. But in their weighing, they should not take into > account ANY weight for the suggested action. I vigorously oppose such a view. In this case the south hand suggests that a C lead will gain tricks only if N has four C or AKx. The absence of asking for a 4-card major suggests that EW have 5-8 clubs making 4 with N improbable and AKx is 2%. The only thing to be gained from a club lead might be not giving anything away- or giving the contract away. For a thinking S he concludes it is best to try to hit partner's source of tricks before his entries are gone-which is D,H,S. Again, given the absence of stayman it is likely that N has length in at least one major and not so likely for length in diamonds. On this occasion is the absence of stayman a false lead? If it is any suit may hit the jackpot; if not, a major suit lead would be more normal than a minor. What inferences are suggested by a BIT? [a] weighing the risk of action [including pass] [b] the holding of significant values, additionally, he might have unexpected honors meaning that EW had shaded their bids [c] radical distribution [d] a source of tricks with an entry but also enough open spaces that may be enough tricks for declarer. [b] it is obvious from the paucity of S cards that N could have honors sufficient to beat 3N but perhaps dubiously placed, additionally [c] radical distribution coupled with significant honors can yield a makeable NS contract or a possible sacrifice, coupled with pass suggests that 10 tricks is dubious and doubling could be expensive (a source of tricks could come to naught if EW can make their contract on a favorable lead). In this case it appears that inferences from the BIT provide the information that there are probably leads that will succeed AND leads that probably will fail. There is also a slight inference that the source of tricks is in a minor rather in a major since a normal reaction is to expect a major suit and the BIT suggests there is fear of a risk that a major will be led scuttling the defense's hopes. Recap- [1] there is a slight inference that the BIT provides an inference that demonstrably suggests a minor lead over a major lead [2] S's doubleton D suggests that N's long suit is diamonds [3] there is a stronger inference that the contract is beatable but not** what the key suit is. ** If the partnership has lead directing doubles available for this sequence, it would be relevant towards judging if the BIT provided an inference that suggested a particular suit. Since there was no mention of such an agreement it is presumed there was none. Given that S knows via AI that his partner has all the stuff and can probably be endplayed it is illogical to not assume partner has a long suit if the contract is to be defeated. I am suggesting that UI providing inferences that a contract can probably be beaten but in one way [without information what that one way is], is insufficient to conclude that NS were damaged when in fact there was but one way and it was found. regards roger pewick > I have not made the analysis, but from what I read the spade lead is > the only one that defeats the contract. It now depends a little on > what the AC and TD decide the "suggested alternative" is. if they > believe that North's hesitation suggests a spade lead specifically, I think that it is appropriate to award a C3 score based on the probable outcomes absent UI. > then they should give a weighted score based on the three other leads. > If they believe the hesitation suggests a "major suit lead", then they > should give a weighted score based on the minors. > If they believe the hesitation suggests a "short suit lead", then they > should give a weighted score based on the clubs alone. > It doesn't really matter here, as any non-spade lead yields the same > result (apparently), but they should not say that he could have found > the spade lead as well. Under L16 he is no longer allowed to lead > spades and the AS should reflect this. > > This is a well-known principle in L12C3 rulings in EBL and WBF events. > > -- > HermY DE WAEL From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 17 15:25:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 17 15:26:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43033ADB.8010206@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>>(b) If North's hesitation _did_ demonstrably >>>suggest a non-club lead, then the Appeals >>>Committee should have upheld the Director's >>>ruling. > > >>Not necessarily. But in their weighing, they should not take into >>account ANY weight for the suggested action. > > > > I vigorously oppose such a view. > Roger, nothing you write below is in any way or form wrong, but it is highly improper to write it as a reply to my post, which only states how one should award L12C3 scores. > In this case the south hand suggests that a C lead will gain tricks only if > N has four C or AKx. The absence of asking for a 4-card major suggests that > EW have 5-8 clubs making 4 with N improbable and AKx is 2%. The only thing > to be gained from a club lead might be not giving anything away- or giving > the contract away. > I agree with this - and would suggest a weighting of 50/50 for hearts and diamonds (if spades are deemed suggested). The AC gave 25% of spades as well however, and there they are wrong. > For a thinking S he concludes it is best to try to hit partner's source of > tricks before his entries are gone-which is D,H,S. Again, given the absence > of stayman it is likely that N has length in at least one major and not so > likely for length in diamonds. On this occasion is the absence of stayman a > false lead? If it is any suit may hit the jackpot; if not, a major suit > lead would be more normal than a minor. > So you award 60% of hearts and 40% of diamonds - all of which is of course immaterial since any non-spade lead yields 11 tricks IIRC. > What inferences are suggested by a BIT? [a] weighing the risk of action > [including pass] [b] the holding of significant values, additionally, he > might have unexpected honors meaning that EW had shaded their bids [c] > radical distribution [d] a source of tricks with an entry but also enough > open spaces that may be enough tricks for declarer. > > [b] it is obvious from the paucity of S cards that N could have honors > sufficient to beat 3N but perhaps dubiously placed, additionally [c] > radical distribution coupled with significant honors can yield a makeable NS > contract or a possible sacrifice, coupled with pass suggests that 10 tricks > is dubious and doubling could be expensive (a source of tricks could come > to naught if EW can make their contract on a favorable lead). > > In this case it appears that inferences from the BIT provide the information > that there are probably leads that will succeed AND leads that probably will > fail. There is also a slight inference that the source of tricks is in a > minor rather in a major since a normal reaction is to expect a major suit > and the BIT suggests there is fear of a risk that a major will be led > scuttling the defense's hopes. > > Recap- [1] there is a slight inference that the BIT provides an inference > that demonstrably suggests a minor lead over a major lead [2] S's doubleton > D suggests that N's long suit is diamonds [3] there is a stronger inference > that the contract is beatable but not** what the key suit is. > > ** If the partnership has lead directing doubles available for this > sequence, it would be relevant towards judging if the BIT provided an > inference that suggested a particular suit. Since there was no mention of > such an agreement it is presumed there was none. > > Given that S knows via AI that his partner has all the stuff and can > probably be endplayed it is illogical to not assume partner has a long suit > if the contract is to be defeated. I am suggesting that UI providing > inferences that a contract can probably be beaten but in one way [without > information what that one way is], is insufficient to conclude that NS were > damaged when in fact there was but one way and it was found. > > regards > roger pewick > > >>I have not made the analysis, but from what I read the spade lead is >>the only one that defeats the contract. It now depends a little on >>what the AC and TD decide the "suggested alternative" is. if they >>believe that North's hesitation suggests a spade lead specifically, > > > I think that it is appropriate to award a C3 score based on the probable > outcomes absent UI. > No, based on the possible outcomes with UI and without use thereof. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 17 22:21:23 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 17 22:24:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: References: <200508161452.j7GEqEmD004704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5256C27C-EC75-4835-972B-D314C2819663@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 17, 2005, at 2:39 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Here too I disagree, given my comments above. The appeal certainly had > merit. I would have to see the CC or system file and be present at the > AC hearing to know if I would reinstate the table result or not. But I > would not fine the NS team unless the fit jump information was found > to be fake. I would tend to doubt it would be fake - but I suppose it's possible that N forget 5C was fit showing, just as S forgot 3C was a transfer. I would be curious to know, if he didn't forget, why e didn't mention it, but other than that, I agree with Harald. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 17 22:29:51 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 17 22:32:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000001c5a238$daf90bb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5a238$daf90bb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <29B78AB0-339F-4C03-8A7E-888F0A0B064D@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 16, 2005, at 4:02 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > L16A2 Uh, huh. Let me rephrase the question: which law was infracted? It is *not* L 16A2, which merely tells the TD to adjust the score *if an infraction occurred*. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 17 22:37:25 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 17 22:40:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 16, 2005, at 12:40 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > I agree that a ten second pause after 1NT - 3NT is an > undue hesitation. Depends. What is "normal tempo" for the player concerned? > I also agree that the ACBL has > legalised such a ten second undue hesitation by a > regulation pursuant to the bracketed exception in Law > 73A2. If it's legal, then it ain't "undue". :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 17 22:43:22 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 17 22:46:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: <430321C1.7070101@hdw.be> References: <430321C1.7070101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <01E228AE-7FF6-4510-B28A-18339073B1F7@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 17, 2005, at 7:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't buy that North needs time to reflect on whether or not they > have the agreement. Either they have the agreement or they don't, > and North should know which. So I suppose we can add "Bridge is a game of perfect memory" to our list of aphorisms. From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 17 23:43:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 17 23:46:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <29B78AB0-339F-4C03-8A7E-888F0A0B064D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c5a374$bc17fe30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Uh, huh. Let me rephrase the question: which law was infracted? It is > *not* L 16A2, which merely tells the TD to adjust the score *if an > infraction occurred*. I don't care to quote the entire L16A2, but the headline is: "When Illegal Alternative is Chosen" So if I consider a player to having chosen an illegal alternative because of UI from his partner then I use L16A2. L16A begins with the words: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play," If we are going to be technical then there is nothing in L16A that limits extraneous information to information given during the auction and play periods. So I consider it being up to the Director to judge whether such information was extraneous and as a consequence subject to the application of L16A2. regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 17 23:44:51 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Aug 17 23:52:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith References: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> <43033ADB.8010206@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley of the Sith > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> > >>>(b) If North's hesitation _did_ demonstrably > >>>suggest a non-club lead, then the Appeals > >>>Committee should have upheld the Director's > >>>ruling. > > > > > >>Not necessarily. But in their weighing, they should not take into > >>account ANY weight for the suggested action. > > > > > > > > I vigorously oppose such a view. > > > > Roger, nothing you write below is in any way or form wrong, but it is > highly improper to write it as a reply to my post, which only states > how one should award L12C3 scores. I was speaking to the standard for 12C3 adjustments. As for however pleasing to the ear the phrase 'But in their weighing, they should not take into account ANY weight for the suggested action.' sounds, it does not necessarily mean that it is a good standard. Now, the phraseology of 12C3 has the oddest canter but if equity is the mission then the status of the score prior to the creation of UI ought to be the basis of the adjustment. Hence my view that it ought to reflect AI only. Leave punishment to PP. As to the bridge, I was directing it toward the example at hand since it appeared to me that the judgment of the AC was off base and thought it called for comment- and a conclusion that doesn't support an adjustment [12C3 or otherwise]. > > In this case the south hand suggests that a C lead will gain tricks only if > > N has four C or AKx. The absence of asking for a 4-card major suggests that > > EW have 5-8 clubs making 4 with N improbable and AKx is 2%. The only thing > > to be gained from a club lead might be not giving anything away- or giving > > the contract away. > > > > I agree with this - and would suggest a weighting of 50/50 for hearts > and diamonds (if spades are deemed suggested). The AC gave 25% of > spades as well however, and there they are wrong. What you have here is a moving target- a target that is out to punish a player [in many cases wrongly imo] no matter what he does. This is a despicable principle. > > For a thinking S he concludes it is best to try to hit partner's source of > > tricks before his entries are gone-which is D,H,S. Again, given the absence > > of stayman it is likely that N has length in at least one major and not so > > likely for length in diamonds. On this occasion is the absence of stayman a > > false lead? If it is any suit may hit the jackpot; if not, a major suit > > lead would be more normal than a minor. > > > > So you award 60% of hearts and 40% of diamonds - all of which is of > course immaterial since any non-spade lead yields 11 tricks IIRC. It is AI that suggests the inference that declarer is more likely to be well heeled in D. You overlook that UI frequently suggests that there is significant deviation from expected values- hence an inference from the UI is that it is the diamonds that are long [as opposed to the more expected major; why? because S has shorter diamonds than majors leaving more diamonds for N]. On the basis of that inference D are suggested over a major! > > What inferences are suggested by a BIT? [a] weighing the risk of action > > [including pass] [b] the holding of significant values, additionally, he > > might have unexpected honors meaning that EW had shaded their bids [c] > > radical distribution [d] a source of tricks with an entry but also enough > > open spaces that may be enough tricks for declarer. > > > > [b] it is obvious from the paucity of S cards that N could have honors > > sufficient to beat 3N but perhaps dubiously placed, additionally [c] > > radical distribution coupled with significant honors can yield a makeable NS > > contract or a possible sacrifice, coupled with pass suggests that 10 tricks > > is dubious and doubling could be expensive (a source of tricks could come > > to naught if EW can make their contract on a favorable lead). > > > > In this case it appears that inferences from the BIT provide the information > > that there are probably leads that will succeed AND leads that probably will > > fail. There is also a slight inference that the source of tricks is in a > > minor rather in a major since a normal reaction is to expect a major suit > > and the BIT suggests there is fear of a risk that a major will be led > > scuttling the defense's hopes. > > > > Recap- [1] there is a slight inference that the BIT provides an inference > > that demonstrably suggests a minor lead over a major lead [2] S's doubleton > > D suggests that N's long suit is diamonds [3] there is a stronger inference > > that the contract is beatable but not** what the key suit is. > > > > ** If the partnership has lead directing doubles available for this > > sequence, it would be relevant towards judging if the BIT provided an > > inference that suggested a particular suit. Since there was no mention of > > such an agreement it is presumed there was none. > > > > Given that S knows via AI that his partner has all the stuff and can > > probably be endplayed it is illogical to not assume partner has a long suit > > if the contract is to be defeated. I am suggesting that UI providing > > inferences that a contract can probably be beaten but in one way [without > > information what that one way is], is insufficient to conclude that NS were > > damaged when in fact there was but one way and it was found. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > > >>I have not made the analysis, but from what I read the spade lead is > >>the only one that defeats the contract. It now depends a little on > >>what the AC and TD decide the "suggested alternative" is. if they > >>believe that North's hesitation suggests a spade lead specifically, > > > > > > I think that it is appropriate to award a C3 score based on the probable > > outcomes absent UI. > > > > No, based on the possible outcomes with UI and without use thereof. ???????? regards roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 18 02:56:14 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Aug 18 02:58:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: After an uncontested auction of 1NT - 3NT, South chooses an opening lead from: T42 T87 93 J8543 Harald Skjaeran: >No. If North's hesitation demonstrably suggested a >non-club lead (surely it suggested a major suit >lead), you have to examine the deal more closely >to determine if a club lead is a LA. > >Given the auction and the South hand, a club lead >is NOT a LA to me. I would never lead a club here >- always a major suit, normally my shortest. Richard Hills: Given the auction and the South hand, I would always lead a club here. The winning cases for a club lead are when North holds an entry outside clubs (quite likely) and the clubs are divided as follows : (1) KQx(x) xx(x) Ax J8543 (2) AKx(x) Qx xx(x) J8543 (3) KTxx Qx Ax J8543 (4) xx Qxx AKx J8543 Why is case (4) a winning case? Well, the auction and the South hand are consistent with all four players holding balanced distribution. It is possible that, on a passive lead and passive defence, declarer might score only eight tricks on normal play. Suppose that the only way that declarer can score nine tricks is by winning three tricks from this combined major suit holding: Dummy Declarer KJ9 Axx Then South leading away from their Txx in that major gives declarer their ninth trick. Since North's hesitation demonstrably suggests that case (4) will not be a winning case, in my opinion the club lead is the only legal logical alternative. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 18 05:40:40 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Aug 18 05:43:18 2005 Subject: [blml] London terror attack 7.7.05. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >It is quite a problem. As, for example, when >a character who looks to be carrying a bomb >refuses to stop when challenged by police, >runs away, tries to enter a crowded tube >carriage, is shot dead, and then turns out to >be carrying his electrical tools, no bomb, >and to be wholly innocent. Were I sitting in >that underground train I would be feeling >safer and I would not be arguing, as some >were on the radio today, whether it is better >to kill terrorists with one bullet in the >brain rather than seven.. > >But we all know now not to run away when >challenged by police in plain clothes. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills writes: It is quite a problem. As, for example, when a character who does not look like he is carrying a bomb, who is not challenged by police, who does not run to a tube station, who does not jump a turnstile, who is immobilised by a policeman in the tube carriage, but who is shot dead anyway. But we all know now to sceptically examine self-serving assertions of fact by authority figures, whether those self-serving statements are made by police authority figures or bridge authority figures. :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 17 11:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Aug 18 09:16:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > In my opinion, it is not necessary to deem that N-S have > agreed that a double demands a spade lead to enforce the > heart lead. Agreed. However, if it can be established that double demands a major lead (and I would not consider a minor an LA) then the hesitation suggests neither a S over a H nor vice versa. Mind you I don't have any partners who would pass this hand after a hesitation (to the extent I am surprised the TD/AC considered a hesitation pass likely) so I'd still be wondering which major to lead even after a double. Tim From emu at fwi.net.au Wed Aug 17 15:21:26 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Thu Aug 18 09:16:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006a01c5a32e$92311340$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Harald wrote: >Here too I disagree, given my comments above. The appeal certainly had merit. I would have to see the CC or system file >and be present at the AC hearing to know if I would reinstate the table result or not. But I would not fine the NS team >unless the fit jump information was found to be fake. If the fit showing jump stuff is fake I throw the team out of the event! regards, Noel From hermy at hdw.be Thu Aug 18 09:22:22 2005 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 18 09:22:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> <43033ADB.8010206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4304372E.3060802@hdw.be> Roger, your comments baffle me: Roger Pewick wrote: >>> >>>I vigorously oppose such a view. >>> >> >>Roger, nothing you write below is in any way or form wrong, but it is >>highly improper to write it as a reply to my post, which only states >>how one should award L12C3 scores. > > > I was speaking to the standard for 12C3 adjustments. As for however > pleasing to the ear the phrase 'But in their weighing, they should not take > into account ANY weight for the suggested action.' sounds, it does not > necessarily mean that it is a good standard. Now, the phraseology of 12C3 > has the oddest canter but if equity is the mission then the status of the > score prior to the creation of UI ought to be the basis of the adjustment. > Hence my view that it ought to reflect AI only. Leave punishment to PP. > As to the bridge, I was directing it toward the example at hand since it > appeared to me that the judgment of the AC was off base and thought it > called for comment- and a conclusion that doesn't support an adjustment > [12C3 or otherwise]. > Sorry, but you are saying way too many things in one sentence, and some of them even seem to be contradictory to one another. Let's go on: >> >>I agree with this - and would suggest a weighting of 50/50 for hearts >>and diamonds (if spades are deemed suggested). The AC gave 25% of >>spades as well however, and there they are wrong. > > > What you have here is a moving target- a target that is out to punish a > player [in many cases wrongly imo] no matter what he does. This is a > despicable principle. > Again, this is baffling. We are talking about where to adjust to, and suddenly you believe we should not be adjusting to anything. A valid point of view, but why interject it here? >> >>So you award 60% of hearts and 40% of diamonds - all of which is of >>course immaterial since any non-spade lead yields 11 tricks IIRC. > > > It is AI that suggests the inference that declarer is more likely to be well > heeled in D. You overlook that UI frequently suggests that there is > significant deviation from expected values- hence an inference from the UI > is that it is the diamonds that are long [as opposed to the more expected > major; why? because S has shorter diamonds than majors leaving more diamonds > for N]. On the basis of that inference D are suggested over a major! > So you award 40% of hearts and 60% of diamonds? >>> >>>I think that it is appropriate to award a C3 score based on the probable >>>outcomes absent UI. >>> >> >>No, based on the possible outcomes with UI and without use thereof. > > > ???????? > OK, let me repeat: without UI, there are 3 possible leads, since we have eliminated clubs. One could give these leads weights of 40%, 40% and 20%. However, the AC rules that the spade lead is suggested by the UI. Now L16 prohibits a spade lead. If the player now leads a red suit, the contract will be made. But if he leads a spade anyway, the contract goes down and the TD will be called. Now in Roger's view, the AS should be 40% of -1 and 60% of =. Which is a better score than what the player would ahve received if he had followed L16. That is not fair on law-abiding players. In my view (and this is also the view of the EBL AC, to name but one institution), the AS should be 67% of a heart lead and 33% of a diamond lead. That one is fair. OK? -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Aug 18 09:26:55 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Aug 18 09:29:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000301c5a374$bc17fe30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c5a374$bc17fe30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2DC81C32-E9C7-4A46-99A2-B4F3C10E4E30@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 17, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I don't care to quote the entire L16A2, but the headline is: > "When Illegal Alternative is Chosen" > > So if I consider a player to having chosen an illegal alternative > because of > UI from his partner then I use L16A2. > > L16A begins with the words: "After a player makes available to his > partner > extraneous information that may suggest a call or play," > > If we are going to be technical then there is nothing in L16A that > limits > extraneous information to information given during the auction and > play > periods. So I consider it being up to the Director to judge whether > such > information was extraneous and as a consequence subject to the > application > of L16A2. It's late, and I'm tired, so forgive me, but.... I think your interpretation of the law makes no sense. The headlines are not part of the laws. I don't remember who said that, but I remember where I heard it - right here on blml. From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 18 10:27:53 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Aug 18 10:30:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <2DC81C32-E9C7-4A46-99A2-B4F3C10E4E30@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c5a3ce$bac329b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Aug 17, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I don't care to quote the entire L16A2, but the headline is: > > "When Illegal Alternative is Chosen" > > > > So if I consider a player to having chosen an illegal alternative > > because of > > UI from his partner then I use L16A2. > > > > L16A begins with the words: "After a player makes available to his > > partner > > extraneous information that may suggest a call or play," > > > > If we are going to be technical then there is nothing in L16A that > > limits > > extraneous information to information given during the auction and > > play > > periods. So I consider it being up to the Director to judge whether > > such > > information was extraneous and as a consequence subject to the > > application > > of L16A2. > > It's late, and I'm tired, so forgive me, but.... I think your > interpretation of the law makes no sense. > > The headlines are not part of the laws. I don't remember who said > that, but I remember where I heard it - right here on blml. That is correct, but they usually describe the law, and in this case the description is quite accurate. L16A2 specifies in so many words the Director's action when a player can have chosen an alternative that should be ruled illegal because of possible extraneous information received from partner. The "infraction" named in this law is primarily an infraction of the obligations laid out in the complete L16A. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 18 14:53:15 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Aug 18 14:55:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith References: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> <43033ADB.8010206@hdw.be> <4304372E.3060802@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "HermY De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley of the Sith > Roger, your comments baffle me: > > Roger Pewick wrote: > >>> > >>>I vigorously oppose such a view. > >>> > >> > >>Roger, nothing you write below is in any way or form wrong, but it is > >>highly improper to write it as a reply to my post, which only states > >>how one should award L12C3 scores. > > > > > > I was speaking to the standard for 12C3 adjustments. As for however > > pleasing to the ear the phrase 'But in their weighing, they should not take > > into account ANY weight for the suggested action.' sounds, it does not > > necessarily mean that it is a good standard. Now, the phraseology of 12C3 > > has the oddest canter but if equity is the mission then the status of the > > score prior to the creation of UI ought to be the basis of the adjustment. > > Hence my view that it ought to reflect AI only. Leave punishment to PP. > > As to the bridge, I was directing it toward the example at hand since it > > appeared to me that the judgment of the AC was off base and thought it > > called for comment- and a conclusion that doesn't support an adjustment > > [12C3 or otherwise]. > > > > Sorry, but you are saying way too many things in one sentence, and > some of them even seem to be contradictory to one another. Let's go on: > > >> > >>I agree with this - and would suggest a weighting of 50/50 for hearts > >>and diamonds (if spades are deemed suggested). The AC gave 25% of > >>spades as well however, and there they are wrong. > > > > > > What you have here is a moving target- a target that is out to punish a > > player [in many cases wrongly imo] no matter what he does. This is a > > despicable principle. > > > > Again, this is baffling. We are talking about where to adjust to, and > suddenly you believe we should not be adjusting to anything. A valid > point of view, but why interject it here? Not suddenly. We were talking about what the standard for 12C3 and we were talking about a ruling. The principle of law at work is that there is a presumption of guilt unless it can be proved that there cannot be guilt. This means that the player has no redeeming solution to the UI problem. And what I believe is that the law ought to be a place of solutions rather than problems for the player. imo, the primary inference from the UI is that in N's opinion there is a successful defense to 3N [that depends on the OL] AND there are ways to blow it. Logically it derives that he has one or more long decent suit[s]. coupled with S's hand it is logical that such suits would likely be DHS only without any inference as to which one. Except since S has a shortest suit [D], it more likely is D of the three. imo, AI leads to the conclusion that a non club lead is superior [low probability of an entry (24 cases out of 256 club combinations for Richard's view + about 6 cases for 5 club tricks) in the less than likely situation that N has at least three clubs in the first place] and therefore not logical. Which means that the indicated lead of a DHS is the same for AI as for UI, but UI suggests a D over a major. ANd S didn't lead a D. It is applying logic to AI that is exculpatory and it appears that the reading of the law says to not allow it. Saying it again, the law creates problems for players but not solutions. > >>So you award 60% of hearts and 40% of diamonds - all of which is of > >>course immaterial since any non-spade lead yields 11 tricks IIRC. > > > > > > It is AI that suggests the inference that declarer is more likely to be well > > heeled in D. You overlook that UI frequently suggests that there is > > significant deviation from expected values- hence an inference from the UI > > is that it is the diamonds that are long [as opposed to the more expected > > major; why? because S has shorter diamonds than majors leaving more diamonds > > for N]. On the basis of that inference D are suggested over a major! > > > > So you award 40% of hearts and 60% of diamonds? > > >>> > >>>I think that it is appropriate to award a C3 score based on the probable > >>>outcomes absent UI. > >>> > >> > >>No, based on the possible outcomes with UI and without use thereof. > > > > > > ???????? > OK, let me repeat: without UI, there are 3 possible leads, since we > have eliminated clubs. > One could give these leads weights of 40%, 40% and 20%. > However, the AC rules that the spade lead is suggested by the UI. Upon what logic is a conclusion that a S was suggested by UI? I have seen no logic at all- valid or not. Which means > Now L16 prohibits a spade lead. this conclusion is dubious in light of the logic based solely upon AI that.if a lead will likely be successful it would be a D or/and a H or/and a S. regards roger pewick > If the player now leads a red suit, the contract will be made. > But if he leads a spade anyway, the contract goes down and the TD will > be called. > > Now in Roger's view, the AS should be 40% of -1 and 60% of =. > Which is a better score than what the player would ahve received if he > had followed L16. That is not fair on law-abiding players. > > In my view (and this is also the view of the EBL AC, to name but one > institution), the AS should be 67% of a heart lead and 33% of a > diamond lead. That one is fair. > > OK? If the situation had been that a spade lead was unlikely without UI that would be fair. In this case a S was likely without UI so it would be unfair. > HermY DE WAEL ps There was some allusion that there is a popular convention of double in this sequence to suggest a S lead. I am not aware of such a convention but the Fisher double has been around for some number of decades which suggests a C lead, and is popular enough that even if not agreed by partners there is a presumption among skilled players it requests a club. From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Aug 18 15:15:19 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 18 15:16:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> <43033ADB.8010206@hdw.be> <4304372E.3060802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <430489E7.7010006@hdw.be> Roger, we are talking at cross-purposes. Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>Again, this is baffling. We are talking about where to adjust to, and >>suddenly you believe we should not be adjusting to anything. A valid >>point of view, but why interject it here? > > > Not suddenly. We were talking about what the standard for 12C3 and we were > talking about a ruling. > No, I was talking about how to apply L12C3. You are talking about what the suggested alternatives are (L16). > The principle of law at work is that there is a presumption of guilt unless > it can be proved that there cannot be guilt. This means that the player has > no redeeming solution to the UI problem. And what I believe is that the law > ought to be a place of solutions rather than problems for the player. > But that is not a problem of the law, that is at most a problem for the directors. If they cannot agree on which action is "demonstrably" suggested, then there can be no demonstrably suggested action, hence no L16 ruling. I fear you are going back to the good old days of acbl "if it hesitates, shoot it". I though we'd gone past that. > imo, the primary inference from the UI is that in N's opinion there is a > successful defense to 3N [that depends on the OL] AND there are ways to blow > it. Logically it derives that he has one or more long decent suit[s]. > coupled with S's hand it is logical that such suits would likely be DHS only > without any inference as to which one. Except since S has a shortest suit > [D], it more likely is D of the three. imo, AI leads to the conclusion that > a non club lead is superior [low probability of an entry (24 cases out of > 256 club combinations for Richard's view + about 6 cases for 5 club tricks) > in the less than likely situation that N has at least three clubs in the > first place] and therefore not logical. Which means that the indicated lead > of a DHS is the same for AI as for UI, but UI suggests a D over a major. > ANd S didn't lead a D. > That is your analysis of the LA and SA involved. It does not concur with the Australian AC's decision. I prefer not to discuss those kinds of cases, since my bridge knowledge is not up to the highest levels needed. Which is precisely why I told you that it was unfair of you to tag your reactions onto my post. > It is applying logic to AI that is exculpatory and it appears that the > reading of the law says to not allow it. Saying it again, the law creates > problems for players but not solutions. > Or rather, problems for TD's. > > Upon what logic is a conclusion that a S was suggested by UI? I have seen > no logic at all- valid or not. > I have seen plenty in this thread. Both suggesting a spade and a heart lead. Which is why you are probably right in dismissing this case. But my point was not that a S lead was suggested, rather that IF a S lead is considered the suggested action, then the AC should not include a percentage of the spade lead in it's weighing for L12C3. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 18 16:37:21 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Aug 18 16:39:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith References: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> <43033ADB.8010206@hdw.be> <4304372E.3060802@hdw.be> <430489E7.7010006@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley of the Sith > Roger, we are talking at cross-purposes. > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> > >>Again, this is baffling. We are talking about where to adjust to, and > >>suddenly you believe we should not be adjusting to anything. A valid > >>point of view, but why interject it here? > > > > > > Not suddenly. We were talking about what the standard for 12C3 and we were > > talking about a ruling. > > > > No, I was talking about how to apply L12C3. You are talking about what > the suggested alternatives are (L16). > > > The principle of law at work is that there is a presumption of guilt unless > > it can be proved that there cannot be guilt. This means that the player has > > no redeeming solution to the UI problem. And what I believe is that the law > > ought to be a place of solutions rather than problems for the player. > > > > But that is not a problem of the law, that is at most a problem for > the directors. If they cannot agree on which action is "demonstrably" > suggested, then there can be no demonstrably suggested action, hence > no L16 ruling. > > I fear you are going back to the good old days of acbl "if it > hesitates, shoot it". I though we'd gone past that. > > > imo, the primary inference from the UI is that in N's opinion there is a > > successful defense to 3N [that depends on the OL] AND there are ways to blow > > it. Logically it derives that he has one or more long decent suit[s]. > > coupled with S's hand it is logical that such suits would likely be DHS only > > without any inference as to which one. Except since S has a shortest suit > > [D], it more likely is D of the three. imo, AI leads to the conclusion that > > a non club lead is superior [low probability of an entry (24 cases out of > > 256 club combinations for Richard's view + about 6 cases for 5 club tricks) > > in the less than likely situation that N has at least three clubs in the > > first place] and therefore not logical. Which means that the indicated lead > > of a DHS is the same for AI as for UI, but UI suggests a D over a major. > > ANd S didn't lead a D. > > > > That is your analysis of the LA and SA involved. It does not concur > with the Australian AC's decision. I prefer not to discuss those kinds > of cases, since my bridge knowledge is not up to the highest levels > needed. The AC gave no analysis. That might lead one to believe that there was no valid logic for saying that a S was suggested. If there was no valid logic then one might believe that the AC conclusion was a false one, or one that could not stand scrutiny. If players are to not have the logic then they will continue to fail to succeed. > Which is precisely why I told you that it was unfair of you to tag > your reactions onto my post. There are other players about. You know some of them. You can consult with them when you want view points. But it is relevant that if a TD is not likely to arrive at a correct solution then there is an unfortunate problem. > > It is applying logic to AI that is exculpatory and it appears that the > > reading of the law says to not allow it. Saying it again, the law creates > > problems for players but not solutions. > > > > Or rather, problems for TD's. If the law does not give a sensible way for a player to deal with UI it is a problem of the player. Telling the player that he must execute himself is not sensible. Telling him that if he doesn't execute himself then someone else will is not sensible. Though it is probable that the TD will have a problem with executing him in the right way. > > Upon what logic is a conclusion that a S was suggested by UI? I have seen > > no logic at all- valid or not. > > > > I have seen plenty in this thread. Both suggesting a spade and a heart > lead. > Which is why you are probably right in dismissing this case. > But my point was not that a S lead was suggested, rather that >IF a S > lead is considered the suggested action, then the AC should not > include a percentage of the spade lead in it's weighing for L12C3. This is called: if it hesitates, shoot it. And my point is that the concept that probably is behind 12C3 is that there are occasions where AI suggests that action X,Y,Z is reasonable and UI suggests that action X etc is reasonable. And when X is a winning action as well as an infraction then not necessarily all of the winning is stripped away. Which contradicts the priniple you are writing of. I don't think that considered suggested is a strong enough standard. I think that it needs to be 'suggested'. And when the basis for judging it is 'suggested' is logic the logic needs to be valid. regards roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Aug 18 17:22:43 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Aug 18 17:23:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: <4302E723.3000408@hdw.be> <43033ADB.8010206@hdw.be> <4304372E.3060802@hdw.be> <430489E7.7010006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4304A7C3.3060609@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > >>But my point was not that a S lead was suggested, rather that > > >>IF a S >>lead is considered the suggested action, then the AC should not >>include a percentage of the spade lead in it's weighing for L12C3. > > > This is called: if it hesitates, shoot it. > No it's not. The AC in Australia ruled that Spades was the suggested lead. They may have done so rightly or wrongly, I'm not commenting on that. I'm only commenting on what they should do after they ruled this. > And my point is that the concept that probably is behind 12C3 is that there > are occasions where AI suggests that action X,Y,Z is reasonable and UI > suggests that action X etc is reasonable. And when X is a winning action as > well as an infraction then not necessarily all of the winning is stripped > away. Which contradicts the priniple you are writing of. > contradicts how? What I am saying is that if X is suggested by UI, and the player chooses to follow X nevertheless, then he shall be awarded and AS based on weighing Y and Z. None of his winning is kept. > I don't think that considered suggested is a strong enough standard. I > think that it needs to be 'suggested'. And when the basis for judging it is > 'suggested' is logic the logic needs to be valid. > Of course it does - and we have had not enough insight into the reasoning and logic of the Australian AC. All my points have been about what L12C3 ruling they should give, not about whether their judgment on L16 was correct. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Aug 18 18:15:15 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu Aug 18 18:17:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Aug 17, 2005 09:55:02 AM Message-ID: <200508181615.j7IGFFkj015662@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > > > > Ron Johnson: > > [snip] > > >I've also seen too many, "I thought your pass > >showed a double-fit" disasters. I don't want > >to play 5C doubled. > > [snip] > > Australian Interstate Teams > Appeal #1 > Youth Teams > Australian Capital Territory vs Victoria > Round Robin 1, Match 4 > Bd 17 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > 63 > 75 > AKJ8652 > J4 > J4 T5 > QT6 AK9432 > T93 Q7 > KQT52 987 > AKQ9872 > J8 > 4 > A63 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Bridgland Hollands Geromboux Munro > --- 3C(1) 3H 5C > Dble 5D Pass 5S > Pass Pass Pass Dble > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Transfer pre-empt, not alerted > > 5Sx made for +650 NS. > > Director (S Mullamphy): > > 3C was a transfer pre-empt, not alerted. > North was receipt of UI due to the failure to > alert 3C. The Directors believe that passing > 5Cx was a logical alternative I guess I can see this in light of the failure to mention the fit showing nature of the 5C call (systemically that is -- it's clearly meant as a raise of the preempt) > and adjusted the score to -1400 NS. Logical consequence of the first decision. > After the match, the > captain of the NS pair informed us that > South's jump to 5C was fit-showing - Heck of a time to find this out. > North was obliged to bid 5D. With this particular hand, I agree. > No mention of this was made at the table. No doubt North would say that he didn't know how to handle the situation in light of his partner's failure to alert. > NS Appealed: > > That North is in receipt of Unauthorised > Information is not disputed. However, > South's 5C systemically shows a fit in > diamonds; non-jumps such as 4C would be > natural and forcing. The system cards refer > to this. > > Appeals Committee (R Grenside, E Chadwick, N > Francis, P Gue, L Kelso): > > The Committee expressed doubt about the fit- > showing nature of 5C. This needs to be expanded on. I assume the AC's doubts are due to the fact that fit jumps aren't mentioned specificalled in conjunction with transfer preempts but rather just as something generally played in competition. The AC has a right to be skeptical. I would be too based on this board -- and I'd have a lot of questions to ask. I *think* I could satisfy myself as to what their actual agreements were and how confident they are of them. Perhaps what the committee's statement really means is that NS may have had some agreements but couldn't be anything approaching confident that they were on the same page. God knows, their performance on this board has to raise doubts. > Further, if 5C _did_ > indeed show a diamond fit, there is still no > compelling reason for North to bid 5D - pass > is a logical alternative, leaving further > action to South. That seems like nonsense to me. > Disappointingly, this would not be forthcoming. > > The awarded score of -1400 NS stands. > Further, the Committee was unanimous in > determining that this appeal lacks merit. > The NS team is fined 2VPs. Likewise. This looks like an over the top reaction to NS's poor disclosure. Or perhaps I'm over-reacting to what I see as something of an aside. I honestly wouldn't disagree with the AC if they'd left out the paragraph dealing with 5C as fit showing. Having said that, if we're going to allow the 5D call, how can the pass to 5S be a LA? Seems to me very likely that UI was used to find that pass. (I think it *should* mean a useful spade fragment in a hand that was always planning on bidding to 6D. And maybe Meckwell would actually be confident as to what the meaning actually was. I have to say that a spade one-suiter seems *way* down on the list) I can certainly see adjusting to 6DX -3. (with possible penalties for the knowing use of UI. Yes, they're juniors so the penalty might be nothing more than a formal warning) And then there's the matter of North not explaining the "fit showing" nature of the 5C call, nor the failure to alert. These still need to be dealt with. All in all, I don't disagree much with the actual results of the ruling. I can see a basis for -1400 and can't see accepting less than -800 and the score difference won't be great between the two. I can see ruling an appeal without merit (though I think that's severe and actually don't agree that it's without merit) I can certainly see some form of discipline too, though I think 2 VPs is harsh. I'm just not too happy with the reasoning as presented here. (And yes, I would agree that what we see here is what amounts to a best efforts summary) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 19 01:27:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 19 01:29:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: <006a01c5a32e$92311340$6401a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Harald wrote: >>Here too I disagree, given my comments above. The appeal certainly >>had merit. I would have to see the CC or system file and be present >>at the AC hearing to know if I would reinstate the table result or >>not. But I would not fine the NS team unless the fit jump >information was found to be fake. Noel wrote: >If the fit showing jump stuff is fake I throw the team out of the >event! Richard writes: The system card of the pair in question, Peter Hollands and Angus Munroe, was submitted online some weeks before the Interstate Youth Teams was held, and is located at: http://www.abf.com.au/events/anc/2005/systems/vicyouth.pdf Splinters and fit-showing jumps are definitely part of their agreed methods, so the fit-showing jump agreement cannot be described as "fake" as such. However, there is a big difference between agreeing to play fit- showing jumps, and agreeing to play fit-showing jumps up to and including 5C. Of course, players who have been regular partners for a decade may have discussed the limits of their fit-showing jumps. For example, in my decade-long regular partnership, my partner and I extensively use fit-showing jumps, but we have a specifically agreed exception that a jump to game in a new suit is *not* fit-showing. But it most unlikely that Hollands and Munroe are a decade-long partnership, given they are an under-26 youth pair. Therefore, I agree with the actual AC's doubt about whether Hollands-Munroe had a firm agreement that 5C was fit-showing (especially since one of them firmly forgot their agreement about the meaning of an opening bid). Ergo, in my opinion, the appeal definitely did not have merit. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 19 01:26:49 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Aug 19 03:25:58 2005 Subject: [blml] London terror attack 7.7.05. References: Message-ID: <000001c5a45c$a45a3950$e20ce150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] London terror attack 7.7.05. > > Richard Hills writes: > > It is quite a problem. As, for example, when > a character who does not look like he is > carrying a bomb, who is not challenged by > police, who does not run to a tube station, > who does not jump a turnstile, who is > immobilised by a policeman in the tube > carriage, but who is shot dead anyway. > > But we all know now to sceptically examine > self-serving assertions of fact by authority > figures, whether those self-serving statements > are made by police authority figures or bridge > authority figures. > > :-( > +=+ I am patiently awaiting the findings of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 19 04:27:50 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 19 04:30:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: <200508181615.j7IGFFkj015662@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ron Johnson suggested: >I can certainly see some form of discipline too, though >I think 2 VPs is harsh. Richard Hills clarifies: The Interstate Teams is the only Aussie national championship which does *not* use the WBF victory point scale. Rather, for each 24-board match, one imp equals one vp up an initial cutoff of +35 or -35 vps, then one imp equals 1/10 of a vp up to a final cutoff of +37.5 vps or -40 vps. Therefore, the procedural penalty was equivalent to only 2 imps, which was 1/3 of the standard procedural penalty of 6 imps. It seems to me that the intent of the AC was to give a merely educative PP to the youth players and their non-playing captain. In my opinion, the extremely expert npc should have known better than to authorise the appeal. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 19 07:36:46 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 19 07:39:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: <200508161452.j7GEqEmD004704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ron Johnson: >I've also seen too many, "I thought your pass >showed a double-fit" disasters. I don't >want to play 5C doubled. Richard Hills: Because Ron has seen too many disasters after a wait-and-see pass, a wait-and-see pass is not a logical alternative for Ron. But for an inexperienced Victorian youth player, who is too young to have had the opportunity to see too many disasters, a wait-and-see pass may be a logical alternative for him. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 19 08:15:25 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 19 08:18:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: >I was speaking to the standard for 12C3 adjustments. As >for however pleasing to the ear the phrase 'But in their >weighing, they should not take into account ANY weight for >the suggested action.' sounds, it does not necessarily >mean that it is a good standard. Now, the phraseology of >12C3 has the oddest canter but if equity is the mission >then the status of the score prior to the creation of UI >ought to be the basis of the adjustment. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, a logically flawed assessment of "equity". Suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that: (a) North's hesitation demonstrably suggested a spade lead and (b) a club lead was a logical alternative for South. Suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that: (c) at the other table North also hesitated but (d) at the other table South obeyed Law 73C by avoiding their preferred spade lead, instead choosing their less preferred club lead. Suppose that Roger Pewick was, for the sake of argument, the hypothetical Appeals Committee, then (e) by obeying Law 73C, the other table South is -460 but (f) by not obeying Law 73C, the original South causes AC Roger Pewick to not only cancel South's infraction of Law 73C, but to also cancel North's earlier UI-creating infraction of Law 73A1, so the original South retains their table score of +50, so (g) the other table South loses a game swing by obeying Law 73C. Where is the "equity" in that? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 19 08:33:05 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 19 08:35:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <000101c5a3ce$bac329b0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>The headlines are not part of the laws. I don't remember who said >>that, but I remember where I heard it - right here on blml. Sven Pran: >That is correct, but they usually describe the law, and in this >case the description is quite accurate. Richard Hills: (1) The Lawbook itself states that headlines are not part of the Laws, in its "Scope and Interpretation" preamble. (2) Sven's "quite accurate" draconian interpretation of Law 16 leads to a "reductio ad absurdum" conclusion. Sven argues that Law 16A is applicable even when the auction has not yet started. In that case I have committed multiple illegalities when I have often clarified partnership agreements between deals. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 19 09:09:29 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 19 09:12:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick asserted: [big snip] >the Fisher double has been around for some number of >decades which suggests a C lead, and is popular enough >that even if not agreed by partners there is a >presumption among skilled players it requests a club. Richard Hills presumes: I must be an unskilled player, as must be all other Aussie experts, given that the Fisher double is unheard of in Aussie national championships. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 19 03:40:49 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Aug 19 09:23:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: <200508172204.j7HM4SW7029944@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508172204.j7HM4SW7029944@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <430538A1.6070203@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > If we are going to be technical then there is nothing in L16A that limits > extraneous information to information given during the auction and play > periods. Indeed. Or even to the session. Or the year, or the century. > So I consider it being up to the Director to judge whether such > information was extraneous I don't see how system discussion or agreement -- in itself -- can ever be extraneous. Of course if "system discussion" is a ploy for revealing something about the cards one holds, that's a different matter. In fact, I think that last is the key point: does the discussion tell partner something he is not supposed to know (e.g. unseen cards)? If neither partner has yet looked at his own cards, it's hard to imagine how there could be a problem. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 19 03:54:04 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Aug 19 09:23:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: <200508181405.j7IE5plv029953@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508181405.j7IE5plv029953@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43053BBC.3020300@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Roger Pewick" > Saying it again, the law creates > problems for players but not solutions. Bridge judgment about what the LAs are and which are suggested is, of course, often difficult. Nevertheless, the principles seem clear enough to most of us here on BLML. As Herman writes, once a particular action is determined to be illegal, no adjusted score for the NOS can be based on that action. (In some cases an OS score can include the illegal action, but only if that is worse for them than a score without it.) > ps There was some allusion that there is a popular convention of double in > this sequence to suggest a S lead. I am not aware of such a convention I wasn't aware of it either until a message on this list told us that this meaning is common in Australia. That suggests the ruling in other places might well be different. I have heard of (and in fact have played) the double to mean "lead hearts" if no higher-priority meaning exists on the specific auction. > the Fisher double has been around for some number of decades which suggests > a C lead, and is popular enough that even if not agreed by partners there is > a presumption among skilled players it requests a club. That one I had never heard of. On checking, though, I find it in the Bridge Encyclopedia. (Lead diamonds if Stayman was used, otherwise lead clubs.) As I wrote above, bridge judgment is difficult -- and that doesn't apply only to rulings, as my scores will attest! And as I've recently written in another thread, the TD and AC need to find out the actual agreements in effect before ruling. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Aug 19 03:57:36 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Aug 19 09:23:45 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION ATLANTA, GEORGIA July 22, 2005 > After considerable discussion, the commission arrived at a > consensus on the following suggestion for the drafting committee: > > 1. Changes to the existing laws should be incremental. > > 2. The structure, format and numbering of the current laws should > be maintained, in so far as possible. Ton, Grattan, and others: you have my sympathy and my thanks. Please know there is at least one vote from an ACBL member for you to continue with your efforts for a major revision. (And to Richard, thanks for posting the unpleasant news.) From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Aug 19 09:28:07 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 19 09:28:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43058A07.7050301@hdw.be> There is a slight mistake in Richard's assessment of what Roger would do: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Roger Pewick: > > >>I was speaking to the standard for 12C3 adjustments. As >>for however pleasing to the ear the phrase 'But in their >>weighing, they should not take into account ANY weight for >>the suggested action.' sounds, it does not necessarily >>mean that it is a good standard. Now, the phraseology of >>12C3 has the oddest canter but if equity is the mission >>then the status of the score prior to the creation of UI >>ought to be the basis of the adjustment. > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, a logically flawed assessment of "equity". > > Suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that: > > (a) North's hesitation demonstrably suggested a spade lead > > and > > (b) a club lead was a logical alternative for South. > > Suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that: > > (c) at the other table North also hesitated > > but > > (d) at the other table South obeyed Law 73C by avoiding > their preferred spade lead, instead choosing their less > preferred club lead. > > Suppose that Roger Pewick was, for the sake of argument, > the hypothetical Appeals Committee, then > > (e) by obeying Law 73C, the other table South is -460 > > but > > (f) by not obeying Law 73C, the original South causes AC > Roger Pewick to not only cancel South's infraction of Law > 73C, but to also cancel North's earlier UI-creating > infraction of Law 73A1, so the original South retains their > table score of +50, > I believe Roger would award something like 50% of 460 and 50% of -50. At least that is akin to what the Australian AC did. > so > > (g) the other table South loses a game swing by obeying > Law 73C. > It's not the full game swing, only 50% of it, but the conclusion is correct: South does better by not obeying L73 and L16. Which is not what the Laws would want South to do! > Where is the "equity" in that? > indeed - where? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Aug 19 09:30:20 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 19 09:30:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43058A8C.4030206@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Of course, players who have been regular partners for a decade may > have discussed the limits of their fit-showing jumps. For example, > in my decade-long regular partnership, my partner and I extensively > use fit-showing jumps, but we have a specifically agreed exception > that a jump to game in a new suit is *not* fit-showing. > > But it most unlikely that Hollands and Munroe are a decade-long > partnership, given they are an under-26 youth pair. Therefore, I > agree with the actual AC's doubt about whether Hollands-Munroe had a > firm agreement that 5C was fit-showing (especially since one of them > firmly forgot their agreement about the meaning of an opening bid). > > Ergo, in my opinion, the appeal definitely did not have merit. > Considering that you needed two long paragraphs to tell us (and presumably appellants) why you rule against them when they present written evidence in their support, I would say the appeal has merit. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Aug 19 09:32:00 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Aug 19 09:32:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Finger in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43058AF0.8080803@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Ed Reppert: > > >>>The headlines are not part of the laws. I don't remember who said >>>that, but I remember where I heard it - right here on blml. > > > Sven Pran: > > >>That is correct, but they usually describe the law, and in this >>case the description is quite accurate. > > > Richard Hills: > > (1) The Lawbook itself states that headlines are not part of the > Laws, in its "Scope and Interpretation" preamble. > > (2) Sven's "quite accurate" draconian interpretation of Law 16 > leads to a "reductio ad absurdum" conclusion. > > Sven argues that Law 16A is applicable even when the auction > has not yet started. In that case I have committed multiple > illegalities when I have often clarified partnership agreements > between deals. > > :-) > and indeed, that half hour systems session you had with your partner last week will result in multiple L16 rulings over the next five years! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Aug 21 05:00:14 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun Aug 21 05:10:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: <43058A8C.4030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Considering that you needed two long paragraphs >to tell us (and presumably appellants) why you >rule against them when they present written >evidence in their support, I would say the >appeal has merit. Richard Hills: This reminds me of a system regulation which applied in a now-defunct Melbourne Calcutta; a convention could only be used if the convention could be explained to the opponents in ten seconds or less. In my opinion, that Calcutta regulation had the unintended consequence of encouraging infractions of the Law 75A requirement for full disclosure. Likewise, Herman's suggestion that a director's reasoning for ruling "meritless" needs to be briefly stated in order to be valid might have an unintended consequence. Justice not only needs to be done, but needs to be seen to be done. In my opinion, a director _should_ take two long paragraphs to explain their ruling of "meritless" to the players whenever a shorter explanation might cause the players to wrongly believe that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Aug 21 11:16:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Aug 21 11:17:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4308467F.5010405@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>Considering that you needed two long paragraphs >>to tell us (and presumably appellants) why you >>rule against them when they present written >>evidence in their support, I would say the >>appeal has merit. > > > Richard Hills: > > This reminds me of a system regulation which > applied in a now-defunct Melbourne Calcutta; a > convention could only be used if the convention > could be explained to the opponents in ten > seconds or less. > > In my opinion, that Calcutta regulation had the > unintended consequence of encouraging infractions > of the Law 75A requirement for full disclosure. > > Likewise, Herman's suggestion that a director's > reasoning for ruling "meritless" needs to be > briefly stated in order to be valid might have an > unintended consequence. > > Justice not only needs to be done, but needs to > be seen to be done. In my opinion, a director > _should_ take two long paragraphs to explain > their ruling of "meritless" to the players > whenever a shorter explanation might cause the > players to wrongly believe that a miscarriage of > justice has occurred. > IMO Richard is comparing apples to oranges. No-one said that my criterion for telling whether something is meritless needs to be written down in a regulation. Of course a TD's duty is to explain everything. But when that explanation goes beyond something the players ought to know, then surely they cannot be blamed for appealing? If the TD, when telling the players about the ruling from the AC, needs to explain anything, then that means he hasn't explained it to them before the appeal was made. I don't call such appeals meritless (of course if he merely has to repeat everything he has said before, that's a different case). In the case at hand, the pair bring to the AC a piece of paper they haven't yet shown the TD. (*) The AC rules on that piece of paper and elaborates on why it does not regards the evidence as conclusive. I believe that this is an appeal with merit. (*) I consider it extremely rude of a TD to not take into account the extra evidence himself. If a pair announces that it wants to intorduce extra evidence, that should go first to the director, who should have the option of changing his ruling in the light of that extra evidence. Only then can we truely speak of justice being done (because now the extra evidence has been reviewed without due appeal procedure) Only then can we rule that the pair have appealed without merit. if their evidence is only going to be listened to in appeal, how can the appeal be without merit? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 22 01:39:53 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 22 01:42:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: <4308467F.5010405@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: [snip] >(*) I consider it extremely rude of a TD to not take >into account the extra evidence himself. If a pair >announces that it wants to introduce extra evidence, >that should go first to the director, who should have >the option of changing his ruling in the light of >that extra evidence. [snip] Extract from the Chief Tournament Director's ruling: >>After the match, the captain of the NS pair informed >>us that South's jump to 5C was fit-showing - North >>was obliged to bid 5D. No mention of this was made >>at the table. Richard Hills: It seems to me that Herman's "extremely rude" assertion is based on a false premise - the CTD did take into account the extra evidence himself, but obviously decided that the extra evidence was insufficient for him to reverse his original ruling. The Appeals Committee agreed with the CTD that the extra evidence was insufficient to change the CTD's ruling. Furthermore, the CTD's statement "No mention of thus was made at the table," and the AC's statement "The Committee expressed doubt about the fit-showing nature of 5C," are statements of congruent reasoning. With the CTD and the AC ruling the same way for the same reason, why should the appeal be deemed to have merit? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 22 03:48:51 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 22 03:51:14 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: <43053C90.2050005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass Pass 1H Pass 2H Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: J652 QT A32 JT86 (a) What call do you make? (b) What other calls do you consider making? If the answer to (a) or (b) is Pass, then: (c) What opening lead do you make? (d) What other opening leads do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 22 04:17:02 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon Aug 22 04:19:27 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: References: <43053C90.2050005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050821215732.01cab5f0@mail.comcast.net> At 09:48 PM 8/21/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: Nil > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass Pass >1H Pass 2H Pass >Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >J652 >QT >A32 >JT86 > >(a) What call do you make? Pass. >(b) What other calls do you consider > making? Double; this is the right distribution for a double, but I don't like the QT doubleton of hearts, which is a likely defensive value but worthless on offense. >If the answer to (a) or (b) is Pass, then: > >(c) What opening lead do you make? CJ. >(d) What other opening leads do you > consider making? Nothing else looks reasonable. The AI makes a spade lead unattractive; partner has about 10 HCP and would have been more likely to open or overcall in spades than in clubs. From adam at tameware.com Mon Aug 22 04:17:12 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Aug 22 04:45:34 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu> <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: At 9:57 PM -0400 8/18/05, Steve Willner wrote: >>From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION ATLANTA, GEORGIA July 22, 2005 >>After considerable discussion, the commission arrived at a >>consensus on the following suggestion for the drafting committee: >> >>1. Changes to the existing laws should be incremental. >> >>2. The structure, format and numbering of the current laws should >>be maintained, in so far as possible. > >Ton, Grattan, and others: you have my sympathy and my thanks. >Please know there is at least one vote from an ACBL member for you >to continue with your efforts for a major revision. > >(And to Richard, thanks for posting the unpleasant news.) I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a question. Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with all the laws renumbered and reorganized and almost every law rewritten. How would you determine whether or not it was an improvement over the existing laws? -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 22 05:53:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 22 05:55:33 2005 Subject: [blml] The umpire strikes back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Appellants: >(1) Over West's undiscussed 4H, a >slam try of 4S is a Logical >Alternative, perhaps number one >choice. [snip] Richard Hills: "Number one choice"??? In my opinion, this ain't necessarily so. When pard makes an undiscussed call, I do not have as my "number one choice" a response with yet another undiscussed call. In my experience, undiscussed advance cuebids, when no suit has been specifically agreed, often lead to accidents even when the partnership has been on firm ground during the prior auction. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 22 06:08:13 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 22 06:10:40 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a >question. > >Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the >laws, with all the laws renumbered and reorganized and >almost every law rewritten. How would you determine >whether or not it was an improvement over the existing >laws? Richard Hills: Let me pose four questions. (1) Should the Lawbook be written for the convenience of, and easy comprehension by, the average club TD? (2) Is the current organisation and wording of the Lawbook inconvenient for, and often incomprehensible to, the average club TD? (3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and reorganisation of the Lawbook be a *vast* improvement on the arcane wording and spaghetti organisation of the current Lawbook? Or (4) Is the Lawbook merely written for the convenience of those members of the ACBL LC who wish to track the changes in specific Laws over the decades ? If it is definitely broke, still don't fix it, because it is too hard for very busy ACBL LC members with more important work to do? :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From adam at tameware.com Mon Aug 22 06:29:56 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Aug 22 06:32:43 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:08 PM +1000 8/22/05, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Adam Wildavsky: > >>I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a >>question. >> >>Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the >>laws, with all the laws renumbered and reorganized and >>almost every law rewritten. How would you determine >>whether or not it was an improvement over the existing >>laws? > >Richard Hills: > >Let me pose four questions. I'll try to answer, though you haven't answered mine yet. >(1) Should the Lawbook be written for the convenience > of, and easy comprehension by, the average club TD? For the most part, yes. Did the minutes give the impression that this was not our concern? >(2) Is the current organisation and wording of the Lawbook > inconvenient for, and often incomprehensible to, the > average club TD? You'll have to ask one. I would guess that most of them might wish it were better yet would be loath to see it change dramatically. They seem to get by with what they have. How would we tell in advance whether or not the same would be true of a completely rewritten lawbook? >(3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and reorganisation of > the Lawbook be a *vast* improvement on the arcane > wording and spaghetti organisation of the current > Lawbook? How would one determine whether it was sensible? >(4) Is the Lawbook merely written for the convenience of > those members of the ACBL LC who wish to track the > changes in specific Laws over the decades ? I think your question is rhetorical. Perhaps mine was too, but I think you'll find the attempt to answer it useful. >If it is definitely broke, still don't fix it, because >it is too hard for very busy ACBL LC members with more >important work to do? This gets to the heart of my original question. Calling a change a fix does not make it an improvement. How would you tell? -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 22 06:41:13 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 22 06:52:34 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >I'll try to answer, though you haven't answered mine yet. [big snip] >This gets to the heart of my original question. Calling a >change a fix does not make it an improvement. How would >you tell? Richard Hills: I accept the challenge. Email me a copy of the draft that the ACBL LC rejected, and I will provide a line-by-line comparison with the current 1997 Lawbook. (Thus saving the ACBL LC any drudgery.) What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Aug 22 07:54:51 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Aug 22 07:59:42 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: <007f01c5a6de$042f81e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Richard Hills > > (3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and reorganisation of > the Lawbook be a *vast* improvement on the arcane > wording and spaghetti organisation of the current > Lawbook? > Very true, Richard. And how about simple, clear language that uses Anglo-Saxon words when they are good enough, e.g., Call, not summon After, not subsequent to First, not initial See, not observe Before, not previously Wrong, not erroneous Later, not subsequently And while we're on this subject, get rid of unnecessary passive mood and weasel words, e.g., Change all "is considered to be" to "is." Change "is required by law to" to "must" Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 22 08:16:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 22 08:27:36 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills rhetorical: >>>(2) Is the current organisation and wording of the >>> Lawbook inconvenient for, and often >>> incomprehensible to, the average club TD? Adam Wildavsky replied: >>You'll have to ask one. Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, Issue Number 43, "The Club Director" column, by Tony Musgrove: >When I was young and impecunious, I would do almost >anything for money...even bridge directing. I >volunteered as the emergency director for our club and >I found that I was able to purchase a bottle of Grange >Hermitage each time I directed and still get change. >For instruction, I was given the club's copy of >"Groner", which is not strong on the Laws, but >happily, in those less litigious days, director calls >were rare. Regrettably, the club's permanent director >died, and I was thrust into the job, forsaking forever >my ambition to be a good player. I also bought my >first copy of the Law Book, the 1975 edition. > >In the days before the ABDA, and BLML (the Bridge Laws >Mailing List), there were only limited opportunities >to consult and it was necessary to attempt for oneself >the deconstruction of each Law, subparagraph by >wretched sub-paragraph...often while standing at the >table flicking backwards and forwards in an often >futile attempt to locate the relevant section. [snip] Richard Hills notes: Since 1975 the sequencing of the Laws has not changed (with the minor exception that the Proprieties were given Law numbers in 1987), so Tony's "flicking backwards and forwards" problem as a club director then, remains a problem for other club directors now. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From toddz at att.net Mon Aug 22 08:25:03 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Aug 22 11:58:58 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu> <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43096FBF.6020908@att.net> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a question. Suppose > you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with all the laws > renumbered and reorganized and almost every law rewritten. How would you > determine whether or not it was an improvement over the existing laws? The same way I would compare two pieces of code whether one is a refactoring of the other or not. Apply the law books to test cases and you can measure the quality of the rulings directly. You can also measure ease-of-use by forcing direct quoting from the texts during a ruling and counting the page flips or the length of time spent explaining the ruling. I'm sure there are issues beyond correctness and efficiency, but they should all be addressable by similar means except the issue of whether the cost of retraining TDs exceeds the benefit to the game new Laws would provide. -Todd From Bausback at gmx.net Mon Aug 22 12:28:48 2005 From: Bausback at gmx.net (Nikolas Bausback) Date: Mon Aug 22 12:31:23 2005 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_[blml]_The_force_is_Strong_with_him?= References: Message-ID: <23566.1124706528@www2.gmx.net> > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass Pass > 1H Pass 2H Pass > Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > J652 > QT > A32 > JT86 > > (a) What call do you make? Pass > (b) What other calls do you consider > making? Double > > If the answer to (a) or (b) is Pass, then: > > (c) What opening lead do you make? CJ > (d) What other opening leads do you > consider making? no Nikolas Bausback Darmstadt > -- Nikolas Bausback In den R?dern 32 64297 Darmstadt T: 06151 593802 F: 856 M: 0170 2013235 Bausback@Gmx.net 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f?r Mail, Message, More +++ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Aug 22 15:57:33 2005 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon Aug 22 16:00:14 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: <23566.1124706528@www2.gmx.net> References: <23566.1124706528@www2.gmx.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass Pass > 1H Pass 2H Pass > Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > J652 > QT > A32 > JT86 > > (a) What call do you make? Pass > (b) What other calls do you consider > making? I slightly concider double, but since partner passed in 3rd seat he is less likely to hav 4 spades than in other positions. He's most probably 3334/3343 with 8-10 hcp. Why should I act now? > > If the answer to (a) or (b) is Pass, then: > > (c) What opening lead do you make? CJ > (d) What other opening leads do you > consider making? none -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Aug 22 16:11:11 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Aug 22 16:13:55 2005 Subject: [blml] The umpire strikes back In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Aug 22, 2005 01:53:00 PM Message-ID: <200508221411.j7MEBBSO005217@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > In my experience, undiscussed advance > cuebids, when no suit has been > specifically agreed, often lead to > accidents even when the partnership > has been on firm ground during the > prior auction. I happened to be re-reading an old IPBM in which Zia makes this precise point (almost word for word) and points to Pakistan reaching a grand with Jx opposite AKxxx in the finals of the Rosenblum (and the spots weren't good enough to allow a miracle) From john at asimere.com Mon Aug 22 16:41:17 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Aug 22 16:45:02 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <007f01c5a6de$042f81e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <007f01c5a6de$042f81e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <007f01c5a6de$042f81e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes > >>From Richard Hills >> >> (3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and reorganisation of >> the Lawbook be a *vast* improvement on the arcane >> wording and spaghetti organisation of the current >> Lawbook? do you use the QWERTY keyboard, or Dvorjak? John >> >Very true, Richard. And how about simple, clear language that uses >Anglo-Saxon words when they are good enough, e.g., > >Call, not summon >After, not subsequent to >First, not initial >See, not observe >Before, not previously >Wrong, not erroneous >Later, not subsequently > >And while we're on this subject, get rid of unnecessary passive mood >and weasel words, e.g., > >Change all "is considered to be" to "is." >Change "is required by law to" to "must" > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Mon Aug 22 16:42:26 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Aug 22 16:46:22 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: References: <43053C90.2050005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: Nil > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass Pass >1H Pass 2H Pass >Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >J652 >QT >A32 >JT86 > >(a) What call do you make? 2S. Another 4-2 fit, no doubt. >(b) What other calls do you consider > making? None > >If the answer to (a) or (b) is Pass, then: > >(c) What opening lead do you make? >(d) What other opening leads do you > consider making? > > >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 adam at irvine.com Mon Aug 22 17:28:55 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Aug 22 17:31:32 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:41:17 BST." Message-ID: <200508221528.IAA26321@mailhub.irvine.com> > > >>From Richard Hills > >> > >> (3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and reorganisation of > >> the Lawbook be a *vast* improvement on the arcane > >> wording and spaghetti organisation of the current > >> Lawbook? > > do you use the QWERTY keyboard, or Dvorjak? Well, the Dvorak keyboarq is a lot mxre sensibgy and logicalzy organizwd. I'm tryinv it rigqt now, with the exphctation thxt this will allow me tz type in posts fastjr and with much fewkr mqstakes. -- Adzm From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 22 18:29:16 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Aug 22 18:32:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley of the Sith > Roger Pewick: > > >I was speaking to the standard for 12C3 adjustments. As > >for however pleasing to the ear the phrase 'But in their > >weighing, they should not take into account ANY weight for > >the suggested action.' sounds, it does not necessarily > >mean that it is a good standard. Now, the phraseology of > >12C3 has the oddest canter but if equity is the mission > >then the status of the score prior to the creation of UI > >ought to be the basis of the adjustment. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, a logically flawed assessment of "equity". I am not so sure that it is flawed. Consider a player that has AI that such and such is a reasonable action, in this case the only action he would actually take [irrespective as to if he would look at something else] so he takes the action. There is a predisposition to take that action. Which is to say that there is an expectation that the action would be taken particularly should some other action prove to more likely to be successful.. Add to the mix UI that among other things provides inference that such and such is a good idea. What has changed with respect to the player's inclination? Merely that he has additional data suggesting what he already was inclined to do. Such reduction in risk being marginal rather than material. Add in that someone else judges this-and-that would be a good idea absent UI. What has changed with respect to the player's inclination? Nothing. But note, how would the player know that someone else's judgment is not only different, but what that judgment actually is. There still is an expectation of such-and-such as the player still is inclined to such-and-such. The matter of equity is a measure of what the player's have earned. In bridge it derives from what the players have done. And in adjusted scores there is an expectation derived from what the players have done. It is when the infraction was an action that had little expectation of being successful/ actually taken that equity suggests that so much of the action was gained through the infraction that it is inequitable to allow credit for it. > Suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that: > > (a) North's hesitation demonstrably suggested a spade lead The complete reasoning for such conclusion provided to the player so that he might challenge it in case it be invalid. > and > > (b) a club lead was a logical alternative for South. The complete reasoning for such conclusion provided to the player so that he might challenge it in case it be invalid. > Suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that: > > (c) at the other table North also hesitated > > but > > (d) at the other table South obeyed Law 73C by avoiding > their preferred spade lead, instead choosing their less > preferred club lead. This is totally irrelevant; and nothing [not connected with these players] that happened elsewhere has anything to do with equity at that table. > Suppose that Roger Pewick was, for the sake of argument, > the hypothetical Appeals Committee, then > > (e) by obeying Law 73C, the other table South is -460 > > but > > (f) by not obeying Law 73C, the original South causes AC > Roger Pewick to not only cancel South's infraction of Law > 73C, but to also cancel North's earlier UI-creating > infraction of Law 73A1, so the original South retains their > table score of +50, You tread dangerous ground. > so > > (g) the other table South loses a game swing by obeying > Law 73C. > > Where is the "equity" in that? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac 73C: When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. If the player was predisposed to such-and-such and UI suggested such-and-such and the player takes such-and-such, he has, shall we say, broken even or how the law puts it- not taking any advantage. But what of the player that was inclined to this-and-that or this-or-that who actually did such-and-such. He did gain by by actively disregarding the part about being careful. And a problem of opponents is that they are notoriously bad mind readers and can not be expected to tell the difference whether gain took place. But- offenders are just as bad at mind reading as opponents. And in spite of that L16 compels them to mind read people- in fact, people that have not been identified. This is a silly demand upon players- yet it is a demand made dozens of times in a session. It is a demand that has no hope of being fulfilled except rarely. Yes a player can commit hara kiri in the name of trying to satisfy 73C but I do not think that L73C calls for seeking the worst result. But 16 does. Blending scores to reflect what was earned is a way to balance the interests that is not provided by 12C2. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 23 00:34:56 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 23 00:37:15 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>(3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and reorganisation of >> the Lawbook be a *vast* improvement on the arcane >> wording and spaghetti organisation of the current >> Lawbook? John (MadDog) Probst: >do you use the QWERTY keyboard, or Dvorak? Richard Hills: Good point. People such as myself and MadDog would have to rememorise a Lawbook which had renumbered Laws. But most club TDs are not "touch typists" - they have never bothered reading the Lawbook from cover to cover, merely using it as a reference work when a ruling is required. And an essential feature of an instruction manual, which has as its primary audience part-time amateur TDs, is that it should be user-friendly to those part-time amateurs; even if that user-friendliness temporarily inconveniences a tiny minority of full-time professional TDs. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 23 01:06:23 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 23 01:08:44 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>(a) What call do you make? John (MadDog) Probst: >2S. Another 4-2 fit, no doubt. >>(b) What other calls do you consider >> making? John (MadDog) Probst: >None * * * Australian National Championships Appeal #4 Butler Pairs Stage 2, Round 7 Bd 17 Dlr: North Vul: Nil J652 QT A32 JT86 A3 T98 76532 AJ4 Q84 K765 AK4 732 KQ74 K98 JT9 Q95 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Mottram Strong Yezerski Magee --- Pass Pass Pass(1) 1H Pass 2H Pass Pass 2S Pass Pass Pass (1) alleged break in tempo Result: 2S/N made 8 trick, +110 Director (S Mullamphy): I was called at the conclusion of play. EW claimed that South had broken tempo before passing in third seat, now disputed. The directing staff believe that pass was not a Logical Alternative for North, given the vulnerability, EW's fit and limited values. Appellants: The Appeals Adviser concurred that it did seem to be a Logical Alternative for North to pass 2H. Committee (R Grenside, K Moses, M Prescott, E Ramshaw, M Scudder): Unauthorised Information was present; pass was a logical alternative action. Contract adjusted to 2H/W. +50 to NS. Daily Bulletin Editor (N Hughes): EW were probably hoping for more than -50 since it takes pinpoint defence to shoot 2H/W. Has to be a club lead, South has to play C5, etc. -Ed * * * Richard Hills comment: I disagree with Nick Hughes' critique. Of those blmlers who thought that pass was a logical alternative, there was a unanimous vote for a club honour lead. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Aug 23 02:47:06 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue Aug 23 02:49:44 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass Pass 1H Pass 2H Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: J652 QT A32 JT86 (a) What call do you make? Pass. Sure dont want to play at the 3 level. 2S's ... no you going to get shortened via heart forces and they are brutal. (b) What other calls do you consider making? I'd consider double and 2S but i'd want to be dire need of a top before I'd act. If the answer to (a) or (b) is Pass, then: (c) What opening lead do you make? CJ (d) What other opening leads do you consider making? Small spade. Again consider it, may even lead it depending on table feel .. but CJ is what I would lead >90% of the time. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Aug 23 03:34:24 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Aug 23 03:36:53 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <200508221352.j7MDqr24012489@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508221352.j7MDqr24012489@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <430A7D20.1070500@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Wildavsky > Let me pose a question. > Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with all > the laws renumbered and reorganized and almost every law rewritten. > How would you determine whether or not it was an improvement over the > existing laws? I'm tempted to say I'd be sure it was an improvement, sight unseen. As others have said, the _form_ of the current Laws is a problem for most directors, at least where I play (ACBL clubs, a few sectional and regional tournaments). Even worse, it's a problem for _players_, who cannot find out what they are supposed to do merely by reading the Laws. I went through the book a few years ago and separated out "Laws the players must know" from the rest. As I recall, the "players" section was maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the total; somebody could check the BLML archives to find out. Simply arranging all the "player must know" rules at the beginning of the book would be a huge step forward. Rewriting everything for clarity and logical organization would be a bonus. I'm quite aware that any major rewrite will have unintended consequences. There are procedures that can make such consequences less likely, but no procedures will ever be 100% effective. Even so, could unintended consequences be much worse than L25B? Or the Vancouver ruling? (Or other things most of us could list?) John (MadDog) Probst: >do you use the QWERTY keyboard, or Dvorak? I think John is one of the small fraction of TD's who can make the "QWERTY keyboard" we have function. Incidentally -- and apropos another thread -- I think Herman is another. How often do the two disagree? In John's metaphor, what we really need is a keyboard with the keys lined up in a single row from A to Z. It may slow down the top class directors, at least at first, but at least the average directors will be able to find the "key" they need. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 23 03:35:56 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Aug 23 03:38:32 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu> <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <852B3779-B4AB-4950-BF92-A082EAC59041@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:57 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Please know there is at least one vote from an ACBL member for you > to continue with your efforts for a major revision. I don't usually bother with "me, too's", but.... make that two. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 23 03:39:01 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 23 03:41:50 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: >I'd consider double and 2S but I'd want to be dire need of >a top before I'd act. Richard: This is, I think, the reason that the directing staff erred in their assessment of logical alternatives. They failed to give sufficient weight to the form of scoring. Balancing may indeed be the only logical alternative at matchpoint pairs, when +110 instead of +50 might be a top. At Butler Pairs, however, such a balancing "success" is only worth a trivial couple of imps. Meanwhile, with the imp-scoring of Butler Pairs, failing with -500 for an over-balance is not merely an occasional bottom, but rather a large swing which may cost the match. In my opinion, the 2S balance selected by John (MadDog) Probst and Tom Strong runs such an unacceptable risk, so would be unlikely to be the only logical alternative selected by their peers - unless one argues that Strong is by nature a berserk bidder, whose *only* peers are Probst and the Aussie directing staff. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From mustikka at charter.net Tue Aug 23 03:45:05 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue Aug 23 03:48:23 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him References: Message-ID: <000a01c5a784$583ecec0$8e65d642@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The force is Strong with him > > > > > Karel: > >>I'd consider double and 2S but I'd want to be dire need of >>a top before I'd act. > > Richard: > > This is, I think, the reason that the directing staff erred > in their assessment of logical alternatives. They failed > to give sufficient weight to the form of scoring. > > Balancing may indeed be the only logical alternative at > matchpoint pairs, when +110 instead of +50 might be a top. > > At Butler Pairs, however, such a balancing "success" is > only worth a trivial couple of imps. > > Meanwhile, with the imp-scoring of Butler Pairs, failing > with -500 for an over-balance is not merely an occasional > bottom, but rather a large swing which may cost the match. > > In my opinion, the 2S balance selected by John (MadDog) > Probst and Tom Strong runs such an unacceptable risk, so > would be unlikely to be the only logical alternative > selected by their peers - Does it have to be the *only logical alternative* - as long as some number of peers would choose 2S, it remains a logical alternative. No? Or maybe I missed a smiley somewhere along the way... From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 23 04:06:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 23 04:09:17 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL Laws Commission, July 2005: [snip] >>>After considerable discussion, the commission arrived at a >>>consensus on the following suggestion for the drafting committee: >>> >>>1. Changes to the existing laws should be incremental. >>> >>>2. The structure, format and numbering of the current laws should >>>be maintained, in so far as possible. [snip] Continental Congress, February 1787: >>It is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention >>of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States >>be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of >>revising the Articles of Confederation Richard Hills: Fortunately *those* delegates completely ignored their direction to have a "sole and express purpose of revising". They instead opted to completely replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation document with a much more effective document - the Constitution of the United States. Nor were those Founding Fathers restrained in their choices by this argument: "Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with all the laws renumbered and reorganized and almost every law rewritten. How would you determine whether or not it was an improvement over the existing laws?" G.W.F. Hegel, 1770 - 1831: >What experience and history teach is this - that people and the >ACBL LC never have learned anything from history, or acted on >principles deduced from it. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From adam at tameware.com Tue Aug 23 05:37:28 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue Aug 23 06:08:38 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:06 PM +1000 8/23/05, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Fortunately *those* delegates completely ignored their direction to >have a "sole and express purpose of revising". > >They instead opted to completely replace the ineffective Articles of >Confederation document with a much more effective document - the >Constitution of the United States. The nature of the government of the United States under the Constitution changed dramatically from that under the Articles of Confederation. Are you suggesting that the nature of the game of bridge should change similarly? -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Tue Aug 23 06:06:33 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue Aug 23 06:10:55 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <43096FBF.6020908@att.net> References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu> <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> <43096FBF.6020908@att.net> Message-ID: At 2:25 AM -0400 8/22/05, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a question. >>Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with >>all the laws renumbered and reorganized and almost every law >>rewritten. How would you determine whether or not it was an >>improvement over the existing laws? > > The same way I would compare two pieces of code whether one >is a refactoring of the other or not. Surely this is not a good analogy. To test the new code I would execute my automated unit and regression tests. If I didn't have any I'd write some. But let's follow the analogy a little further anyway. Suppose, as is the case with the laws, automated tests are impossible. Suppose further that the software in question is crucial to your enterprise, that your enterprise has succeeded with it, warts and all, for ten years, and that once you deploy the new software you will not be able to change it for ten years. Suppose further that the vendor insists that the source code be kept confidential until you have decided whether to deploy it. Wouldn't you be more included to correct the obvious defects in the existing software rather than going with the complete rewrite? > Apply the law books to test cases and you can measure the quality >of the rulings directly. It is not I who would have to apply the laws, but thousands of TDs worldwide. I see no way to test how they would apply it, especially when the proposed laws are for some reason considered confidential. Oh, and under which set of laws would you determine the correct rulings for your test? > You can also measure ease-of-use by forcing direct quoting from >the texts during a ruling and counting the page flips or the length >of time spent explaining the ruling. > > I'm sure there are issues beyond correctness and efficiency, >but they should all be addressable by similar means except the issue >of whether the cost of retraining TDs exceeds the benefit to the >game new Laws would provide. You presume that the benefits to the new, rewritten laws outweigh the drawbacks, but that is precisely the issue in question. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Tue Aug 23 06:25:52 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue Aug 23 06:28:50 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <430A7D20.1070500@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508221352.j7MDqr24012489@cfa.harvard.edu> <430A7D20.1070500@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: At 9:34 PM -0400 8/22/05, Steve Willner wrote: >I'm quite aware that any major rewrite will have unintended >consequences. There are procedures that can make such consequences >less likely, but no procedures will ever be 100% effective. Even >so, could unintended consequences be much worse than L25B? Or the >Vancouver ruling? (Or other things most of us could list?) You seem to consider the alternatives (a) The 1997 laws or (b) A rewritten set of laws, which few have seen. It seems to me that the ACBL LC has proposed that the laws be changed so as to fix the known flaws without, insofar as possible, introducing new ones. Would that be a poor approach? No one has suggested keeping L25B2 (Delayed or Purposeful Correction). I think you are setting up a straw man. It is true that no poor rulings have been made under the proposed new laws, but that scarcely seems a fair comparison. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 23 06:44:07 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 23 06:46:48 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <430A7D20.1070500@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >I went through the book a few years ago and separated >out "Laws the players must know" from the rest. As I >recall, the "players" section was maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of >the total; [snip] Richard Hills: I beg to differ. In my opinion, there is a difference between "useful to know" and "must know". My "players must know" list is a mere three items -> (1) The Option (in the Scope and Interpretation): "...When these Laws say that a player 'may' do something ('any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction'), the failure to do it is not wrong..." (2) The Principle (in Law 9B1(a)): "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." (3) The Exception to the Principle (in Law 75D2): "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender)..." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From tstrongbridge at iprimus.com.au Tue Aug 23 06:48:40 2005 From: tstrongbridge at iprimus.com.au (bridge) Date: Tue Aug 23 06:51:24 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him References: Message-ID: <001c01c5a79d$ef8ce6e0$42881bd3@user> Tom Strong-realy-he was on the Gold Coast. Try Terry I get blamed enough for my own transgressions- Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The force is Strong with him > > > > > Karel: > >>I'd consider double and 2S but I'd want to be dire need of >>a top before I'd act. > > Richard: > > This is, I think, the reason that the directing staff erred > in their assessment of logical alternatives. They failed > to give sufficient weight to the form of scoring. > > Balancing may indeed be the only logical alternative at > matchpoint pairs, when +110 instead of +50 might be a top. > > At Butler Pairs, however, such a balancing "success" is > only worth a trivial couple of imps. > > Meanwhile, with the imp-scoring of Butler Pairs, failing > with -500 for an over-balance is not merely an occasional > bottom, but rather a large swing which may cost the match. > > In my opinion, the 2S balance selected by John (MadDog) > Probst and Tom Strong runs such an unacceptable risk, so > would be unlikely to be the only logical alternative > selected by their peers - unless one argues that Strong is > by nature a berserk bidder, whose *only* peers are Probst > and the Aussie directing staff. > > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 23 08:19:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 23 08:22:22 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >The nature of the government of the United States under the >Constitution changed dramatically from that under the Articles of >Confederation. Are you suggesting that the nature of the game of >bridge should change similarly? Richard Hills: As I recall, it is one Adam Wildavsky who has made repeated suggestions that TDs and ACs should quote what specific Laws they were using when making their decisions. This would be a dramatic change in bridge to the current practice of some TDs and some ACs merely using their varying beliefs about "common sense" when creating their idiosyncratic rulings. For example, in my second posting in the lengthy "Finger in the dike" thread, I revealed that a highly experienced TD, who was temporarily wearing a different hat as an AC member, wanted to apply a "commonsense" procedural penalty for Convention Disruption upon the non-appealing side. For another example, in the "Reveley of the Sith" thread, a highly experienced AC ignored advice from their CTD which deprecated their extraneous-to-Law "commonsense" Reveley ruling. For yet another example, a highly intelligent ACBL AC member only relatively recently became aware of the obscure but important footnote to Law 40E2. And, according to that highly intelligent ACBL AC member, some ACBL ACs have made "commonsense" rulings which were contrary to the Law 40E2 footnote. So if the Lawbook was easier to read and easier to use, then it is possible that TDs and ACs would more frequently cite relevant Laws as the basis for their rulings. What is wrong with this dramatic change? Furthermore, a dramatic change in the Lawbook's *format*, and a dramatic change in the Lawbook's *outcomes*, does not logically imply a dramatic change in the Lawbook's *meanings*. And, unlike Nigel Guthrie but like William Schoder, I believe that a dramatic change in the Lawbook's *meanings* should be neither necessary nor desirable. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Aug 23 10:40:22 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 23 10:41:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Reveley of the Sith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <430AE0F6.60003@hdw.be> No Roger, no, Roger Pewick wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 1:15 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Reveley of the Sith > > > >>Roger Pewick: >> >> >>>I was speaking to the standard for 12C3 adjustments. As >>>for however pleasing to the ear the phrase 'But in their >>>weighing, they should not take into account ANY weight for >>>the suggested action.' sounds, it does not necessarily >>>mean that it is a good standard. Now, the phraseology of >>>12C3 has the oddest canter but if equity is the mission >>>then the status of the score prior to the creation of UI >>>ought to be the basis of the adjustment. >> >>[snip] >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>In my opinion, a logically flawed assessment of "equity". > > > I am not so sure that it is flawed. > > Consider a player that has AI that such and such is a reasonable action, in > this case the only action he would actually take [irrespective as to if he > would look at something else] so he takes the action. There is a > predisposition to take that action. Which is to say that there is an > expectation that the action would be taken particularly should some other > action prove to more likely to be successful.. > What you are saying is that there are no LA's. If there are no LA's then there is no case for a L16 ruling, so the whole issue of UI and equity falls away. So your example, while it is of course something which happens sometimes, is a bad example. What you really need is a case in which, with the available AI, the player has more than one option. Now look at a case like that and then tell me how the equity works in your opinion. > Add to the mix UI that among other things provides inference that such and > such is a good idea. What has changed with respect to the player's > inclination? Merely that he has additional data suggesting what he already > was inclined to do. Such reduction in risk being marginal rather than > material. Add in that someone else judges this-and-that would be a good > idea absent UI. What has changed with respect to the player's inclination? > Nothing. But note, how would the player know that someone else's judgment > is not only different, but what that judgment actually is. There still is > an expectation of such-and-such as the player still is inclined to > such-and-such. > > > > The matter of equity is a measure of what the player's have earned. In > bridge it derives from what the players have done. And in adjusted scores > there is an expectation derived from what the players have done. > > It is when the infraction was an action that had little expectation of being > successful/ actually taken that equity suggests that so much of the action > was gained through the infraction that it is inequitable to allow credit for > it. > > > >>Suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that: >> >>(a) North's hesitation demonstrably suggested a spade lead > > > The complete reasoning for such conclusion provided to the player so that he > might challenge it in case it be invalid. > > >>and >> >>(b) a club lead was a logical alternative for South. > > > The complete reasoning for such conclusion provided to the player so that he > might challenge it in case it be invalid. > Did you see the word "suppose" in the sentences? Please then don't argue that these reasonings might be flawed. I'm not interested in cases where there is no UI, no suggested alternative, of no LA's. We're talking about L16 cases, so there is no need to tell us that L16 doesn't apply - there are lots of cases out there in which L16 applies. > >>Suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that: >> >>(c) at the other table North also hesitated >> >>but >> >>(d) at the other table South obeyed Law 73C by avoiding >>their preferred spade lead, instead choosing their less >>preferred club lead. > > > > This is totally irrelevant; and nothing [not connected with these players] > that happened elsewhere has anything to do with equity at that table. > Yes it has. As a standard against which to judge the equity at this table. > >>Suppose that Roger Pewick was, for the sake of argument, >>the hypothetical Appeals Committee, then >> >>(e) by obeying Law 73C, the other table South is -460 >> >>but >> >>(f) by not obeying Law 73C, the original South causes AC >>Roger Pewick to not only cancel South's infraction of Law >>73C, but to also cancel North's earlier UI-creating >>infraction of Law 73A1, so the original South retains their >>table score of +50, > > > You tread dangerous ground. > > >>so >> >>(g) the other table South loses a game swing by obeying >>Law 73C. >> >>Where is the "equity" in that? >> >> >>Best wishes >> >>Richard Hills >>Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > 73C: > > When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his > partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, > special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid > taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. > > If the player was predisposed to such-and-such and UI suggested > such-and-such and the player takes such-and-such, he has, shall we say, > broken even or how the law puts it- not taking any advantage. But what of > the player that was inclined to this-and-that or this-or-that who actually > did such-and-such. He did gain by by actively disregarding the part about > being careful. And a problem of opponents is that they are notoriously bad > mind readers and can not be expected to tell the difference whether gain > took place. > > But- offenders are just as bad at mind reading as opponents. And in spite > of that L16 compels them to mind read people- in fact, people that have not > been identified. This is a silly demand upon players- yet it is a demand > made dozens of times in a session. It is a demand that has no hope of being > fulfilled except rarely. Yes a player can commit hara kiri in the name of > trying to satisfy 73C but I do not think that L73C calls for seeking the > worst result. But 16 does. > > Blending scores to reflect what was earned is a way to balance the interests > that is not provided by 12C2. > Ehm, we are talking L12C3 here. If you wish to remain in your ACBL corner, then don't enter the discussion. This is an interesting topic, sadly not as interesting for some than it is for others! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Aug 23 14:13:46 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Aug 23 14:17:31 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: <001901c5a7dc$34114d40$22cf87d9@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: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > Richard Hills: > > As I recall, it is one Adam Wildavsky who has made > repeated suggestions that TDs and ACs should quote > what specific Laws they were using when making their > decisions. > +=+ As strongly advocated by both Schoder and Bavin, successive CTDs of the WBF. This is the desired action in both the WBF and the EBL; also in the English Bridge Union. It stalls at times in practice but the intention is there and I share the Schoder/Bavin opinion. In EBL practice the official scribe (Herman De Wael) is assiduous in seeking out the required information. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Aug 23 12:00:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Aug 23 14:18:34 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > > >>(a) What call do you make? > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > >2S. Another 4-2 fit, no doubt. > > >>(b) What other calls do you consider > >> making? > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > >None > > * * * > > Australian National Championships > Appeal #4 > Butler Pairs Stage 2, Round 7 > > Bd 17 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > J652 > QT > A32 > JT86 > A3 T98 > 76532 AJ4 > Q84 K765 > AK4 732 > KQ74 > K98 > JT9 > Q95 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Mottram Strong Yezerski Magee > --- Pass Pass Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H Pass > Pass 2S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) alleged break in tempo > > Result: 2S/N made 8 trick, +110 > > Director (S Mullamphy): > > I was called at the conclusion of play. EW > claimed that South had broken tempo before > passing in third seat, now disputed. The > directing staff believe that pass was not a > Logical Alternative for North, given the > vulnerability, EW's fit and limited values. Is North known (comme Probst) as a borderline psychotic balancer? Even partnering Probst (who expects a lot of balancing) I would consider pass and double as possible LAs. > Unauthorised Information was present; This was disputed was it not? I wouldn't even expect a TD who thought pass was not an LA to bother investigating it since it is irrelevant. > pass was a logical alternative action. Fair enough (given the form of scoring) - but in what way was it suggested by the slow opening pass? Partner has around 9-11 on the auction, the slow pass suggests him being towards the top of this range and thus, since he hasn't acted in third seat, a balanced/defensively oriented hand, likely with only 3S. The UI inclines me slightly *away* from protective action - not towards it! Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 23 14:29:37 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Aug 23 14:32:23 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu> <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> <43096FBF.6020908@att.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050823080744.02ae0eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:06 AM 8/23/05, Adam wrote: >At 2:25 AM -0400 8/22/05, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: >>Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a question. >>>Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with all >>>the laws renumbered and reorganized and almost every law rewritten. >>>How would you determine whether or not it was an improvement over >>>the existing laws? >> >> The same way I would compare two pieces of code whether one >> is a refactoring of the other or not. > >Surely this is not a good analogy. To test the new code I would >execute my automated unit and regression tests. If I didn't have any >I'd write some. But let's follow the analogy a little further anyway. >Suppose, as is the case with the laws, automated tests are impossible. >Suppose further that the software in question is crucial to your >enterprise, that your enterprise has succeeded with it, warts and all, >for ten years, and that once you deploy the new software you will not >be able to change it for ten years. Suppose further that the vendor >insists that the source code be kept confidential until you have >decided whether to deploy it. Wouldn't you be more included to correct >the obvious defects in the existing software rather than going with >the complete rewrite? > >> Apply the law books to test cases and you can measure the quality >> of the rulings directly. > >It is not I who would have to apply the laws, but thousands of TDs >worldwide. I see no way to test how they would apply it, especially >when the proposed laws are for some reason considered confidential. >Oh, and under which set of laws would you determine the correct >rulings for your test? > >> You can also measure ease-of-use by forcing direct quoting from >> the texts during a ruling and counting the page flips or the length >> of time spent explaining the ruling. >> >> I'm sure there are issues beyond correctness and efficiency, >> but they should all be addressable by similar means except the issue >> of whether the cost of retraining TDs exceeds the benefit to the >> game new Laws would provide. > >You presume that the benefits to the new, rewritten laws outweigh the >drawbacks, but that is precisely the issue in question. And that is an issue that, as Adam says, can never be resolved -- as long as it remains the case that "the proposed laws are... confidential". How would one measure the validity of refactored code without having the refactored code in hand? How can the ACBLLC measure the effectiveness in practice of a new lawbook whose contents cannot be revealed to those who would use it in practice? Of course there's no way of knowing whether or not a proposed new lawbook would be an improvement without having access to the proposed new lawbook! As long as proposals for change continue to be "for some reason considered confidential" it will remain impossible to find any rational grounds for accepting them. All Adam is saying is, "How can you tell whether something is an improvement over what you've got whne you don't know what it is?" The ACBLLC's answer is the only rational one: "We can't, so the only way to avoid a major disaster is to avoid any major changes altogether." Perhaps the better answer is for the ACBLLC to refuse to accept *any* proposed revision of the laws that they are prohibited from sharing with those who are in a position to realistically evaluate them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Tue Aug 23 16:35:04 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Aug 23 16:37:39 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <001901c5a7dc$34114d40$22cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: I've always required that TDs in WBF and ACBL state which law(s), Rules, or Regulations applied. I've required TDs to indicate this as the first step in giving a ruling, and to write it on an appeals form. This may be in the form of a quote. I've asked ACs to do the same, mostly with success. I've tried to limit the "feels good/bad" attitude about a case, a natural reaction when bridge details and knowledge are examined, and to keep the proceedings on track. Hopefully this has inhibited the immediate freewheeling "well I'd have taken the second trick, and then, etc., etc., etc.", premature approach that may well play an important role in assigning a result, but has no place in first determining if there was an infraction. AC Chairpersons who, after agreement on facts, ask the appellant "Why do you think the TD's ruling should be changed?" further take a giant step in maintaining an orderly process. I'm reminded of an pertinent incident. Many years ago WBF CTD Harold Franklin, Asst. CTD Maury Braunstein, a much junior Kojak, and an even more junior TD were examining a result on a hand. Harold said he would always make it, Maury said he would always beat it, they were throwing "...If you then I..." at each other, Kojak couldn't make up his mind, and the junior TD kept trying to say something. Harold imperiously told him to be quiet, to learn from watching how top level TDs arrived at consensus, and returned to his analysis. After some long minutes the young guy couldn't stand it any longer and blurted out "WHAT WAS THE INFRACTION?" A profound silence followed and Harold said only two words "SCORE STANDS". Never too old or too senior to learn, eh what? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > 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: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 7:19 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws > Commission > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > As I recall, it is one Adam Wildavsky who has made > > repeated suggestions that TDs and ACs should quote > > what specific Laws they were using when making their > > decisions. > > > +=+ As strongly advocated by both Schoder and Bavin, > successive CTDs of the WBF. This is the desired action > in both the WBF and the EBL; also in the English Bridge > Union. It stalls at times in practice but the intention is there > and I share the Schoder/Bavin opinion. In EBL practice > the official scribe (Herman De Wael) is assiduous in > seeking out the required information. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 24 00:21:32 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 24 00:23:11 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder asserted: [snip] >AC Chairpersons who, after agreement on facts, ask >the appellant "Why do you think the TD's ruling >should be changed?" further take a giant step in >maintaining an orderly process. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion "ask the appellant" as a step in the process might mean that an articulate expert appellant gains justice, but an inarticulate patzer appellant does not gain justice. Rather, a well-trained AC should be able to deduce the answer to Kojak's suggested question themselves once the facts have been agreed. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From schoderb at msn.com Wed Aug 24 02:47:13 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Aug 24 02:49:48 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: This is what produces ulcers. It's a lack of knowledge of the appeals process, it's historic problems, and the WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees and shows ignorance of the purpose of the Laws as published. Are you recommending that we not allow the appellant to voice his objections for a review of the TD ruling which the Law specifically mandates? It is the duty of the AC to hear an "...appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director..." If the appellant cannot articulate that, then why is there an appeal? Forbid that this might be a chance to get a better score than they were capable of at the table. IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE TO START THE HAND FROM SCRATCH AND ARRIVE AT WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. (Intentional shouting, Grattan, and ACBL). I find it incredible that an AC would rule beyond the appellant's objections simply because they know better. IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO PLAY BRIDGE IN PLACE OF THE APPELLANT. Your "quibble" is insulting to those ACs that do their job correctly, and recognize the parameters of it. I recommend a careful re-reading of Laws 92 and 93. They work. Kojak ---- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > > > > William Schoder asserted: > > [snip] > > >AC Chairpersons who, after agreement on facts, ask > >the appellant "Why do you think the TD's ruling > >should be changed?" further take a giant step in > >maintaining an orderly process. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > In my opinion "ask the appellant" as a step in the > process might mean that an articulate expert > appellant gains justice, but an inarticulate patzer > appellant does not gain justice. > > Rather, a well-trained AC should be able to deduce > the answer to Kojak's suggested question themselves > once the facts have been agreed. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Aug 24 02:58:21 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed Aug 24 03:01:04 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +++ well couple a points. Having passed already 4th in hand opens 1H I would have doubled directly 5th seat saying happy to play at the 2 level. Now I've got my hand off my chest. Having pasted which must imply I felt I have no action it now comes back to me a level higher. Suddenly 2S is automatic ?? Don't think so. And no matter how you would like to justify that pd has 9/11 points which is rubbish btw (2H bid could have a 5-8 count and opener a 16 even bad 17 and not move, not to mind the possibility of a 4CM opener in 4th seat), a pause (undisputed) makes it ohh so much safer. Pass not LA ?? I think pass is 300% LA and 2S is disallowed. Disagree with Tim. The UI here is definitely pro bidding. What is pd thinking about ?? Doubling ... pretty ludicrous suggestion. So he must have values and a suit, which would go well with your hand. If this happened in my partnership I don't think I could possibly bid 2S and heart on hand say the pause didn't effect my bid. K. > > Australian National Championships > Appeal #4 > Butler Pairs Stage 2, Round 7 > > Bd 17 > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > J652 > QT > A32 > JT86 > A3 T98 > 76532 AJ4 > Q84 K765 > AK4 732 > KQ74 > K98 > JT9 > Q95 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Mottram Strong Yezerski Magee > --- Pass Pass Pass(1) > 1H Pass 2H Pass > Pass 2S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) alleged break in tempo > > Result: 2S/N made 8 trick, +110 > > Director (S Mullamphy): > > I was called at the conclusion of play. EW > claimed that South had broken tempo before > passing in third seat, now disputed. The > directing staff believe that pass was not a > Logical Alternative for North, given the > vulnerability, EW's fit and limited values. Is North known (comme Probst) as a borderline psychotic balancer? Even partnering Probst (who expects a lot of balancing) I would consider pass and double as possible LAs. > Unauthorised Information was present; This was disputed was it not? I wouldn't even expect a TD who thought pass was not an LA to bother investigating it since it is irrelevant. > pass was a logical alternative action. Fair enough (given the form of scoring) - but in what way was it suggested by the slow opening pass? Partner has around 9-11 on the auction, the slow pass suggests him being towards the top of this range and thus, since he hasn't acted in third seat, a balanced/defensively oriented hand, likely with only 3S. The UI inclines me slightly *away* from protective action - not towards it! Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 24 03:33:38 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 24 03:36:26 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak asked: >Are you recommending that we not allow the appellant to voice his >objections for a review of the TD ruling which the Law specifically >mandates? Richard replies: No. I am merely stating that a TD may have given an incorrect ruling for a reason that the appellant did not voice, but the AC discovers. There have been several occasions when a TD ruled in my favour, my opponents did not object, but I pointed out to the TD that his ruling was illegally over-generous to my side. Of course, for those occasions, the TD used their power under Law 82C to correct their ruling before it was necessary for me to appeal against my own interest. :-) Kojak intentionally shouted: >IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE TO START THE HAND >FROM SCRATCH AND ARRIVE AT WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. >(Intentional shouting, Grattan, and ACBL). I find it incredible >that an AC would rule beyond the appellant's objections simply >because they know better. WBF Code of Practice: >>The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume >>initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is >>overturned only on the basis of evidence presented. Richard quibbles: Note that the WBF CoP states "evidence presented", and does not state "appellant demonstrating error in reasoning by the TD". And Law 81C6 states -> "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Is Kojak arguing that "becomes aware in any manner" actually has the much narrower meaning of "appellant demonstrating error in reasoning by the TD"? :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Aug 24 03:37:06 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Aug 24 03:39:32 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <200508231512.j7NFC3dY004455@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508231512.j7NFC3dY004455@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <430BCF42.2020800@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Wildavsky > You seem to consider the alternatives (a) The 1997 laws or (b) A > rewritten set of laws, which few have seen. No, I don't think (a) is possible; (b) seems inevitable. The question is whether the rewritten Laws will involve modest changes or a significant reorganization. Given _that_ choice, I prefer the second. Of course seeing the proposed new version might well change my opinion, but I doubt it. I am certain the new version will have things in it I dislike, but so do the current Laws. At least if the new version is clear, I can expect the Laws to be applied against my opponents just as against me. By the way, if you need another illustration of the problem, have a glance at Mike Flader's "Ruling the Game" column in the August _ACBL Bulletin_. Third hand (say "North") passes out of turn before anyone else has called. The pass is not accepted, and North will be barred for one round. My view is that North's being barred is AI for South, but the fact that North (very likely) lacks opening values is UI for South. Flader seems to have a different view. Also, I may be wrong, but my impression is that Flader thinks North will be barred for the whole auction, not just for one round (L30A). If the official "rulings" writer for the ACBL can get this wrong, what hope is there for the rest of us? Even if I'm the one who is wrong, why should there be any doubt about the correct ruling in an everyday situation such as this one? > It seems to me that the > ACBL LC has proposed that the laws be changed so as to fix the known > flaws without, insofar as possible, introducing new ones. It seems to me they have proposed to avoid fixing the known flaws. Yes, introducing new flaws seems inevitable, but I think it's a small price to pay. As Eric has written, there might be fewer new flaws if the proposed Laws could be widely reviewed before the final draft, but I wouldn't expect zero. From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > My "players must know" list is a mere three items -> > (1) The Option (in the Scope and Interpretation): > (2) The Principle (in Law 9B1(a)): > (3) The Exception to the Principle (in Law 75D2): I think you have missed quite a few. How about the rank of denominations and of cards within a suit? How about the auction and play going clockwise? How about who wins the trick and who leads to the next one? Not to mention L44C, which "takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws," or in general which cards are legal to play to a given trick? I disagree with you about item 1, by the way. No reason the players need to know that. It is, however "useful," and I would put it in the "players" section along with, for example, the scoring table. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 24 08:58:26 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 24 09:01:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: <430BCF42.2020800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D(1) 1S Dble 4S 5C Pass 5D Pass Pass ? (1) Could contain longer clubs You, West, hold: QJT854 AKQ3 T9 J Do you agree with your previous pass? What call do you make now? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 24 09:31:41 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Aug 24 09:35:26 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: <002401c5a87d$f4941150$beb987d9@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: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > This is what produces ulcers. < +=+ :-) Oh, I understand now! +=+ < > > IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE > TO START THE HAND FROM SCRATCH AND ARRIVE > AT WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. > (Intentional shouting, Grattan, and ACBL) < +=+ I can't imagine, Kojak, why you would shout at me on this point since you are aware that I have shared your view since ever. But I am of the view that shouting does nothing to improve the quality of an argument. It should perhaps be added that in the case of an inarticulate or diffident appellant he should be listened to with attention and the point he is trying to express understood if possible. It is wrong for a committee member to dismiss his concern too readily, or as I have seen to happen in the past, browbeat him. But I would imagine Kojak and I agree on this, too. The Code of Practice is not in contradiction of these arguments. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 24 09:48:37 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Aug 24 09:52:22 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: <004901c5a880$521d7670$beb987d9@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: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > WBF Code of Practice: > > >>The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume > >>initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is > >>overturned only on the basis of evidence presented. > > Richard quibbles: > > Note that the WBF CoP states "evidence presented", and does > not state "appellant demonstrating error in reasoning by the TD". < > +=+ We are discussing semantics. For the committee to find that the ruling is in error it must have heard evidence which reveals as much. If it is a matter of law there is a prescribed procedure; otherwise in any judgemental or factual matter the committee may rectify the ruling. ~ G ~ +=+ From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Aug 24 09:58:17 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Aug 24 10:00:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence References: Message-ID: <000601c5a881$9765dcd0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:58 AM Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence > > > > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D(1) > 1S Dble 4S 5C > Pass 5D Pass Pass > ? > > (1) Could contain longer clubs > > You, West, hold: > > QJT854 > AKQ3 > T9 > J > > Do you agree with your previous pass? > No - I think a cue bid of 5H is a better bid. > > What call do you make now? > I have fixed myself. Whatever I do now it will look as though I was happy to defend 5C but not 5D. I don't think I can get the message of my shape across now so just bid 5S. Anne > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Aug 24 11:23:03 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed Aug 24 11:25:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D(1) 1S Dble 4S 5C Pass 5D Pass Pass ? (1) Could contain longer clubs You, West, hold: QJT854 AKQ3 T9 J Do you agree with your previous pass? +++ ugh. 4S is normally preemptive. Usually based on law would have 5+ trumps. If only 4 must have distribution. Based on the double from LHO and the lack of a heart bid from RHO I'd give pd 2/3 hearts (like to know opps agreements here (ie) is 2H over 1S forcing or NF). I dont know at the time of the pass whether pd has diamonds or not - but probably has 4+ clubs. I'd be relatively confident 2H's will stand up & the CJ is a big card allowing us a fair chance to knock 5C/5D. On balance pass seems reasonable. What call do you make now? +++ Well what has changed ?? The move back to 5D's would seem to say LHO always preferred diamonds. So diamonds and clubs will differ in length by one if at all. That being the case, the double is now more likely to based on values. This increases my expectation that they will make. Against this is the knowledge that pd has almost certainly 4+ clubs and could well have a club trick. What about 5S's. -2 at worse - 1 probably and may even make if pd has AS and Dx or void. NV looks like a good case for insurance. On balance bid 5S. Btw I dont think it is a good idea to bid 5H's at either stage. This tells the opps that they have a double fit and should opener have a singleton heart this will improve his hand no end. Pd has pre-empted, their input in the auction is pretty much over. Bidding 5H's to re-include pd is imo not worthwhile. Karel From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Aug 24 10:44:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Aug 24 14:16:08 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel Wrote: > > Suddenly 2S is automatic ?? Don't think so. Nor do I. As I said 2S/P/X are all LAs. > And no matter how you > would like to justify that pd has 9/11 points which is rubbish btw (2H > bid could have a 5-8 count and opener a 16 even bad 17 and not move It's faintly possible. That doesn't change the fact that partner is marked with 9-11 over 90% of the time on this auction - so that is what one is obliged to play him for. > not to mind the possibility of a 4CM opener in 4th seat), a pause > (undisputed) makes it ohh so much safer. But it doesn't. Points aren't all that important when competing to the two - shape matters far more. A hesitation followed by two passes tells me that partner is flat and near maximum. The possibility of a 4th hand 4cM opener makes competing riskier - not less risky (particularly as it increases the chances of the 1H opener having 44 majors. > Pass not LA ?? I think pass is 300% LA and 2S is disallowed. I did not say that pass was not an LA, merely that 2S was not suggested over pass. > Disagree with Tim. The UI here is definitely pro bidding. What is pd > thinking about ?? Doubling ... pretty ludicrous suggestion. Very ludicrous - since the (disputed) hesitation occurred before the *first* pass. Most likely partner was considering a slightly underweight weak NT opener. Had the hesitation occurred before the *second* pass the UI would indeed suggest 2S over pass. > So he must have values and a suit, which would go well with your hand. No, he must have values but *no* suit (no 3rd in hand opener after a pause). Having diagnosed (from the UI) that pard has a 4333 11 count I estimate the odds of him having 4 spades as no more than 30%. Swop the S4 with the D5 or C2 from East and now 2S goes off (albeit 2H makes in the latter case) > If this happened in my partnership I don't think I could possibly bid > 2S and heart on hand say the pause didn't effect my bid. I don't either. I'd bid 2S believing it to be an obligation based on my reasoning above and expecting to turn a small plus into a small minus more often than not. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Wed Aug 24 15:01:04 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Aug 24 15:03:40 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <002401c5a87d$f4941150$beb987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan, My apologies for apparently shouting AT you. To me there is a clear distinction between shouting AT someone, and capitalizing (shouting) to stress something. I would much rather use -- (italics mine)-- but can't get my e-mail system to do it for me. In any case, erase the capitals, but not the thought as I know we are in full agreement on this subject. I can write a scenario where the AC elicits evidence that the TD did not have or use when making the ruling that changes the ruling, and I've actually seen an AC ask the TD to change his ruling because of it. I think it proper under those circumstances, makes the reason for the change clear to any level of appellant, and retains the respect due to all in this process. However, there are those from novice to expert, who feel that an AC willing to throw out the TD ruling and start all over again may get them something better. The first sentence of Law 92 intentionally uses the words "...may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director...." It has become all too common practice by some ACs to preempt the giving of evidence, the TD basis for ruling, and the objection of the appellant to the ruling, by starting from scratch. I have observed too many times (means more than once) where the process started with "...let's see you were sitting in the North, right? And you held those cards, right? And you bid one spade. OK, then it went......." as the first words after the introduction of the committee members by Chairs and members. And this by very senior persons who refuse to be constrained by the wording of law 92A, if they even ever read it. And I find it hard to reconcile a sponsoring organization's statement that the TD ruling ceases to exist when the AC convenes with Law 92A. That's what I mean by keeping the process on track. Focus on the ruling, hear the appeal, examine the ruling in the light of all evidence, agree to the ruling or change it, but take care not to give unearned benefit because you (the AC) play bridge better than the appellant. I've seen too many cases where the AC agreed a change in table result was justified but then made a different change, from that of the TD, which to this day the appellant doesn't comprehend, is incapable of, or had ever even considered. Best wishes, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; ; "richard hills" Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > 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: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > > > This is what produces ulcers. > < > +=+ :-) Oh, I understand now! +=+ > < > > > > IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE > > TO START THE HAND FROM SCRATCH AND ARRIVE > > AT WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. > > (Intentional shouting, Grattan, and ACBL) > < > +=+ I can't imagine, Kojak, why you would shout at me on this > point since you are aware that I have shared your view since ever. > But I am of the view that shouting does nothing to improve the > quality of an argument. It should perhaps be added that in the > case of an inarticulate or diffident appellant he should be listened > to with attention and the point he is trying to express understood > if possible. It is wrong for a committee member to dismiss his > concern too readily, or as I have seen to happen in the past, > browbeat him. But I would imagine Kojak and I agree on this, > too. The Code of Practice is not in contradiction of these > arguments. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 24 16:29:15 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Aug 24 16:33:04 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Richard Hills: > >>>(3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and reorganisation of >>> the Lawbook be a *vast* improvement on the arcane >>> wording and spaghetti organisation of the current >>> Lawbook? > >John (MadDog) Probst: > >>do you use the QWERTY keyboard, or Dvorak? > >Richard Hills: > >Good point. People such as myself and MadDog would have >to rememorise a Lawbook which had renumbered Laws. > >But most club TDs are not "touch typists" - they have >never bothered reading the Lawbook from cover to cover, >merely using it as a reference work when a ruling is >required. > >And an essential feature of an instruction manual, which >has as its primary audience part-time amateur TDs, is >that it should be user-friendly to those part-time >amateurs; even if that user-friendliness temporarily >inconveniences a tiny minority of full-time professional >TDs. ok, I'll buy that. > > >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 john at asimere.com Wed Aug 24 16:30:42 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Aug 24 16:34:26 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <430A7D20.1070500@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508221352.j7MDqr24012489@cfa.harvard.edu> <430A7D20.1070500@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <0Eh6tFBSSIDDFwpn@asimere.com> In article <430A7D20.1070500@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Adam Wildavsky snip > >I'm quite aware that any major rewrite will have unintended >consequences. There are procedures that can make such consequences less >likely, but no procedures will ever be 100% effective. Even so, could >unintended consequences be much worse than L25B? Or the Vancouver >ruling? (Or other things most of us could list?) > >John (MadDog) Probst: >>do you use the QWERTY keyboard, or Dvorak? > >I think John is one of the small fraction of TD's who can make the >"QWERTY keyboard" we have function. Incidentally -- and apropos another >thread -- I think Herman is another. How often do the two disagree? Not often, only on the relative significance of UI and MI. > >In John's metaphor, what we really need is a keyboard with the keys >lined up in a single row from A to Z. It may slow down the top class >directors, at least at first, but at least the average directors will be >able to find the "key" they need. > >_______________________________________________ >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 Aug 24 16:34:31 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Aug 24 16:38:26 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <001901c5a7dc$34114d40$22cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001901c5a7dc$34114d40$22cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2UI65TB3VIDDFwJZ@asimere.com> In article <001901c5a7dc$34114d40$22cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >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: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 7:19 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws >Commission > > >> Richard Hills: >> >> As I recall, it is one Adam Wildavsky who has made >> repeated suggestions that TDs and ACs should quote >> what specific Laws they were using when making their >> decisions. >> >+=+ As strongly advocated by both Schoder and Bavin, >successive CTDs of the WBF. This is the desired action >in both the WBF and the EBL; also in the English Bridge >Union. It stalls at times in practice but the intention is there >and I share the Schoder/Bavin opinion. In EBL practice >the official scribe (Herman De Wael) is assiduous in >seeking out the required information. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The EBU TD's are pretty good at it, the AC chairmen in EBU appeals not quite so good. Since the TD must explain his ruling and why it's being appealed it's pretty necessary IMO. (Wahey, I didn't get a single appeal at Brighton - though I got close on one occasion) > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Aug 24 16:36:06 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Aug 24 16:39:47 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: <001901c5a7dc$34114d40$22cf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <3EQ69dBWXIDDFwIh@asimere.com> In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >I've always required that TDs in WBF and ACBL state which law(s), Rules, or >Regulations applied. I've required TDs to indicate this as the first step >in giving a ruling, and to write it on an appeals form. This may be in the >form of a quote. > >I've asked ACs to do the same, mostly with success. I've tried to limit the >"feels good/bad" attitude about a case, a natural reaction when bridge >details and knowledge are examined, and to keep the proceedings on track. >Hopefully this has inhibited the immediate freewheeling "well I'd have taken >the second trick, and then, etc., etc., etc.", premature approach that may >well play an important role in assigning a result, but has no place in first >determining if there was an infraction. AC Chairpersons who, after agreement >on facts, ask the appellant "Why do you think the TD's ruling should be >changed?" further take a giant step in maintaining an orderly process. Eh? The TD tells the appeal committee that, surely. True, the AC will dig deeper. John > >I'm reminded of an pertinent incident. Many years ago WBF CTD Harold >Franklin, Asst. CTD Maury Braunstein, a much junior Kojak, and an even more >junior TD were examining a result on a hand. Harold said he would always >make it, Maury said he would always beat it, they were throwing "...If you >then I..." at each other, Kojak couldn't make up his mind, and the junior TD >kept trying to say something. Harold imperiously told him to be quiet, to >learn from watching how top level TDs arrived at consensus, and returned to >his analysis. After some long minutes the young guy couldn't stand it any >longer and blurted out "WHAT WAS THE INFRACTION?" A profound silence >followed and Harold said only two words "SCORE STANDS". > >Never too old or too senior to learn, eh what? > >Kojak > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:13 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > >> >> 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: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 7:19 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws >> Commission >> >> >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > As I recall, it is one Adam Wildavsky who has made >> > repeated suggestions that TDs and ACs should quote >> > what specific Laws they were using when making their >> > decisions. >> > >> +=+ As strongly advocated by both Schoder and Bavin, >> successive CTDs of the WBF. This is the desired action >> in both the WBF and the EBL; also in the English Bridge >> Union. It stalls at times in practice but the intention is there >> and I share the Schoder/Bavin opinion. In EBL practice >> the official scribe (Herman De Wael) is assiduous in >> seeking out the required information. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- 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 Aug 24 16:44:40 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Aug 24 16:48:29 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >>>(a) What call do you make? > >John (MadDog) Probst: > >>2S. Another 4-2 fit, no doubt. > >>>(b) What other calls do you consider >>> making? > >John (MadDog) Probst: > >>None My partners don't break tempo here :) At imps one just *has* to bid. Remember you *don't* get doubled in 2 major at imps. With UI, I guess I have to pass (since no other idiot would dream of bidding what I consider an automatic 2S), but it's going to cost partner beers after the game. > >* * * > >Australian National Championships >Appeal #4 >Butler Pairs Stage 2, Round 7 > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 25 01:27:33 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Aug 25 01:30:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: <0Eh6tFBSSIDDFwpn@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: APPEAL2 EVENT: INTERSTATE RND 5 Date: 19th July 1999 Appeals Committee: CHAIRMAN: Ivy Dahler OTHER MEMBERS: Jonathan Free, Phil Gue, Neville Francis, Michael Kent APPELLANTS: ACT Women RESPONDENTS: NSW Women TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR: Richard Grenside Board No. 21; Dlr: N; Vul: N/S North Mitchell A4 752 75 AKQ832 West East Cummings Feitelson QJ987532 KT6 94 T63 J AT982 54 T6 South Maher --- AKQJ8 KQ643 J97 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C Pass 1H 4S Pass Pass 4NT Pass 5C Pass 5D Pass 5H Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass PLAY: Queen of Spades lead; RESULT; EW -1430 Tournament Director's Report and Result: Called after play of match was completed. EW claimed damage due to incorrect explanation of the 5C which had been explained as "I take it as 3 controls" on this basis West decided not to lead her singleton D as the probability of East holding an Ace was remote. I was unable to determine the agreement and according to the principles of misexplanation, ruled an infraction. Adjusted the score to NS -100. Appellant's Claim: Dispute as to the facts. North and South giving differing explanation after the auction but before the opening lead. West therefore damaged her own case by leading instead of calling for the TD. Element of "double shot" only asking for a ruling for the second lead if her first did not work. West not "damaged". South correctly described her red two suiter, so killing lead still possible. [Appeals Committee Decision snipped] If you were the Appeals Committee, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Aug 25 08:30:17 2005 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu Aug 25 08:32:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: References: <0Eh6tFBSSIDDFwpn@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 25/08/05, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > APPEAL2 > EVENT: INTERSTATE RND 5 > Date: 19th July 1999 > Appeals Committee: > CHAIRMAN: Ivy Dahler > OTHER MEMBERS: Jonathan Free, Phil Gue, Neville Francis, > Michael Kent > APPELLANTS: ACT Women > RESPONDENTS: NSW Women > TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR: Richard Grenside > > Board No. 21; Dlr: N; Vul: N/S > > North > Mitchell > A4 > 752 > 75 > AKQ832 > West East > Cummings Feitelson > QJ987532 KT6 > 94 T63 > J AT982 > 54 T6 > South > Maher > --- > AKQJ8 > KQ643 > J97 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C Pass 1H > 4S Pass Pass 4NT > Pass 5C Pass 5D > Pass 5H Pass 6H > Pass Pass Pass > > PLAY: Queen of Spades lead; RESULT; EW -1430 > > Tournament Director's Report and Result: Called after > play of match was completed. EW claimed damage due to > incorrect explanation of the 5C which had been explained > as "I take it as 3 controls" on this basis West decided > not to lead her singleton D as the probability of East > holding an Ace was remote. I was unable to determine the > agreement and according to the principles of > misexplanation, ruled an infraction. Adjusted the score > to NS -100. > > Appellant's Claim: Dispute as to the facts. North and > South giving differing explanation after the auction but > before the opening lead. West therefore damaged her own > case by leading instead of calling for the TD. Element of > "double shot" only asking for a ruling for the second > lead if her first did not work. West not "damaged". South > correctly described her red two suiter, so killing lead > still possible. > > [Appeals Committee Decision snipped] > > If you were the Appeals Committee, how would you rule? How am I supposed to know anything at all about that with the presented facts? So far I've not got any notion. I need to know what 4NT meant, what explanations was given by north and south regarding the meaning of 5C and I need to know what 5D meant. The appelants say that south correctly described her red two suiter. How? It does not look like that, given her own explanation of 5C. Please elaborate Richard! Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 25 13:58:37 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Aug 25 14:01:01 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu><43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005d01c5a96c$541128e0$029868d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavski] > Suppose you were faced with a complete > rewrite of the laws, with all the laws > renumbered and reorganized and almost > every law rewritten. How would you > determine whether or not it was an > improvement over the existing laws? [Nigel] IMO, here are some criteria... [A] Players say the game is more enjoyable. [B] Players say that they feel that the law format better reflects the structure. [C] Players say they better understood the laws, especially more commonly invoked laws - because they are simpler and clearer. [D] Directors need to consult extraneous and obscure sources, less often. [E] There are fewer arbitrary and unnecessary legal variations from place to place. [F] Directors complain that their scope for subjective judgement is eroded. [G] Rulings are more consistent, especially in simple cases, with the facts agreed (like many in BLML). [H] If you want one simple objective criterion, count BLML emails or appeals. From adam at tameware.com Thu Aug 25 19:51:53 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu Aug 25 19:54:52 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <005d01c5a96c$541128e0$029868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu><43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard .edu> <005d01c5a96c$541128e0$029868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: At 12:58 PM +0100 8/25/05, Guthrie wrote: >[Adam Wildavski] >> Suppose you were faced with a complete >> rewrite of the laws, with all the laws >> renumbered and reorganized and almost >> every law rewritten. How would you >> determine whether or not it was an >> improvement over the existing laws? > >[Nigel] IMO, here are some criteria... >[A] Players say the game is more enjoyable. >[B] Players say that they feel that the law format >better reflects the structure. >[C] Players say they better understood the laws, >especially more commonly invoked laws - because >they are simpler and clearer. >[D] Directors need to consult extraneous and >obscure sources, less often. >[E] There are fewer arbitrary and unnecessary >legal variations from place to place. >[F] Directors complain that their scope for >subjective judgement is eroded. >[G] Rulings are more consistent, especially in >simple cases, with the facts agreed (like many in >BLML). >[H] If you want one simple objective criterion, >count BLML emails or appeals. These mostly seem like good criteria for making a determination after the new laws are in place. I especially like [F]. Put yourself in the position of a bridge administrator, though, called upon to decide whether or not to put the proposed laws into effect. How would you make that determination without being able to test the new laws first? -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From TG0JLH1 at wpo.cso.niu.edu Thu Aug 25 04:40:05 2005 From: TG0JLH1 at wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu Aug 25 20:10:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot Message-ID: >>> 08/24/05 6:27 PM >>> APPEAL2 EVENT: INTERSTATE RND 5 Date: 19th July 1999 Appeals Committee: CHAIRMAN: Ivy Dahler OTHER MEMBERS: Jonathan Free, Phil Gue, Neville Francis, Michael Kent APPELLANTS: ACT Women RESPONDENTS: NSW Women TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR: Richard Grenside Board No. 21; Dlr: N; Vul: N/S North Mitchell A4 752 75 AKQ832 West East Cummings Feitelson QJ987532 KT6 94 T63 J AT982 54 T6 South Maher --- AKQJ8 KQ643 J97 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C Pass 1H 4S Pass Pass 4NT Pass 5C Pass 5D Pass 5H Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass PLAY: Queen of Spades lead; RESULT; EW -1430 Tournament Director's Report and Result: Called after play of match was completed. EW claimed damage due to incorrect explanation of the 5C which had been explained as "I take it as 3 controls" on this basis West decided not to lead her singleton D as the probability of East holding an Ace was remote. I was unable to determine the agreement and according to the principles of misexplanation, ruled an infraction. Adjusted the score to NS -100. Appellant's Claim: Dispute as to the facts. North and South giving differing explanation after the auction but before the opening lead. West therefore damaged her own case by leading instead of calling for the TD. Element of "double shot" only asking for a ruling for the second lead if her first did not work. West not "damaged". South correctly described her red two suiter, so killing lead still possible. [Appeals Committee Decision snipped] If you were the Appeals Committee, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac ---------------------------- For the appellants, if their account of the facts is deemed accurate. Why is this a problem? If North gave her explanation of the 5C bid before the opening lead, West knew North didn't mean "3 controls." (By the way, was that supposed to mean "3 aces," or "3 keycards for hearts (clubs?)"? Obviously West took it not to mean "3 controls with A = 2 and K = 1.") Sure, West should have called the director before leading; but since the misinformation was corrected before any harm was done, we don't even have to consider whether this was an attempt at a "double shot." The last sentence is doubtful. What would 5D mean if 4NT was some sort of Blackwood? If RKB, 5D would be asking for the Q of trumps; in any case, it probably wouldn't be showing a suit. Jim Hudson From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 25 22:11:48 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Aug 25 22:14:34 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu> <43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard .edu> <005d01c5a96c$541128e0$029868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050825160643.02aead60@pop.starpower.net> At 01:51 PM 8/25/05, Adam wrote: >At 12:58 PM +0100 8/25/05, Guthrie wrote: >> >>[Nigel] IMO, here are some criteria... >>[A] Players say the game is more enjoyable. >>[B] Players say that they feel that the law format >>better reflects the structure. >>[C] Players say they better understood the laws, >>especially more commonly invoked laws - because >>they are simpler and clearer. >>[D] Directors need to consult extraneous and >>obscure sources, less often. >>[E] There are fewer arbitrary and unnecessary >>legal variations from place to place. >>[F] Directors complain that their scope for >>subjective judgement is eroded. >>[G] Rulings are more consistent, especially in >>simple cases, with the facts agreed (like many in >>BLML). >>[H] If you want one simple objective criterion, >>count BLML emails or appeals. > >These mostly seem like good criteria for making a determination after >the new laws are in place. I especially like [F]. Put yourself in the >position of a bridge administrator, though, called upon to decide >whether or not to put the proposed laws into effect. How would you >make that determination without being able to test the new laws first? With great difficulty. So the obvious thing to do is to test the new laws first. The ACBL should disseminate the draft to a group of volunteer directors -- from top-level to small clubs -- along with special dispensation to run games according to the proposed new laws. The resulting feedback should tell them what they need to know. Oh, but they can't, can they? The proposed new laws must be kept secret. I momentarily forgot. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 26 00:05:57 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 26 00:08:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran pleaded: >Please elaborate Richard! Richard Hills reveals: As a primary protagonist, I provide the preferred particulars. The story so far -> In line with the footnote to Law 75, "...the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary...", the Chief Director's assessment of fact was that the women's pair from the Australian Capital Territory misexplained to the women's pair from New South Wales. So, the Chief Director consequently adjusted the score. A competent non-playing captain of the ACT Women's Team would have appealed on the grounds that the Chief Director had erred in their factual assessment that a misexplanation had occurred. But the actual incompetent non-playing captain (a merely mediocre mini-mountain of a man) appealed on the meritless grounds of an alleged "double shot". In a parallel thread, William Schoder asserted: [snip] >>IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE APPEALS COMMITTEE TO >>START THE HAND FROM SCRATCH AND ARRIVE AT WHAT >>THEY THINK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. (Intentional >>shouting, Grattan, and ACBL). I find it incredible >>that an AC would rule beyond the appellant's >>objections simply because they know better. IT IS >>NOT THEIR JOB TO PLAY BRIDGE IN PLACE OF THE >>APPELLANT. Your "quibble" is insulting to those >>ACs that do their job correctly, and recognize the >>parameters of it. >> >>I recommend a careful re-reading of Laws 92 and 93. >>They work. Kojak Consider a committee composed of carbon-copy Kojak clones. This hypothetical appeals committee would be gone in 60 seconds, after immediately ruling, "No double shot. The appeal is without merit." However, the actual appeals committee had carefully re-read Law 12C3, so they believed that the ACT Women's Team deserved equity, despite the fact that the ACT Women's Team had a "Some Like It Hot" cross- dressing male as their incompetent captain. :-) Appeals Committee Decision: >>>The committee is unanimous that there is no >>>evidence to suggest an infraction of >>>misexplanation. If North had been asked the >>>meaning of 4NT, there may have been a case and if >>>North had had the chance to explain their (N/S) >>>understanding. If anything, any infraction that >>>has occurred is by West(East) in not calling for >>>the director at the time. Table score to be >>>reinstated. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Aug 26 01:35:14 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Aug 26 01:37:39 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <200508151443.j7FEhNRO013633@cfa.harvard.edu><43053C90.2050005@cfa.harvard .edu><005d01c5a96c$541128e0$029868d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050825160643.02aead60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00a301c5a9cd$a51c1cc0$019468d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavski] >> [Nigel's HBIs] seem like good criteria for making >> a determination after the new laws are in place. >> I especially like [F] "Directors complain that >> their scope for subjective judgement is eroded". >> Put yourself in the position of a bridge >> administrator, though, called upon to decide >> whether or not to put the proposed laws into >> effect. How would you make that determination >> without being able to test the new laws first? [Eric Landau] > With great difficulty. So the obvious thing > to do is to test the new laws first. > The ACBL should disseminate the draft to a group > of volunteer directors -- from top-level to > small clubs -- along with special dispensation > to run games according to the proposed new laws. > The resulting feedback should tell them what > they need to know. Oh, but they can't, can they? > The proposed new laws must be kept secret. > I momentarily forgot. [Nigel] As Marvin French says, the first test is that the English is clear and simple enough for an ordinary player to understand; and the book is sufficiently well structured and comprehensive for a player to look up the appropriate rule, quickly and easily. As Adam implies: rules that are as unambiguous, consistent and objective as possible would be an unexpected bonus. Steve Willner suggests that "Simply arranging all the "player must know" rules (about 30% of total) at the beginning of the book would be a huge step forward." Although that is probably a good idea, I am wary of anything that would increase the "secretary bird" advantage. I am glad that Ed Reppert favours a major revision because I think the current legal malaise is one of the factors that put off potential players. I also agree with Eric Landau that the WBFLC should publish draft versions for criticism. Of course, the WBFLC retain editorial control and are free to ignore all comment. The WBFLC could take Eric's proposal a step further: Why not build future strength on current weakness? derive a belated benefit from the current Tower of Babel by testing out lots of different variants of the new laws in different jurisdictions - for a further six months, say. And try to get some comparative feedback on alternative versions from players rather than just officials. They could even try out radical suggestions such as the "optional EXPLAIN" protocol :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 26 02:18:46 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 26 02:21:25 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the "London terror attack" thread, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=+ I am patiently awaiting the findings of the >>Independent Police Complaints Commission. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Sydney Morning Herald Editorial Tuesday 23rd August 2005: >A culture of denial [snip] >All systems are, of course, vulnerable to human error, >especially large, unwieldy bureaucracies. The >question, though, is how a system responds to failure. >Does it move quickly and openly to correct the problem >and to alleviate the personal suffering caused by poor >or ill-informed decision making? Or does it bunker >down for a cover-up, alert to every opportunity to >shift blame? [snip] Richard Hills: As luck would have it, it was the SMH editorial of the *preceding* day (Monday 22nd August) which criticised the cover-up by the London police media flacks. This Tuesday editorial was actually criticising my own unwieldy bureaucracy for failing to rectify a tragedy. :-( If one moves from tragedy to triviality, why has the unwieldy bureaucracy of the WBF Laws Committee avoided moving "quickly and openly to correct the problem ... caused by poor or ill-informed decision making" in its failure to finish drafting the 2007 Laws? The ACBL Laws Commission has demonstrably suggested: >>>In the opinion of a majority of the members of the >>>drafting committee, the current draft is not yet >>>close to final. In addition, the process and >>>procedure being used is proving to be less >>>effective than desirable. If the ACBL LC's demonstrable suggestion is correct, then a quick and open release of the current draft would allow many TDs to provide cogent arguments for fixes of the draft's unintended consequences. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 26 08:22:18 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Aug 26 08:25:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, May 2002, Arie's Column Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South K3 J987 8654 QT6 QJT854 A9762 AKQ3 642 T9 A3 J 873 --- T5 KQJ72 AK9542 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D(1) 1S Dble 4S 5C Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass 5S Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Could contain longer clubs (2) Agreed break in tempo N/S -650. New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen: [snip] >The Director reasoned that this was a >"no brainer". West could not bid 5S >over 5C and therefore Pass or Double >were surely logical alternatives to 5S >after the break in tempo from partner >(Law 16A2). The score was adjusted to 5D >minus one, as per Law 12C2. > >Interestingly, this appeal tied the >Committee in knots. There were five on >the committee and as many honestly held >points of view. The first was adamant >the Director's reasons were sound and >the score should stand. The second felt >Pass or Double were not logical >alternatives because 75% of the field >would always bid 5S in that auction. >The third argued that it was the >correction to 5D by North that had >provided West with sufficient authorized >information to suggest it was now right >to bid 5S rather than one round earlier >over the original 5C. The fourth >reasoned that the hesitation from East >did not demonstrably suggest 5S over >Pass or Double (in fact it could equally >well have been very wrong to bid). The >last one thought there were merits in >all the arguments and held out for a >split score! > >Even the advice from the CTD that this >was a straightforward case of making a >judgment call as to whether or not >approximately 75% the field would bid >5S without the break in tempo did not >help. If it was, E/W get their score >back, if not the Director's ruling >should stay. The committee could not >come to a consensus on any avenue they >went down. After a very long debate and >after everyone else had gone home, they >emerged with a 3-2 decision that the >board should be scored twice. Once with >the Director's adjustment and the once >with the table result before taking the >average of the two! [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From karel at esatclear.ie Fri Aug 26 11:53:09 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri Aug 26 11:56:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +++ Surely the practice of polling E/W's peers and asking what they would bid and maybe 1/2 players above / below them is the normal route ?? I'd be fairly confident there would be some passers & some doublers giving 2 LA's to 5S's in which case 5S's is not allowed and score back to 5D-1. Karel Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, May 2002, Arie's Column Imps Dlr: South Vul: North-South K3 J987 8654 QT6 QJT854 A9762 AKQ3 642 T9 A3 J 873 --- T5 KQJ72 AK9542 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D(1) 1S Dble 4S 5C Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass 5S Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Could contain longer clubs (2) Agreed break in tempo N/S -650. New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen: [snip] >The Director reasoned that this was a >"no brainer". West could not bid 5S >over 5C and therefore Pass or Double >were surely logical alternatives to 5S >after the break in tempo from partner >(Law 16A2). The score was adjusted to 5D >minus one, as per Law 12C2. > >Interestingly, this appeal tied the >Committee in knots. There were five on >the committee and as many honestly held >points of view. The first was adamant >the Director's reasons were sound and >the score should stand. The second felt >Pass or Double were not logical >alternatives because 75% of the field >would always bid 5S in that auction. >The third argued that it was the >correction to 5D by North that had >provided West with sufficient authorized >information to suggest it was now right >to bid 5S rather than one round earlier >over the original 5C. The fourth >reasoned that the hesitation from East >did not demonstrably suggest 5S over >Pass or Double (in fact it could equally >well have been very wrong to bid). The >last one thought there were merits in >all the arguments and held out for a >split score! > >Even the advice from the CTD that this >was a straightforward case of making a >judgment call as to whether or not >approximately 75% the field would bid >5S without the break in tempo did not >help. If it was, E/W get their score >back, if not the Director's ruling >should stay. The committee could not >come to a consensus on any avenue they >went down. After a very long debate and >after everyone else had gone home, they >emerged with a 3-2 decision that the >board should be scored twice. Once with >the Director's adjustment and the once >with the table result before taking the >average of the two! [snip] Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Aug 26 16:54:24 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Aug 26 16:57:14 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: from "Adam Wildavsky" at Aug 23, 2005 12:06:33 AM Message-ID: <200508261454.j7QEsPJU029404@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Adam Wildavsky writes: > I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a question. > Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with > all the laws renumbered and reorganized and almost every law > rewritten. How would you determine whether or not it was an > improvement over the existing laws? I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the NHL's approach before. They used to run any major revisions of law or procedure past Roger Neilson -- a guy who was really quite gifted at finding what you might call twisted takes on the wording. (The major bonus of consulting with Neilson was that he wouldn't dream of not giving an honest answer as to what he'd do with the new regulations) Taking this approach to the Laws, I'd make sure I run the draft past people who are known to be on a different page. Just off the top of my head, Jeff Rubens and Fred Gitelman come to mind (Gitelman being a prominent voice in the director's word is final school of thought). Danny Kleiman seems like a reasonable choice too. Need not be these guys, as I'm sure Grattan et al know people who argue in good faith that the current laws don't mean what the consensus says they do. From john at asimere.com Fri Aug 26 17:10:30 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Aug 26 17:14:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Karel writes > >+++ Surely the practice of polling E/W's peers and asking what they would >bid and maybe 1/2 players above / below them is the normal route ?? I'd be >fairly confident there would be some passers & some doublers giving 2 LA's >to 5S's in which case 5S's is not allowed and score back to 5D-1. > >Karel looks like a routine imps insurance bid to me. I'd not allow it at pairs. John > > > >Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin, >May 2002, Arie's Column > >Imps >Dlr: South >Vul: North-South > > K3 > J987 > 8654 > QT6 >QJT854 A9762 >AKQ3 642 >T9 A3 >J 873 > --- > T5 > KQJ72 > AK9542 > >The bidding went: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1D(1) >1S Dble 4S 5C >Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass >5S Pass Pass Dble >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Could contain longer clubs >(2) Agreed break in tempo > >N/S -650. > >New Zealand CTD Arie Geursen: > >[snip] > >>The Director reasoned that this was a >>"no brainer". West could not bid 5S >>over 5C and therefore Pass or Double >>were surely logical alternatives to 5S >>after the break in tempo from partner >>(Law 16A2). The score was adjusted to 5D >>minus one, as per Law 12C2. >> >>Interestingly, this appeal tied the >>Committee in knots. There were five on >>the committee and as many honestly held >>points of view. The first was adamant >>the Director's reasons were sound and >>the score should stand. The second felt >>Pass or Double were not logical >>alternatives because 75% of the field >>would always bid 5S in that auction. >>The third argued that it was the >>correction to 5D by North that had >>provided West with sufficient authorized >>information to suggest it was now right >>to bid 5S rather than one round earlier >>over the original 5C. The fourth >>reasoned that the hesitation from East >>did not demonstrably suggest 5S over >>Pass or Double (in fact it could equally >>well have been very wrong to bid). The >>last one thought there were merits in >>all the arguments and held out for a >>split score! >> >>Even the advice from the CTD that this >>was a straightforward case of making a >>judgment call as to whether or not >>approximately 75% the field would bid >>5S without the break in tempo did not >>help. If it was, E/W get their score >>back, if not the Director's ruling >>should stay. The committee could not >>come to a consensus on any avenue they >>went down. After a very long debate and >>after everyone else had gone home, they >>emerged with a 3-2 decision that the >>board should be scored twice. Once with >>the Director's adjustment and the once >>with the table result before taking the >>average of the two! > >[snip] > > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > >_______________________________________________ >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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Aug 26 21:26:05 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Aug 26 21:31:07 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <200508261454.j7QEsPJU029404@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <003001c5aa74$01e46240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > Adam Wildavsky writes: > > > I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a question. > > Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with > > all the laws renumbered and reorganized and almost every law > > rewritten. How would you determine whether or not it was an > > improvement over the existing laws? > > I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the NHL's approach before. > > They used to run any major revisions of law or procedure past > Roger Neilson -- a guy who was really quite gifted at finding > what you might call twisted takes on the wording. (The major > bonus of consulting with Neilson was that he wouldn't dream > of not giving an honest answer as to what he'd do with the > new regulations) > > Taking this approach to the Laws, I'd make sure I run the > draft past people who are known to be on a different page. > > Just off the top of my head, Jeff Rubens and Fred Gitelman > come to mind (Gitelman being a prominent voice in the director's > word is final school of thought). Danny Kleiman seems like > a reasonable choice too. > Jeff Rubens has written some opinions about the Laws as editor of The Bridge World magazine that disqualify him in my mind; e.g., a player should always do what he thinks he intended despite UI that suggests it, even when there are logical alternatives. He is also an advocate of what I call "refined language," such as in obsolescent uses of the subjunctive. On the other hand, he is very good at basic editing, which I have endured first hand when he slashes one of my articles into much better shape after I thought it was perfect. I don't know about Fred Gitelman, but Danny Kleinman would be outstanding. He would see things easily missed by others, and his knowledge of the language and the game of bridge (as seen in his work as a Contributing Editor for The Bridge World) is very impressive. He also has a few far-out legal opinions, however. Such wordsmiths are needed badly, but they should be told to restrict themselves to editing the Laws as given them and not try to create new ones. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml at blakjak.com Fri Aug 26 22:46:11 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Aug 26 22:49:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <42FBFFF8.1030209@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508091431.j79EVr8f005148@cfa.harvard.edu> <42FBFFF8.1030209@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4yKhuvmT+3DDFwaR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Willner wrote >> From: David Stevenson >> One of the essences of ruling our game is that TDs and ACs make >>judgements. > >Indeed. No doubt many of those judgments are even correct. > >> There is nothing wrong with that. > >This is the point under dispute, though I certainly grant that some >kinds of judgments cannot be avoided without introducing worse problems. > >> If we delete all the mind reading rules then we do one of two things. >> [1] Allow what is currently perceived as cheating, or >> [2] Treat innocent people as though they are cheats. > >I don't see how either one of these follows. > >The relevant question is whether, _in a particular type of case_, >judgment rulings improve the game or not. I use the term "mind >reading" for the particular class of judgments that depend solely on >the internal state of mind of a player. I have yet to see an example >where judgment of that type improves the game, but I am willing to be >shown some. In the past you have used the term for judgements that depend on the internal state of mind of a player - but not solely. That is what most people would understand by "getting rid of judgements involving mind-reading". Few would understand it to mean solely. -- 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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Aug 27 05:33:27 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Aug 27 05:36:05 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <200508251848.j7PImW5v021390@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508251848.j7PImW5v021390@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <430FDF07.7070909@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Wildavsky > Put yourself in the > position of a bridge administrator, though, called upon to decide > whether or not to put the proposed laws into effect. How would you > make that determination without being able to test the new laws first? I agree that a test is desirable though not mandatory. Eric's suggestion of some trial events is one idea, but I wouldn't expect enough rulings in an average session to mean much. I also like Marv's suggestion of having a few "outsiders" read the proposed draft and make suggestions. What I'd recommend, though, is using one or more TD exams, probably at the elementary "club director" level. Have a few TD's representing a variety of experience levels (and perhaps even a few non-TD players) take the exam, basing rulings on the new law book. See whether they can make correct rulings and can cite the relevant Law number. See whether the less and more experienced TD's make the _same_ ruling most of the time. If the less experienced TD's manage correct rulings in common situations, I'd be willing to declare the new version a success -- or at least better than what we have now. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 27 05:41:54 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Aug 27 05:43:19 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <430BCF42.2020800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner revealed: [snip] >By the way, if you need another illustration of the problem, have a >glance at Mike Flader's "Ruling the Game" column in the August _ACBL >Bulletin_. Third hand (say "North") passes out of turn before anyone >else has called. The pass is not accepted, and North will be barred >for one round. My view is that North's being barred is AI for South, >but the fact that North (very likely) lacks opening values is UI for >South. > >Flader seems to have a different view. [snip] A very senior Director ruled: >>While there is little doubt that the intention of the law-makers is >>clear, namely that a pass out of turn should be unauthorised, the >>wording of the Law does not support this. Law 16C refers to a call >>being withdrawn and another substituted, but no other call was >>substituted. Istanbul meeting of the WBF LC, in response to this Director's ruling: >>>2 Law 16C >>>A question has arisen concerning withdrawn calls not substituted. >>>L16C seems to say that it only applies when there is a substituted >>>call. The committee decided that the words "may be" in the first >>>sentence of L16C should also apply for the substituted call. Richard Hills clarifies: The initial sentence of Law 16 begins -> "A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, ..." The WBF LC interpretation in effect means -> "A call or play may be withdrawn, and another call may or may not be substituted, but whether or not the withdrawn call is repeated, the information provided by the withdrawn call remains unauthorised information to the offending side ..." This approach by the WBF LC is consistent with approach described in the footnote to Law 26 -> "A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a different call." A voluntary pass out of turn obviously has a different meaning to a mandatory pass which is required by Law. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Aug 27 05:52:12 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Aug 27 05:54:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <200508262124.j7QLOO7v012134@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508262124.j7QLOO7v012134@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <430FE36C.1010608@cfa.harvard.edu> I wrote: >>The relevant question is whether, _in a particular type of case_, >>judgment rulings improve the game or not. I use the term "mind >>reading" for the particular class of judgments that depend solely on >>the internal state of mind of a player. I have yet to see an example >>where judgment of that type improves the game, but I am willing to be >>shown some. > From: David Stevenson > In the past you have used the term for judgements that depend on the > internal state of mind of a player - but not solely. That is what most > people would understand by "getting rid of judgements involving > mind-reading". Few would understand it to mean solely. I think the confusion arises over what constitutes a 'judgment'. If you take it to mean the entire body of reasoning supporting a particular ruling, 'solely' is meaningless. _All_ rulings depend on externally observable facts to some extent. If, however, you take 'judgment' to apply to any single element in the chain of reasoning, it's reasonable to call those elements that depend on internal mental state "mind reading." In retrospect, though, it would have been better to omit 'solely'. If a ruling depends on a player's internal mental state, it's fair to say the ruling calls for "mind reading." As I wrote above, I'm willing to be shown on a rule-by-rule basis why mind reading is good for the game. It is easy enough to provide counter-examples, where mind reading is bad for the game (UI and MI come to mind), but that doesn't prove it can't be the best approach for different situations. I do think the burden of proof is on those who advocate mind reading, and at the moment I cannot think of any rule where it is a good idea. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 27 05:57:15 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Aug 27 05:58:42 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <430BCF42.2020800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills" >>My "players must know" list is a mere three items -> >>(1) The Option (in the Scope and Interpretation): >>(2) The Principle (in Law 9B1(a)): >>(3) The Exception to the Principle (in Law 75D2): Steve Willner: >I think you have missed quite a few. How about the >rank of denominations and of cards within a suit? How >about the auction and play going clockwise? How about >who wins the trick and who leads to the next one? Not >to mention L44C, which "takes precedence over all >other requirements of these Laws," or in general >which cards are legal to play to a given trick? Richard Hills: It is unnecessary, merely useful, for players to know that bidding and/or playing anti-clockwise are Bad Ideas. All that is necessary for players to know is whether and/or when they should summon the director after an irregularity. Eventually players will learn useful Good Ideas from experience, so their calls and/or plays out of rotation will be reduced to being mere occasional errors. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Aug 27 06:34:19 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Aug 27 06:35:48 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <004901c5a880$521d7670$beb987d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard quibbles: >>Note that the WBF CoP states "evidence presented", and does >>not state "appellant demonstrating error in reasoning by the TD". Grattan re-quibbles > +=+ We are discussing semantics. For the committee to find >that the ruling is in error it must have heard evidence which >reveals as much. If it is a matter of law there is a prescribed >procedure; otherwise in any judgemental or factual matter the >committee may rectify the ruling. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard re-re-quibbles: In my opinion, "heard evidence which reveals as much" is a much broader statement than "heard (**derived from an objection by the appellants**) evidence which reveals as much", so I disagree that we are merely discussing semantics. A hypothetical example -> (a) In a possible Hesitation Blackwood case, the TD determined that there was no break in tempo, so therefore no basis for an adjusted score. (b) The TD's ruling was appealed, not because the appellants disputed the TD's determination of fact, but rather because the appellants had the meretricious belief that there was a "Law" stating that slam must *never* be bid if the Blackwood bidder attempts to signs off at the five level. (c) The appellants were deemed by the appeals committee to have perpetrated an appeal without merit. But... (d) During the hearing by the appeals committee, one defendant made a self-incriminating statement, "Of course I hesitated before I signed off in order to show only one ace missing; how else could I get to slam when pard held extra values?" William Schoder incredulous: [snip] >>>I find it incredible that an AC would rule beyond the >>>appellant's objections simply because they know better. [snip] :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 27 13:00:19 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Aug 27 13:03:36 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <002401c5a87d$f4941150$beb987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c5aaf6$a66f83d0$afd9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" ; "Hills Richard" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > However, there are those from novice to expert, who feel that an AC > willing to throw out the TD ruling and start all over again may get them > something better. The first sentence of Law 92 intentionally uses the > words "...may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the > Director...." It has become all too common practice by some ACs to > preempt the giving of evidence, the TD basis for ruling, and the objection > of the appellant to the ruling, by starting from scratch. I have observed > too many times (means more than once) where the process started with > "...let's see you were sitting in the North, right? And you held those > cards, right? And you bid one spade. OK, then it went......." as the first > words after the introduction of the committee members by Chairs and > members. And this by very senior persons who refuse to be constrained by > the wording of law 92A, if they even ever read it. And I find it hard to > reconcile a sponsoring organization's statement that the TD ruling ceases > to exist when the AC convenes with Law 92A. > +=+ Kojak, I agree, In Europe we do not consent at all to the idea that the AC starts again from scratch. We start from the point where the TD has made a ruling and the appellant has asked the AC to review it and to exercise its powers in the event that it finds cause under the laws to do so. When Denis Howard did me the honour of asking me to chair the WBF TAC in Perth I did introduce the European approach, including our belief that co-nationals should not sit on ACs and that appeals committee members should restrict themselves to questions, not entering into dialogue. A shocked Edgar Kaplan told me I was wrong. I bow to no-one in my belief that we are right, but have accepted of course the compromise limitation which we wrote into the CoP after some discussion.. Incidentally I thought the commonality of our approach was of benefit to the players, and indeed has been on occasion since then. Incidentally I have always thought the 'restart from scratch' AC approach to be specifically an ACBL approach. That is a matter for the ACBL but it is a comfort to me that such a significant American bridge personality as yourself does not approve. Perhaps readers outside of Europe and the ACBL can tell me whether the practice does prevail anywhere else. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sat Aug 27 14:21:08 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Aug 27 14:23:44 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: Gee, does "incredulous" put me a cut above Richard Hills vituperative characterizations of the captain of the ACT Team in another thread? I'm sure you can read the words that I wrote as Richard Hills chooses to read them. Sorry. I was referring to a particular moment in the AC process. My intent was to stay on track by focusing on a review of the TDs ruling made at the table. In order to do this, as Grattan indicates, evidence is examined, determined, and the ruling is evaluated in detail. To do otherwise would be ludicrous (or incredulous?). Nor do I make 60 second rulings when serving on ACs with or without carbon-copy Kojak clones. I've got a bit of a problem there since to me clone means exact copy and carbon-copies are not exact......but then that's semantics too....... My reason for writing about this is that too often we find ACs whose interest gravitates to showing their individual or collective brilliance to play bridge, and ignore the level of the players involved at the table. I've heard such comments as "why he has a clear squeeze on East", while North believes a squeeze is something you only do to oranges, lemons, girls, and changing lanes in traffic, and then ruling on this basis. Does this clarify my point about procedure or further obfuscate it? Best wishes, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > Richard quibbles: > > >>Note that the WBF CoP states "evidence presented", and does > >>not state "appellant demonstrating error in reasoning by the TD". > > Grattan re-quibbles > > > +=+ We are discussing semantics. For the committee to find > >that the ruling is in error it must have heard evidence which > >reveals as much. If it is a matter of law there is a prescribed > >procedure; otherwise in any judgemental or factual matter the > >committee may rectify the ruling. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard re-re-quibbles: > > In my opinion, "heard evidence which reveals as much" is a much > broader statement than "heard (**derived from an objection by the > appellants**) evidence which reveals as much", so I disagree that > we are merely discussing semantics. > > A hypothetical example -> > > (a) In a possible Hesitation Blackwood case, the TD determined > that there was no break in tempo, so therefore no basis for > an adjusted score. > > (b) The TD's ruling was appealed, not because the appellants > disputed the TD's determination of fact, but rather because > the appellants had the meretricious belief that there was a > "Law" stating that slam must *never* be bid if the Blackwood > bidder attempts to signs off at the five level. > > (c) The appellants were deemed by the appeals committee to have > perpetrated an appeal without merit. > > But... > > (d) During the hearing by the appeals committee, one defendant > made a self-incriminating statement, "Of course I hesitated > before I signed off in order to show only one ace missing; > how else could I get to slam when pard held extra values?" > > William Schoder incredulous: > > [snip] > > >>>I find it incredible that an AC would rule beyond the > >>>appellant's objections simply because they know better. > > [snip] > > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Sat Aug 27 14:46:48 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Aug 27 14:49:24 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <002401c5a87d$f4941150$beb987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000001c5aaf6$a66f83d0$afd9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Gee, thanks Grattan for the description as a significant American Bridge personality. I rather doubt that the ACBL, and many others feel the same way. Please remember that I've worked assiduously for over 30 years as a WBF asset, 15 of them as Chief Tournament Director, describing my position as "non-national", to establish my bona-fide. WBF's recognition by appointing me WBF Chief Tournament Director, Emeritus in Istanbul is an honor I most highly cherish. Neither you nor I can stop some significant bridge personalities, American or otherwise, from continuing to ignore Laws, Rules, and Regulations they don't agree with. Yet, I find it my duty and pleasure to let them know that we are aware when ego transcends professional performance. Best regards, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" ; "Hills Richard" ; "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep, > The river glideth at his own sweet will: > Dear God, the very houses seem asleep; > And all that mighty heart is lying still." > [ 'Upon Westminster Bridge' ] > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Hills Richard" ; > "Endicott Grattan" > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:01 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > > > However, there are those from novice to expert, who feel that an AC > > willing to throw out the TD ruling and start all over again may get > > them > > something better. The first sentence of Law 92 intentionally uses the > > words "...may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by > > the > > Director...." It has become all too common practice by some ACs to > > preempt the giving of evidence, the TD basis for ruling, and the > > objection > > of the appellant to the ruling, by starting from scratch. I have > > observed > > too many times (means more than once) where the process started with > > "...let's see you were sitting in the North, right? And you held those > > cards, right? And you bid one spade. OK, then it went......." as the > > first > > words after the introduction of the committee members by Chairs and > > members. And this by very senior persons who refuse to be constrained by > > the wording of law 92A, if they even ever read it. And I find it hard to > > reconcile a sponsoring organization's statement that the TD ruling > > ceases > > to exist when the AC convenes with Law 92A. > > > +=+ Kojak, > I agree, In Europe we do not consent at all to the idea that > the > AC starts again from scratch. We start from the point where the TD has > made a ruling and the appellant has asked the AC to review it and to > exercise its powers in the event that it finds cause under the laws to do > so. When Denis Howard did me the honour of asking me to chair the > WBF TAC in Perth I did introduce the European approach, including our > belief that co-nationals should not sit on ACs and that appeals committee > members should restrict themselves to questions, not entering into > dialogue. > A shocked Edgar Kaplan told me I was wrong. I bow to no-one in my > belief that we are right, but have accepted of course the compromise > limitation which we wrote into the CoP after some discussion.. > Incidentally > I thought the commonality of our approach was of benefit to the players, > and indeed has been on occasion since then. > Incidentally I have always thought the 'restart from scratch' AC > approach to be specifically an ACBL approach. That is a matter for the > ACBL but it is a comfort to me that such a significant American bridge > personality as yourself does not approve. Perhaps readers outside of > Europe and the ACBL can tell me whether the practice does prevail > anywhere else. > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From emu at fwi.net.au Sat Aug 27 03:09:36 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sat Aug 27 14:54:55 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <003001c5aa74$01e46240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c5aaa3$fe7c5740$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> I could give them to my Boss. He is the head of the Legislative Drafting Office here in Aus, has no interest at all in Bridge (as a player, administrator or whatever - I think he played the game many years ago at Uni, but that's the extent of it), but is brilliant at putting down on paper what instructors want to achieve, with no loopholes, and in simple language that any harassed local user can understand. And he certainly knows what it is to do to work to an exact brief! He might even do it just for fun... regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Marvin French Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 5:26 AM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission From: "Ron Johnson" > Adam Wildavsky writes: > > > I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let me pose a question. > > Suppose you were faced with a complete rewrite of the laws, with all > > the laws renumbered and reorganized and almost every law rewritten. > > How would you determine whether or not it was an improvement over > > the existing laws? > > I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the NHL's approach before. > > They used to run any major revisions of law or procedure past Roger > Neilson -- a guy who was really quite gifted at finding what you might > call twisted takes on the wording. (The major bonus of consulting with > Neilson was that he wouldn't dream of not giving an honest answer as > to what he'd do with the new regulations) > > Taking this approach to the Laws, I'd make sure I run the draft past > people who are known to be on a different page. > > Just off the top of my head, Jeff Rubens and Fred Gitelman come to > mind (Gitelman being a prominent voice in the director's word is final > school of thought). Danny Kleiman seems like a reasonable choice too. > Jeff Rubens has written some opinions about the Laws as editor of The Bridge World magazine that disqualify him in my mind; e.g., a player should always do what he thinks he intended despite UI that suggests it, even when there are logical alternatives. He is also an advocate of what I call "refined language," such as in obsolescent uses of the subjunctive. On the other hand, he is very good at basic editing, which I have endured first hand when he slashes one of my articles into much better shape after I thought it was perfect. I don't know about Fred Gitelman, but Danny Kleinman would be outstanding. He would see things easily missed by others, and his knowledge of the language and the game of bridge (as seen in his work as a Contributing Editor for The Bridge World) is very impressive. He also has a few far-out legal opinions, however. Such wordsmiths are needed badly, but they should be told to restrict themselves to editing the Laws as given them and not try to create new ones. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From emu at fwi.net.au Sat Aug 27 03:09:36 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sat Aug 27 14:54:58 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c5aaa3$ff0efa50$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> "I've seen too many cases where the AC agreed a change in table result was justified but then made a different change, from that of the TD, which to this day the appellant doesn't comprehend, is incapable of, or had ever even considered." Isn't that exactly what our Law Courts regularly do? [Usually in Civil cases - the Criminal law is less prone.] )-: regards, Noel From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Aug 27 15:55:58 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Aug 27 15:58:32 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <002401c5a87d$f4941150$beb987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <006401c5ab0f$0dc376a0$219468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > I can write a scenario where the AC > elicits evidence that the TD did not > have or use when making the ruling that > changes the ruling, and I've actually > seen an AC ask the TD to change his > ruling because of it. I think it proper > under those circumstances, makes the > reason for the change clear to any level > of appellant, and retains the respect > due to all in this process. [Nigel] Such a case was Pittsburgh Appeal N-02, recently discussed in BLML. For Kojak's purposes, the relevant facts are: 1. Whether or not EW employed the Ogust convention was central to the case, in the AC's opinion. 2. The TD reported that he could find no evidence to support E-W's claim to be playing Ogust and he ruled for NS. 3. The AC (for undisclosed reasons) decided that EW had agreed Ogust, so ruled for EW. I agree with Kojak that the AC had a clear duty to seek out the TD -- and the NS pair who weren't at the appeal -- so that they could challenge the newly discovered contradictory evidence. Many others are interested in the nature of this new evidence. Also, Marvin said he was going to report how the TD reached his initial conclusion. In particular whether he looked at the EW CC. Unfortunately, this case illustrates another frequent TD/AC problem. Facts are not the only issue. Also needed is judgement about which rules to apply and how to apply them. Several commentators believe that the AC was still wrong, even if EW had agreed to play Ogust. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Aug 27 18:31:18 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Aug 27 18:36:23 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <002401c5a87d$f4941150$beb987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006401c5ab0f$0dc376a0$219468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002201c5ab24$c193fa00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > [WILLIAM SCHODER] > > I can write a scenario where the AC > > elicits evidence that the TD did not > > have or use when making the ruling that > > changes the ruling, and I've actually > > seen an AC ask the TD to change his > > ruling because of it. I think it proper > > under those circumstances, makes the > > reason for the change clear to any level > > of appellant, and retains the respect > > due to all in this process. > > [Nigel] > Such a case was Pittsburgh Appeal N-02, recently > discussed in BLML. For Kojak's purposes, the > relevant facts are: > > 1. Whether or not EW employed the Ogust convention > was central to the case, in the AC's opinion. > > 2. The TD reported that he could find no evidence > to support E-W's claim to be playing Ogust and he > ruled for NS. > > 3. The AC (for undisclosed reasons) decided that > EW had agreed Ogust, so ruled for EW. > > I agree with Kojak that the AC had a clear duty to > seek out the TD -- and the NS pair who weren't at > the appeal -- so that they could challenge the > newly discovered contradictory evidence. > > Many others are interested in the nature of this > new evidence. > > Also, Marvin said he was going to report how the > TD reached his initial conclusion. In particular > whether he looked at the EW CC. > > Unfortunately, this case illustrates another > frequent TD/AC problem. Facts are not the only > issue. Also needed is judgement about which rules > to apply and how to apply them. Several > commentators believe that the AC was still wrong, > even if EW had agreed to play Ogust. > Including me, which makes the Ogust thing irrelevant. I had thought to resolve all this in Atlanta, but the resolvers had to delay helping me until I-don't-know-when. Stay tuned, as I am not going to let this go. The necessity for TD anonymity and non-particpation in NABC appeals is difficult to understand. The reasons given are that TDs need their rest after a long day, and identifying TDs might subject them to inappropriate criticism. Moreover, the DIC, ultimately responsible, is identified. At out regional and sectional championships the TD is part of the appeal process, presenting the facts in person. This works very well. The appeals are not held in a distant meeting room late at night, with paid political appointees holding court in isolation. Rather, the DIC appoints an ad hoc committee of knowledgeable volunteers to meet off in a corner of the playing room immediately after scores are out. I have never heard a criticism of this approach. One advantage is that everyone's memory is fresh, and the presumed OS and NOS do not have time to cook up some unlikely scenario. Another is that any score adjustments are made in timely fashion. Care must be taken, of course, that committee members are free of any potential bias in the case. Typically, the ruling TD has conferred with the DIC and any available peers before the case goes to a committee. Often the matter is settled at that point. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Aug 27 22:56:24 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Aug 27 22:59:01 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <200508272042.j7RKg1xX015384@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508272042.j7RKg1xX015384@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4310D378.6000905@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > It is unnecessary, merely useful, for players to know > that bidding and/or playing anti-clockwise are Bad > Ideas. You're joking, right? It's true that most players learn rules by being taught rather than from reading a law book, but that doesn't change the fact that players need to know the rules that define the game. Can you imagine a chess match where the players didn't know how the pieces move? Come on! From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Aug 27 23:09:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Aug 27 23:31:39 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <003001c5aa74$01e46240$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > Jeff Rubens has written some opinions about the Laws as editor of The > Bridge World magazine that disqualify him in my mind; e.g., a player > should always do what he thinks he intended despite UI that suggests > it, even when there are logical alternatives. A misquote as far as I am aware. I think Jeff maintains, with 100% correctness, that if a player is *absolutely certain* what he would have done absent the UI then he *must* do so even in the presence of UI. To do otherwise risks rebounding to his advantage. Of course this advice is not useful very often since one seldom has such certainty but the obvious example is when one has taken the lead off the hook and said "walkies" - if one changes ones mind because of UI then don't blame the dog for messing the carpet. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Aug 27 23:31:13 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Aug 27 23:33:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <430FE36C.1010608@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508262124.j7QLOO7v012134@cfa.harvard.edu> <430FE36C.1010608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050827163640.02b0ae10@pop.starpower.net> At 11:52 PM 8/26/05, Steve wrote: >I think the confusion arises over what constitutes a 'judgment'. If >you take it to mean the entire body of reasoning supporting a >particular ruling, 'solely' is meaningless. _All_ rulings depend on >externally observable facts to some extent. If, however, you take >'judgment' to apply to any single element in the chain of reasoning, >it's reasonable to call those elements that depend on internal mental >state "mind reading." In retrospect, though, it would have been >better to omit 'solely'. If a ruling depends on a player's internal >mental state, it's fair to say the ruling calls for "mind reading." As Steve suggests, internal mental states can't be regulated directly, so the violation of any law must require some observable action on the part of the purported offender. When we talk about "mind reading", we're talking about rules that apply differently depending on the player's reason for taking that action. There are numerous examples from team sports (many previously cited in this forum) where, for example, significantly harsher penalties are given for some foul when it is deemed to have been committed intentionally. >As I wrote above, I'm willing to be shown on a rule-by-rule basis why >mind reading is good for the game. It is easy enough to provide >counter-examples, where mind reading is bad for the game (UI and MI >come to mind), but that doesn't prove it can't be the best approach >for different situations. I do think the burden of proof is on those >who advocate mind reading, and at the moment I cannot think of any >rule where it is a good idea. The laws that must inherently be based on mind reading are largely in the "Proprieties" chapter; L72A2, L72B2 and L72B4 are obvious examples. To deal with much of L74 we must, in effect, read the minds of those who have respectively given and taken offense, seeking a balance of reason in the mind of one or the other. Where the lawmakers have gone out of the way to try to write the mind reading out of some of the Proprieties laws, as with L72B1's slippery "... could have known ... would be likely...", the result has been to make the application of the law a lot more complicated and a lot more prone to misfire. I've argued in this forum before that we shouldn't let the legal shilly-shallying required of our lawmakers writing for publication by the threat of potentially litigious mind-readees prevent us from applying those laws to mean what they always meant before the lawyers went at them, even if we now must take care to couch our judgments in terms that will satisfy the courts. If we're are going to apply the Law fairly and justly we shall, on occasion, like real-life juries, just have to look 'em in the eye and decide whether their hearts are guilty or pure. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Sun Aug 28 00:38:27 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun Aug 28 00:42:35 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <4310D378.6000905@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508272042.j7RKg1xX015384@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <4310D378.6000905@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4DA$cUAjtOEDFwR2@asimere.com> In article <4310D378.6000905@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> It is unnecessary, merely useful, for players to know >> that bidding and/or playing anti-clockwise are Bad >> Ideas. > >You're joking, right? > >It's true that most players learn rules by being taught rather than from >reading a law book, but that doesn't change the fact that players need >to know the rules that define the game. Can you imagine a chess match >where the players didn't know how the pieces move? Come on! Now let me see; hmm the big one looks like a grandfather so we can let it limp round the board one square at a time, and the mitre is skewed so that can go diagonally the castly things obviously go in the corners and have huge field of influence; what the heck we'll let them charge up and down and side to side. Hey did you notice the mitre's always keep their own coloUr. bit like Desmond Tutu and the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't it. The other big bit obviously is church and state combined so we'll let it do the mitre bit and the castly thing too. Now the small bits must be foot soldiers so they go in front and move one square forward they probably stab round the sides of their shields so i guess they kill diagonally though and that leaves the horsy well my horsy's jump over things, NEVER go in a straight line and run 10lbs below form. Coming next week, speeding the game up. Ok, that's chess sorted, now can we get back to bridge? > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mon Aug 29 00:20:10 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 29 00:22:47 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <4310D378.6000905@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Can you imagine a chess match where the players didn't >know how the pieces move? Come on! Richard Hills: There was this international tournament game played under the 1924 edition of the Laws of Chess -> White Black 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Bc3 White had intended the standard move of Nc3, but accidentally and illegally moved their bishop to that square instead. Touch and move was (and is) a fundamental tournament chess law. But White's bishop had no legal move. The 1924 Laws specified, as a penalty, that whenever a player touched a piece which had no legal move, that player had to make a move with their king instead. So the game concluded -> 3 Ke2 Qe4 mate The subsequent 1948 edition of the Laws of Chess deleted the penalty for touching a piece which had no legal move, to prevent such disproportionate penalties. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Aug 29 00:39:21 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon Aug 29 00:41:56 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: <4310D378.6000905@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050828183513.03142ca8@mail.comcast.net> At 06:20 PM 8/28/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Steve Willner: > > >Can you imagine a chess match where the players didn't > >know how the pieces move? Come on! > >Richard Hills: > >There was this international tournament game played >under the 1924 edition of the Laws of Chess -> > > White Black >1 e4 d5 >2 exd5 Qxd5 >3 Bc3 > >White had intended the standard move of Nc3, but >accidentally and illegally moved their bishop to that >square instead. This seems analogous to the bridge situation in which declarer wins the trick in dummy and then leads from his own hand. He hasn't forgotten the basic rule that the winner of one trick leads to the next trick, but he was careless. > Touch and move was (and is) a >fundamental tournament chess law. But White's bishop >had no legal move. > >The 1924 Laws specified, as a penalty, that whenever a >player touched a piece which had no legal move, that >player had to make a move with their king instead. So >the game concluded -> > >3 Ke2 Qe4 mate > >The subsequent 1948 edition of the Laws of Chess >deleted the penalty for touching a piece which had no >legal move, to prevent such disproportionate penalties. And the 1987 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge made an analogous change, removing the old penalty that the player had to lead the same suit, which often destroyed equity. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 29 00:41:30 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 29 00:44:17 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder: >Gee, does "incredulous" put me a cut above Richard Hills vituperative >characterizations of the captain of the ACT Team in another thread? Richard Hills: Absolutely; especially since my vituperative characterisations of the non-playing captain of the 1999 ACT Women's Team was referring to npc ..... Richard Hills. I suspect that it is not a mere coincidence that I have never again been selected as the non-playing captain for the ACT Women's Team. :-) William Schoder: [snip] >I've heard such comments as "why he has a clear squeeze on East", >while North believes a squeeze is something you only do to oranges, >lemons, girls, and changing lanes in traffic, and then ruling on >this basis. > >Does this clarify my point about procedure or further obfuscate it? Richard Hills: Absolutely; I now fully agree with Kojak's position. I also agree with Grattan's statement that it is a matter of semantics; it seems that Kojak and I were originally talking at cross-purposes. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From blml at blakjak.com Mon Aug 29 01:10:30 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Aug 29 01:14:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <430FE36C.1010608@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508262124.j7QLOO7v012134@cfa.harvard.edu> <430FE36C.1010608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >I do think the burden of proof is on those who advocate mind reading, Why? This sounds very biased, and quite unlike your normal standard of approach. When two people have differing views, why on earth is the "burden of proof" on one side rather than the other? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 29 02:31:56 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 29 02:34:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: >>>I do think the burden of proof is on those who >>>advocate mind reading, David Stevenson asked: >>Why? This sounds very biased, and quite unlike >>your normal standard of approach. >> >>When two people have differing views, why on earth >>is the "burden of proof" on one side rather than >>the other? Robyn Williams (Aussie broadcaster on science) speaking on the public radio program Ockham's Razor, 18th January 2004: [snip] >Isaac Asimov, legendary writer of science fact and >science fiction, told a story of the tree in the >park which was split in two. One explanation, a >rather complicated one, involves an elephant flying >whistling a happy tune, spotting the tree from >above the clouds, deciding that would be a nice >resting place, landing on the tree and splitting it >in two. Another simpler explanation is that the >tree was hit by lightning. [snip] Richard Hills notes: When one person supports the complicated elephant view that "mind reading Laws are desirable", then indeed the burden of proof falls on that person. "Mind reading" has been progressively removed from the Laws over the decades, due to unintended consequences. In Law 49, a TD no longer needs to "mind read" whether a defender *did* see their partner's card; a TD need only objectively determine whether a defender *could* have seen their partner's card. In Law 16 a TD no longer needs to "mind read" whether a player *did* use UI; a TD need only objectively determine whether a player *could* have chosen a demonstrably suggested action. One of the remaining Laws which retains "mind reading" as its basis is Law 72A2 -> "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Because this Law still contains a "mind reading" word *knowingly*, it is an unenforceable Law. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 29 04:14:15 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 29 04:16:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: New Zealand AC ruling under Law 12C3: [snip] >>After a very long debate and after >>everyone else had gone home, they >>emerged with a 3-2 decision that the >>board should be scored twice. Once with >>the Director's adjustment and the once >>with the table result before taking the >>average of the two! [snip] Laurie Kelso (May 2002): >Editorial Comment: Since Arie has invited >feedback on case two, I am willing to >step out on a limb and say that I have >doubts about the committee's approach. >Appeals Committees are basically bound by >the same laws and principles as a >director. The director when asked for a >ruling has to give one. Here the >committee seems to have tried to avoid >that by making two diametrically opposed >decisions and averaging the IMP turnover. > >I don't see this as a valid application >of Law 12C3. Before anyone can consider >using this Law, an initial decision has >to be made about whether there has been >an infraction of Law 16A. It was upon >this issue that the committee seems to >have had trouble reaching a consensus. [snip] Richard Hills: I have some sympathy for the New Zealand committee's illegal decision. If one assumes that there was a 50% chance that an infraction occurred, and a 50% chance that an infraction did not occur, then the AC's "sitting on the fence" ruling was only 50% wrong, while an alternative approach of definitively ruling one way or the other could have been 100% wrong (albeit 100% legal). Perhaps the WBF LC could consider extending Law 12C3's scope? Currently Law 12C3 permits probabilistic assessments of possible outcomes after the correction of an irregularity. Why not also probabilistic assessments of possible facts? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 29 04:23:29 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Aug 29 04:25:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: New Zealand AC member reasoning: >The fourth reasoned that the hesitation >from East did not demonstrably suggest 5S >over Pass or Double (in fact it could >equally well have been very wrong to bid). Richard Hills reasoning: The actual East cards were -> A9762 642 A3 873 It seems clear to me that East's break in tempo was due to East considering whether their two aces justified a penalty double of 5D. But that is not the point. East's actual reason for hesitating is irrelevant to a Law 16 ruling. What is relevant is what East's hesitation demonstrably suggests to West. Most of the time, in this sort of auction, a hesitation demonstrably suggests that East was thinking about bidding 5S. So bidding 5S is the demonstrably suggested logical alternative that West must avoid, unless 5S is West's *only* logical alternative. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From blml at blakjak.com Mon Aug 29 23:30:24 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon Aug 29 23:34:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >Steve Willner wrote: > >>>>I do think the burden of proof is on those who >>>>advocate mind reading, > >David Stevenson asked: > >>>Why? This sounds very biased, and quite unlike >>>your normal standard of approach. >>> >>>When two people have differing views, why on earth >>>is the "burden of proof" on one side rather than >>>the other? > >Robyn Williams (Aussie broadcaster on science) >speaking on the public radio program Ockham's Razor, >18th January 2004: > >[snip] > >>Isaac Asimov, legendary writer of science fact and >>science fiction, told a story of the tree in the >>park which was split in two. One explanation, a >>rather complicated one, involves an elephant flying >>whistling a happy tune, spotting the tree from >>above the clouds, deciding that would be a nice >>resting place, landing on the tree and splitting it >>in two. Another simpler explanation is that the >>tree was hit by lightning. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills notes: > >When one person supports the complicated elephant >view that "mind reading Laws are desirable", then >indeed the burden of proof falls on that person. > >"Mind reading" has been progressively removed from >the Laws over the decades, due to unintended >consequences. In Law 49, a TD no longer needs to >"mind read" whether a defender *did* see their >partner's card; a TD need only objectively determine >whether a defender *could* have seen their partner's >card. In Law 16 a TD no longer needs to "mind read" >whether a player *did* use UI; a TD need only >objectively determine whether a player *could* have >chosen a demonstrably suggested action. > >One of the remaining Laws which retains "mind >reading" as its basis is Law 72A2 -> > >"A player must not knowingly accept either the score >for a trick that his side did not win or the >concession of a trick that his opponents could not >lose." > >Because this Law still contains a "mind reading" >word *knowingly*, it is an unenforceable Law. That's just not true. I think that anyone who produces the complicated elephant-type argument that such Laws do not work must have the burden of proof, rather than the the simple approach of the other side. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 30 09:02:10 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Aug 30 09:05:04 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <002201c5ab24$c193fa00$6701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin French: [snip] >The necessity for TD anonymity and non-participation >in NABC appeals is difficult to understand. The >reasons given are that TDs need their rest after a >long day, and identifying TDs might subject them to >inappropriate criticism. Moreover, the DIC, >ultimately responsible, is identified. Richard Hills: What does "ultimately responsible" mean? If the DIC neither is consulted in the initial ruling by the TD, nor is consulted in the revised ruling by the screener, in what sense is the DIC "ultimately responsible"? Marvin French: >At our regional and sectional championships the TD is >part of the appeal process, presenting the facts in >person. This works very well. The appeals are not >held in a distant meeting room late at night, with >paid political appointees holding court in isolation. Richard Hills: Why are NABC appeals committee members paid? What has happened to the old-fashioned morality that experts who have been vastly rewarded for their bridge abilities should give voluntary service to the game of bridge in return? Marvin French: >Rather, the DIC appoints an ad hoc committee of >knowledgeable volunteers to meet off in a corner of >the playing room immediately after scores are out. I >have never heard a criticism of this approach. One >advantage is that everyone's memory is fresh, [snip] Richard Hills: A similar process to Marv's preferred ACBL regional/ sectional practice was followed at the Australian National Championships in Sydney last month. A few additional refinements were used: (a) An ABF-appointed Appeals Committee Chair selected the Appeals Committee, thus preventing any "Caesar's wife" unfounded perception of possible bias; now a disgruntled player could not meretriciously complain that the TD "stacked" the committee. (b) The names of the panel of possible appeals committee members were publicly listed on the event's noticeboard from the beginning of the event; again a disgruntled player could not meretriciously "a posteriori" complain that a member of the AC was unqualified, since they had ample "a priori" time to suggest that a panel member was unqualified. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 30 12:27:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Aug 30 12:29:54 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 30, 2005, at 3:02 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > What does "ultimately responsible" mean? If the DIC > neither is consulted in the initial ruling by the TD, > nor is consulted in the revised ruling by the screener, > in what sense is the DIC "ultimately responsible"? In the same sense that the captain of a ship is ultimately responsible for everything his officers do. Whether those subordinates consult their senior before acting or not is irrelevant. Put it another way: the DIC, like the Captain of a ship, is empowered to delegate his authority. He is *not* empowered to delegate his responsibility or accountability. That is a fundamental concept of command. From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Aug 30 13:23:07 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 30 13:23:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 Message-ID: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented me from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals bordered on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, them being students, no deposits were kept. I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul A1065 W N E S 4 P KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp K83 4 AP A963 1075 843 A975 983 KD642 tricks QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K J West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump and lose 2 red aces. Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW return to the director and propose the following line: West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds twice was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to remain made. East-West appealed. Would you have reversed the TD decision? If not, would you have kept the deposit? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 30 14:16:33 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Aug 30 14:19:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:23 AM Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily > Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented > me from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals > bordered on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, > them being students, no deposits were kept. > > I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > > Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > A1065 W N E S > 4 P > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp > K83 4 AP > A963 1075 > 843 A975 > 983 KD642 tricks > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > J > > West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump > and lose 2 red aces. > Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. > After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW > return to the director and propose the following line: > West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays > a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another > diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. > > After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds > twice was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to > remain made. East-West appealed. > > Would you have reversed the TD decision? > If not, would you have kept the deposit? > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL If the table agreed that the claim was good there was acquiescence. Does everyone in Rotterdam call the TD to contest claims that are agreed good? And why was the TD ruling that playing diamonds twice not a normal line. He should have ruled that all normal lines don't lead to the contract failing and acquiescence having occurred it thus can't be withdrawn. I guess I would have reversed the TD ruling but not in the way that is implied. I'd have the TD buy a round of beers. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 30 14:20:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Aug 30 14:23:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c5ad5d$42e031c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 30. august 2005 13:23 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily > Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented > me from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals > bordered on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, > them being students, no deposits were kept. > > I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > > Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > A1065 W N E S > 4 P > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp > K83 4 AP > A963 1075 > 843 A975 > 983 KD642 tricks > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > J > > West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump > and lose 2 red aces. > Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. > After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW > return to the director and propose the following line: > West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays > a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another > diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. > > After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds > twice was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to > remain made. East-West appealed. > > Would you have reversed the TD decision? > If not, would you have kept the deposit? I think this is an appeal very close to being without merits. The relevant law is not L70 but L71 and the appellants should have been told so by the Director in his original ruling. Under L71 (unlike L70) the question is not whether there is any line of play embraced in the claim statement where the claim will fail. The question under L71 is if there is *no* line of play embraced in the original claim statement where the claim is good. The Director does not need to judge if playing diamonds twice is a *normal* play, it is sufficient for him to find that declarer indeed has available to him other normal plays that will be successful. In this case there is no reason to reverse the Director's decision, only the Director's reasoning. I would vote for keeping the deposit but only if the appellants have been given all relevant information (including correct law reference) together with a warning that their appeal in the Director's opinion had no merits. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Aug 30 14:26:00 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 30 14:26:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43145058.4030802@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:23 AM > Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > > >>I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily >>Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented >>me from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals >>bordered on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, >>them being students, no deposits were kept. >> >>I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: >> >>Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul >> >> A1065 W N E S >> 4 P >> KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp >> A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp >>K83 4 AP >>A963 1075 >>843 A975 >>983 KD642 tricks >> QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J >> KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 >> 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K >> J >> >>West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump >>and lose 2 red aces. >>Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. >>After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW >>return to the director and propose the following line: >>West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays >>a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another >>diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. >> >>After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds >>twice was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to >>remain made. East-West appealed. >> >>Would you have reversed the TD decision? >>If not, would you have kept the deposit? >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL > > > If the table agreed that the claim was good there was acquiescence. An interesting point. A claim is made, and the opponents don't acquiesce, but call the Director. The TD, together with the players, looks for a defensive line and does not find it. He rules that the claim is good. Afterwards, a defensive line is found. The defenders go and tell the TD. Is this withdrawing acquiescence or has acquiescence never been given, only a TD ruling which he is now being asked to review? I believe it is the latter. If they hadn't called the TD at all, it would have been a different story! > Does > everyone in Rotterdam call the TD to contest claims that are agreed good? > And why was the TD ruling that playing diamonds twice not a normal line. He > should have ruled that all normal lines don't lead to the contract failing > and acquiescence having occurred it thus can't be withdrawn. I guess I > would have reversed the TD ruling but not in the way that is implied. > > I'd have the TD buy a round of beers. > > regards > roger pewick > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Aug 30 14:45:27 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue Aug 30 14:48:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 30 Aug 2005, at 12:23, Herman De Wael wrote: > I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily > Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented > me from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals > bordered on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, > them being students, no deposits were kept. > > I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > > Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > A1065 W N E S > 4 P > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp > K83 4 AP > A963 1075 > 843 A975 > 983 KD642 tricks > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > J The bidding is quite extraordinary, though I realise that's not the point here. > > West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump > and lose 2 red aces. > Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. > After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW > return to the director and propose the following line: > West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays > a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another > diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Should this say "If South now plays another diamond"? > > After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds > twice was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to > remain made. East-West appealed. It's hard to see how playing diamonds twice does not count as a normal line, since one more diamond trick will be needed if the heart suit breaks badly. Someone who focussed on that point might well not see the danger of being forced in clubs and cut off from hand. Playing a second round of diamonds doesn't seem to meet the standard of "irrational". > > Would you have reversed the TD decision? Yes I would. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml at blakjak.com Tue Aug 30 14:46:11 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 30 14:49:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily >Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented me >from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals bordered >on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, them being >students, no deposits were kept. > >I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > >Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > A1065 W N E S > 4 P > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp >K83 4 AP >A963 1075 >843 A975 >983 KD642 tricks > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > J > >West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump >and lose 2 red aces. >Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. >After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW return >to the director and propose the following line: >West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays >a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another >diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. > >After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds twice >was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to remain >made. East-West appealed. > >Would you have reversed the TD decision? Certainly. It is quite normal to have hands where all declarer has to do is to knock out the two aces. On such a hand normal play is to continue playing one suit until the ace is knocked out. If the hand had been played out I expect a declarer who failed ot see the danger would fail to make this contract a goodly proportion of the time. -- 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 Aug 30 14:53:47 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 30 14:57:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily >Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented me >from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals bordered >on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, them being >students, no deposits were kept. > >I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > >Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > A1065 W N E S > 4 P > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp >K83 4 AP >A963 1075 >843 A975 >983 KD642 tricks > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > J > >West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump >and lose 2 red aces. >Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. >After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW return >to the director and propose the following line: >West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays >a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another >diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. > >After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds twice >was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to remain >made. East-West appealed. > >Would you have reversed the TD decision? I have answered this once, but realised I did not read it carefully, so my answer is wrong. If the claim had been contested at the time it should definitely have been ruled as one down on the basis of my earlier reply. However, that was based on L70, and by acquiescing in the claim at the time and later withdrawing acquiescence it has now become a L69B case. Under such a case, since there is a normal line that makes the contract, the contract makes. That's the difference between L70 and L69B. Incidentally, I saw someone mention L71. This is not a L71 case because claimer did not concede a trick which he is now trying to cancel. Acquiescing to a claim is not the same as conceding. >If not, would you have kept the deposit? Certainly not! The ruling was wrong, so how can you keep the deposit? Sure, the final answer was right, but since it was given by the wrong logic under the wrong Law, it is basically wrong. -- 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 Aug 30 14:59:34 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Aug 30 15:03:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: References: <0Eh6tFBSSIDDFwpn@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote >Appellant's Claim: Dispute as to the facts. North and >South giving differing explanation after the auction but >before the opening lead. West therefore damaged her own >case by leading instead of calling for the TD. Until recently the EBU would give no ruling in such a case because West knew he should have called the TD and did not, thus putting himself in a better position, and in my view not being allowed to get a ruling because of the words "When it is too late" in L21B3. I believe this to be just. Sadly, they have now reversed their position and will allow such a ruling, but only in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are far from clear to me. > Element of >"double shot" only asking for a ruling for the second >lead if her first did not work. Exactly: allowing rulings when MI is know but the TD is not called is an attempt to legalise the double shot. > West not "damaged". South >correctly described her red two suiter, so killing lead >still possible. There is nothing in the write-up that suggests South had shown a red two-suiter. However, West certainly deserved nothing because of his failure to call the TD. -- 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 30 15:52:35 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue Aug 30 15:55:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431464A3.1050001@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily > Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented > me from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals > bordered on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, > them being students, no deposits were kept. > > I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > > Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > A1065 W N E S > 4 P > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp > K83 4 AP > A963 1075 > 843 A975 > 983 KD642 tricks > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > J > > West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump > and lose 2 red aces. > Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. > After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW > return to the director and propose the following line: > West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays > a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another > diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. > > After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds > twice was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to > remain made. East-West appealed. > > Would you have reversed the TD decision? > If not, would you have kept the deposit? > > Let`s get this straight: declarer claimed, the TD was summoned and gave a ruling, yes? (That`s how I read it, why else should the TD be at the table?) Later E/W found a defense which could get the contract one off if declarer misses a step. The TD had missed this in his table ruling (so did everyone else), so he was asked to reconsider his decision. He duly did so and gave a new ruling, with the same result. E/W now appealed. Are these the facts? If so, aquiescence doesn`t come into it. The claim was contested (on what grounds?), TD gave a ruling, defenders found a new approach (as is their right), TD reconsidered and gave a new ruling. This is now being appealed. So it revolves around the question: is it merely inferior to play another diamond or is it irrational? This may depend on the class of player, but since declarer didn`t see the problem at the moment of the claim he may well have missed it later. So I would rule one off, which solves the question about the deposit quite nicely. Even if I could be convinced that declarer would not miss this I would not dream of retaining the deposit (if I have the facts correct). Matthias From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Aug 30 16:13:37 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 30 16:14:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43146991.1010701@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > I have answered this once, but realised I did not read it carefully, > so my answer is wrong. > > If the claim had been contested at the time it should definitely have > been ruled as one down on the basis of my earlier reply. However, that > was based on L70, and by acquiescing in the claim at the time and later > withdrawing acquiescence it has now become a L69B case. Under such a > case, since there is a normal line that makes the contract, the contract > makes. That's the difference between L70 and L69B. > Did you read my original answer to that one, David? I don't consider the claim to be acquiesced to. The Director has made a ruling and the defenders contest that ruling. If anything, the defenders have "agreed" to a TD ruling at the table, but they would have retained the right to appeal that table ruling. Surely it does not matter if they first ask the TD to change the ruling on the basis of a newly discovered defensive line? > Incidentally, I saw someone mention L71. This is not a L71 case > because claimer did not concede a trick which he is now trying to > cancel. Acquiescing to a claim is not the same as conceding. > And this is not even that one - they "agreed" to a table ruling, nothing more than that. Anyway, the Director never even thought of applying "withdrawn acquiescence" to the case. He too believed there had not been acquiescence. >> If not, would you have kept the deposit? > > > Certainly not! No need to answer a hypothetical if the condition does not apply, David. > The ruling was wrong, so how can you keep the deposit? > Sure, the final answer was right, but since it was given by the wrong > logic under the wrong Law, it is basically wrong. > Could I have a new answer based on a simple ruling, no acquiescence, please? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Aug 30 16:19:26 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 30 16:20:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <431464A3.1050001@t-online.de> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <431464A3.1050001@t-online.de> Message-ID: <43146AEE.70107@hdw.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > Let`s get this straight: declarer claimed, the TD was summoned and gave > a ruling, yes? (That`s how I read it, why else should the TD be at the > table?) Later E/W found a defense which could get the contract one off > if declarer misses a step. The TD had missed this in his table ruling > (so did everyone else), so he was asked to reconsider his decision. He > duly did so and gave a new ruling, with the same result. E/W now > appealed. Are these the facts? Those are the facts indeed. > If so, aquiescence doesn`t come into it. The claim was contested (on Correct Matthias. > what grounds?), TD gave a ruling, defenders found a new approach (as is > their right), TD reconsidered and gave a new ruling. This is now being > appealed. So it revolves around the question: is it merely inferior to > play another diamond or is it irrational? This may depend on the class > of player, but since declarer didn`t see the problem at the moment of > the claim he may well have missed it later. I don't like that line of reasoning. It is not always easy to imagine all the possible lines that opponents may thow at you. Declarer has not yet decided which of the red suits he'll tackle first, and we should allow him a final decision on this, based on the actual card that defenders return. So the fact that he does not mention, in his claim statement what he'll do if the first diamond is not covered, or the first heart is not, is not important to the ruling. IMO. Of course I'm only talking about your argument - I'm not saying (here) that it is clear that he shall not play 2 diamonds, only that you don't have evidence to that effect. > So I would rule one off, > which solves the question about the deposit quite nicely. Even if I > could be convinced that declarer would not miss this I would not dream > of retaining the deposit (if I have the facts correct). > That's true, and it's what I added to the appeal - they wanted to keep the deposit, I believed the ruling is far too close to call. > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Aug 30 16:32:59 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 30 16:33:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <43146E1B.9060707@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > The bidding is quite extraordinary, though I realise that's not the > point here. > The bidding was not mentioned on the original appeal form, and I asked the players out of a sense of completeness. This is what they came up with, but they could not remember exactly - it was the next day by now. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Aug 30 16:33:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 30 16:34:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <43146E46.1090007@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 30 Aug 2005, at 12:23, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays >> a diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another >> diamond, East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Should this say "If South now plays another diamond"? > It should - sorry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 30 16:57:29 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Aug 30 17:00:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <43146991.1010701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > David Stevenson wrote: ........... > > If the claim had been contested at the time it should definitely have > > been ruled as one down on the basis of my earlier reply. However, that > > was based on L70, and by acquiescing in the claim at the time and later > > withdrawing acquiescence it has now become a L69B case. Under such a > > case, since there is a normal line that makes the contract, the contract > > makes. That's the difference between L70 and L69B. > > > > Did you read my original answer to that one, David? I don't consider > the claim to be acquiesced to. The Director has made a ruling and the > defenders contest that ruling. If anything, the defenders have > "agreed" to a TD ruling at the table, but they would have retained the > right to appeal that table ruling. Surely it does not matter if they > first ask the TD to change the ruling on the basis of a newly > discovered defensive line? > > > Incidentally, I saw someone mention L71. This is not a L71 case > > because claimer did not concede a trick which he is now trying to > > cancel. Acquiescing to a claim is not the same as conceding. As the person mentioning L71 I agree, I was in a hurry and I overlooked L69B which indeed is the correct law. However, the result is the same. If one replaces L71 with L69B wherever it occurs in my first comment I maintain my position completely. > And this is not even that one - they "agreed" to a table ruling, > nothing more than that. Technically they accepted the table ruling and thereby acquiesced to that ruling i.e. to the claim. Had they something like "reserved their rights to examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" right there and then I would have accepted that the case remained open as a L70 case but now it has changed into a case of L69B. > Anyway, the Director never even thought of applying "withdrawn > acquiescence" to the case. He too believed there had not been > acquiescence. Strange. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Aug 30 17:49:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Aug 30 17:50:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43148014.7060804@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >>And this is not even that one - they "agreed" to a table ruling, >>nothing more than that. > > > Technically they accepted the table ruling and thereby acquiesced to that > ruling i.e. to the claim. Had they something like "reserved their rights to > examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" right there and > then I would have accepted that the case remained open as a L70 case but now > it has changed into a case of L69B. > Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the rulebook or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve your rights' in order to be able to appeal. And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From adam at irvine.com Tue Aug 30 17:54:25 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Aug 30 17:57:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:45:27 BST." <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <200508301554.IAA24994@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On 30 Aug 2005, at 12:23, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily > > Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented > > me from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals > > bordered on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, > > them being students, no deposits were kept. > > > > I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > > > > Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > > > A1065 W N E S > > 4 P > > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp > > K83 4 AP > > A963 1075 > > 843 A975 > > 983 KD642 tricks > > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > > J > > The bidding is quite extraordinary, though I realise that's not the > point here. 3NT must have been a conventional raise of some sort. Under this assumption, the bidding really isn't all that extraordinary, except that I would have opened 1D. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 30 19:03:18 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Aug 30 19:06:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <43148014.7060804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ......... > > Technically they accepted the table ruling and > > thereby acquiesced to that ruling i.e. to the claim. > > Had they something like "reserved their rights to > > examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" > > right there and then I would have accepted that the case > > remained open as a L70 case but now it has changed into > > a case of L69B. > > > > Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the > rulebook or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve > your rights' in order to be able to appeal. > And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. Is it ridiculous? Then look at the consequences of your view: A player claims and opponents call the director just as a formality. There does not seem to be anything wrong with the claim so they just record the score as agreed upon without any comments from either side. Now 29 minutes after the final results have been published (still within the time limit stated in Law 92B) opponents approach the Director and tell him that they have found a line of play which although possibly a bit extraordinary still in their opinion must be considered "normal" within the scope of Law 70. That line of play will give them (at least) another trick from what they were awarded on the board so they want to appeal the table decision made by the Director. The Director's immediate reaction is that of surprise; he isn't even aware that he made any decision at the table. There was no discussion, no objection; he was under the impression that he had been called there simply because there had been a claim to which (however) nobody had any objection. Do you grant the opponents the rights to appeal the "ruling" and have the case reconsidered under Law 70 or do you refer the case now to be considered under Law 69B? If you grant them the rights to have the case reconsidered under Law 70 then you are at least consistent, but in that case there is a question why not extend the time limit for contesting any claim to be the same as that for appeals in general. Otherwise we should expect players who become aware of this finesse to always call the Director on claims regardless of whether they intend to contest the claim or not, just for safety. If not I should like to hear you on why this case is any different from the appeal you have posted and asked for comments upon. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 30 19:30:11 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Aug 30 19:32:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > David Stevenson wrote: .......... > > If the claim had been contested at the time it should definitely have > > been ruled as one down on the basis of my earlier reply. However, that > > was based on L70, and by acquiescing in the claim at the time and later > > withdrawing acquiescence it has now become a L69B case. Under such a > > case, since there is a normal line that makes the contract, the contract > > makes. That's the difference between L70 and L69B. > > > > Did you read my original answer to that one, David? I don't consider > the claim to be acquiesced to. The Director has made a ruling and the > defenders contest that ruling. If anything, the defenders have > "agreed" to a TD ruling at the table, but they would have retained the > right to appeal that table ruling. Surely it does not matter if they > first ask the TD to change the ruling on the basis of a newly > discovered defensive line? > > > Incidentally, I saw someone mention L71. This is not a L71 case > > because claimer did not concede a trick which he is now trying to > > cancel. Acquiescing to a claim is not the same as conceding. As the person mentioning L71 I agree, I was in a hurry and I overlooked L69B which indeed is the correct law. However, the result is the same. If one replaces L71 with L69B wherever it occurs in my first comment I maintain my position completely. > And this is not even that one - they "agreed" to a table ruling, > nothing more than that. Technically they accepted the table ruling and thereby acquiesced to that ruling i.e. to the claim. Had they something like "reserved their rights to examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" right there and then I would have accepted that the case remained open as a L70 case but now it has changed into a case of L69B. ** Technically, what table ruling? 69A: Acquiescence occurs when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board, or before the round ends. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play. Was there assent? yes there was- defenders agreed prior to scoring it was a good claim . Was there an objection before scoring? no Was there a call to a subsequent board yes. The standard for acquiescence was met. Now, I can see somebody arguing that if they made an objection [let us say an invalid objection] and the objection was withdrawn [shown to be invalid] that they can assert that there WAS an objection. And if the law says that becasue there was an objection it means that a contested claim stays contested forever it is you know what. regards roger pewick > Anyway, the Director never even thought of applying "withdrawn > acquiescence" to the case. He too believed there had not been > acquiescence. Strange. Sven From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Tue Aug 30 19:38:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue Aug 30 19:41:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1EAA4C-1ZHSjY0@fwd33.sul.t-online.de> "Sven Pran" wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sven Pran wrote: > ......... > > > Technically they accepted the table ruling and > > > thereby acquiesced to that ruling i.e. to the claim. > > > Had they something like "reserved their rights to > > > examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" > > > right there and then I would have accepted that the case > > > remained open as a L70 case but now it has changed into > > > a case of L69B. > > > > > > > Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the > > rulebook or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve > > your rights' in order to be able to appeal. > > And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. > > Is it ridiculous? Then look at the consequences of your view: > > A player claims and opponents call the director just as a formality. There > does not seem to be anything wrong with the claim so they just record the > score as agreed upon without any comments from either side. Let me cite: Law 69 A: "Acquiescence occurs when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before [...]." Law 68 D: "[...]. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, [...]." So, if the TD is summoned only as a formality (to ensure correct procedures) there is no objection to the claim; the claim in itself is not disputed. The reaction of the TD below (surprise, that he made a decision) is comprehensible. Further, if no objection (to the claim, not to any decision by the TD !) is made we have an acqiescence in the claim (69 A). regards Peter Eidt > > Now 29 minutes after the final results have been published (still within the > time limit stated in Law 92B) opponents approach the Director and tell him > that they have found a line of play which although possibly a bit > extraordinary still in their opinion must be considered "normal" within the > scope of Law 70. That line of play will give them (at least) another trick > from what they were awarded on the board so they want to appeal the table > decision made by the Director. > > The Director's immediate reaction is that of surprise; he isn't even aware > that he made any decision at the table. There was no discussion, no > objection; he was under the impression that he had been called there simply > because there had been a claim to which (however) nobody had any objection. > > Do you grant the opponents the rights to appeal the "ruling" and have the > case reconsidered under Law 70 or do you refer the case now to be considered > under Law 69B? > > If you grant them the rights to have the case reconsidered under Law 70 then > you are at least consistent, but in that case there is a question why not > extend the time limit for contesting any claim to be the same as that for > appeals in general. Otherwise we should expect players who become aware of > this finesse to always call the Director on claims regardless of whether > they intend to contest the claim or not, just for safety. > > If not I should like to hear you on why this case is any different from the > appeal you have posted and asked for comments upon. > > Regards Sven > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Aug 30 19:52:14 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Aug 30 19:55:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <431464A3.1050001@t-online.de> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <431464A3.1050001@t-online.de> Message-ID: <05FC0512-1FCF-4AD3-98CA-E8CAF5067131@rochester.rr.com> My take, FWIW: It seems to me there is an unanswered question or two here? Why did EW call the TD at the time of the claim? What happened when the TD got to the table? Some people have assumed that EW contested the claim, and TD made a ruling under L70. Some have proposed that he made no ruling, but simply oversaw EW's acquiescence in the claim under Law 69. Does it matter which? I think it does. If the TD made a ruling under L70, EW have a right to appeal that ruling. L92C funnels all appeals through the director, so taking their new evidence to him is the correct procedure. If EW are not satisfied by the director's ruling at this time, they can carry the appeal forward. In this case, it seems to me, there is a normal line of play that would have caused the claim to fail, so the correct ruling is in favor of EW, under L70. If the TD did not make a ruling, then we have a L69B situation, for which the criteria are different from L70. In this case, there are lines of play by which declarer's claim is good, so the existence of one line that defeats it is irrelevant. So the claim is good. Rather than arguing about which possible scenario is actually the case, we (or the AC) should search out the facts. Herman? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Aug 30 21:56:32 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Aug 30 22:02:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43148014.7060804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005801c5ad9d$0ac3c500$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" < > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >>And this is not even that one - they "agreed" to a table ruling, > >>nothing more than that. > > > > > > Technically they accepted the table ruling and thereby acquiesced to that > > ruling i.e. to the claim. Had they something like "reserved their rights to > > examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" right there and > > then I would have accepted that the case remained open as a L70 case but now > > it has changed into a case of L69B. > > > > Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the rulebook > or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve your rights' in > order to be able to appeal. > And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. > And even if it did, I maintain that L69B is being misinterpreted. In the interest of fairness, common sense, and the spirit of the game, those who acquiescence to a false claim should be given benefit of doubt. I therefore interpret L69B as saying that if a contestant has acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any NORMAL line (not ANY normal line) of play, the acquiescence is cancelled. When a law is ambiguous, as this one is, you have to go by the spirit of the game to decide its meaning. For that reason L71C should be read as ANY normal line. Those who claim or concede should not get benefit of doubt, while those who acquiesce in a claim or concession should get benefit of doubt. That's the game of bridge. The lawmakers could so easily have eliminated this ambiguity by using the words "some normal line of play" (my interpretation) or "all normal lines of play" to make their intent clear. In the absence of such clarification, we are free to interpret L69B as we see fit. Just imagine: You acquiesce in a claim that seems completely justified, declarer stating only that there is a double squeeze when he plays out his trumps, and you see that is true. Later you realize that this was a compound squeeze requiring declarer to guess who has unguarded what at the critical juncture, with nothing to go on. If you had realized this at the time, declarer's successful line would have been annulled by the TD. But if you go to the next table or merely play a card from the next board, it becomes assumed? That is ridiculous. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 30 23:00:34 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Aug 30 23:03:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <005801c5ad9d$0ac3c500$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c5ada5$ddb0ae80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French > From: "Herman De Wael" < > > Sven Pran wrote: ........... > > Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the rulebook > > or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve your rights' in > > order to be able to appeal. > > And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. Law 69A > And even if it did, I maintain that L69B is being misinterpreted. In > the interest of fairness, common sense, and the spirit of the game, > those who acquiescence to a false claim should be given benefit of > doubt. > > I therefore interpret L69B as saying that if a contestant has > acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any NORMAL > line (not ANY normal line) of play, the acquiescence is cancelled. > > When a law is ambiguous, as this one is, you have to go by the spirit > of the game to decide its meaning. For that reason L71C should be read > as ANY normal line. Those who claim or concede should not get benefit > of doubt, while those who acquiesce in a claim or concession should > get benefit of doubt. That's the game of bridge. In my opinion it takes a shrewd lawyer to establish any such ambiguity. What Law 69B says in so many words is that if there is at least one normal line of play where a side can lose a trick they have acquiesced in the loss of they may not have that acquiescence cancelled. > The lawmakers could so easily have eliminated this ambiguity by using > the words "some normal line of play" (my interpretation) or "all > normal lines of play" to make their intent clear. In the absence of > such clarification, we are free to interpret L69B as we see fit. > > Just imagine: You acquiesce in a claim that seems completely > justified, declarer stating only that there is a double squeeze when > he plays out his trumps, and you see that is true. Later you realize > that this was a compound squeeze requiring declarer to guess who has > unguarded what at the critical juncture, with nothing to go on. If you > had realized this at the time, declarer's successful line would have > been annulled by the TD. But if you go to the next table or merely > play a card from the next board, it becomes assumed? That is > ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? "You" take the same chance as the claimer: He claimed without complete control that his claim was sound. "You" acquiesced in the claim without complete control that the claim was sound. Nothing (except probably his personal pride) prevented the claimer from playing out instead of claiming and nothing prevented "you" from requesting a detailed description of the play. The risk is on the claimer until "you" acquiesce; thereafter the risk is on "you". I see nothing ridiculous in that. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 30 23:00:50 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Aug 30 23:03:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43148014.7060804@hdw.be> <005801c5ad9d$0ac3c500$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 14:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > From: "Herman De Wael" < > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > >>And this is not even that one - they "agreed" to a table ruling, > > >>nothing more than that. > > > > > > > > > Technically they accepted the table ruling and thereby acquiesced > to that > > > ruling i.e. to the claim. Had they something like "reserved their > rights to > > > examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" right > there and > > > then I would have accepted that the case remained open as a L70 > case but now > > > it has changed into a case of L69B. > > > > > > > Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the rulebook > > or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve your rights' in > > order to be able to appeal. > > And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. > > > And even if it did, I maintain that L69B is being misinterpreted. In > the interest of fairness, common sense, and the spirit of the game, > those who acquiescence to a false claim should be given benefit of > doubt. > > I therefore interpret L69B as saying that if a contestant has > acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any NORMAL > line (not ANY normal line) of play, the acquiescence is cancelled. > > When a law is ambiguous, as this one is, you have to go by the spirit > of the game to decide its meaning. For that reason L71C should be read > as ANY normal line. Those who claim or concede should not get benefit > of doubt, while those who acquiesce in a claim or concession should > get benefit of doubt. That's the game of bridge. It is the law that is poorly crafted. It seems that the LC believes that there is no difference in the quality contained in every line of play; compared to a line of play that relies upon judgment [known as normal line]. Well, there is a great difference. One cannot be mangled, the other can be. those things that cannot be mangled can very well be settled at one's leisure. There needs to be a point where players ought to be entitled to be free of the past. Those things that can be mangled ought to be settled at the time of the board.[when it is reasonable to do so]. And for contested claims- or whatever- matters ought not remain issues that distract players when they ought to be entitled to focus on the next board. > The lawmakers could so easily have eliminated this ambiguity by using > the words "some normal line of play" (my interpretation) or "all > normal lines of play" to make their intent clear. In the absence of > such clarification, we are free to interpret L69B as we see fit. > > Just imagine: You acquiesce in a claim that seems completely > justified, declarer stating only that there is a double squeeze when > he plays out his trumps, and you see that is true. Later you realize > that this was a compound squeeze requiring declarer to guess who has > unguarded what at the critical juncture, with nothing to go on. If you > had realized this at the time, declarer's successful line would have > been annulled by the TD. But if you go to the next table or merely > play a card from the next board, it becomes assumed? That is > ridiculous. The use of the word normal [as defined] leads to such things because it is no longer the claim that is being measured. if it were the claim that was being measured and double squeeze indeed leads to loss of a trick, by holding claimer exactly to his claim of double squeeze, withdrawal of acquiescence [after start of new hand] ought to lead to loss of the trick by claimer. But it is not the standard set by law. regards roger pewick > Marv > Marvin L. French From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 31 04:06:06 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Aug 31 04:07:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>Technically they accepted the table ruling and >>thereby acquiesced to that ruling i.e. to the claim. >> >>Had they something like "reserved their rights to >>examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" >>right there and then I would have accepted that the case >>remained open as a L70 case but now it has changed into >>a case of L69B. Herman De Wael: >Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the >rulebook or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve >your rights' in order to be able to appeal. >And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. Richard Hills: I think that, in a sense, Sven is technically correct. If Sven Pran was hypothetically the director, then the AC would have no power to reverse Sven's interpretation that Law 69B was the applicable Law. Law 93B states: ".....the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law....." I think that, in a sense, Sven is technically incorrect. Law 70D states: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." Technically the TD committed an error in applying Law 70D, by overlooking a normal losing line. Therefore, the Law now applicable is not Law 69B (Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn), but rather Law 82C (Director's Error). Given that Law 82C "rectification" which allows "the board to be scored normally" is easily achieved by the TD now ruling "one off", that is what the TD should have done. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Aug 31 04:56:02 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Aug 31 04:58:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001801c5add7$86fcb750$b4300952@AnnesComputer> As soon as you posted this I replied but my posting was shelved by the moderator because I used a foreign e-mail address. I said :-- We cannot answer this because we have not been told the standard of player in the S seat. Law 69B requres the TD to make a judgement as to whether playing a second D would be irrational for this player, not merely careless. If this was a student with not too many years experience I would say it was careless only and would reverse the TD decision. Anne I do believe that in accepting the TD ruling the opps have aquesced in the claim and now that they have rethought the situation they are withdrawing that aquiescence. I stand by my decision that this is indeed a Law 69B ruling. >From reading the postings of others (DWS) it seems I am not understanding the application of the word NORMAL. In my opinion it would have been careless but not irrational for declarer (unless very high class) to play a second round of Diamonds and I allow him to be careless, so he will not make the contract and the TD ruling is overturned. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:23 PM Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 >I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily >Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented me >from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals bordered on >the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, them being students, >no deposits were kept. > > I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > > Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > A1065 W N E S > 4 P > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp > K83 4 AP > A963 1075 > 843 A975 > 983 KD642 tricks > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > J > > West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump and > lose 2 red aces. > Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. > After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW return to > the director and propose the following line: > West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays a > diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another diamond, > East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. > > After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds twice > was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to remain > made. East-West appealed. > > Would you have reversed the TD decision? > If not, would you have kept the deposit? > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Aug 31 05:11:40 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Aug 31 05:14:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <200508291458.j7TEwvtT028780@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508291458.j7TEwvtT028780@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43151FEC.6000806@cfa.harvard.edu> SW>I do think the burden of proof is on those who advocate mind reading, > From: David Stevenson > Why? This sounds very biased, and quite unlike your normal standard > of approach. It's a personal opinion, but I think it's based on sound reasoning. We have numerous examples where mind-reading rules have proved unworkable and have been replaced with others that don't require mind reading (e.g., UI, Alcatraz Coup). I don't know of any examples that have gone the other direction. I also know existing rules that I think would be improved if the requirement for mind reading were dropped (e.g., L25A). As I say, though, I'm willing to be persuaded for any particular rule. Let me clarify that I refer only to score adjustment rules. For conduct rules, intention is relevant, and enforcement authorities just have to do the best they can. From: Eric Landau > When we talk about "mind reading", > we're talking about rules that apply differently depending on the > player's reason for taking that action. Good definition. > There are numerous examples > from team sports (many previously cited in this forum) where, for > example, significantly harsher penalties are given for some foul when > it is deemed to have been committed intentionally. I suspect many of these correspond to "conduct" rules, but I think the example David gave (in soccer, touching the ball with a hand) corresponds to score adjustment. If so, I'm not at all sure that's a good rule, but apparently people who know soccer better than I do disagree with me. As I say, I'm willing to be persuaded on a case by case basis. (We have a near analogy in baseball where the rule is the opposite: if the ball hits the bat, the batter's intent doesn't matter.) > The laws that must inherently be based on mind reading are largely in > the "Proprieties" chapter; L72A2, L72B2 and L72B4 are obvious > examples. Scoring tricks won, intentional infraction, concealing an infraction (for those too lazy to look them up). For _score adjustment_, I don't see how any of these can ever matter. All they do is put players on notice that violations may incur penalties, which will normally be in the "conduct" category. I have no objection to that and might even add a few more. Contrast these with L74A (conduct), which doesn't require mind reading _for score adjustment_. (Intent does matter of course if things come to conduct penalties.) > Where the lawmakers have gone out of the way to try to write the mind > reading out of some of the Proprieties laws, as with L72B1's slippery > "... could have known ... would be likely...", the result has been to > make the application of the law a lot more complicated and a lot more > prone to misfire. I'm distressed that Eric believes this because I have enormous respect for his views. I'd have said L72B1 is not slippery at all; it prescribes specific, objective circumstances that require an adjusted score. Of course there's bridge judgment involved, but that's inevitable for many kinds of infractions. > If we're are going to apply the Law fairly and justly we shall, on > occasion, like real-life juries, just have to look 'em in the eye and > decide whether their hearts are guilty or pure. And I'm afraid I completely disagree with this unless Eric is writing about conduct matters (in which case I completely agree). If I commit a badly-timed infraction, and the TD says "A villain might have done that, so as a strictly technical matter we are adjusting the score," I have no objection. I should have been more careful to avoid the infraction. But if the TD says, "We think you are a villain," I have a very different reaction. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Aug 31 05:14:45 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Aug 31 05:17:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: <200508291501.j7TF1Kuv029485@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508291501.j7TF1Kuv029485@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <431520A5.8050107@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Perhaps the WBF LC could consider > extending Law 12C3's scope? > > Currently Law 12C3 permits probabilistic > assessments of possible outcomes after > the correction of an irregularity. > > Why not also probabilistic assessments of > possible facts? Is there anything in L12C3 that prevents it being used this way? I'm not saying it would be a good idea to do so, but it seems to me that the existing language of L12C3 is broad enough to let an AC using it do almost anything. (SO or other regulations may of course be relevant.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Aug 31 05:26:38 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Aug 31 05:29:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] In-Reply-To: <200508302014.j7UKEkXh022097@transit.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508302014.j7UKEkXh022097@transit.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4315236E.6020200@cfa.harvard.edu> Forwarded from rec.games.bridge >>S but not W has just called. N puts a pass card instead of the alert >>card on the table. After about 5 seconds W calls the director. At >>this moment N recognizes the mistake. > ------ From David Stevenson >It is our interpretation of Law 25A. Who is 'our'? Good question. I >think the EBU and the EBL. > Yes, but it takes a totally misguided pedant [any BLML members > present?] to suggest that does not mean you can change your intended > alert card for your accidental pass card. As David knows, I can't resist an invitation like that. :-) I agree that if the existing L25A applies, the inadvertent pass card can be withdrawn and the intended alert substituted, but I don't see any rule to allow it. L25A itself only applies to calls, not to alerts. Comments? (Of course in my "no mind-reading world," North would be out of luck whether he intended an alert, a pass, or a bid. All that would count is what happened to which card from the bidding box.) From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue Aug 30 14:29:15 2005 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Aug 31 07:13:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c5ad5e$7082f990$b4300952@AnnesComputer> We cannot answer this because we have not been told the standard of player in the S seat. Law 69B requres the TD to make a judgement as to whether playing a second D would be irrational for this player, not merely careless. If this was a student with not too many years experience I would say it was careless only and would reverse the TD decision. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:23 PM Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 >I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily >Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented me >from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals bordered on >the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, them being students, >no deposits were kept. > > I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: > > Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul > > A1065 W N E S > 4 P > KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp > A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp > K83 4 AP > A963 1075 > 843 A975 > 983 KD642 tricks > QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J > KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 > 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K > J > > West is on lead and South claims, saying he would draw the last trump and > lose 2 red aces. > Originally, the director and the table agree that the claim is good. > After the end of the round, but within the correction period, EW return to > the director and propose the following line: > West returns a club, South ruffs and draws the last trump. South plays a > diamond to the king, and East ducks. If West now plays another diamond, > East can win, and establish clubs while the HA is still out. > > After dus consideration, the Director ruled that playing diamonds twice > was not a normal line for declarer so he allowed the contract to remain > made. East-West appealed. > > Would you have reversed the TD decision? > If not, would you have kept the deposit? > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 31 09:18:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 31 09:19:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Sven Pran wrote: > > ......... > >>>Technically they accepted the table ruling and >>>thereby acquiesced to that ruling i.e. to the claim. >>>Had they something like "reserved their rights to >>>examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" >>>right there and then I would have accepted that the case >>>remained open as a L70 case but now it has changed into >>>a case of L69B. >>> >> >>Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the >>rulebook or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve >>your rights' in order to be able to appeal. >>And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. > > > Is it ridiculous? Then look at the consequences of your view: > > A player claims and opponents call the director just as a formality. There > does not seem to be anything wrong with the claim so they just record the > score as agreed upon without any comments from either side. > > Now 29 minutes after the final results have been published (still within the > time limit stated in Law 92B) opponents approach the Director and tell him > that they have found a line of play which although possibly a bit > extraordinary still in their opinion must be considered "normal" within the > scope of Law 70. That line of play will give them (at least) another trick > from what they were awarded on the board so they want to appeal the table > decision made by the Director. > The reasoning you give is not fully correct. Since it is the non-claiming side there is no need for them to find a normal line. Any line will do - for them. But your principle is valid. > The Director's immediate reaction is that of surprise; he isn't even aware > that he made any decision at the table. There was no discussion, no > objection; he was under the impression that he had been called there simply > because there had been a claim to which (however) nobody had any objection. > Maybe his impression was wrong. Maybe they called him in order to investigate whether the the claim was correct - there is no need for them to tell him how to do his job. It is the TD's job to find the defensive line, not the players. If they call him because they wan't to continue play, should he not start looking if the claim is valid after all? > Do you grant the opponents the rights to appeal the "ruling" and have the > case reconsidered under Law 70 or do you refer the case now to be considered > under Law 69B? > I can see reasons why the ruling should be re-opened. > If you grant them the rights to have the case reconsidered under Law 70 then > you are at least consistent, but in that case there is a question why not > extend the time limit for contesting any claim to be the same as that for > appeals in general. Otherwise we should expect players who become aware of > this finesse to always call the Director on claims regardless of whether > they intend to contest the claim or not, just for safety. > I agree that this is a general conclusion, and I was surprised at the conclusion. Maybe one should indeed extend the time limit for contesting, and drop the issue of acquiescence altogether. > If not I should like to hear you on why this case is any different from the > appeal you have posted and asked for comments upon. > this condition is therefore not met. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 31 09:24:48 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 31 09:25:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <05FC0512-1FCF-4AD3-98CA-E8CAF5067131@rochester.rr.com> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <431464A3.1050001@t-online.de> <05FC0512-1FCF-4AD3-98CA-E8CAF5067131@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <43155B40.8040706@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > My take, FWIW: > > It seems to me there is an unanswered question or two here? Why did EW > call the TD at the time of the claim? What happened when the TD got to > the table? Some people have assumed that EW contested the claim, and TD > made a ruling under L70. Some have proposed that he made no ruling, but > simply oversaw EW's acquiescence in the claim under Law 69. Does it > matter which? I think it does. > > If the TD made a ruling under L70, EW have a right to appeal that > ruling. L92C funnels all appeals through the director, so taking their > new evidence to him is the correct procedure. If EW are not satisfied > by the director's ruling at this time, they can carry the appeal > forward. In this case, it seems to me, there is a normal line of play > that would have caused the claim to fail, so the correct ruling is in > favor of EW, under L70. > > If the TD did not make a ruling, then we have a L69B situation, for > which the criteria are different from L70. In this case, there are > lines of play by which declarer's claim is good, so the existence of > one line that defeats it is irrelevant. So the claim is good. > > Rather than arguing about which possible scenario is actually the case, > we (or the AC) should search out the facts. Herman? > > The AD did no such thing, but rather relied on the Director who told us that the discussion about the claim had been ongoing. Probably the case was not fully resolved at the table, and the TD ordered them to get on with it because of time problems. I would not feel great if a TD ordered me to continue the match and then told me that my rights had been restricted because I did play on. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 31 09:27:53 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 31 09:28:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <001801c5add7$86fcb750$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <001801c5add7$86fcb750$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <43155BF9.3060003@hdw.be> Anne Jones wrote: > As soon as you posted this I replied but my posting was shelved by the > moderator because I used a foreign e-mail address. > > I said :-- > We cannot answer this because we have not been told the standard of player > in the S seat. Law 69B requres the TD to make a judgement as to whether > playing a second D would be irrational for this player, not merely > careless. > > If this was a student with not too many years experience I would say it was > careless only and would reverse the TD decision. This is indeed what the AC also did. They judged the student to be a good enough player so that playing diamonds twice was 'not done'. > Anne > > I do believe that in accepting the TD ruling the opps have aquesced in > the claim and now that they have rethought the situation they are > withdrawing that aquiescence. > Did they accept the TD ruling though? Or did they believe him when he said - let's continue this discussion later, now play on. > I stand by my decision that this is indeed a Law 69B ruling. > >> From reading the postings of others (DWS) it seems I am not understanding > > the application of the word NORMAL. > In my opinion it would have been careless but not irrational for > declarer (unless very high class) to play a second round of Diamonds and > I allow him to be careless, so he will not make the contract and the TD > ruling is overturned. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 31 10:11:18 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 31 10:14:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c5ae03$909d9af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > It is the TD's job to find the defensive line, not the players. It cannot be a Director's error if he doesn't find the line of play that kills a claim. Just remember how many times you read in Bridge columns something like "The play is hard to see even with all cards visible". Of course if we equip every TD with a laptop and "Deep Finesse"? But seriously: I believe we all agree that it is not the TD's job to play the cards for a claimer. No more can it be the responsibility [Sic.] of the TD to find the killing defense for the claimer's opponents. If he does notice a flaw in a claim then he must of course rule accordingly, but if everybody is happy at the table I see no reason why this shall not be turned into a L69B case if the opponents afterwards contest the ruling and their acquiescence. (And I believe we all now also agree that opponents' acquiescence to a claim is regulated in L69A?) regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 31 10:23:20 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Aug 31 10:26:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Among more Herman wrote: > Maybe his impression was wrong. Maybe they called him in order to > investigate whether the claim was correct - there is no need for > them to tell him how to do his job. > It is the TD's job to find the > defensive line, not the players. This last sentence is the crux of this problem in my opinion. I don't agree with it, the TD may have done a wrong job at the table. The description of what happened is not that clear. When there is a claim, there are two possibilies: 1) opponents agree, which leads to acquiescence as described in 69A 2) opponents do not agree, which leads to the application of law of law 70 (A etc). So what happened here? None of the two as far as I read it. The TD was called and started analyzing the board. That is not his job. He should have explained the situation and have asked whether the opponents had an objection, which should have been expressed, leading to a line of play where declarer makes lesser tricks. And that line should have been analyzed by the TD. So we are in the usual mess. But don't blame the laws. As AC I would have followed the road Sven describes. Apparently the opponents were not able to contest the claim within acquiescing time. So the claim stands. ton From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 31 10:41:34 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 31 10:42:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be> <003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be> Hello Ton, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Among more Herman wrote: > > >>Maybe his impression was wrong. Maybe they called him in order to >>investigate whether the claim was correct - there is no need for >>them to tell him how to do his job. > > > >>It is the TD's job to find the >>defensive line, not the players. > > > This last sentence is the crux of this problem in my opinion. I don't agree > with it, the TD may have done a wrong job at the table. The description of > what happened is not that clear. > > When there is a claim, there are two possibilies: > > 1) opponents agree, which leads to acquiescence as described in 69A > 2) opponents do not agree, which leads to the application of law of law 70 > (A etc). > > So what happened here? None of the two as far as I read it. The TD was > called and started analyzing the board. That is not his job. He should have > explained the situation and have asked whether the opponents had an > objection, which should have been expressed, leading to a line of play where > declarer makes lesser tricks. And that line should have been analyzed by the > TD. > I agree that we should not blame a director for not finding a defensive line. But neither should we allow him to keep schtum about a successful defense if he does spot it. It is up to the Director to rule on the case, and this means ruling against claimer is a line exists. > So we are in the usual mess. But don't blame the laws. > As AC I would have followed the road Sven describes. Apparently the > opponents were not able to contest the claim within acquiescing time. So the > claim stands. > The problem with that approach is that it is biased in favor of claimer. We have a rather common situation here. Declarer loses a trick, and defender starts thinking. Declarer, who knows the play is 'over', gets impatient and claims after some time. Of course there are still a number of lines to cover, and things are not completely clear. We should be in a situation where the TD has the right to register all things that are important at the time, order play to continue (without this meaning acquiescence), and deal with the claim on his own. If we put too much pressure on either side at this precise time, we are getting involved too mcuj in the play. We should always allow: - defenders to find the best defensive line, the one in which declarer can still get it wrong; - declarer to have his say and get it right after all, and not rule against him simply because he failed to mention a particular counter-defense against a defense that is as yet unknown. Any interference that does not take fully account of either of these will lead to longer play and lesser claims. Which is not the intent of the laws, quite in the contrary. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 31 11:43:17 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Aug 31 11:46:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be><003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 As usual I don't understand your reaction as one on what I wanted to say. A last time: A TD should be called to the table if opponents contest a claim, not if opponents want to tell the TD that a claim has been made. Contesting a claim means that opponents see a line of play in which claimer makes less tricks than claimed for, right or wrong. Contesting a claim does not mean that the TD is asked to find such line of play. And yes if a good player claims against a weak pair in a situation where this player could have known that a claimed trick should have been lost, the weak pair not being aware of it, the TD should do something. But that is not the issue here. ton > Hello Ton, > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > Among more Herman wrote: > > > > > >>Maybe his impression was wrong. Maybe they called him in order to > >>investigate whether the claim was correct - there is no need for > >>them to tell him how to do his job. > > > > > > > >>It is the TD's job to find the > >>defensive line, not the players. > > > > > > This last sentence is the crux of this problem in my opinion. I don't agree > > with it, the TD may have done a wrong job at the table. The description of > > what happened is not that clear. > > > > When there is a claim, there are two possibilies: > > > > 1) opponents agree, which leads to acquiescence as described in 69A > > 2) opponents do not agree, which leads to the application of law of law 70 > > (A etc). > > > > So what happened here? None of the two as far as I read it. The TD was > > called and started analyzing the board. That is not his job. He should have > > explained the situation and have asked whether the opponents had an > > objection, which should have been expressed, leading to a line of play where > > declarer makes lesser tricks. And that line should have been analyzed by the > > TD. > > > > I agree that we should not blame a director for not finding a > defensive line. But neither should we allow him to keep schtum about a > successful defense if he does spot it. It is up to the Director to > rule on the case, and this means ruling against claimer is a line exists. > > > So we are in the usual mess. But don't blame the laws. > > As AC I would have followed the road Sven describes. Apparently the > > opponents were not able to contest the claim within acquiescing time. So the > > claim stands. > > > > The problem with that approach is that it is biased in favor of claimer. > > We have a rather common situation here. Declarer loses a trick, and > defender starts thinking. Declarer, who knows the play is 'over', gets > impatient and claims after some time. Of course there are still a > number of lines to cover, and things are not completely clear. We > should be in a situation where the TD has the right to register all > things that are important at the time, order play to continue (without > this meaning acquiescence), and deal with the claim on his own. > > If we put too much pressure on either side at this precise time, we > are getting involved too mcuj in the play. > > We should always allow: > - defenders to find the best defensive line, the one in which declarer > can still get it wrong; > - declarer to have his say and get it right after all, and not rule > against him simply because he failed to mention a particular > counter-defense against a defense that is as yet unknown. > > Any interference that does not take fully account of either of these > will lead to longer play and lesser claims. Which is not the intent of > the laws, quite in the contrary. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 31 11:59:51 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 31 12:00:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be><003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be> <004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > > As usual I don't understand your reaction as one on what I wanted to say. > A last time: > > A TD should be called to the table if opponents contest a claim, not if > opponents want to tell the TD that a claim has been made. > Contesting a claim means that opponents see a line of play in which claimer > makes less tricks than claimed for, right or wrong. > Contesting a claim does not mean that the TD is asked to find such line of > play. Do you not agree though, that if the TD asks the players to continue play rather than find the defensive line, he should be allowed to do so without infracting on the defenders' rights as to acquiescence? Or are you of the opinion that contesting a claim should be part of the playing time? > And yes if a good player claims against a weak pair in a situation where > this player could have known that a claimed trick should have been lost, the > weak pair not being aware of it, the TD should do something. But that is not > the issue here. > I agree that we need not take into account such scenarios, we are quite able to rule against this. I feel that we need to strike a balance between the rights of all the players. A declarer should not have to suffer from defenders thinking too long when he knows play is over - he should be allowed to claim and not see his claim ruled against because of technicalities like not having mentioned a counter defense against some obscure defensive line. And defenders should not have to suffer from declarer claiming - they should be allowed to find a defensive line at some later stage. I saw no inequity in the way this case was handled. Those people who are trying to rule it any other way may introduce inquitable outcomes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Aug 31 13:49:10 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed Aug 31 13:52:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be><003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be> <004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43159936.6010106@t-online.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > Ton Kooijman wrote: > >> Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 >> >> >> As usual I don't understand your reaction as one on what I wanted to >> say. >> A last time: >> >> A TD should be called to the table if opponents contest a claim, not if >> opponents want to tell the TD that a claim has been made. >> Contesting a claim means that opponents see a line of play in which >> claimer >> makes less tricks than claimed for, right or wrong. >> Contesting a claim does not mean that the TD is asked to find such >> line of >> play. > > > Do you not agree though, that if the TD asks the players to continue play After a claim???? > rather than find the defensive line, he should be allowed to do so > without infracting on the defenders' rights as to acquiescence? Or are > you of the opinion that contesting a claim should be part of the > playing time? > I agree with Ton that the TD is not tasked with finding defensive strategies, except when the claim is too complex for the defenders to follow (for beginners, for example). There can be no "the TD plays better Bridge than we do, let him find a way to defeat this". "I cannot follow this argument" _is_ a valid complaint for a certain class of players, but should obviously be an exception. Now if there has been a _ruling_ both sides can come up with new arguments later (and claimer will have a very hard time now because of the claim laws) and the TD has to reconsider his ruling. But if there has been no ruling in the first place (even if the TD was present) we are in aquiescence territory. Matthias From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 31 13:53:42 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:02:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be><003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be><004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002d01c5ae23$740fad40$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > A TD should be called to the table if opponents contest a claim, not if > > opponents want to tell the TD that a claim has been made. > > Contesting a claim means that opponents see a line of play in which claimer > > makes less tricks than claimed for, right or wrong. > > Contesting a claim does not mean that the TD is asked to find such line of > > play. Herman: > Do you not agree though, that if the TD asks the players to continue > play rather than find the defensive line, he should be allowed to do > so without infracting on the defenders' rights as to acquiescence? Or > are you of the opinion that contesting a claim should be part of the > playing time? In my law book the TD has not the possibility to ask players to continue play. We are apparently working with two different sets of laws. That explains a lot. ton From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 31 14:02:22 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:05:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <43151FEC.6000806@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508291458.j7TEwvtT028780@cfa.harvard.edu> <43151FEC.6000806@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050831074207.02b237f0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:11 PM 8/30/05, Steve wrote: >From: Eric Landau >>When we talk about "mind reading", we're talking about rules that >>apply differently depending on the player's reason for taking that action. > >Good definition. > > > There are numerous examples >>from team sports (many previously cited in this forum) where, for >>example, significantly harsher penalties are given for some foul when >>it is deemed to have been committed intentionally. > >I suspect many of these correspond to "conduct" rules, but I think the >example David gave (in soccer, touching the ball with a hand) >corresponds to score adjustment. If so, I'm not at all sure that's a >good rule, but apparently people who know soccer better than I do >disagree with me. As I say, I'm willing to be persuaded on a case by >case basis. (We have a near analogy in baseball where the rule is the >opposite: if the ball hits the bat, the batter's intent doesn't matter.) Irrelevant aside: The baseball analogy is not entirely correct. If the batter has two strikes and the ball hits the bat and rolls foul, he is out if he intended to bunt, but not out if he intended to swing. Of course, that's usually a trivial call for the umpire, but not always. >>The laws that must inherently be based on mind reading are largely in >>the "Proprieties" chapter; L72A2, L72B2 and L72B4 are obvious examples. > >Scoring tricks won, intentional infraction, concealing an infraction >(for those too lazy to look them up). For _score adjustment_, I don't >see how any of these can ever matter. All they do is put players on >notice that violations may incur penalties, which will normally be in >the "conduct" category. I have no objection to that and might even >add a few more. Contrast these with L74A (conduct), which doesn't >require mind reading _for score adjustment_. (Intent does matter of >course if things come to conduct penalties.) > >>Where the lawmakers have gone out of the way to try to write the mind >>reading out of some of the Proprieties laws, as with L72B1's slippery >>"... could have known ... would be likely...", the result has been to >>make the application of the law a lot more complicated and a lot more >>prone to misfire. > >I'm distressed that Eric believes this because I have enormous respect >for his views. I'd have said L72B1 is not slippery at all; it >prescribes specific, objective circumstances that require an adjusted >score. Of course there's bridge judgment involved, but that's >inevitable for many kinds of infractions. > >>If we're are going to apply the Law fairly and justly we shall, on >>occasion, like real-life juries, just have to look 'em in the eye and >>decide whether their hearts are guilty or pure. > >And I'm afraid I completely disagree with this unless Eric is writing >about conduct matters (in which case I completely agree). If I commit >a badly-timed infraction, and the TD says "A villain might have done >that, so as a strictly technical matter we are adjusting the score," I >have no objection. I should have been more careful to avoid the >infraction. But if the TD says, "We think you are a villain," I have a >very different reaction. Where Steve and I differ is over the cases where specific laws have historically addressed "conduct matters" but have more recently been rewritten in the legalese necessitated by threats of lawsuits to read as though they are intended to be objective. L72B1, for example, *is* in the "Proprieties" chapter, and is only in the lawbook in the first place because in its earlier versions, it was clearly intended to be applied to players who deliberately violated the rules in the hopes of gaining a net advantage after taking the penalty. The newer language is useful; we no longer need to find (or imply) that an offender who argues "but it was just an accident" is lying outright. But we err in applying L72B1 by using the totally objective criterion the legal language seems to dictate to rule against players in situations where there was never any reason to suspect any possible hanky-panky whatsoever. My view is that the "could have"s and "might have"s were introduced to make such laws easier (and legally safer) to enforce as intended, not to vastly expand their scope to include situations to which they were never intended to apply. Unintentional Alcatraz coups *should* be ruled against, but there are those in this forum who would, for example, apply L72B1 to adjust the score of a clearly innocent player whose obviously unintentional opening bid out of turn has worked out to get him a top. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 31 14:04:27 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:05:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <43159936.6010106@t-online.de> References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be><003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be> <004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> <43159936.6010106@t-online.de> Message-ID: <43159CCB.6020602@hdw.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Ton Kooijman wrote: >> >>> Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 >>> >>> >>> As usual I don't understand your reaction as one on what I wanted to >>> say. >>> A last time: >>> >>> A TD should be called to the table if opponents contest a claim, not if >>> opponents want to tell the TD that a claim has been made. >>> Contesting a claim means that opponents see a line of play in which >>> claimer >>> makes less tricks than claimed for, right or wrong. >>> Contesting a claim does not mean that the TD is asked to find such >>> line of >>> play. >> >> >> >> Do you not agree though, that if the TD asks the players to continue play > > > > After a claim???? play the next board please! > >> rather than find the defensive line, he should be allowed to do so >> without infracting on the defenders' rights as to acquiescence? Or are >> you of the opinion that contesting a claim should be part of the >> playing time? >> > I agree with Ton that the TD is not tasked with finding defensive > strategies, except when the claim is too complex for the defenders to > follow (for beginners, for example). There can be no "the TD plays > better Bridge than we do, let him find a way to defeat this". "I cannot > follow this argument" _is_ a valid complaint for a certain class of > players, but should obviously be an exception. > Now if there has been a _ruling_ both sides can come up with new > arguments later (and claimer will have a very hard time now because of > the claim laws) and the TD has to reconsider his ruling. But if there > has been no ruling in the first place (even if the TD was present) we > are in aquiescence territory. > > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 31 14:05:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:06:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <002d01c5ae23$740fad40$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be><003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be><004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> <002d01c5ae23$740fad40$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <43159D15.2080905@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > >>Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > >>>A TD should be called to the table if opponents contest a claim, not if >>>opponents want to tell the TD that a claim has been made. >>>Contesting a claim means that opponents see a line of play in which > > claimer > >>>makes less tricks than claimed for, right or wrong. >>>Contesting a claim does not mean that the TD is asked to find such line > > of > >>>play. > > > > Herman: > > >>Do you not agree though, that if the TD asks the players to continue >>play rather than find the defensive line, he should be allowed to do >>so without infracting on the defenders' rights as to acquiescence? Or >>are you of the opinion that contesting a claim should be part of the >>playing time? > > > > In my law book the TD has not the possibility to ask players to continue > play. the next board! > We are apparently working with two different sets of laws. That explains a > lot. > > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:04:25 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:08:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Cards from the wrong board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61qRvTCJzZFDFwr2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Laval Dubreuil wrote >Hi all, > >Round 1, table 1, boards 1 and 2 > >Auction on board 1: > N E S W >1C - 1H - all P > >Lead by S: C10 >Dummy (W) goes on table...with an other C10 (TD!). >South picked cards from board 2. > >IMHO, ruling on board 1 is routine (Law 17D). >As dummy is faced up, the TD shall assign artificial scores. That's not in my Law book. It talks about whether substituted calls are different from actual calls: the words "dummy is faced" do not appear. >What about board 2? C10 has been faced up. >Does Law 24 (Card exposed during the auction) applies? Of course not. They were exposed before the hand commenced. >Law 17A says that "the auction period on a deal begins for a >side when either side looks at the face of his cards". Yes, but it is not our job ot deliberately misread a Law through over-pedantry. Neither side looked at the face of the cards during the deal in question which has yet to come. >South already looked at the face of his cards on board 2. No, he didn't. Sure, he has seen them, but board 2 is not being played. >If auction period began for him, he made an "out of turn" P. >East is dealer on board 2. > >Do you put an other artificial score ? >Do we need clarification in Law texts ? Not really. OK, yes, because L17D is often unclear and is misplaced, but not because an intentional misread will lead to another conclusion. For board 2 why not just apply the Laws we know do apply - just read L16B. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:05:38 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:09:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <1FcSDyCS0ZFDFwI6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Gordon Rainsford wrote > >On 30 Aug 2005, at 12:23, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I have just returned from Rotterdam, where I was editor of the Daily >>Bulletins. There were 6 appeals there, but my other duties prevented >>me from making appeal reports. In addition, most of the appeals >>bordered on the frivolous, or were even accross the border. Still, >>them being students, no deposits were kept. >> >> I did sit in on one appeal, and I would like your opinion: >> >> Bd 19 - dealer S - EW vul >> >> A1065 W N E S >> 4 P >> KQJ10 P 1Cl P 1Sp >> A1075 P 3NT P 4Sp >> K83 4 AP >> A963 1075 >> 843 A975 >> 983 KD642 tricks >> QJ972 1: Clx - A - 2 - J >> KQJ82 2: SpA - 4 - 2 - 3 >> 62 3: Sp6 - He10 -Sp9 - K >> J > >The bidding is quite extraordinary, though I realise that's not the >point here. I expect that 3NT agreed spades. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:10:12 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:14:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <43146991.1010701@hdw.be> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <43146991.1010701@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I have answered this once, but realised I did not read it >>carefully, so my answer is wrong. >> If the claim had been contested at the time it should definitely >>have been ruled as one down on the basis of my earlier reply. >>However, that was based on L70, and by acquiescing in the claim at >>the time and later withdrawing acquiescence it has now become a L69B >>case. Under such a case, since there is a normal line that makes the >>contract, the contract makes. That's the difference between L70 and L69B. >> > >Did you read my original answer to that one, David? I don't consider >the claim to be acquiesced to. The Director has made a ruling and the >defenders contest that ruling. If anything, the defenders have "agreed" >to a TD ruling at the table, but they would have retained the right to >appeal that table ruling. Surely it does not matter if they first ask >the TD to change the ruling on the basis of a newly discovered >defensive line? OK, we go back to L70 and disallow the claim, as I said in my first reply. I may have got confused over what happened, but surely that is neither here nor there. A claim was made that was basically faulty. If we deal with under L70 we do not allow it: if we deal with under L69B we do allow it because of different standards. If the ruling was wrong it may be altered by the CTD or appealed and overturned. Now I have got it, surely? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Aug 31 14:15:52 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:16:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 Message-ID: <43159F78.4000707@hdw.be> I really did not imagine I was going to cop as much flack as I did on appeal 3. Apparently the readers on blml are far removed from actual play. None of the players, directors, or appeal members thought there was anything wrong with the handling of appeal 3. Strangely enough, there was a second appeal along similar lines: board 23 - dealer S - all vul J10632 Q74 7 A1043 74 KQ85 AK1052 863 Q10 A8643 9876 2 A9 J9 KJ952 KQJ5 The bidding is not given, nor the heighth of the actual spade contract, played by south. The last six cards are: 106 - 7 A43 - 8 102 - Q10 A8643 9876 - - - KJ9 KQJ sic! on the appeal form, I suppose west has 2 clubs less. East is on lead and has been thinking a long time, and south claims 5 tricks by saying "1 diamond for EW and I don't forget the trump". The Director ruled that it was not foolish to play the DiJ on a small diamond return, resulting in East making Sp8 on an uppercut of hearts. The Director gave EW one trick. NS are the new European University Champions. What would have been your AC ruling? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:12:34 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:16:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <43146991.1010701@hdw.be> <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Technically they accepted the table ruling and thereby acquiesced to that >ruling i.e. to the claim. Make your mind up, Sven! ***either*** they accepted a ruling ***or*** they acquiesced to a claim - you cannot have it both ways. In fact as Herman has pointed out there was a ruling so they did not acquiesce. > Had they something like "reserved their rights to >examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" right there and >then I would have accepted that the case remained open as a L70 case but now >it has changed into a case of L69B. Wrong, I'm afraid. They did not acquiesce: thye called the TD and asked for a ruling under L70. L69B became irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:16:38 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:24:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <43148014.7060804@hdw.be> <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >......... >> > Technically they accepted the table ruling and >> > thereby acquiesced to that ruling i.e. to the claim. >> > Had they something like "reserved their rights to >> > examine the case further and possibly appeal the ruling" >> > right there and then I would have accepted that the case >> > remained open as a L70 case but now it has changed into >> > a case of L69B. >> > >> >> Sorry Sven, but that is ridiculous. There is nothing in the >> rulebook or in common practice that says you need to 'reserve >> your rights' in order to be able to appeal. >> And certainly nothing that turns a ruling into acquiescence. > >Is it ridiculous? Then look at the consequences of your view: > >A player claims and opponents call the director just as a formality. There >does not seem to be anything wrong with the claim so they just record the >score as agreed upon without any comments from either side. You realise that this is a totally dissimilar case: I got this wrong when I first read it. The original write-up is certainly confusing, but we now gather that a ruling was requested. It would have been easier if it been made clear in the write-up. >Now 29 minutes after the final results have been published (still within the >time limit stated in Law 92B) opponents approach the Director and tell him >that they have found a line of play which although possibly a bit >extraordinary still in their opinion must be considered "normal" within the >scope of Law 70. That line of play will give them (at least) another trick >from what they were awarded on the board so they want to appeal the table >decision made by the Director. > >The Director's immediate reaction is that of surprise; he isn't even aware >that he made any decision at the table. There was no discussion, no >objection; he was under the impression that he had been called there simply >because there had been a claim to which (however) nobody had any objection. Either he ruled at the time [as in the case under discussion in this thread] or he did not. If he did it is appealable: if he did not then they are withdrawing acquiescence and a ruling is sought under L69B. >Do you grant the opponents the rights to appeal the "ruling" and have the >case reconsidered under Law 70 or do you refer the case now to be considered >under Law 69B? > >If you grant them the rights to have the case reconsidered under Law 70 then >you are at least consistent, but in that case there is a question why not >extend the time limit for contesting any claim to be the same as that for >appeals in general. Otherwise we should expect players who become aware of >this finesse to always call the Director on claims regardless of whether >they intend to contest the claim or not, just for safety. > >If not I should like to hear you on why this case is any different from the >appeal you have posted and asked for comments upon. The difference appears to be that a ruling was sought in the case under consideration. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:18:57 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:24:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be> <003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be> <004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <83EwPEFxAaFDFw6V@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >I saw no inequity in the way this case was handled. Those people who >are trying to rule it any other way may introduce inquitable outcomes. The basic problem was not in the way the case was handled, but in the way it was reported, which has left different people with different impressions of what happened. Perhaps you could confirm exactly what did happen. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:50:13 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:54:10 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: References: <43053C90.2050005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote Yeah, I know this has been discussed a lot, but I have been away, so i might as well start by playing Richard's little game. >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: Nil > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass Pass >1H Pass 2H Pass >Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >J652 >QT >A32 >JT86 > >(a) What call do you make? Double. >(b) What other calls do you consider > making? Pass. >If the answer to (a) or (b) is Pass, then: > >(c) What opening lead do you make? Club jack. >(d) What other opening leads do you > consider making? None. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:51:48 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:55:33 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: References: <43053C90.2050005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article mi.gov.au>, richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >> >> >> >> >>Imps >>Dlr: North >>Vul: Nil >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- Pass Pass Pass >>1H Pass 2H Pass >>Pass ? >> >>You, North, hold: >> >>J652 >>QT >>A32 >>JT86 >> >>(a) What call do you make? > >2S. Another 4-2 fit, no doubt. See, John, there's this new-fangled idea called a takeout double. Pardon? Oh, I see, that would mean partner playing it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:54:23 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 14:58:18 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >Australian National Championships >Appeal #4 >Butler Pairs Stage 2, Round 7 > >Bd 17 >Dlr: North >Vul: Nil > > J652 > QT > A32 > JT86 >A3 T98 >76532 AJ4 >Q84 K765 >AK4 732 > KQ74 > K98 > JT9 > Q95 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Mottram Strong Yezerski Magee >--- Pass Pass Pass(1) >1H Pass 2H Pass >Pass 2S Pass Pass >Pass > >(1) alleged break in tempo > >Result: 2S/N made 8 trick, +110 > >Director (S Mullamphy): > >I was called at the conclusion of play. EW >claimed that South had broken tempo before >passing in third seat, now disputed. The >directing staff believe that pass was not a >Logical Alternative for North, given the >vulnerability, EW's fit and limited values. > >Appellants: > >The Appeals Adviser concurred that it did >seem to be a Logical Alternative for North to >pass 2H. > >Committee (R Grenside, K Moses, M Prescott, E >Ramshaw, M Scudder): > >Unauthorised Information was present; pass >was a logical alternative action. Contract >adjusted to 2H/W. +50 to NS. Erk? Doesn't the UI have to suggest the chosen action in Australia? Not only does it not in my view, but neither TD, AA, nor AC seem to have considered this!!!!!!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Aug 31 14:57:52 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Aug 31 15:01:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43159F78.4000707@hdw.be> References: <43159F78.4000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >I really did not imagine I was going to cop as much flack as I did on >appeal 3. Apparently the readers on blml are far removed from actual >play. None of the players, directors, or appeal members thought there >was anything wrong with the handling of appeal 3. > >Strangely enough, there was a second appeal along similar lines: > >board 23 - dealer S - all vul > > J10632 > Q74 > 7 > A1043 >74 KQ85 >AK1052 863 >Q10 A8643 >9876 2 > A9 > J9 > KJ952 > KQJ5 > >The bidding is not given, nor the heighth of the actual spade contract, >played by south. The last six cards are: > > 106 > - > 7 > A43 >- 8 >102 - >Q10 A8643 >9876 - > - > - > KJ9 > KQJ > >sic! on the appeal form, I suppose west has 2 clubs less. > >East is on lead and has been thinking a long time, and south claims 5 >tricks by saying "1 diamond for EW and I don't forget the trump". > >The Director ruled that it was not foolish to play the DiJ on a small >diamond return, resulting in East making Sp8 on an uppercut of hearts. >The Director gave EW one trick. > >NS are the new European University Champions. > >What would have been your AC ruling? Keep the money. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 31 15:15:36 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Aug 31 15:18:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] References: <200508302014.j7UKEkXh022097@transit.cfa.harvard.edu> <4315236E.6020200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 22:26 PM Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] > Forwarded from rec.games.bridge > >>S but not W has just called. N puts a pass card instead of the alert > >>card on the table. After about 5 seconds W calls the director. At > >>this moment N recognizes the mistake. > > > ------ From David Stevenson > >It is our interpretation of Law 25A. Who is 'our'? Good question. I > >think the EBU and the EBL. > > > Yes, but it takes a totally misguided pedant [any BLML members > > present?] to suggest that does not mean you can change your intended > > alert card for your accidental pass card. > > As David knows, I can't resist an invitation like that. :-) > > I agree that if the existing L25A applies, the inadvertent pass card can > be withdrawn and the intended alert substituted, but I don't see any > rule to allow it. L25A itself only applies to calls, not to alerts. > Comments? > > (Of course in my "no mind-reading world," North would be out of luck > whether he intended an alert, a pass, or a bid. All that would count is > what happened to which card from the bidding box.) since a call is made by placing a bidding card on the table and this was done then a call has been made. And the law provides for what happens after a call. I am of the opinion that if a card was put on the table that incontrovertibly was meant as an alert then it behaves as an alert raather than a call. Such can be accomplished by doing something coincident such as saying alert. Such did not happen here so pass is what happened. I would point out further that it is expected that an alert card is retrieved if not immediately, then quickly after being put on the table. It was reported that there was no effort to retrieve it even after 5s. That notwithstanding, There should have never been a questiion that the call was a pass since the law categorically forbids a player from alerting in a face-to-face game. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 31 15:30:18 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 31 15:33:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43159F78.4000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5ae30$21062040$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ......... > Strangely enough, there was a second appeal along similar lines: > > board 23 - dealer S - all vul > > J10632 > Q74 > 7 > A1043 > 74 KQ85 > AK1052 863 > Q10 A8643 > 9876 2 > A9 > J9 > KJ952 > KQJ5 > > The bidding is not given, nor the heighth of the actual spade > contract, played by south. The last six cards are: > > 106 > - > 7 > A43 > - 8 > 102 - > Q10 A8643 > 9876 - > - > - > KJ9 > KQJ > > sic! on the appeal form, I suppose west has 2 clubs less. > > East is on lead and has been thinking a long time, and south claims 5 > tricks by saying "1 diamond for EW and I don't forget the trump". > > The Director ruled that it was not foolish to play the DiJ on a small > diamond return, resulting in East making Sp8 on an uppercut of hearts. > The Director gave EW one trick. I don't see the "along similar lines", and I suppose you meant to say that the Director gave EW one EXTRA trick (two of the six in all)? IMO (from the description) this is a clear cut case. The Director has no responsibility for seeing by himself the flaws in a claim, but when the flaw is as clear as here he must rule accordingly. Table result stands. Regards Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Aug 31 15:38:25 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed Aug 31 15:41:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C7A5@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Roger Pewick [mailto:axman22@hotmail.com] Sent: 31 August 2005 14:16 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] > since a call is made by placing a bidding card on the table ... Under what law? In England, the bidding box regulation says a call is made by removing a call from the box with apparent intent. The regulations do not say what happens to calls removed without (apparent) intent - it is not unreasonable to presume they may be replaced. 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Aug 31 15:21:25 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Aug 31 15:53:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000101c5ad84$b8d9b190$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431559CE.4090706@hdw.be><003801c5ae05$5935ba50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43156D3E.2050806@hdw.be> <004301c5ae10$707b84a0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><43157F97.4040007@hdw.be> <43159936.6010106@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001301c5ae32$d701e2b0$dbcb87d9@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: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > Now if there has been a _ruling_ both sides can > come up with new arguments later (and claimer > will have a very hard time now because of the > claim laws) and the TD has to reconsider his ruling. > But if there has been no ruling in the first place > (even if the TD was present) we are in aquiescence > territory. > +=+ I have not read the detail of this occurrence and I just wish to comment upon a point of law arising out of this statement. Law 71 contains no statement requiring that one of the two sides at the table should ask for reconsideration of the ruling. Law 81C6 applies. If the Director realises that he has overlooked a possibility in giving his ruling and that his ruling is in error because of it, Law 71 is based solely upon determination of the facts and demands correction in the circumstances it specifies. I have known, for example, of a case in which one of the Director's colleagues pointed out to him that he had overlooked a point in the play that nullified the decision he had made, and his ruling was changed accordingly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 31 16:16:36 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Aug 31 16:19:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C7A5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:38 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Pewick [mailto:axman22@hotmail.com] > Sent: 31 August 2005 14:16 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] > > > since a call is made by placing a bidding card on the table ... > > Under what law? L80F I presume. > In England, the bidding box regulation says a call is made by removing a call from the box with apparent intent. The regulations do not say what happens to calls removed without (apparent) intent - it is not unreasonable to presume they may be replaced. > > Robin Not certain what this means. Not many antecedants. But if a bidding card has made it to the table there is a presumption that it was removed from the box. If a card has made it to the table without unequivocal denial there is a presumption that it was intended to remove it from the box. regards roger pewick From emu at fwi.net.au Wed Aug 31 16:51:14 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Wed Aug 31 16:54:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050827163640.02b0ae10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002901c5ae3b$70d46b80$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> >I do think the burden of proof is on those >who advocate mind reading, and at the moment I cannot think of any >rule where it is a good idea. As for 'burden of proof' - it is usually on the prosecution. The defence can simply say, 'not proved' and if the judge agrees, walk away. Why should Bridge be different? Only certain right wing reactionary governments like those in Aus, the UK and the US seem to want to try and reverse that particular protection of human rights! regards, Noel From emu at fwi.net.au Wed Aug 31 16:51:13 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Wed Aug 31 16:54:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002801c5ae3b$6f6d6170$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> >Why not also probabilistic assessments of >possible facts? And you can go to jail for the rest of your life Richard on the 51% probability that you murdered Cock Robin, rather than the 100% 'beyond reasonable doubt' rule we currently enjoy! regards, Noel From emu at fwi.net.au Wed Aug 31 16:51:14 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Wed Aug 31 16:54:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002a01c5ae3b$71fe6c90$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Richard writes: "Because this Law still contains a "mind reading" word *knowingly*, it is an unenforceable Law." I disagree again! Many Criminal laws are based on the concept of doing something 'knowingly'. For example, 'without reasonable excuse, knowingly possessing a prohibited substance'. If you throw a switch to turn on a light, and a suicide has rigged the light to kill themselves, you won't be convicted of murder in normal circumstances. Probably not even manslaughter. regards, Noel From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Aug 31 17:03:55 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed Aug 31 17:02:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Cards from the wrong board In-Reply-To: <61qRvTCJzZFDFwr2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Thx David for your reply. As to board 1, I know that 17D deals only with substituted calls. But how can substituted calls be allowed when a hand is already faced up ? I would assign artificial scores. As to board 2, I also would go on artificial scores. I was just trying to make sure Law 24 does not apply. Anyway, I think 17D will be improved in the next edition. Laval Du Breuil PS: Let me tell you what the ruling was.... On board 1, S was told to take the right cards and lead against 1H. Board 2 was played without any restriction. Just to illustrate the level of some ACBL Club directors. I know there is now a program to help them improving their knowledge of Laws, but there is nothing in French (some of them does not speak English). I am sure the problem is similar in many English speaking ACBL Clubs. ACBL should regularly make sure every Club director knows the basic Laws (as some other zonal organisations do). ___________________________________________________________________ Laval Dubreuil wrote >Hi all, > >Round 1, table 1, boards 1 and 2 > >Auction on board 1: > N E S W >1C - 1H - all P > >Lead by S: C10 >Dummy (W) goes on table...with an other C10 (TD!). >South picked cards from board 2. > >IMHO, ruling on board 1 is routine (Law 17D). >As dummy is faced up, the TD shall assign artificial scores. That's not in my Law book. It talks about whether substituted calls are different from actual calls: the words "dummy is faced" do not appear. >What about board 2? C10 has been faced up. >Does Law 24 (Card exposed during the auction) applies? Of course not. They were exposed before the hand commenced. >Law 17A says that "the auction period on a deal begins for a >side when either side looks at the face of his cards". Yes, but it is not our job ot deliberately misread a Law through over-pedantry. Neither side looked at the face of the cards during the deal in question which has yet to come. >South already looked at the face of his cards on board 2. No, he didn't. Sure, he has seen them, but board 2 is not being played. >If auction period began for him, he made an "out of turn" P. >East is dealer on board 2. > >Do you put an other artificial score ? >Do we need clarification in Law texts ? Not really. OK, yes, because L17D is often unclear and is misplaced, but not because an intentional misread will lead to another conclusion. For board 2 why not just apply the Laws we know do apply - just read L16B. -- 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 31 17:03:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Aug 31 17:06:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <002901c5ae3b$70d46b80$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <000101c5ae3d$20eabd20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Noel & Pamela > >I do think the burden of proof is on those > >who advocate mind reading, and at the moment I cannot think of any > >rule where it is a good idea. > > As for 'burden of proof' - it is usually on the prosecution. The defence > can simply say, 'not proved' and if the judge agrees, walk away. Why > should > Bridge be different? Because a reasonable analogy in the Bridge world is to the Civil court not to the Criminal court. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 31 17:26:19 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Aug 31 17:29:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C7A5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <004701c5ae40$56bb90c0$169868d5@jeushtlj> [Robin Barker] > In England, the bidding box regulation > says a call is made by removing a > call from the box with apparent intent. > The regulations do not say what > happens to calls removed without > (apparent) intent - it is not > unreasonable to presume they may be > replaced. [nige1] The new edition of TFLB will surely clear this up. Bidding boxes should be almost universal at duplicate -- even Kangaroos could be taught to use them. There should be no need for each local jurisdiction to try to plug this omission with incomplete and half-baked "regulations." From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Aug 31 17:27:50 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Aug 31 17:30:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 Message-ID: <005001c5ae40$8c95e1a0$169868d5@jeushtlj> [Ton Kooijman] > A TD should be called to the table if > opponents contest a claim, not if > opponents want to tell the TD that a > claim has been made. Contesting a claim > means that opponents see a line of play > in which claimer makes less tricks than > claimed for, right or wrong. > Contesting a claim does not mean that the > TD is asked to find such line of play. [nige1] IMO, defenders may call the director to dispute declarer's claim simply because they feel it isn't specific or complete enough. Ton rightly says that we should not expect the director to do the defenders' job for them. Similarly, IMO, the director shouldn't expect the defenders to do declarer's job for him. IMO, to uphold declarer's claim, the director should satisfy himself that the claim caters for possible defences. If it doesn't then he should rule for defenders. IMO, in Rotterdam Appeal 3, the claim "Draw trumps and concede two red aces" was woolly and incomplete. Interpreted, literally (to mean that declarer must play diamonds twice to concede the Ace) the claim was wrong. With the benefit of hindsight, the director shouldn't allow it. In summary: when declarer claimed, defenders suspected an infraction and called the director. Eventually an infraction was established (a faulty claim) and the director should so rule. Also, IMO Marvin is be right about how the law should be interpreted (and how it should be rewritten). Acquiescence (possibly under pressure from the director) to a faulty claim shouldn't deprive defenders of basic rights. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Aug 31 17:39:16 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Aug 31 17:42:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <43155B40.8040706@hdw.be> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <431464A3.1050001@t-online.de> <05FC0512-1FCF-4AD3-98CA-E8CAF5067131@rochester.rr.com> <43155B40.8040706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3A244E2C-19D4-455D-B74A-925F0AABE8AA@rochester.rr.com> On Aug 31, 2005, at 3:24 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The AD did no such thing, but rather relied on the Director who > told us that the discussion about the claim had been ongoing. > Probably the case was not fully resolved at the table, and the TD > ordered them to get on with it because of time problems. I would > not feel great if a TD ordered me to continue the match and then > told me that my rights had been restricted because I did play on. Neither would I. But you're still theorizing about what happened. I just re-read A. Conan Doyle's "Silver Blaze". One of Holmes' comments to Watson seems germane: "... we are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture, and hypothesis. The difficulty is to detach the framework of fact - of absolute undeniable fact - from the embellishments of theorists and reporters." Great story. :-) If, at this late date, it is impossible to ascertain the facts, then so be it. But then about the only thing you can say about the TD's and AC's rulings is that they were flawed *because* they were made on assumptions rather than facts. The best you can do at this point, I suppose, is to call it Director error (L82C), considering both sides non-offending. From Frances.Hinden at Shell.com Wed Aug 31 18:57:29 2005 From: Frances.Hinden at Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-SXP) Date: Wed Aug 31 20:49:16 2005 Subject: [blml] RE: Is this a pass out of turn [rec.games.bridge] Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E103259325@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Roger Pewick wrote: > I would point out further that it is expected that an alert card is retrieved if not immediately, then quickly after being put on the table. It was reported that there was no effort to retrieve it even after 5s. Actually, no. There was a ruling a while back in which a player claimed not to have seen an alert, and the ruling went in his favour - it was categorically stated that it is the alerting side's responsibility to ensure the other side are aware of the alert. It is fairly common practice where I play that the alert card is left ostentatiously face up on the table either until the next player acknowledges it, or until they call, or sometimes until their partner's next call (I don't do this, but many people do). >That notwithstanding, There should have never been a questiion that the call was a pass since the law categorically forbids a player from alerting in a face-to-face game. Eh? The player was trying to alert his partner's call. Frances Hinden Strategic Planning Shell International Ltd. Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7934 2529 Fax: 6982 Mobile: +44 (0) 7899 065392 Email: Frances.Hinden@ shell.com Internet:http://www.shell.com/ This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information which should not be used, copied or disclosed without permission. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20050831/a8bd1b55/attachment.htm