From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 08:51:34 2005 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu Sep 1 08:54:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <43159F78.4000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: > 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. I would have liked to know the bidding and play up to this point, as there might be a scenario where south was 100% sure to know east had the diamond ace. But that't moot. And I agree with David. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 09:04:09 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 09:04:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000001c5ae30$21062040$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5ae30$21062040$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4316A7E9.3090504@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ......... > >>Strangely enough, there was a second appeal along similar lines: >> >>board 23 - dealer S - all vul >> >> J10632 >> Q74 >> 7 >> A1043 >>74 KQ85 >>AK1052 863 >>Q10 A8643 >>9876 2 >> A9 >> J9 >> KJ952 >> KQJ5 >> >>The bidding is not given, nor the heighth of the actual spade >>contract, played by south. The last six cards are: >> >> 106 >> - >> 7 >> A43 >>- 8 >>102 - >>Q10 A8643 >>9876 - >> - >> - >> KJ9 >> KQJ >> >>sic! on the appeal form, I suppose west has 2 clubs less. >> >>East is on lead and has been thinking a long time, and south claims 5 >>tricks by saying "1 diamond for EW and I don't forget the trump". >> >>The Director ruled that it was not foolish to play the DiJ on a small >>diamond return, resulting in East making Sp8 on an uppercut of hearts. >>The Director gave EW one trick. > > > I don't see the "along similar lines", and I suppose you meant to say that > the Director gave EW one EXTRA trick (two of the six in all)? > indeed the TD gave EW 2 tricks (DQ and S8) > IMO (from the description) this is a clear cut case. The Director has no > responsibility for seeing by himself the flaws in a claim, but when the flaw > is as clear as here he must rule accordingly. Table result stands. > The AC ruled that to not play the DK on the small diamond would be irrational. TD ruling overturned, 5 tricks to NS. > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 1 09:58:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 1 10:01:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4316A7E9.3090504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 1. september 2005 09:04 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>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)? > > > > indeed the TD gave EW 2 tricks (DQ and S8) > > > 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. > > > > The AC ruled that to not play the DK on the small diamond would be > irrational. TD ruling overturned, 5 tricks to NS. If that is so then there are just two possibilities: 1: There must have been something in the past (not disclosed to us) that made declarer 100% certain in locating the AD with East (ref the comment from Harald) 2: The AC must have (temporarily?) gone insane. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 10:33:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 10:33:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Sent: 1. september 2005 09:04 >>To: blml >>Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 >> >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>>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)? >>> >> >>indeed the TD gave EW 2 tricks (DQ and S8) >> >> >>>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. >>> >> >>The AC ruled that to not play the DK on the small diamond would be >>irrational. TD ruling overturned, 5 tricks to NS. > > > If that is so then there are just two possibilities: > > 1: There must have been something in the past (not disclosed to us) that > made declarer 100% certain in locating the AD with East (ref the comment > from Harald) > I don't see why - since there is a singleton in dummy, no need to take a double finesse. Certainly to play the King in this position is the only possible logical line. Of course that does not imply it is irrational or merely careless to play the jack, but logical, certainly! > 2: The AC must have (temporarily?) gone insane. > Surely not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 1 11:34:01 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 1 11:36:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 1. september 2005 10:33 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>Sent: 1. september 2005 09:04 > >>To: blml > >>Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > >> > >>Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>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)? > >>> > >> > >>indeed the TD gave EW 2 tricks (DQ and S8) > >> > >> > >>>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. > >>> > >> > >>The AC ruled that to not play the DK on the small diamond would be > >>irrational. TD ruling overturned, 5 tricks to NS. > > > > > > If that is so then there are just two possibilities: > > > > 1: There must have been something in the past (not disclosed to us) that > > made declarer 100% certain in locating the AD with East (ref the comment > > from Harald) > > > > I don't see why - since there is a singleton in dummy, no need to take > a double finesse. Certainly to play the King in this position is the > only possible logical line. > Of course that does not imply it is irrational or merely careless to > play the jack, but logical, certainly! Yes, with the singleton in dummy that makes sense, but I shall still consider playing the Jack careless, not irrational. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 11:44:51 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 11:45:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>1: There must have been something in the past (not disclosed to us) that >>>made declarer 100% certain in locating the AD with East (ref the comment >>>from Harald) >>> >> >>I don't see why - since there is a singleton in dummy, no need to take >>a double finesse. Certainly to play the King in this position is the >>only possible logical line. >>Of course that does not imply it is irrational or merely careless to >>play the jack, but logical, certainly! > > > Yes, with the singleton in dummy that makes sense, but I shall still > consider playing the Jack careless, not irrational. > Sven, it does not harm you to change your final opinion for once - but in any case, allow me to present you with an indication as to the level of these players - they are from Lodz, and about to win a European Championship in which the bronze medal has gone to a team from Trondheim University comprised of Tor-Ove Reistad, ?smund Forfot, Karl Morten Lunna, Ivar Berg. I'm not of that level, and I would be very ashamed if I were to put in the Jack in this situation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 1 14:55:59 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Sep 1 14:58:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 3:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>Sent: 1. september 2005 09:04 > >>To: blml > >>Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > >> > >>Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>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)? > >>> > >> > >>indeed the TD gave EW 2 tricks (DQ and S8) > >> > >> > >>>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. > >>The AC ruled that to not play the DK on the small diamond would be > >>irrational. TD ruling overturned, 5 tricks to NS. > > If that is so then there are just two possibilities: > > > > 1: There must have been something in the past (not disclosed to us) that > > made declarer 100% certain in locating the AD with East (ref the comment > > from Harald) > I don't see why - since there is a singleton in dummy, no need to take > a double finesse. Certainly to play the King in this position is the > only possible logical line. Try placing DAxx in the W and DQxxx with the C6 in the E and then notice the effect of inserting the J. The question is not whether he needs a D trick. He does not. The question is whether there is a possible lie of the unknown cards where it does not cost to lose a D. As noted above, there is. regards roger pewick > Of course that does not imply it is irrational or merely careless to > play the jack, but logical, certainly! > > > 2: The AC must have (temporarily?) gone insane. > > > > Surely not. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 16:34:09 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 16:35:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 106 >>>>>> - >>>>>> 7 >>>>>> A43 >>>>>>- 8 >>>>>>102 - >>>>>>Q10 A8643 >>>>>>9876 - >>>>>> - >>>>>> - >>>>>> KJ9 >>>>>> KQJ >>>>>> > >>I don't see why - since there is a singleton in dummy, no need to take >>a double finesse. Certainly to play the King in this position is the >>only possible logical line. > > > Try placing DAxx in the W and DQxxx with the C6 in the E and then notice the > effect of inserting the J. > > The question is not whether he needs a D trick. He does not. The question > is whether there is a possible lie of the unknown cards where it does not > cost to lose a D. As noted above, there is. > But that is not what he is looking for. Indeed you have found a line in which it does not cost a trick to put in the DJ. But it is easy to see that it never costs more than the trick that he is always losing, to put in the DK. And it is equally clear that there are ways he can lose more than one trick if he puts in the DJ. So I really don't see your point. If the player analyses the position, there is no way (IMO) that he's going to play the jack. Only if he does not analyse (thinking it does not matter anyway) can I see him putting in the jack. That is careless play for some (including me on a bad day), but I agree with the AC that it is irrational behavious for a player about to win a European championship. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Sep 1 17:42:30 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu Sep 1 17:45:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <1FcSDyCS0ZFDFwI6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4314419B.7030409@hdw.be> <539c0af28932ab42fe01d0f9913ff5e6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <1FcSDyCS0ZFDFwI6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3eceb782e57132ea4c9a3dcdaa2f9a5a@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 31 Aug 2005, at 13:05, David Stevenson wrote: > 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. Even if so, it seems quite an overbid. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 1 17:48:47 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Sep 1 17:51:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000001c5ae30$21062040$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316A7E9.3090504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002101c5af0c$a49abd80$459868d5@jeushtlj> [Herman de Wael] > The AC ruled that to not play the DK on > the small diamond would be irrational. > TD ruling overturned, 5 tricks to NS. [nige1] At first sight, this ruling again hinges on how you interpret "irrational". The director interpreted this to include "normal unthinking play", which is probably what the rule-makers intended. A pity that is not what they wrote. The committee interpreted the word more literally to mean "lacking sufficient thought". Incidentally, The committee ruling may also incur Kojak's wrath as they demonstrated their collective expertise ("For us it would be automatic to rise with DK"). However, declarer's claim started "One diamond for EW". This is unambiguous. Declarer didn't specify DQ or DA. Hence, IMO, he should be held to his concession. In which case he can suffer a trump promotion; so the ruling should be in favour of defenders. After all, in this case, existing law appears adequate. For most cases, however, it does need tightening up. From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Thu Sep 1 09:16:03 2005 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu Sep 1 18:14:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] In-Reply-To: References: <200508302014.j7UKEkXh022097@transit.cfa.harvard.edu> <4315236E.6020200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In message , Roger Pewick writes > >----- 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. >> > [SNIP] > >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. > How the alert card is handled varies from player to player. The three main (legal) styles that I regularly witness are; 1] Hold the alert card somewhere between the bidding cards in front of you and the board in the centre of the table for several seconds and then replace it. 2] Wave the alert card under the noses of each of the opponents and then replace it. 3] Place the alert card on the table in a similar location to [1]. It is replaced *after* the next player has called and before calling yourself. Looks like the offender follows style [3]. >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? Which law would that be? In all the face-to-face games I play in, everybody alerts their partner's calls. Are you thinking of self-alerts? That doesn't apply here as it is North alerting South's call. >regards >roger pewick > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 1 19:25:23 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 1 19:28:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c5af1a$22b0cdb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Sven, it does not harm you to change your final opinion for once - but > in any case, allow me to present you with an indication as to the > level of these players - they are from Lodz, and about to win a > European Championship in which the bronze medal has gone to a team > from Trondheim University comprised of Tor-Ove Reistad, ?smund Forfot, > Karl Morten Lunna, Ivar Berg. > > I'm not of that level, and I would be very ashamed if I were to put in > the Jack in this situation. And I would have been extremely ashamed if I had played a small spade from dummy to the spade lead from LHO in one of the last tricks of the last board and thereby lost whatever championship I was competing for whether it is Bermuda Bowl or a local club event. Let us just recognize that such things do happen even with the best players. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 19:29:25 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 19:30:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <002101c5af0c$a49abd80$459868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000001c5ae30$21062040$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316A7E9.3090504@hdw.be> <002101c5af0c$a49abd80$459868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <43173A75.2030709@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Herman de Wael] > >>The AC ruled that to not play the DK on >>the small diamond would be irrational. >>TD ruling overturned, 5 tricks to NS. > > > [nige1] > At first sight, this ruling again hinges on how > you interpret "irrational". The director > interpreted this to include "normal unthinking > play", which is probably what the rule-makers > intended. A pity that is not what they wrote. The > committee interpreted the word more literally to > mean "lacking sufficient thought". > I think we should interpret "normal" as "likely to happen". For me on a tuesday night "normal unthinking play" is likely to happen. But for a player, concentrated on winning a European Championship, it is not so likely that he will put on the jack without thinking. > Incidentally, The committee ruling may also incur > Kojak's wrath as they demonstrated their > collective expertise ("For us it would be > automatic to rise with DK"). > I don't read that in any write-up I saw. Possibly because there is no write-up. I don't remember how I told the story to you, but what I remember from someone telling me the appeal, they said "no-one would play like that", not "we would not play like that". > However, declarer's claim started "One diamond for > EW". This is unambiguous. Declarer didn't specify > DQ or DA. Hence, IMO, he should be held to his > concession. In which case he can suffer a trump > promotion; so the ruling should be in favour of > defenders. > That is just silly. If I say "1 diamond for you" when holding KQJT9872, I don't mean that you can have the 4 on my 2. Again, I'm attacking your argument, not the result of your reasoning. > After all, in this case, existing law appears > adequate. For most cases, however, it does need > tightening up. > I fail to see how this can be the conclusion of your criticizing the decision of this AC in the same post. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 19:33:02 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 19:33:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000601c5af1a$22b0cdb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c5af1a$22b0cdb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43173B4E.9090404@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > Let us just recognize that such things do happen even with the best players. > Yes Sven, but that is NOT the way we judge claims. We know that players do irrational things sometimes, yet we do not rule every claim faulty because of that. So let's just keep that sort of arguments out of discussions on claim laws. If you start likening the putting of this jack with my usual level of play on a tuesday night - you are showing the world that you do NOT know how claims are handled. Normal and irrational are judged according to the level of the players. An error that Herman would not do in real life is an irrational play for a player at the top of a European University Championship, and that is what the law looks for. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mustikka at charter.net Thu Sep 1 19:50:06 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu Sep 1 19:52:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000601c5af1a$22b0cdb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43173B4E.9090404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003201c5af1d$96eca250$bd150947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" (snipped) > > Normal and irrational are judged according to the level of the players. An > error that Herman would not do in real life is an irrational play for a > player at the top of a European University Championship, and that is what > the law looks for. I would like to comment on this part only. One must remember that youth is a factor, and with youth comes lack of years or decades of experience handling oneself and maintaining focus at exciting situations. If these players were experienced top class players, it is one thing. Winning a college championship is another, it does not make the players a level comparable to Bermuda Bowl as have been mentioned here, Also, the field was composed of other college students; a win over other college students (an honor, of course, please don't think I am trying to reduce the prestige of the win) is not the same as a win over the world's top players. If they were that level players, they would play in Bermuda Bowl. And maybe one day they will. But for now, they are not that level of player. From schoderb at msn.com Thu Sep 1 20:05:51 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Sep 1 20:08:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000601c5af1a$22b0cdb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43173B4E.9090404@hdw.be> <003201c5af1d$96eca250$bd150947@DFYXB361> Message-ID: I promised myself not to get involved in this thread, but can't stand it! the footnote reads "......'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational..." that intentionally takes the word irrational beyond the making of careless or inferior plays (normal for any particular level of play) and puts it where no-one, regardless of level of play, would make such a play. However, some non-native speaking savants, some self styled gurus, and professed professors of English have decided that for them rationality has a position on the continuum of careful, careless, inferior, FOR THE CLASS OF PLAYER INVOLVED (sorry Grattan, I'm not shouting, only stressing) and will go to any lengths to make their case. Nigel need not concern himself about incurring my wrath -- I know what the intent of these words is --- so for me this whole topic is really just silly. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > > (snipped) > > > > Normal and irrational are judged according to the level of the players. > > An > > error that Herman would not do in real life is an irrational play for a > > player at the top of a European University Championship, and that is > > what > > the law looks for. > > I would like to comment on this part only. One must remember that youth > is > a factor, and with youth comes lack of years or decades of experience > handling oneself and maintaining focus at exciting situations. If these > players were experienced top class players, it is one thing. Winning a > college championship is another, it does not make the players a level > comparable to Bermuda Bowl as have been mentioned here, Also, the field > was > composed of other college students; a win over other college students (an > honor, of course, please don't think I am trying to reduce the prestige of > the win) is not the same as a win over the world's top players. If they > were > that level players, they would play in Bermuda Bowl. And maybe one day > they > will. But for now, they are not that level of player. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 1 20:42:02 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Sep 1 20:44:44 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 Wright" To: Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] > In message , Roger Pewick > writes > > > >----- 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. > >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? Which law would that be? In all the face-to-face games I play in, > everybody alerts their partner's calls. L73B1 regards roger pewick > Are you thinking of self-alerts? That doesn't apply here as it is North > alerting South's call. > > >regards > >roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 1 20:45:39 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 1 20:48:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43173B4E.9090404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c5af25$593196c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > Let us just recognize that such things do happen even with the best > players. > > > > Yes Sven, but that is NOT the way we judge claims. We know that > players do irrational things sometimes, yet we do not rule every claim > faulty because of that. Agreed, I mentioned this because I do not accept class of player alone a guarantee against careless, inferior or even irrational play, nor do I automatically classify a particular play to be irrational unless it is irrational in the actual situation independent of what a player may have noticed (or not noticed) earlier during that play. When a player claims I expect his claim statement to be in terms easily understood by his opponents and to include *everything* that is important for a continued play to succeed according to the claim statement. If there is an important fact he does not mention (or otherwise indicates that he is aware of) I rule on the claim under an assumption that he is unaware of that fact. "If he doesn't mention it he is probably not aware of the importance of it and could easily fail if he were to play it out". Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 1 20:56:57 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Sep 1 20:59:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 106 > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> 7 > >>>>>> A43 > >>>>>>- 8 > >>>>>>102 - > >>>>>>Q10 A8643 > >>>>>>9876 - > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> KJ9 > >>>>>> KQJ > >>>>>> > > > >>I don't see why - since there is a singleton in dummy, no need to take > >>a double finesse. Certainly to play the King in this position is the > >>only possible logical line. > > > > > > Try placing DAxx in the W and DQxxx with the C6 in the E and then notice the > > effect of inserting the J. > > > > The question is not whether he needs a D trick. He does not. The question > > is whether there is a possible lie of the unknown cards where it does not > > cost to lose a D. As noted above, there is. > > > > But that is not what he is looking for. Indeed you have found a line > in which it does not cost a trick to put in the DJ. But it is easy to > see that it never costs more than the trick that he is always losing, > to put in the DK. And it is equally clear that there are ways he can > lose more than one trick if he puts in the DJ. > > So I really don't see your point. If the player analyses the position, > there is no way (IMO) that he's going to play the jack. Only if he > does not analyse (thinking it does not matter anyway) can I see him > putting in the jack. That is careless play for some (including me on a > bad day), but I agree with the AC that it is irrational behavious for > a player about to win a European championship. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL I suspect that Kojak has expressed my sentiments. regards roger pewick From blml at blakjak.com Thu Sep 1 21:16:53 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 1 21:20:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <002901c5ae3b$70d46b80$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050827163640.02b0ae10@pop.starpower.net> <002901c5ae3b$70d46b80$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel & Pamela wrote >>I do think the burden of proof is on those >>who advocate mind reading, and at the moment I cannot think of any >>rule where it is a good idea. > >As for 'burden of proof' - it is usually on the prosecution. The defence >can simply say, 'not proved' and if the judge agrees, walk away. Why should >Bridge be different? What has this got to do with something where there is no prosecution involved? We are talking of which one of two views is correct. Where on earth does a prosecution come into it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Sep 1 21:19:18 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 1 21:22:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Cards from the wrong board In-Reply-To: References: <61qRvTCJzZFDFwr2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <9hVQaAg2Q1FDFwLD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Laval Dubreuil wrote >Thx David for your reply. > >As to board 1, I know that 17D deals only with substituted calls. >But how can substituted calls be allowed when a hand is already >faced up ? I would assign artificial scores. It may be a bad Law, quite possibly, but in my view a TD's job is to follow the Law, not to invent something different. If the correct hand is substituted, the auction is the same, the play could continue without difficulty. What is wrong with this? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Sep 1 21:22:01 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 1 21:25:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <4316A7E9.3090504@hdw.be> <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: 1. september 2005 09:04 >> To: blml >> Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>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)? >> > >> >> indeed the TD gave EW 2 tricks (DQ and S8) >> >> > 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. >> > >> >> The AC ruled that to not play the DK on the small diamond would be >> irrational. TD ruling overturned, 5 tricks to NS. > >If that is so then there are just two possibilities: > >1: There must have been something in the past (not disclosed to us) that >made declarer 100% certain in locating the AD with East (ref the comment >from Harald) > >2: The AC must have (temporarily?) gone insane. No doubt the latter. This looks the easiest case BLML have seen for some considerable 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 Thu Sep 1 21:23:27 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 1 21:27:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Sven Pran wrote: > >>>> >>>>1: There must have been something in the past (not disclosed to us) that >>>>made declarer 100% certain in locating the AD with East (ref the comment >>>>from Harald) >>>> >>> >>>I don't see why - since there is a singleton in dummy, no need to take >>>a double finesse. Certainly to play the King in this position is the >>>only possible logical line. >>>Of course that does not imply it is irrational or merely careless to >>>play the jack, but logical, certainly! >> Yes, with the singleton in dummy that makes sense, but I shall >>still >> consider playing the Jack careless, not irrational. >> > >Sven, it does not harm you to change your final opinion for once - but >in any case, allow me to present you with an indication as to the level >of these players - they are from Lodz, and about to win a European >Championship in which the bronze medal has gone to a team from >Trondheim University comprised of Tor-Ove Reistad, ?smund Forfot, Karl >Morten Lunna, Ivar Berg. > >I'm not of that level, and I would be very ashamed if I were to put in >the Jack in this situation. So what? It's a careless play, and we are all ashamed of our careless plays, but we all do them. If declarer had realised this he would have said it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Sep 1 21:25:33 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 1 21:29:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >So I really don't see your point. If the player analyses the position, >there is no way (IMO) that he's going to play the jack. Exactly - and if he had analysed the position he would have included it as part of his claim statement. I am a great believer in claims, but giving declarer this one is a disgrace. You know he had not made the analysis when he made no mention of it in his claim statement. A dreadful decision by the AC. -- 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 Sep 1 21:32:25 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 1 21:36:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Sitting on defence In-Reply-To: <431520A5.8050107@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508291501.j7TF1Kuv029485@cfa.harvard.edu> <431520A5.8050107@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote >> 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.) We are talking UI. The Law on UI says that a call/play is illegal if ........... If and only if the call/play is illegal then you adjust, using L12C2 or L12C3 as appropriate. You have to decide whether the call/play was illegal - and that's like pregnant, either it was or it was not. So, it is not the language of L12C3 that disallows this type of ruling, but the language of L16A. -- 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 Sep 1 21:36:04 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 1 21:40:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Phoenix in the dike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >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? Yes. Possibly not outside North America, but since an LA is a call that some people would consider the fact that some Committee members would bid 2S makes it an LA. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Thu Sep 1 21:41:51 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 1 21:45:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Attack of the Clowns In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050815205445.039650a0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 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 This is the fourth separate hand with a different subject in this thread. While I know that many people do not use threading software, and I am not allowed to say what I think of that idea, please make sure that threads are kept separate for those of us who do. I find the hands given by Richard often interesting, so I am loth not to carry on reading this thread. But I think it will be too confusing. -- 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 Thu Sep 1 22:07:52 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Sep 1 22:10:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050901160259.02bf8900@pop.starpower.net> At 10:34 AM 9/1/05, Herman wrote: >Roger Pewick wrote: > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 106 >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> 7 >>>>>>> A43 >>>>>>>- 8 >>>>>>>102 - >>>>>>>Q10 A8643 >>>>>>>9876 - >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> KJ9 >>>>>>> KQJ >> >>>I don't see why - since there is a singleton in dummy, no need to take >>>a double finesse. Certainly to play the King in this position is the >>>only possible logical line. >> >>Try placing DAxx in the W and DQxxx with the C6 in the E and then >>notice the >>effect of inserting the J. >>The question is not whether he needs a D trick. He does not. The >>question >>is whether there is a possible lie of the unknown cards where it does not >>cost to lose a D. As noted above, there is. > >But that is not what he is looking for. Indeed you have found a line >in which it does not cost a trick to put in the DJ. But it is easy to >see that it never costs more than the trick that he is always losing, >to put in the DK. And it is equally clear that there are ways he can >lose more than one trick if he puts in the DJ. > >So I really don't see your point. If the player analyses the position, >there is no way (IMO) that he's going to play the jack. Only if he >does not analyse (thinking it does not matter anyway) can I see him >putting in the jack. That is careless play for some (including me on a >bad day), but I agree with the AC that it is irrational behavious for >a player about to win a European championship. I strongly disagree with the AC. Putting in the jack is clearly *not* irrational for the class of player who, when he claimed, failed to notice that he is down two whenever West holds the DA, regardless of who has the DQ, regardless of which diamond honor he plays, regardless of how exalted a championship he is about to win. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 22:09:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 22:10:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000701c5af25$593196c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c5af25$593196c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4317600E.9030501@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>>Let us just recognize that such things do happen even with the best >> >>players. >> >>Yes Sven, but that is NOT the way we judge claims. We know that >>players do irrational things sometimes, yet we do not rule every claim >>faulty because of that. > > > Agreed, I mentioned this because I do not accept class of player alone a > guarantee against careless, inferior or even irrational play, nor do I > automatically classify a particular play to be irrational unless it is > irrational in the actual situation independent of what a player may have > noticed (or not noticed) earlier during that play. > This sentence lacks clarity, and I also believe it is not correct. But let's pass on. > When a player claims I expect his claim statement to be in terms easily > understood by his opponents and to include *everything* that is important > for a continued play to succeed according to the claim statement. If there > is an important fact he does not mention (or otherwise indicates that he is > aware of) I rule on the claim under an assumption that he is unaware of that > fact. > And you would be wrong in so doing. If a player claims in trick one, you do NOT assume that he hasn't counted trumps to 13, even when he fails to mention this. In the DK case, you do not rule that he must play the four on the return of the small diamond, simply because he failed to say that he would put the king on it. Indeed, you do NOT rule that he puts the small trump on the return of the S8 because he failed to mention that he would take such a trick with the large one. And so on. You might say "but those things are too clear" and you'd be right. Which all goes to show that your "rule" that you assume a claimer to be unaware of everything he does not mention is a wrong one. You must judge each case on its merits, and general rules such as the ones you propose are non-existent. You might as well write down as a rule that Sven rules against anything Sven does not rule in favor of. > "If he doesn't mention it he is probably not aware of the importance of it > and could easily fail if he were to play it out". > This one is a little better - you use the word "probably", so you will allow counter-evidence. Now re-read your first part and apply it: if he does not mention that he shall play the king on a small diamond return he is probably not aware of the importance of that return. Maybe he never imagined that a small diamond might be returned. That does not mean he won't put the king on a diamond if it is returned! You should judge that one on its own merits, not on basis of it not being mentioned. I agree that in some cases, maybe most, the fact that something is not mentioned is an indication that the claimer does not know that it is important. But I do not regard not mentioning which card will be played to every single possible return as a proof that a claimer will get a particular case wrong. I judge this one on its merits. If a small diamond is returned, claimer will not fail to think for a small while, will not fail to come up with the right solution. I rule it is irrational for him to play too quickly and put the jack (or the four) without thinking. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 22:13:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 22:14:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431760E9.7090307@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > So what? It's a careless play, and we are all ashamed of our careless > plays, but we all do them. > > If declarer had realised this he would have said it. > Yes indeed, if he had realized that a small diamond might be returned, he would have said what to do to it. But he has not stated what he would do on a heart, club, diamond or spade return either, nor what he'd play on the ace of diamonds. You cannot use the fact that he did not say it as evidence that he would not know what to do. You simply cannot. And you should not rule against him on that reason alone. The decision as to careless or irrational must be made on the situation alone. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 22:17:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 22:17:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> So I really don't see your point. If the player analyses the position, >> there is no way (IMO) that he's going to play the jack. > > > Exactly - and if he had analysed the position he would have included > it as part of his claim statement. > > I am a great believer in claims, but giving declarer this one is a > disgrace. You know he had not made the analysis when he made no mention > of it in his claim statement. > Indeed that's true. But can you conclude from that that he won't make the analysis when the card IS returned? I agree that he did not do the analysis for each and every one of the 12 possible returns. Why not rule that he would put the small spade from the table under the eight? He hasn't mentioned that one, has he? Which just goes to show that you cannot use his non-mentioning as a basis on which to rule against him. > A dreadful decision by the AC. > That's a horrible thing to be saying! This is one of those statements by which David says to the world - anything I say is right and even if three people together decide otherwise, they must be wrong. You know what I think of that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 1 22:18:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 1 22:19:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050901160259.02bf8900@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050901160259.02bf8900@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <43176210.2050200@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:34 AM 9/1/05, Herman wrote: > > > > I strongly disagree with the AC. Putting in the jack is clearly *not* > irrational for the class of player who, when he claimed, failed to > notice that he is down two whenever West holds the DA, regardless of who > has the DQ, regardless of which diamond honor he plays, regardless of > how exalted a championship he is about to win. > > It's really funny how a bunch of players - not lawmen, players - can agree that this is the right ruling, and yet you guys seem to believe you know it all better. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Sep 1 22:52:48 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Sep 1 22:48:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43176210.2050200@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > > I strongly disagree with the AC. Putting in the jack is clearly *not* > > irrational for the class of player who, when he claimed, failed to > > notice that he is down two whenever West holds the DA, regardless of who > > has the DQ, regardless of which diamond honor he plays, regardless of > > how exalted a championship he is about to win. Summed up nicely. The claim statement clearly shows the player was unaware of the hazard, and intended to just give up a diamond trick to whichever opponent happened to win it. > It's really funny how a bunch of players - not lawmen, players - can > agree that this is the right ruling, and yet you guys seem to believe > you know it all better. An obvious "two tricks" as the table director, and a pretty clear-cut "result stands" in the committee, if you ask me. I would return the deposit - since there IS an argument that the king is the technically correct play, and that play does work, so had there been no claim, there's a significant chance declarer would lose only 1 trick - but the law says careless lines go against claimer. Yes, sometimes committees do get rulings wrong, especially if the members of the committee aren't familiar with what the laws say (I don't know if the members of this committe are or not.) GRB From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 1 23:23:14 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 1 23:26:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4317600E.9030501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > > When a player claims I expect his claim statement to be in > > terms easily understood by his opponents and to include > > *everything* that is important for a continued play to > > succeed according to the claim statement. If there is an > > important fact he does not mention (or otherwise indicates > > that he is aware of) I rule on the claim under an assumption > > that he is unaware of that fact. > > > > And you would be wrong in so doing. If a player claims in trick one, > you do NOT assume that he hasn't counted trumps to 13, even when he > fails to mention this. > > In the DK case, you do not rule that he must play the four on the > return of the small diamond, simply because he failed to say that he > would put the king on it. > Indeed, you do NOT rule that he puts the small trump on the return of > the S8 because he failed to mention that he would take such a trick > with the large one. And so on. You might say "but those things are too > clear" and you'd be right. Which all goes to show that your "rule" > that you assume a claimer to be unaware of everything he does not > mention is a wrong one. You must judge each case on its merits, and > general rules such as the ones you propose are non-existent. You might > as well write down as a rule that Sven rules against anything Sven > does not rule in favor of. Please do me a favor and read what I write before commenting like this. I used the term "important fact" with emphasis on the word *important*. Probably (in order to avoid any misunderstanding from you) I should instead have written "important fact where logical alternatives could exist" or some wording to that effect? Most of your samples above appear to me to fall into a category of play that is irrational regardless of the class of player. > > > "If he doesn't mention it he is probably not aware of the importance > > of it and could easily fail if he were to play it out". > > > > This one is a little better - you use the word "probably", so you will > allow counter-evidence. > > Now re-read your first part and apply it: if he does not mention that > he shall play the king on a small diamond return he is probably not > aware of the importance of that return. Maybe he never imagined that a > small diamond might be returned. That does not mean he won't put the > king on a diamond if it is returned! You should judge that one on its > own merits, not on basis of it not being mentioned. > > I agree that in some cases, maybe most, the fact that something is not > mentioned is an indication that the claimer does not know that it is > important. But I do not regard not mentioning which card will be > played to every single possible return as a proof that a claimer will > get a particular case wrong. I do not say that he will get it wrong; I say that he could get it wrong. > > I judge this one on its merits. If a small diamond is returned, > claimer will not fail to think for a small while, will not fail to > come up with the right solution. I rule it is irrational for him to > play too quickly and put the jack (or the four) without thinking. I agree that after due consideration he will eventually find out that playing the Jack is irrational. And if he really considered this possibility before claiming he would be aware of the importance and should have mentioned it. Not mentioning is a strong indication that he is unaware of the danger and will carelessly select the wrong alternative. Remember that the correct procedure when the claimer has stated his line of play is that opponents' cards are all faced before they present their objection(s) against the claim. As all cards at this time is known to the claimer he is no longer permitted to analyze and come up with any new (successful) line of play not explicitly mentioned in his claim statement if there is any other (unsuccessful) line of play available as a logical alternative that is not in conflict with his original claim statement. So if he doesn't foresee and specify his line of play for every alternative play his opponents can make he had better delay his claim until he has full control of the remaining play. In this case I judge playing the Jack to be careless and possible because he apparently has not sufficiently analyzed the situation with a small diamond return and how to handle that. Sven From toddz at att.net Fri Sep 2 00:05:51 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Sep 2 00:08:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43177B3F.6080403@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Indeed that's true. But can you conclude from that that he won't make > the analysis when the card IS returned? I agree that he did not do the > analysis for each and every one of the 12 possible returns. Why not rule > that he would put the small spade from the table under the eight? He > hasn't mentioned that one, has he? You've used this argument before on matters of poor claims. It didn't persuade then. As a matter of opinion I think it should be abandoned already; however, > Which just goes to show that you cannot use his non-mentioning as a > basis on which to rule against him. as a matter of law I'm anxious to know which ones support that sentence. After a claim, claimer is protected by law against making illegal and irrational plays. It is only the statements he makes at the time of the claim that protects him against careless or inferior plays. The AC in Rotterdam decided that not inserting the K was irrational. Responders in this thread overwhelmingly opine that there's nothing irrational about the J. By your defense of the AC and your horrible treatment of Sven and David, I have assumed whose opinion you value most, but could we keep legal fact on the cut and dry? -Todd From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 1 20:26:11 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Sep 2 00:55:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c5af47$f8819d70$f7a2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > 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. > +=+ I don't know who is arguing what here, but I did understand the Director was called to the table when the claim was made? The claims laws only provide for the Director to be called when there is a claim if it is disputed. The Director who is called should assume therefore that the claim is disputed and proceed on that basis. Calling the Director is indicative of dispute. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 01:07:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 01:09:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] In-Reply-To: References: <200508302014.j7UKEkXh022097@transit.cfa.harvard.edu> <4315236E.6020200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <691B2C93-4302-4F9C-B394-805617D88C9B@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 1, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: >>> 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? Which law would that be? In all the face-to-face games I play in, >> everybody alerts their partner's calls. >> > > L73B1 I figured that's what you meant. :-) You've misread it. That law doesn't say you can't alert, it says you can't use an alert *to communicate with partner*. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 01:27:16 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 2 01:30:04 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> <691B2C93-4302-4F9C-B394-805617D88C9B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 18:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] > > On Sep 1, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > >>> 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? Which law would that be? In all the face-to-face games I play in, > >> everybody alerts their partner's calls. > >> > > > > L73B1 > > I figured that's what you meant. :-) > You've misread it. >That law doesn't say you can't alert, it says you > can't use an alert *to communicate with partner*. alerts are a system of communication. Communication is what alerts do. When done in the presence of partner the communication is made to partner- without regard as to what the player's intent is. alerts/ non-alerts are not a call or play and hence players are by law not permitted to use them. regards roger pewick From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 2 01:43:04 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Sep 2 01:45:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000e01c5ada5$ddb0ae80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c5af4e$ec3540b0$f306e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:00 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 >> +=+ Someone wrote: >> " 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." >> I am not sure what the point is that is being made here. But note that there is no requirement in Law 69 for the player withdrawing his acquiescence to discover for himself that he has acquiesced in loss of a trick his side had actually won, or which, in the Director's judgement, could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Law 69 requires only that the facts are as the law stipulates. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 2 02:41:03 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Sep 2 02:43:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000601c5af1a$22b0cdb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43173B4E.9090404@hdw.be><003201c5af1d$96eca250$bd150947@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000601c5af57$141f2c50$1308e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" ; "raija" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 (sorry Grattan, I'm not shouting, only stressing) < +=+ I have not read any of this thread. Not any, other than the few words above which suddenly hit me in the eye as I was deleting the subject.. I don't believe shouting achieves anything, not anything at all, and I don't know what there is to shout about. ~ G ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 02:52:23 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 2 02:58:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000201c5af47$f8819d70$f7a2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 13:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > 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: "Roger Pewick" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:30 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > > > > > 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. > > > +=+ I don't know who is arguing what here, but I did > understand the Director was called to the table when > the claim was made? The claims laws only provide for > the Director to be called when there is a claim if it > is disputed. The Director who is called should assume > therefore that the claim is disputed and proceed on > that basis. Calling the Director is indicative of dispute. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Someone was asserting that the claim ws contested- to the point that the director got it wrong; and in addition the players were entitled for the ruling to be 'made right' so long as the correction period had not expired. According to the facts [a] there ws no ruling [b]whether or not the claim was contested there was agreement of the players that the claim was good [c] whether or not it was in fact good there was acquiescence [due to the agreement that the claim was good] and play of the next board. And to the more general point. It is ludicrous for a player to make an objection- an objection that is indeed invalid, and for that matter not find one that was valid- and so obtain a ruling. And after the next board starts a valid objection is found. And since there was a possible new objection [in fact that was valid] then obtain a reversal of the L70 ruling under L70 for an objection not raised until after** the next hand.. **=it is quite a different matter to appeal based on a valid objection that was ruled invalid. regards roger pewick From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 2 04:12:02 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 2 04:15:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP><4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be><6.1.1.1.0.20050901160259.02bf8900@pop.starpower.net> <43176210.2050200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003901c5af63$b5a771c0$029868d5@jeushtlj> [Herman De Wael] > It's really funny how a bunch of players > - not lawmen, players - can agree that > this is the right ruling, and yet you > guys seem to believe you know it all > better. [nige1] No mere player should be surprised that top law-makers and directors imagine that they know Bridge-Law better than he does especially given its obfuscation and fragmentation in orange-books, white-books, minutes, interpretations and so on. The game would be more attractive and enjoyable if the law were less controversial. That is simpler, clearer (... continued page 94) Here is a similar but simpler test case that might distinguish Herman's position from that of some of his detractors. Suppose that Declarer on lead, in this two card-ending, claims the rest of the tricks with no further explanation ... LHO S:KT Dummy S:AQ RHO S:J H:A Declarer S:32 Assuming that the bidding and play provide no clear indication, should the director assume that declarer intends to take the winning spade finesse? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 2 04:19:50 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 2 04:22:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Old-fashioned Standard American In-Reply-To: <200508311450.j7VEot1X029830@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508311450.j7VEot1X029830@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4317B6C6.1090407@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > 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. Are you sure the decision is based on the batter's intention and not on the position of his hands, feet, and bat? But I agree, irrelevant for bridge regardless. We are discussing which rules are best for _this_ game, and I hope we agree that each rule needs to be considered on its merits. > 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. I didn't realize there was an earlier version of L72B1, at least not one with anything like the same effect. (There is L23, of course, which L72B1 makes general.) In any case, the placement of Laws seems to me more a reflection of history than of logic, and there are other Laws in the Proprieties section that undoubtedly have enforceable effects. I don't see why L72B1 should be different, and I don't think we can deduce anything from its placement. > 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. I disagree that "we err" in such an application. It seems straightforward and correct to me. As I wrote, I'm distressed to disagree with Eric but do nevertheless. > 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. I think it depends on just how it "worked out." Maybe this is what Eric means by "clearly innocent." If the bidder has a decent hand, bars partner, punts 3NT, and finds a top, nobody adjusts the score. But if the bidder has a weak hand and bars partner, who otherwise would have bid to a hopeless contract... well, that's a different matter. From: "Noel & Pamela" > 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? Perhaps "burden of proof" wasn't the best phrase. I was using it in reference to what the Laws ought to say, not in reference to how they ought to be applied in a particular case. Probably what I wanted was something closer to "weight of evidence" or "lessons of history." We have seen many instances where rules involving intent have worked badly, so it's reasonable to show some skepticism towards all such rules. That doesn't mean such rules are inevitably wrong; only that the reasons for having them need to be very strong. And in any case, as David reminded us, the debate is about _score adjustment_ rules, analogous to civil law, not criminal law. I think nearly everyone will agree that intent is important in conduct cases. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 2 04:22:25 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 2 04:25:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <200508311514.j7VFEp7C001985@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508311514.j7VFEp7C001985@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4317B761.7090105@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > 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". I am astonished at how certain everyone seems to be of their positions. I don't think it is possible to rule on this case without knowing the earlier play. And I don't think it depends at all on "class of player." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 2 04:33:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Sep 2 04:35:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000601c5af57$141f2c50$1308e150@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: William Schoder (words read by Grattan): >>(sorry Grattan, I'm not shouting, only stressing) Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I have not read any of this thread. Not any, other >than the few words above which suddenly hit me in >the eye as I was deleting the subject.. I don't believe >shouting achieves anything, not anything at all, and I >don't know what there is to shout about. > ~ G ~ +=+ William Schoder (complete words): >>I promised myself not to get involved in this thread, >>but can't stand it! >> >>the footnote reads "......'normal' includes play that >>would be careless or inferior for the class of player >>involved, but not irrational..." that intentionally >>takes the word irrational beyond the making of careless >>or inferior plays (normal for any particular level of >>play) and puts it where no-one, regardless of level of >>play, would make such a play. >> >>However, some non-native speaking savants, some self >>styled gurus, and professed professors of English have >>decided that for them rationality has a position on the >>continuum of careful, careless, inferior, FOR THE CLASS OF >>PLAYER INVOLVED (sorry Grattan, I'm not shouting, only >>stressing) and will go to any lengths to make their case. >> >>Nigel need not concern himself about incurring my wrath >>-- I know what the intent of these words is --- so for me >>this whole topic is really just silly. >> >>Kojak Richard Hills: While I agree with the philosophy expressed by Kojak, I note that it was the savants, gurus and professors on the WBF Laws Committee which rewrote the footnote, so Kojak's argument falls to the ground as he is quoting the repealed version of the footnote. I am not shouting, merely stressing "Beware of the leopard" when even a senior member of the WBF LC and ACBL LC is either unaware that the footnote has been amended, or has forgotten that the footnote has been amended. WBF Laws Committee minutes 30th August 2000: >>>The Committee considered the possible interpretations of >>>the footnote to Laws 69,70 and 71. It was agreed that >>>the footnote has not been worded clearly. The Committee >>>invites the copyright holders to change this footnote >>>when next printing the laws, so that it will read: "For >>>the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes >>>play that would be careless or inferior, but not >>>irrational, for the class of player involved." >>> >>>In the meantime the correct interpretation of the >>>current footnote is in accordance with the revision of >>>the wording to be made. WBF Laws Committee minutes 28th October 2001: >>>As a matter arising from the minutes of 30th August >>>2000, item 5, the Chief Tournament Director, Mr. >>>Schoder, enquired as to the intention of the committee >>>that irrationality is to be judged by the class of >>>player involved. The committee confirmed this is so >>>since the ratification of those minutes. It was added >>>that the assessment of what is "irrational" in this >>>respect is a matter for Directors and Appeals >>>Committees. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 07:09:18 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 07:12:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] In-Reply-To: References: <200508302014.j7UKEkXh022097@transit.cfa.harvard.edu> <4315236E.6020200@cfa.harvard.edu> <691B2C93-4302-4F9C-B394-805617D88C9B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <82ED28F0-3F57-4E14-94FE-809FBD95743D@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 1, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > alerts are a system of communication. Communication is what alerts > do. You are required by law to communicate the meaning of your side's calls to opponents. *That* is what alerts do - if opponents ask for an explanation. That partner hears the communication is perhaps unfortunate, but the law says that the conveyance of extraneous information may not in itself be illegal - it is *use* of that information that's illegal. > When done in the presence of partner the communication is made to > partner- > without regard as to what the player's intent is. alerts/ non- > alerts are > not a call or play and hence players are by law not permitted to > use them. Yeah, you said that before. Still doesn't make you right. :-) I gather that you *never* alert in f2f bridge - is that correct? From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 2 09:11:26 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:12:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000201c5af47$f8819d70$f7a2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4317FB1E.6060907@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > Someone was asserting that the claim ws contested- to the point that the > director got it wrong; and in addition the players were entitled for the > ruling to be 'made right' so long as the correction period had not expired. > > According to the facts [a] there ws no ruling [b]whether or not the claim > was contested there was agreement of the players that the claim was good > [c] whether or not it was in fact good there was acquiescence [due to the > agreement that the claim was good] and play of the next board. > > And to the more general point. It is ludicrous for a player to make an > objection- an objection that is indeed invalid, and for that matter not find > one that was valid- and so obtain a ruling. And after the next board starts > a valid objection is found. And since there was a possible new objection > [in fact that was valid] then obtain a reversal of the L70 ruling under L70 > for an objection not raised until after** the next hand.. > > **=it is quite a different matter to appeal based on a valid objection that > was ruled invalid. > What if the objection is simply - "I don't believe the claim is valid". Why should there be any difference? > 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Sep 2 09:15:02 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:18:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000201c5af47$f8819d70$f7a2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002d01c5af8e$28f83860$f8fef0c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> > +=+ I don't know who is arguing what here, but I did > understand the Director was called to the table when > the claim was made? The claims laws only provide for > the Director to be called when there is a claim if it > is disputed. The Director who is called should assume > therefore that the claim is disputed and proceed on > that basis. Calling the Director is indicative of dispute. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The following happens: A player calls the TD to tell him his opponents claimed a board. The TD then tells him that he, by calling, disputes the claim. The player says: 'no, I don't dispute anything' but the TD insists with: 'sorry sir, you really dispute the claim'. The player says: 'OK, I dispute the claim, but don't ask me why'. 'I won't sir', the TD says, 'let me analyse the board and then I tell you whether you have to acquiesce or not. And if you do acquiesce and some better player than I am later discovers that there is a way to get a trick more we will apply law 82C : directors error.' 'Thank you sir, yes I dispute this claim' ton From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 2 09:15:44 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:18:40 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >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. Richard Hills: A year or so ago, the captain of a Royal Navy ship which ran aground on a charted reef was deemed to be ultimately responsible, so was court martialled (despite the captain not being on the bridge at the time). But do Directors In Charge get "court martialled" when a table director makes an illegal ruling? If DICs receive no consequences for failures by table directors, then DICs cannot be deemed to be ultimately responsible for those table directors. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 2 09:30:48 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:31:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Please do me a favor and read what I write before commenting like this. > OK, I shall. > I used the term "important fact" with emphasis on the word *important*. > Probably (in order to avoid any misunderstanding from you) I should instead > have written "important fact where logical alternatives could exist" or some > wording to that effect? > > Most of your samples above appear to me to fall into a category of play that > is irrational regardless of the class of player. > I understand what you mean, and indeed what you meant, Sven. What I want you to understand is that you replace one world-wide rule with another Sven-wide one. Rather than saying "I judge that playing the DJ is normal", which is the real world-wide rule, you say "I judge that mentioning the DK is important". You do not rule that he'll play small on a trump return, because you find this self-evident (which it is, I grant you), but you rule that mentioning the DK is "important". Where does Sven draw the line? The player is entitled to answer to the director "I did not mention playing the top spade on a spade return because I believed that this was self-evident", but if he says "I did not mention playing the DK on a small diamond return because I believed that this was self-evident", you will rule against him because Sven judges that mentioning the DK is "important". Do you see what I mean? You are not supposed to rule according to Sven-rules, but according to world rules. The Sven rule is "he shall be awarded the result of playing the DJ because he failed to mention the DK". The world rule is "he shall be awarded the result of playing the DJ because we find that this is a careless line, not an irrational one". And what you cannot do either is to rule that a line is careless because it wasn't mentioned. That is exactly the same thing. Lots of things are not mentioned, and all it proves that something wasn't mentioned was that claimer did not think it through in detail. > >>>"If he doesn't mention it he is probably not aware of the importance >>>of it and could easily fail if he were to play it out". >>> >> >>This one is a little better - you use the word "probably", so you will >>allow counter-evidence. >> >>Now re-read your first part and apply it: if he does not mention that >>he shall play the king on a small diamond return he is probably not >>aware of the importance of that return. Maybe he never imagined that a >>small diamond might be returned. That does not mean he won't put the >>king on a diamond if it is returned! You should judge that one on its >>own merits, not on basis of it not being mentioned. >> >>I agree that in some cases, maybe most, the fact that something is not >>mentioned is an indication that the claimer does not know that it is >>important. But I do not regard not mentioning which card will be >>played to every single possible return as a proof that a claimer will >>get a particular case wrong. > > > I do not say that he will get it wrong; I say that he could get it wrong. > Yes, I grant you that, but the point remains: I do not regard not mentioning which card will be played to every single possible return as a proof that a claimer may get a particular case wrong. > >>I judge this one on its merits. If a small diamond is returned, >>claimer will not fail to think for a small while, will not fail to >>come up with the right solution. I rule it is irrational for him to >>play too quickly and put the jack (or the four) without thinking. > > > I agree that after due consideration he will eventually find out that > playing the Jack is irrational. And if he really considered this possibility > before claiming he would be aware of the importance and should have > mentioned it. > No, this is where we differ opinion. I allow a player to claim without thinking through all 12 possibilities. Just as we accept that a claimer is allowed to re-think a line when an unexpected trump turns up (and he's allowed to overruff), we should allow him a re-think when a particular unexpected return is found. The example of the spade return is a good one. He never expects that the man with the last trump will play that one. He doesn't mention what he'll do in that case either. You rule that it would be irrational for him to duck. You should also rule on whether it is irrational for him to play the DJ. And you should allow him a minimum of re-think for that. Or rather, not re-think, since I believe he has not yet thought all 12 possible returns fully through. > Not mentioning is a strong indication that he is unaware of the danger and > will carelessly select the wrong alternative. > No - not mentioning is a strong indication that he is unaware of the possibility of a dangerous return - it is not an indication that he will be careless in selecting what he'll do on it. > Remember that the correct procedure when the claimer has stated his line of > play is that opponents' cards are all faced before they present their > objection(s) against the claim. > > As all cards at this time is known to the claimer he is no longer permitted > to analyze and come up with any new (successful) line of play not explicitly > mentioned in his claim statement if there is any other (unsuccessful) line > of play available as a logical alternative that is not in conflict with his > original claim statement. > Indeed, which is why we should rule on whether or not he'll realize the relative merits of the DK and DJ in isolation. > So if he doesn't foresee and specify his line of play for every alternative > play his opponents can make he had better delay his claim until he has full > control of the remaining play. > Yes, and you would be right if he were on play. But he's not. His opponent is thinking, probably for a very long time. And he "knows" the play is over. So he claims. > In this case I judge playing the Jack to be careless and possible because he > apparently has not sufficiently analyzed the situation with a small diamond > return and how to handle that. > I happen to believe he hasn't analysed the small diamond return at all. You assume he has analysed all returns. If you assumption is true, then your ruling that he has mis-analysed the small diamond return is also true. But if he hasn't analysed all possible returns, there is no reason to believe he has misanalysed the diamond return already, and we should judge is he's going to misanalyse or not. Take the spade return as a second example and you'll see what I mean. He hasn't analysed that one either. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 2 09:33:51 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:36:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson replied: [snip] >West knew he should have called the TD and did >not, thus putting himself [snip] Richard Hills notes: Off-topic comment; I prefer this construction -> "West knew that they should have called the TD and did not, thus putting themself" The post that David replied to clearly stated that -> >>APPELLANTS: ACT Women >>RESPONDENTS: NSW Women So referring to Valerie Cummings as a generic "he" and "himself" is a tad awkward. Ideally the 2007 edition of the Laws should avoid pronouns wherever possible. (Pronouns are usually unnecessary, and sometimes create ambiguity when it is uncertain which person a particular pronoun refers to.) But if a pronoun is used, the generic "they" is less awkward than naming a specific woman as a generic "he". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 2 09:37:14 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:38:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43177B3F.6080403@att.net> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> <43177B3F.6080403@att.net> Message-ID: <4318012A.5000208@hdw.be> Hello Todd, some valid comments here. Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Indeed that's true. But can you conclude from that that he won't make >> the analysis when the card IS returned? I agree that he did not do the >> analysis for each and every one of the 12 possible returns. Why not >> rule that he would put the small spade from the table under the eight? >> He hasn't mentioned that one, has he? > > > You've used this argument before on matters of poor claims. It > didn't persuade then. As a matter of opinion I think it should be > abandoned already; however, > Well, that's only because you are trying to convince yourselves that you already know how claims rulings should work. It is abundantly clear that "players" (such as the ones on the AC in Rotterdam) have different opinions. I am merely trying to make you people see that the only thing that the laws say is "careless" and "irrational". Some people are making up rules of their own, such as "I rule against people who fail to mention something important". I am reacting against those people. >> Which just goes to show that you cannot use his non-mentioning as a >> basis on which to rule against him. > > > as a matter of law I'm anxious to know which ones support that sentence. > The footnote. The footnote uses only the words careless, inferior and irrational. It does not say that not mentioning something means it shall be considered normal. > After a claim, claimer is protected by law against making illegal > and irrational plays. It is only the statements he makes at the time of > the claim that protects him against careless or inferior plays. The AC > in Rotterdam decided that not inserting the K was irrational. > Responders in this thread overwhelmingly opine that there's nothing > irrational about the J. > And that may be a difference of opinion, and I don't mind that. As long as they refrain from making statements like "he did not mention the DK, so it's careless for him". > By your defense of the AC and your horrible treatment of Sven and > David, I have assumed whose opinion you value most, but could we keep > legal fact on the cut and dry? > I think I am doing that. I have no problem with Todd saying "playing the DJ is merely careless", if that is what you believe from the cards. I do have a problem with Sven saying "it is careless because he failed to mention it". > -Todd > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 2 09:40:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:43:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <4317FB1E.6060907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5af91$a197b540$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > What if the objection is simply - "I don't believe the claim is > valid". Why should there be any difference? Because he will be asked "Why?" and then his answer to that question will be judged and ruled upon by the Director. It is the Director's job to try statements made by the players, not to play their cards. Case closed. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 2 09:43:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:46:10 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5af91$ffd4ebf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Ed Reppert: > > >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. > > Richard Hills: > > A year or so ago, the captain of a Royal Navy ship > which ran aground on a charted reef was deemed to > be ultimately responsible, so was court martialled > (despite the captain not being on the bridge at > the time). > > But do Directors In Charge get "court martialled" > when a table director makes an illegal ruling? > > If DICs receive no consequences for failures by > table directors, then DICs cannot be deemed to be > ultimately responsible for those table directors. Maybe he will not be appointed DIC again in future events? (If the case is severe enough) Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 2 09:46:22 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:47:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4317B761.7090105@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200508311514.j7VFEp7C001985@cfa.harvard.edu> <4317B761.7090105@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4318034E.9020601@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> 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". > > > I am astonished at how certain everyone seems to be of their positions. > I don't think it is possible to rule on this case without knowing the > earlier play. And I don't think it depends at all on "class of player." > Will you make up your own version or do you prefer me to do so? bidding : south 1NT (why not?), north 2H, S 2S, N 3C, S 3S. play : AK of hearts, heart to the queen, diamond discarded from hand. Sp2, Q inserted and covered, spade nine ducked, club to the 10 on the table, spade jack to the king. That's seven tricks, 3 to defense, 4 to declarer. The claim is for 5 out of six tricks, contract 3Sp made. Your ruling? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 2 09:45:53 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Sep 2 09:48:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] In-Reply-To: <4315236E.6020200@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >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? Richard Hills: It seems to me to be a minor problem in the wording of Law 25A. Current wording of Law 25A -> "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if..... Alternative wording (which permits an inadvertent pass out of turn to be replaced by an intended Alert card) of Law 25A -> "Until his partner makes a call, a player may withdraw an inadvertent call but only if....." Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 2 10:25:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 2 10:26:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be> References: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43180C86.90902@hdw.be> Just one point, which I don't believe has been said before - it might well be one of the reasons the discussion with Sven and David takes this long. Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> I do not say that he will get it wrong; I say that he could get it wrong. >> > > Yes, I grant you that, but the point remains: > > I do not regard not mentioning which card will be played to every single > possible return as a proof that a claimer may get a particular case wrong. > I agree with Sven when he's saying that not mentioning the DK is an indication of having something wrong - but we should get straight what declarer has gotten wrong. I agree that declarer has failed to notice that if the DA is on his left, a diamond return and a heart uppercut will bring him one down. I will not allow him to rediscover this on the small diamond return, and put on the King for that reason. I _will_ allow him to put on the king for another reason. When he sees the small diamond, I will allow him to look at his combined holding and say "there is no way I can gain anything by playing the jack here, since even if the queen is to the right and my jack loses to the ace, my high king is worth nothing as the table is already high - the only thing I can gain here is an overtrick by putting in the king if this fellow underled his ace". That is the statement we need to look at and decide whether it is "normal" or not. I believe that a player of just slightly higher level than myself will never play the jack in this situation. And his non-mentioning of the DK has no bearance on that one, agreed? Was this the reason for out prolonged discussion? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 2 10:21:31 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Sep 2 10:27:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000201c5af47$f8819d70$f7a2403e@Mildred> <002d01c5af8e$28f83860$f8fef0c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000f01c5af97$a93fa450$419287d9@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: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > +=+ I don't know who is arguing what here, but I did > > understand the Director was called to the table when > > the claim was made? The claims laws only provide for > > the Director to be called when there is a claim if it > > is disputed. The Director who is called should assume > > therefore that the claim is disputed and proceed on > > that basis. Calling the Director is indicative of dispute. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > The following happens: > > A player calls the TD to tell him his opponents claimed a board. > The TD then tells him that he, by calling, disputes the claim. > The player says: 'no, I don't dispute anything' but the TD insists with: > 'sorry sir, you really dispute the claim'. > The player says: 'OK, I dispute the claim, but don't ask me why'. > 'I won't sir', the TD says, 'let me analyse the board and then I tell you > whether you have to acquiesce or not. And if you do acquiesce and some > better player than I am later discovers that there is a way to get a trick > more we will apply law 82C : directors error.' > > 'Thank you sir, yes I dispute this claim' > > ton > +=+ Very interesting. We are in the presence of a Director who has not read the law book beyond Law 69. He is ignorant of the requirement to follow the procedure in Law 70. His procedure bears the stamp of novelty. No trace of the required dialogue with the claimer and the objector, absent the Director's pursuit of Laws 70C,D,E, in order to fulfil his duty to ascertain the facts on which to base the ruling he has been called to make? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 2 10:33:01 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Sep 2 10:37:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. Message-ID: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- +=+ Apropos of very little, could we remind ourselves that THIS is shouting and *this* is stressing? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 2 10:42:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 2 10:45:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c5af9a$43291f40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > No, this is where we differ opinion. > I allow a player to claim without thinking through all 12 > possibilities. Just as we accept that a claimer is allowed to re-think > a line when an unexpected trump turns up (and he's allowed to > overruff), we should allow him a re-think when a particular unexpected > return is found. The important point here is that overruffing an unexpected trump poses no problem while being overruffed does. We allow him to overruff because not doing so is irrational from the developments in that particular trick. We do not allow him to ruff high to avoid being overruffed unless he has stated so already with his claim statement. > The example of the spade return is a good one. He > never expects that the man with the last trump will play that one. He > doesn't mention what he'll do in that case either. You rule that it > would be irrational for him to duck. Of course it is irrational to duck an unexpected spade return because there is no logical alternative in the actual position. It is part of his claim statement to use his high trump pulling the last outstanding trump and his low trump to secure against more than one loser in Diamonds. WTP? You should also rule on whether > it is irrational for him to play the DJ. And you should allow him a > minimum of re-think for that. Or rather, not re-think, since I believe > he has not yet thought all 12 possible returns fully through. Exactly, and that is his burial. Once he learns all outstanding cards and their positions (as he does at the moment the claim is contested) it is too late to start considering his plays. > > Not mentioning is a strong indication that he is unaware of the danger > and > > will carelessly select the wrong alternative. > > > > No - not mentioning is a strong indication that he is unaware of the > possibility of a dangerous return - it is not an indication that he > will be careless in selecting what he'll do on it. Oh, oh. "Normal" play includes careless play. > > > Remember that the correct procedure when the claimer has stated his line > of > > play is that opponents' cards are all faced before they present their > > objection(s) against the claim. > > > > As all cards at this time is known to the claimer he is no longer > permitted > > to analyze and come up with any new (successful) line of play not > explicitly > > mentioned in his claim statement if there is any other (unsuccessful) > line > > of play available as a logical alternative that is not in conflict with > his > > original claim statement. > > > > Indeed, which is why we should rule on whether or not he'll realize > the relative merits of the DK and DJ in isolation. > > > So if he doesn't foresee and specify his line of play for every > alternative > > play his opponents can make he had better delay his claim until he has > full > > control of the remaining play. > > > > Yes, and you would be right if he were on play. But he's not. His > opponent is thinking, probably for a very long time. And he "knows" > the play is over. So he claims. And he makes an incomplete claim statement for the claim to be good. He doesn't foresee a return that could give him a choice. > > > In this case I judge playing the Jack to be careless and possible > because he > > apparently has not sufficiently analyzed the situation with a small > diamond > > return and how to handle that. > > > > I happen to believe he hasn't analysed the small diamond return at > all. You assume he has analysed all returns. If you assumption is > true, then your ruling that he has mis-analysed the small diamond > return is also true. But if he hasn't analysed all possible returns, > there is no reason to believe he has misanalysed the diamond return > already, and we should judge is he's going to misanalyse or not. He is unprepared for a particular play by opponents. It is too late to plan for this situation once opponents cards are exposed because of the claim (or should be exposed). If he appears to have a choice, one of which is fatal he is bound to select that choice. > Take the spade return as a second example and you'll see what I mean. > He hasn't analysed that one either. No, but that return doesn't give him any choice. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 2 13:41:18 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Sep 2 13:45:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Totally irrelevant thinking. Message-ID: <000501c5afb3$413a6540$70ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** "I do not recall exactly how many days Katrina was whirling about and gathering force in the gulf of Mexico after leaving southern Florida. Two, three, four? I did see fearsome satellite photographs of it. You might have thought that an American President would have called in his top general and said "Put ten thousand soldiers on standby to move into Louisiana if the worst happens, and prepare a top General to take command of them and sit with the Governor of Louisiana. They will need a field hospital and emergency supplies of foodstuffs, medicines, land and water transport, tented accommodation. Let's not be late with the remedial action." Maybe he did that, I did not hear it; maybe his army did not have enough resources of men and materials, or maybe his military commanders just messed up. But there you go; too little too late once again." Copied from my thoughts published in the UK. ~ G ~ From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 2 13:52:27 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 2 13:55:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. References: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Why, thank you Grattan, I was not aware of *that*. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:33 AM Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************** > 'that unhoped serene that men call age' > ~ Rupert Brooke > --------------------------------------------------- > > +=+ Apropos of very little, could we remind ourselves > that THIS is shouting and *this* is stressing? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 2 14:03:10 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 2 14:05:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be> References: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050902075231.02b2f8f0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:30 AM 9/2/05, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>Not mentioning is a strong indication that he is unaware of the >>danger and >>will carelessly select the wrong alternative. Not necessarily true, but irrelevant to the ruling. >No - not mentioning is a strong indication that he is unaware of the >possibility of a dangerous return - it is not an indication that he >will be careless in selecting what he'll do on it. As he has claimed, he will not get a chance to "select[] what he'll do on it". It "is not an indication that he" *would* "be careless" had he played the hand out, but he didn't. L70 tells us how to adjudicate contested claims, and does not require or suggest the need for any finding as to what he *would have done* if he hadn't claimed. It requires us to presume "carelessness" regardless of whether or not we believe he would actually be so. Keep in mind that L70 only makes the distinction between "careless or inferior" and "irrational" with respect to actions not covered by the original claim statement. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 14:07:53 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 14:10:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42910B6F-AE01-4FAF-B10C-F739BCDC6862@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 2, 2005, at 3:33 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > But if a pronoun > is used, the generic "they" is less awkward than > naming a specific woman as a generic "he". Matter of opinion, that. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 14:10:54 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 14:13:45 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2005, at 3:15 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If DICs receive no consequences for failures by > table directors, then DICs cannot be deemed to be > ultimately responsible for those table directors. In the present state of the laws, *no* director will necessarily receive consequences for failure. It seems that such consequences are left to the discretion of the SO. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 2 14:19:28 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 2 14:20:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050902075231.02b2f8f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050902075231.02b2f8f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <43184350.4030509@hdw.be> We are both mincing words, Eric. Eric Landau wrote: > >> No - not mentioning is a strong indication that he is unaware of the >> possibility of a dangerous return - it is not an indication that he >> will be careless in selecting what he'll do on it. > please replace the word careless above by one which has less of a legal meaning. "foolish enough" or something. > > As he has claimed, he will not get a chance to "select[] what he'll do > on it". It "is not an indication that he" *would* "be careless" had he > played the hand out, but he didn't. L70 tells us how to adjudicate > contested claims, and does not require or suggest the need for any > finding as to what he *would have done* if he hadn't claimed. Yes it does. We need to find out what he "could" have done, and then award him the least of it. We do not need to award him the result of something he "would never" have done (as a bad translation of the word irrational in the footnote. > It > requires us to presume "carelessness" regardless of whether or not we > believe he would actually be so. > Or rather, it requires us to include careless actions into those he could have done. If we believe he would not do them, then we are saying that they are not careless but rather irrational for him. > Keep in mind that L70 only makes the distinction between "careless or > inferior" and "irrational" with respect to actions not covered by the > original claim statement. > True, but irrelevant. Because we are always outside of the claim statement, once we are into ruling territory. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 2 14:25:55 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 2 14:28:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: Message-ID: I am fully aware of the actions of the WBFLC -- I was there -- and abide by the Laws when ruling, even when Law 68 D in Maastricht mandates the application of Law 70. Unfortunately Law 70B2 would have shown all the players that the claim was correct, and 70B3 revealed that the objection to the claim was that he might make a mistake. That doesn't mean that I have the right to do what I think *feels* good at the moment. (Nor did the AC as was evident be their action.) The footnote change by the WBFLC was playing with the meaning of the word "irrational" and I don't think it was clear what the implications of the change in the comma meant as to substance. I know what was intended and I know that what we now have was not *that*. I will continue to attempt to correct these effects by whatever wording changes or parsing is necessary in the future. Maybe we could include "ludicrous" (or some such word) as the ultimate in the continuum of normal for the class of player, and leave "irrational" to stand alone for all classes of players ......? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > William Schoder (words read by Grattan): > > >>(sorry Grattan, I'm not shouting, only stressing) > > Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ I have not read any of this thread. Not any, other > >than the few words above which suddenly hit me in > >the eye as I was deleting the subject.. I don't believe > >shouting achieves anything, not anything at all, and I > >don't know what there is to shout about. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > William Schoder (complete words): > > >>I promised myself not to get involved in this thread, > >>but can't stand it! > >> > >>the footnote reads "......'normal' includes play that > >>would be careless or inferior for the class of player > >>involved, but not irrational..." that intentionally > >>takes the word irrational beyond the making of careless > >>or inferior plays (normal for any particular level of > >>play) and puts it where no-one, regardless of level of > >>play, would make such a play. > >> > >>However, some non-native speaking savants, some self > >>styled gurus, and professed professors of English have > >>decided that for them rationality has a position on the > >>continuum of careful, careless, inferior, FOR THE CLASS OF > >>PLAYER INVOLVED (sorry Grattan, I'm not shouting, only > >>stressing) and will go to any lengths to make their case. > >> > >>Nigel need not concern himself about incurring my wrath > >>-- I know what the intent of these words is --- so for me > >>this whole topic is really just silly. > >> > >>Kojak > > Richard Hills: > > While I agree with the philosophy expressed by Kojak, I > note that it was the savants, gurus and professors on the > WBF Laws Committee which rewrote the footnote, so Kojak's > argument falls to the ground as he is quoting the repealed > version of the footnote. > > I am not shouting, merely stressing "Beware of the leopard" > when even a senior member of the WBF LC and ACBL LC is > either unaware that the footnote has been amended, or has > forgotten that the footnote has been amended. > > WBF Laws Committee minutes 30th August 2000: > > >>>The Committee considered the possible interpretations of > >>>the footnote to Laws 69,70 and 71. It was agreed that > >>>the footnote has not been worded clearly. The Committee > >>>invites the copyright holders to change this footnote > >>>when next printing the laws, so that it will read: "For > >>>the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes > >>>play that would be careless or inferior, but not > >>>irrational, for the class of player involved." > >>> > >>>In the meantime the correct interpretation of the > >>>current footnote is in accordance with the revision of > >>>the wording to be made. > > WBF Laws Committee minutes 28th October 2001: > > >>>As a matter arising from the minutes of 30th August > >>>2000, item 5, the Chief Tournament Director, Mr. > >>>Schoder, enquired as to the intention of the committee > >>>that irrationality is to be judged by the class of > >>>player involved. The committee confirmed this is so > >>>since the ratification of those minutes. It was added > >>>that the assessment of what is "irrational" in this > >>>respect is a matter for Directors and Appeals > >>>Committees. > > > 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 Fri Sep 2 14:30:22 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 2 14:33:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be><6.1.1.1.0.20050902075231.02b2f8f0@pop.starpower.net> <43184350.4030509@hdw.be> Message-ID: Snip. > True, but irrelevant. Because we are always outside of the claim > statement, once we are into ruling territory. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL I really believe the *we* in the above was meant to be *I* -- because Herman doesn't speak for *me*. Kojak From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 2 14:38:06 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 2 14:38:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be><6.1.1.1.0.20050902075231.02b2f8f0@pop.starpower.net> <43184350.4030509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431847AE.6090202@hdw.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Snip. > > > > True, but irrelevant. Because we are always outside of the claim > >>statement, once we are into ruling territory. >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL > > > I really believe the *we* in the above was meant to be *I* -- because Herman > doesn't speak for *me*. > There are other people out there besides you and me, Kojak. > Kojak > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 2 14:50:24 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 2 14:53:13 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: It is simply not a fact that *no* director will suffer consequences for failure Mr. Reppert. In over 40 years I have seen "consequences" for failure throughout the world far beyond the provisions of Law 82 C, and have personally been involved in producing "consequences." The fact that they are left to the SOs is, in my opinion from extensive experience, where they belong. The implication that the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge should in some way mandate consequences is outre to me. Also please understand that the WBF is an "SO" when it runs a tournament. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > On Sep 2, 2005, at 3:15 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > If DICs receive no consequences for failures by > > table directors, then DICs cannot be deemed to be > > ultimately responsible for those table directors. > > In the present state of the laws, *no* director will necessarily > receive consequences for failure. It seems that such consequences are > left to the discretion of the SO. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 2 15:07:01 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 2 15:09:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP><4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be><6.1.1.1.0.20050902075231.02b2f8f0@pop.starpower.net><43184350.4030509@hdw.be> <431847AE.6090202@hdw.be> Message-ID: Gee I'm glad to find that out, Herman. Without you telling me I would have continued to believe that there were only two of us on this earth or on BLML. Kind of silly though, since I know it takes 4 to make a table of bridge. >From now on I will not believe that you are using the papal "we" when stating your opinions, but that you speak for others. I forgot there was a Herman De Wael School which gives your opinions much greater weight. Please forgive me. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > Snip. > > > > > > > True, but irrelevant. Because we are always outside of the claim > > > >>statement, once we are into ruling territory. > >> > >> > >>-- > >>Herman DE WAEL > > > > > > I really believe the *we* in the above was meant to be *I* -- because > > Herman > > doesn't speak for *me*. > > > > There are other people out there besides you and me, Kojak. > > > Kojak > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 2 15:40:48 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 2 15:43:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5afc3$ed554880$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER .............. > The footnote change by the WBFLC was playing with the meaning of > the word "irrational" and I don't think it was clear what the > implications of the change in the comma meant as to substance. > I know what was intended and I know that what we now have was > not *that*. I will continue to attempt to correct these effects > by whatever wording changes or parsing is necessary in the future. > > Maybe we could include "ludicrous" (or some such word) as the > ultimate in the continuum of normal for the class of player, > and leave "irrational" to stand alone for all classes of > players ......? The footnote I would like to see is something like: For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior even for the class of player involved, but not irrational regardless of the class of player. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 2 16:11:53 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Sep 2 16:17:30 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: References: <43053C90.2050005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >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. that shows only 3S :) > > Pardon? > > Oh, I see, that would mean partner playing it. With you as CHO it becomes even more routine :) > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 2 16:18:19 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Sep 2 16:23:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. In-Reply-To: References: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >Why, thank you Grattan, I was not aware of *that*. > >Kojak So grattan wants to use a THAT whilst *this* preferre'd is Kojak With this and that cried how can we abide an _other_ underscored caps spat? > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:33 AM >Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. > > >> >> from Grattan Endicott >> grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >> [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >> ************************************** >> 'that unhoped serene that men call age' >> ~ Rupert Brooke >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> +=+ Apropos of very little, could we remind ourselves >> that THIS is shouting and *this* is stressing? >> ~ 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 axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 16:42:33 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 2 16:45:59 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><691B2C93-4302-4F9C-B394-805617D88C9B@rochester.rr.com> <82ED28F0-3F57-4E14-94FE-809FBD95743D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 0:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] > On Sep 1, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > alerts are a system of communication. Communication is what alerts > > do. > You are required by law to communicate the meaning of your side's > calls to opponents. Actually irrelevant to the issue. Alerts are not a necessary condition for making agreements available to the opponents. 73B1: Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. 73B1 reduced to the topic of immediate interest: Partners shall not communicate through --- alerts ---. The language is clear. In f2f alerts communicate systemically therefore players are prohibitted from them. >*That* is what alerts do - if opponents ask for > an explanation. >That partner hears the communication First and foremost it is a fact. An immovable fact. Where the only possible conclusion is that since the fact can't be changed alerts are prohibitted. > is perhaps unfortunate, not perhaps, and a lot more than unfortunate >but the law says that the conveyance of extraneous > information may not in itself be illegal But irrelevant. Alerts are specifically prohibitted by 73B1, by name as well as by characteristic. Whether or not it matters, some extraneous information 'are not easily avoided' due to the makeup of humans [such as thinking time- well they can but today almost no one tries]. Matters of system [read as alert] are of a distinct and different class- they can be avoided if for no other reason than it is something extra and foreign. >- it is *use* of that > information that's illegal. L16. Arguable since it is very rarely enforced, let alone with accuracy. > > When done in the presence of partner the communication is made to > > partner- > > without regard as to what the player's intent is. alerts/ non- > > alerts are > > not a call or play and hence players are by law not permitted to > > use them. > Yeah, you said that before. Still doesn't make you right. :-) > I gather that you *never* alert in f2f bridge - is that correct? not in unsanctioned games. There is a law that says if you communicate systemically other than by call or play you have cheated. And there is a rule that says if you do not cheat your score is to be severely punished. regards roger pewick From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 2 16:42:57 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Sep 2 16:49:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: Message-ID: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@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: "blml" ; "Hills Richard" Cc: "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > > The footnote change by the WBFLC was playing with the meaning of the word > "irrational" and I don't think it was clear what the implications of the > change in the comma meant as to substance. I know what was intended and I > know that what we now have was not *that*. I will continue to attempt to > correct these effects by whatever wording changes or parsing is necessary in > the future. Maybe we could include "ludicrous" (or some such word) as the > ultimate in the continuum of normal for the class of player, and leave > "irrational" to stand alone for all classes of players ......? > +=+ Well, I argue strongly for cessation of references to ' irrational' and I think the simple word is 'absurd'. I agree with Kojak that in moving the comma the LC contrived something that was not the intention of the original law - what the LC did in my opinion was to calcify the malpractice that had developed out of inclinations to advantage stronger players. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 2 16:45:17 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Sep 2 16:49:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000901c5af3b$5d0977c0$6400a8c0@WINXP><4317FFA8.6000200@hdw.be><6.1.1.1.0.20050902075231.02b2f8f0@pop.starpower.net><43184350.4030509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c5afcd$0a084dc0$249087d9@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: "blml" ; "Herman De Wael" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > Snip. > > > > True, but irrelevant. Because we are always outside of the claim > > statement, once we are into ruling territory. > > > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > I really believe the *we* in the above was meant to be *I* -- because Herman > doesn't speak for *me*. > > Kojak > +=+ It is probably the royal 'we'. +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 2 16:49:34 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 2 16:52:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <000001c5ad73$247b1ea0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000201c5af47$f8819d70$f7a2403e@Mildred> <002d01c5af8e$28f83860$f8fef0c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000f01c5afcd$893908a0$179468d5@jeushtlj> [Ton Kooijman] > 'I won't sir', the TD says, 'let me > analyse the board and then I tell you > whether you have to acquiesce or not. [nige1] Obviously, no director would tell defenders that they "have to acquiesce". IMO, by calling the director, defenders dispute declarer's claim. If the calaim is woolly or incomplete (as here), it is *Declarer* -- not the Director -- and certainly not the Defending side -- who has the burden of justifying it. [ton] > And if you do acquiesce and some > better player than I am later discovers > that there is a way to get a trick > more we will apply law 82C : director's > error.' [nige1] IMO, the director, if called about a disputed claim, should hear both sides and make a ruling. If the director upholds the claim, then he should inform defenders whether and how they can appeal. It's an interesting moot point whether defenders can forfeit their appeal rights by voluntary belated "acquiescence." I guess not. [ton] > 'Thank you sir, yes I dispute this claim' [nige1] If a player shows due deference, he is well on the way to a favourable ruling :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 2 16:59:37 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:02:42 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: <001501c5afce$f217d8a0$179468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > If DICs receive no consequences for > failures by table directors, then DICs > cannot be deemed to be ultimately > responsible for those table directors. [nige1] IMO a person assuming a responsibility does not automatically receive rewards or accept sanctions - in a tangible sense. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 2 17:01:46 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:04:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000101c5afc3$ed554880$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5afc3$ed554880$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050902104723.02bf3010@pop.starpower.net> At 09:40 AM 9/2/05, Sven wrote: >The footnote I would like to see is something like: > >For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that >would be >careless or inferior even for the class of player involved, but not >irrational regardless of the class of player. ...which is exactly what it does say when properly parsed, as it currently appears in TFLB. We of BLML are atypically privy to the fact that the WBFLC has chosen to "reinterpret" it, deciding that it was originally mispunctuated, behind their "Beware of the Leopard" sign. When it comes to substance, I'm on Sven's side, but if the WBF wishes to change its (original, un-reinterpreted) meaning in the new version of TFLB, they should write what they mean, something like, "'Normal' includes play that would be somewhat careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not very careless or inferior." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 17:02:46 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:05:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Cc: "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > > from Grattan Endicott > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Hills Richard" > Cc: "Endicott Grattan" > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 1:25 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > > > > > > The footnote change by the WBFLC was playing with the meaning of the word > > "irrational" and I don't think it was clear what the implications of the > > change in the comma meant as to substance. I know what was intended and I > > know that what we now have was not *that*. I will continue to attempt to > > correct these effects by whatever wording changes or parsing is necessary > in > > the future. Maybe we could include "ludicrous" (or some such word) as the > > ultimate in the continuum of normal for the class of player, and leave > > "irrational" to stand alone for all classes of players ......? > > > +=+ Well, I argue strongly for cessation of references to ' irrational' > and I think the simple word is 'absurd'. I agree with Kojak that in > moving the comma the LC contrived something that was not the intention > of the original law - what the LC did in my opinion was to calcify the > malpractice that had developed out of inclinations to advantage stronger > players. ~ G ~ +=+ I find this fascinating. I was given to understand that in drafting law for release in 1997 the portion of 68-70 that was approved did not reflect what was intended. Later the LC corrected 68-70 to what was intended. Yet, that correction does not reflect what was intended back in 1997. regards roger pewick From blml at blakjak.com Fri Sep 2 17:07:10 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:11:19 2005 Subject: [blml] The force is Strong with him In-Reply-To: References: <43053C90.2050005@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <4aMhE+DeqGGDFwgE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>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. > >that shows only 3S :) Ah, I see, so you want to go off in 2S on a 4-3 or 4-2 fit when 3C or 3D are making. Perfectly sens.... errr.... why? >> Pardon? >> >> Oh, I see, that would mean partner playing it. >With you as CHO it becomes even more routine :) I think you will find I make more tricks in nine card fits than you do in six card fits. -- 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 Sep 2 17:11:58 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:15:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >David Stevenson replied: > >[snip] > >>West knew he should have called the TD and did >>not, thus putting himself > >[snip] > >Richard Hills notes: > >Off-topic comment; I prefer this construction -> Do you indeed. Well, if you want ot write something, feel free to use the construction that you prefer, even the extremely awkward and ill-sounding one below. But if you want to discuss my use of English please remember this is not the english-usage-mailin-list. >"West knew that they should have called the TD >and did not, thus putting themself" Yukkk! >The post that David replied to clearly stated >that -> > >>>APPELLANTS: ACT Women >>>RESPONDENTS: NSW Women So I made a mistake: as a reason to use bad English it does not rate. If I was a woman I am not sure which I would find more offensive, to be assumed to be a man, or assumed to be more than one person. -- 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 Sep 2 17:16:06 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:20:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431760E9.7090307@hdw.be> References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> <431760E9.7090307@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> So what? It's a careless play, and we are all ashamed of our >>careless plays, but we all do them. >> If declarer had realised this he would have said it. >> > >Yes indeed, if he had realized that a small diamond might be returned, >he would have said what to do to it. But he has not stated what he >would do on a heart, club, diamond or spade return either, nor what >he'd play on the ace of diamonds. >You cannot use the fact that he did not say it as evidence that he >would not know what to do. You simply cannot. I can, I do, I have, and it is correct to do so. I know the type of mistakes I make. I also know the type of mistakes others make. And when I/they claim without saying what they would do on a small diamond return it is because they have not noticed that it matters. You are saying we should ignore the contents of the claim statement, but as a matter of Law [70D] that is incorrect. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Fri Sep 2 17:17:56 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:21:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> A dreadful decision by the AC. >That's a horrible thing to be saying! >This is one of those statements by which David says to the world - >anything I say is right and even if three people together decide >otherwise, they must be wrong. >You know what I think of that. We know what you think of a lot of things, Herman. You make your views extremely well known, and some of them are nothing like a majority view. Funnily enough, if you are allowed to make your views known, so are the rest of us. -- 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 Sep 2 17:23:47 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:28:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. In-Reply-To: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ Apropos of very little, could we remind ourselves >that THIS is shouting and *this* is stressing? *** NO!!! *** :))) <--- for the humour-impaired [or do I mean humor-impaired ?] :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 2 17:39:48 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 2 17:42:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. References: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <005101c5afd4$8da11980$179468d5@jeushtlj> [nige1 While on the topic of netiquette, Kojak may be amused to learn that so-called *top-posting* is another net-solecism to which he is prone. This post is an example of top-posting. It is easier to follow arguments in chronological order. Hence, correct netiquette is to reply *after* the text on which you comment [Kojak] > Why, thank you Grattan, I was not aware > of *that* [Grattan] THIS is shouting and *this* is stressing . From toddz at att.net Fri Sep 2 18:23:34 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Sep 2 18:26:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43187C86.6050208@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > If I was a woman I am not sure which I would find more offensive, to be > assumed to be a man, or assumed to be more than one person. It's well known that one woman has the worth of two men. Acknowledging that can't be offensive, can it? -Todd From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 2 18:25:06 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 2 18:28:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] References: <200508302014.j7UKEkXh022097@transit.cfa.harvard.edu><4315236E.6020200@cfa.harvard.edu><691B2C93-4302-4F9C-B394-805617D88C9B@rochester.rr.com><82ED28F0-3F57-4E14-94FE-809FBD95743D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005f01c5afda$e3bd6a20$179468d5@jeushtlj> > [TFLB 73B1] >> Communication between partners during >> the auction and play shall be effected >> only by means of the calls and plays >> themselves [Roger Pewick] > The language is clear. In f2f alerts > communicate systemically therefore > players are prohibited from them. [nige1] QED. Roger's argument must convince all except the die-hards who believe TFLB is a palimpsest -- the words of the law obliterating their true meaning -- which is divined only when law-makers vouchsafe their "intentions". Such anomalies are inevitable when the rules of a game are written by so many different bodies and are fragmented among so many publications. Suppose you are devil's advocate, burdened with the task of defending current "Alert" rules. You might argue that a partnership should be allowed to waive TFLB's clear legal prohibition of alerts. For example, on balance, a partnership might decide to put up with the illegal communication inherent in alerts, because they hope that information from explanations may compensate for it. However, it is must certainly be the case that a player may forbid his opponents to alert. Subsequently, according to the law, the director must class any such tendency by opponents as an illegal communication. Thank you! Thank you! Roger. When you stick to their English meaning, some of the laws are not so bad, after all! :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 2 18:36:31 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 2 18:39:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Well, I argue strongly for cessation > of references to ' irrational' and I > think the simple word is 'absurd'. I > agree with Kojak that in moving the comma > the LC contrived something that was not > the intention of the original law - what > the LC did in my opinion was to calcify > the malpractice that had developed out > of inclinations to advantage stronger > players. [nige1] I agree with Grattan that ... [A] "Absurd" is more apt than "Irrational." [B] The "Level of player" qualifier may be used to confer an unfair advantage on those whom the TD judges to be stronger players. IMO all such references should be expunged from the rules of Bridge. From adam at irvine.com Fri Sep 2 19:02:05 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Sep 2 19:04:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:42:33 CDT." Message-ID: <200509021702.KAA19845@mailhub.irvine.com> Roger Pewick wrote: > 73B1: > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays > are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or > not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not > given to them. > > 73B1 reduced to the topic of immediate interest: > > Partners shall not communicate through --- alerts ---. > > The language is clear. In f2f alerts communicate systemically therefore > players are prohibitted from them. Since the last clause of 73B1 says "alerts and explanations given *or* *not* *given*", then it follows that if Law 73B1 can be interpreted to say that alerting is illegal, it can also be interpreted to say that not alerting is illegal. So as soon as I make a call, my partner is in a bind, since he is violating the Laws if he alerts, and he's violating the Laws if he doesn't alert. Of course, it probably doesn't matter, since I already violated the Laws when RHO made a call, and either I violated Law 73B1 by asking a question, or I violated Law 73B1 by not asking a question, either of which communicated something to partner. I guess I really don't get your point, if there is one. Are you attempting to claim that F2F bridge is illegal? -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Sep 2 19:08:43 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Sep 2 19:14:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002201c5afe0$fa0824e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Nigel wrote: > [Grattan Endicott] > > +=+ Well, I argue strongly for cessation > > of references to ' irrational' and I > > think the simple word is 'absurd'. I > > agree with Kojak that in moving the comma > > the LC contrived something that was not > > the intention of the original law - what > > the LC did in my opinion was to calcify > > the malpractice that had developed out > > of inclinations to advantage stronger > > players. > > [nige1] > I agree with Grattan that ... > [A] "Absurd" is more apt than "Irrational." > [B] The "Level of player" qualifier may be used to > confer an unfair advantage on those whom the TD > judges to be stronger players. > > IMO all such references should be expunged from > the rules of Bridge. Seconding the motion, I suggest that all players be treated as equals, with the bridge skills of a generic typical player in the contest. Everyone committing the same irregularity will then be given the same ruling, regardless of who they [sic] are. How can anyone object to that? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 21:00:09 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 2 21:02:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] References: <200509021702.KAA19845@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > 73B1: > > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays > > are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or > > not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not > > given to them. > > > > 73B1 reduced to the topic of immediate interest: > > > > Partners shall not communicate through --- alerts ---. > > > > The language is clear. In f2f alerts communicate systemically therefore > > players are prohibitted from them. > > Since the last clause of 73B1 says "alerts and explanations given *or* > *not* *given*", then it follows that if Law 73B1 can be interpreted to > say that alerting is illegal, it can also be interpreted to say that > not alerting is illegal. WHen there is an alert system there certainly is communication by the absence of an alert. Conversely, when there is no alert system the absence of alerts with respect to communication thereby is mute. > So as soon as I make a call, my partner is in a bind, since he is > violating the Laws if he alerts, and he's violating the Laws if he doesn't > alert. Such is the effect of impementing rules contrary to law. > Of course, it probably doesn't matter, since I already violated the > Laws when RHO made a call, and either I violated Law 73B1 by asking a > question, or I violated Law 73B1 by not asking a question, either of > which communicated something to partner. > > I guess I really don't get your point, if there is one. Are you > attempting to claim that F2F bridge is illegal? Not attempting to do anything. I presented a case that players are prohibitted by law from using an alert system. I assert that alerts are unnecesary. regards roger pewick > -- Adam From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 21:19:38 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri Sep 2 21:22:25 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" Message-ID: <2da24b8e05090212195bc25dd8@mail.gmail.com> BridgeBase Online has is currently introducing a new software application tentatively named "Full Disclosure". From my perspective, this application will have significant impact on the Laws and merits some discussion on this list. The application itself is a bidding system editor. Players are able to map a sequence of bids to a text string. For example, the sequence 1S ? (P) ? 2C might map to "4+ Clubs, game forcing games" while P ? (P) ? 1S ? (P) ? 2C would read "Artificial: 3+ Spades, game invitational values" The application has a number of potential uses. For example, "Full Disclosure" could be used as a "cheat sheet" for players who are practicing with a new bidding system. As the name suggests, the application can also be applied to automate alert strings during online bridge matches. This second area of functionality will (should) have enormous impact of the Laws. Note: Alerts/Announcements are no longer provided by individual members of the partnership, rather, they are provided by an objective third party. In an ideal world, this third party will have an accurate record of the actual partnership agreement. The introduction of this application could merit some significant revisions to the Laws of Online Bridge. This certainly represents a much more radical change than eliminating "manual" errors such as revokes or leads out of turn. (I can hear David's comments already) Fred Gitelman's post describing "Full Dislosure" is available at http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=9830&hl= -- "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda" George W. Bush From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 22:42:07 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 22:45:02 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <327EA461-A29E-472B-AA68-AAFCA386DD9F@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 2, 2005, at 8:50 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > It is simply not a fact that *no* director will suffer consequences > for > failure Mr. Reppert. In over 40 years I have seen "consequences" for > failure throughout the world far beyond the provisions of Law 82 C, > and have > personally been involved in producing "consequences." Please note, sir, that I said "necessarily". There is nothing in the laws themselves specifying such consequences, unless I've missed it. > The fact that they are left to the SOs is, in my opinion from > extensive > experience, where they belong. The implication that the Laws of > Duplicate > Contract Bridge should in some way mandate consequences is outre to > me. Also > please understand that the WBF is an "SO" when it runs a tournament. I'm sorry that you drew an inference I did not intend. In the main, I agree with you that such consequences are best left to the SO. My point was only that the laws themselves do not address such things, not that they are flawed thereby. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 22:46:18 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 22:49:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9654AD9A-132B-4282-8BFB-7297B956EB28@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 2, 2005, at 11:11 AM, David Stevenson wrote: > If I was a woman I am not sure which I would find more offensive, > to be > assumed to be a man, or assumed to be more than one person. "Does this dress make me look fat?" "All of you look fine, dear." Ouch! From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 2 22:47:59 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 2 22:50:46 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <327EA461-A29E-472B-AA68-AAFCA386DD9F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > > On Sep 2, 2005, at 8:50 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > It is simply not a fact that *no* director will suffer consequences > > for > > failure Mr. Reppert. In over 40 years I have seen "consequences" for > > failure throughout the world far beyond the provisions of Law 82 C, > > and have > > personally been involved in producing "consequences." > > Please note, sir, that I said "necessarily". There is nothing in the > laws themselves specifying such consequences, unless I've missed it. > > > The fact that they are left to the SOs is, in my opinion from > > extensive > > experience, where they belong. The implication that the Laws of > > Duplicate > > Contract Bridge should in some way mandate consequences is outre to > > me. Also > > please understand that the WBF is an "SO" when it runs a tournament. > > I'm sorry that you drew an inference I did not intend. In the main, I > agree with you that such consequences are best left to the SO. My > point was only that the laws themselves do not address such things, > not that they are flawed thereby. It's nice to find agreement on BLML. There seems to be an almost pervasive need to disagree and get into semantics games. And your point that the laws do not address the issue of quality of TDs, training, failures, etc., is well put. It doesn't belong there. Kojak > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 22:50:41 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 22:53:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77662155-7038-4D62-AC68-159955A78010@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 2, 2005, at 8:25 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Maybe we could include "ludicrous" (or some such word) as the > ultimate in the continuum of normal for the class of player "They're going to escape! Increase to.... LUDICROUS speed!!" - Rick Moranis, as Dark Helmet, in "Spaceballs" :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 22:58:11 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 23:01:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] In-Reply-To: <200509021702.KAA19845@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200509021702.KAA19845@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Sep 2, 2005, at 1:02 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I guess I really don't get your point, if there is one. Are you > attempting to claim that F2F bridge is illegal? I think he's trying to point out that the laws are flawed - but we knew that, didn't we? :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 2 23:01:23 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 2 23:04:17 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05090212195bc25dd8@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e05090212195bc25dd8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 2, 2005, at 3:19 PM, richard willey wrote: > BridgeBase Online has is currently introducing a new software > application tentatively named "Full Disclosure". From my perspective, > this application will have significant impact on the Laws and merits > some discussion on this list. Interesting. I don't see how it affects f2f bridge, though. From adam at irvine.com Fri Sep 2 23:12:28 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Sep 2 23:15:14 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:01:23 EDT." <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200509022112.OAA21627@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Sep 2, 2005, at 3:19 PM, richard willey wrote: > > > BridgeBase Online has is currently introducing a new software > > application tentatively named "Full Disclosure". From my perspective, > > this application will have significant impact on the Laws and merits > > some discussion on this list. > > Interesting. I don't see how it affects f2f bridge, though. I don't even see how it impacts the Laws all that much---maybe even not at all. The requirement to disclose one's system will still be there; only the mechanism by which this disclosure takes place will be different. And Law 40 doesn't even specify any such mechanism; 40B just says that you have to disclose "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization". I also don't see how any part of the Laws outside of Law 40 would be impacted at all, except maybe 75D. Maybe Richard needs to give us some hints about what he means. -- Adam From blml at blakjak.com Fri Sep 2 23:47:03 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri Sep 2 23:51:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <002201c5afe0$fa0824e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> <002201c5afe0$fa0824e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <$D+wiOPXhMGDFwgy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Marvin French wrote >Seconding the motion, I suggest that all players be treated as equals, >with the bridge skills of a generic typical player in the contest. >Everyone committing the same irregularity will then be given the same >ruling, regardless of who they [sic] are. How can anyone object to >that? Easily, since it is unfair and unjust. But if you wish to exclude fairness and justice from rulings, no doubt you will get some support. One feeling that has grown on BLML, though it is not the approach in the real world, is that if you treat everyone the same that means that you will have bias in favour of better players. Of course, TDs and ACs do not have such bias overall [though an individual one may have, of course]. It is good for the game that judgement rulings are common, and work differently for different levels of player. That means that sometimes the better players benefit: sometimes the poorer players: but all the decisions can be seen to have a fair approach. Players understand such decisions even when they do not agree with them. However, people whose interest is not in the game, but in the theoretical approach do not see this. Not only do they not wish to benefit the game, but to support their position they claim that the normal approach is unfair on one side or the other. No justification for this is ever given, and apparently in their view does not need to be: they just claim with no justification whatever that their approach is fair. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From toddz at att.net Sat Sep 3 00:45:42 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat Sep 3 00:48:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <$D+wiOPXhMGDFwgy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> <002201c5afe0$fa0824e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <$D+wiOPXhMGDFwgy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <4318D616.5010007@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > However, people whose interest is not in the game, but in the > theoretical approach do not see this. Not only do they not wish to > benefit the game, but to support their position they claim that the > normal approach is unfair on one side or the other. No justification > for this is ever given, and apparently in their view does not need to > be: they just claim with no justification whatever that their approach > is fair. There has been justification. The belief is as follows, "rules which are enforced uniformly on all players are fair." When you exclude rules with extra-bridge requirements (e.g. ability to put money up for an appeals deposit, ability to conjure wine in an empty bottle) this belief holds up remarkably well. However, you wouldn't be surprized by the number of fair rules which are remarkably bad ideas. I'm sure you've heard a few and mistakenly called them unfair instead of stupid. -Todd From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 3 01:29:39 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Sep 3 01:31:36 2005 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >In the present state of the laws, *no* director will >necessarily receive consequences for failure. It seems >that such consequences are left to the discretion of >the SO. Richard Hills: Precisely. It is not the Director In Charge who is ultimately responsible; it is the ACBL which is ultimately responsible. So it is the ACBL which is ultimately responsible for their daft NABC rule which prohibits the director at the table from attending the meeting of the appeals committee which reviews their ruling. It is also the ACBL which is ultimately responsible for their daft justification of their daft rule, with their daft assertion that attendance by the table TD is unnecessary, because "the DIC is ultimately responsible". Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 3 01:56:28 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Sep 3 01:58:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >But if you want to discuss my use of English please >remember this is not the english-usage-mailin-list. Richard Hills: The official language of the Laws of Bridge is English; the Lawbook (like David Stevenson) uses the traditional generic pronoun for an unknown singular person which is identical with the pronoun for a known male. Therefore, discussion about whether traditional pronouns are ambiguous and/or irritating is highly relevant to this mailing list. David Stevenson: >Yukkk! [snip] >If I was a woman I am not sure which I would find >more offensive, to be assumed to be a man, or >assumed to be more than one person. Richard Hills: There is a precedent; the second person plural "you" is identical to the second person singular "you". Is David Stevenson recommending the adoption of the dialect word "you-all" for the second person plural? Or is David Stevenson arguing that all of the evolutionary changes to the traditional English language that he learnt at school in the 1950s are automatically "Yukkk!"? :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 3 02:20:52 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Sep 3 02:22:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <000f01c5af97$a93fa450$419287d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Very interesting. We are in the presence of >a Director who has not read the law book beyond >Law 69. He is ignorant of the requirement to follow >the procedure in Law 70. His procedure bears the >stamp of novelty. No trace of the required >dialogue with the claimer and the objector, absent >the Director's pursuit of Laws 70C,D,E, in order to >fulfil his duty to ascertain the facts on which to base >the ruling he has been called to make? > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: A more interesting case is a Director who has read the law book up to Law 70B3: "The Director then hears the opponents? objections to the claim." and then assumes that their responsibilities under the subsequent Law 70D are implicitly limited by Law 70B3. For such a Director, the validity of a claim is tested not only by the class of player of the claimer, but also by the class of player of the opponent. There is an unintended consequence for Directors who self-limit their Law 70D powers by misinterpreting Law 70B3. They encourage bottom-feeding experts to perpetrate early claims against baffled bunnies when those bottom-feeding experts have no other way to "succeed" in a hopeless contract. :-( Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 3 04:47:55 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Sep 3 04:50:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj><002201c5afe0$fa0824e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <$D+wiOPXhMGDFwgy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <003801c5b031$e3458f80$019468d5@jeushtlj> [David Stevenson] > One feeling that has grown on BLML, though it > is not the approach in the real world, is that > if you treat everyone the same that means that > you will have bias in favour of better players. > It is good for the game that judgement rulings > are common, and work differently for different > levels of player. That means that sometimes > the better players benefit: sometimes the > poorer players: but all the decisions can be > seen to have a fair approach. Players > understand such decisions even when they do > not agree with them. [nige1] On identical facts, different directors often come to different conclusions. This is especially common when rulings involve subjective judgement and assessment of ability [there are hundreds of examples in BLML] No sensible player can regard this as "fair" in any normal sense of the word. What makes it worse is that it is hard for an independent observer to distinguish judgement from prejudice, especially when the director's friends and enemies are in dispute. [David] > However, people whose interest is not in the > game, but in the theoretical approach do not > see this. Not only do they not wish to > benefit the game, but to support their position > they claim that the normal approach is unfair > on one side or the other. No justification > for this is ever given, and apparently in > their view does not need to be: they just > claim with no justification whatever that > their approach is fair. [nige1] IMO these aspersions are unfair. We, who oppose spurious subjectivity, are just as keen on the game; we have just as practical an approach; we exhibit at least as much integrity; but we aren't rival candidates to head the Ministry of Truth :) I have yet to encounter a convincing example, supporting David's argument. Hundreds of published examples, however, illustrate the inevitable inconsistency of rulings that depend on subjective judgement. Consistency is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for fairness in the rules of a game. IMO players would welcome simple objective rules that they could understand: fair rules that tend to reach the same just conclusion no matter who applies them. IMO Players will always feel uncomfortable with sophisticated subjective rules that require complex assessments and result in rulings that are often incomprehensible without explanation by a legal guru. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Sep 3 05:58:12 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Sep 3 06:01:03 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05090214183844b691@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e05090212195bc25dd8@mail.gmail.com> <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com> <2da24b8e05090214183844b691@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <771B0173-0B9D-4EA5-BA54-2AEFEDBC4CBB@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 2, 2005, at 5:18 PM, richard willey wrote: > Comment the First: The Laws of Bridge apply equally to both the > online game and the face-to-face game. I was unware that this list > was restricted to discussions of the F2F version Nobody said it was. You spoke of an impact on the Laws, which as you say apply to both f2f and online bridge. > Comment the Second: Electronic playing environments current offer a > number of advantages compared to "standard" F2F play. And, I think, some disadvantages. > As these advantages continue to grow, I expect that F2F events > will start > adopting elements from the online game. Case in point: I was > recently visiting Australia for the World Youth Congress. Paul > Marston's Grandslam Bridge Clubs are now using wireless enabled > electronic scoring systems rather than travellers. The new system > provides better value to his customers. I should hope so - otherwise he's wasted his investment. :-) > Its high time that we learned to separate the notion of bridge from > little pieces of pasteboard. it's not the little pieces of pasteboard I'm concerned about. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 3 10:05:58 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Sep 3 10:07:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson humo(u)r: >*** NO!!! *** > >:))) <--- for the humour-impaired > >[or do I mean humor-impaired ?] :) Richard Hills straight man: I am glad that discussions on blml this year are conducted with better humour than some acerb exchanges in past years. I have accidentally overstepped the line of good-humored discourse, so I therefore wish to unreservedly apologise to David Stevenson for me carelessly and foolishly casting aspersions upon David's intellect in another thread. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From cibor at poczta.fm Sat Sep 3 11:58:22 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat Sep 3 12:01:17 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" References: <2da24b8e05090212195bc25dd8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002801c5b06e$08921650$560d1d53@kocurzak> I installed the application on my PC and there is one thing I cannot understand. What is the "possible outcomes" window about? What does "defend undoubled mean"? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland BTW - the application doesn't allow to create a CC for the strong pass systems but that is another story. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jedyny taki czat... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f18b0 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Sep 3 12:26:12 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat Sep 3 13:18:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: Message-ID: <009e01c5b078$c46dc720$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ Very interesting. We are in the presence of > >a Director who has not read the law book beyond > >Law 69. He is ignorant of the requirement to follow > >the procedure in Law 70. His procedure bears the > >stamp of novelty. No trace of the required > >dialogue with the claimer and the objector, absent > >the Director's pursuit of Laws 70C,D,E, in order to > >fulfil his duty to ascertain the facts on which to base > >the ruling he has been called to make? > > ~ G ~ +=+ > If this TD read the laws up to 69 carefully he is capable of solving most of the problems occurring. Then I could use him, taking care of the claims myself, that subject being one of my hobby-horses. I get the impression that you don't answer my objection against your approach. For a TD to apply L70, assuming he is aware of that law, there not only has to be a claim but it needs to be contested as well. Contested by the opponents of the claiming side, not by the TD himself. You seemed to say that calling the TD to inform him about an opponents claim automatically makes that claim a contested one. Or following your last sentence above: the TD not necessarrily has been called to make a ruling. If you really said so, I don't agree with you. ton From dkent at sujja.com Sat Sep 3 16:15:08 2005 From: dkent at sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Sat Sep 3 16:16:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5b091$e69fb560$6601a8c0@cktoffice> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Richard Hills: > > There is a precedent; the second person plural > "you" is identical to the second person singular > "you". Is David Stevenson recommending the > adoption of the dialect word "you-all" for the > second person plural? > As I learned soon after moving to North Carolina, "y'all" is 2nd person singular and "all y'all" is 2nd person plural. ...Dave Kent From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 3 18:45:22 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Sep 3 18:49:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Explain protocol References: <200509021702.KAA19845@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003401c5b0a6$e7b844c0$199468d5@jeushtlj> [Cut from Roger Pewick's subthread] [Adam Beneschan] > Since the last clause of 73B1 says > "alerts and explanations given *or* > *not* *given*", then it follows that > if Law 73B1 can be interpreted to > say that alerting is illegal, it can > also be interpreted to say that not > alerting is illegal. So as soon as I > make a call, my partner is in a bind, > since he is violating the Laws if he > alerts, and he's violating the Laws if > he doesn't alert. Of course, it probably > doesn't matter, since I already violated > the Laws when RHO made a call, and > either I violated Law 73B1 by asking a > question, or I violated Law 73B1 by not > asking a question, either of which > communicated something to partner. > I guess I really don't get your point, > if there is one. Are you attempting to > claim that F2F bridge is illegal? [nige1] Roger Pewick makes two points (1) According to TFLB, Alerts are illegal (2) Even were alerts not illegal, they should be because they blatantly flout the whole Bridge-ethos governing disclosure. I agree with Roger. BTW, Adam's point about giving information by *not* alerting is only true if you do, sometimes, alert. If, as Roger and I would prefer, you *never* alert, then there is no infraction, according to TFLB. A possible compromise is a simplification that borrows from what many would regard as best practice and skirts most of the legal anomalies ... EXPLAIN PROTOCOL A. Before an encounter, you must inform opponents about any *special treatments* of which opponents may need to be made aware. For example unusual conventions, especially those against which opponents may need to prepare a defence. These should also be highlighted on the front of your convention card. B. Each pair share an *explain card* which replaces the *alert card*, which they can place face-up or face-down before each board. C. If opponents' explain-card is *face-up*, then, whenever partner makes a call, you must immediately explain its meaning, if you would formerly have alerted it. The explanation is authorised information, since opponents have acquiesced to it. D. If opponents' explain-card is *face-down* then, the you must *not* alert or explain any call. To do so would constitute unauthorised information. E. At the end of the auction, the declaring side must *volunteer* to explain any calls that would have currently been alerted. The defending side must not volunteer to explain a call but must fully disclose, when asked to do so. You may feel that I have flogged this horse to death; but I am disappointed that, to date, this suggestion has attracted so little comment -- and mostly adverse criticism; I would gratefully appreciate more feedback -- negative or positive. IMO, the "Explain protocol" would eliminate many opportunities for unauthorised information, speed up the game and make it much more fun. Some of us remember the many peculiar contracts reached, before alerts became compulsory. I advocate some even more controversial refinements, for example ... (i) Explanations are only necessary if a call departs from the *standard system*. This could be a local standard ... but I would prefer a global standard. (ii) If you are a pair of learners, playing the standard system, then the director must be lenient about your bidding mistakes; but if your partnership agrees to depart from the standard system then a misexplanation is an infraction. (iii) Most competitions would be classified as either (a) Standard system. You use the standard convention card. You can cross out agreements but you may not amend or add. (b) Anything goes. Forcing pass. Ferts. Encrypted signals. Psychic game force. 8-10 1N opener. As long as you can name it and fully declare it, you can play it; but opponents can ask for an approved written defence to anything peculiar. Please criticise the basic "Explain protocol" first; before you comment on possible refinements. From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 18:59:38 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat Sep 3 19:02:28 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <200509022112.OAA21627@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com> <200509022112.OAA21627@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e050903095946440bde@mail.gmail.com> > Maybe Richard needs to give us some hints about what he means. > > -- Adam There are a large number of decisions that hinge arround "misbid versus misinformation". Assume the following hypothetical: Pair A is playing 2/1 game force Pair A mistakenly loads a convention file for a different system What is their actual agreement? The system that they believe that they are playing or the documentation that they have submitted? -- "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda" George W. Bush From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 3 20:36:47 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Sep 3 20:39:53 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" References: <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com><200509022112.OAA21627@mailhub.irvine.com> <2da24b8e050903095946440bde@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000f01c5b0b6$73997360$3f9468d5@jeushtlj> [richard willey] > "See in my line of work you got to keep > repeating things over and over and over > again for the truth to sink in, to kind > of catapult the propaganda" > George W. Bush [nige1 completely off topic] They still implement terrorism and torture policies in our name but the UK re-elected Tony Blair and the US re-elected George Bush. A pity you can't impeach the electorate :) From blml at blakjak.com Sat Sep 3 21:14:23 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat Sep 3 21:18:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >David Stevenson: > >>But if you want to discuss my use of English please >>remember this is not the english-usage-mailin-list. > >Richard Hills: > >The official language of the Laws of Bridge is >English; the Lawbook (like David Stevenson) uses the >traditional generic pronoun for an unknown singular >person which is identical with the pronoun for a >known male. > >Therefore, discussion about whether traditional >pronouns are ambiguous and/or irritating is highly >relevant to this mailing list. No, it isn't. It was comments on *my* posting I find extremely objectionable: and argument as to whether this is suitable for a law book or something else is fine. But just being rude at my use of English is hardly the aim of a bridge laws mailing list. >David Stevenson: > >>Yukkk! > >[snip] > >>If I was a woman I am not sure which I would find >>more offensive, to be assumed to be a man, or >>assumed to be more than one person. > >Richard Hills: > >There is a precedent; the second person plural >"you" is identical to the second person singular >"you". Is David Stevenson recommending the >adoption of the dialect word "you-all" for the >second person plural? When did I say this? As you know perfectly well, I did not. So why impute this suggestion to me? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Sat Sep 3 21:23:48 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat Sep 3 21:27:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <4318D616.5010007@att.net> References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> <002201c5afe0$fa0824e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <$D+wiOPXhMGDFwgy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4318D616.5010007@att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> However, people whose interest is not in the game, but in the >>theoretical approach do not see this. Not only do they not wish to >>benefit the game, but to support their position they claim that the >>normal approach is unfair on one side or the other. No justification >>for this is ever given, and apparently in their view does not need to >>be: they just claim with no justification whatever that their approach is fair. > > There has been justification. The belief is as follows, "rules >which are enforced uniformly on all players are fair." When you >exclude rules with extra-bridge requirements (e.g. ability to put money >up for an appeals deposit, ability to conjure wine in an empty bottle) >this belief holds up remarkably well. > > However, you wouldn't be surprized by the number of fair rules >which are remarkably bad ideas. I'm sure you've heard a few and >mistakenly called them unfair instead of stupid. Sure. But my objection is to the black-white nature of the arguments put here. Of course there are stupid rules, and unfair rules, and all sorts of things. But ***not every*** rule that involves the abilities of the players is wrong, unfair or whatever. However, there is a continuous stream of people who say that ***every*** such rule is unfair without further comment. I direct at this game, and play, and do both with sympathy for the players. I really wonder sometimes reading BLML whether some of the people who post here do either. -- 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 Sat Sep 3 21:30:38 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat Sep 3 21:34:56 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e050903095946440bde@mail.gmail.com> References: <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com> <200509022112.OAA21627@mailhub.irvine.com> <2da24b8e050903095946440bde@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: richard willey wrote > > Maybe Richard needs to give us some hints about what he means. >There are a large number of decisions that hinge arround "misbid >versus misinformation". > >Assume the following hypothetical: > >Pair A is playing 2/1 game force >Pair A mistakenly loads a convention file for a different system > >What is their actual agreement? The system that they believe that >they are playing or the documentation that they have submitted? At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the end, possibly because they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, that's fine". x QJxxx xx KJxxx or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend that a 2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B alerted, and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts and longer spades. The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent save against 4S. Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Sep 4 00:59:28 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Sep 4 01:04:56 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" References: <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com> <200509022112.OAA21627@mailhub.irvine.com> <2da24b8e050903095946440bde@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c5b0b6$73997360$3f9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003201c5b0db$2442a140$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" < > [richard willey] > > "See in my line of work you got to keep > > repeating things over and over and over > > again for the truth to sink in, to kind > > of catapult the propaganda" > > George W. Bush > > [nige1 completely off topic] > They still implement terrorism and torture > policies in our name but the UK re-elected Tony > Blair and the US re-elected George Bush. A pity > you can't impeach the electorate :) > > Please keep politics out of BLML, it's very annoying. You guys probably think our inferior minds need political education from your superior minds. Perhaps so, but this is not the place for us to get it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 4 02:51:41 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Sep 4 02:54:46 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" References: <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com><200509022112.OAA21627@mailhub.irvine.com><2da24b8e050903095946440bde@mail.gmail.com><000f01c5b0b6$73997360$3f9468d5@jeushtlj> <003201c5b0db$2442a140$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <008701c5b0ea$d0fcee40$3f9468d5@jeushtlj> [Marvin French] > Please keep politics out of BLML, it's > very annoying. You guys probably think > our inferior minds need political > education from your superior minds. > Perhaps so, but this is not the place > for us to get it. [nige1] Surely a mind is a handicap in politics! Sorry Marv, won't do it again :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 4 05:38:25 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun Sep 4 05:40:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Dreadful decisions and horrible things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the "Rotterdam appeal 6" thread, David Stevenson wrote: >>>A dreadful decision by the AC. Herman De Wael replied: >>That's a horrible thing to be saying! >> >>This is one of those statements by which David says to >>the world - anything I say is right and even if three >>people together decide otherwise, they must be wrong. >> >>You know what I think of that. David Stevenson rebid: >We know what you think of a lot of things, Herman. You >make your views extremely well known, and some of them >are nothing like a majority view. > >Funnily enough, if you are allowed to make your views >known, so are the rest of us. Richard Hills quibbles: (1) In my opinion, a dreadful decision by an AC would be an _illegal_ decision by an AC; which was not the case for that Rotterdam decision. (2) In my opinion, if a blmler praises the usefulness of those Laws which require a TD or an AC to use their judgement, it is inconsistent for that same blmler to criticise an AC which exercises their judgement merely because the AC's judgement differs from the blmler's judgement. (3) In my opinion, Nigel Guthrie has a point in his assertion that the outcome of a judgement ruling will vary depending upon the idiosyncrasies of the specific members of a particular AC. The solution is obvious; polling of peers by ACs will assist ACs in arriving at more consistent judgement rulings. (4) In my opinion, it is not a horrible thing for any blmler to assume that they are right; this is a natural tendency for anyone, whether their name is David or Herman or Richard. (5) In my opinion, what is a horrible thing is that David and Herman seem to be implying that it is the majority opinion which is right. Logic, not voting, should establish whether particular reasoning is right or wrong. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 4 06:22:43 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun Sep 4 06:25:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] In-Reply-To: <005f01c5afda$e3bd6a20$179468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 73B1: >>>>Communication between partners during >>>>the auction and play shall be effected >>>>only by means of the calls and plays >>>>themselves Roger Pewick: >>>The language is clear. In f2f alerts >>>communicate systemically therefore >>>players are prohibited from them. Nigel Guthrie: >>QED. Roger's argument must convince all >>except the die-hards who believe TFLB is >>a palimpsest [snip] Pocket Oxford dictionary: >palimpsest, n. Parchment &c. used for >second time after original writing has >been erased. Chapter 1, Definitions: >>>>Alert - A notification, whose form >>>>may be specified by a sponsoring >>>>organisation, to the effect that >>>>opponents may be in need of an >>>>explanation. Law 40B: >>>>A player may not make a call or play >>>>based on a special partnership >>>>understanding unless an opposing pair >>>>may reasonably be expected to >>>>understand its meaning, or unless his >>>>side discloses the use of such call >>>>or play in accordance with the >>>>regulations of the sponsoring >>>>organisation. Richard Hills: So the Lawbook is a palimpsest. So what? The way to decipher this palimpsest is to sensibly assume that specific Laws (such as Law 40B) are overriding exceptions to more general Laws (such as Law 73B1). No doubt this sensible assumption will be specifically written into the next edition of the fabulous Lawbook. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Sep 4 11:43:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Sep 4 11:44:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> <431760E9.7090307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431AC1CD.9070005@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> So what? It's a careless play, and we are all ashamed of our >>> careless plays, but we all do them. >>> If declarer had realised this he would have said it. >>> >> >> Yes indeed, if he had realized that a small diamond might be returned, >> he would have said what to do to it. But he has not stated what he >> would do on a heart, club, diamond or spade return either, nor what >> he'd play on the ace of diamonds. >> You cannot use the fact that he did not say it as evidence that he >> would not know what to do. You simply cannot. > > > I can, I do, I have, and it is correct to do so. > No David, it is not. > I know the type of mistakes I make. I also know the type of mistakes > others make. And when I/they claim without saying what they would do on > a small diamond return it is because they have not noticed that it matters. > Indeed - they have not noticed that it matters. Which is not the same as saying that they would be likely to play the jack. Let me give you a very simple example. Ax Ax Ax Ax opposite x X X KQJT With opponent on lead, this declarer claims eight tricks (say at NT). He has not stated that he will put on the Ace on each of the three possible returns, so you rule that it would be normal for him to play small? Surely you don't. You judge the normalcy of each of the plays, and you rule that it would be irrational not to put on the Ace. That is my point, David. You cannot use the non-mentioning of a particular card as sole evidence of it being normal to play another one. You have to judge the normalcy on all points, and the non-mentioning is only one piece of evidence among many. In the case of Rotterdam, the non-mentioning of the King is evidence that claimer did not realize that he's going down if he lets LHO in, but it does not in itself make the jack a normal line. Let me put it another way. Suppose claimer does not have the jack, but only K74. With a singleton on the table, do you really find it "normal" to not try for an extra trick by putting in the king? > You are saying we should ignore the contents of the claim statement, > but as a matter of Law [70D] that is incorrect. > I'm not saying that we should ignore it, I'm saying that we should not blindly follow it to our graves! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Sep 4 11:44:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Sep 4 11:45:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <431AC212.309@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: > > >>> A dreadful decision by the AC. > > >> That's a horrible thing to be saying! >> This is one of those statements by which David says to the world - >> anything I say is right and even if three people together decide >> otherwise, they must be wrong. >> You know what I think of that. > > > We know what you think of a lot of things, Herman. You make your > views extremely well known, and some of them are nothing like a majority > view. > > Funnily enough, if you are allowed to make your views known, so are > the rest of us. > But I don't go around calling rulings that I disagree with "dreadful". Especially not when there is clear evidence of there being at least some sense of correctness in it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Sep 4 11:46:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Sep 4 11:47:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000101c5afc3$ed554880$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5afc3$ed554880$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431AC287.1010603@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > > .............. > >>The footnote change by the WBFLC was playing with the meaning of >>the word "irrational" and I don't think it was clear what the >>implications of the change in the comma meant as to substance. >>I know what was intended and I know that what we now have was >>not *that*. I will continue to attempt to correct these effects >>by whatever wording changes or parsing is necessary in the future. >> >>Maybe we could include "ludicrous" (or some such word) as the >>ultimate in the continuum of normal for the class of player, >>and leave "irrational" to stand alone for all classes of >>players ......? > > > The footnote I would like to see is something like: > > For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that would be > careless or inferior even for the class of player involved, but not > irrational regardless of the class of player. > So then there you are with a play that is not careless and not irrational. What do you do? Or you find a play which is both careless and irrational? Unless you modify both or none of the sets, you will have overlapping or disjoint sets. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Sep 4 11:49:48 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Sep 4 11:50:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <431AC33C.6080507@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Grattan Endicott] > >>+=+ Well, I argue strongly for cessation >>of references to ' irrational' and I >>think the simple word is 'absurd'. I >>agree with Kojak that in moving the comma >>the LC contrived something that was not >>the intention of the original law - what >>the LC did in my opinion was to calcify >>the malpractice that had developed out >>of inclinations to advantage stronger >>players. > > > [nige1] > I agree with Grattan that ... > [A] "Absurd" is more apt than "Irrational." > [B] The "Level of player" qualifier may be used to > confer an unfair advantage on those whom the TD > judges to be stronger players. > If you omit the "class of player" and change it to some general level, then you are left with having to decide, in the laws, what class of player you are judging the normalcy to. I, as a bad player, do not feel damaged when a claim that is not granted to me, would be granted to some world champion because it would be unthinkable that he'd make the error which is quite normal for me. > IMO all such references should be expunged from > the rules of Bridge. > IMO you will write laws which are equally difficult to interpret, and less fair. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Sep 4 11:51:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Sep 4 11:52:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> <002201c5afe0$fa0824e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <$D+wiOPXhMGDFwgy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4318D616.5010007@att.net> Message-ID: <431AC39C.60308@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > Sure. But my objection is to the black-white nature of the arguments > put here. Of course there are stupid rules, and unfair rules, and all > sorts of things. But ***not every*** rule that involves the abilities > of the players is wrong, unfair or whatever. However, there is a > continuous stream of people who say that ***every*** such rule is unfair > without further comment. > > I direct at this game, and play, and do both with sympathy for the > players. I really wonder sometimes reading BLML whether some of the > people who post here do either. > May I say that I am totally in agreement with David over this? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 4 12:11:56 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Sep 4 12:15:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Is this a pass out of turn? [rec.games.bridge] References: Message-ID: <001701c5b139$156acc20$3b9468d5@jeushtlj> >> [Law 73B1] >> Communication between partners during >> the auction and play shall be effected >> only by means of the calls and plays >> themselves >> [Law 40B] >> A player may not make a call or play >> based on a special partnership >> understanding unless an opposing pair >> may reasonably be expected to >> understand its meaning, or unless his >> side discloses the use of such call >> or play in accordance with the >> regulations of the sponsoring > organisation. [Richard James Hills] > The way to decipher this palimpsest is to > sensibly assume that specific Laws (such > as Law 40B) are overriding exceptions to > more general Laws (such as Law 73B1). > No doubt this sensible assumption will > be specifically written into the next > edition of the fabulous Lawbook. [nige1] Fair enough Richard but I feel that the WBFLC could do more than that. [A] A reference to specific exemptions or the possibility of exceptions should be included in the general law. (For example 73b1 could be qualified by "or as specified in 40b" [B] Permission for a sponsoring organisation to over-ride TFLB should be explicit. For example, as Richard says, 40b allows SOs make regulations about disclosure; but it certainly does not specify that these regulations may contradict and over-ride TFLB. It is quite possible for a local regulation to extend rather than contradict TFLB. Thus local disclosure regulations about convention cards extend the laws without breaking them; whereas the alert procedure, as currently implemented, blatantly flouts TFLB disclosure regulations. [C] In reality, I don't see how the WBFLC can prevent a sponsoring organisation from creating a local regulation in conflict with TFLB, whether or not the WBFLC give permission. IMO such a local rule is to be deplored but the player still has the choice: abide by it or refuse to play. From blml at blakjak.com Sun Sep 4 14:14:00 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Sep 4 14:17:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431AC1CD.9070005@hdw.be> References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> <431760E9.7090307@hdw.be> <431AC1CD.9070005@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6QpBWPIIUuGDFwhl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>> So what? It's a careless play, and we are all ashamed of our >>>>careless plays, but we all do them. >>>> If declarer had realised this he would have said it. >>>> >>> >>> Yes indeed, if he had realized that a small diamond might be >>>returned, he would have said what to do to it. But he has not stated >>>what he would do on a heart, club, diamond or spade return either, >>>nor what he'd play on the ace of diamonds. >>> You cannot use the fact that he did not say it as evidence that he >>>would not know what to do. You simply cannot. >> I can, I do, I have, and it is correct to do so. >> > >No David, it is not. > >> I know the type of mistakes I make. I also know the type of >>mistakes others make. And when I/they claim without saying what they >>would do on a small diamond return it is because they have not >>noticed that it matters. >> > >Indeed - they have not noticed that it matters. Which is not the same >as saying that they would be likely to play the jack. > >Let me give you a very simple example. > >Ax Ax Ax Ax >opposite >x X X KQJT > >With opponent on lead, this declarer claims eight tricks (say at NT). >He has not stated that he will put on the Ace on each of the three >possible returns, so you rule that it would be normal for him to play >small? > >Surely you don't. You judge the normalcy of each of the plays, and you >rule that it would be irrational not to put on the Ace. > >That is my point, David. You cannot use the non-mentioning of a >particular card as sole evidence of it being normal to play another >one. You have to judge the normalcy on all points, and the >non-mentioning is only one piece of evidence among many. I do not use it as sole evidence, but I do use it as part of the evidence. Citing non-similar and non-comparable cases is hardly evidence either. >In the case of Rotterdam, the non-mentioning of the King is evidence >that claimer did not realize that he's going down if he lets LHO in, >but it does not in itself make the jack a normal line. In the case of Rotterdam it was pretty obvious that he had not thought of the effect, thus playing the jack is careless, not irrational. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Sun Sep 4 14:22:55 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Sep 4 14:27:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431AC212.309@hdw.be> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431AC212.309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8gMAK2IfcuGDFwjC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>> A dreadful decision by the AC. >> >>> That's a horrible thing to be saying! >>> This is one of those statements by which David says to the world - >>>anything I say is right and even if three people together decide >>>otherwise, they must be wrong. >>> You know what I think of that. >> We know what you think of a lot of things, Herman. You make your >>views extremely well known, and some of them are nothing like a >>majority view. >> Funnily enough, if you are allowed to make your views known, so >>are the rest of us. >> > >But I don't go around calling rulings that I disagree with "dreadful". >Especially not when there is clear evidence of there being at least >some sense of correctness in it. You certainly do make some very strong views known. You seem to think the world is black and white. It isn't, it has various degrees. I certainly do not think every decision I disagree with is dreadful. In this case *either* the AC has completely misunderstood the Law, especially what "careless" means, *or* they have completely misjudged the hand by ignoring the thinking shown by the claim statement. As a result their decision is not just wrong: it is dreadfully 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 Sun Sep 4 15:08:25 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Sep 4 15:12:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Dreadful decisions and horrible things In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >In the "Rotterdam appeal 6" thread, David Stevenson wrote: > >>>>A dreadful decision by the AC. > >Herman De Wael replied: > >>>That's a horrible thing to be saying! >>> >>>This is one of those statements by which David says to >>>the world - anything I say is right and even if three >>>people together decide otherwise, they must be wrong. >>> >>>You know what I think of that. > >David Stevenson rebid: > >>We know what you think of a lot of things, Herman. You >>make your views extremely well known, and some of them >>are nothing like a majority view. >> >>Funnily enough, if you are allowed to make your views >>known, so are the rest of us. > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >(1) In my opinion, a dreadful decision by an AC would be > an _illegal_ decision by an AC; which was not the > case for that Rotterdam decision. I believe this to be short-sighted. If, for example, three people decide that bidding 6S after 1H p 2H p is an LA with a flat 15 count, that is a dreadful decision: but it is not an illegal decision. >(5) In my opinion, what is a horrible thing is that David > and Herman seem to be implying that it is the majority > opinion which is right. Logic, not voting, should > establish whether particular reasoning is right or > wrong. I think the implication is absent from what I write. I believe the Rotterdam decision ot be dreadful because it was dreadful, not because a majority think anything at all. -- 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Sep 4 16:20:35 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun Sep 4 16:23:18 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e050903095946440bde@mail.gmail.com> References: <204D717D-68DF-41E3-A2CD-BF55667D4382@rochester.rr.com> <200509022112.OAA21627@mailhub.irvine.com> <2da24b8e050903095946440bde@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050904100642.031b8a70@mail.comcast.net> At 12:59 PM 9/3/2005, richard willey wrote: > > Maybe Richard needs to give us some hints about what he means. > > > > -- Adam > >There are a large number of decisions that hinge arround "misbid >versus misinformation". > >Assume the following hypothetical: > >Pair A is playing 2/1 game force >Pair A mistakenly loads a convention file for a different system > >What is their actual agreement? The system that they believe that >they are playing or the documentation that they have submitted? This is a common situation in face-to-face play as well, with convention cards rather than convention files. (And it is more common in the ACBL, where it is normal to have only one convention card on the table, despite the regulation that you must have two.) I would treat it the same way; the incorrectly loaded file is misinformation and the correct agreement is what they agreed to play. For example: A and B have different cards for MidChart (less restrictive) and General Convention Chart events. They play in events of both types, with some MidChart-only conventions in the MidChart events, and some changes in their General Chart agreements because of the MidChart conventions they play. However, A forgets to switch cards, and displays the General Chart card in a MidChart event. A plays different cards with B and with C. He played with B last week, and is now playing with C, but he is still displaying the card he plays with B. The opponents do not know B and C and have no reason to question the names. (I have done this before.) In either case, I would assume that A's actual agreement is the card he intended to play. If the card is properly marked, he may even be able to prove that. "My card says GCC on it, and this is a MidChart event; here is the MidChart card." "My card says that my partner is named Sue, and her name is Julie." From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 4 16:42:25 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Sep 4 16:45:13 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5b15e$de3080d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson ............. > At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the end, possibly because > they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new > partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". > Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, > that's fine". > > x > QJxxx > xx > KJxxx > > or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend that a > 2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B alerted, > and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts and > longer spades. > > The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade > suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent > save against 4S. > > Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? At *this* time I do absolutely nothing except order them to continue their auction and eventually their play. When the opener's hand becomes revealed I shall accept a claim of misinformation and possible damage and rule on that unless the information given by B is demonstrably correct and complete. However if B ought to have serious reason suspecting that A temporarily had forgotten his new agreement then I consider that he should have offered this suspicion to opponents under the "partnership experience" clause in L75C. (And even more so if B possibly has taken such suspicion into account when selecting his calls). Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Sep 4 16:53:02 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Sep 4 16:54:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6QpBWPIIUuGDFwhl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> <431760E9.7090307@hdw.be> <431AC1CD.9070005@hdw.be> <6QpBWPIIUuGDFwhl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <431B0A4E.2060602@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> That is my point, David. You cannot use the non-mentioning of a >> particular card as sole evidence of it being normal to play another >> one. You have to judge the normalcy on all points, and the >> non-mentioning is only one piece of evidence among many. > > > I do not use it as sole evidence, but I do use it as part of the > evidence. Citing non-similar and non-comparable cases is hardly > evidence either. > Yes David, you do. You have never even contemplated the case with regards to the singleton diamond on the table. All you have ever stated in this thread are things like "it is careless for him because he failed to mention it". >> In the case of Rotterdam, the non-mentioning of the King is evidence >> that claimer did not realize that he's going down if he lets LHO in, >> but it does not in itself make the jack a normal line. > > > In the case of Rotterdam it was pretty obvious that he had not thought > of the effect, thus playing the jack is careless, not irrational. > But I am not talking about the effect concerning the DQ. I am talking about the only way to make an extra trick with a singleton and no losers on the table! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 4 16:52:39 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Sep 4 16:55:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431AC287.1010603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5b160$4c06d4a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > > The footnote I would like to see is something like: > > > > For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that would > be > > careless or inferior even for the class of player involved, but not > > irrational regardless of the class of player. > > > > So then there you are with a play that is not careless and not > irrational. What do you do? > Or you find a play which is both careless and irrational? > Unless you modify both or none of the sets, you will have overlapping > or disjoint sets. I prefer to judge whether a particular line of play is "irrational" (or "absurd") regardless of the class of player. If I consider it to be then I discard that line of play as a logical alternative; if not I consider it "normal" for the application of Laws 69, 70 and 71 Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Sep 4 16:54:54 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Sep 4 16:55:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <8gMAK2IfcuGDFwjC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431AC212.309@hdw.be> <8gMAK2IfcuGDFwjC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <431B0ABE.1090400@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> But I don't go around calling rulings that I disagree with "dreadful". >> Especially not when there is clear evidence of there being at least >> some sense of correctness in it. > > > You certainly do make some very strong views known. > > You seem to think the world is black and white. It isn't, it has > various degrees. I certainly do not think every decision I disagree > with is dreadful. > > In this case *either* the AC has completely misunderstood the Law, > especially what "careless" means, *or* they have completely misjudged > the hand by ignoring the thinking shown by the claim statement. As a > result their decision is not just wrong: it is dreadfully wrong. > And here you have a qualified director who believes the ruling is right - both in law and in judgment - especially in law - I leave the judgment to the members of the AC. To call it dreadfully wrong under those circumstances is being just a tad more self-centered than is good for you. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml at blakjak.com Sun Sep 4 18:29:14 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Sep 4 18:33:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431B0A4E.2060602@hdw.be> References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> <431760E9.7090307@hdw.be> <431AC1CD.9070005@hdw.be> <6QpBWPIIUuGDFwhl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431B0A4E.2060602@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> That is my point, David. You cannot use the non-mentioning of a >>>particular card as sole evidence of it being normal to play another >>>one. You have to judge the normalcy on all points, and the >>>non-mentioning is only one piece of evidence among many. >> I do not use it as sole evidence, but I do use it as part of the >>evidence. Citing non-similar and non-comparable cases is hardly >>evidence either. >> > >Yes David, you do. >You have never even contemplated the case with regards to the singleton >diamond on the table. >All you have ever stated in this thread are things like "it is careless >for him because he failed to mention it". > > >>> In the case of Rotterdam, the non-mentioning of the King is evidence >>>that claimer did not realize that he's going down if he lets LHO in, >>>but it does not in itself make the jack a normal line. >> In the case of Rotterdam it was pretty obvious that he had not >>thought of the effect, thus playing the jack is careless, not >>irrational. >> > >But I am not talking about the effect concerning the DQ. I am talking >about the only way to make an extra trick with a singleton and no >losers on the table! Not at all. His claim did not include him making a diamond trick. So you are talking about what an AC should decide if it chooses to *ignore* the claim statement. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Sun Sep 4 18:30:04 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Sep 4 18:33:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431B0ABE.1090400@hdw.be> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431AC212.309@hdw.be> <8gMAK2IfcuGDFwjC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431B0ABE.1090400@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> But I don't go around calling rulings that I disagree with >>>"dreadful". Especially not when there is clear evidence of there >>>being at least some sense of correctness in it. >> You certainly do make some very strong views known. >> You seem to think the world is black and white. It isn't, it has >>various degrees. I certainly do not think every decision I disagree >>with is dreadful. >> In this case *either* the AC has completely misunderstood the Law, >>especially what "careless" means, *or* they have completely misjudged >>the hand by ignoring the thinking shown by the claim statement. As a >>result their decision is not just wrong: it is dreadfully wrong. >> > >And here you have a qualified director who believes the ruling is right >- both in law and in judgment - especially in law - I leave the >judgment to the members of the AC. > >To call it dreadfully wrong under those circumstances is being just a >tad more self-centered than is good for you. No, it isn't. It's just my considered opinion. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Sun Sep 4 18:36:30 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun Sep 4 18:40:26 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <000001c5b15e$de3080d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5b15e$de3080d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >............. >> At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the end, possibly because >> they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new >> partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". >> Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, >> that's fine". >> >> x >> QJxxx >> xx >> KJxxx >> >> or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend that a >> 2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B alerted, >> and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts and >> longer spades. >> >> The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade >> suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent >> save against 4S. >> >> Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? > >At *this* time I do absolutely nothing except order them to continue their >auction and eventually their play. Oh, come on, Sven, let's not treat this as a childish exercise. Can we not act as adults? Ok, we cannot. The hand was played out, blah, blah, blah, and then the opposition called the TD, blah, blah, blah. The TD came and established the facts, including how many tricks were made, blah blah blah, the TD asked each side for what had happened, blah, blah, blah, he looked at the convention card, blah, blah, blah, he then went away and consulted with other TDs and good players, blah blah blah. Now what do you decide? >When the opener's hand becomes revealed I shall accept a claim of >misinformation and possible damage and rule on that unless the information >given by B is demonstrably correct and complete. Great. That has completely failed to address the question. What do you do? >However if B ought to have serious reason suspecting that A temporarily had >forgotten his new agreement then I consider that he should have offered this >suspicion to opponents under the "partnership experience" clause in L75C. >(And even more so if B possibly has taken such suspicion into account when >selecting his calls). Great. That has completely failed to address the question. What do you do? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To be honest, this mailing list has come downhill an awfully long way from when you could put forward a case and people gave an opinion on the case, instead of irrelevancies around 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 svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 4 21:16:12 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Sep 4 21:18:59 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c5b185$1cf4a910$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson > >............. > >> At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the end, possibly > because > >> they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new > >> partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". > >> Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, > >> that's fine". > >> > >> x > >> QJxxx > >> xx > >> KJxxx > >> > >> or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend that a > >> 2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B alerted, > >> and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts and > >> longer spades. > >> > >> The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade > >> suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent > >> save against 4S. > >> > >> Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? > > > >At *this* time I do absolutely nothing except order them to continue > their > >auction and eventually their play. > > Oh, come on, Sven, let's not treat this as a childish exercise. Can > we not act as adults? Frankly I suspected a trap. .............. > >When the opener's hand becomes revealed I shall accept a claim of > >misinformation and possible damage and rule on that unless the > >information given by B is demonstrably correct and complete. > > Great. That has completely failed to address the question. What do > you do? I didn't realize I was that enigmatic? Of course I start out by obtaining evidence of the partnership agreements and if I am satisfied that the explanation was correct and complete so that A made a genuine misbid I let the table score stand, otherwise I consider what could have developed if the next player had entered the auction with some call indicating that he had spades. From what this player can see there is nothing to prevent A from holding 6 cards in spades so I am not going to hold it against him that he ought to have suspected a misbid or a psyche. > >However if B ought to have serious reason suspecting that A > >temporarily had forgotten his new agreement then I consider > >that he should have offered this suspicion to opponents > >under the "partnership experience" clause in L75C. > >(And even more so if B possibly has taken such suspicion > >into account when selecting his calls). > > Great. That has completely failed to address the question. What do > you do? As I said I would obtain evidence on agreements. And if I got the impression that B had suppressed vital information (associated with the change of partnership) I would probably rule that this was misinformation which possibly had damaged opponents. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To be honest, this mailing list has come downhill an awfully long way > from when you could put forward a case and people gave an opinion on the > case, instead of irrelevancies around it. Maybe we have learned to be very careful about giving comments unless we feel that the case presentation is complete and free of possible surprises? Honestly there have been a few of those incomplete presentations around? Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 5 01:27:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 5 01:28:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000101c5aed8$4a72e5a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316CD93.60308@hdw.be> <431760E9.7090307@hdw.be> <431AC1CD.9070005@hdw.be> <6QpBWPIIUuGDFwhl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431B0A4E.2060602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431B82DC.7020207@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>> >>>> That is my point, David. You cannot use the non-mentioning of a >>>> particular card as sole evidence of it being normal to play another >>>> one. You have to judge the normalcy on all points, and the >>>> non-mentioning is only one piece of evidence among many. >>> >>> I do not use it as sole evidence, but I do use it as part of the >>> evidence. Citing non-similar and non-comparable cases is hardly >>> evidence either. >>> >> >> Yes David, you do. >> You have never even contemplated the case with regards to the >> singleton diamond on the table. >> All you have ever stated in this thread are things like "it is >> careless for him because he failed to mention it". >> >> >>>> In the case of Rotterdam, the non-mentioning of the King is evidence >>>> that claimer did not realize that he's going down if he lets LHO in, >>>> but it does not in itself make the jack a normal line. >>> >>> In the case of Rotterdam it was pretty obvious that he had not >>> thought of the effect, thus playing the jack is careless, not >>> irrational. >>> >> >> But I am not talking about the effect concerning the DQ. I am talking >> about the only way to make an extra trick with a singleton and no >> losers on the table! > > > Not at all. His claim did not include him making a diamond trick. So > you are talking about what an AC should decide if it chooses to *ignore* > the claim statement. > No not at all. I am talking about what an AC should decide is a normal line. Putting the Jack on the return of a small diamond is not a normal line, according to this AC. Not because he will suddenly remember that the queen to his left might lead to him going down, but because he cannot fail to notice that putting on the king leads to a possible overtrick. It is not because he did not ask for an overtrick (he's not going to get it either - cashing the DA is still a possible defensive line which is worse to claimer than the small diamond return which leads to an overtrick) that he should now be judged to play irrationally if the opponents decide to hand him one. The claim statement is out of the window as soon as the opponents do something else than what is mentioned in that statement. He stated he would give a trick to the DA. That does not mean that if they decide they don't want that trick, claimer should now do everything in his power to give them this trick, as well as any other one. There is no use keeping a claimer to a claim statement when that statement is incomplete (like most claim statements are). "I give you the Ace of diamonds" is so hopelessly inadequate that if you're going to rule on that one, you might as well rule against every single claim. So you rule as you would for a man who has not given any claim statement, and you list all defensive lines (all of them) and all offensive lines (only the normal ones) and you chose the one which is worst for claimer. You take into account what claimer stated (in this case that he remembers that there is still a high diamond out, and a trump that is lower than his highest one). But you rule on what he would do in all possible lines. And in the case of a low diamond return, you rule on what claimer may do. You notice that it is silly (*) to put on the jack with just a singleton in dummy, and no losers to throw on king if the AQ are in the other position. (*) use of the word silly deliberate in this sentence, because: You then judge whether this sillyness would be careless or irrational. And you remember that the laws tell you that you must judge this carelessness according to the level of the player involved (and that this implies that the irrationality is also according to that level). The AC decided that for a claimer of this level it would be irrational to fail to notice the singleton diamond on the table, and that the only card one can play on this return is the king. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 5 01:28:20 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 5 01:29:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431AC212.309@hdw.be> <8gMAK2IfcuGDFwjC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431B0ABE.1090400@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431B8314.6000206@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>> >>>> But I don't go around calling rulings that I disagree with >>>> "dreadful". Especially not when there is clear evidence of there >>>> being at least some sense of correctness in it. >>> >>> You certainly do make some very strong views known. >>> You seem to think the world is black and white. It isn't, it has >>> various degrees. I certainly do not think every decision I disagree >>> with is dreadful. >>> In this case *either* the AC has completely misunderstood the Law, >>> especially what "careless" means, *or* they have completely misjudged >>> the hand by ignoring the thinking shown by the claim statement. As a >>> result their decision is not just wrong: it is dreadfully wrong. >>> >> >> And here you have a qualified director who believes the ruling is >> right - both in law and in judgment - especially in law - I leave the >> judgment to the members of the AC. >> >> To call it dreadfully wrong under those circumstances is being just a >> tad more self-centered than is good for you. > > > No, it isn't. It's just my considered opinion. > And you are allowed your opinion. You are not allowed to call a differing opinion "dreadful". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 5 02:52:40 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Sep 5 02:54:18 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e05090212195bc25dd8@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Willey: [snip] >The application itself is a bidding system editor. Players >are able to map a sequence of bids to a text string. For >example, the sequence > >1S - (P) - 2C might map to "4+ Clubs, game forcing games" >while P - (P) - 1S - (P) - 2C would read "Artificial: 3+ >Spades, game invitational values" > >The application has a number of potential uses. For >example, "Full Disclosure" could be used as a "cheat sheet" >for players who are practicing with a new bidding system. [snip] Richard Hills: Once the "Full Disclosure" editor has finished its beta-test stage, it has obvious merit for users and opponents of relay bidding systems. Opponents would get an immediate full description of a relay response with the click of a button; this would allow them to plan their defence during the auction, rather than their two current options of either twiddling their thumbs during an incomprehensible auction, or alternatively delaying the game by asking questions about each call. (Immediate full descriptions would also enhance the opponents' options to safely make a lead-directing double and/or diagnose a penalty double.) And, of course, learning a relay system could easily be done solo (especially if the final version of the bidding system editor is linked to a random hand generator). If any blml newbies are interested in a copy of my Symmetric Relay system notes, send me a private email. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 5 04:42:30 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Sep 5 04:44:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Dreadful decisions and horrible things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson assertion: >I believe this to be short-sighted. If, for example, >three people decide that bidding 6S after 1H p 2H p is an >LA with a flat 15 count, that is a dreadful decision: but >it is not an illegal decision. Richard Hills off-topic: This real-life "dreadful" auction occurred last week, with some "dreadful" selection of logical alternatives. Canberra Bridge Club Walk-in butler pairs Tuesday 30th August 2005 Dlr: West 54 Vul: East-West 5 843 Q875432 AJT3 92 AKQJ972 T4 J6 AQT752 --- KT6 KQ876 863 K9 AJ9 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard Hills Klavs Kalejs Pass! Pass 1D 1S 6H! Pass Pass Pass When I picked up the West cards, I knew that they had slam potential. However, since Klavs and I played rather simple natural methods, I could not describe all of the various features (solid hearts, worthless doubleton diamonds, club void, useful ace- high secondary spades) of my hand to him for him to make an informed choice about whether or not to bid slam. Therefore, I thought it better to listen to the unforced bids in the auction selected by my three opponents, and make the final choice myself. North led a spade to South's queen and my ace. I drew trumps in three rounds, discarding dummy's six of clubs. Now I exited with the three of spades to dummy's nine and South's queen. Due to the uninformative auction to slam, South attempted to cash the ace of clubs. +1430 and 13 imps to the good guys. North-South were not irritated by the auction and result, but rather amused. Indeed, North asked me to partner her at Friday night's walk-in pairs. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From wayne.burrows at xtra.co.nz Fri Sep 2 01:04:01 2005 From: wayne.burrows at xtra.co.nz (wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz) Date: Mon Sep 5 09:25:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 Message-ID: <20050901230401.WECL5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.188]> > > From: "Grattan" > Date: 2005/09/02 Fri AM 06:26:11 GMT+12:00 > To: "blml" > Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > > 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: "Roger Pewick" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:30 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > > > > > 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. > > > +=+ I don't know who is arguing what here, but I did > understand the Director was called to the table when > the claim was made? The claims laws only provide for > the Director to be called when there is a claim if it > is disputed. The Director who is called should assume > therefore that the claim is disputed and proceed on > that basis. Calling the Director is indicative of dispute. The director should determine the facts. Some players call the director just because they don't like claims. Wayne From jimfox99 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 2 19:15:11 2005 From: jimfox99 at hotmail.com (Jim Fox) Date: Mon Sep 5 09:25:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. References: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <005101c5afd4$8da11980$179468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: *Notwithstanding the fact* that it is never done that way anywhere else in America (and elsewhere?). Mmbridge ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Stress and distress. [nige1 While on the topic of netiquette, Kojak may be amused to learn that so-called *top-posting* is another net-solecism to which he is prone. This post is an example of top-posting. It is easier to follow arguments in chronological order. Hence, correct netiquette is to reply *after* the text on which you comment [Kojak] > Why, thank you Grattan, I was not aware > of *that* [Grattan] THIS is shouting and *this* is stressing . _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From craigstamps at comcast.net Sat Sep 3 01:16:10 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Mon Sep 5 09:25:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. References: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <005101c5afd4$8da11980$179468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <009c01c5b014$4ec33e60$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> THIS (or +this+ or *this* or ^this^) makes no sense. If one has threaded messages so as to read them in chronilogical order, why must one be forced to scroll through the mass of old postings to reach the meat of the new material. Unless responding maybe like this with comments intersperced to an old posting, it makes sense to put the new comments on top where it is easiest to find them. If that is bad netiquette, then Emily POST (or whatever) needs to be fired and someone who can think logically be put in charge of trying to tell people how to post. I, for one, will continue to top post until someone can demonstrate to me that that isn't clearest to my readers. Has the time come yet where everyone can read HTML posts? Then we could use italics and suit symbols. But I would not wish to make posts unreadable to part of the list so continue to send under the limitations of plain text. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Stress and distress. > [nige1 > While on the topic of netiquette, Kojak may be > amused to learn that so-called *top-posting* is > another net-solecism to which he is prone. This > post is an example of top-posting. It is easier to > follow arguments in chronological order. Hence, > correct netiquette is to reply *after* the text on > which you comment > > [Kojak] >> Why, thank you Grattan, I was not aware >> of *that* > Much as I respect Grattan, I never heard of such a rule either, Bill. I was told caps of a word or phrase was emphasis, sending entire messages was shouting. After all, you normally raise your voice in speech to stress a point. Is this a British rule perhaps? John? Davids? (And Marv, Roger, Ed et al on this side of the pond) Please weigh in, as I'm sure none of us wish either to offend or be unclear. This could be one of those things like the multicolo(u)red 2 diamonds...common as dirt on the continent and illegal in most events in the states! Craig > [Grattan] > THIS is shouting and *this* is stressing . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows at xtra.co.nz Sun Sep 4 07:48:05 2005 From: wayne.burrows at xtra.co.nz (wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz) Date: Mon Sep 5 09:25:06 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" Message-ID: <20050904054805.ZKAK5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.188]> > > From: David Stevenson > Date: 2005/09/04 Sun AM 07:30:38 GMT+12:00 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] "Full Disclosure" > > richard willey wrote > > > Maybe Richard needs to give us some hints about what he means. > > >There are a large number of decisions that hinge arround "misbid > >versus misinformation". > > > >Assume the following hypothetical: > > > >Pair A is playing 2/1 game force > >Pair A mistakenly loads a convention file for a different system > > > >What is their actual agreement? The system that they believe that > >they are playing or the documentation that they have submitted? > > At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the end, possibly because > they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new > partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". > Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, > that's fine". > > x > QJxxx > xx > KJxxx > > or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend that a > 2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B alerted, > and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts and > longer spades. > > The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade > suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent > save against 4S. > > Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? > This seems clearly a misbid to me so no infraction. "Result stands - Play the next board please" From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 5 09:49:09 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 5 09:50:12 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <20050904054805.ZKAK5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.188]> References: <20050904054805.ZKAK5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.188]> Message-ID: <431BF875.6020804@hdw.be> wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >>Date: 2005/09/04 Sun AM 07:30:38 GMT+12:00 >>To: blml@rtflb.org >>Subject: Re: [blml] "Full Disclosure" >> >>richard willey wrote >> >>>>Maybe Richard needs to give us some hints about what he means. >> >>>There are a large number of decisions that hinge arround "misbid >>>versus misinformation". >>> >>>Assume the following hypothetical: >>> >>>Pair A is playing 2/1 game force >>>Pair A mistakenly loads a convention file for a different system >>> >>>What is their actual agreement? The system that they believe that >>>they are playing or the documentation that they have submitted? >> >> At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the end, possibly because >>they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new >>partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". >>Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, >>that's fine". >> >> x >> QJxxx >> xx >> KJxxx >> >>or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend that a >>2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B alerted, >>and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts and >>longer spades. >> >> The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade >>suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent >>save against 4S. >> >> Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? >> > > > This seems clearly a misbid to me so no infraction. "Result stands - Play the next board please" > Surely we need to protect the opponents a little more than that. I'd rather say "is this your name on this CC? - then how am I going to believe that this is the CC that you are playing, why not the other one?" And even if they have told some convention desk about which system they are going to play, I'm still willing to say "and you just might have forgotten to tell us that just before the match you agreed to play A's two-openings, not B's. I'm going to find enough counter-evidence so that I can use the footnote and rule misinformation rather than misbid. The final "if you get this one wrong, then you have _no_ agreement" may well do the trick too. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 5 11:37:31 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Sep 5 12:00:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 References: <009e01c5b078$c46dc720$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <008a01c5b200$22034170$c29787d9@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: "Ton Kooijman" To: ; Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam Appeal 3 > > You seemed to say that calling the TD to inform him > about an opponents claim automatically makes that > claim a contested one. Or following your last sentence > above: the TD not necessarrily has been called to make > a ruling. If you really said so, I don't agree with you. > > ton > +=+ "Good evening Mr. Director. My opponents have just made a claim and I have called you to pass the time of day." Really? If the TD does not think it possible a question has been raised and proceed to enquire further as to the reason for calling him it passes all belief. The TD is just plainly incompetent if he fails in that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 5 12:38:11 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 5 12:39:18 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <9831c3776acac5f53fb8c0d8ffd354a9@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <20050904054805.ZKAK5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.188]> <431BF875.6020804@hdw.be> <9831c3776acac5f53fb8c0d8ffd354a9@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <431C2013.6050002@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 5 Sep 2005, at 08:49, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Surely we need to protect the opponents a little more than that. I'd >> rather say "is this your name on this CC? - then how am I going to >> believe that this is the CC that you are playing, why not the other one?" >> And even if they have told some convention desk about which system >> they are going to play, I'm still willing to say "and you just might >> have forgotten to tell us that just before the match you agreed to >> play A's two-openings, not B's. > > > What an extraordinary suggestion, in the absence of any evidence. > "in the absence of evidence to the contrary a director is to presume mistake explanation rather than mistaken bid" >> >> I'm going to find enough counter-evidence so that I can use the >> footnote and rule misinformation rather than misbid. > > > This doesn't sound like an impartial approach to the situation. > Who says I have to be impartial? impartial to whom? to the opponents who've been bamboozled (their idea) out of a spade contract? >> >> The final "if you get this one wrong, then you have _no_ agreement" >> may well do the trick too. > > > What trick is it that you are trying to do, Herman? > finding a way of ruling against them. People that have incomplete agreements do not always deserve our protection. > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 5 12:53:18 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 5 12:54:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness Message-ID: <431C239E.40607@hdw.be> Funny lot you guys. In Rotterdam 3 you started discussin whether defenders were allowed to find a defence long after the claim, and you missed the focal point. In Rotterdam 6 you went berzerk over the non-mentioning by claimer, and you failed to see the real problem about the level of the player at all. But I only posted these cases because there are a number of similitudes between them, and that point has never been made. In both cases, a defender is on lead. In both cases, that defender takes a very long time. In both cases, declarer then claims. In both cases, the claim is basically good. (In R6 it would have been bad if the DA were to the left, but let's go on) In both cases, the defence finds a line that can still defeat the contract. That line is not immediately obvious. In both cases, declarer has a quite straightforward counterdefence. In both cases, the argument that declarer has not mentioned the particular defensive line is used to try and rule against him. I find this quite disturbing. Look at it from the point of view from East in R6. Suppose that defender has a completely correct view of the cards. He probably knows that partner has no more high clubs (the 10 already made a trick), and no more than the queen (or possibly the king) of diamonds. East can realize that he has two options: cash the ace of diamonds, which will end the play, or underlead a diamond. If partner has the king, this may well lead to one down, if declarer has it, he will probably play it and he will get an overtrick. But East has a third option: by waiting and getting declarer nervous, he may induce a claim. Now he will still get his downtrick if West has the king, and he need not give away the overtrick if he hasn't. And he may get a silly Director to rule it one down by having declarer play the jack. I find this a very unsportsmanlike thing to do. By claiming, declarer has given up the right to an overtrick. He must suffer the best defense that exists, even if that defense will never be found at the table. Do we really want him to have to play sub-standard after that as well? Don't forget that when you claim on opponent's lead, you should have to imagine a large number of possible returns. If you are supposed to tell what you'll play on each of them, your claim statement runs into minutes. And when you forget one which you think is obvious, you don't want to be ruled against by an unimaginative director. It's just a though, but look at R3 again under this light? It took the defense all day to come up with the line in which declarer might go wrong, and then you would not allow declarer to think for 5 seconds before finding the counter-defence? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Mon Sep 5 13:21:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon Sep 5 13:24:05 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" Message-ID: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> Hallo Herman, "Herman De Wael" wrote: > >> > >> At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the end, possibly because > >>they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new > >>partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". > >>Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, > >>that's fine". > >> > >> x > >> QJxxx > >> xx > >> KJxxx > >> > >>or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend that a > >>2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B alerted, > >>and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts and > >>longer spades. > >> > >> The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade > >>suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent > >>save against 4S. > >> > >> Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? > >> > > > > > > This seems clearly a misbid to me so no infraction. "Result stands - > > Play the next board please" > > > > Surely we need to protect the opponents a little more than that. I'd > rather say "is this your name on this CC? - then how am I going to > believe that this is the CC that you are playing, why not the other one?" > And even if they have told some convention desk about which system > they are going to play, I'm still willing to say "and you just might > have forgotten to tell us that just before the match you agreed to > play A's two-openings, not B's. > > I'm going to find enough counter-evidence so that I can use the > footnote and rule misinformation rather than misbid. > > The final "if you get this one wrong, then you have _no_ agreement" > may well do the trick too. > I don't believe this ! First of all I don't know the case nor do I know whether I know the players of the german team. So, you have a case, presented by David, with a clear description of all the facts needed. Tell me please, Herman, why - in your opinion - did David tell us the story of the CC agreement if this story were not considered true. If not, he could have started the case with something like "Player A an Player B played the first time together, because they mixed up the pairs. They took the CCs of player B and the following happened ..." ... or the like ... But no, he told us: "Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, that's fine"." So, take it as a fact, that this pair had a agreement about everthing _on_ this CC, espescially the opening bids. As mentioned a few times in the recent past, some persons here on blml tend to refuse the presented facts and try to find some arguments - out of the sky - to approach the case from a totally different angle. The narrator of this story tells you a plausible reason for the fact that one player misbid and all you do is to search for an argument for calling them cheats. This pair has a CC - but you ignore it and say (something like): "oviously you put the wrong CC on the table". This pair tells you they have aggred upon the openings on the CC - but you tell them liars and rule on the assupmtion they have a totally different and CPU. And as a last rescue - if all the above doesn't work - you have found the final solution the punish them (yes, obviously you don't want to find the truth, but rather to punish the lucky guys) in assuming that they did not have any agreement at all - contrary to every clue presented. Why ????? Are you a tournament director or some modern form of Robin Hood ? Oh no, sorry, bad comparison. Robin Hood was esteemed by the majority of the commons. Sorry, Herman, for attacking you personally (it's not my usual habit), but that contribution incensed me and I had to let off the steam. Regards Peter Eidt Germany From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 5 14:26:35 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 5 14:27:44 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> References: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> Hallo Peter, Peter Eidt wrote: > Hallo Herman, > > > "Herman De Wael" wrote: > >>>> At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the end, possibly because >>>>they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new >>>>partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". >>>>Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said "yes, >>>>that's fine". >>>> >>>> x >>>> QJxxx >>>> xx >>>> KJxxx >>>> >>>>or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend that a >>>>2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B alerted, >>>>and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts and >>>>longer spades. >>>> >>>> The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade >>>>suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent >>>>save against 4S. >>>> >>>> Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? >>>> >>> >>> >>>This seems clearly a misbid to me so no infraction. "Result stands - > > >>>Play the next board please" >>> >> >>Surely we need to protect the opponents a little more than that. I'd >>rather say "is this your name on this CC? - then how am I going to >>believe that this is the CC that you are playing, why not the other one?" >>And even if they have told some convention desk about which system >>they are going to play, I'm still willing to say "and you just might >>have forgotten to tell us that just before the match you agreed to >>play A's two-openings, not B's. >> >>I'm going to find enough counter-evidence so that I can use the >>footnote and rule misinformation rather than misbid. >> >>The final "if you get this one wrong, then you have _no_ agreement" >>may well do the trick too. >> > > > I don't believe this ! > > First of all I don't know the case nor do I know whether I know the > players of the german team. > Nor do I. > So, you have a case, presented by David, with a clear description > of all the facts needed. Tell me please, Herman, why - in your opinion - > did David tell us the story of the CC agreement if this story were not > considered true. > Well, if it were considered true, there would be no reason for David to tell the story, now would it? I agree with you that some facts must be presented and be believed. I'm not saying that I don't believe the facts as David presents them, but David wants to know how we shall deal with this story. And we know of many rulings in which we are saying "I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but you have acted exactly the same way as someone who would have been lying, so I need to rule the same way". > If not, he could have started the case with something like "Player A > an Player B played the first time together, because they mixed up > the pairs. They took the CCs of player B and the following happened ..." > ... or the like ... > But no, he told us: "Player A studied player B's convention card for a > time, then said "yes, that's fine"." > Indeed, that's what's probably happened. But we don't know that it happened, do we? For all we know, the players may be spinning us a tale. David was not there, at that meeting, was he? And the discussion was probably in German, so you and I would have understood, but not David (I presume). > So, take it as a fact, that this pair had a agreement about everthing > _on_ this CC, espescially the opening bids. > Well, if you are going to believe everything the players tell you, there is no need in being a director, is there? > As mentioned a few times in the recent past, some persons here on blml > tend to refuse the presented facts and try to find some arguments - out > of the sky - to approach the case from a totally different angle. > That is indeed the case. But let's not put this one in that basket. David presents us with some facts, and then he asks us to rule. He has not said that he accepts those facts for certain, or he would not ask what to do. So let's translate his story into "the players tell me ...". Am I now allowed to give a ruling based on me not believing these facts? Or if believing, not taking them at face value? > The narrator of this story tells you a plausible reason for the fact > that one player misbid and all you do is to search for an argument > for calling them cheats. This pair has a CC - but you ignore it and > say (something like): "oviously you put the wrong CC on the table". > This pair tells you they have aggred upon the openings on the CC - but > you tell them liars and rule on the assupmtion they have a totally > different and CPU. > And as a last rescue - if all the above doesn't work - you have found > the final solution the punish them (yes, obviously you don't want to > find the truth, but rather to punish the lucky guys) in assuming that > they did not have any agreement at all - contrary to every clue > presented. > > Why ????? > Because it is too easy to come to a table without concrete agreements, and at the first misbid produce a CC with an explanation that fits the one given at the table. > Are you a tournament director or some modern form of Robin Hood ? > Oh no, sorry, bad comparison. Robin Hood was esteemed by the majority > of the commons. > > Sorry, Herman, for attacking you personally (it's not my usual habit), > but that contribution incensed me and I had to let off the steam. > That's OK. I hope you have understood why I would act in this way. And you have been less personally hurtful than some of the abuse I have to swallow some times. > > Regards > Peter Eidt > Germany > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 5 14:59:57 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Sep 5 15:03:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Barbara Parker of Biloxi. Message-ID: <000501c5b219$bdda6420$5fbc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- +=+ I have an acquaintance in Australia who is seeking news of Barbara Parker, resident in Biloxi. He has failed to contact her since Katrina struck. If anyone should know anything we would be grateful. ~ G ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 5 17:05:07 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon Sep 5 17:08:06 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> References: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431C5EA3.7020407@t-online.de> I have snipped this a bit. Herman De Wael wrote: > Hallo Peter, > > >>>>> (David Stevenson) At Brighton a German team was playing. Near the >>>>> end, possibly because >>>>> they were not doing well, they switched partners. In one of the new >>>>> partnerships, player B said to player A "Shall we play my system?". >>>>> Player A studied player B's convention card for a time, then said >>>>> "yes, >>>>> that's fine". >>>>> >>>>> x >>>>> QJxxx >>>>> xx >>>>> KJxxx >>>>> >>>>> or some such at Green [nv v v]. Player A had played all weekend >>>>> that a >>>>> 2H opening showed hearts and a minor, so he bid 2H. Player B >>>>> alerted, >>>>> and in response to a question, explained 2H as showing five hearts >>>>> and >>>>> longer spades. >>>>> >>>>> The next player had no idea what to do with his good six-card spade >>>>> suit so passed. Player B bid the obvious 4H, which was an excellent >>>>> save against 4S. >>>>> >>>>> Now the opposition called the TD. Your move? >>>>> >> ( Peter Eidt) So, you have a case, presented by David, with a clear >> description >> of all the facts needed. Tell me please, Herman, why - in your opinion - >> did David tell us the story of the CC agreement if this story were >> not considered true. >> > > (Herman de Wael) Well, if it were considered true, there would be no > reason for David to tell the story, now would it? So you think a case where the facts are clear is not worthy to be discussed on BLML? I think David is perfectly capable to present a case in a way to let the reader have doubt about the fact if he chooses to do so. I cannot discern any indication of such an approach. He told the faczs in no uncertain terms. Why should anything about this be in doubt? > I agree with you that some facts must be presented and be believed. > I'm not saying that I don't believe the facts as David presents them, > but David wants to know how we shall deal with this story. And we know > of many rulings in which we are saying "I'm not saying that I don't > believe you, but you have acted exactly the same way as someone who > would have been lying, so I need to rule the same way". > >> If not, he could have started the case with something like "Player A >> an Player B played the first time together, because they mixed up >> the pairs. They took the CCs of player B and the following happened ..." >> ... or the like ... >> But no, he told us: "Player A studied player B's convention card for >> a time, then said "yes, that's fine"." >> > > Indeed, that's what's probably happened. But we don't know that it > happened, do we? We don`t? This does not look like a player`s tale to me. I am sure David would have written something like "when asked about their agreements..." or some such if there had been anything unclear about the facts. > For all we know, the players may be spinning us a tale. David was not > there, at that meeting, was he? And the discussion was probably in > German, so you and I would have understood, but not David (I presume). There may well have been no "meeting", the switch taking place between two matches. > > >> >> > > (Herman) David presents us with some facts, and then he asks us to > rule. He has not said that he accepts those facts for certain, or he > would not ask what to do. Hello? Earth to Herman? Since when does having all the facts mean we don`t have to think before giving a ruling? Normal procedure for setting a problem on BLML is to present all available facts. Hmmm, looks like David did so. Of course he can present us with facts and then emerge from the underbrush later, shouting "ha ha, I got you there, how could you believe such rubbish", but I think it is quite unlikely that he has done so. > So let's translate his story into "the players tell me ...". Am I now > allowed to give a ruling based on me not believing these facts? Or if > believing, not taking them at face value? No, Herman, you are not. If something is a _fact_ there is no belief or disbelief. You may choose not to believe a statement, why not? I have done so myself often enough. > >> >> > > Because it is too easy to come to a table without concrete agreements, > and at the first misbid produce a CC with an explanation that fits the > one given at the table. Any CC not on the table at the time of the board in question will of course be treated with a lot of suspicion and will probably be disregarded, sure. But I can see no evidence of a CC being "produced", or of different CCs or something like that. The case has enough merits as it is. Have A and B actually had an agreement about 2H? From B`s viewpoint they surely have, it is his CC and he has seen A peruse it and agree to play what`s on it. Is this enough to constitute an "agreement" (in the sense of two people being sure about what they are doing)? Even if the facts are undisputed (let us assume that they are) there are three possible viewpoints. 1. A and B do not actually have an agreement about 2H, so the explanation is MI. 2. They have agreed to play 2H as explained, but A forgot. Misbid. Compare Brighton Appeals 2000 Case 1. You commented on this case together with David, so you know it. 3. A agreed to play what`s on the CC, but the information about 2H didn`t actually reach his brain. He just supposed B played weak two-suiters just like himself. Is this an "agreement"? I don`t think so, so it`s misbid again. What a TD has to do now is to find out whether an agreement actually existed (pretty unlikely). Let us make another assumption. Let`s say that this agreement actually was in place. Now would you say that there was full disclosure? In a first-time partnership, without any systems discussion, just a more or less quick glance over someone else`s CC? My answer would be no. Length of major suit openings, probably yes. No trump range, probably yes. A very unusual two suited opening bid? A statement about the way how this "agreement" came about is the least thing they should have done. My actual ruling would probably be MI, not misbid. Some further information would be needed. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 5 17:45:02 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon Sep 5 17:48:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Barbara Parker of Biloxi. In-Reply-To: <000501c5b219$bdda6420$5fbc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000501c5b219$bdda6420$5fbc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <431C67FE.8080603@t-online.de> Grattan Endicott wrote: >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >************************************** >'that unhoped serene that men call age' > ~ Rupert Brooke >--------------------------------------------------- > >+=+ I have an acquaintance in Australia who is >seeking news of Barbara Parker, resident in >Biloxi. He has failed to contact her since Katrina >struck. If anyone should know anything we >would be grateful. ~ G ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > A Google search for Biloxi and the word group "Barbara Parker" gave 45 hits, none of them from the last days. Amongst them may be information for your friend about people from Biloxi he could contact to hear some news. For example edresses of Biloxi newspapers. Biloxi looks terrible on TV, but such enterprises as newspapers or TV stations should still operate, even if their headquarters had to be moved. To be without news of a friend at this time is a terrible thing. From what I hear on the news there are still thousands waiting to be rescued, and thousands evacuated and without the means to communicate, so I hope that Barbara Parker and everyone else in this terrible situation gets out of this alive and unharmed. From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 5 17:50:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 5 17:51:49 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <431C5EA3.7020407@t-online.de> References: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> <431C5EA3.7020407@t-online.de> Message-ID: <431C694C.80904@hdw.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > I have snipped this a bit. > So have I. The discussion as to what part of David's story is fact and what is the players' tale is of little importance. David recounts what he's been told. We've been told the same thing. We can choose to believe this tale or not, but we have to rule. if we believe the tale then the ruling is easy. I prefer to suspend my belief. > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> (Herman) David presents us with some facts, and then he asks us to >> rule. He has not said that he accepts those facts for certain, or he >> would not ask what to do. > > > > Hello? Earth to Herman? Since when does having all the facts mean we > don`t have to think before giving a ruling? Normal procedure for setting > a problem on BLML is to present all available facts. Hmmm, looks like > David did so. And I choose to believe David is telling the "facts" as the players told them to him. David was not the German coach who is telling facts that are true facts. > Of course he can present us with facts and then emerge from the > underbrush later, shouting "ha ha, I got you there, how could you > believe such rubbish", but I think it is quite unlikely that he has done > so. > >> So let's translate his story into "the players tell me ...". Am I now >> allowed to give a ruling based on me not believing these facts? Or if >> believing, not taking them at face value? > > > > No, Herman, you are not. If something is a _fact_ there is no belief or > disbelief. You may choose not to believe a statement, why not? I have > done so myself often enough. > Well, if you don't allow me to cast doubt on the players' tale, then there is no reason to listen to my ruling, is there? [snip] Now let's get down to business: >> Because it is too easy to come to a table without concrete agreements, >> and at the first misbid produce a CC with an explanation that fits the >> one given at the table. > > > > Any CC not on the table at the time of the board in question will of > course be treated with a lot of suspicion and will probably be > disregarded, sure. But I can see no evidence of a CC being "produced", > or of different CCs or something like that. > David did not tell us that the CC in question was on the table or not. You choose to believe facts that were not presented? > The case has enough merits as it is. Have A and B actually had an > agreement about 2H? From B`s viewpoint they surely have, it is his CC > and he has seen A peruse it and agree to play what`s on it. Is this > enough to constitute an "agreement" (in the sense of two people being > sure about what they are doing)? And that is the important question. > Even if the facts are undisputed (let us assume that they are) there are > three possible viewpoints. > 1. A and B do not actually have an agreement about 2H, so the > explanation is MI. > 2. They have agreed to play 2H as explained, but A forgot. Misbid. > Compare Brighton Appeals 2000 Case 1. You commented on this case > together with David, so you know it. > 3. A agreed to play what`s on the CC, but the information about 2H > didn`t actually reach his brain. He just supposed B played weak > two-suiters just like himself. Is this an "agreement"? I don`t think so, > so it`s misbid again. > Aha. > What a TD has to do now is to find out whether an agreement actually > existed (pretty unlikely). Let us make another assumption. Let`s say > that this agreement actually was in place. Now would you say that there > was full disclosure? In a first-time partnership, without any systems > discussion, just a more or less quick glance over someone else`s CC? My > answer would be no. Length of major suit openings, probably yes. No > trump range, probably yes. A very unusual two suited opening bid? A > statement about the way how this "agreement" came about is the least > thing they should have done. > > My actual ruling would probably be MI, not misbid. Some further > information would be needed. > So we arrive at the same conclusion. I throw away the CC because I don't believe they have made the actual agreement about the 2-level openings. You keep the CC but then disregard its contents. Why are we argueing? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 6 00:31:43 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue Sep 6 00:34:43 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <431C694C.80904@hdw.be> References: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> <431C5EA3.7020407@t-online.de> <431C694C.80904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431CC74F.1070301@t-online.de> Snipped again. > > (Herman) And I choose to believe David is telling the "facts" as the > players told them to him. David was not the German coach who is > telling facts that are true facts. I don`t know what a German coach (who probably didn`t exist, Brighton not being an international championship, most of the time. Presumably it was at the Summer Congress) has to do with it, German coaches and players not being any more or any less truthful than other people, but I cannot remember David posing questions from hearsay evidence. Why should he (or any other BLML member, for that matter) do so? To the best of my knowledge no one on BLML has ever done so . Why do you believe this now? >>> (Herman) So let's translate his story into "the players tell me >>> ...". Am I now allowed to give a ruling based on me not believing >>> these facts? Or if believing, not taking them at face value? >> >> >> (Matthias) No, Herman, you are not. If something is a _fact_ there is >> no belief or disbelief. You may choose not to believe a statement, >> why not? I have done so myself often enough. >> > > Well, if you don't allow me to cast doubt on the players' tale, then > there is no reason to listen to my ruling, is there? Herman, you may cast doubt on a player`s tale as often as you like, and I will probably help you with it, I just pointed out that a _fact_ is something which is not in doubt. A fact and a player`s tale may be the same thing, but then again they may not. A tale may be doubted, but facts may not. Anything not proven may of course be viewed with suspicion, if there is any cause for it. > > > David did not tell us that the CC in question was on the table or not. > You choose to believe facts that were not presented? Please. If no CC had been on the table there would not have been a case. MI, next board please. Did you ever note it on the appeals form that the pair in question actually had a CC (as was required by every regulation I know of)? Or do only note its absence? > >> (Matthias) The case has enough merits as it is. Have A and B actually >> had an agreement about 2H? From B`s viewpoint they surely have, it is >> his CC and he has seen A peruse it and agree to play what`s on it. Is >> this enough to constitute an "agreement" (in the sense of two people >> being sure about what they are doing)? > > > (Herman) And that is the important question. So I presume. And I believe that this is why David posted the case in the first place. > >> Even if the facts are undisputed (let us assume that they are) there >> are three possible viewpoints. >> 1. A and B do not actually have an agreement about 2H, so the >> explanation is MI. >> 2. They have agreed to play 2H as explained, but A forgot. Misbid. >> Compare Brighton Appeals 2000 Case 1. You commented on this case >> together with David, so you know it. >> 3. A agreed to play what`s on the CC, but the information about 2H >> didn`t actually reach his brain. He just supposed B played weak >> two-suiters just like himself. Is this an "agreement"? I don`t think >> so, so it`s misbid again. >> > > Aha. I have been wrong before, but I take it that you agree with me here. > >> What a TD has to do now is to find out whether an agreement actually >> existed (pretty unlikely). Let us make another assumption. Let`s say >> that this agreement actually was in place. Now would you say that >> there was full disclosure? In a first-time partnership, without any >> systems discussion, just a more or less quick glance over someone >> else`s CC? My answer would be no. Length of major suit openings, >> probably yes. No trump range, probably yes. A very unusual two suited >> opening bid? A statement about the way how this "agreement" came >> about is the least thing they should have done. >> >> My actual ruling would probably be MI, not misbid. Some further >> information would be needed. >> > > So we arrive at the same conclusion. I throw away the CC because I > don't believe they have made the actual agreement about the 2-level > openings. > You keep the CC but then disregard its contents. > Why are we argueing? > Because of two things. 1. I believe we both treat the CC the same way, we just give it a different name, or at least we come to the same conclusion. We do not believe that the agreement was as described; you did so because you think that no discussion has taken place, or that the players are downright liars who pull out a CC that supports their story (or both), I do not believe it because I think that the meaning of 2H in the "agreed" system didn`t actually make it to openers brain, so there actually was no agreement. This leads us to the same ruling in this case, but with slightly different facts we would get very different results. Remember Brighton 2000 case 1. It has a lot of similarities to this case, but a completely different ruling. 2. I (and I believe I can speak for Peter, too) do not believe that it is a healthy way to conduct a BLML discussion to treat the presentation of a case as anything but the bare facts if there is no evidence that it is so. As I wrote before, to the best of my knowledge anything on hearsay has always been marked as such on BLML, and I cannot see any profit in treating David`s case any different. He is an experienced TD and editor of appeals cases (as are you, by the way, so you know pretty well that the heading for the part right below the hand diagram usually is "the facts" and not "the hearsay"). I cannot see the slightest indication that something was foul in the state of Denmark. To assume that things which were presented as facts are actually only conjecture is most counterproductive, because it makes any intelligent discussion about a case completely impossible, every participant in the discussion having his own point of view about what actually happened despite the fact that everybody has the same text in front of his nose. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Sep 6 01:44:43 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Sep 6 01:47:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <200509051616.j85GGmEI005218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509051616.j85GGmEI005218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <431CD86B.4080303@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > But I only posted these cases because there are a number of > similitudes between them, and that point has never been made. > > In both cases, a defender is on lead. > In both cases, that defender takes a very long time. > In both cases, declarer then claims. > In both cases, the claim is basically good. (In R6 it would have been > bad if the DA were to the left, but let's go on) > In both cases, the defence finds a line that can still defeat the > contract. That line is not immediately obvious. > In both cases, declarer has a quite straightforward counterdefence. I think this is the real issue. In my view, such claims are good for the game, and we should not be trying to discourage them. Others on this list seem to be treating claims as infractions. What happened to "as equitably as possible to both sides" (L70A)? From: David Stevenson > You are saying we should ignore the contents of the claim statement, > but as a matter of Law [70D] that is incorrect. Herman is saying no such thing. The issue is what to do about a possible line of play not embraced in the claim statement. Once the case is determined to be in this category, the content of the claim statement is obviously irrelevant. L70D in effect instructs us to place each "alternate" line into one of two categories: "normal, which includes careless or (sic) inferior" on the one hand or "irrational" on the other. How one makes such a judgment isn't completely covered by the Laws. There are some requirements in L70C and L70E, and the overall objective is stated in L70A. According to the WBFLC, part of the judgment is to consider "class of player." Many SO's publish guidelines, and we have case examples from AC reports. Despite all this, it should be no surprise that different people reach different judgments in some cases. In contrast to both David and Herman, I don't think the player's state of mind is relevant to the judgment. In the absence of firm rules, this can of course be debated. From: Herman De Wael [offering a hypothetical line of play] > J10632 > Q74 > 7 > A1043 > 74 KQ85 > AK1052 863 > Q10 A8643 > 9876 2 > A9 > J9 > KJ952 > KQJ5 > bidding : south 1NT (why not?), north 2H, S 2S, N 3C, S 3S. > play : AK of hearts, heart to the queen, diamond discarded from hand. > Sp2, Q inserted and covered, spade nine ducked, club to the 10 on the > table, spade jack to the king. That's seven tricks, 3 to defense, 4 to > declarer. The claim is for 5 out of six tricks, contract 3Sp made. (This line of play isn't consistent with the original end position, where East has no clubs and West still has all four. However, the original has West still with eight cards, everyone else holding six, so it must be wrong.) My initial reaction is to rule with Herman and the original AC that the claim is good. However, on this line of play, and having "consulted" by reading other BLML comments, I think I have to rule South might carelessly play the jack or even low. I hate this outcome for the reasons stated above and never would have thought of it on my own. On a different line of play, where East's club shortage had been revealed, I'd be ruling for declarer. However, on looking at the deal more carefully, I don't think such a line of play exists. We could easily change the deal, though, to give East a club ruff earlier. Regardless of one's view of the correct ruling, I don't think this is easy. (Only the "if Herman, then wrong" school will have an easy time.) Herman is correct that the judgment rests on whether, in the end position reached, playing lower than the top diamond is irrational or not. Even to someone who has not seen the prior play, the D-J (or low) is obviously "no win" and therefore irrational in my view. However, other people have a different view of "irrational," and I feel bound to take note despite this being not at all similar to a case where there is a genuine guess. (By the way, Herman, the position if West wins a diamond trick is a "trump promotion," not an "uppercut." I think this is the first language mistake I've ever seen you make.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Sep 6 01:59:39 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Sep 6 02:02:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Some Like It double-sHot In-Reply-To: <200509031725.j83HPCGD028703@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509031725.j83HPCGD028703@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <431CDBEB.9070705@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > There is a precedent; the second person plural > "you" is identical to the second person singular > "you". Is David Stevenson recommending the > adoption of the dialect word "you-all" for the > second person plural? As one who grew up in a region where separating the two ('you'=singular, 'you all'=plural) was common, I can attest that the distinction is quite useful in avoiding ambiguity. Despite that, I am not recommending this usage for the next FLB. > Ideally the 2007 edition of the Laws should > avoid pronouns wherever possible. (Pronouns > are usually unnecessary, and sometimes create > ambiguity when it is uncertain which person a > particular pronoun refers to.) But if a pronoun > is used, the generic "they" is less awkward than > naming a specific woman as a generic "he". I agree with avoiding pronouns if there is any possible doubt about the correct antecedent, but I disagree with the last suggestion. The FLB must distinguish between singular and plural, and using 'they' for a singular antecedent can only lead to confusion. From: "David Kent" > As I learned soon after moving to North Carolina, "y'all" is 2nd > person singular and "all y'all" is 2nd person plural. Interesting. Cf. my first paragraph above. The fact that dialect varies so much in just a few hundred kilometers (or perhaps over a couple of decades of time) is an argument for writing the FLB in something as close to generic English as possible. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 6 02:41:27 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Sep 6 02:43:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431CD86B.4080303@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner "consulted": [snip] >My initial reaction is to rule with Herman and the >original AC that the claim is good. However, on this >line of play, and having "consulted" by reading other >BLML comments, I think I have to rule South might >carelessly play the jack or even low. [snip] >Herman is correct that the judgment rests on whether, >in the end position reached, playing lower than the >top diamond is irrational or not. Even to someone >who has not seen the prior play, the D-J (or low) is >obviously "no win" and therefore irrational in my >view. However, other people have a different view of >"irrational," and I feel bound to take note despite >this being not at all similar to a case where there >is a genuine guess. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: 1. Under the official WBF LC interpretation of the current claim Laws, something which is careless for an ordinary expert might be irrational for an international champion. (Yes, the 2007 Lawbook could have different criteria in the 2007 claim Laws, given that Richard Hills, Sven Pran, Grattan Endicott and William Schoder support the idea that "irrational" means "irrational", but that fact is irrelevant to my quibble.) 2. The claimer was an international champion 3. With the exception of Adam Wildavsky (who has not commented on this case) zero posters on blml are international champions. 4. Therefore, the poll of blmlers has sample bias; it is not a poll of peers of the claimer; so is as worthless as the famous opinion poll which stated that Landon would beat Roosevelt in the 1936 American Presidential election. (That poll's sample bias was surveying millions of Americans who were listed in the phone books. But during the Great Depression poor Americans could not afford a telephone. As poor Americans were overwhelmingly supporters of Roosevelt, Landon lost to Roosevelt in a landslide.) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 6 03:22:05 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 6 03:24:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431CD86B.4080303@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000101c5b281$64d43000$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner ................ > I think this is the real issue. In my view, such claims are good for > the game, and we should not be trying to discourage them. Others on > this list seem to be treating claims as infractions. What happened to > "as equitably as possible to both sides" (L70A)? The "normal" sequence and procedure of play is prescribed in Law 44. Law 68 allows the players to interrupt this sequence and procedure, primarily intended for use to save time when there can be no doubt about the final result on the board. But claiming is in no way part of the "normal" procedure for playing a board prescribed in Law 44. And it should be obvious that claiming has no real part in the game when explaining the claim must be expected to take more time than playing the board out at least to a simpler position. When a claim is contested the Director has the duty to resolve the dispute as equitably as possible to both sides, but in this process he must protect the side that did not interrupt the normal progress of the play and rule in their favor on each and every question that has not been unambiguously covered by the claimer in his claim statement. (But see below). This was the original law on claims; whenever the claimer had not explicitly specified what card he would play to a particular trick his opponents could dictate which card to play with no other restriction than that the play must be legal. Later this was modified so that the claimer could not be forced to make "irrational" plays. However the laws failed to (and still do not) specify criteria for judging whether a play should be considered "irrational". Still later the laws on claims was again modified to include what I consider the unlucky clause "class of player" which in some cases is used to "protect" a careless and maybe exhausted player from making silly errors which could not be excluded had he played on instead of claiming. My conviction is that this can never have been the intention of the claim laws and this clause. We all know that even expert players occasionally make the silliest mistakes and we should not have laws that can be used to let anybody short-circuit this possibility. Therefore what is "irrational" should be judged from the cards that would be visible to the claimer at the times in question and not depend on his ability to have noticed and remember what has happened in the past etc. In other words "irrational" should be independent from the "class of player". It is "irrational" when playing towards Ace-Queen not to cover a king from second hand with the Ace but it is not "irrational" to overlook that the King must be stiff in fourth hand and fail to drop it under the Ace. It is "irrational" not to over ruff if possible an unexpected ruff from second hand but Law 70C even explicitly prohibits us from allowing a claimer to "remember" a trump he failed to mention with his claim statement if it was at all possible that he could have been unaware of this trump. An expert player may argue to his death that it would be "irrational" for him to forget that trump, no dice. (That he may take appropriate action when that trump shows up as for instance with the unexpected ruff above is a different matter). And in none of the "irrational" examples above is the "class of player" relevant. So in the Rotterdam appeal case 6 we must ask: Is it "irrational" for a careless player who failed to mention what he would do on the return of a small diamond to more or less automatically (without thinking) play East for the Queen and play the Jack? Don't forget that in an actual situation he will not be faced with this question until after he has seen the exact cards remaining with each opponent (Law 70B2). I believe too many contributors here have given their opinion that when the claimer apparently failed to notice the importance of this situation in time to cater for it with his claim statement the possibility that he could play the Jack cannot be discarded. Therefore such play should not be ruled "irrational". Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 6 04:05:41 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 6 04:08:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. In-Reply-To: <009c01c5b014$4ec33e60$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <005101c5afd4$8da11980$179468d5@jeushtlj> <009c01c5b014$4ec33e60$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <72789E3E-BA88-4C91-9E24-6B99F7BE5907@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 2, 2005, at 7:16 PM, craig wrote: > Has the time come yet where everyone can read HTML posts? Then we > could use italics and suit symbols. But I would not wish to make > posts unreadable to part of the list so continue to send under the > limitations of plain text. I suppose that, eventually, all (or at least most) email clients and servers will support HTML. But the internet standard right now is that email is a plain text medium, and until that changes, there will be those who can't (or don't want to) deal with HTML - or RTF, for that matter. Keep in mind also that many are still on relatively slow dial-up connections, and a lot of extraneous formatting data costs them money, or at least time. > Much as I respect Grattan, I never heard of such a rule either, > Bill. I was told caps of a word or phrase was emphasis, sending > entire messages was shouting. After all, you normally raise your > voice in speech to stress a point. Is this a British rule perhaps? > John? Davids? (And Marv, Roger, Ed et al on this side of the pond) > Please weigh in, as I'm sure none of us wish either to offend or be > unclear. This could be one of those things like the multicolo(u)red > 2 diamonds...common as dirt on the continent and illegal in most > events in the states! Netiquette, like etiquette, has evolved over time, and will continue to do so. The deprecation of top-posting comes from Usenet, which is similar to a mailing list in that it is text based, the idea behind not top-posting being to preserve the flow of thought. It is most definitely *not* a European thing. I won't go into the arguments pro and con here - the Wikipedia is a good place to start. You might also take a look at RFC 1855 As for "shouting", I would certainly consider posting an entire sentence (or more) in all caps as shouting. I would be less concerned about an occasional single word. Nonetheless, some people do object to any caps at all, so... "If you live where people rub blue mud in their navels, you should do the same - even if you don't see the point." - R.A. Heinlein From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 6 04:27:18 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 6 04:30:15 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <431BF875.6020804@hdw.be> References: <20050904054805.ZKAK5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.188]> <431BF875.6020804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6D33101D-44EB-4B6A-B11A-0CC0B457AD9E@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 5, 2005, at 3:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I'm going to find enough counter-evidence so that I can use the > footnote and rule misinformation rather than misbid. "First the sentence, then the trial! Off with his head!" - Lewis Carrol From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 6 04:31:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Sep 6 04:33:13 2005 Subject: [blml] The dental blessing In-Reply-To: <5A8646419D20F940B0D538B5C06728CE024D5EAF@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass Pass ? (1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, or 27+ balanced, or game force. (2) Artificial relay. You, North, hold: AQJ4 J QJ954 KJ2 What call do you make? What other calls do consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From adam at tameware.com Tue Sep 6 06:12:18 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue Sep 6 06:15:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:41 AM +1000 9/6/05, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >3. With the exception of Adam Wildavsky (who has not > commented on this case) zero posters on blml are > international champions. I was going to ask "What about David Burn?", but I see that he hasn't posted in almost two years. I expect that, like me, he's busy. As for the two cases in question, I think they are primarily matters of interpreting the law, and that most BLML contributors are sufficiently qualified to judge the bridge issues involved. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon Sep 5 19:52:46 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Tue Sep 6 07:10:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Barbara Parker of Biloxi. References: <000501c5b219$bdda6420$5fbc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <431C67FE.8080603@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001601c5b242$9fcb8cb0$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> The Biloxi-Gulfport newspaper is publishing, for CNN has quoted an editorial. Portions of the city have had electricity restored. There is geavy damage but by far the majority of residents have survived. The American Red Cross is running a web site I understand that is listing survivors who want to notify families and friends they are all right. I sincerely hope Barbara is among those who is well and will be able to rebuild her life after the storm, and I join with many of you in praying for her and all of the victims of the storm. Creaig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Barbara Parker of Biloxi. > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>from Grattan Endicott >>grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >>[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >>************************************** >>'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke >>--------------------------------------------------- >> >>+=+ I have an acquaintance in Australia who is >>seeking news of Barbara Parker, resident in >>Biloxi. He has failed to contact her since Katrina struck. If anyone >>should know anything we >>would be grateful. ~ G ~ +=+ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> > A Google search for Biloxi and the word group "Barbara Parker" gave 45 > hits, none of them from the last days. Amongst them may be information for > your friend about people from Biloxi he could contact to hear some news. > For example edresses of Biloxi newspapers. Biloxi looks terrible on TV, > but such enterprises as newspapers or TV stations should still operate, > even if their headquarters had to be moved. > To be without news of a friend at this time is a terrible thing. From what > I hear on the news there are still thousands waiting to be rescued, and > thousands evacuated and without the means to communicate, so I hope that > Barbara Parker and everyone else in this terrible situation gets out of > this alive and unharmed. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 10:03:08 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 10:03:59 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <431CC74F.1070301@t-online.de> References: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> <431C5EA3.7020407@t-online.de> <431C694C.80904@hdw.be> <431CC74F.1070301@t-online.de> Message-ID: <431D4D3C.2000709@hdw.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >> So we arrive at the same conclusion. I throw away the CC because I >> don't believe they have made the actual agreement about the 2-level >> openings. >> You keep the CC but then disregard its contents. >> Why are we argueing? >> > Because of two things. > 1. I believe we both treat the CC the same way, we just give it a > different name, or at least we come to the same conclusion. We do not > believe that the agreement was as described; you did so because you > think that no discussion has taken place, or that the players are > downright liars who pull out a CC that supports their story (or both), I > do not believe it because I think that the meaning of 2H in the "agreed" > system didn`t actually make it to openers brain, so there actually was > no agreement. This leads us to the same ruling in this case, but with > slightly different facts we would get very different results. Remember > Brighton 2000 case 1. It has a lot of similarities to this case, but a > completely different ruling. > Don't you see that this is exactly the same thing? I am argueing against people for whom the written word, on the CC, is the ultimate in ruling misbid. I give them arguments as to why this should not be so. You on the other hand plainly dismiss the CC and just state that the "agreement never reached players mind". Are we not actually saying exactly the same thing? I give arguments, you just dismiss - but we both say the CC is not enough "evidence" in the sense of the footnote to L75. > 2. I (and I believe I can speak for Peter, too) do not believe that it > is a healthy way to conduct a BLML discussion to treat the presentation > of a case as anything but the bare facts if there is no evidence that it > is so. As I wrote before, to the best of my knowledge anything on > hearsay has always been marked as such on BLML, and I cannot see any > profit in treating David`s case any different. He is an experienced TD > and editor of appeals cases (as are you, by the way, so you know pretty > well that the heading for the part right below the hand diagram usually > is "the facts" and not "the hearsay"). I cannot see the slightest > indication that something was foul in the state of Denmark. To assume > that things which were presented as facts are actually only conjecture > is most counterproductive, because it makes any intelligent discussion > about a case completely impossible, every participant in the discussion > having his own point of view about what actually happened despite the > fact that everybody has the same text in front of his nose. > So in a sense, you prefer to say "I believe you, but I rule against you nevertheless - I believe that you have read the CC, butI think the information did not reach your mind". While I prefer to say "I believe you, but I rule against you because you are saying exactly the same thing as someone who has not read the CC would say - I believe you have read the CC, but since apparently the information did not get through, I think you ahve not read well enough for the agreement to exist". The sentences are different, but the sentence is the same : misinformation. Why are we argueing? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From toddz at att.net Tue Sep 6 10:13:44 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Sep 6 10:16:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> <002201c5afe0$fa0824e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <$D+wiOPXhMGDFwgy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4318D616.5010007@att.net> Message-ID: <431D4FB8.1080809@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > I direct at this game, and play, and do both with sympathy for the > players. I really wonder sometimes reading BLML whether some of the > people who post here do either. I suppose that if you view others as advesaries they'll oblige. I don't think anyone here has devious schemes. I'm sure they've realized by now there should be faster ways to destroy the game than via the mire. On a more practical note, what about sympathy for the caddies? I was witness to an enraging scene this weekend. A player the next table over calls for a caddy to exchange boards in a KO. The caddy takes the boards away and returns with a new stack. The player shouts for the director. The caddy asks if there's something wrong and whether she can help. The player shoots daggers at her and shouts for the director again, but this time by first name. Repeat this exchange several times. Apparently those aren't the boards he expects to get. His partner shouts across the room to see if his teammates received the correct set and they had. The director arrives about then and doesn't chastise anyone. The player offers no apology and unless I missed a transfer of boards in all the confusion, he plays the set he initially got. In the meantime no one at my table wants to continue the auction. What should you do? I wasn't the only one too sheepish to speak up. -Todd From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 10:17:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 10:18:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <000101c5b281$64d43000$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5b281$64d43000$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431D5089.7020700@hdw.be> Why should I bother - I've said it all a million times. But then again, so has Sven, so why not go around the block once again: Sven Pran wrote: > > The "normal" sequence and procedure of play is prescribed in Law 44. > > Law 68 allows the players to interrupt this sequence and procedure, > primarily intended for use to save time when there can be no doubt about the > final result on the board. But claiming is in no way part of the "normal" > procedure for playing a board prescribed in Law 44. And it should be obvious > that claiming has no real part in the game when explaining the claim must be > expected to take more time than playing the board out at least to a simpler > position. > Sven, the laws themselves say that in at least one situation it is illegal _not_ to claim. Claiming is part of the normal game. Only a small fraction of hands are not claimed, but played to the 52nd card. The frequency drops to almost zero the higher the level of play. [snip] > past etc. In other words "irrational" should be independent from the "class > of player". > answered two million times already. If careless is modified, then so must irrational. There is no reason why a word like irrational should not be modified. It contains the word ration = reasoning, so it can be different for different people. > It is "irrational" when playing towards Ace-Queen not to cover a king from > second hand with the Ace but it is not "irrational" to overlook that the > King must be stiff in fourth hand and fail to drop it under the Ace. > > It is "irrational" not to over ruff if possible an unexpected ruff from > second hand but Law 70C even explicitly prohibits us from allowing a claimer > to "remember" a trump he failed to mention with his claim statement if it > was at all possible that he could have been unaware of this trump. > > An expert player may argue to his death that it would be "irrational" for > him to forget that trump, no dice. (That he may take appropriate action when > that trump shows up as for instance with the unexpected ruff above is a > different matter). > > And in none of the "irrational" examples above is the "class of player" > relevant. > If you are only going to give examples where every player agrees, of course you are going to get your statement right. I can give other examples in which one will consider it irrational for Zia not to play a certain way, but quite normal for you or I. > So in the Rotterdam appeal case 6 we must ask: Is it "irrational" for a > careless player who failed to mention what he would do on the return of a > small diamond to more or less automatically (without thinking) play East for > the Queen and play the Jack? Don't forget that in an actual situation he > will not be faced with this question until after he has seen the exact cards > remaining with each opponent (Law 70B2). > Again you are asking the wrong question entirely Is it rational for a player of sufficient ability to put the jack in the following situation: table : trumps XX, diamonds 7 hand : diamonds KJx when right hand plays a small diamond? It is totally and completely wrong to put in the J. This produces an extra only if RHO has AQ. Putting in the king produces an extra trick if RHO has just the Ace. If you cannot see that, your level of player is far below mine. I will not say that I will automatically play the king in this situation, so for me the claim might still be ruled against. But surely you can see that for Zia it would be irrational to play the jack on a small diamond? > I believe too many contributors here have given their opinion that when the > claimer apparently failed to notice the importance of this situation in time > to cater for it with his claim statement the possibility that he could play > the Jack cannot be discarded. Therefore such play should not be ruled > "irrational". > I agree completely when it is only the problem of letting LHO in. But it is not. It is the totally irrational play of the jack given the singleton (and no losers) on the table!!!!! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 6 11:01:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 6 11:04:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431D4FB8.1080809@att.net> Message-ID: <000301c5b2c1$9b80f800$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Todd M. Zimnoch ............. > On a more practical note, what about sympathy for the > caddies? I was witness to an enraging scene this weekend. > A player the next table over calls for a caddy to exchange > boards in a KO. The caddy takes the boards away and returns > with a new stack. The player shouts for the director. The > caddy asks if there's something wrong and whether she can > help. The player shoots daggers at her and shouts for the > director again, but this time by first name. Repeat this > exchange several times. Apparently those aren't the boards > he expects to get. His partner shouts across the room to > see if his teammates received the correct set and they had. > The director arrives about then and doesn't chastise > anyone. The player offers no apology and unless I missed a > transfer of boards in all the confusion, he plays the set he > initially got. In the meantime no one at my table wants to > continue the auction. What should you do? I wasn't the > only one too sheepish to speak up. What should you do? The answer is simple: The scene you describe is from a grave violation of Law 74 and in particular sub laws L74A and L74B5. IMO *anybody* in the room is entitled to addressing the Director (politely) in such cases and make a complaint against a player who behaves like what you described. Whether the boards were correctly transferred or any kind of mistake had indeed been made by the caddy or anybody else is in this context completely irrelevant. The caddy is an appointed assistant to the Director and as such should enjoy the same respect as the Director himself. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 6 11:14:34 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 6 11:17:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431D5089.7020700@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c5b2c3$65b7d340$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > If you cannot see that, your level of player is far below mine. > I will not say that I will automatically play the king in this > situation, so for me the claim might still be ruled against. > But surely you can see that for Zia it would be irrational to play the > jack on a small diamond? Yes indeed. And even Lauria played low to a spade return where nobody, not even I would have dreamt of ruling that way if he had claimed instead of awaiting the lead from LHO. But then the spade return was in itself "irrational" as LHO had the killing lead in the actual position, something Lauria obviously was fully aware of which probably was the reason why he just discarded the small spade in the first place. I do not accept the generic statement that something is "irrational" for a player of a particular class so he will never do it. Too often I have seen it done. And as I have stated I don't want the claim laws available to protect a player from doing mistakes he could (easily) do if he were to play it out instead of claiming. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 11:40:22 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 11:41:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <000401c5b2c3$65b7d340$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c5b2c3$65b7d340$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431D6406.7070005@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>If you cannot see that, your level of player is far below mine. >>I will not say that I will automatically play the king in this >>situation, so for me the claim might still be ruled against. >>But surely you can see that for Zia it would be irrational to play the >>jack on a small diamond? > > > Yes indeed. And even Lauria played low to a spade return where nobody, not > even I would have dreamt of ruling that way if he had claimed instead of > awaiting the lead from LHO. But then the spade return was in itself > "irrational" as LHO had the killing lead in the actual position, something > Lauria obviously was fully aware of which probably was the reason why he > just discarded the small spade in the first place. > > I do not accept the generic statement that something is "irrational" for a > player of a particular class so he will never do it. Too often I have seen > it done. And as I have stated I don't want the claim laws available to > protect a player from doing mistakes he could (easily) do if he were to play > it out instead of claiming. > And yet Sven, the LAWS tell you to disregard such lines in resolving claims. If you continue to use the Lauria example in claims rulings, I shall continue to call you a lousy director. People sometimes revoke, yet revokes are not considered when ruling on claims. If you agree that for Zia it would be irrational to play the diamond jack, then for Zia you must allow this claim. Because the laws tell you to! Which leaves us only with the question whether the same applies to this declarer from Lodz. And I don't mean to be asking if this fellow is as good as Zia. Only if he's good enough for it to be irrational for him to play the jack with a singleton on the table. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 11:45:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 11:46:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <000401c5b2c3$65b7d340$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c5b2c3$65b7d340$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431D6545.1090308@hdw.be> and one more comment: Sven Pran wrote: > it done. And as I have stated I don't want the claim laws available to > protect a player from doing mistakes he could (easily) do if he were to play > it out instead of claiming. > First Sven talks about Lauria playing low, and of Zia revoking. Then he talks of (easily). Sven, the laws do not protect a player from doing mistakes he could easily do. Those mistakes are what are called careless, and they fall into the category of normal. When you talk of people sometimes doing irrational things those are things they do not do "easily". Your dislike of the claims laws is therefore unfounded. We sometimes give claims because we believe the player would _not_ do something which we regard as irrational. While we accept that sometimes people do do irrational things. Claims laws such as the ones you are thinking of are unworkable. And if you believe the current claims laws are also unworkable because you cannot agree with me on the Rotterdam6 case, then maybe it is time for you to start studying a few more claims cases, and see if you can get it into your head that Rotterdam6 is a claim which should be awarded, and that maybe it is you who are wrong in thinking it should not. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 6 12:38:33 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 6 12:41:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431D6545.1090308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > First Sven talks about Lauria playing low, and of Zia revoking. Who has said anything about Zia revoking? Not me. > Sven, the laws do not protect a player from doing mistakes he could > easily do. Those mistakes are what are called careless, and they fall > into the category of normal. > > When you talk of people sometimes doing irrational things those are > things they do not do "easily". Your dislike of the claims laws is > therefore unfounded. We sometimes give claims because we believe the > player would _not_ do something which we regard as irrational. While > we accept that sometimes people do do irrational things. > > Claims laws such as the ones you are thinking of are unworkable. > And if you believe the current claims laws are also unworkable because > you cannot agree with me on the Rotterdam6 case, then maybe it is time > for you to start studying a few more claims cases, and see if you can > get it into your head that Rotterdam6 is a claim which should be > awarded, and that maybe it is you who are wrong in thinking it should not. The following claim case was discussed in an Norwegian Directors' forum: Spade is Trump, declarer holds 9 A A - and claims the rest having forgotten that there is an outstanding (high) trump. A defender holds 10 - - A K And the question was how many tricks to award the claimer. There was not a single Norwegian Director (or for that sake player of some class who has been polled) that gave declarer any trick at all, we all ruled that when believing that all cards are high they are to be played in the sequence most unsuccessful as the remaining cards lie. In this case that is by beginning with the nine of spades. You may recognize this case (refined from the original card holdings); the AC at the European championship for juniors (unless I have mixed my memory) ruled that it was "irrational" to begin with the trump and awarded the defense just one trick. Maybe we have a different culture in Norway? Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 13:09:28 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 13:10:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>First Sven talks about Lauria playing low, and of Zia revoking. > > > Who has said anything about Zia revoking? Not me. > > >>Sven, the laws do not protect a player from doing mistakes he could >>easily do. Those mistakes are what are called careless, and they fall >>into the category of normal. >> >>When you talk of people sometimes doing irrational things those are >>things they do not do "easily". Your dislike of the claims laws is >>therefore unfounded. We sometimes give claims because we believe the >>player would _not_ do something which we regard as irrational. While >>we accept that sometimes people do do irrational things. >> >>Claims laws such as the ones you are thinking of are unworkable. >>And if you believe the current claims laws are also unworkable because >>you cannot agree with me on the Rotterdam6 case, then maybe it is time >>for you to start studying a few more claims cases, and see if you can >>get it into your head that Rotterdam6 is a claim which should be >>awarded, and that maybe it is you who are wrong in thinking it should not. > > > The following claim case was discussed in an Norwegian Directors' forum: > > Spade is Trump, declarer holds > 9 > A > A > - > and claims the rest having forgotten that there is an outstanding (high) > trump. > > A defender holds > 10 > - > - > A K > > And the question was how many tricks to award the claimer. > > There was not a single Norwegian Director (or for that sake player of some > class who has been polled) that gave declarer any trick at all, we all ruled > that when believing that all cards are high they are to be played in the > sequence most unsuccessful as the remaining cards lie. In this case that is > by beginning with the nine of spades. > > You may recognize this case (refined from the original card holdings); the > AC at the European championship for juniors (unless I have mixed my memory) > ruled that it was "irrational" to begin with the trump and awarded the > defense just one trick. > > Maybe we have a different culture in Norway? > Maybe you do - of course if directors within a country only discuss with one another then they can only see their views consolidate to a national view, not a global one. One of the reasons for the existence of blml should be to make rulings more global. I for one would rule only one trick to the defense in the situation above. It does not feel "normal" for me to cash trumps that you "know" are the last ones. Trumps are cashed last. I recall a case involving Boje Brogeland that was ruled at a European championship. When I presented that case to blml, rather than the whole world accepting that this is a good standard and to bring world-wide rulings along the same line, some Norwegians told us that "In Norway we do things differently" so of course a global same line is impossible, unless it's the norwegian one. Give this case to directors and players from around the world and I feel that most would agree that one trick to defenders is all that is needed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 6 14:21:28 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 6 14:23:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431AC287.1010603@hdw.be> References: <000101c5afc3$ed554880$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431AC287.1010603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906081323.02b40500@pop.starpower.net> At 05:46 AM 9/4/05, Herman wrote: >So then there you are with a play that is not careless and not >irrational. What do you do? Treat it as "normal". Aren't most normal plays neither careless nor irrational? >Or you find a play which is both careless and irrational? Do not treat it as "normal". Irrational plays are explicitly excluded from "normal". They will almost always be both careless and inferior as well, but that doesn't matter. >Unless you modify both or none of the sets, you will have overlapping >or disjoint sets. But the "sets" in question aren't "careless" and "irrational"; they are "'normal'" (as defined by the footnote, hence in quotes) and "irrational". Since the definition of "'normal'" specifies "not irrational", they cannot overlap. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Sep 6 10:27:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Sep 6 14:24:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6QpBWPIIUuGDFwhl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: DWS wrote: > In the case of Rotterdam it was pretty obvious that he had not > thought of the effect, thus playing the jack is careless, not > irrational. That is fine, based on the first assumption. However, I would consider it likely that he has merely not considered the *possibility* of a small diamond return - the prolonged hesitation making him fairly sure the DA is with his RHO. If I am (after talking to the players) nearly certain that he had not considered the possibility of a small D but *would* have done so if actually faced with it then I will rule playing any card other than DK irrational. Had declarer not explicitly mentioned the trump I'd rule DJ "careless" without blinking. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 6 14:31:53 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 6 14:34:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431AC33C.6080507@hdw.be> References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> <431AC33C.6080507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906082211.02b36d10@pop.starpower.net> At 05:49 AM 9/4/05, Herman wrote: >If you omit the "class of player" and change it to some general level, >then you are left with having to decide, in the laws, what class of >player you are judging the normalcy to. True. Fortunately, though, we have a footnote that tells us quite explicitly how to do that, by judging *even* "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved" as "'normal'". >I, as a bad player, do not feel damaged when a claim that is not >granted to me, would be granted to some world champion because it >would be unthinkable that he'd make the error which is quite normal for me. Here we see the problem some of us seem to have with the footnote in a nutshell: it makes no sense if one takes "irrational" to be synonymous with "unthinkable". "Unthinkable", by definition, depends on who is doing the thinking. "Irrational", by definition, depends only on the prevailing societal consensus as to what constitutes rationality. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 14:37:15 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 14:38:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> Tim, did you drop into this thread or did you read it from the beginning? See below. Tim West-Meads wrote: > DWS wrote: > > >> In the case of Rotterdam it was pretty obvious that he had not >>thought of the effect, thus playing the jack is careless, not >>irrational. > > > That is fine, based on the first assumption. However, I would consider it > likely that he has merely not considered the *possibility* of a small > diamond return - the prolonged hesitation making him fairly sure the DA is > with his RHO. If I am (after talking to the players) nearly certain that > he had not considered the possibility of a small D but *would* have done > so if actually faced with it then I will rule playing any card other than > DK irrational. Had declarer not explicitly mentioned the trump I'd rule > DJ "careless" without blinking. > You are again talking of the effect of putting in the jack on letting in West and getting the heart return. That is not the only point that makes the jack rational or not. My I remind you (and others) of the complete lay-out: dummy: S106 D7 CA43 decl : DKJ9 CKQJ RHO leads a small diamond. Is any other play than the king rational? There is only one diamond in dummy, and no losers. Putting in the jack does not win anything. Putting in the King gives an overtrick if RHO underled his ace. Simple really. And starting at a level of player only slightly higher than my own: the only normal play. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 14:41:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 14:42:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906081323.02b40500@pop.starpower.net> References: <000101c5afc3$ed554880$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431AC287.1010603@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050906081323.02b40500@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <431D8E71.1050903@hdw.be> No Eric, no: Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:46 AM 9/4/05, Herman wrote: > >> So then there you are with a play that is not careless and not >> irrational. What do you do? > > > Treat it as "normal". Aren't most normal plays neither careless nor > irrational? > I meant a play which would be worse than careless but not yet irrational. The definition is the footnote does not help. >> Or you find a play which is both careless and irrational? > > > Do not treat it as "normal". Irrational plays are explicitly excluded > from "normal". They will almost always be both careless and inferior as > well, but that doesn't matter. > And careless plays are explicitely included in normal! >> Unless you modify both or none of the sets, you will have overlapping >> or disjoint sets. > > > But the "sets" in question aren't "careless" and "irrational"; they are > "'normal'" (as defined by the footnote, hence in quotes) and > "irrational". Since the definition of "'normal'" specifies "not > irrational", they cannot overlap. > No Eric, the laws do not define any word other than normal. Any other line can only be described as "non-normal". By the footnote, non-normal equates to irrational. But if you have: normal = including careless, for the level of play and non-normal = irrational, regardless of level you will have plays that are both normal and non-normal. or plays that are neither. This is just logic - not bridge. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 14:46:13 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Sep 6 14:49:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness References: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > > ............ > > > >>First Sven talks about Lauria playing low, and of Zia revoking. > > > > > > Who has said anything about Zia revoking? Not me. > > > > > >>Sven, the laws do not protect a player from doing mistakes he could > >>easily do. Those mistakes are what are called careless, and they fall > >>into the category of normal. > >> > >>When you talk of people sometimes doing irrational things those are > >>things they do not do "easily". Your dislike of the claims laws is > >>therefore unfounded. We sometimes give claims because we believe the > >>player would _not_ do something which we regard as irrational. While > >>we accept that sometimes people do do irrational things. > >> > >>Claims laws such as the ones you are thinking of are unworkable. > >>And if you believe the current claims laws are also unworkable because > >>you cannot agree with me on the Rotterdam6 case, then maybe it is time > >>for you to start studying a few more claims cases, and see if you can > >>get it into your head that Rotterdam6 is a claim which should be > >>awarded, and that maybe it is you who are wrong in thinking it should not. > > > > > > The following claim case was discussed in an Norwegian Directors' forum: > > > > Spade is Trump, declarer holds > > 9 > > A > > A > > - > > and claims the rest having forgotten that there is an outstanding (high) > > trump. > > > > A defender holds > > 10 > > - > > - > > A K > > > > And the question was how many tricks to award the claimer. > > > > There was not a single Norwegian Director (or for that sake player of some > > class who has been polled) that gave declarer any trick at all, we all ruled > > that when believing that all cards are high they are to be played in the > > sequence most unsuccessful as the remaining cards lie. In this case that is > > by beginning with the nine of spades. > > > > You may recognize this case (refined from the original card holdings); the > > AC at the European championship for juniors (unless I have mixed my memory) > > ruled that it was "irrational" to begin with the trump and awarded the > > defense just one trick. > > > > Maybe we have a different culture in Norway? > > > > Maybe you do - of course if directors within a country only discuss > with one another then they can only see their views consolidate to a > national view, not a global one. > > One of the reasons for the existence of blml should be to make rulings > more global. > > I for one would rule only one trick to the defense in the situation > above. It does not feel "normal" for me to cash trumps that you "know" > are the last ones. Trumps are cashed last. > > I recall a case involving Boje Brogeland that was ruled at a European > championship. > > When I presented that case to blml, rather than the whole world > accepting that this is a good standard and to bring world-wide rulings > along the same line, some Norwegians told us that "In Norway we do > things differently" so of course a global same line is impossible, > unless it's the norwegian one. > > Give this case to directors and players from around the world and I > feel that most would agree that one trick to defenders is all that is > needed. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL Over the years I have noticed the propensity for rulings that deny claimer the benefit of his claim. Which is to say that if the adjudication had not viloated his claim statement he would have been awarded more tricks. Whatever TFLB says I do not think that is the appropriate approach. What Herman has been suggesting is that claims are to be adjudicated by violating claimer's statement. For instance, the above. Claimer says 3 tricks without stating the order. The only legitimate conclusion that can be made is that all of his cards are winners. In other words an assertion [for an alternate line] that they may not be winners is a violation of the statement [which would be the effect of requiring that a trump is not to be led first]. So, should it be suggested to lead a trump first and the trump loses then surely it is right to see how that affects the score. regards roger pewick From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 15:16:47 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 15:17:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906082211.02b36d10@pop.starpower.net> References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> <431AC33C.6080507@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050906082211.02b36d10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <431D96BF.4070101@hdw.be> Eric, please! Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:49 AM 9/4/05, Herman wrote: > >> If you omit the "class of player" and change it to some general level, >> then you are left with having to decide, in the laws, what class of >> player you are judging the normalcy to. > > > True. Fortunately, though, we have a footnote that tells us quite > explicitly how to do that, by judging *even* "play that would be > careless or inferior for the class of player involved" as "'normal'". > My point exactly. Some people want to omit that "class of player". I am reacting against that. >> I, as a bad player, do not feel damaged when a claim that is not >> granted to me, would be granted to some world champion because it >> would be unthinkable that he'd make the error which is quite normal >> for me. > > > Here we see the problem some of us seem to have with the footnote in a > nutshell: it makes no sense if one takes "irrational" to be synonymous > with "unthinkable". "Unthinkable", by definition, depends on who is > doing the thinking. "Irrational", by definition, depends only on the > prevailing societal consensus as to what constitutes rationality. > Which is why the word irrational may be badly chosen. It is what we are stuck with however. (personally, I do not think the word is bad - by referring to ration = reason, the word is not necessarily limited to general populace but can be applied to an individual as well) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 6 15:26:58 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 6 15:29:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> References: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906092117.02b39180@pop.starpower.net> At 07:09 AM 9/6/05, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>............ >> >>>First Sven talks about Lauria playing low, and of Zia revoking. >> >>Who has said anything about Zia revoking? Not me. >> >>>Sven, the laws do not protect a player from doing mistakes he could >>>easily do. Those mistakes are what are called careless, and they fall >>>into the category of normal. >>> >>>When you talk of people sometimes doing irrational things those are >>>things they do not do "easily". Your dislike of the claims laws is >>>therefore unfounded. We sometimes give claims because we believe the >>>player would _not_ do something which we regard as irrational. While >>>we accept that sometimes people do do irrational things. >>> >>>Claims laws such as the ones you are thinking of are unworkable. >>>And if you believe the current claims laws are also unworkable because >>>you cannot agree with me on the Rotterdam6 case, then maybe it is time >>>for you to start studying a few more claims cases, and see if you can >>>get it into your head that Rotterdam6 is a claim which should be >>>awarded, and that maybe it is you who are wrong in thinking it >>>should not. >> >>The following claim case was discussed in an Norwegian Directors' forum: >>Spade is Trump, declarer holds >>9 >>A >>A >>- >>and claims the rest having forgotten that there is an outstanding (high) >>trump. >>A defender holds >>10 >>- >>- >>A K >>And the question was how many tricks to award the claimer. >>There was not a single Norwegian Director (or for that sake player of >>some >>class who has been polled) that gave declarer any trick at all, we >>all ruled >>that when believing that all cards are high they are to be played in the >>sequence most unsuccessful as the remaining cards lie. In this case >>that is >>by beginning with the nine of spades. >>You may recognize this case (refined from the original card >>holdings); the >>AC at the European championship for juniors (unless I have mixed my >>memory) >>ruled that it was "irrational" to begin with the trump and awarded the >>defense just one trick. >>Maybe we have a different culture in Norway? > >Maybe you do - of course if directors within a country only discuss >with one another then they can only see their views consolidate to a >national view, not a global one. > >One of the reasons for the existence of blml should be to make rulings >more global. > >I for one would rule only one trick to the defense in the situation >above. It does not feel "normal" for me to cash trumps that you "know" >are the last ones. Trumps are cashed last. > >I recall a case involving Boje Brogeland that was ruled at a European >championship. > >When I presented that case to blml, rather than the whole world >accepting that this is a good standard and to bring world-wide rulings >along the same line, some Norwegians told us that "In Norway we do >things differently" so of course a global same line is impossible, >unless it's the norwegian one. > >Give this case to directors and players from around the world and I >feel that most would agree that one trick to defenders is all that is >needed. Here's one that wouldn't. One can make the case that it would be irrational to play the S2 first with 2/A/A/- remaining, or, equally, that it would be irrational not to play the SA first with A/A/A/- remaining. With 9/A/A/-, it is as rational to play the S9 first in case one has forgotten about a lower trump outstanding as it is not to play the S9 first in case one has forgotten about a higher trump outstanding. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 6 15:29:27 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 6 15:30:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: References: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431D99B7.1030908@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > Over the years I have noticed the propensity for rulings that deny claimer > the benefit of his claim. Which is to say that if the adjudication had not > viloated his claim statement he would have been awarded more tricks. > Whatever TFLB says I do not think that is the appropriate approach. > > What Herman has been suggesting is that claims are to be adjudicated by > violating claimer's statement. For instance, the above. Claimer says 3 > tricks without stating the order. The only legitimate conclusion that can > be made is that all of his cards are winners. In other words an assertion > [for an alternate line] that they may not be winners is a violation of the > statement [which would be the effect of requiring that a trump is not to be > led first]. So, should it be suggested to lead a trump first and the trump > loses then surely it is right to see how that affects the score. > There is one thing wrong with your approach. Trumps are not like other suits. Trumps are not cashed asa winners, but kept till the end to ruff out the last ones. That's just the way people play. So to conclude that he can play all cards in random order is just not true. Which is how the AC in (Tenerife, IIRC) put it. Your assertion just does not hold true. So it brings nothing to the discussion. And simply forget this "violating claimer's statement" business. Why don't you look at this claim simply by omitting any claim statement. Do you really believe a player will show four aces and add a statement as well? Bullshit. He just shows his cards. And we should rule regardless of what he says. Anything he does say is used to look into his head, and to make certain that he knows what he knows. If the cards are not aces, we would like him to tell us that they are both high. When a player shows two high cards and a trump, and he tells us the high cards are high and the trump is last, then we let him have 2 normal lines: Either of the high cards, then the other, then the trump. And we stick him with the line that costs more. But we decide, as directors all, if the line of cashing trumps first is normal or not. The Tenerife AC has decided it is not. Now as Directors, you either follow an example or you don't. But you don't come yelling afterwards that there is no consistency in ruling. And you certainly don't try to resolve by law that which even the WBFLC has not tried to settle. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 6 15:55:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 6 15:57:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431D8E71.1050903@hdw.be> References: <000101c5afc3$ed554880$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431AC287.1010603@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050906081323.02b40500@pop.starpower.net> <431D8E71.1050903@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906094142.02b3ba90@pop.starpower.net> At 08:41 AM 9/6/05, Herman wrote: >No Eric, no: > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 05:46 AM 9/4/05, Herman wrote: >> >>>So then there you are with a play that is not careless and not >>>irrational. What do you do? >> >>Treat it as "normal". Aren't most normal plays neither careless nor >>irrational? > >I meant a play which would be worse than careless but not yet >irrational. The definition is the footnote does not help. What does "worse than careless" mean? Something is either "careless" or "not careless"; it can't be neither. "Careless" and "exceptionally careless" are not mutually exclusive. >>>Or you find a play which is both careless and irrational? >> >>Do not treat it as "normal". Irrational plays are explicitly >>excluded from "normal". They will almost always be both careless and >>inferior as well, but that doesn't matter. > >And careless plays are explicitely included in normal! No, *careless but not irrational* plays are explicitly included in "normal". >>>Unless you modify both or none of the sets, you will have >>>overlapping or disjoint sets. >> >>But the "sets" in question aren't "careless" and "irrational"; they >>are "'normal'" (as defined by the footnote, hence in quotes) and >>"irrational". Since the definition of "'normal'" specifies "not >>irrational", they cannot overlap. > >No Eric, the laws do not define any word other than normal. Any other >line can only be described as "non-normal". By the footnote, >non-normal equates to irrational. And normal equates to non-irrational. Nobody disagrees; that it how English works. >But if you have: > >normal = including careless, for the level of play >and >non-normal = irrational, regardless of level > >you will have plays that are both normal and non-normal. >or plays that are neither. But that is not what we have. What we have is: Normal = including [which does not imply limited to] careless *but not irrational* for the level of play, and Non-normal = irrational, regardless of level. With that addition, you cannot have plays that are both, nor have plays that are neither. >This is just logic - not bridge. It is neither logic nor bridge; it is English. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 6 16:11:20 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 6 16:13:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431D96BF.4070101@hdw.be> References: <000b01c5afcd$091c4010$249087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <006b01c5afdc$7a1e5000$179468d5@jeushtlj> <431AC33C.6080507@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050906082211.02b36d10@pop.starpower.net> <431D96BF.4070101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906100117.02b35ae0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:16 AM 9/6/05, Herman wrote: >Eric, please! > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 05:49 AM 9/4/05, Herman wrote: >> >>>If you omit the "class of player" and change it to some general >>>level, then you are left with having to decide, in the laws, what >>>class of player you are judging the normalcy to. >> >>True. Fortunately, though, we have a footnote that tells us quite >>explicitly how to do that, by judging *even* "play that would be >>careless or inferior for the class of player involved" as "'normal'". > >My point exactly. Some people want to omit that "class of player". >I am reacting against that. Perhaps Herman has overlooked my "*even*" above. Allow me to clarify: "'Normal'" includes plays which are neither careless nor inferior, nor irrational, regardless of the class of the player involved. "'Normal'" also includes plays which are careless or inferior, or both, but not irrational, regardless of the class of the player involved. "'Normal'" also includes plays which are careless or inferior, or both, but not irrational, for some classes of players, but are neither careless nor inferior, nor irrational, for other classes of players. "Irrational" includes only plays that are irrational. Given that, a play must be either "'normal'" or "irrational", and cannot be both. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 6 16:18:30 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Sep 6 16:21:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness References: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> <431D99B7.1030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > > Over the years I have noticed the propensity for rulings that deny claimer > > the benefit of his claim. Which is to say that if the adjudication had not > > viloated his claim statement he would have been awarded more tricks. > > Whatever TFLB says I do not think that is the appropriate approach. > > > > What Herman has been suggesting is that claims are to be adjudicated by > > violating claimer's statement. For instance, the above. Claimer says 3 > > tricks without stating the order. The only legitimate conclusion that can > > be made is that all of his cards are winners. In other words an assertion > > [for an alternate line] that they may not be winners is a violation of the > > statement [which would be the effect of requiring that a trump is not to be > > led first]. So, should it be suggested to lead a trump first and the trump > > loses then surely it is right to see how that affects the score. > > > > There is one thing wrong with your approach. > > Trumps are not like other suits. Trumps are not cashed asa winners, > but kept till the end to ruff out the last ones. That's just the way > people play. So to conclude that he can play all cards in random order > is just not true. Which is how the AC in (Tenerife, IIRC) put it. > > Your assertion just does not hold true. So it brings nothing to the > discussion. > > And simply forget this "violating claimer's statement" business. Why > don't you look at this claim simply by omitting any claim statement. Because I believe that the statement must be followed without exception. In the case it was claimed that trump 9 was a winner. Cash it. > Do you really believe a player will show four aces and add a statement > as well? Bullshit. He just shows his cards. And we should rule > regardless of what he says. > Anything he does say is used to look into his head, and to make > certain that he knows what he knows. If the cards are not aces, we > would like him to tell us that they are both high. > When a player shows two high cards and a trump, and he tells us the > high cards are high and the trump is last, then we let him have 2 > normal lines: Either of the high cards, then the other, then the > trump. And we stick him with the line that costs more. > > But we decide, as directors all, if the line of cashing trumps first > is normal or not. The Tenerife AC has decided it is not. Now as > Directors, you either follow an example or you don't. But you don't > come yelling afterwards that there is no consistency in ruling. > > And you certainly don't try to resolve by law that which even the > WBFLC has not tried to settle. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be Herman, You have said that it is irrational to lead the 9 first. In fact you have said that it is irrational for everybody to lead the 9 when it is claimed that the 9 was high.. Consider the case above changed only in that defender has trump 8 instead of T. By your reasoning it is irrational to play the cards in an order that would have taken the claimed number of tricks. There are a large number who believe that there ought to be a default technique imposed upon unclarified claimer for the purpose of resolving contested claims. poppycock. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 6 16:24:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 6 16:27:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431D99B7.1030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5b2ee$c23019e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > Trumps are not like other suits. Trumps are not cashed asa winners, > but kept till the end to ruff out the last ones. Have you never run your long trump suit as a bunch of winners forcing defenders to find discards before you turn to your other suits? I have a funny idea (or call it experience) that this is a very normal way of playing cards when you execute one of the simpler squeezes or need to put pressure on opponents in the hope that they will fail their defense? Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 6 16:34:40 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Sep 6 16:37:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness References: <200509051616.j85GGmEI005218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <431CD86B.4080303@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00ad01c5b2f0$1dee9f80$199868d5@jeushtlj> IMO... [A] The appeal decision probably was wrong but certainly was not atrocious. What is atrocious is flawed laws that can be corrected only every five or ten years. [B] The declarer specified in his claim that he would lose a diamond trick, so why should he give much thought as to whether to play the DJ or DK. Maybe, Herman is right that we are a bit inconsistent here. If declarer held D:KQx, it might be a bit cruel to force him to play low. [C] I hate the qualifier about "level of player" which causes so much discontent among players. [D] "irrational" is not so bad, however, if it is considered *in the actual table context*... A good declarer would normally be aware of the possibility of a trump promotion. Hence he would not claim. If he did claim, he would, of course, specify that he would play DK on a diamond exit. Either this declarer is not that good or he has lost the place. If the latter, then, in his obviously confused state, we cannot rely on his usual double-dummy performance. Maybe it would be rational for the player to rise with the king under normal circumstances; but these are not normal circumstances; the play isn't automatic for a declarer who, apparently, doesn't seem to understand what is going on. Herman would allow the claimer to sober up, to remember the facts that he has apparently forgotten, become aware of the dangers he has overlooked, and to conduct a belated expert analysis of eventualities, for which his original claim made no provision. I'm all for encouraging claimers but that does seem to be going too far. If I can persuade an expert panel to choose a rational line of play for me, then I will claim at trick one, whenever I'm declarer. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 6 17:30:58 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 6 17:33:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 6, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > My I remind you (and others) of the complete lay-out: > > dummy: S106 D7 CA43 > > decl : DKJ9 CKQJ > > RHO leads a small diamond. Is any other play than the king rational? > There is only one diamond in dummy, and no losers. Putting in the > jack does not win anything. Putting in the King gives an overtrick > if RHO underled his ace. Simple really. And starting at a level of > player only slightly higher than my own: the only normal play. If putting in the king is the only rational play, then putting in the jack is irrational. In that case, playing the jack cannot be normal for any class of player, for as Eric says, "irrational" and "normal" are mutually exclusive. Have I got this right, or did I miss something? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 6 17:55:38 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 6 17:58:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:38 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The following claim case was discussed in an Norwegian Directors' > forum: > > Spade is Trump, declarer holds > 9 > A > A > - > and claims the rest having forgotten that there is an outstanding > (high) > trump. > > A defender holds > 10 > - > - > A K > > And the question was how many tricks to award the claimer. > > There was not a single Norwegian Director (or for that sake player > of some > class who has been polled) that gave declarer any trick at all, we > all ruled > that when believing that all cards are high they are to be played > in the > sequence most unsuccessful as the remaining cards lie. In this case > that is > by beginning with the nine of spades. > > You may recognize this case (refined from the original card > holdings); the > AC at the European championship for juniors (unless I have mixed my > memory) > ruled that it was "irrational" to begin with the trump and awarded the > defense just one trick. > > Maybe we have a different culture in Norway? Or not. :-) Let's see. The logical argument "if all my cards are good, it does not matter in which order I play them" is certainly vaiid. Therefore it is not irrational to play those three cards in any of the six possible orders, including playing the trump first, if one believes one's premise. So I agree with the Norwegians. From blml at blakjak.com Tue Sep 6 18:01:26 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:06:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431B8314.6000206@hdw.be> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431AC212.309@hdw.be> <8gMAK2IfcuGDFwjC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431B0ABE.1090400@hdw.be> <431B8314.6000206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <7A$ByOeW1bHDFwYu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> But I don't go around calling rulings that I disagree with >>>>>"dreadful". Especially not when there is clear evidence of there >>>>>being at least some sense of correctness in it. >>>> >>>> You certainly do make some very strong views known. >>>> You seem to think the world is black and white. It isn't, it >>>>has various degrees. I certainly do not think every decision I >>>>disagree with is dreadful. >>>> In this case *either* the AC has completely misunderstood the >>>>Law, especially what "careless" means, *or* they have completely >>>>misjudged the hand by ignoring the thinking shown by the claim >>>>statement. As a result their decision is not just wrong: it is >>>>dreadfully wrong. >>>> >>> >>> And here you have a qualified director who believes the ruling is >>>right - both in law and in judgment - especially in law - I leave the >>>judgment to the members of the AC. >>> >>> To call it dreadfully wrong under those circumstances is being just >>>a tad more self-centered than is good for you. >> No, it isn't. It's just my considered opinion. >> > >And you are allowed your opinion. You are not allowed to call a >differing opinion "dreadful". It is not a question of a "differing": it is a question of a dreadful" decision. Anyway, who appointed you god? -- 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 Sep 6 18:06:15 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:10:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000301c5b2c1$9b80f800$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <431D4FB8.1080809@att.net> <000301c5b2c1$9b80f800$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of Todd M. Zimnoch >............. >> On a more practical note, what about sympathy for the >> caddies? I was witness to an enraging scene this weekend. >> A player the next table over calls for a caddy to exchange >> boards in a KO. The caddy takes the boards away and returns >> with a new stack. The player shouts for the director. The >> caddy asks if there's something wrong and whether she can >> help. The player shoots daggers at her and shouts for the >> director again, but this time by first name. Repeat this >> exchange several times. Apparently those aren't the boards >> he expects to get. His partner shouts across the room to >> see if his teammates received the correct set and they had. >> The director arrives about then and doesn't chastise >> anyone. The player offers no apology and unless I missed a >> transfer of boards in all the confusion, he plays the set he >> initially got. In the meantime no one at my table wants to >> continue the auction. What should you do? I wasn't the >> only one too sheepish to speak up. > >What should you do? The answer is simple: The scene you describe is from a >grave violation of Law 74 and in particular sub laws L74A and L74B5. > >IMO *anybody* in the room is entitled to addressing the Director (politely) >in such cases and make a complaint against a player who behaves like what >you described. > >Whether the boards were correctly transferred or any kind of mistake had >indeed been made by the caddy or anybody else is in this context completely >irrelevant. > >The caddy is an appointed assistant to the Director and as such should enjoy >the same respect as the Director himself. What has him being an appointed assistant got to do with anything? Everyone gets the same rights to courteous treatment, whether TD, partner, AC, opponent, kibitzer, broadcaster, or [to quote a famous work] "the man in the overcoat with the dog and the smelly pipe". L74A1 has *no* exceptions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 6 18:09:22 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:12:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> References: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sep 6, 2005, at 7:09 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Give this case to directors and players from around the world and I > feel that most would agree that one trick to defenders is all that > is needed. Hm. Perhaps I agreed with Sven too quickly. Let's see.... "In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." In 1/3 of cases, declarer plays the trump first. 3 tricks to the defense. In 1/3 of cases, declarer plays his aces first. 1 trick to the defense. In 1/3 of cases, declarer plays an ace and then the trump. 2 tricks to the defense, assuming defender doesn't ruff. So at first glance, it looks like "equity" is two tricks. But is this the proper way to approach it? I don't think so. The question is not one of balance of probabilities, but of doubt. Herman says we should rule as if there is no doubt that declarer will play one of his aces first, then the other. Sven (and the rest of Norway, and perhaps myself) have some doubt about that. This is, it seems to me, a judgement ruling. And nothing in the laws, AFAIK, says that the judgement of all TDs must be identical. I still agree with Sven. :-) From blml at blakjak.com Tue Sep 6 18:08:52 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:12:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Stress and distress. In-Reply-To: <009c01c5b014$4ec33e60$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> References: <001f01c5af99$1313a9c0$419287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <005101c5afd4$8da11980$179468d5@jeushtlj> <009c01c5b014$4ec33e60$a1255244@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: craig wrote >Much as I respect Grattan, I never heard of such a rule either, Bill. I >was told caps of a word or phrase was emphasis, sending entire messages >was shouting. After all, you normally raise your voice in speech to >stress a point. Is this a British rule perhaps? John? Davids? (And >Marv, Roger, Ed et al on this side of the pond) Please weigh in, as I'm >sure none of us wish either to offend or be unclear. This could be one >of those things like the multicolo(u)red 2 diamonds...common as dirt on >the continent and illegal in most events in the states! Netiquette was not an English idea, nor is the promulgation of it English. There are plenty of websites showing what should be done. and certainly they are not all English. But of course too many people do not want to make life easier for other people. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Sep 6 18:11:35 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:16:11 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <000601c5b185$1cf4a910$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c5b185$1cf4a910$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> On Behalf Of David Stevenson >> Oh, come on, Sven, let's not treat this as a childish exercise. Can >> we not act as adults? > >Frankly I suspected a trap Why? >Of course I start out by obtaining evidence of the partnership agreements .... which I gave you in my posting .... -- 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 Sep 6 18:15:39 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:19:42 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> References: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Well, if it were considered true, there would be no reason for David to >tell the story, now would it? If this is your view I believe it is time you removed yourself from this list. I give a nice little story of something that happened which had similarities to the current thread. That's 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 john at asimere.com Tue Sep 6 18:18:43 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:22:40 2005 Subject: [blml] The dental blessing In-Reply-To: References: <5A8646419D20F940B0D538B5C06728CE024D5EAF@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: South >Vul: Both > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass >Pass ? > >(1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, > or 27+ balanced, or game force. > >(2) Artificial relay. > > >You, North, hold: > >AQJ4 >J >QJ954 >KJ2 > >What call do you make? double, the pillock thinks he's playing multi. wtp? >What other calls do 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 blml at blakjak.com Tue Sep 6 18:21:46 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:25:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431CD86B.4080303@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509051616.j85GGmEI005218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <431CD86B.4080303@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4IMBA2haIcHDFwJT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Steve Willner wrote >From: David Stevenson >> You are saying we should ignore the contents of the claim >>statement, but as a matter of Law [70D] that is incorrect. > >Herman is saying no such thing. The issue is what to do about a >possible line of play not embraced in the claim statement. Once the >case is determined to be in this category, the content of the claim >statement is obviously irrelevant. "obviously"? Not at all. The claim statement still has relevance to what is going on. Take a simple example: "i draw both the outstanding trumps." Would you rule that the claimer *does not* draw any trumps because there was only one out? This is apart form the fact that in the actual case it is not even true - the claim statement had not broken down. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Tue Sep 6 18:25:16 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:29:02 2005 Subject: [blml] The dental blessing In-Reply-To: References: <5A8646419D20F940B0D538B5C06728CE024D5EAF@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote >Matchpoint pairs >Dlr: South >Vul: Both > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass >Pass ? > >(1) Benjy Two; either 23-24 balanced, > or 27+ balanced, or game force. > >(2) Artificial relay. > > >You, North, hold: > >AQJ4 >J >QJ954 >KJ2 > >What call do you make? Double. >What other calls do consider making? This looks familiar to me. If I remember it right, then I might consider the alternative call of "Director" but it does depend on the jurisdiction. To be honest, I would probably just double anyway. -- 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Sep 6 18:34:09 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Tue Sep 6 18:37:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 Message-ID: Ed Reppert .rr.com> cc : Envoy? par : Objet : Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 blml-bounces@amster damned.org 06/09/2005 17:30 On Sep 6, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > My I remind you (and others) of the complete lay-out: > > dummy: S106 D7 CA43 > > decl : DKJ9 CKQJ > > RHO leads a small diamond. Is any other play than the king rational? > There is only one diamond in dummy, and no losers. Putting in the > jack does not win anything. Putting in the King gives an overtrick > if RHO underled his ace. Simple really. And starting at a level of > player only slightly higher than my own: the only normal play. If putting in the king is the only rational play, then putting in the jack is irrational. In that case, playing the jack cannot be normal for any class of player, for as Eric says, "irrational" and "normal" are mutually exclusive. Have I got this right, or did I miss something? *** the set of irrational plays doesn't depend on the "class of player". so neither does the set of non-irrational plays which is the complementary set. the set of normal plays depends on the "class of player" (... inferior for the class of player..."). so there are as many (slightly) different sets of normal plays as classes of players, and all these different sets can't be identical to the only set of "non irrational plays". there will happen to be plays that can't be neither normal nor irrational, or plays that are both. i too think it is logics. jpr *** __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 6 21:14:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 6 21:16:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906150152.02a555b0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:34 PM 9/6/05, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: >the set of irrational plays doesn't depend on the "class of player". so >neither does the set of non-irrational plays which is the complementary >set. the set of normal plays depends on the "class of player" (... >inferior >for the class of player..."). so there are as many (slightly) different >sets of normal plays as classes of players, and all these different sets >can't be identical to the only set of "non irrational plays". there will >happen to be plays that can't be neither normal nor irrational, or plays >hat are both. i too think it is logics. There cannot be plays that are neither or both. Of course there could be, if we used the definition of "normal" in the dictionary -- that does indeed depend on the class of player -- but we don't. We use the definition of "'normal'" (note the quotes) in the footnote, which says: - If it is neither careless, inferior nor irrational (for any class of player) it is "normal". - If it is careless for the class of player involved (whether or not it might not be for some other player), but not irrational, it is "normal". - If it is inferior for the class of player involved (whether or not it might not be for some other player), but not irrational, it is "normal". - If it is both careless and inferior for the class of player involved (whether or not it might not be for some other player), but not irrational, it is "normal". - If it is irrational, it is not "normal". A play cannot be none of the above, nor can it be any of the above other than the last and be the last as well. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 6 22:47:08 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 6 22:49:59 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c5b324$26516430$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson ............ > >Frankly I suspected a trap > > Why? I may remember wrong but it occurs to me that from your original description it seemed as if the Director was summoned to the table before any card had been faced. At that time the Director cannot properly do anything more than recognizing what has happened so far. He can certainly not initiate any investigation on alleged misinformation. And the only player that legally can admit (confess) misinformation before it is time for the opening lead is the player who gave the information. > >Of course I start out by obtaining evidence of the partnership agreements > > .... which I gave you in my posting .... You told us a tale on by two players on what they had agreed upon and how. You said nothing about what had been presented to opponents except that a particular call had been alerted and explained by one of the players. A possible inference from your tale is that the partnership could only have had one rather than the required two identical copies of their CC available for their opponents. This is an irregularity which (depending upon local SO regulations) qualifies for nothing more than a procedure penalty in the form of a warning. I am not satisfied that your tale has given me all available relevant evidence. At the table I would have investigated further. For example: Was any convention card presented to opponents and in case what did they look like? As I have said already: Once I have obtained all the evidence that I want and that becomes available to me I shall make my ruling. This ruling will be misbid (with no adjustment of the table result) if and only if I find that opponents have been given correct and complete information on the auction. You have asked what I would do and I have told you so twice (at least). Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 6 23:46:45 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 6 23:49:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 6, 2005, at 12:34 PM, jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: > the set of irrational plays doesn't depend on the "class of > player". so > neither does the set of non-irrational plays which is the > complementary > set. the set of normal plays depends on the "class of player" (... > inferior > for the class of player..."). so there are as many (slightly) > different > sets of normal plays as classes of players, and all these different > sets > can't be identical to the only set of "non irrational plays". there > will > happen to be plays that can't be neither normal nor irrational, or > plays > that are both. i too think it is logics. There is a set R of rational plays. There are various sets, Ni, which are normal for different classes of player. The intersection of all the sets Ni is a subset of R. IOW, all "normal" plays are rational. Are they not? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 6 23:52:18 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 6 23:55:13 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <000601c5b324$26516430$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c5b324$26516430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sep 6, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Once I have obtained all the evidence that I want > and that becomes available to me I shall make my ruling. Hm. I don't think "that I want" really belongs in there. :-) From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 7 00:03:30 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 7 00:06:23 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c5b32e$d1091cb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: 6. september 2005 23:52 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] "Full Disclosure" > > On Sep 6, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Once I have obtained all the evidence that I want > > and that becomes available to me I shall make my ruling. > > Hm. I don't think "that I want" really belongs in there. :-) Could be. But I did write (both) *want* and *becomes available to me*! When I am to rule on a situation I *want* sufficient evidence to give me a true picture of the situation. I cannot always obtain all the evidence I should like ("want") to have, therefore I often have to accept just the evidence that is available to me. Clarifying? Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 7 00:10:29 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 7 00:13:24 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <000701c5b32e$d1091cb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c5b32e$d1091cb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9FAB01A3-E933-4314-A737-160B2F73E799@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:03 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > When I am to rule on a situation I *want* sufficient evidence to > give me a > true picture of the situation. I cannot always obtain all the > evidence I > should like ("want") to have, therefore I often have to accept just > the > evidence that is available to me. > > Clarifying? Yep. Thanks. :-) From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 7 00:39:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 7 00:42:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c5b333$ce566680$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ................ > There is a set R of rational plays. There are various sets, Ni, which > are normal for different classes of player. The intersection of all > the sets Ni is a subset of R. IOW, all "normal" plays are rational. > > Are they not? Any play that is *not* irrational is "normal" for the purpose of applying Laws 69, 70 and 71. It does not matter whether such "normal" plays are clever, standard, inferior or careless. Even silly plays are "normal" as long as they are not considered "irrational". Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 7 00:51:02 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Sep 7 00:52:41 2005 Subject: [blml] The dental blessing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >double, the pillock thinks he's playing multi. wtp? David Stevenson: >This looks familiar to me. If I remember it right, then >I might consider the alternative call of "Director" but >it does depend on the jurisdiction. > >To be honest, I would probably just double anyway. EBU Appeals Casebook 2000, number one Tournament Director: Eitan Levy Appeals Committee: Chris Jagger (Chairman), Jon Williams, Paul Gagne Board number 7 Dealer South All Vulnerable AQJ4 J QJ954 KJ2 52 T76 KQ6532 AT94 A82 76 64 QT73 K983 87 KT3 A985 West North East South --- --- --- Pass 2D(1) Pass 2H(2) Pass Pass (1) 23-24 or 27+ balanced or game in hand (2) Relay Result at table: 2H making by East, NS -110 Director first called: After West's pass Director's statement of facts: North called the TD after West's pass. North drew my attention to the bidding and asked if a psyche of a conventional game forcing bid was illegal. I replied that it was (and West confirmed this). North stated that he was in a position that it was difficult for him to evaluate. I explained to him that he should continue bidding. If West had psyched and/or North was damaged by the psyche or another infraction, an adjustment would be considered. After Dummy appeared West stated that he had misbid, he forgot that he was not playing Multi 2D. Director's ruling: Table result stands Details of ruling: Misbid not psyche (Orange book 6, 2.7) Misbid, not misexplanation (Law 75) No unauthorised information (2H would be passed without Alert) (Law 16A) Appeal lodged by: North-South Basis of Appeal: (1) Wording of Orange book 6 not clear enough in general (2) See Orange book 6.1.2 - you may not use a convention to control a psyche - response to 2D is a convention (3) Had the Director provided all the facts re Orange book 6 I would have doubled (ie I needed to know that misbids were theoretically treated differently). Director's comments: After consultation, it was decided that a record of this hand be given to the Laws & Ethics Committee. Comments by North/South: I wrote my comments before reading the Director's comments - the Director's account of the facts is not my understanding of the facts - I did not receive anything like the full explanation that the Director implied. Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: Very close to keeping the deposit. The Laws clearly say that a psyche is different to a misbid: the North/South argument seems to depend on the Laws being wrong. We also felt that North had an obvious double, and passing was not a sensible action. North also implied that he was not playing on seriously which he has an obligation to do. We felt North/South were trying it on and ought to know better. The point by North that the Laws perhaps should be re-thought has some validity. David Stevenson's comments: There is some confusion here between the Laws (in the Law book) and regulations (in the Orange book). It is an EBU regulation that you may not play a game-forcing or near game-forcing artificial opening and psyche it. However, as the definitions in the Orange book make clear, a psyche is deliberate. If someone bids the wrong thing accidentally that is a Misbid. This is what happened here. The Committee felt North should have protected himself better by playing on sensibly in case it was not a psyche. Herman De Wael's comments: There are two things to consider in this case. Did West really forget that he was not playing a multi? I would have made some more effort to establish this. It is far too easy to psyche this and then claim it was a misbid. I find it strange that the Director, who is not a local, did not investigate more thoroughly West's claim. Secondly, what error did North make? He called the Director and received the answer he was looking for. No, it is not permitted to psyche a conventional strong opening bid. Since West did pass, to North the story was over. Then it turns out this was not a psyche after all. Maybe the Director should have explained at the table that there are other explanations for this strange auction than a psyche. North certainly did deserve the protection that he got from the Appeal Committee, when they refunded him his deposit. Laws & Ethics Committee comments: The L&E considered the case of a player who had opened an ostensibly strong artificial 2D when holding a weak 2 in Hs, having forgotten that he was not playing the Multi in the partnership in question. The L&E decided that the next full revision of the Orange Book should include a review of the present regulation whereby it is not permitted to psyche a game-forcing or near game-forcing artificial opening. Such a review should also consider the question of misbids. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From wayne.burrows at xtra.co.nz Wed Sep 7 01:15:20 2005 From: wayne.burrows at xtra.co.nz (wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz) Date: Wed Sep 7 01:18:20 2005 Subject: [blml] zero percent Message-ID: <20050906231520.LLVY5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.189]> MPs All Vul 1D 2S* 3D 3S 3NT All Pass * 8-11 6-card suit 95 92 KQ65 109764 K87 KQJ4 AJ98 KJ 1. sQ lead to East's Ace 2. spade return won by the King. 3. diamond to the King 4. heart to the King 5. diamond to the Queen 6. heart East wins the Ace and West shows out pitching a low club reverse attitude 7. c5 It looks like this contract is going several off. 5 spades, hA and one or two clubs. It may make if the cA is onside but that looks impossible in view of the 8-11 jump overcall. Would you play the King hoping for a near zero percent chance of making? or would you play the Jack trying to limit the undertricks - will there be a difference between -300 and -400? Perhaps someone else will be in 3NT. Would you consider either play an egregious error? Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 7 01:47:07 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Sep 7 01:48:43 2005 Subject: [blml] zero percent In-Reply-To: <20050906231520.LLVY5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows asked: >MPs >All Vul > >1D 2S* 3D 3S >3NT All Pass > >* 8-11 6-card suit > >95 >92 >KQ65 >109764 > >K87 >KQJ4 >AJ98 >KJ > >1. sQ lead to East's Ace >2. spade return won by the King. >3. diamond to the King >4. heart to the King >5. diamond to the Queen >6. heart East wins the Ace and West shows out >pitching a low club reverse attitude >7. c5 > >It looks like this contract is going several off. >5 spades, hA and one or two clubs. It may make if >the cA is onside but that looks impossible in view >of the 8-11 jump overcall. > >Would you play the King hoping for a near zero >percent chance of making? > >or would you play the Jack trying to limit the >undertricks - will there be a difference between >-300 and -400? Perhaps someone else will be in >3NT. > >Would you consider either play an egregious error? Richard Hills replies: The chances of West having overbid, misbid or psyched are surely greater than zero percent. There is also a better than zero percent chance that West is about to misplay. If I was West, and I held both ace and queen of clubs, I would be feeling really good about winning the club finesse now that East has returned a club. In fact, I would feel so good that when South unexpectedly plays the king of clubs on East's club return, I would automatically "win" the trick with my queen of clubs, instead of playing my ace of clubs. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Sep 7 02:03:53 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed Sep 7 02:06:54 2005 Subject: [blml] zero percent In-Reply-To: <20050906231520.LLVY5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.189]> References: <20050906231520.LLVY5449.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.86.15.189]> Message-ID: <431E2E69.3020508@t-online.de> wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz wrote: >MPs >All Vul > >1D 2S* 3D 3S >3NT All Pass > >* 8-11 6-card suit > >95 >92 >KQ65 >109764 > >K87 >KQJ4 >AJ98 >KJ > >1. sQ lead to East's Ace >2. spade return won by the King. >3. diamond to the King >4. heart to the King >5. diamond to the Queen >6. heart East wins the Ace and West shows out pitching a low club reverse attitude >7. c5 > >It looks like this contract is going several off. 5 spades, hA and one or two clubs. It may make if the cA is onside but that looks impossible in view of the 8-11 jump overcall. > >Would you play the King hoping for a near zero percent chance of making? > >or would you play the Jack trying to limit the undertricks - will there be a difference between -300 and -400? Perhaps someone else will be in 3NT. > >Would you consider either play an egregious error? > > Hmmm. If West has 8-11 he has got to have club AQ to get up to 9. No other points are left. So if he has his bid it`s -400 anyway. We have to play him not to have his bid, else we are finished anyway. The rest is difficult without knowing anything about West. In pairs -300 may indeed be worth a little bit, so the jack would not be irrational (but pretty close), even if would never play it at the table. In teams I would consider the jack irrational. Since everybody and his dog will signal for a club we can put no faith in this discard. At the table I would play the king regardless of the form of scoring. This may have something to do with not wanting to look like a fool :-) What is rational or irrational in this context? Not wanting to lose an extra 100 surely is a rational thought. Trying to define rational or irrational this way will surely fail. On the other hand this looks like a fine test to find out where people draw the line. Matthias >Wayne > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 7 02:23:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 7 02:26:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000801c5b333$ce566680$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c5b333$ce566680$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <06377119-6935-475B-98A8-5228F5C53144@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Any play that is *not* irrational is "normal" for the purpose of > applying > Laws 69, 70 and 71. It does not matter whether such "normal" plays are > clever, standard, inferior or careless. Even silly plays are > "normal" as > long as they are not considered "irrational". I think that's what I said, isn't it? :-) From blml at blakjak.com Wed Sep 7 03:12:23 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Sep 7 03:16:11 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: <000601c5b324$26516430$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c5b324$26516430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >A possible inference from your tale is that the partnership could only have >had one rather than the required two identical copies of their CC available >for their opponents. This is an irregularity which (depending upon local SO >regulations) qualifies for nothing more than a procedure penalty in the form >of a warning. A possible inference from my tale is that I gave you all the relevant details. I think this is the end. It is getting incredibly difficult to believe this forum can serve any useful purpose any more. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Sep 7 03:25:44 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Sep 7 03:29:31 2005 Subject: [blml] The end Message-ID: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> I find this forum has gone doo-lally. If you post a simple situation, people look for the traps and assume you mean other than what you say. When you have a simple concept like the difference between normal and irrational, people produce totally illogical arguments about hands that are neither or both, and have spent quite literally 1000s of posts saying damn-all useful. I get so frustrated that I could scream, and I find that even a fairly mild lack of manners makes me retaliate. Sure, why Richard Hills saw fit to attack my English usage I have no idea, but I could have ignored him. A close friend of mine who has a very low opinion of this list now wants us to have a new list, moderated, and by invitation only. I think that might be sensible. Not much traffic, but what there is might be of use. The moderator would have the absolute right to kill a thread solely because people were repeating themselves. Of course some people would not be invited for the most unfair reasons - but how else could we avoid the sheer pointlessness of 70% of postings to this list. Lurkers and newcomers would no doubt be admitted automatically on a trial basis. If people are interested in this please contact me. As for the majority of people here, I am sorry, I have tried for you, but frustration has overcome me. The final straw was the completely stupid posts in response to my simple tale of a German team at Brighton. The coach said .... Do they really think that the 220 teams in our Swiss Teams have a coach each? It must be a trap if David posts it ... Why? Good-bye all. You know my eddress: feel free to send me any interesting views, queries, problems. I shall continue to post on RGB which nowadays treats Laws questions quite sensibly, and IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in rulings - as against arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. -- 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 Wed Sep 7 04:16:57 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Sep 7 04:19:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <200509061755.j86Hti4b005079@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509061755.j86Hti4b005079@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <431E4D99.4070505@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> The issue is what to do about a SW>possible line of play not embraced in the claim statement. Once the SW>case is determined to be in this category, the content of the claim SW>statement is obviously irrelevant. > From: David Stevenson > "obviously"? Not at all. The claim statement still has relevance to > what is going on. Take a simple example: "i draw both the outstanding > trumps." Would you rule that the claimer *does not* draw any trumps > because there was only one out? Aren't you the one who complains about people trying to twist your words? Of course the claim statement has relevance _as far as it goes_. If it goes "all the way," we never get to L70D. We only get to L70D where there is a potential line "not embraced" in the claim statement. How can the claim statement be relevant for judging a line "not embraced" in it? In the example you give, and if the statement goes no further, we imagine that two rounds of trumps are drawn, then judge the position from there. But you knew that. > This is apart form the fact that in the actual case it is not even > true - the claim statement had not broken down. On the facts I recall, the claim statement omitted to mention what declarer would do on a diamond return. Declarer has proposed the "alternate line" that he would win the D-K. We need to judge that on its merits -- whether that is or is not the only rational line -- and I fail to see how the statement can possibly be relevant. The real problem, I think, is that you (and Herman too) are trying to judge claimer's state of mind. That isn't what the Laws say. They tell us to judge lines of play. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Sep 7 04:19:45 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Sep 7 04:22:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <200509061458.j86EwsZR018017@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509061458.j86EwsZR018017@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <431E4E41.3050505@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > The "normal" sequence and procedure of play is prescribed in Law 44. > > Law 68 allows the players to interrupt this sequence and procedure, > primarily intended for use to save time when there can be no doubt about the > final result on the board. But claiming is in no way part of the "normal" > procedure for playing a board prescribed in Law 44. This neatly summarizes the difference between our views. There is enough ambiguity in the Laws that I cannot say you are wrong, but I know what kind of game I like. If you have more fun with a different approach, well, as they say in Rome, "de gustibus non disputandum" (or words to that effect). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 7 04:52:53 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Sep 7 04:54:52 2005 Subject: [blml] The curse of the were-rabbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: KO Teams 84 --- 943 95 9 J6 --- AQ 7 AJ AKQ74 J T --- KT T862 The Facts: East was declarer in a 6H contract and claimed in the diagrammed seven-card ending. East (arguably, see below) stated she had the ace-jack of diamonds and a club to get to dummy. Declarer had lost one trick at the time of the claim. The Director: awarded N/S a trick with the DK (Law 70E). The board was rescored as 6H down one, N/S +100. E/W appealed the Director's ruling. The Players: disputed the phraseology of the claim, with N/S contending that declarer began with "I have the ace and jack of diamonds..." whilst E/W contended that declarer said "I have the DA and the jack...", the latter referring to the SJ. Declarer had cashed the SAKQ immediately before making the claim statement. The appellants raised other issues, such as which defender disputed the claim. [AC's decision snipped] If you were the AC, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 7 05:10:44 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed Sep 7 05:14:41 2005 Subject: [blml] The curse of the were-rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050906230045.031d1d48@mail.comcast.net> At 10:52 PM 9/6/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >KO Teams > > 84 > --- > 943 > 95 >9 J6 >--- AQ >7 AJ >AKQ74 J > T > --- > KT > T862 > >The Facts: >East was declarer in a 6H contract and >claimed in the diagrammed seven-card >ending. East (arguably, see below) stated >she had the ace-jack of diamonds and a club >to get to dummy. Declarer had lost one >trick at the time of the claim. > >The Director: >awarded N/S a trick with the DK (Law >70E). The board was rescored as >6H down one, N/S +100. > >E/W appealed the Director's ruling. > >The Players: >disputed the phraseology of the claim, with >N/S contending that declarer began with "I >have the ace and jack of diamonds..." >whilst E/W contended that declarer said "I >have the DA and the jack...", the latter >referring to the SJ. Declarer had cashed >the SAKQ immediately before making the >claim statement. The appellants raised >other issues, such as which defender >disputed the claim. > >[AC's decision snipped] > >If you were the AC, how would you rule? I assume "declarer had cashed the SAKQ" means "the SAKQ had just been played", probably as a SQ covered by the king and ace; there are too many spades left for declarer to have played more than one round of the suit. I need to rule on disputed facts, and I think that the most likely statement was, "I have the DA and the (unspecified) jack". Since spades had just been played, it is certainly reasonable that East intended "the jack" to be the SJ, and I will accept this claim and give East all the tricks. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 7 05:53:04 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Sep 7 05:55:07 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson: [snip] >quite literally 1000s of posts saying damn-all useful. > >I get so frustrated that I could scream, and I find that >even a fairly mild lack of manners makes me retaliate. >Sure, why Richard Hills saw fit to attack my English >usage I have no idea, but I could have ignored him. [snip] Richard Hills: Due to the literally 1000s of posts, David Stevenson (and other blmlers) may have overlooked my apology for my rudeness (which apology appeared in the "Stress and distress." thread); I repeat it here. >>I am glad that discussions on blml this year >>are conducted with better humour than some >>acerb exchanges in past years. >> >>I have accidentally overstepped the line of >>good-humoured discourse, so I therefore wish >>to unreservedly apologise to David Stevenson >>for me carelessly and foolishly casting >>aspersions upon David's intellect in another >>thread. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 7 06:13:44 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Sep 7 06:19:47 2005 Subject: [blml] The end References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <005301c5b362$efbdfde0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> This a reminder sent out every few months to inform BLML members that they have had their [Mr] Chips ... [David Stevenson] > ....Good-bye....[continued IBLF p. 94] From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 7 06:33:55 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Sep 7 06:35:52 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>....the sheer pointlessness of 70% of >>postings to this list..... John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887): >It was six men of Indostan >To learning much inclined, >Who went to see the Elephant >(Though all of them were blind), >That each by observation >Might satisfy his mind. > >The First approached the Elephant, >And happening to fall >Against his broad and sturdy side, >At once began to bawl: >"God bless me! but the Elephant >Is very like a wall!" > >The Second, feeling of the tusk >Cried, "Ho! what have we here, >So very round and smooth and sharp? >To me 'tis mighty clear >This wonder of an Elephant >Is very like a spear!" > >The Third approached the animal, >And happening to take >The squirming trunk within his hands, >Thus boldly up he spake: >"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant >Is very like a snake!" > >The Fourth reached out an eager hand, >And felt about the knee: >"What most this wondrous beast is like >Is mighty plain," quoth he; >"'Tis clear enough the Elephant >Is very like a tree!" > >The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, >Said: "E'en the blindest man >Can tell what this resembles most; >Deny the fact who can, >This marvel of an Elephant >Is very like a fan!" > >The Sixth no sooner had begun >About the beast to grope, >Than, seizing on the swinging tail >That fell within his scope. >"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant >Is very like a rope!" > >And so these men of Indostan >Disputed loud and long, >Each in his own opinion >Exceeding stiff and strong, >Though each was partly in the right, >And all were in the wrong! > >Moral: > >So oft in theologic wars, >The disputants, I ween, >Rail on in utter ignorance >Of what each other mean, >And prate about an Elephant >Not one of them has seen! Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 09:09:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:10:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Sep 6, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> My I remind you (and others) of the complete lay-out: >> >> dummy: S106 D7 CA43 >> >> decl : DKJ9 CKQJ >> >> RHO leads a small diamond. Is any other play than the king rational? >> There is only one diamond in dummy, and no losers. Putting in the >> jack does not win anything. Putting in the King gives an overtrick if >> RHO underled his ace. Simple really. And starting at a level of >> player only slightly higher than my own: the only normal play. > > > If putting in the king is the only rational play, then putting in the > jack is irrational. In that case, playing the jack cannot be normal for > any class of player, for as Eric says, "irrational" and "normal" are > mutually exclusive. Have I got this right, or did I miss something? > Yes, you missed something. Eric is not correct in saying that irrational and normal are exclusive. The opposite of normal is "irrational, for the class of player involved". I would certainly admit that for me, to put in the jack in this position is "careless", therefore "normal". But for a higher class of player, playing the jack would be irrational. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 09:10:17 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:11:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <7A$ByOeW1bHDFwYu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <000001c5aeca$f8335e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4316BCC9.4070301@hdw.be> <43171161.4090807@hdw.be> <431761BD.4040902@hdw.be> <87CwsVGk0GGDFwiH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431AC212.309@hdw.be> <8gMAK2IfcuGDFwjC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431B0ABE.1090400@hdw.be> <431B8314.6000206@hdw.be> <7A$ByOeW1bHDFwYu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <431E9259.3020605@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> And you are allowed your opinion. You are not allowed to call a >> differing opinion "dreadful". > > > It is not a question of a "differing": it is a question of a dreadful" > decision. > > Anyway, who appointed you god? > Who appointed you pope? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 09:13:51 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:14:44 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: References: <000601c5b324$26516430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431E932F.6020800@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Sven Pran wrote > >> A possible inference from your tale is that the partnership could only >> have >> had one rather than the required two identical copies of their CC >> available >> for their opponents. This is an irregularity which (depending upon >> local SO >> regulations) qualifies for nothing more than a procedure penalty in >> the form >> of a warning. > > > A possible inference from my tale is that I gave you all the relevant > details. > > I think this is the end. It is getting incredibly difficult to > believe this forum can serve any useful purpose any more. > If by useful purposes you mean agreeing with you and not asking you more than you want to tell us, then yes, it does not serve those purposes. I hope you are not as vain as to think it ever did. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 09:16:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:16:55 2005 Subject: [blml] "Full Disclosure" In-Reply-To: References: <1ECF2D-0WCN4C0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> <431C397B.1000704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431E93B5.7040803@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> Well, if it were considered true, there would be no reason for David >> to tell the story, now would it? > > > If this is your view I believe it is time you removed yourself from > this list. > > I give a nice little story of something that happened which had > similarities to the current thread. That's it. > A nice little story in which you included things you could have no direct knowledge of (a private discussion conducted in a foreign language) and to which you refuse to add some pieces of information that others want to know (such as the number and nature of the CC's on the table and what the players told their opponents about them). If that is your attitude then maybe it's time you removed yourself (again) from this list. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 09:22:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:23:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: References: <000501c5b2cf$21317170$6400a8c0@WINXP> <431D78E8.50107@hdw.be> <431D99B7.1030908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <431E9530.3080809@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > There are a large number who believe that there ought to be a default > technique imposed upon unclarified claimer for the purpose of resolving > contested claims. poppycock. > Why poppycock? As long as this discussion continues, we do not know how to resolve this kind of claim. Despite what you might think, there is no way the laws are going to help us. The WBFLC has declined to issue a guideline, telling us, literally, that the AC's should solve this and create legal precedent. (they could have told us that the laws do provide the answer, and tell us what that answer is, if they thought so) The case has come up before a very highly qualified AC once, and it has solved it by issueing as a guideline : suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which are cashed last. Now we may agree with the guideline or not, but if everyone around the world would follow it, at least we have solved one problem: that all similar claims be solved in the same way. That of course excludes Norway, where there has also been set a guideline, a different one. But within Norway, apparently, this case is also settled and will always be ruled the same. That's not a bad thing, as long as Norwegiand know that the rules are different outside their own country, and as long as Norwegian Directors do not start to tell the world that they are wrong because the case has been settled within Norway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 09:33:57 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:34:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <00ad01c5b2f0$1dee9f80$199868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200509051616.j85GGmEI005218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <431CD86B.4080303@cfa.harvard.edu> <00ad01c5b2f0$1dee9f80$199868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <431E97E5.3050306@hdw.be> No Nigel, Nigel, Nigel, why can't you for once read everything I write and not pick out just the things you think I write? Guthrie wrote: > IMO... > > [A] The appeal decision probably was wrong but > certainly was not atrocious. What is atrocious is > flawed laws that can be corrected only every five > or ten years. > OK. > [B] The declarer specified in his claim that he > would lose a diamond trick, so why should he give > much thought as to whether to play the DJ or DK. > Maybe, Herman is right that we are a bit > inconsistent here. If declarer held D:KQx, it > might be a bit cruel to force him to play low. > I don't believe that is important really - but your point is valid. It is irrational to play low nobody plays low from KQx, regardless of trump promotions. > [C] I hate the qualifier about "level of player" > which causes so much discontent among players. > I have never seen any discontent among players about this. I myself, as a player, have already stated that it I find it completely OK to see this claim ruled one down for me (I may well carelessly play the jack) and not for Zia (who would never in his life play the jack). After all, if we play it out, I may well go down, and Zia won't, so why would I mind the claim being ruled differently? > [D] "irrational" is not so bad, however, if it is > considered *in the actual table context*... > Exactly - but then you go on: > A good declarer would normally be aware of the > possibility of a trump promotion. Hence he would > not claim. If he did claim, he would, of course, > specify that he would play DK on a diamond exit. > Indeed - so we know this declarer was not aware of a trump promotion. > Either this declarer is not that good or he has > lost the place. And there you go wrong. > If the latter, then, in his > obviously confused state, we cannot rely on his > usual double-dummy performance. Maybe it would be > rational for the player to rise with the king > under normal circumstances; but these are not > normal circumstances; the play isn't automatic for > a declarer who, apparently, doesn't seem to > understand what is going on. > This is still OK. > Herman would allow the claimer to sober up, to > remember the facts that he has apparently > forgotten, become aware of the dangers he has > overlooked, and to conduct a belated expert > analysis of eventualities, for which his original > claim made no provision. > No, Herman will not allow this. Herman will not allow the reasoning : if I allow the queen to make this trick, I will get a heart return and trump promotion. But Herman will allow the reasoning : if I put up the king here, I gain an overtrick if RHO has underled his ace. if I put up the jace, I will gain nothing because even if this loses to the queen, I have no losers to discard on the free king. That is not waking up, or sobering up. That is simple card play. Give the two hands to any player. Tell them nothing else than that all diamonds are out, and the S8, and that RHO returns a small diamond. You will not get answers of the style "if I let LHO in, that S8 will be promoted", but you will get answers like "the King, because I cannot make an extra trick any other way". That is why the King is the rational play, and hence, for a certain level of player and above, the only normal play. > I'm all for encouraging claimers but that does > seem to be going too far. If I can persuade an > expert panel to choose a rational line of play for > me, then I will claim at trick one, whenever I'm > declarer. > That is silly and you know it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 09:46:19 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:47:15 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> Does this post warrant a reply? Maybe this one. No-one has copped more flack than I. I can take it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. David Stevenson wrote: > > I find this forum has gone doo-lally. If you post a simple situation, > people look for the traps and assume you mean other than what you say. > Answered in some other thread. > When you have a simple concept like the difference between normal and > irrational, people produce totally illogical arguments about hands that > are neither or both, and have spent quite literally 1000s of posts > saying damn-all useful. > And people have spent 1000s of posts disregarding the simple truth of a play. > I get so frustrated that I could scream, and I find that even a fairly > mild lack of manners makes me retaliate. Sure, why Richard Hills saw > fit to attack my English usage I have no idea, but I could have ignored > him. > > A close friend of mine who has a very low opinion of this list now > wants us to have a new list, moderated, and by invitation only. I think > that might be sensible. Not much traffic, but what there is might be of > use. The moderator would have the absolute right to kill a thread > solely because people were repeating themselves. > That might indeed be a good idea. Repetition is dull to the others - even if not to the repeaters. > Of course some people would not be invited for the most unfair reasons > - but how else could we avoid the sheer pointlessness of 70% of postings > to this list. Lurkers and newcomers would no doubt be admitted > automatically on a trial basis. > Unfair reasons like being called Herman or David, probably. No, not David - he'd be the moderator of course. > If people are interested in this please contact me. > I am not, thank you. > As for the majority of people here, I am sorry, I have tried for you, > but frustration has overcome me. The final straw was the completely > stupid posts in response to my simple tale of a German team at Brighton. > The coach said .... Do they really think that the 220 teams in our > Swiss Teams have a coach each? It must be a trap if David posts it ... > Why? > We are not allowed to comment on the fact that David posts as fact something which was said in private conversation in German. But then of course, David is infallible so to point out his errors must be wrong. > Good-bye all. You know my eddress: feel free to send me any > interesting views, queries, problems. I shall continue to post on RGB > which nowadays treats Laws questions quite sensibly, and IBLF which is > the perfect place to ask for help in rulings - as against arguing about > how many angels dance on the head of a pin. > Good-bye David. Hope that other list will give you what you want, a forum in which your views are accepted without question, whether they be wrong or (as they quite often are) right. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Sep 7 09:46:54 2005 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:49:50 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <005301c5b362$efbdfde0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005301c5b362$efbdfde0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050907174545.051bf7a0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Not as good as the previous great dummy spit of 1992. Could we perhaps get David Burn back From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 09:49:14 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 09:50:09 2005 Subject: [blml] The curse of the were-rabbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431E9B7A.1060208@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > KO Teams > > 84 > --- > 943 > 95 > 9 J6 > --- AQ > 7 AJ > AKQ74 J > T > --- > KT > T862 > > The Facts: > East was declarer in a 6H contract and > claimed in the diagrammed seven-card > ending. East (arguably, see below) stated > she had the ace-jack of diamonds and a club > to get to dummy. Declarer had lost one > trick at the time of the claim. > > The Director: > awarded N/S a trick with the DK (Law > 70E). The board was rescored as > 6H down one, N/S +100. > > E/W appealed the Director's ruling. > > The Players: > disputed the phraseology of the claim, with > N/S contending that declarer began with "I > have the ace and jack of diamonds..." > whilst E/W contended that declarer said "I > have the DA and the jack...", the latter > referring to the SJ. Declarer had cashed > the SAKQ immediately before making the > claim statement. The appellants raised > other issues, such as which defender > disputed the claim. > > [AC's decision snipped] > > If you were the AC, how would you rule? > I would hear out East, and probably accept that he wanted to claim SJ, HAQ, DA and KAKQ for seven tricks. That's what I give him. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Sep 7 10:07:35 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Sep 7 10:10:27 2005 Subject: [blml] The end References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <003801c5b383$35ec8d70$b4300952@AnnesComputer> There was a time when this forum was a superb educational tool for TDs, as well as being a forum where highly qualified TDs could discuss the intended meaning of the Laws, and pass judgement on the accuracy of their wording. I recently had a conversation with a regular poster, who expressed the opinion that it was a good thing that many lesser mortals had ceased posting. I thought that sentiment was very sad, and reflected on the names of those who, like myself had surely benefited over the years from reading the discertaions of those older and wiser than ourselves. I also regret the literary demise of some of the most articulate posters that whe have ever read, usually because of some petty bickering, and the dolly - pram syndrome. I agree with you David - this forum has gone doo-lally, but rather than sink the ship for a ha'porth of tar why not do the small job of repairing the hull. Should you launch another ship, please ensure I am on board, but also please allow the less experienced TDs of the world as well as the great and the good!! Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 2:25 AM Subject: [blml] The end > > I find this forum has gone doo-lally. If you post a simple situation, > people look for the traps and assume you mean other than what you say. > > When you have a simple concept like the difference between normal and > irrational, people produce totally illogical arguments about hands that > are neither or both, and have spent quite literally 1000s of posts saying > damn-all useful. > > I get so frustrated that I could scream, and I find that even a fairly > mild lack of manners makes me retaliate. Sure, why Richard Hills saw fit > to attack my English usage I have no idea, but I could have ignored him. > > A close friend of mine who has a very low opinion of this list now wants > us to have a new list, moderated, and by invitation only. I think that > might be sensible. Not much traffic, but what there is might be of use. > The moderator would have the absolute right to kill a thread solely > because people were repeating themselves. > > Of course some people would not be invited for the most unfair reasons - > but how else could we avoid the sheer pointlessness of 70% of postings to > this list. Lurkers and newcomers would no doubt be admitted automatically > on a trial basis. > > If people are interested in this please contact me. > > As for the majority of people here, I am sorry, I have tried for you, > but frustration has overcome me. The final straw was the completely > stupid posts in response to my simple tale of a German team at Brighton. > The coach said .... Do they really think that the 220 teams in our Swiss > Teams have a coach each? It must be a trap if David posts it ... Why? > > Good-bye all. You know my eddress: feel free to send me any interesting > views, queries, problems. I shall continue to post on RGB which nowadays > treats Laws questions quite sensibly, and IBLF which is the perfect place > to ask for help in rulings - as against arguing about how many angels > dance on the head of a pin. > > -- > 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 hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 10:23:08 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 10:24:06 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <003801c5b383$35ec8d70$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003801c5b383$35ec8d70$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <431EA36C.8040006@hdw.be> Anne Jones wrote: > There was a time when this forum was a superb educational tool for TDs, > as well as being a forum where highly qualified TDs could discuss the > intended meaning of the Laws, and pass judgement on the accuracy of > their wording. > It still is, I think. > I recently had a conversation with a regular poster, who expressed the > opinion that it was a good thing that many lesser mortals had ceased > posting. I thought that sentiment was very sad, and reflected on the > names of those who, like myself had surely benefited over the years from > reading the discertaions of those older and wiser than ourselves. > That was not me, was it? I don't think lesser mortals have nothing to gain from blml. > I also regret the literary demise of some of the most articulate posters > that whe have ever read, usually because of some petty bickering, and > the dolly - pram syndrome. > > I agree with you David - this forum has gone doo-lally, but rather than > sink the ship for a ha'porth of tar why not do the small job of > repairing the hull. Should you launch another ship, please ensure I am > on board, but also please allow the less experienced TDs of the world as > well as the great and the good!! > Of course there are no two ways about it - either I'm on that new ship, and David and I will continue to argue till we're blue in the face, or I am not on it, and you'll have to do with David's one-sided views. Which are often correct, but sometimes not. I am not planning on changing ships, thank you very much. If more of you believe that a moderator would be a good thing in order to stop discussions that are going no-where, then by all means suggest some-one. I'm not a candidate. > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 2:25 AM > Subject: [blml] The end > > >> >> I find this forum has gone doo-lally. If you post a simple >> situation, people look for the traps and assume you mean other than >> what you say. >> >> When you have a simple concept like the difference between normal >> and irrational, people produce totally illogical arguments about hands >> that are neither or both, and have spent quite literally 1000s of >> posts saying damn-all useful. >> >> I get so frustrated that I could scream, and I find that even a >> fairly mild lack of manners makes me retaliate. Sure, why Richard >> Hills saw fit to attack my English usage I have no idea, but I could >> have ignored him. >> >> A close friend of mine who has a very low opinion of this list now >> wants us to have a new list, moderated, and by invitation only. I >> think that might be sensible. Not much traffic, but what there is >> might be of use. The moderator would have the absolute right to kill a >> thread solely because people were repeating themselves. >> >> Of course some people would not be invited for the most unfair >> reasons - but how else could we avoid the sheer pointlessness of 70% >> of postings to this list. Lurkers and newcomers would no doubt be >> admitted automatically on a trial basis. >> >> If people are interested in this please contact me. >> >> As for the majority of people here, I am sorry, I have tried for >> you, but frustration has overcome me. The final straw was the >> completely stupid posts in response to my simple tale of a German team >> at Brighton. The coach said .... Do they really think that the 220 >> teams in our Swiss Teams have a coach each? It must be a trap if >> David posts it ... Why? >> >> Good-bye all. You know my eddress: feel free to send me any >> interesting views, queries, problems. I shall continue to post on RGB >> which nowadays treats Laws questions quite sensibly, and IBLF which is >> the perfect place to ask for help in rulings - as against arguing >> about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Sep 7 10:29:06 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Sep 7 10:31:58 2005 Subject: [blml] The end References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> 9 posts in 30 mins - you really don't give up do you! Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The end > Does this post warrant a reply? > Maybe this one. No-one has copped more flack than I. I can take it. If you > can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. > > David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> I find this forum has gone doo-lally. If you post a simple situation, >> people look for the traps and assume you mean other than what you say. >> > > Answered in some other thread. > >> When you have a simple concept like the difference between normal and >> irrational, people produce totally illogical arguments about hands that >> are neither or both, and have spent quite literally 1000s of posts saying >> damn-all useful. >> > > And people have spent 1000s of posts disregarding the simple truth of a > play. > >> I get so frustrated that I could scream, and I find that even a fairly >> mild lack of manners makes me retaliate. Sure, why Richard Hills saw fit >> to attack my English usage I have no idea, but I could have ignored him. >> >> A close friend of mine who has a very low opinion of this list now >> wants us to have a new list, moderated, and by invitation only. I think >> that might be sensible. Not much traffic, but what there is might be of >> use. The moderator would have the absolute right to kill a thread solely >> because people were repeating themselves. >> > > That might indeed be a good idea. Repetition is dull to the others - even > if not to the repeaters. > >> Of course some people would not be invited for the most unfair >> reasons - but how else could we avoid the sheer pointlessness of 70% of >> postings to this list. Lurkers and newcomers would no doubt be admitted >> automatically on a trial basis. >> > > Unfair reasons like being called Herman or David, probably. > No, not David - he'd be the moderator of course. > >> If people are interested in this please contact me. >> > > I am not, thank you. > >> As for the majority of people here, I am sorry, I have tried for you, >> but frustration has overcome me. The final straw was the completely >> stupid posts in response to my simple tale of a German team at Brighton. >> The coach said .... Do they really think that the 220 teams in our Swiss >> Teams have a coach each? It must be a trap if David posts it ... Why? >> > > We are not allowed to comment on the fact that David posts as fact > something which was said in private conversation in German. But then of > course, David is infallible so to point out his errors must be wrong. > >> Good-bye all. You know my eddress: feel free to send me any >> interesting views, queries, problems. I shall continue to post on RGB >> which nowadays treats Laws questions quite sensibly, and IBLF which is >> the perfect place to ask for help in rulings - as against arguing about >> how many angels dance on the head of a pin. >> > > Good-bye David. > Hope that other list will give you what you want, a forum in which your > views are accepted without question, whether they be wrong or (as they > quite often are) right. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Sep 7 10:46:40 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Sep 7 10:51:23 2005 Subject: [blml] The end References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk><005301c5b362$efbdfde0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.2.0.14.2.20050907174545.051bf7a0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <004001c5b388$ce5861b0$aaab87d9@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: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The end > Not as good as the previous great dummy spit > of 1992. Could we perhaps get David Burn back > +=+ I did read this statement with interest: " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in rulings" and I wondered whether perfection lay in the lack of challenge to questionable guidance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Sep 7 11:12:16 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed Sep 7 11:15:24 2005 Subject: [blml] The end Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C7B1@hotel.npl.co.uk> Grattan Perhaps you could give some examples of "questionable guidance" in IBLF that we might discuss here and reflect back to that forum if appropriate. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] Sent: 07 September 2005 09:47 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] The end 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: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The end > Not as good as the previous great dummy spit > of 1992. Could we perhaps get David Burn back > +=+ I did read this statement with interest: " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in rulings" and I wondered whether perfection lay in the lack of challenge to questionable guidance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Sep 7 11:24:19 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Sep 7 11:29:06 2005 Subject: [blml] The end References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003801c5b383$35ec8d70$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <00ab01c5b38e$13ffb420$aaab87d9@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: "Anne Jones" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The end > There was a time when this forum was a superb > educational tool for TDs, as well as being a forum > where highly qualified TDs could discuss the intended > meaning of the Laws, and pass judgement on the > accuracy of their wording. > > I recently had a conversation with a regular poster, > who expressed the opinion that it was a good thing > that many lesser mortals had ceased posting. I thought > that sentiment was very sad, and reflected on the names > of those who, like myself had surely benefited over the > years from reading the dissertations of those older and > wiser than ourselves. > +=+ The only limitation on the expression of opinion should be decency and restraint of language. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 11:54:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 11:55:20 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be> Anne Jones wrote: > 9 posts in 30 mins - you really don't give up do you! > Anne > You could also say 9 posts in 12 hours - If there's that much to reply to, then of course I shall. Make that 10 posts in 13 hours now. And: why should I give up? The others haven't, have they? Recently we've seen Roger Pewick and Ed Reppert put in their 2 cents' worth. They have repeated things already said before, so it may be right to presume they have not read those previous posts. So I replied to them personally - should I not have? And I also repeated something which I have said before - should I have changed my mind instead? And no, I don't give up. I have yet to see a single response telling me I'm wrong (or even right) in calling the DJ irrational because of the singleton diamond in dummy (and no losers). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml at blakjak.com Wed Sep 7 12:08:16 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Sep 7 12:12:22 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: wrote >David Stevenson: > >[snip] > >>quite literally 1000s of posts saying damn-all useful. >> >>I get so frustrated that I could scream, and I find that >>even a fairly mild lack of manners makes me retaliate. >>Sure, why Richard Hills saw fit to attack my English >>usage I have no idea, but I could have ignored him. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Due to the literally 1000s of posts, David Stevenson (and >other blmlers) may have overlooked my apology for my >rudeness (which apology appeared in the "Stress and >distress." thread); I repeat it here. I did see it and immediately stopped talking about the incident. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml at blakjak.com Wed Sep 7 12:10:12 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Sep 7 12:14:23 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8XLw3PCEyrHDFw43@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Herman De Wael wrote >Does this post warrant a reply? >Maybe this one. No-one has copped more flack than I. I can take it. If >you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. That is exactly right. I cannot take the pointless and useless flak that gets us nowhere, and is often ill-intentioned and sometimes childish. I do not believe it is a useful part of this forum. -- 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 Sep 7 12:13:05 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Sep 7 12:17:02 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <004001c5b388$ce5861b0$aaab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005301c5b362$efbdfde0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.2.0.14.2.20050907174545.051bf7a0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <004001c5b388$ce5861b0$aaab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >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: "Tony Musgrove" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:46 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] The end > > >> Not as good as the previous great dummy spit >> of 1992. Could we perhaps get David Burn back >> >+=+ I did read this statement with interest: > " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help > in rulings" > and I wondered whether perfection lay in the > lack of challenge to questionable guidance. I doubt it. But if someone wants to know the answer to a simple question, do you really believe that it is helpful that here: He will not get a simple answer, and If the question is simple it will be assumed that there is a different reason for posting it, and People will blame the poster for posting 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 anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Sep 7 12:32:59 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Sep 7 12:35:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Statistics Message-ID: <000301c5b397$85e86240$b4300952@AnnesComputer> We used to have the facility to see a list of the names of those who are subscribed to the group. Also a summary of the number of posts attributed to each contributor over a period of time. Are these facilities still available? Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Sep 7 12:33:07 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Sep 7 12:36:04 2005 Subject: [blml] The end Message-ID: <20050907103307.1931941F829@poczta.interia.pl> > Good-bye David. > Hope that other list will give you what you want, a forum in which > your views are accepted without question, whether they be wrong or (as > they quite often are) right. Don't worry, Herman. He'll come back - they always do. David - this is the second time you announce you are leaving the list. As much as I appreciate your contributions to the list I think your behavior is quite childish. I haven't noticed a single post where you were offended or doo-lallied (not that I have any idea what this means) by anyone but it is your choice. Either you enjoy the forum and you post or you don't and you simply stop posting. But this "long, whiny good-bye", "I'm gonna give BLML one last chance", "long, whiny good-bye", "I'm gonna give BLML one last chance" cycle is very, very childish. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jedyny taki czat... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f18b0 From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Sep 7 12:45:17 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Sep 7 12:48:08 2005 Subject: [blml] zero percent Message-ID: <20050907104517.32FAF41F812@poczta.interia.pl> > MPs > All Vul > > 1D 2S* 3D 3S > 3NT All Pass > > * 8-11 6-card suit > > 95 > 92 > KQ65 > 109764 > > K87 > KQJ4 > AJ98 > KJ > > 1. sQ lead to East's Ace > 2. spade return won by the King. > 3. diamond to the King > 4. heart to the King > 5. diamond to the Queen > 6. heart East wins the Ace and West shows out pitching a low club reverse > attitude > 7. c5 I play the king without hesitation. I very much doubt going three off instead of four off will make any difference. The contract is stretched like [baranie jaja], it is close to insane so I must bring it home to salvage anything from the wreck. > > Would you consider either play an egregious error? If 2S is indeed 8-11 that whatever I do isn't going to matter as West must have both the ace and the queen. Of course that is not the case otherwise the deal wouldn't make it to the list. Declarer put in the jack and screamed injustice when it turned out that the ace was onside, right? If you ask me I consider inserting the jack an error but not an "egregious" one. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jedyny taki czat... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f18b0 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 7 14:35:29 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Sep 7 14:37:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <431E97E5.3050306@hdw.be> References: <200509051616.j85GGmEI005218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <431CD86B.4080303@cfa.harvard.edu> <00ad01c5b2f0$1dee9f80$199868d5@jeushtlj> <431E97E5.3050306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050907082113.02a43470@pop.starpower.net> At 03:33 AM 9/7/05, Herman wrote: >I have never seen any discontent among players about this. I myself, >as a player, have already stated that it I find it completely OK to >see this claim ruled one down for me (I may well carelessly play the >jack) and not for Zia (who would never in his life play the jack). >After all, if we play it out, I may well go down, and Zia won't, so >why would I mind the claim being ruled differently? Herman has an exceptionally enlightened attitude, but needs to spend more time in my world. In my experience, a typical player, if he were to be ruled down on a claim like this knowing that some reputed expert made the same claim on the same hand and had it allowed, would find it a long way away from "completely OK", and either raise hell, refuse to return to that club, or give up the game altogether. If both rulings came from the same director, that director would be hard-pressed to explain how this could result from anything other than simple favoritism. Perhaps this is a uniquely American attitude. In the U.S. we believe that "all men stand equal before the Law" is the single most important principle of justice. Players from countries with centuries-long traditions of privileged aristocracy may well feel differently. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 14:38:02 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Sep 7 14:44:26 2005 Subject: [blml] The curse of the were-rabbit References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 21:52 PM Subject: [blml] The curse of the were-rabbit > KO Teams > > 84 > --- > 943 > 95 > 9 J6 > --- AQ > 7 AJ > AKQ74 J > T > --- > KT > T862 > > The Facts: > East was declarer in a 6H contract and > claimed in the diagrammed seven-card > ending. East (arguably, see below) stated > she had the ace-jack of diamonds and a club > to get to dummy. Declarer had lost one > trick at the time of the claim. > > The Director: > awarded N/S a trick with the DK (Law > 70E). The board was rescored as > 6H down one, N/S +100. If the TD had established by agreement of the players the above clarification then surely the line of play is C4 to the J, DA, DJ to the K, ST to the J, N gets the S8 for 2 tricks NS. So, I am wondering why EW did not establish at the table what was contended at appeal. I would think that the TD not only made the error of not establishing the facts accurately [after all it appears absurd on its face to not claim three clubs while there is an outside entry and even more absurd that EW did not dispute the facts immediately] ; as well as the error of not applying the law correctly to the facts established. regards roger pewick > E/W appealed the Director's ruling. > > The Players: > disputed the phraseology of the claim, with > N/S contending that declarer began with "I > have the ace and jack of diamonds..." > whilst E/W contended that declarer said "I > have the DA and the jack...", the latter > referring to the SJ. Declarer had cashed > the SAKQ immediately before making the > claim statement. The appellants raised > other issues, such as which defender > disputed the claim. > > [AC's decision snipped] > > If you were the AC, how would you rule? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 14:43:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 14:44:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050907082113.02a43470@pop.starpower.net> References: <200509051616.j85GGmEI005218@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <431CD86B.4080303@cfa.harvard.edu> <00ad01c5b2f0$1dee9f80$199868d5@jeushtlj> <431E97E5.3050306@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050907082113.02a43470@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <431EE08E.60300@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:33 AM 9/7/05, Herman wrote: > >> I have never seen any discontent among players about this. I myself, >> as a player, have already stated that it I find it completely OK to >> see this claim ruled one down for me (I may well carelessly play the >> jack) and not for Zia (who would never in his life play the jack). >> After all, if we play it out, I may well go down, and Zia won't, so >> why would I mind the claim being ruled differently? > > > Herman has an exceptionally enlightened attitude, but needs to spend > more time in my world. > > In my experience, a typical player, if he were to be ruled down on a > claim like this knowing that some reputed expert made the same claim on > the same hand and had it allowed, would find it a long way away from > "completely OK", and either raise hell, refuse to return to that club, > or give up the game altogether. If both rulings came from the same > director, that director would be hard-pressed to explain how this could > result from anything other than simple favoritism. > Well, you would hardly find two exactly the same cases, would you? So the story is rather fictitious is it not? You talk of "some player", Eric; I talk of "me". I don't consider it wrong to be ruled against when I know that I could play that jack. And I don't feel wronged if someone tells me that they believe Zia (or even a student from Lodz) would not play that same jack. > Perhaps this is a uniquely American attitude. In the U.S. we believe > that "all men stand equal before the Law" is the single most important > principle of justice. Players from countries with centuries-long > traditions of privileged aristocracy may well feel differently. > But how can you find that the claim laws as they are are not "equal before the law"? They are! Besides Eric, this is really not important. You are argueing against no-one. This is how the laws are, and there is no movement to change them. So please stop this rather useless exercise of trying to prove that a law needs changing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 7 14:56:59 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 7 14:59:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 7, 2005, at 3:09 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes, you missed something. Eric is not correct in saying that > irrational and normal are exclusive. The opposite of normal is > "irrational, for the class of player involved". > > I would certainly admit that for me, to put in the jack in this > position is "careless", therefore "normal". > > But for a higher class of player, playing the jack would be > irrational. "The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present strange opinions." - WBFLC, at Lille, 24 August 1998. Ran across that while I was looking for this: "The Committee considered the possible interpretations of the footnote to Laws 69,70 and 71. It was agreed that the footnote has not been worded clearly. The Committee invites the copyright holders to change this footnote when next printing the laws, so that it will read: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." In the meantime the correct interpretation of the current footnote is in accordance with the revision of the wording to be made." -- WBFLC, at Maastricht, 30 August 2000. Sigh. Eric is correct in that the meaning of "irrational", generally, is not subject to "class of player" distinctions. However, it seems we have forgotten that the WBFLC has redefined the word, at least for purposes of our game. "Irrational" doesn't mean "irrational", it means something closer akin to "implausible". Now that I think on it, I believe Grattan (maybe it was someone else) used that word here a while back. The LC seems akin to Humpty Dumpty, who said "Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." :-( I give up. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 7 15:05:44 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 7 15:08:40 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <004001c5b388$ce5861b0$aaab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005301c5b362$efbdfde0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.2.0.14.2.20050907174545.051bf7a0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <004001c5b388$ce5861b0$aaab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <57C2AD4A-644C-4782-A5E7-39D160A1F90F@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 7, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ I did read this statement with interest: > " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help > in rulings" > and I wondered whether perfection lay in the > lack of challenge to questionable guidance. My name is on that forum along with David's. I'm not afraid to disagree with him. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 7 15:23:25 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 7 15:26:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? (was: The end) In-Reply-To: <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 7, 2005, at 5:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Recently we've seen Roger Pewick and Ed Reppert put in their 2 > cents' worth. They have repeated things already said before, so it > may be right to presume they have not read those previous posts. "2 cents' worth"? Should I feel insulted? Very occasionally, I grow tired of the bickering, repetitive arguments, and other silliness on this list, and just ignore a thread or six. But in the main, I read every post. If I repeat something, it's usually because it's not clear to me. I have to admit, this list as currently constituted is less a help, and more a hindrance, to me. But rather than switch to another list, I'd rather somehow, if we can, make this one more helpful again. Personally, I am primarily interested in practical guidance on application of the laws, and less interested (sometimes considerably so :) in fine nuances, what the laws "should" mean, whether Herman or David or someone else is right or wrong, or other such miscellany. I don't mind if others discuss such things, but I'd rather not, even though I do seem to get drawn into such. Does anyone else feel this way? From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Sep 7 15:50:18 2005 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Wed Sep 7 15:53:12 2005 Subject: [blml] The end] Message-ID: <20050907135017.ZIEI20229.eastrmmtao02.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net> There is no sympathy for these types of egocentric postings nor for moderation of newsgroups and discussion lists. IMO RGB is getting like that also. Mmbridge ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:25 PM Subject: [blml] The end I I I I me my I I mine us I we me. I I me my David my me I -- 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 jimfox99 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 7 15:19:35 2005 From: jimfox99 at hotmail.com (Jim Fox) Date: Wed Sep 7 16:04:17 2005 Subject: [blml] The end References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: There is no sympathy for these types of egocentric postings nor for moderation of newsgroups and discussion lists. IMO RGB is getting like that also. Mmbridge ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:25 PM Subject: [blml] The end I I I I me my I I mine us I we me. I I me my David my me I -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 16:34:39 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 16:35:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? In-Reply-To: <47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be> <47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <431EFA7F.60007@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Sep 7, 2005, at 5:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Recently we've seen Roger Pewick and Ed Reppert put in their 2 cents' >> worth. They have repeated things already said before, so it may be >> right to presume they have not read those previous posts. > > > "2 cents' worth"? Should I feel insulted? > No, certainly not. What I meant was that you too posted something on this subject which had been said before. If that is what David calls repeating, then too bad for him. You had made the same mistake (in my eyes) than others had made and so I replied. Again a repetition in David's eyes, or one of 7 posts in 30 minutes in Anne's eyes. > Very occasionally, I grow tired of the bickering, repetitive arguments, > and other silliness on this list, and just ignore a thread or six. But > in the main, I read every post. If I repeat something, it's usually > because it's not clear to me. > > I have to admit, this list as currently constituted is less a help, and > more a hindrance, to me. But rather than switch to another list, I'd > rather somehow, if we can, make this one more helpful again. What do you suggest? That I stop answering to everyone? > Personally, I am primarily interested in practical guidance on > application of the laws, and less interested (sometimes considerably so > :) in fine nuances, what the laws "should" mean, whether Herman or > David or someone else is right or wrong, or other such miscellany. I > don't mind if others discuss such things, but I'd rather not, even > though I do seem to get drawn into such. Does anyone else feel this way? > Feel free to stay here Ed, and tell us what you believe. We'll tell you if you're wrong or not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Sep 7 17:26:06 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Sep 7 17:28:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk><431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be><47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> <431EFA7F.60007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001201c5b3c0$786fe920$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Where to from here? > Feel free to stay here Ed, and tell us what you believe. We'll tell you if > you're wrong or not. > That is in my opinion an example of what ails us. Such arrogance! This is a discussion group where opinions are expressed. There has been a trend to cite a situation and to pass an opinion on how it has been handled. Regardless of how many contradict that opinion, regardless of the arguments that are put forward in support of such opinions, the original poster who it seems was not asking a question at all, will argue that he/she knows best. If you are sure you are right, why post in the first place. Is it just to convince everyone else that they are wrong, and in doing so use personal attack and denigration to really make people feel sad, mad, and unhappy. Anne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Sep 7 17:36:55 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Sep 7 17:41:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Equality before the law in Katrina v. Bush. Message-ID: <001001c5b3c2$129c2ee0$8ab087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- "In the U.S. we believe that "all men stand equal before the Law" is the single most important principle of justice." +=+ The author of the above may share with me an illusion that President Bush is an inappropriate person to 'lead' (sic) an investigation into inadequacies of different levels of government and administration when a possible outcome is to stop the hurricane short of his desk. ~ G ~ +=+ From mustikka at charter.net Wed Sep 7 17:44:45 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed Sep 7 17:47:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk><431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be><47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> <431EFA7F.60007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004e01c5b3c3$1404ca20$bd150947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" (snipped) > > Feel free to stay here Ed, and tell us what you believe. We'll tell you if > you're wrong or not. The point is not to be right or wrong (maybe it is to Herman). The point is discussion and for you TD's, help each other in difficult situations. Not everything can be neatly boxed in *right* or *wrong*. Anyone assuming that needs to grow up. From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 17:59:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 18:00:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? In-Reply-To: <001201c5b3c0$786fe920$b4300952@AnnesComputer> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk><431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be><47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> <431EFA7F.60007@hdw.be> <001201c5b3c0$786fe920$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <431F0E50.4030305@hdw.be> Anne Jones wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 3:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Where to from here? > > > >> Feel free to stay here Ed, and tell us what you believe. We'll tell >> you if you're wrong or not. >> > That is in my opinion an example of what ails us. Such arrogance! > oops, smiley forgotten. > This is a discussion group where opinions are expressed. There has been > a trend to cite a situation and to pass an opinion on how it has been > handled. Regardless of how many contradict that opinion, regardless of > the arguments that are put forward in support of such opinions, the > original poster who it seems was not asking a question at all, will > argue that he/she knows best. If you are sure you are right, why post > in the first place. Is it just to convince everyone else that they are > wrong, and in doing so use personal attack and denigration to really > make people feel sad, mad, and unhappy. > Well, that argument works both ways. If you don't believe that someone is writing something wrong, then why answer at all. I am certain that Sven believes I am wrong, I don't mind him thinking that. At the same time I believe he is wrong, and I tell him that. And if people get unhappy when they are being told that they are wrong, then maybe they don't belong in a discussion group with others who think they know a thing or two about directing. I have been the one who has been told that he's wrong more often than anyone else in the past few weeks - I suspect that almost half the posts here have been trying to make me see I am wrong about something. But I don't go and cry in a corner and start up a new group where I'm the guru and I'll allow only those that do not argue back against me. So next time you think I'm wrong in telling somebody else why he's wrong, think of my feelings as well as his. > Anne > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 18:02:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 18:02:58 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <200509071445.j87Ej3g4024238@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509071445.j87Ej3g4024238@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <431F0EF9.9060609@hdw.be> Hello Steve, Steve Willner wrote: >>I have yet to see a single response telling >>me I'm wrong (or even right) in calling the DJ irrational because of >>the singleton diamond in dummy (and no losers). > > > Hi, Herman. I believe I addressed that question. > I've taken the liberty of checking. Here's what you wrote: On the facts I recall, the claim statement omitted to mention what declarer would do on a diamond return. Declarer has proposed the "alternate line" that he would win the D-K. We need to judge that on its merits -- whether that is or is not the only rational line -- and I fail to see how the statement can possibly be relevant. The real problem, I think, is that you (and Herman too) are trying to judge claimer's state of mind. That isn't what the Laws say. They tell us to judge lines of play. "we need to judge that on its merits". Why don't you? "whether that is or is not the only rational line". Surely it is, can't you see that? "I fail to see how the statement can possibly be relevant". That is true. Did you really address this in the light of a singleton diamond on the table? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 7 18:30:56 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Sep 7 18:36:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Equality before the law in Katrina v. Bush. References: <001001c5b3c2$129c2ee0$8ab087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001e01c5b3c9$8c8ee2e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************** > 'that unhoped serene that men call age' > ~ Rupert Brooke > --------------------------------------------------- > "In the U.S. we believe that "all men stand equal > before the Law" is the single most important > principle of justice." > > +=+ The author of the above may share with me an > illusion that President Bush is an inappropriate person to > 'lead' (sic) an investigation into inadequacies of different > levels of government and administration when a possible > outcome is to stop the hurricane short of his desk. > ~ G ~ +=+ Shame on you, for bringing political comment into a mailing list supposedly devoted to the laws and regulations pertaining to contract bridge. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 18:47:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 18:48:44 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <200509071633.j87GXxem007084@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509071633.j87GXxem007084@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <431F19AE.80401@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>Did you really address this in the light of a singleton diamond on the >>table? > > >>From Sep 5 message: > My initial reaction is to rule with Herman and the original AC that the > claim is good. However, on this line of play, and having "consulted" by > reading other BLML comments, I think I have to rule South might > carelessly play the jack or even low. I hate this outcome for the > reasons stated above and never would have thought of it on my own. > > a very strange statement, Steve. Am I interpreting correctly? Did you first think that putting in the jack was normal because declarer should have thought about the possibility of the heart switch? In that case, you were right in following the others' advice. It is clear from the claim statement that claimer did not see that allowing LHO in would be a bad thing, because of the heart return. For that reason, I too would rule the claim faulty. It is the presence of a singleton diamond in dummy, combined with the fact that there are no losers there, which makes playing the jack a bad line. Up to the director to decide if it is a careless or an irrational one. But all you should be looking at is this : S106 D7 CA43 D3 DKJ9 CKQJ In a spade contract, with the knowledge that the DA and the S8 are still out. Give these hands to any player of sufficient level and he'll say like Tom : "The King seems logical" > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Sep 7 18:49:09 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Sep 7 18:52:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? Message-ID: <20050907164909.7DC5D41F81D@poczta.interia.pl> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 3:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Where to from here? > > > > > Feel free to stay here Ed, and tell us what you believe. We'll tell you > if > > you're wrong or not. > > > That is in my opinion an example of what ails us. Such arrogance! I have always ridiculed the use of smileys because I have always thought that people who need to a special way to mark the jokes in the text (one might almost say "to have jokes alerted") are the same ones who need the laughter from the background in the sitcoms. Yeah, I know, we cannot see one another's faces, we lack the non-verbal part of the message and so on but how on earth all those previous generations were able to express their thoughts and tell good jokes in writing with no smileys? Well, now I am having some second thoughts. It is beyond my ken that someone might even consider Herman's shot "we'll tell you if you are right or wrong" with all seriousness but obviously I was wrong. I think we got to the point where one might reproduce one the David Burn's wonderful contributions when someone made some obviously lighthearted statement and was severly reprimanded by David Stevenson. David Burn countered with: "These are known as jokes. Of course such frivolity has little place on as august mailing list as this one but I am sure our contributor will soon see the error of his ways under your helpful guidance." We are aabout to become a very august maling list. Well, folks, I say we all should ease up a little. Whenever there is discussion things get heated sometimes, sometimes people use strong statements to make a point. Personally, I have seen almost zero arragance or anger on BLML so whenever I read comments like Anne's or David's I wonder if we have subscribed to the same list. I enjoy a lot reading both Herman's and David's contributions, I think they are of great value, and of course from time to time I think that they what wrote is utter nonsense (although I don't always have time to comment on it). Like in the last thread about the CC of the German team (that 2H opening that was expained as both majors) where my reaction to Herman's reply was "that's what happens to your brain when you forget to wear a cap during the heats". You might disagree with Herman but I don't think he offended anyone (in this thread or any other). If he repeats the same point (even more than once) than so what? What's so arrogant and terrible about that? No need to take it personally - there is no obligation to read them in the first place. I think we should keep more distance to what is going on on a our little list. This is just bridge. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oferty sprzedazy samochodow... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f18b1 From adam at irvine.com Wed Sep 7 19:14:54 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Sep 7 19:17:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? In-Reply-To: Your message of "07 Sep 2005 18:49:09 +0200." <20050907164909.7DC5D41F81D@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <200509071714.KAA24073@mailhub.irvine.com> > I have always ridiculed the use of smileys because > I have always thought that people who need to > a special way to mark the jokes in the text > (one might almost say "to have jokes alerted") > are the same ones who need the laughter > from the background in the sitcoms. Good analogy. The background laughter in sitcoms, by the way, isn't nearly as annoying as the background laughter in old Hanna-Barbera cartoons. Has anyone else noticed this? Every time they decide to insert canned laughter, it always sounds EXACTLY the same. EXACTLY. Obviously they are just playing the same recording over and over, making it very obvious that these are not real people engaging in real laughter over real funny things in the script. One has to wonder whom they thought they were fooling. > Yeah, I know, we cannot see one another's > faces, we lack the non-verbal part of > the message and so on but how on earth all > those previous generations were able > to express their thoughts and > tell good jokes in writing with no smileys? They probably had the same problems we do. I suspect that when Jonathan Swift wrote his "A Modest Proposal" to solve the problem of Irish poverty by eating the Irish children, he probably received letters asking for wine recommendations. > Well, now I am having some second thoughts. > It is beyond my ken that someone might > even consider Herman's shot "we'll tell you if > you are right or wrong" with all seriousness > but obviously I was wrong. I certainly thought Herman was trying to be funny. I used to think like you did---that smileys ought to be unnecessary. But I've learned to include smileys in a lot of my posts to make sure that people don't get the wrong impression---even someone with a decent sense of humor can have a bad day and not pick up the humor occasionally. I'm not including any smileys in this post, because anyone who can't tell which parts of it are supposed to be funny or not is beyond hope. > ... David Burn countered with: > > "These are known as jokes. Of course such frivolity > has little place on as august mailing list as this one but > I am sure our contributor will soon see the error of his > ways under your helpful guidance." > > We are aabout to become a very august maling list. That would be a shame, especially since we are seven days into September. It would feel like a missed opportunity. -- Adam From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 19:22:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 19:23:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? In-Reply-To: <200509071714.KAA24073@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200509071714.KAA24073@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <431F21D5.2080608@hdw.be> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >>We are aabout to become a very august maling list. > > > That would be a shame, especially since we are seven days into > September. It would feel like a missed opportunity. > now that deserves a rofl > -- Adam > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Wed Sep 7 19:52:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed Sep 7 19:56:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 Message-ID: <1ED46d-21fLk00@fwd29.sul.t-online.de> Hi all, now I got a case for tournament directing ;-) East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after that West decides not to except the OBOOT. Now West opens 1 Sp ! ??? Regards Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 7 21:47:30 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Sep 7 21:49:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:56 AM 9/7/05, Ed wrote: >"The Committee considered the possible interpretations of the >footnote to Laws 69,70 and 71. It was agreed that the footnote has >not been worded clearly. The Committee invites the copyright holders >to change this footnote when next printing the laws, so that it will >read: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play >that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class >of player involved." > >In the meantime the correct interpretation of the current footnote is >in accordance with the revision of the wording to be made." > > -- WBFLC, at Maastricht, 30 >August 2000. > >Sigh. Eric is correct in that the meaning of "irrational", generally, >is not subject to "class of player" distinctions. However, it seems >we have forgotten that the WBFLC has redefined the word, at least for >purposes of our game. "Irrational" doesn't mean "irrational", it >means something closer akin to "implausible". Now that I think on it, >I believe Grattan (maybe it was someone else) used that word here a >while back. The LC seems akin to Humpty Dumpty, who said "Words mean >what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." :-( As a working TD, I do not have (nor want) the authority to base my rulings on hearsay that has reached me via BLML. The WBFLC may have issued a reinterpretation of the footnote behind their "Beward of the Leopard" sign in Maastricht, but until *someone* in authority (the ACBL, my home district, my home unit, or the owner or manager of the club where I'm directing) communicates that change to me officially I consider myself compelled to rule based on what it says in TFLB. And I suspect that those in authority are properly reluctant to ask me to run a game by rules that are different from those that my players can read for themselves in their own nominally current lawbooks (or that I can read aloud to them from mine). So it matters to me what the published footnote says, even if I have inside information that what it says isn't what the WBFLC would like it to say. In addition, I continue to maintain that "irrational" means "irrational", so that "irrational for the class of player involved" is identical in meaning to "irrational" unqualified, just as would be "irrational for the race of player involved". I don't think the WBFLC really wants "irrational" to mean "implausible"; any play that is "careless or inferior for the class of player involved" would be "implausible" for that player, and the criterion for judging "'normal'" would be nothing more than "what we think this player would probably have done had he played the hand out" (which, IMO, is what too many folks already think it means). If I understand what the WBFLC wants, it's something like, "'Normal' includes play that would be slightly careless or inferior, but not very careless or inferior, for the class of player involved." I don't like that, but if it (or something similar) appears in the next version of TFLB I will assuredly change the way I rule on claims accordingly. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 7 23:33:09 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 23:34:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <1ED46d-21fLk00@fwd29.sul.t-online.de> References: <1ED46d-21fLk00@fwd29.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <431F5C95.70305@hdw.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > Hi all, > > now I got a case for tournament directing ;-) > > East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. > TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after > that West decides not to except the OBOOT. > Now West opens 1 Sp ! > > ??? > well? West has clearly not accepted the bid out of turn? then it's now up to east. and west has opened out of turn. which we rule upon. North may accept that bid out of turn, but (**) If North does not accept, then the bid goes back to East, who must now pass. By the penalty from the previous bid out of turn, South must then re-bid 1NT, and it's back to west, who can now bid spades just to spare east a lead penalty. That part is easy, I think. (**) However, if North accepts, East will have to bid some time later, and L31A still applies (I don't see anything why it should not apply), so if East passes, South must repeat his call of 1NT which might now have become insufficient. So we tell North that he is allowed to accept West's 1Sp, but if he bids anything over it (except pass or double) then a pass by east will force south to make an insufficient bid. It would be foolish for North to bid 2Cl over 1Sp, so he won't be doing that and we won't have to rule what happens next. Of course North might tell us he doesn't accept and then open 1He. In that case, I just leave the table and let them get on with whatever they want to call the game they are obviously not taking seriously. > Regards > > Peter Eidt > Warendorf, Germany > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 7 23:37:37 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 7 23:38:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <431F5DA1.6000509@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:56 AM 9/7/05, Ed wrote: > [snip] > > As a working TD, I do not have (nor want) the authority to base my > rulings on hearsay that has reached me via BLML. The WBFLC may have > issued a reinterpretation of the footnote behind their "Beward of the > Leopard" sign in Maastricht, but until *someone* in authority (the ACBL, > my home district, my home unit, or the owner or manager of the club > where I'm directing) communicates that change to me officially I > consider myself compelled to rule based on what it says in TFLB. And I > suspect that those in authority are properly reluctant to ask me to run > a game by rules that are different from those that my players can read > for themselves in their own nominally current lawbooks (or that I can > read aloud to them from mine). So it matters to me what the published > footnote says, even if I have inside information that what it says isn't > what the WBFLC would like it to say. > So apart from not caring to listen to us when we tell you again and again that your interpretation is logically unsound, and apart from not caring to listen to what everyone tells you the interpretation of the WBFLC is, you also want to disregard the advice which you get from blml. Why are you on this list then, Eric? > In addition, I continue to maintain that "irrational" means > "irrational", so that "irrational for the class of player involved" is > identical in meaning to "irrational" unqualified, just as would be > "irrational for the race of player involved". > I have vowed today not to answer repetition by repetition. > I don't think the WBFLC really wants "irrational" to mean "implausible"; > any play that is "careless or inferior for the class of player involved" > would be "implausible" for that player, and the criterion for judging > "'normal'" would be nothing more than "what we think this player would > probably have done had he played the hand out" (which, IMO, is what too > many folks already think it means). > > If I understand what the WBFLC wants, it's something like, "'Normal' > includes play that would be slightly careless or inferior, but not very > careless or inferior, for the class of player involved." I don't like > that, but if it (or something similar) appears in the next version of > TFLB I will assuredly change the way I rule on claims accordingly. > I think you understand perfectly what the WBFLC wants. Careless and Inferior but not worse than that. Things a player might do if he's not paying attention, but not things he would never do. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From toddz at att.net Thu Sep 8 00:43:48 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Sep 8 00:46:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <431D4FB8.1080809@att.net> <000301c5b2c1$9b80f800$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431F6D24.4040603@att.net> David Stevenson wrote: > What has him being an appointed assistant got to do with anything? > Everyone gets the same rights to courteous treatment, whether TD, > partner, AC, opponent, kibitzer, broadcaster, or [to quote a famous > work] "the man in the overcoat with the dog and the smelly pipe". > > L74A1 has *no* exceptions. Alas, it wasn't enforced. I suspect 'friend of the TD' syndrome. This is probably ACBL-specific, but any advice is welcome. What should I do? -Todd From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 8 01:00:57 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Sep 8 01:03:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:06:15 BST." Message-ID: <200509072300.QAA26286@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > What has him being an appointed assistant got to do with anything? > Everyone gets the same rights to courteous treatment, whether TD, > partner, AC, opponent, kibitzer, broadcaster, or [to quote a famous > work] "the man in the overcoat with the dog and the smelly pipe". Except that in ACBL tournaments, smoking (smelly pipes or anything else) is generally forbidden, and they're not too keen on animals in the playing area either, except for animals who are ACBL members and have paid the entry fee. So your last example may be an exception to this. As far as I know, however, the ACBL has not taken any steps to prohibit overcoats in the playing area, although I hear there was some discussion of this at the last BoD meeting ... :) -- Adam From blml at blakjak.com Thu Sep 8 01:13:27 2005 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu Sep 8 01:16:30 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <57C2AD4A-644C-4782-A5E7-39D160A1F90F@rochester.rr.com> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005301c5b362$efbdfde0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.2.0.14.2.20050907174545.051bf7a0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <004001c5b388$ce5861b0$aaab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <57C2AD4A-644C-4782-A5E7-39D160A1F90F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Sep 7, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ I did read this statement with interest: >> " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help >> in rulings" >> and I wondered whether perfection lay in the >> lack of challenge to questionable guidance. > >My name is on that forum along with David's. I'm not afraid to >disagree with him. I have read with interest the posts in this, my last thread. Grattan and Herman have both criticised IBLF for "a lack of challenge to questionable guidance" and "a forum in which your views are accepted without question". While this seems to me remarkably rude to Ed Reppert, Robin Barker, and some very sensible American posters who are not seen on BLML [probably plus others I have missed - sorry], it at least is pleasing to realise that Grattan and Herman have been reading IBLF. After all, they would not be criticising it if they had not read it, would they? Ta-ta, folks. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 8 01:14:37 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 8 01:17:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <431F5C95.70305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c5b401$eb17a710$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > now I got a case for tournament directing ;-) > > > > East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. > > TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after > > that West decides not to except the OBOOT. > > Now West opens 1 Sp ! > > > > ??? > > > > well? > West has clearly not accepted the bid out of turn? > then it's now up to east. > and west has opened out of turn. which we rule upon. > North may accept that bid out of turn, but (**) > If North does not accept, then the bid goes back to East, who must now > pass. By the penalty from the previous bid out of turn, South must > then re-bid 1NT, and it's back to west, who can now bid spades just to > spare east a lead penalty. That part is easy, I think. > > (**) However, if North accepts, East will have to bid some time later, > and L31A still applies (I don't see anything why it should not apply), > so if East passes, South must repeat his call of 1NT which might now > have become insufficient. So we tell North that he is allowed to > accept West's 1Sp, but if he bids anything over it (except pass or > double) then a pass by east will force south to make an insufficient > bid. It would be foolish for North to bid 2Cl over 1Sp, so he won't be > doing that and we won't have to rule what happens next. If North accepts West's opening bid out of turn then there is no penalty on East/West and no restriction on East in this auction. The relevant Law is L29A. But what will be the effect on South's opening bid out of turn? As this bid was not accepted L31A is still in force for North and South, but this law has no provision for the situation when the offender's LHO makes a subsequent call out of turn after the first call out of turn was cancelled. I tend to believe that the subsequent irregularity by West suspends L31A for North and South in this auction. Regards Sven (remainder snipped) From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 8 01:24:40 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 8 01:27:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c5b403$527b96e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Stevenson ................ > >The caddy is an appointed assistant to the Director > >and as such should enjoy the same respect as the > >Director himself. > > What has him being an appointed assistant got to do with anything? > Everyone gets the same rights to courteous treatment, whether TD, > partner, AC, opponent, kibitzer, broadcaster, or [to quote a famous > work] "the man in the overcoat with the dog and the smelly pipe". > > L74A1 has *no* exceptions. True. But while neither is acceptable there is still a difference between annoying or embarrassing officials, players and "ordinary" spectators. I wouldn't expect needing to elaborate on this? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 8 01:35:23 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Sep 8 01:38:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Courtesy (was Rotterdam appeal 6) In-Reply-To: <431F6D24.4040603@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>What has him being an appointed assistant got to do with >>anything? >> >>Everyone gets the same rights to courteous treatment, >>whether TD, partner, AC, opponent, kibitzer, broadcaster, >>or [to quote a famous work] "the man in the overcoat with >>the dog and the smelly pipe". >> >> L74A1 has *no* exceptions. Todd Zimnoch: >Alas, it wasn't enforced. I suspect 'friend of the TD' >syndrome. This is probably ACBL-specific, but any advice >is welcome. What should I do? Richard Hills: Actually, I suspect that the TD was trained before 1987, so the TD is unaware of the fact that The Proprieties are now numbered as enforceable Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Law 74A2 (Etiquette of Word and Action) "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." My recommendation to Todd is that Todd privately approach the Director to draw the Director's attention to the fact that the Proprieties in general, and Law 74A2 in particular, changed from being mere pious advice to Law in 1987. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 8 04:31:25 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Sep 8 04:34:10 2005 Subject: [blml] The curse of the were-rabbit In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20050906230045.031d1d48@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David J. Grabiner: [snip] >>I need to rule on disputed facts, and I think that >>the most likely statement was, "I have the DA and >>the (unspecified) jack". Since spades had just >>been played, it is certainly reasonable that East >>intended "the jack" to be the SJ, and I will accept >>this claim and give East all the tricks. Herman De Wael: >>I would hear out East, and probably accept that he >>wanted to claim SJ, HAQ, DA and KAKQ for seven >>tricks. That's what I give him. Roger Pewick: [snip] >>I would think that the TD not only made the error >>of not establishing the facts accurately [after all >>it appears absurd on its face to not claim three >>clubs while there is an outside entry and even more >>absurd that EW did not dispute the facts >>immediately] [snip] WBF Code of Practice, Example Appeal Number 12: >The Committee: >did not consider germane the question of >which defender disputed the claim. It could >not ascertain the exact parsing of declarer's >claim statement, but decided that her >intent was sufficiently clear to award her >the rest of the tricks. > >Decision: >The Committee allowed the claim. The >board was scored as N/S -1430. > >Note: >After disclosure of the decision, one of the >appeals screening Directors stated that >informal guidelines for Directors' rulings in >claim situations indicated that the floor >Director should have allowed the claim. >Had N/S appealed a ruling in which E/W's >claim was allowed, the committee would >have discussed the merit of such an appeal. > >WBF Comment: >This case from an ACBL tournament is >included in order to make the point that >with their extended powers it is >appropriate for Directors to cure any >obvious ills before the appeal committee >becomes involved. If the Chief Director >has guidelines which have not been >followed in a ruling by one of his assistants, >or in a ruling he has given, he has powers >under Law 82C to put things right. Every >opportunity should be taken to put a >squeeze on the number of matters that >come to committees. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 8 05:08:39 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Sep 8 05:11:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? In-Reply-To: <431F0E50.4030305@hdw.be> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be> <47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> <431EFA7F.60007@hdw.be> <001201c5b3c0$786fe920$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431F0E50.4030305@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > And if people get unhappy when they are being told that they are > wrong, then maybe they don't belong in a discussion group with > others who think they know a thing or two about directing. I don't mind being told I'm wrong, necessarily. I do sometimes object to the manner in which I'm told it. Tonight, for example, after the session, a player walked up to me, law book in hand, and asked me to help him find the law that "says declarer, who is running a long suit in dummy and accidently trumps an early lead in that suit, is allowed to retract that trump." I said "Joe, you can't find that law because it isn't in there". He says to me "You're wrong!". I said "Joe, don't tell me I'm wrong." Not like that. Later he had the gall to ask "If I find it later, will you apologize?" To which I replied "and if you don't?" Anyway, as Heinlein said, machinery requires lubrication, and the necessary lubrication for the machinery of human interaction is courtesy. We would all do well to remember that. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 8 05:15:36 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Sep 8 05:18:21 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <004001c5b388$ce5861b0$aaab87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott assessed: >>+=+ I did read this statement with interest: >> " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help >> in rulings" >>and I wondered whether perfection lay in the >>lack of challenge to questionable guidance. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ David Stevenson quibbled: [snip] >it at least is pleasing to realise that Grattan and >Herman have been reading IBLF. After all, they would >not be criticising it if they had not read it, would >they? Richard Hills assesses: Stimulated by this full and frank exchange of views, I visited the IBLF site. A number of hands discussed on IBLF have been previously discussed on blml, so it was possible for me to compare apples with apples; comparing the quality of postings between blml and IBLF when they were discussing the same topic. In an IBLF thread on the Alcatraz Coup, one poster was apparently unaware that the Alcatraz Coup was illegal, while another poster gave the questionable guidance that the only Law that could be used to rule against an Alcatraz Coup was the exceptional Law 12A1 (Laws Provide No Indemnity). _The blind leading the blind._ The earlier blml thread on the same deal quickly focussed on the correct Law 72B1, but then the blml thread degenerated into a _one-eyed_ debate on whether a TD should exempt players the TD believes are non-cheats from the requirements of Law 72B1. So it is a matter of taste which forum you visit. Since "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king", my taste remains with the expert (albeit one- eyed) debates on blml. Of course, I do not blame the IBLF posters for their errors; rather, the spaghetti design and arcane language of the Lawbook is ultimately responsible. Best wishes Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 8 05:36:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Sep 8 05:39:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Statistics In-Reply-To: <000301c5b397$85e86240$b4300952@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Anne Jones asked: >We used to have the facility to see a list of the >names of those who are subscribed to the group. Also >a summary of the number of posts attributed to each >contributor over a period of time. Are these >facilities still available? Richard Hills replies: I suspect that I am one of the most prolific posters to blml (perhaps in bronze medal place behind the silver medal place of Sven Pran, and the gold medal place of Herman De Wael). Further, I suspect that I am indirectly responsible for even more traffic on blml, since I suspect that I am the person who creates the greatest number of new threads on blml. Since Anne Jones and some other present and former blmlers object to the large amount of traffic on blml, I will try an experiment by becoming a semi- lurker on blml for the next few months: (a) for the next few months, I will not start any new threads on blml, and (b) for the next few months, if I am moved to reply to a posting, I will only reply personally to the poster, and will not bother replying to the list in general. Au revoir Richard Hills Movie grognard and paronomasiac From jkljkl at gmx.de Thu Sep 8 08:13:37 2005 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Thu Sep 8 08:14:48 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: References: <004001c5b388$ce5861b0$aaab87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <431FF2B1.23910.33585D@localhost> Hello, On 8 Sep 2005 at 13:15, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote about BLML and IBLF: > So it is a matter of taste which forum you visit. I don't think so, since the overlapping area should be very tiny if we remember the original purpose of BLML. Without questioning the merit of the posts itselfs, I think the BLML took a shift from BLML to Bridge Appeals ML or to Bridge "what do you lead/play" ML with or *without* having a relevant Bridge Laws matter to solve. ciao stefan germany From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Thu Sep 8 08:41:10 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Thu Sep 8 08:44:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Statistics References: Message-ID: <004701c5b440$4e0f4f60$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Anne Jones does NOT object to the amount of traffic on BLML. Anne Jones merely asked if the statistics were available.How can you possibly know why Anne Jones asked that question? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Statistics > Anne Jones asked: > >>We used to have the facility to see a list of the >>names of those who are subscribed to the group. Also >>a summary of the number of posts attributed to each >>contributor over a period of time. Are these >>facilities still available? > > Richard Hills replies: > > I suspect that I am one of the most prolific posters > to blml (perhaps in bronze medal place behind the > silver medal place of Sven Pran, and the gold medal > place of Herman De Wael). > > Further, I suspect that I am indirectly responsible > for even more traffic on blml, since I suspect that I > am the person who creates the greatest number of new > threads on blml. > > Since Anne Jones and some other present and former > blmlers object to the large amount of traffic on > blml, I will try an experiment by becoming a semi- > lurker on blml for the next few months: > > (a) for the next few months, I will not start any new > threads on blml, > > and > > (b) for the next few months, if I am moved to reply > to a posting, I will only reply personally to the > poster, and will not bother replying to the list > in general. > > > Au revoir > > Richard Hills > Movie grognard and paronomasiac > > From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Thu Sep 8 08:32:59 2005 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Thu Sep 8 09:04:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 Message-ID: <009c01c5b43f$29dcc240$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> When Herman asks somebody whether he plays the king or the jack, that somebody will be aware of the problem and play the king. The claimer in the actual case might not have been aware of the problem and therefore I think it is careless or inferior not to play the king. So I give two tricks to the defense. Hoh From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 8 09:13:07 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 8 09:14:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <000301c5b401$eb17a710$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c5b401$eb17a710$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431FE483.9070105@hdw.be> With David gone, there is no reason why I should not start another endless yes-no thread with Sven, is there? Well, hoping it is not endless: Sven Pran wrote: > > But what will be the effect on South's opening bid out of turn? As this bid > was not accepted L31A is still in force for North and South, but this law > has no provision for the situation when the offender's LHO makes a > subsequent call out of turn after the first call out of turn was cancelled. > Indeed not. It is not a big mistake for the laws not to include a paragraph specifically for such a rare occurence. > I tend to believe that the subsequent irregularity by West suspends L31A for > North and South in this auction. > Why would you tend to think that? Because the other option seems to be too difficult to you? L31A says: (unnecessary words deleted) "when the offender has bid at his RHO's turn to call, then -if that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call, -if that opponent makes a legal bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call, ... There is nothing in this law that seems to exclude the RHO's call to come after more than zero calls in between. L31A is not suspended and I think we need to tell North about the options he has. > Regards Sven > > (remainder snipped) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Sep 8 09:15:57 2005 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu Sep 8 09:19:02 2005 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Statistics Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050908171549.046de080@mail.optusnet.com.au> >Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:50:49 +1000 >To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >From: Tony Musgrove >Subject: Re: [blml] Statistics > >What is the world coming too? Without Richard's >erudicity, and David's preciosity perhaps Herman >and Sven will agree, and there will be nothing left >for the lurkers. I am going to de-lurk for 5 weeks >holiday, and when I return you had better have your >act together. > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 8 09:20:31 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 8 09:21:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <009c01c5b43f$29dcc240$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> References: <009c01c5b43f$29dcc240$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <431FE63F.3050304@hdw.be> Hello Hasse, nice to see you here! Hans-Olof Hall?n wrote: > When Herman asks somebody whether he plays the king or the jack, that somebody will be aware of the problem and play the king. > The claimer in the actual case might not have been aware of the problem and therefore I think it is careless or inferior not to play the king. So I give two tricks to the defense. > Hoh > Hasse, I tried this on two players, one bad (well, my level) and one good (the regular partner of a silver medallist of a student event). I gave then nothing more than 2 sets of hands: dummy: S106 D7 CA43 D3 hand: DKJ9 CKQJ and the fact that they were playing a spade contract, that only the S8 was still out, and that diamonds had not been played before. The bad player said "the J or the K", the good player said "the King seems logical" (within a few seconds). Look at both hands and notice that any play other than the king is irrational, at least in the meaning that it can be reasoned that the king is the only card that can be played here. I agree - and I've stated it often enough - that the claimer was not aware of the problem of letting his LHO in. That reason for not putting in the jack is not allowed to him. But there is another reason for putting in the King, and I see no reason why he should not see this, from any missing part in his claim statement. After all, he did not tell either what he'll do if east returns a club, a heart, a spade, or the ace of diamonds. None of these are particularly hard, of course, but then neither is (IMO) the solution to the small diamond case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From henk at ripe.net Thu Sep 8 07:56:20 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu Sep 8 09:23:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Statistics In-Reply-To: References: <000301c5b397$85e86240$b4300952@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050908075429.02cb9dc8@localhost> At 05:36 08/09/2005, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Anne Jones asked: > > >We used to have the facility to see a list of the > >names of those who are subscribed to the group. Also > >a summary of the number of posts attributed to each > >contributor over a period of time. Are these > >facilities still available? No, but I can write a few scripts to produce them. Half an afternoon of writing perl, finding the afternoon is the problem ;-) 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Sep 8 09:26:39 2005 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu Sep 8 09:29:37 2005 Subject: Re [blml] Statistics In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050908171549.046de080@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050908171549.046de080@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050908172221.03c058d0@mail.optusnet.com.au> And another thing. Keep up the political stuff. The best blml mailing I ever remember is the one which suggested that President Bush (snr) was a humanitarian. I am also wondering what Richard does in the Australian Dept. of Immigration. Perhaps that is why he has so much free time? Ciao, Tony From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 8 09:37:36 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Sep 8 09:45:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Equality before the law in Katrina v. Bush. References: <001001c5b3c2$129c2ee0$8ab087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001e01c5b3c9$8c8ee2e0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003001c5b448$b1b08db0$5b9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Equality before the law in Katrina v. Bush. << > > "In the U.S. we believe that "all men stand equal > > before the Law" is the single most important > > principle of justice." > > > > +=+ The author of the above may share with me an > > illusion that President Bush is an inappropriate person to > > 'lead' (sic) an investigation into inadequacies of different > > levels of government and administration when a possible > > outcome is to stop the hurricane short of his desk. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Shame on you, for bringing political comment into a mailing > list supposedly devoted to the laws and regulations pertaining > to contract bridge. > +=+ I was commenting on a statement of principle made in connection with bridge law. I was questioning the truth of the statement by offering an external perception that it (equality before the law in the USA) applies to some of the people some of the time - which leads me back to "class of player". ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 8 09:55:25 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Sep 8 09:59:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> <431F5DA1.6000509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004401c5b44a$c509a390$5b9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > > > > Correspondent: > > If I understand what the WBFLC wants, it's > > something like, "'Normal' includes play that would > > be slightly careless or inferior, but not very careless > > or inferior, for the class of player involved." I don't like > > that, but if it (or something similar) appears in the next > > version of TFLB I will assuredly change the way I rule > > on claims accordingly. > > > Herman: > I think you understand perfectly what the WBFLC wants. > Careless and Inferior but not worse than that. Things a > player might do if he's not paying attention*, but not things > he would never do. > > Grattan: +=+ * or lacks the skill to perceive the inferiority of his action. Inequality before the law in fact for those of us who believe the laws should make no distinction as to class of player. +=+ From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 8 10:31:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 8 10:34:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <431FE483.9070105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5b44f$b08e9ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > With David gone, there is no reason why I should not start another > endless yes-no thread with Sven, is there? Self-describing statement is it? > Well, hoping it is not endless: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > But what will be the effect on South's opening bid out of turn? > > As this bid was not accepted L31A is still in force for North and > > South, but this law has no provision for the situation when the > > offender's LHO makes a subsequent call out of turn after the first > > call out of turn was cancelled. > > Indeed not. It is not a big mistake for the laws not to include a > paragraph specifically for such a rare occurence. > > > I tend to believe that the subsequent irregularity by West > > suspends L31A for North and South in this auction. > > > > > > Why would you tend to think that? Because the other option seems to be > too difficult to you? > > L31A says: (unnecessary words deleted) > "when the offender has bid at his RHO's turn to call, then > -if that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call, > -if that opponent makes a legal bid, double or redouble, offender may > make any legal call, ... > > There is nothing in this law that seems to exclude the RHO's call to > come after more than zero calls in between. > L31A is not suspended and I think we need to tell North about the > options he has. But which of the alternatives in L31A do you apply on North's turn to call after the infraction but before South has made his first legal call? We do have an indication in WBFLC minutes (Paris 2001) on other cases like revokes from both sides within the same trick. They have expressed the principal opinion that in such cases all automatic penalties for the two irregularities should be discarded and the board be rectified (or adjusted) as equitable as possible for both sides. This is a principle I find very sensible, but you are quite correct: There is nothing in the laws proper to this effect. Nor will you find anything in the laws to help you select what penalty to impose on North on his first turn to call in the situation we are discussing. However, in your previous posting you wrote among other things: > (**) However, if North accepts, East will have to bid some time later, > and L31A still applies (I don't see anything why it should not apply), > so if East passes, South must repeat his call of 1NT which might now > have become insufficient. I do hope you accept that regardless of what happens during an auction or play no player can ever be forced to commit an infraction of laws? Your own statement showing the possible consequences of applying L31A on North and South after the double infraction shows that this cannot be the correct procedure. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 8 10:45:02 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 8 10:45:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <000001c5b44f$b08e9ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5b44f$b08e9ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <431FFA0E.40200@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>With David gone, there is no reason why I should not start another >>endless yes-no thread with Sven, is there? > > > Self-describing statement is it? > What do you mean? >> >>>I tend to believe that the subsequent irregularity by West >>>suspends L31A for North and South in this auction. >>> >>> >> >>Why would you tend to think that? Because the other option seems to be >>too difficult to you? >> >>L31A says: (unnecessary words deleted) >>"when the offender has bid at his RHO's turn to call, then >>-if that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call, >>-if that opponent makes a legal bid, double or redouble, offender may >>make any legal call, ... >> >>There is nothing in this law that seems to exclude the RHO's call to >>come after more than zero calls in between. >>L31A is not suspended and I think we need to tell North about the >>options he has. > > > But which of the alternatives in L31A do you apply on North's turn to call > after the infraction but before South has made his first legal call? > I don't see why there should be alternatives yet. L31A has not yet run its course. Only after East has made a call, do we know what the restrictions on North should be. I don't see any reason why North should not be allowed to call before east, since that is how it turns out to be. In fact, due to West's error, North now has a chance do "do something". Except that if he does to much, he may expose south to a forced insufficient bid (but of course west can accept that). > We do have an indication in WBFLC minutes (Paris 2001) on other cases like > revokes from both sides within the same trick. They have expressed the > principal opinion that in such cases all automatic penalties for the two > irregularities should be discarded and the board be rectified (or adjusted) > as equitable as possible for both sides. > Indeed - but do you believe that a minute which is concerned with revoke penalties applies necessarily to two BOOT? > This is a principle I find very sensible, but you are quite correct: There > is nothing in the laws proper to this effect. Nor will you find anything in > the laws to help you select what penalty to impose on North on his first > turn to call in the situation we are discussing. > I believe that L31A imposes penalties on North at his first time to call _after_ East and South have called. > However, in your previous posting you wrote among other things: > > >>(**) However, if North accepts, East will have to bid some time later, >>and L31A still applies (I don't see anything why it should not apply), >>so if East passes, South must repeat his call of 1NT which might now >>have become insufficient. > > > I do hope you accept that regardless of what happens during an auction or > play no player can ever be forced to commit an infraction of laws? Your own > statement showing the possible consequences of applying L31A on North and > South after the double infraction shows that this cannot be the correct > procedure. > Ehm, what about L27C? An insufficient bid out of rotation: L31 applies. So first the bid can be accepted, if it is not the bid reverts to the original player, if that player passes, the bid has to be repeated, and then L31A1 says that the penalty for the insufficient bid is to be given. Yes indeed, the laws do force a player to make a call which is illegal. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 8 11:41:36 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Sep 8 11:44:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 References: <009c01c5b43f$29dcc240$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> <431FE63F.3050304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005a01c5b459$81c53040$139868d5@jeushtlj> [Herman De Wael] > Hasse, I tried this on two players, one > bad (well, my level) and one good (the > regular partner of a silver medallist of > a student event). I gave then nothing > more than 2 sets of hands: > dummy: S106 D7 CA43 D3 > hand: DKJ9 CKQJ > and the fact that they were playing a > spade contract, that only the S8 > was still out, and that diamonds had not > been played before. The bad player said > "the J or the K", the good player said > "the King seems logical" (within a few > seconds). [nige1] Last night a team-mate showed me an easy single-dummy problem. After some concentrated thought, I managed to solve it. Later in the evening, I missed a much easier play on a routine hand. Unfortunately for me, in the latter case, nobody rang a bell to say "problem coming up, think about it!" You say I don't read your emails, Herman; but I do; I understand your position about the ambiguity of claim law, especially "irrational" and "class of player". I agree with your interpretation that the intention of the law is to encourage claims; but I feel that you haven't really answered your critics about this specific example. In a seven-card ending, if a "good player" makes a premature claim, failing to see the likelihood of a simple trump-promotion, or anticipate any problem with a diamond lead, then surely you must agree that he is functioning well below par. For the present, at least, he is definitely not a good player. There is no reason to expect such a poor player to appreciate the problem on a diamond return. I accept that even a average player might well choose the DK rather than DJ when presented with the ending *as a problem*; although he is not certain to do so; but he is less likely to find the right answer, at the table, without alarm bells ringing; especially if he does not deem the choice as worth "a few seconds thought". At best, this is a "doubtful point" within the meaning of the law. Anyway, it is clear that this sleepy declarer didn't foresee the problem because his claim just specified "concede a diamond". I still agree with you, Herman, that all this is a matter of judgement and that the appeal committee is entitled to its view; but it does seem that it made the wrong judgement. When the law relies on subjective judgement rather than supplying simpler clearer practical guidelines then such contentious rulings are inevitable. The law encourages such controversies. This is great fun in BLML but, IMO, bad for the game. I would feel sad and angry, were I a defender on this hand -- especially when I realised how many legal experts would have ruled in my favour. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 8 11:45:50 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 8 11:48:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <431FFA0E.40200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c5b45a$18a4ff90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>With David gone, there is no reason why I should not start another > >>endless yes-no thread with Sven, is there? > > > > > > Self-describing statement is it? > > > > What do you mean? Obvious isn't it? ................. > > We do have an indication in WBFLC minutes (Paris 2001) on > > other cases like revokes from both sides within the same > > trick. They have expressed the principal opinion that in > > such cases all automatic penalties for the two irregularities > > should be discarded and the board be rectified (or adjusted) > > as equitable as possible for both sides. > > > > Indeed - but do you believe that a minute which is concerned with > revoke penalties applies necessarily to two BOOT? Sure, they establish guidelines to be used as applicable in more or less analogue cases. We shouldn't wear blinkers when we read the laws. ................ > > > > > > I do hope you accept that regardless of what happens during > > an auction or play no player can ever be forced to commit an > > infraction of laws? Your own statement showing the possible > > consequences of applying L31A on North and South after the > > double infraction shows that this cannot be the correct > > procedure. > > > > Ehm, what about L27C? > An insufficient bid out of rotation: L31 applies. > So first the bid can be accepted, if it is not the bid reverts to the > original player, if that player passes, the bid has to be repeated, > and then L31A1 says that the penalty for the insufficient bid is to be > given. > Yes indeed, the laws do force a player to make a call which is illegal. You are of course free to read the laws that way and the result will be the same so it doesn't really matter. What Law 31A1 really says is that a pass from RHO in this situation does not affect the bid out of rotation so it is to be handled as if it had been in rotation after RHO's pass. Now before you post another objection I do agree that this is not what the laws *literally* say, but it is indeed what they express. And they do not force a player to make an illegal call; L31A1 uphold an illegal call that in case has already been made. I don't expect any further need for comments from me so this will probably conclude my submissions to this thread. Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Sep 8 12:10:51 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu Sep 8 12:14:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C7B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Peter Eidt [mailto:PeterEidt@T-Online.de] Sent: 07 September 2005 18:52 To: BLML Subject: [blml] Law 31 Hi all, now I got a case for tournament directing ;-) East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after that West decides not to except [accept] the OBOOT. Now West opens 1 Sp ! ??? ----- L29 A. Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalise. So regardless of any statement declining to accept the OBOOT, West has called, and has thereby forfeited the right to penalise. We then deal with West's insufficient bid in the auction E:(no action) S:1NT W:1S. 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 hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 8 12:18:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 8 12:19:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <005a01c5b459$81c53040$139868d5@jeushtlj> References: <009c01c5b43f$29dcc240$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> <431FE63F.3050304@hdw.be> <005a01c5b459$81c53040$139868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <43200FE4.60104@hdw.be> Hello Nigel, Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > >>Hasse, I tried this on two players, one >>bad (well, my level) and one good (the >>regular partner of a silver medallist of >>a student event). I gave then nothing >>more than 2 sets of hands: >>dummy: S106 D7 CA43 D3 >>hand: DKJ9 CKQJ >>and the fact that they were playing a >>spade contract, that only the S8 >>was still out, and that diamonds had not >>been played before. The bad player said >>"the J or the K", the good player said >>"the King seems logical" (within a few >>seconds). > > > [nige1] > Last night a team-mate showed me an easy > single-dummy problem. After some concentrated > thought, I managed to solve it. Later in the > evening, I missed a much easier play on a routine > hand. Unfortunately for me, in the latter case, > nobody rang a bell to say "problem coming up, > think about it!" > Quite a valid comment, really. > You say I don't read your emails, Herman; but I > do; I understand your position about the ambiguity > of claim law, especially "irrational" and "class > of player". I agree with your interpretation that > the intention of the law is to encourage claims; > but I feel that you haven't really answered your > critics about this specific example. > That is because my critics have never answered the problem as it should be looked at - a seven (actually only six) card ending. > In a seven-card ending, if a "good player" makes a > premature claim, failing to see the likelihood of > a simple trump-promotion, or anticipate any > problem with a diamond lead, then surely you must > agree that he is functioning well below par. Yes, he is, but in a different problem than the one we should be looking at. I agree completely that I won't allow him to wake up with regards to the possibility of a heart return. But I disagree completely when you use his non-realisation of the possibility of still going down id the DA is to his left, as an indication that he won't see that the king is the rational play. > For > the present, at least, he is definitely not a good > player. There is no reason to expect such a poor > player to appreciate the problem on a diamond > return. > Well, I don't agree there. > I accept that even a average player might well > choose the DK rather than DJ when presented with > the ending *as a problem*; although he is not > certain to do so; but he is less likely to find > the right answer, at the table, without alarm > bells ringing; especially if he does not deem the > choice as worth "a few seconds thought". At best, > this is a "doubtful point" within the meaning of > the law. Anyway, it is clear that this sleepy > declarer didn't foresee the problem because his > claim just specified "concede a diamond". > You (and others) keep saying "the problem". "The problem" is the one of letting LHO in. What I'm referring to is "the line". "The line" is the (only) one which brings in an overtrick. > I still agree with you, Herman, that all this is a > matter of judgement and that the appeal committee > is entitled to its view; but it does seem that it > made the wrong judgement. > > When the law relies on subjective judgement rather > than supplying simpler clearer practical > guidelines then such contentious rulings are > inevitable. > > The law encourages such controversies. This is > great fun in BLML but, IMO, bad for the game. > > I would feel sad and angry, were I a defender on > this hand -- especially when I realised how many > legal experts would have ruled in my favour. > > You would have played a small diamond far more quickly. And you would know if declarer put in the king or not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 8 14:07:29 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Sep 8 14:09:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431F5DA1.6000509@hdw.be> References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> <431F5DA1.6000509@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050908075602.02b80ab0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:37 PM 9/7/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>I don't think the WBFLC really wants "irrational" to mean >>"implausible"; any play that is "careless or inferior for the class >>of player involved" would be "implausible" for that player, and the >>criterion for judging "'normal'" would be nothing more than "what we >>think this player would probably have done had he played the hand >>out" (which, IMO, is what too many folks already think it means). >>If I understand what the WBFLC wants, it's something like, "'Normal' >>includes play that would be slightly careless or inferior, but not >>very careless or inferior, for the class of player involved." I >>don't like that, but if it (or something similar) appears in the next >>version of TFLB I will assuredly change the way I rule on claims >>accordingly. > >I think you understand perfectly what the WBFLC wants. Careless and >Inferior but not worse than that. But what does "worse than that" mean? Isn't that what we're trying to determine? What's "worse than careless"? What's "worse than inferior"? I'd hate to have to make a finding as to whether or not a particular play is "worse than that" with no further guidance, which is why we're discussing what words like "irrational" mean, and whether the forthcoming laws would do well to use them. >Things a player might do if he's not paying attention, but not things >he would never do. That can't be right, since if we excluded only "things he would never do" we would be including much that is clearly irrational, even revoking. I've not yet met a player of such exalted "class" that he is incapable of revoking when he's not paying attention. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 8 14:21:14 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Sep 8 14:24:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 References: <009c01c5b43f$29dcc240$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> <431FE63F.3050304@hdw.be><005a01c5b459$81c53040$139868d5@jeushtlj> <43200FE4.60104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00cc01c5b46f$ced8a040$139868d5@jeushtlj> [Herman De Wael] > You (and others) keep saying "the problem". > "The problem" is the one of letting LHO in. > What I'm referring to is "the line". "The line" > is the (only) one which brings in an overtrick. [Nige1] A few years ago, playing early morning drunken Rubber Bridge at the New Acol in London, My LHO, Joe Amsbury opened 1S and RHO raised to 2S. Nevertheless, I ended up in 4HX on a deal like this .... North S:Qxx H:xx D:AJT9 C:ATxx South S:Tx H:KQJTxx D:Kxx C:Qx Joe led a diamond to RHO's DQ and my DK. Joe won HK with HA and RHO followed. Joe led a small spade to his partner's SJ. RHO gave Joe his diamond ruff. OK! OK! Yes! In hindsight, I appreciated that it could never cost to rise with S:Q. RHO held something like: S:Jxx H:x D:Qxxxxx C:Jxx This is the same kind of position as in Herman's appeal. Even if declarer is unaware of the diamond danger, the SQ is still a shot at nothing. It may gain but it cannot lose; but no alarm bell rang for me at the table and I failed the test. Back to our argument. As I understand it, Herman fully accepts steps [A-D] [A] Declarer has been waiting ages for RHO to play so he has had more than enough of time to assess the risks and plan for contingencies. [B] "The Problem" is "whether to play the DK or DJ?" when you have already happily resigned yourself to losing a diamond trick. BTW everybody agrees with Herman that this is the problem faced by Declarer. [C] We agree that Declarer does not seem to have been aware of the likelihood of a trump promotion. Hence, Declarer, although normally a good player, is obviously functioning well below par on this deal. Judging by his premature and incomplete claim, he is currently a poor player. [D] Even when presented with the ending as a problem, a typical average player polled by Herman will sometimes play the DJ rather than the DK. It is just the inexorable conclusion that Herman refuses to contemplate :) From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 8 17:32:48 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Sep 8 17:35:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:56:20 +0200." <6.2.1.2.2.20050908075429.02cb9dc8@localhost> Message-ID: <200509081532.IAA31713@mailhub.irvine.com> Henk wrote: > No, but I can write a few scripts to produce them. Half an afternoon > of writing perl, finding the afternoon is the problem ;-) WTP? Isn't Perl powerful enough to find the afternoon for you? while (<>) { if (/afternoon/i) { print "Found one!!!\n"; last; } } :-) :-) -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Sep 8 19:31:53 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Sep 8 19:37:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be> <47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> <431EFA7F.60007@hdw.be> <001201c5b3c0$786fe920$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431F0E50.4030305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003501c5b49b$352d02c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > And if people get unhappy when they are being told that they are > > wrong, then maybe they don't belong in a discussion group with > > others who think they know a thing or two about directing. > > I don't mind being told I'm wrong, necessarily. I do sometimes object > to the manner in which I'm told it. > > Tonight, for example, after the session, a player walked up to me, > law book in hand, and asked me to help him find the law that "says > declarer, who is running a long suit in dummy and accidently trumps > an early lead in that suit, is allowed to retract that trump." I said > "Joe, you can't find that law because it isn't in there". He says to > me "You're wrong!". I said "Joe, don't tell me I'm wrong." Not like > that. Later he had the gall to ask "If I find it later, will you > apologize?" To which I replied "and if you don't?" > > Anyway, as Heinlein said, machinery requires lubrication, and the > necessary lubrication for the machinery of human interaction is > courtesy. We would all do well to remember that. > I give tit-for-tat in that situation, giving the discourtesy a mildly discourteous response that I learned from Damon Runyon:: "For how much?" "What?" "For how much? You seem very positive about your opinion, so here's a chance for you to make some money. Just tell me how much you want to bet on the proposition that you are right and I am wrong." That usually shuts them up. I feel that people of that sort should "put their money where their mouth is." Actually I wouldn't take their money, but my proposition has never been accepted. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 8 21:13:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 8 21:16:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C7B5@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <000501c5b4a9$5de2bb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Robin Barker > Hi all, > > now I got a case for tournament directing ;-) > > East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. > TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after > that West decides not to except [accept] the OBOOT. > Now West opens 1 Sp ! > > ??? > > ----- > > L29 A. Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, > thereby forfeiting the right to penalise. > > So regardless of any statement declining to accept the OBOOT, West > has called, and has thereby forfeited the right to penalise. We > then deal with West's insufficient bid in the auction E:(no action) > S:1NT W:1S. > > Robin No, this must be a misunderstanding of Law 29. West has not called "following a call out of rotation". He has according to the description explicitly refused to accept the call out of rotation by his RHO and thereafter performed a separate irregularity. If West had selected to call without denying accept of South's call out of sequence we would have had a Law 29 case, in fact an insufficient bid out of sequence, but that is not the case here. If your understanding had been correct then the situation with West as the dealer and South making an opening bid would have been that West after refusing to accept the OBOOT by South "made a subsequent call" (in his turn) and thereby forfeited the right to penalize? Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 8 22:54:08 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Sep 8 22:56:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 References: <000501c5b4a9$5de2bb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c5b4b7$7a50d5e0$d7a6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:13 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 31 > ----- > > L29 A. Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, > thereby forfeiting the right to penalise. > > So regardless of any statement declining to accept the OBOOT, West > has called, and has thereby forfeited the right to penalise. We > then deal with West's insufficient bid in the auction E:(no action) > S:1NT W:1S. > > Robin No, this must be a misunderstanding of Law 29. West has not called "following a call out of rotation". He has according to the description explicitly refused to accept the call out of rotation by his RHO and thereafter performed a separate irregularity. +=+ I do not see where in the laws it says that West may explicitly 'refuse to accept the call' to create the situation suggested here. Under Law 29A West has the right to *call*, thereby forfeiting the right to penalise; if he does not call 29B applies. In Law 31 it is plainly stated that for the bid out of rotation to be cancelled and Law 31 to apply, the option to call in Law 29, thus accepting the bid out of rotation, must not have been exercised. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 8 23:05:29 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Sep 8 23:08:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:54:08 BST." <000601c5b4b7$7a50d5e0$d7a6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200509082105.OAA01030@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > > L29 A. Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, > > thereby forfeiting the right to penalise. > > > > So regardless of any statement declining to accept the OBOOT, West > > has called, and has thereby forfeited the right to penalise. We > > then deal with West's insufficient bid in the auction E:(no action) > > S:1NT W:1S. > > > > Robin [Sven] > No, this must be a misunderstanding of Law 29. West has not called > "following a call out of rotation". He has according to the description > explicitly refused to accept the call out of rotation by his RHO and > thereafter performed a separate irregularity. [Grattan] > +=+ I do not see where in the laws it says that West may explicitly > 'refuse to accept the call' to create the situation suggested > here. Under Law 29A West has the right to *call*, thereby > forfeiting the right to penalise; if he does not call 29B applies. > In Law 31 it is plainly stated that for the bid out of rotation to > be cancelled and Law 31 to apply, the option to call in Law 29, > thus accepting the bid out of rotation, must not have been exercised. I don't think this can be right. Suppose it's your turn to call, and RHO calls out of turn. You call the TD, who tells you that you have the right to accept RHO's call, and you do not accept. So the TD then tells you that the auction reverts to you. So you make your call. Clearly this call cannot forfeit your right to penalize RHO for his call out of turn!! So, by implication, there has to be something that happens between a call out of rotation, and offender's LHO electing to call, that causes offender's LHO *not* to be treated as a call that forfeits the right to penalize. What is that "something"? Is it enough that offender's LHO calls the TD and tells him he does not accept the call out of turn? If this is enough, then since the original poster told us that's what happened, then Robin's and Grattan's interpretation cannot be right. If this is not enough, then what else needs to happen? -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 8 23:45:29 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Sep 8 23:48:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Statistics In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:32:59 BST." <000301c5b397$85e86240$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <200509082145.OAA01356@mailhub.irvine.com> Anne Jones wrote: > We used to have the facility to see a list of the names of those who are > subscribed to the group. Also a summary of the number of posts attributed to > each contributor over a period of time. Are these facilities still > available? > Anne > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk In case anyone is interested, I threw together something that searched all my e-mails since the beginning of 2005 to see who posted to BLML and how many times. The results are below. I didn't spend too much time on this, so some posters whose "From" field wasn't the same every time will show up on two different lines. In particular, Herman shows up as both hermandw@hdw.be and hermy@hdw.be, and Harald Skjaran, Nigel Guthrie, and Grattan Endicott appear under three different e-mail addresses each. There are other such cases but I haven't attempted to go through them all. As for postings by cats, you may interpret those any way you like. -- Adam 593 richard.hills@immi.gov.au 454 "Sven Pran" 433 Herman De Wael 371 twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) 327 David Stevenson 308 Eric Landau 292 Ed Reppert 255 "GUTHRIE" 205 "Grattan Endicott" 185 "John (MadDog) Probst" 107 Steve Willner 100 Adam Beneschan 91 "WILLIAM SCHODER" 91 "Roger Pewick" 91 "Marvin French" 85 Wayne Burrows 82 Gordon Rainsford 68 "David Stevenson" 67 Konrad Ciborowski 63 "Wayne Burrows" 59 Ron Johnson 58 "Grattan" 52 Gordon Bower 52 "Ben Schelen" 48 "Todd M. Zimnoch" 47 =?iso-8859-1?B?SGFyYWxkIFNrauZyYW4=?= 43 HermY De Wael 40 "David J. Grabiner" 39 Adam Wildavsky 38 "Guthrie" 37 "craig" 34 Matthias Berghaus 33 "David Barton" 31 "Sinot Martin" 28 Nanki Poo 26 "Ton Kooijman" 25 Minke 24 24 "Anne Jones" 23 Bruce McIntyre 20 Robin Barker 20 richard willey 20 "Laval Dubreuil" 20 Henk Uijterwaal 19 "David Barton" 18 koen 18 "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" 17 Steve Willner 17 "Anne Jones" 15 "Skjaran, Harald" 15 "Noel & Pamela" 15 Grattan Endicott 14 "Konrad Ciborowski" 14 Henri DEFRANCHI 13 "Karel" 13 Israel Erdnbaum 12 Mikeamosbridge@aol.com 12 Bertel Lund Hansen 11 Tony Musgrove 10 "Koen Grauwels" 9 ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) 9 "raija d" 9 "Nancy Dressing" 8 Wayne Burrows 8 "Peter Eidt" 8 Dimitr Georgiev 7 "raija" 7 jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr 6 toddz@att.net 6 "Jack A. Rhind" 6 davidgrabiner@comcast.net (grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu) 5 "Rui Marques" 5 "Roger Eymard" 5 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?= 5 "David Kent" 5 "Brambledown" 4 Wayne Burrows 4 Walt 4 Vitold 4 "Petrus Schuster OSB" 4 "Jim Fox" 4 "David Babcock" 3 Yvan Calame 3 Tony Musgrove 3 steve@nhcc.net 3 Mike Bell 3 "John R. Mayne" 3 Jean Galtier 2 "Willem Mevius" 2 Steve Wright 2 "olivier.beauvillain" 2 "Nikolas Bausback" 2 "Nancy T Dressing" 2 mike dodson 2 "Linda Trent" 2 2 Koen Grauwels 2 justin.stark@thestarks.net 2 "Jan Peter Pals" 2 Henk Uijterwaal 1 "Wayne Burrows" 1 "Vaughn Herbert" 1 Try Tester 1 Tessa 1 "Support" 1 "stefan filonardi" 1 "Stark, Justin" 1 Sly Jester 1 SeniorKibitzer@aol.com 1 "Rui Marques" 1 "Rob GTJ Bosman" 1 richard.hills@IMMI.GOV.AU 1 "PeterEidt@t-online.de" 1 "patrick olgiati" 1 "Olivier Beauvillain" 1 "Norris Hodge" 1 "Norbert Fornoville" 1 "NIGEL" 1 "Nasir Gardner" 1 Montagu 1 Michael Kopera 1 Martin 1 Mail Delivery System 1 Linda Trent 1 "Leanne Brewer" 1 "Larry Bennett" 1 "Kenton Whalen" 1 "kenneth schutze" 1 "Ken Johnston" 1 "John Nichols" 1 "Joann Wiatrak" 1 1 "James Hudson" 1 James Boyce 1 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lu=EDs_Oliveira?= 1 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?= 1 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= 1 "Irv Kostal" 1 "Hinden, Frances SI-SXP" 1 "Hilda Purcell" 1 "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" 1 "Franklin Earl" 1 "Faye" 1 "Eunice Shapiro" 1 "Emanuel Baxter" 1 "Eileen Melvin" 1 eBay 1 Doghoward@aol.com 1 Denis Dobrin 1 "defranchi.henri" 1 Con Holzscherer 1 Club de bridge 1 Club de bridge 1 "Chris Pisarra" 1 1 Bridgette Morales 1 "bridge" 1 "Bradly Soto" 1 "Brad Galvan" 1 Betsy 1 Bertel Lund Hansen 1 "Ben Schelen" 1 "axman22" 1 Arbhuston@aol.com 1 Anton Witzen 1 "Antoine Pickens" 1 "Alex Ogan" 1 Alan From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 9 00:03:13 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 9 00:06:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84A48A80-EB60-4FBE-9C44-6DB812AFD669@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 8, 2005, at 2:42 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Next time you meet Joe, you might lubricate your relationship with > Joe by mentioning that you were both right; there is a Law which > permits retraction of some inadvertent cards, but it does not apply > to Joe's particular case. We did discuss that case. In fact, iirc, I read that law out of the book and told him it only applies to a call for a card from dummy. Was there ever, in the laws, a provision for declarer to withdraw a card played "inadvertently"? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 9 00:04:57 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Sep 9 00:07:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Where to from here? In-Reply-To: <003501c5b49b$352d02c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <$Y8AESBYGkHDFwJ4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> <001901c5b386$37620f10$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431EB8D0.4010008@hdw.be> <47BE8769-6E40-4B48-8D23-048D26454FDA@rochester.rr.com> <431EFA7F.60007@hdw.be> <001201c5b3c0$786fe920$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <431F0E50.4030305@hdw.be> <003501c5b49b$352d02c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <1C855810-7E48-47B5-BA14-423D11E15A60@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Marvin French wrote: > I give tit-for-tat in that situation, giving the discourtesy a mildly > discourteous response that I learned from Damon Runyon:: > > "For how much?" > > "What?" > > "For how much? You seem very positive about your opinion, so here's a > chance for you to make some money. Just tell me how much you want to > bet on the proposition that you are right and I am wrong." > > That usually shuts them up. > > I feel that people of that sort should "put their money where their > mouth is." Actually I wouldn't take their money, but my proposition > has never been accepted. Heh. I'll try to remember that one. :-) From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 9 01:03:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 9 01:06:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <000601c5b4b7$7a50d5e0$d7a6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601c5b4c9$9427a720$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan ............... > > L29 A. Following a call out of rotation, offender's > > LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right > > to penalise. > > > > So regardless of any statement declining to accept the OBOOT, West > > has called, and has thereby forfeited the right to penalise. We > > then deal with West's insufficient bid in the auction E:(no action) > > S:1NT W:1S. > > > > Robin > > No, this must be a misunderstanding of Law 29. West has not called > "following a call out of rotation". He has according to the description > explicitly refused to accept the call out of rotation by his RHO and > thereafter performed a separate irregularity. > > +=+ I do not see where in the laws it says that West may explicitly > 'refuse to accept the call' to create the situation suggested > here. Under Law 29A West has the right to *call*, thereby > forfeiting the right to penalise; if he does not call 29B applies. > In Law 31 it is plainly stated that for the bid out of rotation to > be cancelled and Law 31 to apply, the option to call in Law 29, > thus accepting the bid out of rotation, must not have been > exercised. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The original description was: > East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. > TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after that > West decides not to except [accept] the OBOOT. Now West opens 1 Sp ! OK Grattan. According to the description of the case the following happened: South made an opening bid of 1NT although East was the dealer. The Director was summoned and explained the options and we must assume from the description that he asked West if he accepted the opening bid out of turn. (This is BTW the prescribed practice for such cases in Norway). According to the description West must have answered that he did not accept the opening bid out of turn. We do not know what the Director said or did after that but we are told that West now bid 1S! My understanding of Laws 31 and 29 is that South's bid of 1NT was cancelled at the moment West refused to accept it. If this is correct we have another opening bid out of turn, this time made by West. There is of course an alternative understanding: West by making his call "cancels" his refusal to accept the bid made by South out of turn in which case West now has made a quite ordinary insufficient bid on which we apply Law 27. But if we go for this alternative we have an interesting situation if the same events had occurred on a board with West being the dealer and South making an opening bid of 1NT out of turn. A: West says that he accepts the opening bid and then bids 1S. Clearly a case for Law 27 with West as the offender B: West says nothing and bids 1S; quite likely he has not noticed the bid from South. Quite possibly a case for law 33, but it could also be a case for Law 27 with West as the offender C: West answers the Director that he does not accept the opening bid made by South out of turn and then bids 1S. Clearly a case for Law 31B with South as the offender Now please consider the similarity between what actually happened at the table according to the original description and case C here. Do we really consider that the exact same action by West is an acceptance of the bid out of turn despite his statement that he did not accept it in one case but not in the other? Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 9 08:52:51 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 9 08:53:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050908075602.02b80ab0@pop.starpower.net> References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> <431F5DA1.6000509@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050908075602.02b80ab0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <43213143.5070701@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:37 PM 9/7/05, Herman wrote: > >> >> I think you understand perfectly what the WBFLC wants. Careless and >> Inferior but not worse than that. > > > But what does "worse than that" mean? Isn't that what we're trying to > determine? What's "worse than careless"? What's "worse than > inferior"? Indeed Eric, that's what we're trying to find out. But it won't help us if you keep looking at the word irrational and keep saying that this is the same for all players. Since the WBF clearly states that the "careless" is dependent on the player's level, so must be the "more than careless". > I'd hate to have to make a finding as to whether or not a > particular play is "worse than that" with no further guidance, which is > why we're discussing what words like "irrational" mean, and whether the > forthcoming laws would do well to use them. > Exactly. Which is why we post cases, and discuss them. And why it is very discouraging when most of the posts seem to try and regurgitate things that should have been dismissed a long time ago, like the fact that a player who has made a small mistake will be deemed to make every other small mistake in the book. >> Things a player might do if he's not paying attention, but not things >> he would never do. > > > That can't be right, since if we excluded only "things he would never > do" we would be including much that is clearly irrational, even > revoking. I've not yet met a player of such exalted "class" that he is > incapable of revoking when he's not paying attention. > Which is why you need to stress he word "never" in such a way that we don't mean never ever, but merely "never". I don't know how to express it, really, but you realize that Lauria would _never_ drop the queen under the king, do you? The fact that he did does not mean that we believe he would _ever_ do it, does it? I really don't see why this presents such a problem. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 9 08:58:34 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 9 08:59:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <000601c5b4c9$9427a720$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c5b4c9$9427a720$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4321329A.5050602@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Grattan > >> >>+=+ I do not see where in the laws it says that West may explicitly >> 'refuse to accept the call' to create the situation suggested >> here. Under Law 29A West has the right to *call*, thereby >> forfeiting the right to penalise; if he does not call 29B applies. >> In Law 31 it is plainly stated that for the bid out of rotation to >> be cancelled and Law 31 to apply, the option to call in Law 29, >> thus accepting the bid out of rotation, must not have been >>exercised. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The original description was: > > >>East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. >>TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after that >>West decides not to except [accept] the OBOOT. Now West opens 1 Sp ! > > > OK Grattan. According to the description of the case the following happened: > > South made an opening bid of 1NT although East was the dealer. > > The Director was summoned and explained the options and we must assume from > the description that he asked West if he accepted the opening bid out of > turn. (This is BTW the prescribed practice for such cases in Norway). > > According to the description West must have answered that he did not accept > the opening bid out of turn. > > We do not know what the Director said or did after that but we are told that > West now bid 1S! > > My understanding of Laws 31 and 29 is that South's bid of 1NT was cancelled > at the moment West refused to accept it. If this is correct we have another > opening bid out of turn, this time made by West. > > There is of course an alternative understanding: West by making his call > "cancels" his refusal to accept the bid made by South out of turn in which > case West now has made a quite ordinary insufficient bid on which we apply > Law 27. > > But if we go for this alternative we have an interesting situation if the > same events had occurred on a board with West being the dealer and South > making an opening bid of 1NT out of turn. > > A: West says that he accepts the opening bid and then bids 1S. Clearly a > case for Law 27 with West as the offender > > B: West says nothing and bids 1S; quite likely he has not noticed the bid > from South. Quite possibly a case for law 33, but it could also be a case > for Law 27 with West as the offender > > C: West answers the Director that he does not accept the opening bid made by > South out of turn and then bids 1S. Clearly a case for Law 31B with South as > the offender > > Now please consider the similarity between what actually happened at the > table according to the original description and case C here. Do we really > consider that the exact same action by West is an acceptance of the bid out > of turn despite his statement that he did not accept it in one case but not > in the other? > Perfectly correct analysis by Sven. I felt it must be said that I agree with Sven, and not with Robin and Grattan. > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 9 09:09:18 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 9 09:10:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <00cc01c5b46f$ced8a040$139868d5@jeushtlj> References: <009c01c5b43f$29dcc240$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> <431FE63F.3050304@hdw.be><005a01c5b459$81c53040$139868d5@jeushtlj> <43200FE4.60104@hdw.be> <00cc01c5b46f$ced8a040$139868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4321351E.50208@hdw.be> OK Nigel, I'll bite. Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > >>You (and others) keep saying "the problem". >>"The problem" is the one of letting LHO in. >>What I'm referring to is "the line". "The line" >>is the (only) one which brings in an overtrick. > > > [Nige1] > A few years ago, playing early morning drunken > Rubber Bridge at the New Acol in London, My LHO, > Joe Amsbury opened 1S and RHO raised to 2S. > Nevertheless, I ended up in 4HX on a deal like > this .... > North S:Qxx H:xx D:AJT9 C:ATxx > South S:Tx H:KQJTxx D:Kxx C:Qx > Joe led a diamond to RHO's DQ and my DK. > Joe won HK with HA and RHO followed. > Joe led a small spade to his partner's SJ. > RHO gave Joe his diamond ruff. > OK! OK! Yes! In hindsight, I appreciated that it > could never cost to rise with S:Q. RHO held > something like: > S:Jxx H:x D:Qxxxxx C:Jxx > OK, I see the similarities. Do you also see the differences? Qxx opp xx is not as easy as Kx opp x ? The hand is not over for the rest - there are still losers? If the top honours are divided and RHO puts in one, the finesse can still be repeated? You were playing a drunken rubber, not a European Championship? > This is the same kind of position as in Herman's > appeal. Even if declarer is unaware of the diamond > danger, the SQ is still a shot at nothing. It may > gain but it cannot lose; but no alarm bell rang > for me at the table and I failed the test. > > Back to our argument. As I understand it, Herman > fully accepts steps [A-D] > > [A] Declarer has been waiting ages for RHO to play > so he has had more than enough of time to assess > the risks and plan for contingencies. > and saying that he didn't do that does not really help his case, I agree with this. > [B] "The Problem" is "whether to play the DK or > DJ?" when you have already happily resigned > yourself to losing a diamond trick. BTW everybody > agrees with Herman that this is the problem faced > by Declarer. > Yes, but everybody also sees "the problem" aas being related to letting LHO in. Which is only part of the problem about the DK. > [C] We agree that Declarer does not seem to have > been aware of the likelihood of a trump promotion. > Hence, Declarer, although normally a good player, > is obviously functioning well below par on this > deal. Judging by his premature and incomplete > claim, he is currently a poor player. > This is the one I object to. There is something in a "line at the tabel" that makes a player from a certain level look at "x opp KJx" and decide on the King. That something is present even when all other thought processes are switched off. > [D] Even when presented with the ending as a > problem, a typical average player polled by Herman > will sometimes play the DJ rather than the DK. > And a typical top player polled by Herman played the king without hesitation. > It is just the inexorable conclusion that Herman > refuses to contemplate :) > No, I don't refuse it. I only want people to see that there is a possibility that this ruling is right. That however many times you say "but he did not see that letting LHO in would ruin his chances", the argument is "he would never play the jack with a singleton at the table". It is the quantification of the "never" in the second sentence that we need to do - however certain we are about the "did not see" in the first sentence. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Sep 9 09:26:24 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Sep 9 09:30:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 References: <000601c5b4c9$9427a720$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003701c5b50f$e3585100$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 12:03 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 31 > East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. > TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after that > West decides not to except [accept] the OBOOT. Now West opens 1 Sp ! OK Grattan. According to the description of the case the following happened: South made an opening bid of 1NT although East was the dealer. The Director was summoned and explained the options and we must assume from the description that he asked West if he accepted the opening bid out of turn. (This is BTW the prescribed practice for such cases in Norway). According to the description West must have answered that he did not accept the opening bid out of turn. We do not know what the Director said or did after that but we are told that West now bid 1S! My understanding of Laws 31 and 29 is that South's bid of 1NT was cancelled at the moment West refused to accept it. If this is correct we have another opening bid out of turn, this time made by West. +=+ I think the Director would have done better to read from the Law Book. He should then explain to West that if he calls he will have forfeited the right to penalize. I do not think that by saying "I do not wish to accept the call" West has altered the situation that continues to exist until the legal auction is resumed. There is no such procedure given to him in the laws, unless I am missing something in which case please quote to me. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 9 10:20:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 9 10:21:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <003701c5b50f$e3585100$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000601c5b4c9$9427a720$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003701c5b50f$e3585100$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <432145BC.4040203@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ I think the Director would have done better to read from the > Law Book. He should then explain to West that if he calls he will > have forfeited the right to penalize. I do not think that by saying > "I do not wish to accept the call" West has altered the situation > that continues to exist until the legal auction is resumed. There is > no such procedure given to him in the laws, unless I am missing > something in which case please quote to me. > ~ G ~ +=+ > L29A : offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize. L31B : When the offender has bid ... at his LHO's turn if the offender has not previously called, offender's partner must pass ... So the bidding goes with West dealer: W N E S 1Sp Director: If West accepts, no penalty, if west does not accept, North must pass. West: I don't accept Director: OK, take back the 1Sp bidding card, North must pass. W 1He Director : ah you have now called, by L29A you have now accepted and there are no more penalties on North, please do as you want. How do you reconcile this? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 9 13:54:35 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 9 13:57:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> <431F5DA1.6000509@hdw.be><6.1.1.1.0.20050908075602.02b80ab0@pop.starpower.net> <43213143.5070701@hdw.be> Message-ID: Sorry Herman but was sufferring from dyslexia when I originally deleted your address . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > Eric Landau wrote: > > At 05:37 PM 9/7/05, Herman wrote: > > > >> > >> I think you understand perfectly what the WBFLC wants. Careless and > >> Inferior but not worse than that. > > > > > > But what does "worse than that" mean? Isn't that what we're trying to > > determine? What's "worse than careless"? What's "worse than > > inferior"? > > Indeed Eric, that's what we're trying to find out. But it won't help > us if you keep looking at the word irrational and keep saying that > this is the same for all players. Since the WBF clearly states that > the "careless" is dependent on the player's level, so must be the > "more than careless". > > > I'd hate to have to make a finding as to whether or not a > > particular play is "worse than that" with no further guidance, which is > > why we're discussing what words like "irrational" mean, and whether the > > forthcoming laws would do well to use them. > > > > Exactly. Which is why we post cases, and discuss them. And why it is > very discouraging when most of the posts seem to try and regurgitate > things that should have been dismissed a long time ago, like the fact > that a player who has made a small mistake will be deemed to make > every other small mistake in the book. > > >> Things a player might do if he's not paying attention, but not things > >> he would never do. > > > > > > That can't be right, since if we excluded only "things he would never > > do" we would be including much that is clearly irrational, even > > revoking. I've not yet met a player of such exalted "class" that he is > > incapable of revoking when he's not paying attention. > > > > Which is why you need to stress he word "never" in such a way that we > don't mean never ever, but merely "never". I don't know how to express > it, really, but you realize that Lauria would _never_ drop the queen > under the king, do you? The fact that he did does not mean that we > believe he would _ever_ do it, does it? > > I really don't see why this presents such a problem. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL I have already suggested a layout of the unseen hands where it did not matter which diamond S played to a D return. And looking at a different angle, ie class of player: If a declarer had seen all of the cards at the point in time of the claim would he have claimed at all? According to Herman, no he would not because there was something to be gained by waiting for E to lead. What was that something to be gained? Should E have returned a small diamond declarer could have inserted the K and brought home the rest instead of merely 5 of 6. And the only way to have E lead a D is to **wait** for him to do so. **This declarer** claimed anyway. He has proven that for this hand he is of a class where irrrational is normal for him. Instead of irrational maybe moronic should be used. WHich for this hand I will be so bold as to suggest that would be lower than Herman's class. regards roger pewick From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 9 13:56:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 9 13:57:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> <431F5DA1.6000509@hdw.be><6.1.1.1.0.20050908075602.02b80ab0@pop.starpower.net> <43213143.5070701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43217874.1030106@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > I have already suggested a layout of the unseen hands where it did not > matter which diamond S played to a D return. And looking at a different > angle, ie class of player: > > If a declarer had seen all of the cards at the point in time of the claim > would he have claimed at all? According to Herman, no he would not because > there was something to be gained by waiting for E to lead. What was that > something to be gained? Should E have returned a small diamond declarer > could have inserted the K and brought home the rest instead of merely 5 of > 6. And the only way to have E lead a D is to **wait** for him to do so. > **This declarer** claimed anyway. He has proven that for this hand he is of > a class where irrrational is normal for him. Instead of irrational maybe > moronic should be used. WHich for this hand I will be so bold as to suggest > that would be lower than Herman's class. > That is a valid point, of course. And it is valid in the real sense of the claim - without the optioin of going down. But think of it like this: Declarer only wants 5 out of 6 tricks. So is it not rational of him to say - don't think about it, take your one trick, you can have the optional overtrick, let's get to the next board. So I don't particularly take this to mean he's acting irrationally, and I won't rule him down on that reason. Of course we can argue that if he doesn't want the overtrick at all, there is no reason for him to look at the cards. But I feel that even in this frame of mind, a player cannot fail to look at all of his 12 cards before playing to a low diamond. And then it's still clear to me that there is a class of player for whom the king is the obvious card. I will aknowledge that a player's level could be judged a little lower than ordinary, but still. And then there is always the inequity which I find in a defender not being able to see the obvious return, waiting for too long, seeing declarer claim, and then receiving not only the benefit of the return he did not spot himself, but also of the absence of the rather obvious counter-defence. I feel that these EW players do not deserve the contract going down. They protracted the play unneccesarily and the one who made it go faster gets punished for claiming. I feel a little sympathy for declarer can be given by allowing him the benefit of the doubt as to the "class of player" he is in. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 9 13:56:22 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 9 13:58:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050908075602.02b80ab0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050909075431.02b84eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:57 PM 9/8/05, richard.hills wrote: >I've not yet met a player of such exalted "class" that he is >incapable of revoking when he's not paying attention. > >* * * > >True. > >However, a hypothetical illegal play after a claim has been >ruled by the WBF to be _always_ irrational, regardless of >the "class of player" who has claimed, and even if that >illegal play is specifically listed in the claimer's claim >statement. > >WBF LC minutes, 1st November 2001, as paraphrased in the >EBU White Book (TD Guide): > > >Suppose a player claims, and part of his claim is to discard > >a club on dummy???s diamond. Unfortunately he will have to > >follow suit at that time: how does the Director rule? > > > >The revoke is not accepted by the Director, so he follows > >the claim statement up to the revoke, and then treats it as > >though there was no further statement. However, if a later > >part of the claim appears to be valid he should take account > >of that in his considerations. > > > >The same applies for any other irregularity embodied in a > >claim. Understood. My comment cited above was simply a rebuttal to Herman's suggestion that "irrational" be taken to mean "something the player would never do". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 9 14:10:33 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 9 14:12:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43213143.5070701@hdw.be> References: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> <40C56AC8-A063-4B24-B1AF-335113AFDBCA@rochester.rr.com> <431E9211.6000105@hdw.be> <6AC32121-E575-4EB0-A03C-CAC1D6D5546E@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050907151731.02a4b8c0@pop.starpower.net> <431F5DA1.6000509@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050908075602.02b80ab0@pop.starpower.net> <43213143.5070701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050909075653.02b84d60@pop.starpower.net> At 02:52 AM 9/9/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 05:37 PM 9/7/05, Herman wrote: >> >>>I think you understand perfectly what the WBFLC wants. Careless and >>>Inferior but not worse than that. >> >>But what does "worse than that" mean? Isn't that what we're trying >>to determine? What's "worse than careless"? What's "worse than >>inferior"? > >Indeed Eric, that's what we're trying to find out. But it won't help >us if you keep looking at the word irrational and keep saying that >this is the same for all players. I keep looking at the word "irrational" and can't help knowing what it means. I hope to help the folks who are drafting the new laws by convincing them that it doesn't mean what they would like it to mean, and that they should therefore use a different word or phrase in the new version of TFLB. I believe it would help us all for the lawbook to use the clearest possible language with the least amount of ambiguity. >Since the WBF clearly states that the "careless" is dependent on the >player's level, so must be the "more than careless". Better said. Something that is "worse than careless" is, by definition, not careless; that can't be what we want. "More than careless" is correct; we want to allow plays that are "not merely careless, but also..." -- what? *Not* "irrational"; not if we wish to use a word that, by definition, can vary with the "class of player involved". >>I'd hate to have to make a finding as to whether or not a particular >>play is "worse than that" with no further guidance, which is why >>we're discussing what words like "irrational" mean, and whether the >>forthcoming laws would do well to use them. > >Exactly. Which is why we post cases, and discuss them. And why it is >very discouraging when most of the posts seem to try and regurgitate >things that should have been dismissed a long time ago, like the fact >that a player who has made a small mistake will be deemed to make >every other small mistake in the book. The point I'm trying to make has nothing to do with any particular case or cases. It's all about trying to write a new set of laws that say what they mean with as much clarity and as little ambiguity as possible. We don't accomplish that by using words incorrectly, then issuing minutes to Humpty-Dumpty them. >>>Things a player might do if he's not paying attention, but not >>>things he would never do. >> >>That can't be right, since if we excluded only "things he would never >>do" we would be including much that is clearly irrational, even >>revoking. I've not yet met a player of such exalted "class" that he >>is incapable of revoking when he's not paying attention. > >Which is why you need to stress he word "never" in such a way that we >don't mean never ever, but merely "never". I don't know how to express >it, really, but you realize that Lauria would _never_ drop the queen >under the king, do you? The fact that he did does not mean that we >believe he would _ever_ do it, does it? Sorry, but in my dictionary "never" and "never ever" mean the same thing. >I really don't see why this presents such a problem. It presents a problem because someone as knowledgeable about the laws as Herman says "I don't know how to express it", and, apparently, neither do the folks who wrote the current lawbook. "How to express it" is precisely the problem we're trying to solve here, and it does indeed seem to be "such a problem". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 9 14:23:21 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 9 14:25:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <432145BC.4040203@hdw.be> References: <000601c5b4c9$9427a720$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003701c5b50f$e3585100$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <432145BC.4040203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050909081737.02b81d70@pop.starpower.net> At 04:20 AM 9/9/05, Herman wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ I think the Director would have done better to read from the >>Law Book. He should then explain to West that if he calls he will >>have forfeited the right to penalize. I do not think that by saying >>"I do not wish to accept the call" West has altered the situation >>that continues to exist until the legal auction is resumed. There is >>no such procedure given to him in the laws, unless I am missing >>something in which case please quote to me. > >L29A : offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right >to penalize. > >L31B : When the offender has bid ... at his LHO's turn if the offender >has not previously called, offender's partner must pass ... > >So the bidding goes with West dealer: > > W N E S > 1Sp > >Director: If West accepts, no penalty, if west does not accept, North >must pass. >West: I don't accept >Director: OK, take back the 1Sp bidding card, North must pass. > > W > 1He >Director : ah you have now called, by L29A you have now accepted and >there are no more penalties on North, please do as you want. > >How do you reconcile this? In the case Grattan was commenting on, L31B does not apply, as the offender bid when it was RHO's turn, not LHO's; the relevant laws are L29A and L31A. But RHO has neither "passed" nor "acted", so L31A doesn't apply either, and we are left to rule from L29A. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Fri Sep 9 17:42:08 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Sep 9 17:45:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:23:21 EDT." <6.1.1.1.0.20050909081737.02b81d70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200509091542.IAA07528@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > In the case Grattan was commenting on, L31B does not apply, as the > offender bid when it was RHO's turn, not LHO's; the relevant laws are > L29A and L31A. But RHO has neither "passed" nor "acted", so L31A > doesn't apply either, and we are left to rule from L29A. No, we're not. The argument Herman, Sven, and I are making is that L29A doesn't apply either. Our argument is that if an offender makes a call out of rotation, and LHO calls, but in between those two actions there has been a director call, and the director has explained that one of the options is for LHO not to accept the call, and LHO chooses not to accept the call and so states, then it's clear that L29A was *not* intended to apply to that case. The hypothetical case we're looking at, where someone calls at his *LHO's* turn to call (not RHO's), is intended to prove this by an indirect proof. Suppose that the meaning of L29A is that it applies whenever LHO calls at any time following a call out of rotation, as one might conclude if reading it hyper-literally. Clearly this would lead to an absurd situation if my RHO calls when it's my turn, and we call the TD and the TD explains the Law to me, and I don't accept the call, and then the auction reverts to me, and I call, and then the TD uses the hyper-literal reading of L29A to conclude that I've forfeited the right to penalize. Since this interpretation of L29A leads to an obviously wrong result, the interpretation must be wrong. Q.E.D. Thus we must assume that L29A has a different interpretation, and to me the only sane interpretation is one in which L29A does not apply once I've made the explicit decision not to accept the call. Now back to Peter's original case. As you've argued, L31A doesn't apply since RHO has neither passed nor acted. L31B is clearly the wrong Law for this situation. But since we don't seem to have a Law that works, does this mean we must rely on an interpretation of L29A that we've already proven is wrong? That makes no sense at all to me. The other possibility is that we have *no* Laws to rule from---that is, we're in a situation that's more complex than the Lawmakers envisioned, and they didn't write a Law that provides for this situation. Is this possible? Well, of course it is, and anyone who has participated on BLML as long as you or I have knows that. So we don't have much choice except to try to apply a Law that doesn't strictly apply. Of all the possible ways to do this, pressing L29A into service, by relying on an interpretation we've proven is incorrect, seems the least sensible, since it effectively means we rule as if West accepted the irregularity even after he explicitly said he didn't. Assuming that West's call is a new call-out-of-turn irregularity makes a lot more sense; I believe that it's the answer that the Lawmakers would have come up with if someone had presented this situation to them while they were writing the call-out-of-turn laws. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 9 19:33:05 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 9 19:36:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 Message-ID: <004801c5b564$8a102c80$349868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] >> +=+ I think the Director would have done >> better to read from the Law Book. He >> should then explain to West that if he >> calls he will have forfeited the right >> to penalize. I do not think that by >> saying "I do not wish to accept the >> call" West has altered the situation >> that continues to exist until the legal >> auction is resumed. There is no such >> procedure given to him in the laws, >> unless I am missing something in which >> case please quote to me. >> [L29A] >>> offender's LHO may elect to call, >>> thereby forfeiting the right to >>> penalize. >> [L31B] >>> When the offender has bid ... at his >>> LHO's turn if the offender has not >>> previously called, offender's partner >>> must pass ... {Herman De Wael] > So [South opens 1S] with West dealer: > Director: If West accepts, no penalty, > if west does not accept, North must pass. > West: I don't accept > Director: OK, South takes back the 1S > bidding card, North must pass. > West: 1H > Director : Ah you have now called. By > L29A you have now accepted and there > are no more penalties. North, please > do as you want. [Nige1] Herman's example seems to boot the Grattan and the current law out of touch :) From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Sep 9 20:10:01 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Sep 9 20:13:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title Message-ID: <200509091810.j89IA1mp028637@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> (Since Richard has said he won't be starting any new threads -- I won't be disappointed if you change your mind) Matchpoints; N-S vul. You, South, hold: JT, 876, KJ62, A843 South West North East - - 1S P 1NT 2H 4D P 5C P 5D* P ? * Clear break in tempo What call do you make? Would you choose a different call if partner had bid 5D in tempo? Casual partnership. Good partner. General approach is 2/1 with no special agreements that apply. You had no agreements as to the meaning of your 5C call. From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 9 20:56:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 9 20:59:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <200509091810.j89IA1mp028637@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000101c5b570$34611770$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ron Johnson > Matchpoints; N-S vul. You, South, hold: > > JT, 876, KJ62, A843 > > South West North East > - - 1S P > 1NT 2H 4D P > 5C P 5D* P > ? > > * Clear break in tempo > > What call do you make? > > Would you choose a different call if partner had bid > 5D in tempo? > > Casual partnership. Good partner. General approach is > 2/1 with no special agreements that apply. > > You had no agreements as to the meaning of your 5C call. My immediate reaction was "why on earth did I bid 5C"? And your last comment just enhances this feeling. I take 4D from partner to show a strong two-suiter requesting me to choose between 4S and 5D, so I would have bid 5D instead of 5C. Now, I am at a loss. Whatever I do could very well be wrong. But I pass (and partner's hesitation has nothing to do with it). OK, so somebody is looking for a slam contract and cue-bids his Club Ace. Is this realistic when partner avoided an opening bid of 2C (or whatever strong opening bid you have)? Even so we probably face two losers in Hearts. PASS! Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Fri Sep 9 21:05:29 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Sep 9 21:08:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:56:36 +0200." <000101c5b570$34611770$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200509091905.MAA08712@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ron Johnson > > Matchpoints; N-S vul. You, South, hold: > > > > JT, 876, KJ62, A843 > > > > South West North East > > - - 1S P > > 1NT 2H 4D P > > 5C P 5D* P > > ? > > > > * Clear break in tempo > > > > What call do you make? > > > > Would you choose a different call if partner had bid > > 5D in tempo? > > > > Casual partnership. Good partner. General approach is > > 2/1 with no special agreements that apply. > > > > You had no agreements as to the meaning of your 5C call. > > My immediate reaction was "why on earth did I bid 5C"? > And your last comment just enhances this feeling. > > I take 4D from partner to show a strong two-suiter requesting me to choose > between 4S and 5D, so I would have bid 5D instead of 5C. > > Now, I am at a loss. Whatever I do could very well be wrong. But I pass (and > partner's hesitation has nothing to do with it). > > OK, so somebody is looking for a slam contract and cue-bids his Club Ace. Is > this realistic when partner avoided an opening bid of 2C (or whatever strong > opening bid you have)? I'm told that the late Hermine Baron, who at one time was the top master-point holder in the ACBL, said she never opened two-suiters with 2C. I think that many experts are still reluctant to open 2C on a two-suiter. (On the other hand, those who play strong club systems are pretty much forced to open 1C on such hands, since their other opening bids are narrowly limited. I still recall the time I had a 5=5=3=0 hand with 20 HCP, and had to open 1C, only to LHO overcall 5C [of course], which my partner doubled. Now what?) In any case, my first impression was very much like yours. I was assuming that 4D showed a strong 2-suiter, and 5C must have been intended as a control-bid agreeing diamonds---that's the only way it can possibly make sense. Under these assumptions, I've already told my whole story so no other call besides pass makes sense, hesitation or no hesitation. I suppose the problem is that somebody must think 4D is an auto-splinter or something. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 9 21:36:09 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 9 21:39:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title References: <200509091810.j89IA1mp028637@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <006601c5b575$bb15db20$349868d5@jeushtlj> [Ron Johnson] > Matchpoints; N-S vul. JT 876 KJ62 A843 > South West North East > - - 1S P > 1NT 2H 4D P > 5C P 5D* P [*temp-break] > ? [nige1] With or without the hesitation, I would pass. I suppose the law says that with the tempo-break, you should pass. Of course ... [A] The tempo-break *could* have any of a variety of reasons -- including some suggesting a pass and [B] A member of an experienced partnership will correctly guess partner's problem far more often than a director. Everybody is aware that the significance of the hesitation depends on the methods -- and ethics -- of the partnership. For example ... (i) Is five clubs natural with a long suit? ... Let me think ... Oh now I remember! Its a cue bid, agreeing diamonds! Well I've got nothing extra, so I'll sign-of in 5D. (ii) Oh dear! A club cue-bid! Partner seems to be taking my flight of fancy seriously! He seems to have the bit between his teeth! How can I curb his slam ambitions? Ah! He's an experienced player, so the solution is simple. An out-of-tempo 5D will shut him up unless he is so sure of a slam that he is willing to defend his further efforts in front of a director and appeals committee. (iii) In the light of partner's cue-bid, slam is possible -- but surely partner will go on with 2 key cards. For experienced duplicate players, this last is the least likely scenario. An experienced player, with such a hand, would anticipate the problem and bid 5D, in tempo. He knows that if his side reaches 6D, after a hesitation, the director may well rule against him. If A player thought the slam was a serious possibility but had made the mistake of hesitating, he would probably just take a flyer in 6D, rather than put his partner under ethical pressure. In theory, you can be ruled against for using a slow bid to shut up partner. In practice, there has never been such ruling, to my knowledge. For reasons like this the law would do better to either Ignore tempo-breaks or Penalize UI itself rather than its use From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Sep 9 22:00:52 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Sep 9 22:03:46 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <431E9ACB.10701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200509092000.j89K0qnP029112@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Herman De Wael writes: > > Does this post warrant a reply? Good God Herman. You are beneath contempt. A man (with whom I've had my share of disagreements with to be sure -- but generally on matters of substance) tells you that he's been driven to ... distraction(?) and you sound glad -- smug even. I'm truly dismayed by the response. Nor from you Herman. I don't expect better from you. But Jim and Konrad and in particular Grattan -- people for whom I've come to respect posting tripe that is so very clearly intended as hurtful. I'm unsurprised by David's leaving and I'll miss him. I wouldn't suggest to him that he return. What's driven him -- and potentially Richard (another person whose contributions far outweigh most people on the list) will never change. It's become ingained in the culture of the list and we're all poorer for it. Gods, even Steve Willner has sounded testy and I'd have bet aginst that happening. From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 9 22:11:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 9 22:14:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <006601c5b575$bb15db20$349868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000201c5b57a$9c86ba80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie ............. > In theory, you can be ruled against for using a > slow bid to shut up partner. In practice, there > has never been such ruling, to my knowledge. I have experienced adjusting a contract in five just made to six one down because of hesitation by the player bidding 5! We ruled that the hesitation suggested PASS in an auction exploring slam possibilities and the partner had extra values. (This was years ago, I do not remember any details) Regards Sven From toddz at att.net Fri Sep 9 22:36:21 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Sep 9 22:39:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <006601c5b575$bb15db20$349868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200509091810.j89IA1mp028637@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <006601c5b575$bb15db20$349868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4321F245.1040003@att.net> I pass 5D and only briefly consider 6D before I realize that I don't know how to interpret partner's heart holdings once he bypasses 3NT at matchpoints. Guthrie wrote: > Penalize UI itself rather than its use I think this would make mentor-student games so undesireable that even fewer would take on teaching others. Inexperienced players frequently cannot do the right thing without giving away the show and their mentor partners can correctly interpret the problem/issue. If they are told to play in tempo or face the consequences, the student will not learn as much since he's not allowed the time to think and he will not enjoy success since he'll often do the wrong thing. We can trust the mentor knows how to properly avoid ethics problems. I imagine at even the top levels of play, partnerships would rather be allowed time to decide the right thing now and suffer potentially meaningless restrictions later than to face do-now-or-die pressures every time there's a difficult decision to make. Punishing UI's use rather than its existance is trouble well-spent. -Todd From adam at irvine.com Fri Sep 9 22:47:51 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Sep 9 22:50:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:36:21 EDT." <4321F245.1040003@att.net> Message-ID: <200509092047.NAA09263@mailhub.irvine.com> Todd wrote: > I imagine at even the top levels of play, partnerships > would rather be allowed time to decide the right thing now > and suffer potentially meaningless restrictions later than > to face do-now-or-die pressures every time there's a > difficult decision to make. I'm in agreement here. Quite frankly, if the rules were changed so that every time I had a difficult decision, the rules forced me to either decide quickly or be penalized, I would probably quit playing. I can understand why someone who is frustrated with all the difficulties we have applying the rules would prefer to see rules that don't present such difficulties. But let's keep our priorities straight! Having unambiguous and simple-to-apply rules is simply not as important as providing a game that we enjoy. > Punishing UI's use rather than its existance is trouble > well-spent. Amen. -- Adam From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Sep 9 23:10:42 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Sep 9 23:13:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <006601c5b575$bb15db20$349868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200509092110.j89LAgbt029352@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Guthrie writes: > > [Ron Johnson] > > Matchpoints; N-S vul. JT 876 KJ62 A843 > > South West North East > > - - 1S P > > 1NT 2H 4D P > > 5C P 5D* P [*temp-break] > > ? > > [nige1] > With or without the hesitation, I would pass. I > suppose the law says that with the tempo-break, > you should pass. This is a Jeff Rubens special. Of interest for a number of reasons. The 5C call that so bewildered Sven and Adam was selected by 21 of 34 panelists. Many of whom were intending to bid _at least_ 6D and hadn't ruled out 7. (Most only discussed their plans over the hoped for 5H call) Michael Rosenberg (who bid 5C) argued that *if* you intended to bid 6D over partner's 5D then it might be best to bid 6D rather than 5C "[...] in case he huddles, bids five diamonds and bars you." (10 panelists selected 6D rather than 5C and all mentioned the fear that partner would pass the 5C call. And the others wanted to make an unambiguous move and so cued their 4th round control of hearts -- in a slam auction!) Jeff Rubens responded with the quote Marv mentioned in another thread. "Ethical behaviour requires *ignoring* (emphasis his) illegal information, not trying to compensate for it." But in the exact context Tim recalls. In effect in this case he's arguing that pass is not a LA to somebody who was always planning to bid 6D. (Not that this should carry any weight with a director or AC. I mean we've all heard or read about cases where a player is adamant that his partner's hesitation had no effect, that he was always going to ...) He further argues (as Nigel anticipates) that what he was huddling about might well be, "Is 5C a cue or natural" (For what it's worth, 14 of 27 panelists passed 5C holding "a 5-2-5-1 with pleasant prospects" [Don't have the exact hand. Problem A, June 1981] "For all those who say five clubs can't be to play, monitor their heartbeat while partner is thinking." Bobby Wolff -- a 6D bidder) So does the hesitation demonstrably suggest 6D over 5D here? How will an AC react to the argument by North that, "I was trying to figure out whether he really could have clubs" > Of course ... > > [A] The tempo-break *could* have any of a variety > of reasons -- including some suggesting a pass and > [B] A member of an experienced partnership will > correctly guess partner's problem far more often > than a director. Maybe not. The theme of the set of problems in February 1993 is how readily the wheels come off in these kinds of situations. Several players were on both panels and ended up in a 4-1 opposite themself. Or a 3-3 on B. Or a 2-1(!) in C. As he says, "If you can't trust *yourself* in these uncommon auctions, then whom?" > > Everybody is aware that the significance of the > hesitation depends on the methods -- and ethics -- > of the partnership. For example ... > > (i) Is five clubs natural with a long suit? ... > Let me think ... Oh now I remember! Its a cue bid, > agreeing diamonds! Well I've got nothing extra, so > I'll sign-of in 5D. How can I put this. Long-standing partnerships have agreements for this situation. It's well down on the list of things to worry about for others. From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 10 00:24:45 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Sep 10 00:27:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <200509092110.j89LAgbt029352@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000301c5b58d$493d0880$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ron Johnson > Sent: 9. september 2005 23:11 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title > > Guthrie writes: > > > > [Ron Johnson] > > > Matchpoints; N-S vul. JT 876 KJ62 A843 > > > South West North East > > > - - 1S P > > > 1NT 2H 4D P > > > 5C P 5D* P [*temp-break] > > > ? > > > > [nige1] > > With or without the hesitation, I would pass. I > > suppose the law says that with the tempo-break, > > you should pass. > > > This is a Jeff Rubens special. Of interest for a > number of reasons. > > The 5C call that so bewildered Sven and Adam > was selected by 21 of 34 panelists. Many of whom > were intending to bid _at least_ 6D and hadn't > ruled out 7. (Most only discussed their plans > over the hoped for 5H call) > > Michael Rosenberg (who bid 5C) argued that *if* you > intended to bid 6D over partner's 5D then it might > be best to bid 6D rather than 5C "[...] in case > he huddles, bids five diamonds and bars you." > (10 panelists selected 6D rather than 5C and all > mentioned the fear that partner would pass the > 5C call. And the others wanted to make an unambiguous > move and so cued their 4th round control of hearts -- > in a slam auction!) > > Jeff Rubens responded with the quote Marv mentioned > in another thread. "Ethical behaviour requires > *ignoring* (emphasis his) illegal information, not > trying to compensate for it." > > But in the exact context Tim recalls. In effect in > this case he's arguing that pass is not a LA to > somebody who was always planning to bid 6D. (Not that > this should carry any weight with a director or AC. > I mean we've all heard or read about cases where a > player is adamant that his partner's hesitation had > no effect, that he was always going to ...) > > He further argues (as Nigel anticipates) that what > he was huddling about might well be, "Is 5C a cue > or natural" (For what it's worth, 14 of 27 panelists > passed 5C holding "a 5-2-5-1 with pleasant prospects" > [Don't have the exact hand. Problem A, June 1981] > "For all those who say five clubs can't be to play, > monitor their heartbeat while partner is thinking." > Bobby Wolff -- a 6D bidder) > > So does the hesitation demonstrably suggest 6D > over 5D here? > > How will an AC react to the argument by North that, "I > was trying to figure out whether he really could have > clubs" South: "I wonder, he cannot possibly believe that I have a club suit on my own after he probably has told me he has 5-5 or 6-5 and really strong cards. I have told my story with my free bid of 5C (showing where I have my values) on my way to 5D. After all I did just bid 1NT in the first round. His hesitation must apparently show interest for 6D if he has understood my 5C the way I intended it, but that doesn't help. I have nothing more to give him and in particular no Heart control." PASS. And yes, on an AC I would consider the hesitation as interest for 6D so with a little more values in South I might very well adjust to 6D if there are only 11 tricks in a Diamond contract. Seems like I can as well use my scissors here. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 10 03:45:31 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Sep 10 03:49:06 2005 Subject: [blml] The end References: <200509092000.j89K0qnP029112@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000901c5b5a9$54f574c0$219468d5@jeushtlj> [Herman De Wael] > Does this post warrant a reply? [Ron Johnson] >> Good God Herman. You are beneath contempt. [nige1] Much more personal invective and there may be other defections :) We appreciate David Stevenson's erudition; but victims of his scorn (like Herman, me and many others) find his regular ultimata, a trifle wearing. From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Sep 10 10:18:47 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat Sep 10 10:23:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 References: <1ED46d-21fLk00@fwd29.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <006b01c5b5e0$92cf7b60$d1493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 7:52 PM Subject: [blml] Law 31 Hi all, now I got a case for tournament directing ;-) East is dealer, but South opens 1 NT. TD explains all the relevant parts of L31 (and L29) and after that West decides not to except the OBOOT. Now West opens 1 Sp ! ??? --------------- I have a strong feeling that the director did not control the situation completely. Anyhow west did not understand his explanation and the director has to check that before west is given the oppertunity to decide. If west would accept, west has to call 2Sp. It is possible that west thought that when 1NT is cancelled, 1Sp is free to call and more according to his hand, without knowing that east has to proceed. Ben From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Sep 10 12:28:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Sep 10 12:29:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 31 In-Reply-To: <001c01c5b553$5dd9e040$349868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000601c5b4c9$9427a720$6400a8c0@WINXP><003701c5b50f$e3585100$eeac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <432145BC.4040203@hdw.be> <001c01c5b553$5dd9e040$349868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4322B54D.9010702@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Grattan Endicott] > >>>+=+ I think the Director would have done >>>better to read from the Law Book. He >>>should then explain to West that if he >>>calls he will have forfeited the right >>>to penalize. I do not think that by >>>saying "I do not wish to accept the >>>call" West has altered the situation >>>that continues to exist until the legal >>>auction is resumed. There is no such >>>procedure given to him in the laws, >>>unless I am missing something in which >>>case please quote to me. >>>[L29A] >>> >>>>offender's LHO may elect to call, >>>>thereby forfeiting the right to >>>>penalize. >>> >>>[L31B] >>> >>>>When the offender has bid ... at his >>>>LHO's turn if the offender has not >>>>previously called, offender's partner >>>>must pass ... > > > {Herman De Wael] > >>So [South opens 1S] with West dealer: >>Director: If West accepts, no penalty, >>if west does not accept, North must pass. >>West: I don't accept >>Director: OK, South takes back the 1S >>bidding card, North must pass. >>West: 1H >>Director : Ah you have now called. By >>L29A you have now accepted and there >>are no more penalties. North, please >>do as you want. > > > [Nige1] > Herman's example seems to boot the laws out of > touch :) > ehm, I was merely applying what Grattan thought the laws were. I hope you did not think i was being serious. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Sep 10 18:59:31 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Sep 10 19:05:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title References: <200509092110.j89LAgbt029352@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <002201c5b629$07110f00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > > Jeff Rubens responded with the quote Marv mentioned > in another thread. "Ethical behaviour requires > *ignoring* (emphasis his) illegal information, not > trying to compensate for it." > But Marv disagrees strongly with this, believing that the receivers of UI must not take an action that looks like they might be taking advantage of the UI, even if it was their intended action. Moreover, they must not deliberately take an illogical action because of the UI, such as passing with a strong hand to teach partner not to hesitate. L16 should be revised to make this clear. Let's not say that players would lie about their intended action, but that it is easy to deceive oneself into believing that a successful action was the one intended. Jeff's policy would result in many acrimonious accusations and a multitude of problems for TDs and ACs. Forget it, Jeff (who won't read this, because he feels no need for BLML). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Sep 10 05:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Sep 11 08:31:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <431D8D7B.60902@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Tim, did you drop into this thread or did you read it from the > beginning? See below. I read it - so what? As far as I am concerned "careless" includes "things a player might do without really thinking - this includes playing the "wrong" card if it doesn't really matter. I really couldn't give a flying f*** what the semanticists try to do to the laws - when "In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" is the overriding duty (with "but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer" as secondary consideration). My job (as TD) is to work out, if I can, what I think would have happened and give a score reflecting that. If I decide that player X would play K/J without much thought then player X gets the worst of K/J (because that is merely careless, regardless of class). OTOH, if I decided that player Y would approach an unforseen "twist" in a claim situation with care and diligence I'm going to consider what is "rational". Nigel will whinge because I vary between players, Steve will blench at the mind-reading involved, David will disagree with the generosity of my ruling towards claimer, Herman will try to pretend that players make "rational" decisions in cases where they regard the actual play as unimportant, Bill and Grattan will nit-pick the precise meaning of the legal word wording. But when I tell the 4 actual players what my ruling is (and my 98% certainty of it being right), and they have all contributed to that certainty then I will get 4 happy (or at least moderately contented) bunnies and no appeal. There's no "right" or "wrong" ruling in this sort of case - if you weren't actually *there* you aren't going to make a good judgement. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Sep 10 05:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Sep 11 08:31:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050906150152.02a555b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > A play cannot be none of the above, nor can it be any of the above > other than the last and be the last as well. There are players who who would apologise for making the "wrong" discard in a squeeze situation. There are declarers for whom repeating a "proven" finesse as opposed to playing a squeeze is truly inconceivable. Such players do not often claim but we have to rule even when they do. The presumed squeeze is, in percentage terms, good play - "rational" for a decent player, if you will. However, I'm damned if I'm going to impose a failing criss-cross squeeze on a player whom I *know* to be a repeat finesser. NB, if you tell a decent player you are ruling that he might have gone off playing the 3.66% superior criss-cross you are NOT going to get an appeal:) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Sep 10 05:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Sep 11 08:31:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <005a01c5b459$81c53040$139868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > I still agree with you, Herman, that all this is a > matter of judgement and that the appeal committee > is entitled to its view; but it does seem that it > made the wrong judgement. I honestly believe we are very far from having the "facts" necessary to say that (or dismiss it). I'm dubious about the quoted claim statement since the sentence seems stilted (this may me a translation issue) - the hesitation having made clear where the DA was I can see myself saying (specifically to E) "You get the (a?) diamond and the rest are mine, I won't forget the trump." It would now, I hope, be inconceivable to everybody that declarer would consider anything other than the DK. In a parallel universe it might have been equally clear to the AC that South would play a D *without really thinking* because an overtrick makes no difference - and go off. In a third universe one might acknowledge that South would likely get the D wrong, but East was never contemplating a small D play because the DA was the setting trick. While such nuances often make the *reports* of rulings seem inconsistent (or even bizarre) it may be the case that equity (the primary and overriding objective in adjudicating claims - forget the linguistic niceties of the sub-laws) has been well served in such cases. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Sep 10 05:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Sep 11 08:31:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050909075653.02b84d60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > I keep looking at the word "irrational" and can't help knowing what it > means. I know what it means too. I also know that it is not the opposite of "normal". "Abnormal" plays are not considered. Abnormal includes rational plays of a technical complexity well beyond claimer's ability. It includes "very careless" plays (such as playing both high cards with Ax opposite Kx). It includes "unnatural" plays (such as cashing a heart, then a diamond, then two more hearts, then a spade). As to why rationality varies with class of player let us go back to the original example. Suppose you determine that declarer was of the class of player who would be *fully aware* that East held the DA and would consider it obvious to East that he knew. It would be irrational for such a player to play anything other than the DK. OTOH a different class of player might be unaware of the position of the DA and unaware of the danger of West gaining the lead, and unaware that sneaky opps sometimes underlead aces when there is a singleton in dummy. It would be *probable* for such a player to put in the DJ. Good players and bad players have different "reasons" for the plays they make "I played the Jack because I thought West would have the ace." is a reason (albeit a fallacious one). Tim I hope to help the folks who are drafting the new laws by > convincing them that it doesn't mean what they would like it to mean, > and that they should therefore use a different word or phrase in the > new version of TFLB. I believe it would help us all for the lawbook to > use the clearest possible language with the least amount of ambiguity. > > >Since the WBF clearly states that the "careless" is dependent on the > >player's level, so must be the "more than careless". > > Better said. Something that is "worse than careless" is, by > definition, not careless; that can't be what we want. "More than > careless" is correct; we want to allow plays that are "not merely > careless, but also..." -- what? *Not* "irrational"; not if we wish to > use a word that, by definition, can vary with the "class of player > involved". > > >>I'd hate to have to make a finding as to whether or not a particular > >>play is "worse than that" with no further guidance, which is why > >>we're discussing what words like "irrational" mean, and whether the > >>forthcoming laws would do well to use them. > > > >Exactly. Which is why we post cases, and discuss them. And why it is > >very discouraging when most of the posts seem to try and regurgitate > >things that should have been dismissed a long time ago, like the fact > >that a player who has made a small mistake will be deemed to make > >every other small mistake in the book. > > The point I'm trying to make has nothing to do with any particular case > or cases. It's all about trying to write a new set of laws that say > what they mean with as much clarity and as little ambiguity as > possible. We don't accomplish that by using words incorrectly, then > issuing minutes to Humpty-Dumpty them. > > >>>Things a player might do if he's not paying attention, but not > >>>things he would never do. > >> > >>That can't be right, since if we excluded only "things he would never > >>do" we would be including much that is clearly irrational, even > >>revoking. I've not yet met a player of such exalted "class" that he > >>is incapable of revoking when he's not paying attention. > > > >Which is why you need to stress he word "never" in such a way that we > >don't mean never ever, but merely "never". I don't know how to express > >it, really, but you realize that Lauria would _never_ drop the queen > >under the king, do you? The fact that he did does not mean that we > >believe he would _ever_ do it, does it? > > Sorry, but in my dictionary "never" and "never ever" mean the same > thing. > > >I really don't see why this presents such a problem. > > It presents a problem because someone as knowledgeable about the laws > as Herman says "I don't know how to express it", and, apparently, > neither do the folks who wrote the current lawbook. "How to express > it" is precisely the problem we're trying to solve here, and it does > indeed seem to be "such a problem". > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 6 14:35:01 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Sep 11 14:38:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: Message-ID: <003001c5b2df$670d4060$339468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meades] > [BLML members whinge] But when I tell > the 4 actual players what my ruling is > (and my 98% certainty of it being right), > and they have all contributed to that > certainty then I will get 4 happy (or at > least moderately contented) bunnies and > no appeal. There's no "right" or "wrong" > ruling in this sort of case - if you > weren't actually *there* you aren't going > to make a good judgement. [nige1] On the contrary ... [A] we have a lot of delighted BLML members enjoying another fascinating argument engendered by a sophisticated, subjective law ... whereas ... [B] many players find claim rulings incomprehensible. If they are on the losing side they feel hurt and angry, especially as a different director would usually rule differently, even on the simplest agreed facts. BTW, in my experience, the director isn't usually *there*, when a claim is made. He is called *after* the claim is disputed. He has much the same stale "facts" to assess as we or the committee. I agree with Tim, however, that, under current law, claim-rulings are as likely to be *wrong* as *right*. If claim law were simpler and more specific - in particular if claim rulings were independent of level of player -- so that cases were easier to adjudicate -- then you might still get the occasional player complaining that he's an expert who'd never miss the obvious hexagon clash squeeze; but he'd get short shrift from real experts for belatedly mentioning such possibilities because real experts would then take care over claims. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 11 15:32:39 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Sep 11 15:35:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <003001c5b2df$670d4060$339468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c5b6d5$47ffc180$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie ................. > I agree with Tim, however, that, under current > law, claim-rulings are as likely to be *wrong* as > *right*. > > If claim law were simpler and more specific - in > particular if claim rulings were independent of > level of player -- so that cases were easier to > adjudicate -- then you might still get the > occasional player complaining that he's an expert > who'd never miss the obvious hexagon clash > squeeze; but he'd get short shrift from real > experts for belatedly mentioning such > possibilities because real experts would then take > care over claims. "Right" or "Wrong" is what the laws say. There is no "absolute right" independent of the laws. Once upon a time the claim laws stated that when a claim was disputed by an opponent "any matter which his [the claimer's] statement has left unsettled, shall be settled as this opponent directs. This was a simple, objective, straight forward and easy to apply law with no call for difficult or personal judgment, nor any question of "irrational". Was this law fair? In my opinion absolutely. It was the same law for everyone and players knew precisely what to expect if they made a claim without complete control of the remaining cards. (If you claimed "I play all my clubs" without specifying that you would play them from top you could be forced to play your smallest club first). Was it a "better" law than what we have today? That is a matter of opinion. I can see advantages and disadvantages for either, but I would not have any objection against going back to such a simple claim law; it would primarily place more responsibility on a claimer without lessening the enjoyment of the game. It has been stated that the laws should encourage claims in order to save time and speed up the event. Is this acceptable? Do we want a game where the same or maybe even more time is spent discussing contested claims rather than by just playing the cards? I for one certainly hope not! Regards Sven From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sun Sep 11 16:52:52 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun Sep 11 18:29:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 References: Message-ID: <000401c5b6ed$8f608920$d9063dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam - Appeal 6 > Nigel wrote: > > > I still agree with you, Herman, that all this is a > > matter of judgement and that the appeal committee > > is entitled to its view; but it does seem that it > > made the wrong judgement. > > I honestly believe we are very far from having the "facts" necessary to > say that (or dismiss it). I'm dubious about the quoted claim statement > since the sentence seems stilted (this may me a translation issue) - the > hesitation having made clear where the DA was I can see myself saying > (specifically to E) "You get the (a?) diamond and the rest are mine, I > won't forget the trump." It would now, I hope, be inconceivable to > everybody that declarer would consider anything other than the DK. > I contacted the table-director and he told me the following: When I arrived at the table, east immediatly came with the argument that south could do it wrong in case he would play a small diamond. The director does not know how long the pause for thought was, but south said: ""He was thinking". The director told me that the table was already 1 minute late and it was round 27 and the last board so next round had to start. The director was busy with another ruling and came just along to hurry up the players. In the next round there was no time to contact the CTD who was also busy with rulings and appeal forms. The scoring form was needed so the director took the decision alone against NS. Ben From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 6 18:46:21 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Sep 11 18:50:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000001c5b6d5$47ffc180$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008101c5b302$8357c100$339468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > Once upon a time the claim laws stated > that when a claim was disputed by an > opponent "any matter which his [the > claimer's] statement has left unsettled, > shall be settled as this opponent > directs. > This was a simple, objective, straight > forward and easy to apply law with no > call for difficult or personal judgement, > nor any question of "irrational". > Was this law fair? In my opinion > absolutely. It was the same law for > everyone and players knew precisely what > to expect if they made a claim without > complete control of the remaining cards. > (If you claimed "I play all my clubs" > without specifying that you would play > them from top you could be forced to play > your smallest club first). > Was it a "better" law than what we have > today? That is a matter of opinion. > I can see advantages and disadvantages > for either, but I would not have any > objection against going back to such a > simple claim law; it would primarily > place more responsibility on a claimer > without lessening the enjoyment of > the game. It has been stated that the > laws should encourage claims in order to > save time and speed up the event. Is this > acceptable? Do we want a game where the > same or maybe even more time is spent > discussing contested claims rather > than by just playing the cards? I for > one certainly hope not! [nige1] The old law was obviously simpler and fairer but it discouraged claims. Surely a better compromise is possible: specify default assumptions such as: You play trumps last unless you specify when and how you will play them. You cash suits from the top down. Straightforward blockages will be overcome but you must specify if you intend to overtake equals. You must specify any play contingent on an opponent's play. If you fail to claim in a simple cash-out situation, you may be penalised for deliberate slow and inconsiderate play. Oh dear! Perhaps the latter *could* depend on the calibre of the would-be claimer. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 11 20:23:49 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Sep 11 20:26:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <008101c5b302$8357c100$339468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000601c5b6fd$f487f8a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie ........... > [nige1] > The old law was obviously simpler and fairer but > it discouraged claims. Surely a better compromise > is possible: specify default assumptions such as: > > You play trumps last unless you specify when and > how you will play them. You cash suits from the > top down. Straightforward blockages will be > overcome but you must specify if you intend to > overtake equals. You must specify any play > contingent on an opponent's play. > > If you fail to claim in a simple cash-out > situation, you may be penalised for deliberate > slow and inconsiderate play. If you have all the remaining tricks regardless of the sequence in which you play your cards then a claim never poses any problem and may in fact save you a few seconds over just playing out the board. I am not kidding: It will take you maximally 1 second per trick "playing" the remaining cards in rapid sequence; that is in fact my preferred way of claiming whenever I do. So just try to figure out how much time you would need for playing the cards in the "regular" way, awaiting opponents play to each trick, when the play is "almost" given but where a claim could cause some dispute from opponents before they would see and accept that it is correct. Now compare that to the time needed when opponents contest your not so obvious claim, summon the Director (compulsory!), and have the case handled properly under Law 70. I have a very strong feeling that unless the claim is obvious to everybody regardless of their class (beginner or top expert) you do not save any time by claiming. On the contrary I do seriously believe (also from my 25 years experience as a licensed Director) that not so obvious claims really waste time. There will be no more from me on this matter as we have already turned from facts into opinions. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 12 09:45:10 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 12 09:46:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43253206.20400@hdw.be> Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Eric wrote: > >>I keep looking at the word "irrational" and can't help knowing what it >>means. > > > I know what it means too. I also know that it is not the opposite of > "normal". "Abnormal" plays are not considered. Abnormal includes > rational plays of a technical complexity well beyond claimer's ability. > It includes "very careless" plays (such as playing both high cards with Ax > opposite Kx). It includes "unnatural" plays (such as cashing a heart, then > a diamond, then two more hearts, then a spade). > All OK. > As to why rationality varies with class of player let us go back to the > original example. Suppose you determine that declarer was of the class of > player who would be *fully aware* that East held the DA and would consider > it obvious to East that he knew. It would be irrational for such a player > to play anything other than the DK. No Tim, this is not true. We can determine, from his statement, that this player did _not_ know the ace of diamonds was to his right. (Otherwise he would have said "I give _you_ the DA). This is no place to be using the class of player, or rationality. This is something we _know_, from the claim statement. People on this list have often told me that I seem to disregard the claim statement. I do, in one sense. I disregard the claim statement in the sense that I do not believe it contains the "line" that claimer will take. I am for more inclusive in the number of lines he might take. I don't disregard the claim statement OTOH in the sense that it tells me what is in the mind of claimer. From this knowledge, we must try to deduce which lines are possible, and which are not. > OTOH a different class of player > might be unaware of the position of the DA and unaware of the danger of > West gaining the lead, and unaware that sneaky opps sometimes underlead > aces when there is a singleton in dummy. It would be *probable* for such > a player to put in the DJ. Good players and bad players have different > "reasons" for the plays they make "I played the Jack because I thought > West would have the ace." is a reason (albeit a fallacious one). > And again Tim, you have totally misunderstood the basics of this case. The only reason why claimer will play the king is because there is a singleton on the table. We need to judge whether or not it is possible, in this light, and for this (class of) claimer, it is still merely careless to play the jack. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 12 09:52:14 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 12 09:53:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <000001c5b6d5$47ffc180$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5b6d5$47ffc180$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <432533AE.50506@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > It has been stated that the laws should encourage claims in order to save > time and speed up the event. Is this acceptable? Do we want a game where the > same or maybe even more time is spent discussing contested claims rather > than by just playing the cards? > This is a fallacious argument. 99.999% of claims never reach blml. We can spend entire months on this thread and still the amount of time wasted will fall into nothing compared to the time gained by having the best claim laws that we can think of. If your proposed claim laws add just one sentence to every claim statement, then that time is already badly spent. If they in addition add 1% to the number of director calls because opponents who would have accepted a claim under the previous laws, now try to gain something on a technicality ("he did not mention he would not throw the king under the ace") then those new laws will cost far more than it's worth. Just my personal opinion, but I do feel the claim laws need to be those laws the players are happiest with, not the directors. Far more claims get settled without a director than with one, and this is even true if we only regard claims in which the opponents are not immediately certain ("let me see those cards again? how do you propose to get to the table? Ah, I see, you can overtake the C10 with the CJ, thank you!"). > I for one certainly hope not! > > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Sep 12 10:40:14 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon Sep 12 10:43:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic Message-ID: <20050912084014.F26B0A41AA@poczta.interia.pl> Hi folks, It might seem like some theoretical question from a TD exam but the following situation actually occured yesterday - I was sitting at the next table so I could follow the action in its entirety. So here you are: a player calls you to the table complaining about the use of UI by his opponents / being misinformed / the failure to pre - alert an atypical opening - fill in the blank. His partner, however, vehimently objects to your presence at the table and says "no problem here, director, we weren't damaged". "Yes, we were!". "No, we were not". "Yes, we were, director, the point is that the opponents...", "No, no, no, it is OK, nothing happened, director, you are not needed here". So it goes. What do you do? Do you act like the actual TD who ruled "you guys don't call me unless you sort it out between yourselves"? Or do you think that because of the fact that you were summoned it is your duty to listen to a player who called you and tell his partner to shut up (at least for the moment)? Is there any specific law that comes to your mind dealing with situations of that kind? __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prawie 40.000 samochodow na sprzedaz! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f18b2 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 12 11:09:28 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 12 11:10:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic In-Reply-To: <20050912084014.F26B0A41AA@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20050912084014.F26B0A41AA@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <432545C8.9000306@hdw.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi folks, > > It might seem like some theoretical question > from a TD exam but the following situation > actually occured yesterday - I was sitting > at the next table so I could follow the action > in its entirety. So here you are: a player > calls you to the table complaining about > the use of UI by his opponents / being misinformed / > the failure to pre - alert an atypical > opening - fill in the blank. His partner, however, > vehimently objects to your presence at the table > and says "no problem here, director, we weren't > damaged". "Yes, we were!". "No, we were not". > "Yes, we were, director, the point is that > the opponents...", "No, no, no, it is OK, nothing > happened, director, you are not needed here". > So it goes. What do you do? Do you act like the > actual TD who ruled "you guys don't call me unless > you sort it out between yourselves"? Or do you > think that because of the fact that you were > summoned it is your duty to listen to a player > who called you and tell his partner to shut > up (at least for the moment)? > > Is there any specific law that comes to your > mind dealing with situations of that kind? > At the very least I tell them: "I'm sticking around just in case - I have nothing better to do after all". I would like to know why one player insists on calling the director while the other opposes this. I would allow them to figure it out among themselves whether they want to tell me something at this moment, but I'll want to know what has happened as soon as play is over. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Mon Sep 12 11:29:30 2005 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Mon Sep 12 12:01:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - appeal 6 Message-ID: <004e01c5b77c$7d3b6780$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> Someone suggested new rules for claiming. including penalties for not claiming when all cards are high. I think this is a very bad idea. In that case the defenders get the information that declarer is in trouble when he is not claiming. You should be allowed to play your cards. As I see it, it is not against law 74 B 4, as you are not disconcerting your opponents. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 7 13:20:36 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Sep 12 13:24:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic References: <20050912084014.F26B0A41AA@poczta.interia.pl> <432545C8.9000306@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002a01c5b39e$2c2edac0$219468d5@jeushtlj> [Konrad Ciborowski] > ... a player calls you to the table > complaining about the use of UI by his > opponents / being misinformed / > the failure to pre - alert an atypical > opening - fill in the blank. His partner, > however, vehemently objects to your > presence at the table land says "no problem > here, director, we weren't damaged". > "Yes, we were!". "No, we were not". > "Yes, we were, director, the point is > that the opponents...", "No, no, no, it > is OK, nothing happened, director, you > are not needed here". > So it goes. What do you do? Do you act > like the actual TD who ruled "you guys > don't call me unless you sort it out > between yourselves"? Or do you think that > because of the fact that you were > summoned it is your duty to listen to a > player who called you and tell his > partner to shut up (at least for the > moment)? Is there any specific law that > comes to your mind dealing with > situations of that kind? [nige1] Herman says that the director should at least stick around. IMO the director should insist on hearing the director-caller and temporarily silence his partner. A relevant law is that as soon as anybody draws attention to an infraction, its a player's duty to call the director. It is wrong to allow another players, even the player's partner to try to escape the summons. Consider, for example, a related case, in which a player calls the director to report an infraction *by his own partner*. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Sep 12 16:44:19 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Sep 12 16:49:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic In-Reply-To: <20050912084014.F26B0A41AA@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Konrad Ciborowski writes: > > > Hi folks, > > It might seem like some theoretical question > from a TD exam but the following situation > actually occured yesterday - I was sitting > at the next table so I could follow the action > in its entirety. So here you are: a player > calls you to the table complaining about > the use of UI by his opponents / being misinformed / > the failure to pre - alert an atypical > opening - fill in the blank. His partner, however, > vehimently objects to your presence at the table > and says "no problem here, director, we weren't > damaged". "Yes, we were!". "No, we were not". > "Yes, we were, director, the point is that > the opponents...", "No, no, no, it is OK, nothing > happened, director, you are not needed here". > So it goes. What do you do? Do you act like the > actual TD who ruled "you guys don't call me unless > you sort it out between yourselves"? Or do you > think that because of the fact that you were > summoned it is your duty to listen to a player > who called you and tell his partner to shut > up (at least for the moment)? I can see the temptation to act as the director did, but I'd like to hear what the call was about and I'd ask CHO to let his partner explain. > > Is there any specific law that comes to your > mind dealing with situations of that kind? > Only in the negative. There's nothing that even hints that partner gets a veto in a director call. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Sep 12 17:26:57 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Sep 12 17:31:33 2005 Subject: [blml] The end In-Reply-To: <000901c5b5a9$54f574c0$219468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200509121526.j8CFQvIo004968@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Guthrie writes: > > [Herman De Wael] > > Does this post warrant a reply? > > [Ron Johnson] > >> Good God Herman. You are beneath contempt. > > [nige1] > Much more personal invective and there may be > other defections :) Nice to get a civil response. I'll try to refrain from any further attempts to put out fires with gasoline. > > We appreciate David Stevenson's erudition; but > victims of his scorn (like Herman, me and many > others) find his regular ultimata, a trifle > wearing. I understand that. Thing is that a number of the responses had the flavor of -- It's good he's gone. He was weak. Tribe is stronger without him. And we're not better off without David's contributions. It's not a victory to have driven him off. I accept that David may not be tempermentally suited to the list -- as unmoderated mailing lists go BLML is both fairly restrained and has a good signal to noise ratio -- and I see it as a pity, not a thing to celebrate. My apologies to the list for bring the signal to noise ratio down. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 12 17:44:35 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 12 17:47:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims (was Rotterdam appeal 6) In-Reply-To: <43253206.20400@hdw.be> References: <43253206.20400@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6CFBAD8E-A04C-450B-9488-F257D306C77B@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 12, 2005, at 3:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > People on this list have often told me that I seem to disregard the > claim statement. I do, in one sense. I disregard the claim > statement in the sense that I do not believe it contains the "line" > that claimer will take. I am for more inclusive in the number of > lines he might take. I don't disregard the claim statement OTOH in > the sense that it tells me what is in the mind of claimer. From > this knowledge, we must try to deduce which lines are possible, and > which are not. Hm. Thinking as I type, but... let's go back to basics. Laws 68A and 68B define claim and concession, respectively, as "any statement to the effect that a contestant will will (or lose, respectively) a specific number of tricks." So if a player claims with the statement "I have the rest" or "I'll give you the ace of clubs", we're immediately in claim territory. Now... Law 68C says "a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played." As the Preface to the Laws states, "when a player should do something, his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom". So if the player makes no further statement than the above, he hasn't made a statement of clarification. Law 68D now tells us that play ceases, and that either Law 69 applies (everybody's happy with it, score it and go on) or else the director must be called to apply Law 70 or 71, as appropriate. The laws don't seem to consider that a player might be uncomfortable with the claim for no reason he can cite, and just want the td to look at it, or that he might be under the misapprehension that he can ask claimer to play it out, or similar. I note also that the law does not say who is supposed to call the TD, so I assume the default is to the principle in Law 9 that any player may summon him. So the TD arrives at the table, Now what? Law 70A says the general idea is to preserve equity to both sides, but to give the benefit of the doubt to claimer's opponent. Law 70B requires the claimer to repeat his clarification. In this scenario, he didn't make one. Law 70D says "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." So the first question here seems to be "if a player made no statement of clarification at the time of his claim, can he make one now, and have it count as his original line"? The quote above from the preface says to me "no, he cannot". We must consider it a new line of play in the sense of law 70D. Now TD is told (Law 70B2) to direct that all hands be faced, and (law 70B3) to hear objections from the opponents. An experienced director may skip all this in favor of looking for normal {sic} lines that defeat the claim, but it seems to me that (a) if he does so, he does a disservice to players who may not (probably do not) understand how the claims laws work and (b) an *inexperienced* director (such as myself :) would do best to follow the procedure literally. So now all four hands are faced (I hear the cries now -- "UI! UI!" -- but I don't believe it) and we ask for objections. 1. "Partner gets a trump trick" - does he? that should be easy enough. 2. "If declarer misplays, I get my 8 of diamonds" - maybe, but is there a *normal* line where you'd get it? 3. "I hate claims, I can't figure them out." - sorry, claims are legal, get used to 'em. In all cases, it seems to me we apply Law 70A, with the additional guidance given by Laws 70C, D, and E. As far as clarifications go, if claimer's original clarification is in fact clear, well and good. If not, or if he didn't make one, all that does is increase the likelihood that the benefit of the doubt will accrue to the opponents. I have not got into what is normal and what isn't, but that is, it seems to me, a judgment call for the TD, and I don't really want to go any further than that. Now, if I have all the above right, we come to Herman's regarding or disregarding the claim statement. In this, he seems to be referring to claimer's initial statement, not to the " clarification of his line of play". If so, I agree with him that the statement is *not* a line of play, in general. A player may face his hand, saying "I play this, then this, then that..." That most definitely *is* a line of play, as I think Herman will agree. There is one case, now I think of it, where I would allow a line not stated, or not completely stated, at the time of the claim to be considered "original" and that is where an opponent has interrupted the claimer, not allowing him to make or finish his statement. Have I missed anything? If not, it seems to me that the disagreement in the Rotterdam case is over what is "normal", and that, as I said above, is a matter of TD judgment. We can each present our opinions, but if others remain unconvinced, so be it. Next case! :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 12 17:46:27 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 12 17:49:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <432533AE.50506@hdw.be> References: <000001c5b6d5$47ffc180$6400a8c0@WINXP> <432533AE.50506@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sep 12, 2005, at 3:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Just my personal opinion, but I do feel the claim laws need to be > those laws the players are happiest with, not the directors. Far > more claims get settled without a director than with one, and this > is even true if we only regard claims in which the opponents are > not immediately certain ("let me see those cards again? how do you > propose to get to the table? Ah, I see, you can overtake the C10 > with the CJ, thank you!"). I'll be damned. I agree with Herman again! :-) From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Sep 12 18:12:04 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Sep 12 18:16:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <002201c5b629$07110f00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200509121612.j8CGC4eG005243@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Marvin French writes: > > > From: "Ron Johnson" > > > > Jeff Rubens responded with the quote Marv mentioned > > in another thread. "Ethical behaviour requires > > *ignoring* (emphasis his) illegal information, not > > trying to compensate for it." > > > But Marv disagrees strongly with this, believing that the receivers of > UI must not take an action that looks like they might be taking > advantage of the UI, even if it was their intended action. Moreover, > they must not deliberately take an illogical action because of the UI, > such as passing with a strong hand to teach partner not to hesitate. > L16 should be revised to make this clear. I'd be interested in hearing specific suggestions. To me the problems with L16 come from players who are in effect arguing what the rules *should* be. I brought this hand up in part because I thought it might make a good hand for a case book. As I've said before, it can be difficult to lay out something in a rule book in a way that *can't* be misunderstood, but authoritative commentary (In the sense of "this is the intended ruling according to the framers of the laws") can go a long way to solving the problem. > Let's not say that players would lie about their intended action, but > that it is easy to deceive oneself into believing that a successful > action was the one intended. I agree. > Jeff's policy would result in many acrimonious accusations and a > multitude of problems for TDs and ACs. Or the return of Old Black Magic. Not that it's ever truly left the club game, but it's pretty much been dealt with in tournaments. > Forget it, Jeff (who won't read this, because he feels no need for > BLML). My sense is that Jeff's always been more interested in what the Laws should be rather than the mechanics of rulings. (And from comments he's made, he'd probably find frustating the incomplete information we so often have about the cases presented ) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 12 18:17:19 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 12 18:19:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic In-Reply-To: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: >> Is there any specific law that comes to your >> mind dealing with situations of that kind? >> >> > Only in the negative. There's nothing that even hints > that partner gets a veto in a director call. Law 81C6: The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: ... 6. Errors to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. No player veto. I will hear the player's reason for calling. His partner will (please!) be silent. The "wait and see" approach seems to me to be trying to avoid becoming "aware in any manner..." I don't think that's kosher. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 12 18:21:35 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 12 18:24:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <004e01c5b77c$7d3b6780$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> References: <004e01c5b77c$7d3b6780$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <459D23CE-3AC4-42BA-88B4-D5CD14EC07BB@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 12, 2005, at 5:29 AM, Hans-Olof Hall?n wrote: > Someone suggested new rules for claiming. including penalties for > not claiming when all cards are high. > I think this is a very bad idea. In that case the defenders > get the information that declarer is in trouble when he is not > claiming. You should be allowed to play your cards. > As I see it, it is not against law 74 B 4, as you are not > disconcerting your opponents. Well, you may be disconcerting them , but that's not your intent, so I agree, not a violation of 74B4. A good player (better than I am, in any case) once said to me "why didn't you claim at trick 9?" I replied "because I didn't see it until trick 12". :-) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Sep 12 19:23:13 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Sep 12 19:28:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Law 81C6: > > The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: > ... > 6. Errors > to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any > manner, within the correction period established in accordance with > Law 79C. > > No player veto. I will hear the player's reason for calling. His > partner will (please!) be silent. > > The "wait and see" approach seems to me to be trying to avoid > becoming "aware in any manner..." I don't think that's kosher. Don't know if this is pertinent, but it seems unfair that a TD is permitted to deal with a bidding or play irregularity when not called to the table. It means that contestants are not treated equally, as they should be. As usual it pays to take an argument to the extreme in order to arrive at a just conclusion. As the Laws now stand, a TD could monitor a table for the entire session, watching for irregularities that might not be caught if they occurred at another table. That's not right. Also, a disinterested (i.e., not a partisan of either side) kibitzer can call attention to an irregularity that they (sic) witnessed and the TD must attend to it. That's not right either. (To lawmakers who may read this: "Kibitzer" is the common term for "spectator.") If it's okay to ignore a revoke by one's side (but not hide it by a further revoke), why should a non-particpant be allowed to call attention to it? Years ago a table near me in a Regional championship was arguing loudly about a revoke. Spotting a TD not far away, I beckoned her over and said, "It's none of my business, but I think that table needs your help." She replied, "You're right, it's none of your business," and walked away. At the time I thought this was wrong of her, but further consideration led me to think she was right, if only L79C didn't say "in any manner." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 12 19:41:46 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Sep 12 19:44:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - appeal 6 References: <004e01c5b77c$7d3b6780$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans-Olof Hall?n" To: Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 4:29 AM Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - appeal 6 Someone suggested new rules for claiming. including penalties for not claiming when all cards are high. I think this is a very bad idea. In that case the defenders get the information that declarer is in trouble when he is not claiming. You should be allowed to play your cards. As I see it, it is not against law 74 B 4, as you are not disconcerting your opponents. ### I believe that bridge is a game about what the players do. Or, more succinctly, it is a game about how players solve a hand. This principle above all others defines what is important. In the matter of [contested] claims, the principle suggests that when the players dispute the outcome of a claim it is their place to provide the solution and the TD's place to judge the validity and it is the lawmaker's place to wisely prescribe the parameters that the parties act within. In resolving claims this would mean that opponents make objections not forbidden by the clarification that are legitimate. And claimer asserts what is irrational to not do given the clarification [and why], what the clarification forbids, and why something is irrational. The TD judges those things that are legitimate and then sees the effect on the number of tricks. What the TD doesn't do is work at coming up with objections or assertions for either side. Such a view provides for the players to do the work of generating the solution and the TD determining where the solution lands. The hand is solved by the skill of the players and not by the skill of non players and by so doing the outcome reflects their skill and what was earned at the time the hand was scheduled to be played. It collects all of the evidence that is relevant should the ruling [TD judgment about objections or counting up the resulting tricks] be disputed. It has been suggested that it is wrong to have rules that would encourage claimers to lengthen their clarifications beyond what they do now for the reason that most clarifications are accepted and the ones that aren't are too trifling to be a worry. Returning to the initial premise that the game is about what the players do one should arrive at a different view. If there were no claim then the 13 tricks would be played to completion and it can be determined with certainty and [without dispute] the number tricks taken. No lesser outcome should be expected or desired upon a claim. As such the clarification needs to be sufficient to accomplish that standard. imo claims should not be initiated until the hand has reduced to the point that it is obvious and rarely not before- thereby avoiding objections. regards roger pewick From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 7 20:12:41 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Sep 12 20:16:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001501c5b3d7$bd9dc0a0$5b9468d5@jeushtlj> [Marvin French] > As the Laws now stand, a TD could monitor > a table for the entire session, watching > for irregularities that might not be > caught if they occurred at another table. > That's not right. [nige1] This popular line argument shocks me because for example, protagonists seem to believe it's taboo to investigate suspected cheating or persistent abusive behaviour? [Marvin French] > Also, a disinterested (i.e., not a > partisan of either side) kibitzer > can call attention to an irregularity > that they (sic) witnessed and the TD > must attend to it. That's not right > either. [nige1] The notorious "Cheats, outs, and leaves" law (the exact meaning of which depends on how you interpret a comma) forbids kibitzers from outing cheats or abusers on pain of expulsion. [Marvin] > If it's okay to ignore a revoke by one's > side (but not hide it by a further > revoke), why should a non-participant be > allowed to call attention to it? {nige1] He's not meant to do this; but (thankfully) I see no practical way of preventing him from so-doing. [Marvin] > if only L79C didn't say "in any manner." [nigel] Miranda might not approve but I can't see much harm in righting wrongs, no matter how they're uncovered. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 12 21:25:28 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 12 21:28:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam - appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <004e01c5b77c$7d3b6780$69a2ec51@swipnet.se> Message-ID: <2884E040-E00A-4A07-A371-1EF9F37B97F5@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > What the TD doesn't do is work at coming up with objections or > assertions > for either side. With this much, at least, I agree. [snip] > It has been suggested that it is wrong to have rules that would > encourage > claimers to lengthen their clarifications beyond what they do now > for the > reason that most clarifications are accepted and the ones that > aren't are > too trifling to be a worry. > > Returning to the initial premise that the game is about what the > players do > one should arrive at a different view. If there were no claim then > the 13 > tricks would be played to completion and it can be determined with > certainty > and [without dispute] the number tricks taken. No lesser outcome > should be > expected or desired upon a claim. As such the clarification needs > to be > sufficient to accomplish that standard. imo claims should not be > initiated > until the hand has reduced to the point that it is obvious and > rarely not > before- thereby avoiding objections. What is obvious to one player may not be so to another - and may not be correct, either. So I would not go down the road of saying that if a player makes a flawed claim, he should be penalized for "wasting time" as some have suggested. Nor should a player who disputes a valid claim be so penalized, even if the claim is "obvious". The problem, I think, is not with the claim laws themselves, or the procedure therein, or even the semantics of "normal". It's that players do not make a clear statement of their line of play when they claim. Educate them to do that, and even fewer claims cases will reach TDs, ACs, and blml. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 12 22:06:04 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 12 22:09:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) In-Reply-To: <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Don't know if this is pertinent, but it seems unfair that a TD is > permitted to deal with a bidding or play irregularity when not called > to the table. Not pertinent to this particular case, but perhaps more generally pertinent to what the laws "should" mean. > It means that contestants are not treated equally, as > they should be. > As usual it pays to take an argument to the extreme in order to arrive > at a just conclusion. As the Laws now stand, a TD could monitor a > table for the entire session, watching for irregularities that might > not be caught if they occurred at another table. That's not right. It's also not going to happen if the TD is doing his job right. > Also, a disinterested (i.e., not a partisan of either side) kibitzer > can call attention to an irregularity that they (sic) witnessed and > the TD must attend to it. That's not right either. (To lawmakers who > may read this: "Kibitzer" is the common term for "spectator.") Law 76B: "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director." Law 81C6: "The director's duties and powers normally include the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." At first glance, these two laws conflict. But note the word "normally" in Law 81C6. Certainly being informed by a spectator of an irregularity is not normal, especially in light of Law 76B. So I would be inclined to read Law 76B to this spectator, and tell him to keep his mouth shut. If the spectator has informed me privately, that should end the matter. If, on the other hand, he has blabbed to the table, we have a bigger problem. Would a player have called attention to it had the kibitzer not? If we judge one (any one at the table) would, we should apply Law 81C6. If we judge no one would have called attention to it, then we should, I think, invoke the exception allowed us by "normally" and ignore it. This means, in the first case, that we are ruling on an irregularity we might not have been called upon by the players to rule on, and in the second that we would *not* be ruling when we might have been called. Is it fair? It seems to me that it's as fair as we can make it, short of prohibiting spectator access to the playing area. And like any judgment ruling, it should be made only after consultation, and subject to appeal. > > If it's okay to ignore a revoke by one's side (but not hide it by a > further revoke), why should a non-particpant be allowed to call > attention to it? As I note above, he's not allowed to do that. > Years ago a table near me in a Regional championship was arguing > loudly about a revoke. Spotting a TD not far away, I beckoned her over > and said, > > "It's none of my business, but I think that table needs your help." > > She replied, "You're right, it's none of your business," and walked > away. > > At the time I thought this was wrong of her, but further consideration > led me to think she was right, if only L79C didn't say "in any > manner." Surely you mean Law 81C6, which also says "normally". It might have been better to say to that TD "would you ask that table over there to tone it down, please?" and leave it at that. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 12 22:18:05 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 12 22:21:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic In-Reply-To: <001501c5b3d7$bd9dc0a0$5b9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <001501c5b3d7$bd9dc0a0$5b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Sep 7, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Miranda might not approve but I can't see much > harm in righting wrongs, no matter how they're > uncovered. You do not seem to have considered the possibility that spectator's intervention may have given an advantage to the "non-offending" side, who may not have noticed the irregularity. How do you right *that* wrong? ;-) Cheating is a special case, because it has no place in our game. If I received an anonymous phone call that said "so and so is/are cheating as we speak" I would investigate it. Quietly. I have no problem monitoring a single pair throughout a session (or several sessions) where an allegation of cheating has occurred - not, as Marvin suggested, to catch them in an irregularity that otherwise might have been missed, but *only* to find out if they're cheating. But I think that when a spectator muddies the waters regarding a "mere" irregularity, it's up to the TD to use his judgment as to how to best resolve the situation. I know you'd much prefer the laws to dot all i's and cross all t's, but I really don't think that's feasible. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Sep 12 23:57:16 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Sep 13 00:03:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003701c5b7e4$f1d93e60$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Don't know if this is pertinent, but it seems unfair that a TD is > > permitted to deal with a bidding or play irregularity when not called > > to the table. > > Not pertinent to this particular case, but perhaps more generally > pertinent to what the laws "should" mean. > > > It means that contestants are not treated equally, as > > they should be. > > > As usual it pays to take an argument to the extreme in order to arrive > > at a just conclusion. As the Laws now stand, a TD could monitor a > > table for the entire session, watching for irregularities that might > > not be caught if they occurred at another table. That's not right. > > It's also not going to happen if the TD is doing his job right. Which to me means not paying attention to the bidding or play, whether for one board or for 26. > > > Also, a disinterested (i.e., not a partisan of either side) kibitzer > > can call attention to an irregularity that they (sic) witnessed and > > the TD must attend to it. That's not right either. (To lawmakers who > > may read this: "Kibitzer" is the common term for "spectator.") > > Law 76B: "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or > mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request > of the Director." But it happens anyway. > Law 81C6: "The director's duties and powers normally include the > following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes > aware in any manner, within the correction period established in > accordance with Law 79C." > > At first glance, these two laws conflict. But note the word > "normally" in Law 81C6. Certainly being informed by a spectator of an > irregularity is not normal, especially in light of Law 76B. So I > would be inclined to read Law 76B to this spectator, and tell him to > keep his mouth shut. If the spectator has informed me privately, that > should end the matter. If, on the other hand, he has blabbed to the > table, we have a bigger problem. Would a player have called attention > to it had the kibitzer not? If we judge one (any one at the table) > would, we should apply Law 81C6. If we judge no one would have called > attention to it, then we should, I think, invoke the exception > allowed us by "normally" and ignore it. This means, in the first > case, that we are ruling on an irregularity we might not have been > called upon by the players to rule on, and in the second that we > would *not* be ruling when we might have been called. Is it fair? It > seems to me that it's as fair as we can make it, short of prohibiting > spectator access to the playing area. And like any judgment ruling, > it should be made only after consultation, and subject to appeal. > > > > > If it's okay to ignore a revoke by one's side (but not hide it by a > > further revoke), why should a non-particpant be allowed to call > > attention to it? > > As I note above, he's not allowed to do that. I'm including the TD in the term "non-participant." Even if s/he sees a revoke, the TD should be required to ignore it if attention is not called to it by someone at the table. If an "Arbiter" (equivalent to a TD) for a rubber bridge game were to step in to correct a revoke unnoticed by the players, there would be hell to pay. As so often, the parent game should be a guide when deciding on some aspect of duplicate bridge laws. But if the kibitzer does it, he is merely reprimanded or expelled and the TD must address the irregularity in normal fashion, per L81C6. L76B doesn't say otherwise, as does L11B, which I'm ignoring for the moment because it applies only to kibitzers whose presence is the responsibility of one side or the other, a different kettle of fish. > > Years ago a table near me in a Regional championship was arguing > > loudly about a revoke. Spotting a TD not far away, I beckoned her over > > and said, > > > > "It's none of my business, but I think that table needs your help." > > > > She replied, "You're right, it's none of your business," and walked > > away. > > > > At the time I thought this was wrong of her, but further consideration > > led me to think she was right, if only L79C didn't say "in any > > manner." > > Surely you mean Law 81C6, which also says "normally". Yes, where did L79C come from? Sorry about that. "Normally" is not in L81C6: "to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner within the correction period....." The "normally" in L81C's opening words is a long way removed from modifying "in any manner" in L81C6. That "normally," preceding the list, merely means that the following numbered responsibilities are usually among the Director's duties and powers, even though one or more of them might be delegated to someone else, per L81D. In this case, the TD was obligated to check out what was happening at the other table, since my suggestion that she "help" implied that some irregularity might have been committed there. > > It might have been better to say to that TD "would you ask that table > over there to tone it down, please?" and leave it at that. I thought I was being helpful. I don't see a prohibition against that, although there should be one in the situation described. As to errors, such as scoring errors or passing the wrong boards, anyone should have the right to point those out no matter how observed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California who unfortunately can't participate in this thread any further, due to conflicting duties and powers (mop the floor, cook dinner, water plants, take out the garbage, etc., etc.) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 13 01:14:48 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Sep 13 01:18:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com><001501c5b3d7$bd9dc0a0$5b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000f01c5b7ef$c641e080$019468d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > You do not seem to have considered the > possibility that spectator's > intervention may have given an advantage > to the "non-offending" side, who may not > have noticed the irregularity. How do you > right *that* wrong? ;-) [nige1] IMO, a policeman can't be everywhere at once but if he sees or is told of a crime, he should not ignore it just because it bestows an advantage on this victim, that is not accorded to all victims. Also you do the offender a favour by preventing him from developing bad habits. No director can expect to prevent all infractions; but Ed seems to be arguing that if you condone enough wrongs, you make a right. IMO, righting a wrong is almost always right. Most directors seen to agree with Ed. Few believe that they should actively seek out infractions - and players appreciate that the pressure of other activities may not leave them disposed to take on this extra work. [Ed] > Cheating is a special case, because it > has no place in our game. If I received > an anonymous phone call that said "so > and so is/are cheating as we speak" I > would investigate it. Quietly. I have > no problem monitoring a single pair > throughout a session (or several > sessions) [nige1] Cheating is a special case, but it doesn't always start that way. Both a cheat and an ordinary law-breaker commit an infraction; but a cheat does it deliberately and knowingly. Without a confession or telepathic abilities, it may be hard for the director to distinguish them. You start with suspicious infraction(s); and, perhaps, after observation, you may come to a subjective conclusion about cheating. Paradoxically, in the case of suspected cheating, I agree with Ed that the director need *not* immediately "right the wrong". Instead, he may want to set up a proper covert investigation. Incidentally, I hope that Ed is also wrong about the significance of the word "normally" in the law 81C about the directors duty to rectify irregularities. From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 13 02:01:57 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Sep 13 02:06:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5b6d5$47ffc180$6400a8c0@WINXP> <432533AE.50506@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes >On Sep 12, 2005, at 3:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Just my personal opinion, but I do feel the claim laws need to be >> those laws the players are happiest with, not the directors. Far >> more claims get settled without a director than with one, and this >> is even true if we only regard claims in which the opponents are >> not immediately certain ("let me see those cards again? how do you >> propose to get to the table? Ah, I see, you can overtake the C10 >> with the CJ, thank you!"). > >I'll be damned. I agree with Herman again! :-) also raises hand :) -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From schoderb at msn.com Tue Sep 13 03:43:16 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Sep 13 03:46:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: It's refreshing to find anyone interpreting in the Laws as they exist, without of what "I'd rather have." I think that BLML, with its frailties, would be better served if we looked at what applies, how to rule, and then reserve comments about what we think the law should perhaps differently to handle extant procedure. I can't for a moment believe that the organizations that have Mr. Herman de Wael in any official capacity would allow him to deviate from the Laws because he demanded his interpretations to be the correct ones. Although, I do have to admit that there are times, rare as they are, when he gets the Laws right. Sorry that it is so little. But then my knowledge of European Bridge Politics is limited. As a member of the drafting committee, I was interested in all opinion of the savants of BLML, hoping to glean some pearls from the ........ but I have found preciously little substance for changes to the laws. Ability to read what is written in vernacular English ---- Surely, --but understanding of what the game is all about, --zip. zero. nada. I'm sorry David's ego did not allow for his continuing in this metier, but at the same time I understand his frustration in the crap that so often spews about. I find arguments in BLML mostly posturing, ego satisfying, and nit-picking. The ubiquitous posters, for the most part, are not in the least interested in getting the game "right" but rather in impressing all of us with their erudition and ability to "lawyer" the language. And that goes for some rather highly placed laws officials who seem to have the idea that their position assures them with certain inalienable abilities to be the only ones who know what is right. It also applies the those whose participation must be indicative of their ability to have the time and inclination to show us how brilliant they are, as silly as their posts may be....... I've looked my previous words over with care to make sure that I am not talking about those who would like to know what to do and hopefully have not included them in my critical comments. For the rest, I remain singularly unimpressed........ (that's supposed to soften disagreement and enhance collegiality) ......... Kojak, without any personal agendas. Luv ya' all, (mostly used for family only) kojak From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 4:06 PM Subject: [blml] Spectators,rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Marvin French wrote: > > > Don't know if this is pertinent, but it seems unfair that a TD is > > permitted to deal with a bidding or play irregularity when not called > > to the table. > > Not pertinent to this particular case, but perhaps more generally > pertinent to what the laws "should" mean. > > > It means that contestants are not treated equally, as > > they should be. > > > As usual it pays to take an argument to the extreme in order to arrive > > at a just conclusion. As the Laws now stand, a TD could monitor a > > table for the entire session, watching for irregularities that might > > not be caught if they occurred at another table. That's not right. > > It's also not going to happen if the TD is doing his job right. > > > Also, a disinterested (i.e., not a partisan of either side) kibitzer > > can call attention to an irregularity that they (sic) witnessed and > > the TD must attend to it. That's not right either. (To lawmakers who > > may read this: "Kibitzer" is the common term for "spectator.") > > Law 76B: "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or > mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request > of the Director." > Law 81C6: "The director's duties and powers normally include the > following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes > aware in any manner, within the correction period established in > accordance with Law 79C." > > At first glance, these two laws conflict. But note the word > "normally" in Law 81C6. Certainly being informed by a spectator of an > irregularity is not normal, especially in light of Law 76B. So I > would be inclined to read Law 76B to this spectator, and tell him to > keep his mouth shut. If the spectator has informed me privately, that > should end the matter. If, on the other hand, he has blabbed to the > table, we have a bigger problem. Would a player have called attention > to it had the kibitzer not? If we judge one (any one at the table) > would, we should apply Law 81C6. If we judge no one would have called > attention to it, then we should, I think, invoke the exception > allowed us by "normally" and ignore it. This means, in the first > case, that we are ruling on an irregularity we might not have been > called upon by the players to rule on, and in the second that we > would *not* be ruling when we might have been called. Is it fair? It > seems to me that it's as fair as we can make it, short of prohibiting > spectator access to the playing area. And like any judgment ruling, > it should be made only after consultation, and subject to appeal. > > > > > If it's okay to ignore a revoke by one's side (but not hide it by a > > further revoke), why should a non-particpant be allowed to call > > attention to it? > > As I note above, he's not allowed to do that. > > > Years ago a table near me in a Regional championship was arguing > > loudly about a revoke. Spotting a TD not far away, I beckoned her over > > and said, > > > > "It's none of my business, but I think that table needs your help." > > > > She replied, "You're right, it's none of your business," and walked > > away. > > > > At the time I thought this was wrong of her, but further consideration > > led me to think she was right, if only L79C didn't say "in any > > manner." > > Surely you mean Law 81C6, which also says "normally". > > It might have been better to say to that TD "would you ask that table > over there to tone it down, please?" and leave it at that. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Tue Sep 13 03:58:40 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Sep 13 04:01:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000001c5b6d5$47ffc180$6400a8c0@WINXP> <432533AE.50506@hdw.be> Message-ID: What bothers me, at the moment, is that the claims law is written so that further does not now allow investigation into the claim, and thought in no way difference makes any difference neds to be fixed, I think. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > In article , Ed > Reppert writes > >On Sep 12, 2005, at 3:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> Just my personal opinion, but I do feel the claim laws need to be > >> those laws the players are happiest with, not the directors. Far > >> more claims get settled without a director than with one, and this > >> is even true if we only regard claims in which the opponents are > >> not immediately certain ("let me see those cards again? how do you > >> propose to get to the table? Ah, I see, you can overtake the C10 > >> with the CJ, thank you!"). > > > >I'll be damned. I agree with Herman again! :-) > > also raises hand :) > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From petern at au.fujitsu.com Tue Sep 13 03:13:13 2005 From: petern at au.fujitsu.com (peter newman) Date: Tue Sep 13 07:15:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> Hi All, Just an idea I had after reading all this stuff on claims. As a declarer I would really like an option between claims and waiting for the defence. I would like to be able to face my cards, not as penalty cards, but so that the defence can now defend 'open book'. In the Rotterdam 6 case it is likely declarer would have availed himself of the option. Then the defender on lead can see his partner doesn't have the DK and in a reasonable quality game will probably cash out. If he does try the underlead at least declarer can get it right (or wrong) at the table rather than taking the lottery of what is not irrational for the class of player. I am not quite sure how it would work for defenders as there is the problem (as always) of partner. Cheers, Peter From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 12 11:03:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Sep 13 07:15:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <002201c5b629$07110f00$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > From: "Ron Johnson" > > > > Jeff Rubens responded with the quote Marv mentioned > > in another thread. "Ethical behaviour requires > > *ignoring* (emphasis his) illegal information, not > > trying to compensate for it." > > > But Marv disagrees strongly with this, believing that the receivers of > UI must not take an action that looks like they might be taking > advantage of the UI, even if it was their intended action. And Marv is wrong. If a player allows UI to affect his otherwise intended action and thereby happens to gain an advantage he is in breach of L73c. The player should, instead, make his intended bid and accept any subsequent adjustment from a ruling (which, obviously, the player should request). Adjusting ones bidding in order to avoid an adverse ruling is not a legitimate course of action. If one bids as originally intended, calls the TD to give a ruling, and the TD rules in ones favour then there should be no question of compliance with L73. Players are not expected to self-apply L16 at the table, it is a law for TD/ACs not players. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 12 12:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Sep 13 07:15:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <43253206.20400@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Hello Tim, > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Eric wrote: > > > >>I keep looking at the word "irrational" and can't help knowing what > it >>means. > > > > I know what it means too. I also know that it is not the opposite of > > "normal". "Abnormal" plays are not considered. Abnormal includes > > rational plays of a technical complexity well beyond claimer's > > ability. It includes "very careless" plays (such as playing both > > high cards with Ax opposite Kx). It includes "unnatural" plays (such > > as cashing a heart, then a diamond, then two more hearts, then a > > spade). > > > > All OK. > > > As to why rationality varies with class of player let us go back to > > the original example. Suppose you determine that declarer was of the > > class of player who would be *fully aware* that East held the DA and > > would consider it obvious to East that he knew. It would be > > irrational for such a player to play anything other than the DK. > > No Tim, this is not true. You're an idiot De Wael. It is all "true", as to whether the actual declarer was in *this* class I made, and make, no comment. > We can determine, from his statement, that > this player did _not_ know the ace of diamonds was to his right. > (Otherwise he would have said "I give _you_ the DA). You can perhaps (you were there). I can't. I don't know exactly what was said, or how, or to whom (the TD might *written* "Declarer claimed conceding a Diamond to EW" which is factually correct but loses a nuance of what may have happened at the table). I don't know whether it was said in English or another language, I don't how good the speaker was at the language being used (and whether his native language is one where there is a formal/informal form of "you"). > > OTOH a different class of player > > might be unaware of the position of the DA and unaware of the danger > > of West gaining the lead, and unaware that sneaky opps sometimes > > underlead aces when there is a singleton in dummy. It would be > > *probable* for such a player to put in the DJ. Good players and bad > > players have different "reasons" for the plays they make "I played > > the Jack because I thought West would have the ace." is a reason > > (albeit a fallacious one). > > > > And again Tim, you have totally misunderstood the basics of this case. Again you are an idiot. The existence of a class of player who would play the Jack based on such a rationale is not in doubt (and I can send you a list of names should you wish). As to whether the actual declarer was in *this* class I again make no comment. > The only reason why claimer will play the king is because there is a > singleton on the table. We need to judge whether or not it is > possible, in this light, and for this (class of) claimer, it is still > merely careless to play the jack. I agree, and the examples I gave above were ones where I felt (on very similar facts) that judgement would have obviously different outcomes because "rationality" depends on the class of player. That the AC decided the *actual* player was of the class who would never play the J despite being ignorant of the position of the DA is fine by me. They had the benefit of being there, talking to the players, etc. Those of us reading about the case on BLML are not exactly well-placed to make a better judgement. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 13 09:24:15 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 13 09:25:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims (was Rotterdam appeal 6) In-Reply-To: <6CFBAD8E-A04C-450B-9488-F257D306C77B@rochester.rr.com> References: <43253206.20400@hdw.be> <6CFBAD8E-A04C-450B-9488-F257D306C77B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <43267E9F.1080209@hdw.be> Hello Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Sep 12, 2005, at 3:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> People on this list have often told me that I seem to disregard the >> claim statement. I do, in one sense. I disregard the claim statement >> in the sense that I do not believe it contains the "line" that >> claimer will take. I am for more inclusive in the number of lines he >> might take. I don't disregard the claim statement OTOH in the sense >> that it tells me what is in the mind of claimer. From this knowledge, >> we must try to deduce which lines are possible, and which are not. > > > Hm. Thinking as I type, but... let's go back to basics. I appreciate it, and I'll join you in thinking as _I_ type. > > Laws 68A and 68B define claim and concession, respectively, as "any > statement to the effect that a contestant will will (or lose, > respectively) a specific number of tricks." So if a player claims with > the statement "I have the rest" or "I'll give you the ace of clubs", > we're immediately in claim territory. Now... > It's clear that the laws must protect innocent players from opponents who say "play's over". It's also clear that if we want to rule that this is a claim, we should protect innocent players from their utterances. if something is ruled to be a claim, when the player did not want to claim, we should not be extra harsh on the fact that he did not give us a claim statement. > Law 68C says "a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of > clarification as to the order in which cards will be played." As the > Preface to the Laws states, "when a player should do something, his > failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his > rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom". So if > the player makes no further statement than the above, he hasn't made a > statement of clarification. > There can be two reasons for this: either he had not intended to claim, or he thinks everything is clear enough. Many claims are made without a claim statement, and while I shall rule doubtful points against claimer, I shall never use the fact that he did not say something as proof that he did not know it. It's an indication, yes, but from the timing of the claim it is sometimes clear that player knew exactly what was going on. Example: a player with 8 trumps including AKQJ plays one round and claims when he sees they are not 5-0. Even without saying anything, we can assume that he knows there are still 3 trumps out. OK? > Law 68D now tells us that play ceases, and that either Law 69 applies > (everybody's happy with it, score it and go on) or else the director > must be called to apply Law 70 or 71, as appropriate. > > The laws don't seem to consider that a player might be uncomfortable > with the claim for no reason he can cite, and just want the td to look > at it, or that he might be under the misapprehension that he can ask > claimer to play it out, or similar. I note also that the law does not > say who is supposed to call the TD, so I assume the default is to the > principle in Law 9 that any player may summon him. > An important element of Rotterdam3. Did the players acquiesce or not? > So the TD arrives at the table, Now what? > > Law 70A says the general idea is to preserve equity to both sides, but > to give the benefit of the doubt to claimer's opponent. > Indeed (and except for the fact of a newly discovered revoke - but we knew that one). > Law 70B requires the claimer to repeat his clarification. In this > scenario, he didn't make one. Law 70D says "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." So the first question here > seems to be "if a player made no statement of clarification at the time > of his claim, can he make one now, and have it count as his original > line"? The quote above from the preface says to me "no, he cannot". We > must consider it a new line of play in the sense of law 70D. > Indeed, he cannot. But nothing prevents the Director from believing the player nevertheless. Like the claimer who played only one round of trumps. > Now TD is told (Law 70B2) to direct that all hands be faced, and (law > 70B3) to hear objections from the opponents. > > An experienced director may skip all this in favor of looking for > normal {sic} lines that defeat the claim, but it seems to me that (a) > if he does so, he does a disservice to players who may not (probably do > not) understand how the claims laws work and (b) an *inexperienced* > director (such as myself :) would do best to follow the procedure > literally. > OK. Sometimes however, the table is in time pressure (as in Rotterdam6) and the director does the checks himself. Nothing will prevent him from acting that wey if he so chooses. > So now all four hands are faced (I hear the cries now -- "UI! UI!" -- > but I don't believe it) and we ask for objections. > No cries for UI, no. > 1. "Partner gets a trump trick" - does he? that should be easy enough. > 2. "If declarer misplays, I get my 8 of diamonds" - maybe, but is there > a *normal* line where you'd get it? The difficult decision - is the misplay careless or irrational? > 3. "I hate claims, I can't figure them out." - sorry, claims are legal, > get used to 'em. > > In all cases, it seems to me we apply Law 70A, with the additional > guidance given by Laws 70C, D, and E. > The proble with this easy approach is that we're all quite aware of that, it's the how that matters! > As far as clarifications go, if claimer's original clarification is in > fact clear, well and good. If not, or if he didn't make one, all that > does is increase the likelihood that the benefit of the doubt will > accrue to the opponents. > > I have not got into what is normal and what isn't, but that is, it > seems to me, a judgment call for the TD, and I don't really want to go > any further than that. > Wjhy not? That's what this thread was all about! > Now, if I have all the above right, we come to Herman's regarding or > disregarding the claim statement. In this, he seems to be referring to > claimer's initial statement, not to the " clarification of his line of > play". If so, I agree with him that the statement is *not* a line of > play, in general. A player may face his hand, saying "I play this, then > this, then that..." That most definitely *is* a line of play, as I > think Herman will agree. > He agrees, but he also disagrees at once. Most statements are not along the line of "I shall play this then that". They are along the lines of "this and that are tricks". As we know the sequence in which this and that are played are not fixed by such a statement. > There is one case, now I think of it, where I would allow a line not > stated, or not completely stated, at the time of the claim to be > considered "original" and that is where an opponent has interrupted the > claimer, not allowing him to make or finish his statement. > Because you'd consider the second sentence to be part of the original claim statement. That's not a special case, that's simply common sense. > Have I missed anything? If not, it seems to me that the disagreement in > the Rotterdam case is over what is "normal", and that, as I said above, > is a matter of TD judgment. We can each present our opinions, but if > others remain unconvinced, so be it. Next case! :-) > But that's just what we've been doing for the past 3 weeks. Don't tell me that was not interesting! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From schoderb at msn.com Tue Sep 13 13:52:34 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Sep 13 13:55:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam appeal 6 References: <000001c5b6d5$47ffc180$6400a8c0@WINXP> <432533AE.50506@hdw.be> Message-ID: Yeah, I read it and couldn't make sense of it either! Sorry. What I was typing, editing, and then not rereading is what went out. The "Send Message" is right next to the "cancel" button, and I hit the wrong one. I'll be more careful. My concern is that the claims law doesn't allow for a TD to take into consideration what often happens at the table. Example: "Play it out!" Some further actions, and then a call for the TD. While the TD is enroute we have further explanations, questions, answers, plays, etc., The law presently reads that the TD must cancel the plays, return to only the original claim which often is just showing the cards without words, and go from there to step 2 of 70B. I'd like something more in 70B1 to authorize investigation, clarification, statement when there was none, etc., at the TD's discretion before all the cards are on the table, and which is what most of us do anyhow. And, I think that we probably need a somewhat slightly different law, procedure, etc., for claims by the defenders. As the law presently reads we need to educate players in how to claim. Were they to follow Law 68 most problems would never arise. Again, sorry for the gemixte message. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:55 PM Subject: Re: Rotterdam appeal 6 > At 9:58 PM -0400 9/12/05, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > What bothers me, at the moment, is that the claims law is written so > > that > >further does not now allow investigation into the claim, and thought in > >no > >way difference makes any difference neds to be fixed, I think. > > ? > > -- > Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 13 13:58:47 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 13 14:01:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:13 PM 9/12/05, peter wrote: >Just an idea I had after reading all this stuff on claims. >As a declarer I would really like an option between claims and waiting for >the defence. > >I would like to be able to face my cards, not as penalty cards, but so >that >the defence can now defend 'open book'. > >In the Rotterdam 6 case it is likely declarer would have availed >himself of >the option. Then the defender on lead can see his partner doesn't have the >DK and in a reasonable quality game will probably cash out. If he does try >the underlead at least declarer can get it right (or wrong) at the table >rather than taking the lottery of what is not irrational for the class of >player. Although this is not sanctioned by law, it is done from time to time where I play, when declarer is waiting for a defender who is taking a long time to decide on a lead that figures not to matter. Some declarers will simply turn their cards so the defender can "peek" at them; others will face their hands on the table with the statement, "I'm not claiming." I've yet to see a Secretary-Birdish opponent object to this procedure. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 13 14:51:56 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 13 14:52:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:13 PM 9/12/05, peter wrote: > >> Just an idea I had after reading all this stuff on claims. >> As a declarer I would really like an option between claims and waiting >> for >> the defence. >> >> I would like to be able to face my cards, not as penalty cards, but so >> that >> the defence can now defend 'open book'. >> >> In the Rotterdam 6 case it is likely declarer would have availed >> himself of >> the option. Then the defender on lead can see his partner doesn't have >> the >> DK and in a reasonable quality game will probably cash out. If he does >> try >> the underlead at least declarer can get it right (or wrong) at the table >> rather than taking the lottery of what is not irrational for the class of >> player. > > > Although this is not sanctioned by law, it is done from time to time > where I play, when declarer is waiting for a defender who is taking a > long time to decide on a lead that figures not to matter. Some > declarers will simply turn their cards so the defender can "peek" at > them; others will face their hands on the table with the statement, "I'm > not claiming." I've yet to see a Secretary-Birdish opponent object to > this procedure. > Yet, as a rule, this is a claim. So the opponent who looks into this hand will now simply say "director", and ask the TD to rule on the small diamond return. Look at it this way. Declarer shows his hand to defender. Defender says, OK, I'll take my ace. And the other defender says - what if you play a low diamond? Director! It's exactly the same situation. We'll still give opponents the benefit of the doubt as to the small diamond return, and we'll still have to rule on whether the jack is "normal". I don't like this "I'm not claiming" one bit. The player does something that suggests curtailing play, and that, by definition of L69A, is a claim. I much prefer ruling doubtful cases against this player, with a sufficiently liberal view on what points are in doubt. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Tue Sep 13 16:32:15 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue Sep 13 16:38:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: Message-ID: <009b01c5b870$68ba1280$28493dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 > > You can perhaps (you were there). I can't. I don't know exactly what was > said, or how, or to whom (the TD might *written* "Declarer claimed > conceding a Diamond to EW" which is factually correct but loses a nuance > of what may have happened at the table). I don't know whether it was said > in English or another language, I don't how good the speaker was at the > language being used (and whether his native language is one where there is > a formal/informal form of "you"). > Here is the answer that was posted earlier at 11/9 > I contacted the table-director and he told me the following: > When I arrived at the table, east immediatly came with the argument that > south could do it wrong in case he would play a small diamond. > The director does not know how long the pause for thought was, but south > said: ""He was thinking". > The director told me that the table was already 1 minute late and it was > round 27 and the last board so next round had to start. > The director was busy with another ruling and came just along to hurry up > the players. > In the next round there was no time to contact the CTD who was also busy > with rulings and appeal forms. > The scoring form was needed so the director took the decision alone against > NS. > >From the above you can take it that south did not have the intention to claim. But as east was thinking and the table was late, south claimed and has not mentioned anything about a lead of a small diamond. Otherwise east could not have contested; east made that point. The language was no problem. Ben From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 13 21:35:26 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 13 21:38:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> At 08:51 AM 9/13/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 09:13 PM 9/12/05, peter wrote: >> >>>Just an idea I had after reading all this stuff on claims. >>>As a declarer I would really like an option between claims and >>>waiting for >>>the defence. >>> >>>I would like to be able to face my cards, not as penalty cards, but >>>so that >>>the defence can now defend 'open book'. >>> >>>In the Rotterdam 6 case it is likely declarer would have availed >>>himself of >>>the option. Then the defender on lead can see his partner doesn't >>>have the >>>DK and in a reasonable quality game will probably cash out. If he >>>does try >>>the underlead at least declarer can get it right (or wrong) at the table >>>rather than taking the lottery of what is not irrational for the >>>class of >>>player. >> >>Although this is not sanctioned by law, it is done from time to time >>where I play, when declarer is waiting for a defender who is taking a >>long time to decide on a lead that figures not to matter. Some >>declarers will simply turn their cards so the defender can "peek" at >>them; others will face their hands on the table with the statement, >>"I'm not claiming." I've yet to see a Secretary-Birdish opponent >>object to this procedure. My comment was merely intended to support the notion that Peter's suggested procedure is workable, indeed, works, at least at my local venues. I take no position on whether it should be incorporated into the Law. >Yet, as a rule, this is a claim. Quite so. >So the opponent who looks into this hand will now simply say >"director", and ask the TD to rule on the small diamond return. That's what "a Secretary-Birdish opponent [who] object[s] to this procedure" would do. In practice, it doesn't happen. Opponents either concede or continue to play the hand. Declarer, who has chosen to leave the lawbook behind, makes no objection if the defender who is not on lead tells his partner what to lead. >Look at it this way. > >Declarer shows his hand to defender. Defender says, OK, I'll take my >ace. And the other defender says - what if you play a low diamond? >Director! > >It's exactly the same situation. We'll still give opponents the >benefit of the doubt as to the small diamond return, and we'll still >have to rule on whether the jack is "normal". If a defender were to object, the TD would then rule as Herman would, i.e. as prescribed by law. Of course, that defender might not be quite as warmly welcomed if he returned to the club the following week. >I don't like this "I'm not claiming" one bit. The player does >something that suggests curtailing play, and that, by definition of >L69A, is a claim. > >I much prefer ruling doubtful cases against this player, with a >sufficiently liberal view on what points are in doubt. I leave it to Peter and Herman to debate whether legalizing such a procedure would be a good idea. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 13 23:19:13 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Sep 13 23:23:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 08:51 AM 9/13/05, Herman wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>At 09:13 PM 9/12/05, peter wrote: >>> >>>>Just an idea I had after reading all this stuff on claims. >>>>As a declarer I would really like an option between claims and >>>>waiting for >>>>the defence. >>>> >>>>I would like to be able to face my cards, not as penalty cards, but >>>>so that >>>>the defence can now defend 'open book'. >>>> big snip >> >>I much prefer ruling doubtful cases against this player, with a >>sufficiently liberal view on what points are in doubt. > >I leave it to Peter and Herman to debate whether legalizing such a >procedure would be a good idea. There is nothing in the laws that I can detect which suggests that showing your hand to one defender constitutes a claim under Law. Indeed as declarer I can probably paste all 13 cards face out to my forehead and still not have claimed, although probably I'll need to wait till after the opening lead to make sure I'm not in the auction period. The claim, or concession, will probably follow shortly. If I am foolish enough to permit one of my opponents to play double dummy where's the problem in that? John > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 14 01:45:17 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 14 01:48:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) In-Reply-To: <003701c5b7e4$f1d93e60$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <003701c5b7e4$f1d93e60$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <516C9E58-D5C4-4493-BBA7-B26D379F6CE3@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 12, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Marvin French wrote: > I'm including the TD in the term "non-participant." Even if s/he sees > a revoke, the TD should be required to ignore it if attention is not > called to it by someone at the table. If an "Arbiter" (equivalent to a > TD) for a rubber bridge game were to step in to correct a revoke > unnoticed by the players, there would be hell to pay. As so often, the > parent game should be a guide when deciding on some aspect of > duplicate bridge laws. Here you're talking about what the laws *should* say. I'm more interested in what they *do* say. Is there a case for allowing the TD leeway in applying Law 81C6? I think so. > But if the kibitzer does it, he is merely reprimanded or expelled and > the TD must address the irregularity in normal fashion, per L81C6. That's the question, isn't it. I disagree. > L76B doesn't say otherwise, as does L11B, which I'm ignoring for the > moment because it applies only to kibitzers whose presence is the > responsibility of one side or the other, a different kettle of fish. Law 76B doesn't address the question at all. Law 11B should be ignored for the moment, as you say. > "Normally" is not in L81C6: "to rectify an error or irregularity of > which he becomes aware in any manner within the correction > period....." The "normally" in L81C's opening words is a long way > removed from modifying "in any manner" in L81C6. That "normally," > preceding the list, merely means that the following numbered > responsibilities are usually among the Director's duties and powers, > even though one or more of them might be delegated to someone else, > per L81D. You can delegate authority. You CANNOT (emphasis, not shouting) delegate responsibility. Whether the CTD or DIC delegates authority to make rulings to others is irrelevant to this discussion. The format of Law 81C is such that the preamble, if I may call it that, is included in each and every statement in the numbered list. The full text of 81C6 then, says that it is normally a duty of the director to rectify an error of which he becomes aware, however he may become aware of it. As I read it, this means that there are some (unspecified) circumstances in which he does *not* have that duty. I assert that the case where a spectator who is not the responsibility of a contestant at the table draws attention to an irregularity, is such a circumstance. > In this case, the TD was obligated to check out what was > happening at the other table, since my suggestion that she "help" > implied that some irregularity might have been committed there. Argument by repeated assertion. Sorry, no go. To paraphrase a widely misunderstood Supreme Court decision "the Court cannot take judicial notice of this assertion." > I thought I was being helpful. I don't see a prohibition against that, > although there should be one in the situation described. I didn't say anything about a prohibition, I was simply suggesting a way you might have got the TD to that table. :-) > > As to errors, such as scoring errors or passing the wrong boards, > anyone should have the right to point those out no matter how > observed. Including spectators? If players are not expected to know the laws, how then should spectators know the difference between things to which they can and cannot call attention? > who unfortunately can't participate in this thread any further, due to > conflicting duties and powers (mop the floor, cook dinner, water > plants, take out the garbage, etc., etc.) Heh. Good to see one of us has his priorities straight. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 14 01:52:34 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 14 01:55:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Something surrealistic In-Reply-To: <000f01c5b7ef$c641e080$019468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <001501c5b3d7$bd9dc0a0$5b9468d5@jeushtlj> <000f01c5b7ef$c641e080$019468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <1974F6E3-1001-47BF-BC58-1239E9CD1278@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 12, 2005, at 7:14 PM, Guthrie wrote: > IMO, a policeman can't be everywhere at once but > if he sees or is told of a crime, he should not > ignore it just because it bestows an advantage on > this victim, that is not accorded to all victims. A TD is not a policeman, and a contestant in a bridge game is not a victim. Apples and oranges. > Also you do the offender a favour by preventing > him from developing bad habits. Perhaps. > No director can expect to prevent all infractions; > but Ed seems to be arguing that if you condone > enough wrongs, you make a right. Pfui. I said no such thing. > IMO, righting a wrong is almost always right. Almost always? That's not so different to what I said. There are cases where the TD is free to use his judgment. This is one of them. > Cheating is a special case, but it doesn't always > start that way. Both a cheat and an ordinary > law-breaker commit an infraction; but a cheat does > it deliberately and knowingly. Without a > confession or telepathic abilities, it may be hard > for the director to distinguish them. You start > with suspicious infraction(s); and, perhaps, after > observation, you may come to a subjective > conclusion about cheating. True, but irrelevant to this thread. > Incidentally, I hope that Ed is also wrong about > the significance of the word "normally" in the law > 81C about the directors duty to rectify > irregularities. I haven't seen a convincing argument that I'm wrong. If someone has one, please present it. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 14 01:58:30 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 14 02:01:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) In-Reply-To: References: <200509121444.j8CEiKTi004753@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <002901c5b7be$a9427020$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sep 12, 2005, at 9:43 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > It's refreshing to find anyone interpreting in the Laws as they exist, > without of what "I'd rather have." "I am only an egg," as the Martian said. :-) Time enough to think about what the laws *should* say after I'm sure I understand what they *do* say. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 14 02:09:42 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Sep 14 02:16:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims Message-ID: <001801c5b8c0$fb5f8520$099468d5@jeushtlj> [Peter Newman] > Just an idea I had after reading all this > stuff on claims. As a declarer I would > really like an option between claims and > waiting for the defence. I would like to > be able to face my cards, not as penalty > cards, but so that the defence can now > defend 'open book'. In the Rotterdam 6 > case it is likely declarer would have > availed himself of the option. Then the > defender on lead can see his partner > doesn't have the DK and in a reasonable > quality game will probably cash out. If > he does try the underlead at least > declarer can get it right (or wrong) at > the table rather than taking the lottery > of what is not irrational for the class > of player. I am not quite sure how it > would work for defenders as there is the > problem (as always) of partner. [nigel] A brilliant proposal, Peter! It would speed up the play but keep Bridge as a card-game rather than a word-game! Your suggestion is similar to on-line claims-protocol. As soon as you claim, opponents can see your hand. If they dispute your claim then they can defend double-dummy, while you continue playing single-dummy; but you are not committed to any particular line. One reason for the popularity of on-line sites is such simple Bridge rules. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 14 02:19:31 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 14 02:22:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> Message-ID: <306C465F-FEBC-42A7-9867-EE0B659885FB@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 13, 2005, at 8:51 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Some declarers will simply turn their cards so the defender can >> "peek" at them; others will face their hands on the table with the >> statement, "I'm not claiming." I've yet to see a Secretary- >> Birdish opponent object to this procedure. >> > > Yet, as a rule, this is a claim. Nope. "A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." A player who says "I'm not claiming" did in fact demonstrably not intend to claim. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 14 02:21:44 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 14 02:24:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6AF6929E-8EF0-4FAF-AC85-EFFC1C65A951@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 13, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >> Yet, as a rule, this is a claim. >> > > Quite so. Huh? "I'm not claiming," he said. Seems to me he demonstrably did not intend to claim. How not? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 14 02:29:27 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Sep 14 02:33:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 References: Message-ID: <003201c5b8c3$5e3cbee0$099468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > You're an idiot De Wael. > Again you are an idiot. [nigel] Robust badinage or just pointless rudeness? From Frances.Hinden at Shell.com Tue Sep 13 15:28:00 2005 From: Frances.Hinden at Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-SXP) Date: Wed Sep 14 08:09:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness Message-ID: <2E75A1B8A2078F48A13245536664E3D20142B4D9@rijpat-s-351.europe.shell.com> Richard Hills wrote: 1. Under the official WBF LC interpretation of the current claim Laws, something which is careless for an ordinary expert might be irrational for an international champion. 2. The claimer was an international champion 3. With the exception of Adam Wildavsky (who has not commented on this case) zero posters on blml are international champions. 4. Therefore, the poll of blmlers has sample bias; it is not a poll of peers of the claimer; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd vowed to stop contributing to blml because it just irritated me. But this irritated me so much I have to respond. This is the European University Championships, not the Bermuda Bowl. Even I have a silver medal from that event, and I can promise you I'm not anything close to an "international champion" now and was even less so when I played in it. I would rule two tricks to EW. When South claims, he believes that the only trick EW can possibly take is the ace of diamonds. If East were to play a low diamond he would thus be 100% sure that East didn't have the ace, because there is a singleton in dummy and no hope of another trick. Therefore he would consider it irrelevant which card he played from hand, and might easily play a low one (not even the Jack, but a low one). However, you seem to want a poll of international champions, so I asked my husband (who is one). He said "two tricks for EW, unless South said specifically 'I give you the ace of diamonds' in which case I'll deem he plays the king". A slightly different view on this ruling, but the same result. 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/20050913/6dac3021/attachment.htm From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 14 09:21:51 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 14 09:22:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4327CF8F.6070408@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > There is nothing in the laws that I can detect which suggests that > showing your hand to one defender constitutes a claim under Law. Indeed > as declarer I can probably paste all 13 cards face out to my forehead > and still not have claimed, although probably I'll need to wait till > after the opening lead to make sure I'm not in the auction period. The > claim, or concession, will probably follow shortly. If I am foolish > enough to permit one of my opponents to play double dummy where's the > problem in that? John > The problem is that by showing your hands (in such a manner) you are suggesting to your opponents that play is over. This is, by definition, a claim. The opponents will, after seeing the cards, usually claim themselves, you say. That is true, but if you are now going to rule that claim with benefit of the doubt to declarer, you are on the wrong track. There's nothing wrong with the procedure if declarer knows what he's doing. But then there would be nothing wrong when he claims either. It is only in the doubtful cases that there will be a problem. And then you need to rule in favour of defenders, since it is declarer who suggested play be curtailed. That is why I'm against the procedure. It's a claim, pure and simple. And a claim without statement as well, although I'll probably not be as severe on that one as some of you. Where are the opponents of claiming when you need them? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 14 09:22:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 14 09:23:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6AF6929E-8EF0-4FAF-AC85-EFFC1C65A951@rochester.rr.com> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <6AF6929E-8EF0-4FAF-AC85-EFFC1C65A951@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4327CFC2.1060507@hdw.be> Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". Ed Reppert wrote: > On Sep 13, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>> Yet, as a rule, this is a claim. >>> >> >> Quite so. > > > Huh? "I'm not claiming," he said. Seems to me he demonstrably did not > intend to claim. How not? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 14 09:28:50 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 14 09:29:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Rotterdam 3 and 6 - a likeness In-Reply-To: <2E75A1B8A2078F48A13245536664E3D20142B4D9@rijpat-s-351.europe.shell.com> References: <2E75A1B8A2078F48A13245536664E3D20142B4D9@rijpat-s-351.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <4327D132.3050403@hdw.be> Hinden, Frances SI-SXP wrote: > > I'd vowed to stop contributing to blml because it just irritated me. But > this irritated me so much I have to respond. > > This is the European University Championships, not the Bermuda Bowl. > Even I have a silver medal from that event, and I can promise you I'm > not anything close to an "international champion" now and was even less > so when I played in it. > Indeed you are, Frances, as I noticed when I went through the list. > I would rule two tricks to EW. When South claims, he believes that the > only trick EW can possibly take is the ace of diamonds. If East were to > play a low diamond he would thus be 100% sure that East didn't have the > ace, because there is a singleton in dummy and no hope of another trick. > Therefore he would consider it irrelevant which card he played from > hand, and might easily play a low one (not even the Jack, but a low one). > > However, you seem to want a poll of international champions, so I asked > my husband (who is one). He said "two tricks for EW, unless South said > specifically 'I give you the ace of diamonds' in which case I'll deem he > plays the king". A slightly different view on this ruling, but the same > result. > You mean 'I give _you_ the ace of diamonds' with a nod to his right? Of course we would award that claim. We must assume that was not what happened. You seem to be saying that a layer of whatever level will look at the singleton in dummy, and conclude from the low diamond return that his RHO does NOT have the ace? Are you then not saying that it is not normal for that RHO to play a low diamond? Should we really be judging a defender to have a level several steps above a claimer? That strikes me as being unfair on claimer. But anyway, I see your point. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 14 13:38:59 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Sep 14 13:41:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6AF6929E-8EF0-4FAF-AC85-EFFC1C65A951@rochester.rr.com> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <6AF6929E-8EF0-4FAF-AC85-EFFC1C65A951@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050914073336.02c21860@pop.starpower.net> At 08:21 PM 9/13/05, Ed wrote: >On Sep 13, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>>Yet, as a rule, this is a claim. >> >>Quite so. > >Huh? "I'm not claiming," he said. Seems to me he demonstrably did not >intend to claim. How not? Ed is correct; I had overlooked the parenthetical in L68A. It would appear that the procedure Peter has suggested is in fact currently legal. There's nothing in TFLB that forbids showing one's cards, so declarer should be free to do so without legal consequence if his action doesn't qualify as a claim per L68A. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schuster at eduhi.at Wed Sep 14 15:18:08 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed Sep 14 15:21:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <4327CFC2.1060507@hdw.be> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <6AF6929E-8EF0-4FAF-AC85-EFFC1C65A951@rochester.rr.com> <4327CFC2.1060507@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:22:42 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". > Herman seems to apply the "unless..." bit only to the immediately preceding "or when he shows his cards". I have always applied it to the whole sentence - but maybe there is something to be cleared up in the wording. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 14 16:00:46 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 14 16:03:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5b934$b4578640$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB ......... > > Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". > > > Herman seems to apply the "unless..." bit only to the immediately > preceding "or when he shows his cards". > I have always applied it to the whole sentence - but maybe there is > something to be cleared up in the wording. > Regards, > Petrus Unless the understanding of Law 68A has been changed since the 1987 version as it was officially commented by EBL in 1992 the "unless" clause in L68A still only applies when a player "shows his cards", not when a player "suggests that play be curtailed". L68A was not changed in 1997 and I have no information to the effect that the understanding has been changed. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 14 16:54:12 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Sep 14 16:58:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <4327CF8F.6070408@hdw.be> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <4327CF8F.6070408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9+TujsAUmDKDFwSu@asimere.com> In article <4327CF8F.6070408@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> There is nothing in the laws that I can detect which suggests that >> showing your hand to one defender constitutes a claim under Law. Indeed >> as declarer I can probably paste all 13 cards face out to my forehead >> and still not have claimed, although probably I'll need to wait till >> after the opening lead to make sure I'm not in the auction period. The >> claim, or concession, will probably follow shortly. If I am foolish >> enough to permit one of my opponents to play double dummy where's the >> problem in that? John >> > >The problem is that by showing your hands (in such a manner) you are >suggesting to your opponents that play is over. This is, by >definition, a claim. > >The opponents will, after seeing the cards, usually claim themselves, >you say. That is true, but if you are now going to rule that claim >with benefit of the doubt to declarer, you are on the wrong track. > >There's nothing wrong with the procedure if declarer knows what he's >doing. But then there would be nothing wrong when he claims either. > >It is only in the doubtful cases that there will be a problem. And >then you need to rule in favour of defenders, since it is declarer who >suggested play be curtailed. That is why I'm against the procedure. >It's a claim, pure and simple. And a claim without statement as well, >although I'll probably not be as severe on that one as some of you. > >Where are the opponents of claiming when you need them? mm, I've had a couple of private emails about this. For a claim to occur I feel reasonably strongly that it consists of facing one's hand, *leaning forward* and making a statement (which, where I play might just be a hand wave). Now variations on this theme clearly are claims but we know when a claim is occurring from established custom and practice, and actions far removed from the normal process of claiming demonstrably suggest no claim has been made. "Oh dear I have carelessly exposed my hand by sticking it on my forehead" demonstrably is *not* a claim, as indeed showing my hand to one defender demonstrably is not a claim. So we must decide primarily if declarer's actions demonstrably *are* a claim before we proceed. Of course, I'm pretty much with HdW on how to rule once we've decided a claim *has* been made. John > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 14 16:55:44 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Sep 14 17:00:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <4327CFC2.1060507@hdw.be> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <6AF6929E-8EF0-4FAF-AC85-EFFC1C65A951@rochester.rr.com> <4327CFC2.1060507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5+avz6AwnDKDFwyi@asimere.com> In article <4327CFC2.1060507@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". if he says "I'm not claiming" he is not, presently, claiming. Read his lips! He may well do so in a few seconds. > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Sep 13, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>> Yet, as a rule, this is a claim. >>>> >>> >>> Quite so. >> >> >> Huh? "I'm not claiming," he said. Seems to me he demonstrably did not >> intend to claim. How not? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sep 14 17:21:54 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 14 17:24:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <9+TujsAUmDKDFwSu@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000201c5b940$0a2109b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst ............. > So we must decide primarily if declarer's actions demonstrably *are* a > claim before we proceed. Sorry, this is not what L68A says: We must decide primarily if declarer's actions (of showing his cards) demonstrably are *not* a claim. There is a difference: If we are in the least real doubt then the actions *are* a claim. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 14 17:38:14 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Sep 14 17:42:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000201c5b940$0a2109b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <9+TujsAUmDKDFwSu@asimere.com> <000201c5b940$0a2109b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c5b940$0a2109b0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >............. >> So we must decide primarily if declarer's actions demonstrably *are* a >> claim before we proceed. irrelevant. Either they demonstrably *are* or they demonstrably *are not*. There is no third case. Once I've decided which I shall proceed. john > >Sorry, this is not what L68A says: > >We must decide primarily if declarer's actions (of showing his cards) >demonstrably are *not* a claim. > >There is a difference: If we are in the least real doubt then the actions >*are* a claim. > >Regards Sven > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 14 17:45:18 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 14 17:48:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <5+avz6AwnDKDFwyi@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000301c5b943$4e987990$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst .......... > >Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". > > if he says "I'm not claiming" he is not, presently, claiming. Read his > lips! He may well do so in a few seconds. If he says "I'm not claiming" (or words to that effect) while showing his cards he "demonstrably did not intend to claim". If he suggests that play be curtailed he claims, and his intention does not matter. (See my reference to the EBL comments on L68A) Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 14 18:02:44 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 14 18:03:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: FW: Cricket In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432849A4.7020809@hdw.be> Of course I have. The setting was 1999 (IIRC - let's check my own website - I was wrong, it was 1998) and the first European Championships to be held in 2 divisions. In division 1 were Scotland, Ireland, Holland, Denmark, and the ECB amateur squad (who have won this event as well). In division 2 the other associates Israel, Gibraltar, Italy, France and Germany. In order to have some possibility of relegation and promotion, the winner of the second division would play-off against the fifth of the first division. That is the match that Italy won! Of course next time around in 2000, the first division was played with 6 teams! http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1998/OTHERS+ICC/ECCT/ECCT98_RESULTS.html has a summary page, but the last match has no scorecard! cricketarchive has the scorecard: http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/misc/3/misc3914.html So yes, it did happen, but it was an English amateur side. Max Bavin wrote: > Herman, > > Maurizio says that a friend of his has heard that Italy beat England at > cricket not so long ago. > > Of course this cannot be so (we haven't even played each other), but is > there any possibility of it being a Junior or Womens team, or even a Minor > County? > > I surely haven't heard anything about it, but maybe you have? > > Max > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maurizio Di Sacco [mailto:virginiads@hotmail.com] > Sent: 12 September 2005 18:57 > To: max@ebu.co.uk > Subject: > > > My friend claims to have heard the news about cricket on sky Tv, and > insisted even though I told him that I'd received emails from you about > England-Australia. > > Once I received your message he said that you were probably trying to hide > the loss because you felt ashame of it. > > He's probably stupid, however, is there any chance that the news was about a > > B (or C...) England team, or, perhaps, a junior team? > > I've read that Chelsea, boring it's playing, is still quite effective: 15 > points, 12 goals scored and none got are impressive figures, arent they? > However, your team is the one I liked more, and I wish you good luck for the > > future. > > > Maurizio > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 14 18:09:53 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 14 18:10:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <9+TujsAUmDKDFwSu@asimere.com> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <4327CF8F.6070408@hdw.be> <9+TujsAUmDKDFwSu@asimere.com> Message-ID: <43284B51.1090801@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > suggest no claim has been made. "Oh dear I have carelessly exposed my > hand by sticking it on my forehead" demonstrably is *not* a claim, I agree. > as > indeed showing my hand to one defender demonstrably is not a claim. > I don't agree. You are suggesting play is over, are you not? > So we must decide primarily if declarer's actions demonstrably *are* a > claim before we proceed. Of course, I'm pretty much with HdW on how to > rule once we've decided a claim *has* been made. John > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 14 18:07:19 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Sep 14 18:11:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000301c5b943$4e987990$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5+avz6AwnDKDFwyi@asimere.com> <000301c5b943$4e987990$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4JLfuKA3qEKDFwhq@asimere.com> In article <000301c5b943$4e987990$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >.......... >> >Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". >> >> if he says "I'm not claiming" he is not, presently, claiming. Read his >> lips! He may well do so in a few seconds. > >If he says "I'm not claiming" (or words to that effect) while showing his >cards he "demonstrably did not intend to claim". > >If he suggests that play be curtailed he claims, and his intention does not >matter. (See my reference to the EBL comments on L68A) I do not think showing one's cards to a defender is a suggestion that play be curtailed - this instant. I would expect someone to make a claim or concession in a few seconds time however. john > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 14 18:26:01 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Sep 14 18:28:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000301c5b943$4e987990$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5+avz6AwnDKDFwyi@asimere.com> <000301c5b943$4e987990$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050914121515.02bb3eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:45 AM 9/14/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >.......... > > >Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". > > > > if he says "I'm not claiming" he is not, presently, claiming. Read his > > lips! He may well do so in a few seconds. > >If he says "I'm not claiming" (or words to that effect) while showing his >cards he "demonstrably did not intend to claim". > >If he suggests that play be curtailed he claims, and his intention >does not >matter. (See my reference to the EBL comments on L68A) In the procedure Peter proposed and I commented on, declarer neither intends nor expects that play will be curtailed. The whole point of the exercise is that play will continue, hopefully a lot faster when the defenders can see declarer's cards. It is distinctly not a suggestion that play be curtailed, but rather a suggestion that play be continued forthwith. Not relevant, but I don't think Sven is correct in any case; as I parse L68A, the parenthetical at the end applies to the entire second sentence. One can claim when one demonstrably did not intend to, but only by making "a statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 14 20:01:39 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 14 20:04:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050914121515.02bb3eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c5b956$5b57e4a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >.......... > Not relevant, but I don't think Sven is correct in any case; as I parse > L68A, the parenthetical at the end applies to the entire second > sentence. One can claim when one demonstrably did not intend to, but > only by making "a statement to the effect that a contestant will win a > specific number of tricks". I was not presenting my personal opinion; I was referring an official commentary to L68A as issued by EBL and I am not aware of any disagreement with this understanding within any promulgating body. Except when a statement or an action applies *only* to the trick currently in progress: A player stating that he will win a specific number (including zero) of the remaining tricks is making a claim. A player suggesting that the play is curtailed is making a claim. A player showing his cards is making a claim unless he demonstrably does not intend to claim. Sven From toddz at att.net Wed Sep 14 22:30:37 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Sep 14 22:33:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <43284B51.1090801@hdw.be> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <4327CF8F.6070408@hdw.be> <9+TujsAUmDKDFwSu@asimere.com> <43284B51.1090801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4328886D.1080601@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> as >> indeed showing my hand to one defender demonstrably is not a claim. > > I don't agree. You are suggesting play is over, are you not? No. I don't know how to explain this practice if it doesn't exist in Belgium, but no. A variation -- having been asked as declarer what the heck I was thinking about, I've faced my hand and continued thinking. -Todd From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 14 23:52:24 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 14 23:55:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <4327CFC2.1060507@hdw.be> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <6AF6929E-8EF0-4FAF-AC85-EFFC1C65A951@rochester.rr.com> <4327CFC2.1060507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2BABBBEE-22F3-478E-8C14-2427204992A7@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 14, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". Suggests how? He *said* he wasn't claiming. Are we to ignore that completely? I don't buy it. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 15 00:00:30 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Sep 15 00:03:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000001c5b934$b4578640$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5b934$b4578640$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sep 14, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Unless the understanding of Law 68A has been changed since the 1987 > version > as it was officially commented by EBL in 1992 the "unless" clause > in L68A > still only applies when a player "shows his cards", not when a player > "suggests that play be curtailed". L68A was not changed in 1997 and > I have > no information to the effect that the understanding has been changed. I'm not *in* the EBL. :-( When a player shows his cards and says "I'm not claiming" he is *not* suggesting that play be curtailed - particularly if he shows them to only one player. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 15 00:02:59 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 15 00:05:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <2BABBBEE-22F3-478E-8C14-2427204992A7@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c5b978$1238bed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert .......... > > Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". > > Suggests how? He *said* he wasn't claiming. Are we to ignore that > completely? I don't buy it. If he suggested that the play be curtailed he made a claim regardless of what else he said. But from your comments I am in doubt whether he actually did suggest that the play be curtailed? Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 15 00:10:34 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Sep 15 00:13:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000301c5b943$4e987990$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c5b943$4e987990$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sep 14, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If he suggests that play be curtailed he claims, and his intention > does not > matter. (See my reference to the EBL comments on L68A) So a player who, seeing his opponents have the rest of the tricks, throws in his hand and says "I give up" is claiming? I don't think so. I would call this a "suggestion that play be curtailed" but I'm damned if I can call it a claim - and 68B says nothing about such suggestions. Maybe this isn't really relevant to the thread in progress, but there *are* times when a player's actions *cannot* be a claim. Suppose the building is on fire, and a player puts his cards down (or throws them in the air, or drops them on the floor) and says "Let's get out of here!". Is he claiming? Okay, okay, it's farfetched. Gimme a break, I'm tired. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 15 00:18:04 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Sep 15 00:21:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000401c5b956$5b57e4a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c5b956$5b57e4a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <33BD620A-EA37-4C7F-9C15-ED69F1033753@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > A player stating that he will win a specific number (including > zero) of the > remaining tricks is making a claim. This makes no sense. There are three possible states: neither claiming nor conceding, conceding (suggesting the side will lose some number of tricks), and claiming (suggesting the side will win some number of tricks). The law specifically states that a claim of fewer than al the remaining tricks is a concession of the remainder; it says nothing at all about the converse situation. If a player states "we have no more tricks" or words to that effect (I can't see a player facing his hand and saying "I claim zero of the remaining tricks"; it's just not going to happen) he is *conceding* not claiming. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 15 00:20:00 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Sep 15 00:23:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000501c5b978$1238bed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c5b978$1238bed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sep 14, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > If he suggested that the play be curtailed he made a claim > regardless of > what else he said. But from your comments I am in doubt whether he > actually > did suggest that the play be curtailed? He showed his hand to one (or both) opponent(s) and said "I'm not claiming". From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 15 02:21:49 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 15 02:24:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <33BD620A-EA37-4C7F-9C15-ED69F1033753@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000801c5b98b$771429d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > A player stating that he will win a specific number (including > > zero) of the > > remaining tricks is making a claim. > > This makes no sense. There are three possible states: neither > claiming nor conceding, conceding (suggesting the side will lose some > number of tricks), and claiming (suggesting the side will win some > number of tricks). The law specifically states that a claim of fewer > than al the remaining tricks is a concession of the remainder; it > says nothing at all about the converse situation. If a player states > "we have no more tricks" or words to that effect (I can't see a > player facing his hand and saying "I claim zero of the remaining > tricks"; it's just not going to happen) he is *conceding* not claiming. I didn't want to go into too much detail but the following statements are all true: A statement to the effect that a player will win a specific number of the remaining tricks is always a claim. A statement to the effect that a player will lose a specific number of the remaining tricks is always a concession. A statement to the effect that a player will win a specific number of but not all the remaining tricks is always both a claim and a concession. A statement to the effect that a player will lose a specific number of but not all the remaining tricks is always both a concession and a claim. (even though this particular situation is not explicitly mentioned in the laws). As for claiming zero tricks we have a Norwegian player who fancies showing all his cards with a statement something like: "All the rest", and when opponents begin objecting he continues: "To you, gentlemen"! One of his favorite situations was when he made this "claim" after taking the first trick, the only trick he could get. I was present when that happened. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 15 02:29:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 15 02:32:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c5b98c$79173050$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ............. > So a player who, seeing his opponents have the rest of the tricks, > throws in his hand and says "I give up" is claiming? I don't think so. Sure no, he hasn't claimed any tricks; not even zero. He has conceded all the remaining tricks. > I would call this a "suggestion that play be curtailed" but I'm > damned if I can call it a claim - and 68B says nothing about such > suggestions. No, it is a concession. > Maybe this isn't really relevant to the thread in progress, but there > *are* times when a player's actions *cannot* be a claim. > > Suppose the building is on fire, and a player puts his cards down (or > throws them in the air, or drops them on the floor) and says "Let's > get out of here!". Is he claiming? No, by definition he is conceding all the remaining tricks. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 15 02:39:17 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Sep 15 02:42:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000801c5b98b$771429d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c5b98b$771429d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <81E1158F-D6D9-4744-A00F-0F6E92547F1B@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 14, 2005, at 8:21 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I didn't want to go into too much detail but the following > statements are > all true: > > A statement to the effect that a player will win a specific number > of the > remaining tricks is always a claim. Unless he "demonstrably did not intend to claim". All right, the EBL commentaries say the plain English doesn't say what it says. If I were in the EBL, I'd abide by that. I'm not. In either case, I don't like it. :( > A statement to the effect that a player will lose a specific number > of the > remaining tricks is always a concession. Agreed. > A statement to the effect that a player will win a specific number > of but > not all the remaining tricks is always both a claim and a concession. Agreed. > A statement to the effect that a player will lose a specific number > of but > not all the remaining tricks is always both a concession and a > claim. (even > though this particular situation is not explicitly mentioned in the > laws). A practical approach. Agreed. > As for claiming zero tricks we have a Norwegian player who fancies > showing > all his cards with a statement something like: "All the rest", and > when > opponents begin objecting he continues: "To you, gentlemen"! One of > his > favorite situations was when he made this "claim" after taking the > first > trick, the only trick he could get. I was present when that happened. I was talking about bridge players, not comedians. :-) From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Thu Sep 15 03:45:32 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Thu Sep 15 03:48:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Getting into teaching Tournament Bridge Directing to young "cadets" is always surprisingly refreshing. When they get going, they always surprise me with nice setups... Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... S Ax H AK10xx D xxx C AKx S xx S KQJ10x H xxxxx H Qx D A D Kx C Jxxxx C xxxx S xxxx H J D Q10xxxx C Q None vul, North dealer W N E S 1H Pass West calls TD, accepts the pass. 1H Pass Pass Pass Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects to bid 1S 1H 1S 2D Pass Pass Pass... TD again... ---------------------- Rui Marques http://www.lusobridge.com/main/eng/eng.htm From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Thu Sep 15 03:50:50 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Thu Sep 15 03:53:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) Message-ID: Another product of my "cadets" imagination... None vul, North dealer W N E S 1H 1S However, North opened 1H "in the dark", before looking at the face of the cards. Now, mr TD ... If asked, E will say that he intended to overcall 1S (9H, minimum overcall). I love teaching... Always learn a lot with the students :-) ---------------------- Rui Marques http://www.lusobridge.com/main/eng/eng.htm From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Sep 15 04:28:54 2005 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Thu Sep 15 04:31:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5b99d$37eab5a0$af202b52@Zog> Rui Marques writes: > Another product of my "cadets" imagination... > > None vul, North dealer > > W N E S > 1H 1S > > However, North opened 1H "in the dark", before looking at the face of the > cards... In which case North has infracted L7B1 - he *must* inspect the face of his cards before calling. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.24/101 - Release Date: 13/09/05 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Sep 15 04:30:33 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Thu Sep 15 04:35:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: <431DEA6C004920A8@n056.sc0.cp.net> (added by postmaster@bouncemessage.net) References: <431DEA6C004920A8@n056.sc0.cp.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050914221010.031ed4f8@mail.comcast.net> At 09:45 PM 9/14/2005, Rui Marques wrote: >Getting into teaching Tournament Bridge Directing to young "cadets" is >always surprisingly refreshing. When they get going, they always surprise me >with nice setups... > > >Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... > > S Ax > H AK10xx > D xxx > C AKx >S xx S KQJ10x >H xxxxx H Qx >D A D Kx >C Jxxxx C xxxx > S xxxx > H J > D Q10xxxx > C Q > >None vul, North dealer > >W N E S > 1H Pass > >West calls TD, accepts the pass. > > 1H Pass >Pass Pass > >Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects to bid 1S > > 1H 1S 2D >Pass Pass Pass... > >TD again... Does Law 16C apply here? I think it does, because I do not believe that UI restrictions are a penalty. West called the TD and chose to accept the call out of turn, forfeiting the right to penalize the irregularity (Law 29), but there was a withdrawn call, and that is information, so it must either be AI or UI. Under Law 16C, it is UI. I would interpret Law 34, "The auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity," as meaning that the auction proceeds normally, without penalty, but not without respect for the other Laws of the game. However, it is the TD's responsibility to explain penalties to the players. If South had known that his pass was still UI, he would not have bid 2D. He would have bid 3D if this was weak, or passed and bid diamonds over North's reopening double. Thus, under either Law 82 (director's error) or Law 12C3 (equity), it seems that we should allow a contract of 2D or 3D by South, making whatever he actually made at the table, probably +150. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 15 06:44:27 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Sep 15 06:47:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) In-Reply-To: <3rf50e$58mnpl@orngca-mx-05.mgw.rr.com> References: <3rf50e$58mnpl@orngca-mx-05.mgw.rr.com> Message-ID: <175D1FD1-B242-4140-9D6F-908653CCCD6F@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 14, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Rui Marques wrote: > Another product of my "cadets" imagination... > > None vul, North dealer > > W N E S > 1H 1S > > However, North opened 1H "in the dark", before looking at the face > of the > cards. Now, mr TD ... If asked, E will say that he intended to > overcall 1S > (9H, minimum overcall). > > I love teaching... Always learn a lot with the students :-) Oh, this one is perfect for blml. If south also hadn't looked at his cards, the auction period has not started for NS. Now we can argue about whether an utterance that sounds like a call is or is not a call, if it's made before the auction period starts. :( If south had looked at his cards, then the auction has started, and absent the violation of Law 7B1 which Brambledown pointed out, the call is perfectly legal. I would issue a PP to North for violation of L7B1, and tell them to proceed with the auction from East's 1S overcall. I would caution south and west about UI (from the knowledge that North hadn't looked at his cards, for south, and that East had said he intended 1S as an overcall, for west). Note: 1H is not a psych - North has no idea whether that description of his hand is accurate, or a "gross distortion". From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 15 09:38:33 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 15 09:39:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <4328886D.1080601@att.net> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <4327CF8F.6070408@hdw.be> <9+TujsAUmDKDFwSu@asimere.com> <43284B51.1090801@hdw.be> <4328886D.1080601@att.net> Message-ID: <432924F9.9090802@hdw.be> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> as >>> indeed showing my hand to one defender demonstrably is not a claim. >> >> >> I don't agree. You are suggesting play is over, are you not? > > > No. I don't know how to explain this practice if it doesn't exist > in Belgium, but no. > Why then do you show your hand? The practice is known in Belgium, yes, and it's always because the player that shows his hand thinks that this will speed up play. > A variation -- having been asked as declarer what the heck I was > thinking about, I've faced my hand and continued thinking. > That's a totally different thing. Now you are showing your hand to explain why play should go on! This clearly falls within "showing your hand except when not wanting to claim". > -Todd > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 15 09:43:43 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 15 09:44:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: FW: Cricket In-Reply-To: <432849A4.7020809@hdw.be> References: <432849A4.7020809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4329262F.7090904@hdw.be> ooops, this should have gone to Max privately. It was not an attempt of mine to drag our English friends down to earth again, nor to assist our Australian friends in thei moments of grief. Herman De Wael wrote: > Of course I have. > > The setting was 1999 (IIRC - let's check my own website - I was wrong, > it was 1998) and the first European Championships to be held in 2 > divisions. In division 1 were Scotland, Ireland, Holland, Denmark, and > the ECB amateur squad (who have won this event as well). In division 2 > the other associates Israel, Gibraltar, Italy, France and Germany. > In order to have some possibility of relegation and promotion, the > winner of the second division would play-off against the fifth of the > first division. That is the match that Italy won! > > Of course next time around in 2000, the first division was played with 6 > teams! > > http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1998/OTHERS+ICC/ECCT/ECCT98_RESULTS.html > > has a summary page, but the last match has no scorecard! > > cricketarchive has the scorecard: > > http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/misc/3/misc3914.html > > So yes, it did happen, but it was an English amateur side. > > Max Bavin wrote: > >> Herman, >> >> Maurizio says that a friend of his has heard that Italy beat England at >> cricket not so long ago. >> >> Of course this cannot be so (we haven't even played each other), but is >> there any possibility of it being a Junior or Womens team, or even a >> Minor >> County? >> >> I surely haven't heard anything about it, but maybe you have? >> >> Max >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Maurizio Di Sacco [mailto:virginiads@hotmail.com] >> Sent: 12 September 2005 18:57 >> To: max@ebu.co.uk >> Subject: >> >> My friend claims to have heard the news about cricket on sky Tv, and >> insisted even though I told him that I'd received emails from you >> about England-Australia. >> >> Once I received your message he said that you were probably trying to >> hide the loss because you felt ashame of it. >> >> He's probably stupid, however, is there any chance that the news was >> about a >> >> B (or C...) England team, or, perhaps, a junior team? >> >> I've read that Chelsea, boring it's playing, is still quite effective: >> 15 points, 12 goals scored and none got are impressive figures, arent >> they? However, your team is the one I liked more, and I wish you good >> luck for the >> >> future. >> >> >> Maurizio >> >> >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Thu Sep 15 11:53:32 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu Sep 15 11:56:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6518@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Rui Marques > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 03:46 > To: 'blml' > Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > > Getting into teaching Tournament Bridge Directing to young > "cadets" is always surprisingly refreshing. When they get > going, they always surprise me with nice setups... > > > Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... > > S Ax > H AK10xx > D xxx > C AKx > S xx S KQJ10x > H xxxxx H Qx > D A D Kx > C Jxxxx C xxxx > S xxxx > H J > D Q10xxxx > C Q > > None vul, North dealer > > W N E S > 1H Pass > > West calls TD, accepts the pass. > > 1H Pass > Pass Pass > > Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects > to bid 1S > > 1H 1S 2D > Pass Pass Pass... > > TD again... > > ---------------------- > Rui Marques > http://www.lusobridge.com/main/eng/eng.htm > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > This is a very interesting situation. Does 16C2 apply to South's pass or not? You could argue that it was withdrawn in the second auction, hence 16C2 applies. However, in the first auction it was accepted by West, thereby making it a legal call and so the information is legal for NS too. Which North in fact used, by passing after West. It would seem very strange to me that information which is legal in the first auction would suddenly be illegal in the second one. Careful reading of 34 solves the dilemma, I think: it says, "...the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity." And if there is no irregularity, there is no withdrawn call giving UI. Hence North is free to use the information that South has nothing. -- Martin Sinot From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 11:58:15 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Sep 15 12:01:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 20:50 PM Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) > Another product of my "cadets" imagination... > > None vul, North dealer > > W N E S > 1H 1S > > However, North opened 1H "in the dark", before looking at the face of the > cards. Now, mr TD ... If asked, E will say that he intended to overcall 1S > (9H, minimum overcall). > > I love teaching... Always learn a lot with the students :-) > > ---------------------- > Rui Marques > http://www.lusobridge.com/main/eng/eng.htm Failure of the player to inspect his cards prior to calling breaches L7B1 and he should be assessed a substantial PP. Law distinguishes between auction* and auction period**. As such N was dealer and he has called [L17B], and intended to do so. His call stands, L25B, and the auction proceeds normally. The failure to inspect his cards is an extraneous mannerism and is UI to his partner [L16A]. * Auction - def 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. 2. The aggregate of calls made (see Law 17E). ** Auction Period Starts L17A.-The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards. regards roger pewick From toddz at att.net Thu Sep 15 12:13:57 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Sep 15 12:17:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <432924F9.9090802@hdw.be> References: <200509130101.j8D11en25009@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913075146.02b171b0@pop.starpower.net> <4326CB6C.8060709@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050913152436.02c33110@pop.starpower.net> <4327CF8F.6070408@hdw.be> <9+TujsAUmDKDFwSu@asimere.com> <43284B51.1090801@hdw.be> <4328886D.1080601@att.net> <432924F9.9090802@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43294965.6090302@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> I don't agree. You are suggesting play is over, are you not? > > Why then do you show your hand? The practice is known in Belgium, yes, > and it's always because the player that shows his hand thinks that this > will speed up play. Well, yes. The point is to speed up play so it will end sooner, not necessarily now. -Todd From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 15 12:27:58 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 15 12:30:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <81E1158F-D6D9-4744-A00F-0F6E92547F1B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c5b9e0$24efdf00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > I didn't want to go into too much detail but the following > > statements are > > all true: > > > > A statement to the effect that a player will win a specific number > > of the > > remaining tricks is always a claim. > > Unless he "demonstrably did not intend to claim". All right, the EBL > commentaries say the plain English doesn't say what it says. If I > were in the EBL, I'd abide by that. I'm not. In either case, I don't > like it. :( L68A lists three different actions ("statement", "suggestion" and "showing cards") that each constitutes a claim. A period separates the first action from the second and a comma separates the second action from the third. A condition (within parenthesis) is attached after the third action. The period makes is clear that this condition is never applicable to the first action but it can be questioned whether the comma also makes the condition not applicable to the second action. According to the EBL commentaries the condition only applies to the third action, apparently because this action is the only one of the three that does not imply an end of the play. And with my limited understanding of grammar (English or not) the comma should have been removed if the condition were to apply also to the second action or the condition should have preceded the list if it were to apply to all three actions. Look at the corresponding construction of the footnote to Law 69 where the comma was removed in order to have "class of player" applicable also to "irrational". I shall have a big problem understanding how the play can be curtailed without considering the situation as a claim or a concession. EBL or not EBL makes no difference to me in this matter. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 12:41:08 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Sep 15 12:44:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 20:45 PM Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 Getting into teaching Tournament Bridge Directing to young "cadets" is always surprisingly refreshing. When they get going, they always surprise me with nice setups... Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... S Ax H AK10xx D xxx C AKx S xx S KQJ10x H xxxxx H Qx D A D Kx C Jxxxx C xxxx S xxxx H J D Q10xxxx C Q None vul, North dealer W N E S 1H Pass West calls TD, accepts the pass. 1H Pass Pass Pass Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects to bid 1S 1H 1S 2D Pass Pass Pass... TD again... ---------------------- Rui Marques LAW 34 - RETENTION OF RIGHT TO CALL When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the player who missed his turn. All subsequent passes are cancelled, and the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. L34 places a condition for cancelling three passes when one is an OOT pass [beyond one of the passes being OOT]. That condition is that a player was deprived of his right to call because of the OOT pass. In this case W condoned the OOT pass and it was this acceptance that deprived E of his right to call. Further emphasis [and imo not necessary] was made by the fact that W was informed of the consequences of condoning prior to doing so. L34 provides that the three passes not be cancellled. TD error in reopening the auction. Adjust the score to 1H where both sides non-offending. regards roger pewick From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Sep 15 12:43:19 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Sep 15 12:46:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 Message-ID: <20050915104319.D3FE73031F0@poczta.interia.pl> > This is a very interesting situation. Does 16C2 apply to South's > pass or not? You could argue that it was withdrawn in the second > auction, hence 16C2 applies. I once argued that it does but then Grattan told me that "as if there were no irregularity" means it doesn't. OK, I accepted that but then I ran into this: http://cibor.fm.interia.pl/pyt.jpg http://cibor.fm.interia.pl/odp.jpg (the question was from some international TD course, don't remember exactly where, Torino I guess) where they say "no reason not to apply 16C2". So I asked Grattan once more here on BLML if one should apply 16C2 for the "as if there were no irregularity" cases and haven't been asnwered. Perhaps I'll have better luck this time. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TOUR DE POLOGNE: oficjalny serwis >>> http://link.interia.pl/f18b5 From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Sep 15 13:42:37 2005 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Thu Sep 15 13:45:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5b9ea$91f07d30$af202b52@Zog> Roger Pewick writes: > From: "Rui Marques" > > Another product of my "cadets" imagination... > > > > None vul, North dealer > > > > W N E S > > 1H 1S > > > > However, North opened 1H "in the dark", before looking at the face of the > > cards. Now, mr TD ... If asked, E will say that he intended to overcall 1S > > (9H, minimum overcall). > > > > I love teaching... Always learn a lot with the students :-) > Failure of the player to inspect his cards prior to calling breaches L7B1 > and he should be assessed a substantial PP. Law distinguishes between > auction* and auction period**. As such N was dealer and he has called > [L17B], and intended to do so. His call stands, L25B, and the auction > proceeds normally. The failure to inspect his cards is an extraneous > mannerism and is UI to his partner [L16A]. > > * Auction - def 1. The process of determining the contract by means of > successive calls. 2. The aggregate of calls made (see Law 17E). > ** Auction Period Starts L17A.-The auction period on a deal begins for a > side when either partner looks at the face of his cards. North's action, followed by the overcall, has messed up normal play of the board and I'm not sure that play should be allowed to continue from this point. (L12A2) If I conclude that this is four players messing about, my inclination is to score the board zero for both sides, with a warning abut future behaviour. If East is innocent, ie he had not realised that North's bid was blind or was unaware that this was not permitted, then A4060 seems right. A contrite North might just escape a PP. Incidentally, why would the TD have been called? Presumably someone at the table was aware that 'blind' bidding was illegal. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 14/09/05 From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Thu Sep 15 13:42:46 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu Sep 15 13:45:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E651A@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:41 > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rui Marques" > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 20:45 PM > Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > > > Getting into teaching Tournament Bridge Directing to young "cadets" is > always surprisingly refreshing. When they get going, they > always surprise me > with nice setups... > > > Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... > > S Ax > H AK10xx > D xxx > C AKx > S xx S KQJ10x > H xxxxx H Qx > D A D Kx > C Jxxxx C xxxx > S xxxx > H J > D Q10xxxx > C Q > > None vul, North dealer > > W N E S > 1H Pass > > West calls TD, accepts the pass. > > 1H Pass > Pass Pass > > Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects > to bid 1S > > 1H 1S 2D > Pass Pass Pass... > > TD again... > > ---------------------- > Rui Marques > > > LAW 34 - RETENTION OF RIGHT TO CALL > When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction > does not end when > one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a > player of his > right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the player > who missed his > turn. All subsequent passes are cancelled, and the auction proceeds as > though there had been no irregularity. > > L34 places a condition for cancelling three passes when one > is an OOT pass > [beyond one of the passes being OOT]. That condition is that > a player was > deprived of his right to call because of the OOT pass. In this case W > condoned the OOT pass and it was this acceptance that > deprived E of his > right to call. Further emphasis [and imo not necessary] was > made by the > fact that W was informed of the consequences of condoning > prior to doing so. Where do you read such a condition? The only thing I see is: - there were three passes - one of the passes (South's) was out of turn. - as a consequence, East has been robbed of his turn Therefore L34 applies. It is not important that West condoned South's pass. If South hadn't passed OOT, it wouldn't have been possible for East to be deprived of his turn. Besides, such a pass OOT is ALWAYS condoned. L34 specifically handles a break in rotation. If South's pass hadn't been condoned, then it would have been East's turn, and there would be no break in rotation. And finally, it is not West but North who sends us into L34. He places the third pass. -- Martin Sinot From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 14:21:45 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Sep 15 14:24:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E651A@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sinot Martin" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:42 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:41 > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rui Marques" > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 20:45 PM > Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > > > Getting into teaching Tournament Bridge Directing to young "cadets" is > always surprisingly refreshing. When they get going, they > always surprise me > with nice setups... > > > Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... > > S Ax > H AK10xx > D xxx > C AKx > S xx S KQJ10x > H xxxxx H Qx > D A D Kx > C Jxxxx C xxxx > S xxxx > H J > D Q10xxxx > C Q > > None vul, North dealer > > W N E S > 1H Pass > > West calls TD, accepts the pass. > > 1H Pass > Pass Pass > > Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects > to bid 1S > > 1H 1S 2D > Pass Pass Pass... > > TD again... > > ---------------------- > Rui Marques > > > LAW 34 - RETENTION OF RIGHT TO CALL > When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction > does not end when > one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a > player of his > right to call at that turn. The auction reverts to the player > who missed his > turn. All subsequent passes are cancelled, and the auction proceeds as > though there had been no irregularity. > > L34 places a condition for cancelling three passes when one > is an OOT pass > [beyond one of the passes being OOT]. That condition is that > a player was > deprived of his right to call because of the OOT pass. In this case W > condoned the OOT pass and it was this acceptance that > deprived E of his > right to call. Further emphasis [and imo not necessary] was > made by the > fact that W was informed of the consequences of condoning > prior to doing so. Where do you read such a condition? The only thing I see is: - there were three passes - one of the passes (South's) was out of turn. - as a consequence, East has been robbed of his turn * It is a compound condition: if such and such condition exists and once it does a further condition exists. * Therefore L34 applies. * well, 34 applies in that the specifications for cancelling the three passes were not met. * It is not important that West condoned South's pass. * imo it is critical that the OOT call was condoned. * If South hadn't passed OOT, it wouldn't have been possible for East to be deprived of his turn. * Had W not condoned E would have called. W had the opportunity to not condone. * Besides, such a pass OOT is ALWAYS condoned. * ??? * L34 specifically handles a break in rotation. * so do other laws. * If South's pass hadn't been condoned, then it would have been East's turn, and there would be no break in rotation. * Have I not suggested as much? * And finally, it is not West but North who sends us into L34. He places the third pass. -- Martin Sinot If the law wanted to tell why three pass are cancelled it could have expressed it in a footnote; or for the worse enclosed it in parentheses within the text. It did place the words so as to make it a condition. regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 15 14:34:19 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Sep 15 14:36:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000501c5b978$1238bed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2BABBBEE-22F3-478E-8C14-2427204992A7@rochester.rr.com> <000501c5b978$1238bed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050915082134.02a27440@pop.starpower.net> At 06:02 PM 9/14/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert >.......... > > > Ed, read L68A again "suggests that play be curtailed". > > > > Suggests how? He *said* he wasn't claiming. Are we to ignore that > > completely? I don't buy it. > >If he suggested that the play be curtailed he made a claim regardless of >what else he said. But from your comments I am in doubt whether he >actually >did suggest that the play be curtailed? I know we like to complain about not getting all the details of what actually happened at the table, but this time we've gotten carried away. This thread started with Peter proposing the legalization of a procedure that, as many have noted, is in informal use in a number of places, albeit not explicitly sanctioned by TFLB. We are discussing a hypothetical. There is no specific case at issue. There is no "he" involved. Why then are we debating about what "his" exact words might have suggested? Of course, if and when Peter's suggested procedure is officially sanctioned, we can have a field day on BLML parsing the exact wording of the provision that dictates how it is invoked (as opposed to making a claim) in the context of specific cases, but that's a bit premature right now. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Sep 15 14:34:57 2005 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Thu Sep 15 14:37:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5b9f1$e1ce0780$af202b52@Zog> Roger Pewick writes: > L34 places a condition for cancelling three passes when one is an OOT pass > [beyond one of the passes being OOT]. That condition is that a player was > deprived of his right to call because of the OOT pass. In this case W > condoned the OOT pass and it was this acceptance that deprived E of his > right to call. Further emphasis [and imo not necessary] was made by the > fact that W was informed of the consequences of condoning prior to doing so. > > L34 provides that the three passes not be cancellled. TD error in reopening > the auction. Adjust the score to 1H where both sides non-offending. I'm sorry to be blunt, Roger, but this is codswallop. Firstly, West may have condoned the POOT inadvertently before any TD intervention and would not have been "informed of the consequences..." Secondly, East can *only* be deprived of his chance to call by partner's (inadvertent or deliberate) acceptance of South's POOT. If your interpretation were correct, L34 would become redundant! Chas Fellows, Surrey, England -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 14/09/05 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 15 14:44:33 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Sep 15 14:46:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <33BD620A-EA37-4C7F-9C15-ED69F1033753@rochester.rr.com> References: <000401c5b956$5b57e4a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <33BD620A-EA37-4C7F-9C15-ED69F1033753@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050915083846.02ebf100@pop.starpower.net> At 06:18 PM 9/14/05, Ed wrote: >On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>A player stating that he will win a specific number (including >>zero) of the >>remaining tricks is making a claim. > >This makes no sense. There are three possible states: neither >claiming nor conceding, conceding (suggesting the side will lose some >number of tricks), and claiming (suggesting the side will win some >number of tricks). The law specifically states that a claim of fewer >than al the remaining tricks is a concession of the remainder; it >says nothing at all about the converse situation. If a player states >"we have no more tricks" or words to that effect (I can't see a >player facing his hand and saying "I claim zero of the remaining >tricks"; it's just not going to happen) he is *conceding* not claiming. This might be an interesting semantic exercise, but cannot matter in practice. Whether declarer claimed (zero) and conceded (the rest), or merely conceded, he has lost the rest unless L71 applies. Technically, it could matter if the opponents were to contest being given the rest of the tricks, but I don't think we need worry about that case reaching a TD or AC. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 15 14:55:39 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Sep 15 14:59:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 References: <000001c5b9f1$e1ce0780$af202b52@Zog> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:34 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > Roger Pewick writes: > > > L34 places a condition for cancelling three passes when one is an OOT > pass > > [beyond one of the passes being OOT]. That condition is that a player > was > > deprived of his right to call because of the OOT pass. In this case W > > condoned the OOT pass and it was this acceptance that deprived E of > his > > right to call. Further emphasis [and imo not necessary] was made by > the > > fact that W was informed of the consequences of condoning prior to > doing so. > > > > L34 provides that the three passes not be cancellled. TD error in > reopening > > the auction. Adjust the score to 1H where both sides non-offending. > I'm sorry to be blunt, Roger, but this is codswallop. > Firstly, West may have condoned the POOT inadvertently before any TD > intervention and would not have been "informed of the consequences..." As stated previously, the distinction imo is irrelevant. L21A speaks of making calls at one's own misunderstanding. > Secondly, East can *only* be deprived of his chance to call by partner's > (inadvertent or deliberate) acceptance of South's POOT. concur. > If your > interpretation were correct, Following the law as written. >L34 would become redundant! Not so. The difference is when it is the third pass that is OOT. Then the missed player[s] have been deprived of the right to act should the auction be over. regards roger pewick > Chas Fellows, > Surrey, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 15 15:57:15 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Sep 15 15:59:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E651A@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050915094231.02eb2520@pop.starpower.net> At 08:21 AM 9/15/05, Roger wrote: >From: "Sinot Martin" > > > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > > L34 places a condition for cancelling three passes when one > > is an OOT pass > > [beyond one of the passes being OOT]. That condition is that > > a player was > > deprived of his right to call because of the OOT pass. In this case W > > condoned the OOT pass and it was this acceptance that > > deprived E of his > > right to call. Further emphasis [and imo not necessary] was > > made by the > > fact that W was informed of the consequences of condoning > > prior to doing so. > >Where do you read such a condition? The only thing I see is: >- there were three passes >- one of the passes (South's) was out of turn. >- as a consequence, East has been robbed of his turn > >* >It is a compound condition: if such and such condition exists and once it >does a further condition exists. >* > >Therefore L34 applies. > >* >well, 34 applies in that the specifications for cancelling the three >passes >were not met. >* >It is not important that West condoned South's pass. > >* >imo it is critical that the OOT call was condoned. >* > >If South >hadn't passed OOT, it wouldn't have been possible for East to >be deprived of his turn. > >* >Had W not condoned E would have called. W had the opportunity to not >condone. >* > >Besides, such a pass OOT is ALWAYS condoned. > >* >??? >* > >L34 specifically >handles a break in rotation. > >* >so do other laws. >* > >If South's pass hadn't been >condoned, then it would have been East's turn, and there would >be no break in rotation. > >* >Have I not suggested as much? >* > >And finally, it is not West but North who sends us into L34. >He places the third pass. > >-- > >If the law wanted to tell why three pass are cancelled it could have >expressed it in a footnote; or for the worse enclosed it in parentheses >within the text. It did place the words so as to make it a condition. In the original case, West called the TD, and, presumably, had the law explained to him. He then elected to accept South's pass, and passed. Roger's analysis may have been unduly affected by those circumstances. Imagine, however, that West had failed to notice that South was OOT, and just passed without realizing that anything was amiss, at which point someone else realized that East failed to make a call and summoned the TD. The Law does not distinguish these situations. Would it be reasonable to argue that L34 would not apply in the latter situation? ISTM that that might well be precisely the situation that gave rise to the writing of L34 in the first place! Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Thu Sep 15 15:58:58 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Thu Sep 15 16:02:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I became astonished with the amount of imagination revealed here by some readers of the laws! Especially law 34... Of course the auction reverts, the real question (didnt even imagine that someone would have a problem before this) is what to do with the "as if there was no irregularity" and the A(U)I Rui Marques From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 15 19:55:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 15 19:58:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c5ba1e$a1c00b70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ........... > Not so. The difference is when it is the third pass that is OOT. > Then the missed player[s] have been deprived of the right to act > should the auction be over. Come on! L34 simply states that: When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. L34 says absolutely nothing about which of the three passes must or must not be out of rotation, it is sufficient that one pass (regardless of which) was out of rotation. And L34 says nothing about the pass out of rotation being condoned. Please save your efforts for a more sensible discussion! Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 16 03:26:09 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 16 03:29:14 2005 Subject: [blml] The dental blessing In-Reply-To: <200509071403.j87E33WG020860@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509071403.j87E33WG020860@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <432A1F31.8090700@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > EBU Appeals Casebook 2000, number one > Appeals Committee's comments: > Very close to keeping the deposit. The Laws clearly > say that a psyche is different to a misbid: Well, yes, psychs and misbids are different things by definition, but I don't see anything in the Laws that requires or even suggests that any ruling should be different in the two cases. No doubt SO's have authority to regulate, but one can hope they will do so wisely and will let the players know what the rules are. (Yes, I too thought it was obvious what had happened. A ruling on IWoG wouldn't be amiss, but I can't see letting "misbidders" keep their score when the misbid is outwardly equivalent to illegal use of a convention.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 16 03:35:08 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 16 03:38:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <200509112006.j8BK6nxA010648@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509112006.j8BK6nxA010648@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <432A214C.3090107@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > [after a disputed claim] My job (as TD) is to work out, > if I can, what I think would have happened Not everyone agrees with that, but it is certainly one possible interpretation of L70A. > Steve will blench at the mind-reading involved, Tim sure knows his customers! :-) Despite our differences, I would expect to be happy with Tim's claim rulings most of the time. > There's no "right" or > "wrong" ruling in this sort of case - if you weren't actually *there* you > aren't going to make a good judgement. Here's something we agree on, at least partially: the actual case we were presented is not an easy one. From: "Guthrie" > Surely a better compromise > is possible: specify default assumptions such as: > > You play trumps last unless you specify when and > how you will play them. You cash suits from the > top down. Straightforward blockages will be > overcome but you must specify if you intend to > overtake equals. You must specify any play > contingent on an opponent's play. This wouldn't be at all crazy; we even have a precedent in L46B. While it is too late to implement something this radical in the current Laws revision, I don't see anything that would prevent an SO from mandating such rules for its own games. Maybe one will decide to experiment. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 16 03:38:25 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 16 03:41:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) In-Reply-To: <200509131450.j8DEoYTJ009090@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509131450.j8DEoYTJ009090@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <432A2211.1080102@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > I think that BLML, with its frailties, > would be better served if we looked at what applies, how to rule, Indeed. I for one would value your opinions on such questions. > The ubiquitous posters, for the most part, are not in the least interested > in getting the game "right" but rather in impressing all of us with their > erudition and ability to "lawyer" the language. Speculating on other people's motives doesn't seem useful. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 16 03:44:05 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 16 03:47:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <200509131508.j8DF8eSc011179@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509131508.j8DF8eSc011179@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <432A2365.2030002@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > If a player allows UI to affect his otherwise intended > action and thereby happens to gain an advantage he is in breach of L73c. I am surprised to see Tim, of all people, write this. When playing with beginners or others who transmit UI, I often change my intended action to avoid taking advantage of the UI. This is my understanding of what L73C requires. > Players are not expected to > self-apply L16 at the table, it is a law for TD/ACs not players. Of course many players can't apply it or can't be bothered. However, if one wants to win within the rules, one is well advised to apply L16 to one's own actions. By doing so, a player who lucks into a good score will keep it. (Of course the usual result is a bad score but no worse than what an adjustment would have given, at least if the rules are being enforced.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 16 03:55:27 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 16 03:58:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <200509141542.j8EFgXLk027546@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509141542.j8EFgXLk027546@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > We must decide primarily if declarer's actions (of showing his cards) > demonstrably are *not* a claim. > > There is a difference: If we are in the least real doubt then the actions > *are* a claim. Why are "we" not deciding on preponderance of the evidence, as in any other equity ruling? > I was not presenting my personal opinion; I was referring an official > commentary to L68A as issued by EBL and I am not aware of any disagreement > with this understanding within any promulgating body. > > Except when a statement or an action applies *only* to the trick currently > in progress: > A player stating that he will win a specific number (including zero) of the > remaining tricks is making a claim. > A player suggesting that the play is curtailed is making a claim. > A player showing his cards is making a claim unless he demonstrably does not > intend to claim. While the text of L68B can support this interpretation, it isn't the way I would have read it. Like many others, I read the text with the "unless" applying to both of the last two actions. However, in the situation originally mentioned, we don't have a problem. When declarer faces his cards saying "I am not claiming," he is not suggesting play should be curtailed. On the contrary, he is suggesting that play should be sped up. A defender can show cards to declarer without claiming. The act of doing so is, of course, UI to the other defender, but that won't matter in most cases where a defender would want to do this. Sven, I have a question for you. Suppose declarer, at trick five, asks the opponents, "Will you let me claim on a double squeeze?" Is the question itself a claim? If so, will you allow allow declarer to give details of his intended line of play? (I've never seen this at the table, but it could well have happened in the ACBL "simultaneous pairs" last Tuesday: board 17 if anyone is curious.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 16 04:09:05 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 16 04:12:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: <200509151602.j8FG2C84018439@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509151602.j8FG2C84018439@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <432A2941.9090105@cfa.harvard.edu> >>Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... >> >> S Ax >> H AK10xx >> D xxx >> C AKx >>S xx S KQJ10x >>H xxxxx H Qx >>D A D Kx >>C Jxxxx C xxxx >> S xxxx >> H J >> D Q10xxxx >> C Q >> >>None vul, North dealer >> >>W N E S >> 1H Pass >> >>West calls TD, accepts the pass. >> >> 1H Pass >>Pass Pass >> >>Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects to bid 1S >> >> 1H 1S 2D >>Pass Pass Pass... >> >>TD again... > From: "David J. Grabiner" > Does Law 16C apply here? I think it does, because I do not believe that UI > restrictions are a penalty. BLML just recently debated the phrase "without penalty" but did not come to unanimous conclusion about what it implies about some actions being UI. L34 contains a different phrase, "as though there had been no irregularity." This seems to me to imply that the cancelled actions are AI, but one can certainly argue the contrary. > However, it is the TD's responsibility to explain penalties to the players. > If South had known that his pass was still UI, he would not have bid 2D. He > would have bid 3D if this was weak, or passed and bid diamonds over North's > reopening double. > > Thus, under either Law 82 (director's error) Indeed, if the TD failed to give a proper ruling, this has to be the result. For that to apply, we need to know what the proper ruling would have been. In my opinion the relevant Law is 72B1. A villain in the South seat could have passed OOT to "create" a weak 2D bid when none existed. That can't be allowed. Sorry, Eric, but I don't care whether South really is a villain or not; the adjusted score should be the same either way. (Of course if we really do believe South is a villain, disciplinary action is appropriate _regardless_ of score adjustment.) Just to avoid quibbles: if South happens to be playing some strange system where 1H-P-2D is weak, there would probably be no reason to invoke L72B1. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 16 04:35:10 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Sep 16 04:38:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: <432A2941.9090105@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509151602.j8FG2C84018439@cfa.harvard.edu> <432A2941.9090105@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050915221823.031e2b70@mail.comcast.net> At 10:09 PM 9/15/2005, Steve Willner wrote: >>>Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... >>> >>> S Ax >>> H AK10xx >>> D xxx >>> C AKx >>>S xx S KQJ10x >>>H xxxxx H Qx >>>D A D Kx >>>C Jxxxx C xxxx >>> S xxxx >>> H J >>> D Q10xxxx >>> C Q >>> >>>None vul, North dealer >>> >>>W N E S >>> 1H Pass >>> >>>West calls TD, accepts the pass. >>> >>> 1H Pass >>>Pass Pass >>> >>>Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects to bid 1S >>> >>> 1H 1S 2D >>>Pass Pass Pass... >>> >>>TD again... > >>From: "David J. Grabiner" >>Does Law 16C apply here? I think it does, because I do not believe that UI >>restrictions are a penalty. > >BLML just recently debated the phrase "without >penalty" but did not come to unanimous >conclusion about what it implies about some >actions being UI. L34 contains a different >phrase, "as though there had been no >irregularity." This seems to me to imply that >the cancelled actions are AI, but one can certainly argue the contrary. > >>However, it is the TD's responsibility to explain penalties to the players. >>If South had known that his pass was still UI, he would not have bid 2D. He >>would have bid 3D if this was weak, or passed and bid diamonds over North's >>reopening double. >>Thus, under either Law 82 (director's error) > >Indeed, if the TD failed to give a proper >ruling, this has to be the result. For that to >apply, we need to know what the proper ruling would have been. > >In my opinion the relevant Law is 72B1. A >villain in the South seat could have passed OOT >to "create" a weak 2D bid when none >existed. That can't be allowed. Sorry, Eric, >but I don't care whether South really is a >villain or not; the adjusted score should be the >same either way. (Of course if we really do >believe South is a villain, disciplinary action >is appropriate _regardless_ of score >adjustment.) Just to avoid quibbles: if South >happens to be playing some strange system where >1H-P-2D is weak, there would probably be no reason to invoke L72B1. I don't think South could reasonably have known that this would happen at the time he passed out of turn. He had no reason to expect that the pass would be accepted and followed by two passes in turn, allowing him a weak 2D call. More likely, the pass would be refused, and if East didn't pass, South could be hurt by his irregularity. For example, if East doubled, South would have liked to bid 3D, but would be forced to pass. If East bid 4C, South's withdrawn pass would create the UI that he had a very weak hand; North might have both pass and 4H as LA's, and be forced to bid 4H, doubled by West and down several tricks. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 16 04:39:34 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 16 04:43:47 2005 Subject: [blml] The dental blessing References: <200509071403.j87E33WG020860@cfa.harvard.edu> <432A1F31.8090700@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <006801c5ba67$e0013320$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> [Steve Willner] > Well, yes, psychs and misbids are > different things by definition, but I > don't see anything in the Laws that > requires or even suggests that any > ruling should be different in the two > cases. No doubt SO's have authority > to regulate, but one can hope they > will do so wisely and will let the > players know what the rules are. > (Yes, I too thought it was obvious > what had happened. A ruling on IWoG > wouldn't be amiss, but I can't see > letting misbidders" keep their score > when the misbid is outwardly > equivalent to illegal use of a > convention.) [nige1] I go further than Steve. If they can't rephrase this regulation to avoid spurious over-reliance on "judgement", then they should scrap it. I suppose the director and appeals committee believed the "misbiidder" and so ruled in his favour. Some non-telepaths would automatically rule against the "misbidder", however plausible he was. The randomness of such "judgement" rulings infuriates those ruled against -- like the poor bloke in the pass-out seat who seriously considered bidding, until the director confirmed that it was illegal to pysche a GF 2D. Had the committee decided to keep his deposit, that would have been the final injustice. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 16 05:02:17 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 16 05:06:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title References: <200509131508.j8DF8eSc011179@cfa.harvard.edu> <432A2365.2030002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <008401c5ba6b$0c5521e0$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> [TFLB 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. [Nige1] Tim West-Meads agrees with Jeff Rubens that you should take the same action irrespective of UI. Steve Willner argues the more orthodox view that you should avoid actions suggested by UI. To support his position, Steve quoted L73C (above). Having re-read it, I can't see how "doing what you would have done anyway" can be "taking advantage of UI". Although I can understand why the director is likely to rule against you. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Sep 16 09:33:32 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri Sep 16 09:36:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 Message-ID: "Sven Pran" > cc : Envoy? par : Objet : RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 blml-bounces@amster damned.org 15/09/2005 19:55 > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ........... > Not so. The difference is when it is the third pass that is OOT. > Then the missed player[s] have been deprived of the right to act > should the auction be over. Come on! L34 simply states that: When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. L34 says absolutely nothing about which of the three passes must or must not be out of rotation, it is sufficient that one pass (regardless of which) was out of rotation. And L34 says nothing about the pass out of rotation being condoned. Please save your efforts for a more sensible discussion! *** we are directed to L34 from L17E. the only way in which L34 is effective would be when there are 3 passes in rotation, one of which is out of rotation. i think the only possibility is when the first pass is OOT. jpr *** Sven __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 16 10:04:21 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 16 10:07:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c5ba95$3ec812c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > We must decide primarily if declarer's actions (of showing > > his cards) demonstrably are *not* a claim. > > > > There is a difference: If we are in the least real doubt > > then the actions *are* a claim. > > > > > Why are "we" not deciding on preponderance of the evidence, > > as in any other equity ruling? Because the laws tells us to rule that showing the cards is a claim unless it demonstrably is not. ............. > > A player suggesting that the play is curtailed is making a claim. > > A player showing his cards is making a claim unless he demonstrably > > does not intend to claim. > > > > While the text of L68B can support this interpretation, it isn't the way > I would have read it. Like many others, I read the text with the > "unless" applying to both of the last two actions. Declarer: "I don't intend to claim but I think the game is over". Opponent: "Right you are; three tricks to us, you just make four spades" Declarer: "Oh no, you don't get more than two tricks, I make an overtrick" Now the Director is summoned. Is this a claim or is it not? And precisely which law(s) do you apply? > > However, in the situation originally mentioned, we don't have a problem. > When declarer faces his cards saying "I am not claiming," he is not > suggesting play should be curtailed. On the contrary, he is suggesting > that play should be sped up. Agreed if he demonstrably showed his cards to an opponent just for the purpose of speeding the game. > > A defender can show cards to declarer without claiming. The act of > doing so is, of course, UI to the other defender, but that won't matter > in most cases where a defender would want to do this. No problem. > > Sven, I have a question for you. Suppose declarer, at trick five, asks > the opponents, "Will you let me claim on a double squeeze?" Is the > question itself a claim? If so, will you allow allow declarer to give > details of his intended line of play? (I've never seen this at the > table, but it could well have happened in the ACBL "simultaneous pairs" > last Tuesday: board 17 if anyone is curious.) In my opinion this is a very borderline case. The question itself is indeed a suggestion that the play be curtailed (and as such an unconditional claim) but I would possibly be a bit lenient with that declarer unless opponents accepted the suggestion. Much would depend on my impression of the situation at the table. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 16 10:25:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 16 10:28:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c5ba98$26d44cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > ........... > we are directed to L34 from L17E. the only way in which L34 is effective > would be when there are 3 passes in rotation, one of which is out of > rotation. i think the only possibility is when the first pass is OOT. North Passes in turn, then South passes out of turn and finally West passes in turn, or North and East pass in turn then West passes out of turn All qualify for L34. (Even West's pass out of turn in the last case can be "accepted" by North!) Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Sep 16 10:36:10 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri Sep 16 10:39:13 2005 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_RE=3A_[blml]_Laws_31=2C_34?= Message-ID: "Sven Pran" > cc : Envoy? par : Objet : RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 blml-bounces@amster damned.org 16/09/2005 10:25 > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > ........... > we are directed to L34 from L17E. the only way in which L34 is effective > would be when there are 3 passes in rotation, one of which is out of > rotation. i think the only possibility is when the first pass is OOT. North Passes in turn, then South passes out of turn and finally West passes in turn, or North and East pass in turn then West passes out of turn All qualify for L34. *** ... but L34 is not needed because L17E doesn't say that auction is ended jpr *** (Even West's pass out of turn in the last case can be "accepted" by North!) Sven __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 16 11:09:28 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 16 11:12:29 2005 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_R=E9f._:_RE:_=5Bblml=5D_Laws_31=2C_34?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c5ba9e$576baa40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > ........... > > we are directed to L34 from L17E. the only way in which L34 is effective > > would be when there are 3 passes in rotation, one of which is out of > > rotation. i think the only possibility is when the first pass is OOT. > > North Passes in turn, then South passes out of turn and finally West > passes > in turn, or North and East pass in turn then West passes out of turn > > All qualify for L34. > *** > ... but L34 is not needed because L17E doesn't say that auction is ended Who is the next player to call in each case, what calls (passes) are sustained and what passes are cancelled? These questions are not answered by L17E but they are indeed answered by L34. And L34 applies whether coming from L17E or standing alone. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 11:38:14 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 16 11:41:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 References: <200509151602.j8FG2C84018439@cfa.harvard.edu> <432A2941.9090105@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 21:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > >>Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... > >> > >> S Ax > >> H AK10xx > >> D xxx > >> C AKx > >>S xx S KQJ10x > >>H xxxxx H Qx > >>D A D Kx > >>C Jxxxx C xxxx > >> S xxxx > >> H J > >> D Q10xxxx > >> C Q > >> > >>None vul, North dealer > >> > >>W N E S > >> 1H Pass > >> > >>West calls TD, accepts the pass. > >> > >> 1H Pass > >>Pass Pass > >> > >>Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects to bid 1S > >> > >> 1H 1S 2D > >>Pass Pass Pass... > >> > >>TD again... > > > From: "David J. Grabiner" > > Does Law 16C apply here? I think it does, because I do not believe that UI > > restrictions are a penalty. > > BLML just recently debated the phrase "without penalty" but did not come > to unanimous conclusion about what it implies about some actions being > UI. L34 contains a different phrase, "as though there had been no > irregularity." This seems to me to imply that the cancelled actions are > AI, but one can certainly argue the contrary. > > > However, it is the TD's responsibility to explain penalties to the players. > > If South had known that his pass was still UI, he would not have bid 2D. He > > would have bid 3D if this was weak, or passed and bid diamonds over North's > > reopening double. > > > > Thus, under either Law 82 (director's error) > > Indeed, if the TD failed to give a proper ruling, this has to be the > result. For that to apply, we need to know what the proper ruling would > have been. > > In my opinion the relevant Law is 72B1. A villain in the South seat > could have passed OOT to "create" a weak 2D bid when none existed. That > can't be allowed. Sorry, Eric, but I don't care whether South really is > a villain or not; the adjusted score should be the same either way. (Of > course if we really do believe South is a villain, disciplinary action > is appropriate _regardless_ of score adjustment.) Just to avoid > quibbles: if South happens to be playing some strange system where > 1H-P-2D is weak, there would probably be no reason to invoke L72B1. Curious, yes? S committed an irregularity subject to penalty. One would think that when the right to penalize is forfeited it is because non-offender perceives he would be better off. So, by complying with law S is branded a cheat. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 13:22:24 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 16 13:25:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 2:33 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 "Sven Pran" > cc : Envoy? par : Objet : RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 blml-bounces@amster damned.org 15/09/2005 19:55 > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick .......... > Not so. The difference is when it is the third pass that is OOT. > Then the missed player[s] have been deprived of the right to act > should the auction be over. Come on! L34 simply states that: When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. L34 says absolutely nothing about which of the three passes must or must not be out of rotation, it is sufficient that one pass (regardless of which) was out of rotation. And L34 says nothing about the pass out of rotation being condoned. Please save your efforts for a more sensible discussion! Sven ----------- The law does not simply state at all. If it states: L34 When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation. That is simply stated. However, ', thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn.' is complicated as the reader expects the entire paragraph to read in the simple form and misses the impact of the added condition. The added condition in its complicated way says to cancel at most the last pass if the last pass was indeed OOT. The reason for only the last pass is that is the [only] occasion that a skipped player is deprived of that turn due to a pass OOT [as said before his partner controls whether it is better for the partnership to skip the turn or not]. *** we are directed to L34 from L17E. the only way in which L34 is effective would be when there are 3 passes in rotation, one of which is out of rotation. i think the only possibility is when the first pass is OOT. jpr Jean-Pierre Rocafort *** L17E points to L34 on the occasions where pass OOT has been accepted. Such occasions occur at times other than three consecutive passes. What is curious is that law provides for ending the auction period but does not provide for ending the auction. I don't have the stomach to contemplate the ramifications. regards roger pewick From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 16 03:36:44 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 16 13:30:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 References: Message-ID: Yes, Rui, there is some astonishment and amazing imagination in the reading of English. The Law is clear, your analysis is correct --- There is no reference in Law 34 as to UI or AI, and that is the ONLY possible problem. I think Law 16 (first general paragraph) is clear on that part. Would that the effort expended to painfully distort the Laws were applied to making sensible interpretations. We might then have a modicum of value for the indeterminate posturing of some of our fellow TDs and the wanabe TDs and their flights of fancy. Most of those arguments remind me of some teenagers on pot (marijuana) or God knows what else. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: "'BLML'" Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:58 AM Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > I became astonished with the amount of imagination revealed here by some > readers of the laws! Especially law 34... Of course the auction reverts, > the > real question (didnt even imagine that someone would have a problem before > this) is what to do with the "as if there was no irregularity" and the > A(U)I > > Rui Marques > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 16 13:41:28 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 16 13:44:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 References: <000301c5ba98$26d44cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: How about North bids, West passes out of turn, and hen North and East pass? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:25 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > ........... > > we are directed to L34 from L17E. the only way in which L34 is effective > > would be when there are 3 passes in rotation, one of which is out of > > rotation. i think the only possibility is when the first pass is OOT. > > North Passes in turn, then South passes out of turn and finally West > passes > in turn, or North and East pass in turn then West passes out of turn > > All qualify for L34. > > (Even West's pass out of turn in the last case can be "accepted" by > North!) > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 16 13:52:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 16 13:54:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Rotterdam appeal 6 In-Reply-To: <432A214C.3090107@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509112006.j8BK6nxA010648@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <432A214C.3090107@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916074211.02bdab60@pop.starpower.net> At 09:35 PM 9/15/05, Steve wrote: >From: "Guthrie" >>Surely a better compromise >>is possible: specify default assumptions such as: >>You play trumps last unless you specify when and >>how you will play them. You cash suits from the >>top down. Straightforward blockages will be >>overcome but you must specify if you intend to >>overtake equals. You must specify any play >>contingent on an opponent's play. > >This wouldn't be at all crazy; we even have a precedent in >L46B. While it is too late to implement something this radical in the >current Laws revision, I don't see anything that would prevent an SO >from mandating such rules for its own games. Maybe one will decide to >experiment. The ACBL already has some guidelines -- I don't know what their official status is -- that include some of Nigel's specific suggestions: suits are assumed to be cashed top down unless specified otherwise, and unblocking or overtaking winners is not assumed unless indicated by the claimer in some manner. Unless otherwise indicated, trumps are assumed to be played at the time that is least advantageous. "Indicated" need not mean "specified": "five diamond tricks" holding KQ opposite AJ1098 is sufficient to indicate that you intend to overtake; "I know there's a trump out" is sufficient to allow you to pull that trump as soon as you regain the lead. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 16 14:23:06 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 16 14:25:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) In-Reply-To: <432A2211.1080102@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509131450.j8DEoYTJ009090@cfa.harvard.edu> <432A2211.1080102@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916075629.02bdcc30@pop.starpower.net> At 09:38 PM 9/15/05, Steve wrote: >>From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >> I think that BLML, with its frailties, >>would be better served if we looked at what applies, how to rule, > >Indeed. I for one would value your opinions on such questions. > >>The ubiquitous posters, for the most part, are not in the least >>interested in getting the game "right" but rather in impressing all >>of us with their erudition and ability to "lawyer" the language. > >Speculating on other people's motives doesn't seem useful. This mailing list was started prior to the publication of the 1997 version of TFLB. Not long thereafter, I was invited to join what was described to me as a forum whose primary purpose was to ascertain where the current laws were weak or ambiguous, and suggest how they might be improved, in the hope that our findings might be brought to the attention of the relevant parties and considered in the revision process. From the start, most of the discussion was about actual cases, but the point was to examine difficult or inconsistent rulings for the purpose of determining how the law could be improved to enhance ease or consistency of rulings on such cases in the future. Even then, there were plenty of other fora designed to address "How should I rule?" questions; BLML was never intended to serve that particular purpose. It disturbs me when some of our members -- especially one of those whom the forum was originally designed to influence -- assert that BLML should stick to discussing rulings in the context of what current law says rather than turning the discussion to the subject of what the applicable laws *should* say. That is what we were formed to do. Sure, over the years the discussions here have taught me a lot about how to rule under current law, and has undoubtedly made me a better director. But I could have achieved that goal elsewhere -- indeed, from a practical perspective, as a working TD certified by the ACBL and employed by one of its constituents, I care far more about how the ACBL tells me to rule than about how TFLB tells me to, and, if nothing else, this forum has certainly taught me that those are very different, so I might have learned a lot more that is directly useful in that regard in an ACBL-specific forum on rulings. That's not why I'm here. My motive for contributing to BLML is the hope that I can do my small part to help make future versions of TFLB better for players, directors and ACs alike, in both its substance and its language. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Sep 16 14:30:51 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Sep 16 14:37:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 References: <000301c5ba98$26d44cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001201c5babb$0ee5f790$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Facts please: did North start the auction? Who was the dealer? With that info included I can give you the answer > How about North bids, West passes out of turn, and hen North and East pass? > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:25 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 > > > > > On Behalf Of jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > > ........... > > > we are directed to L34 from L17E. the only way in which L34 is effective > > > would be when there are 3 passes in rotation, one of which is out of > > > rotation. i think the only possibility is when the first pass is OOT. > > > > North Passes in turn, then South passes out of turn and finally West > > passes > > in turn, or North and East pass in turn then West passes out of turn > > > > All qualify for L34. > > > > (Even West's pass out of turn in the last case can be "accepted" by > > North!) > > > > Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 16 14:47:43 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 16 14:49:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509141542.j8EFgXLk027546@cfa.harvard.edu> <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916083119.02bdbb80@pop.starpower.net> At 09:55 PM 9/15/05, Steve wrote: >Sven, I have a question for you. Suppose declarer, at trick five, >asks the opponents, "Will you let me claim on a double squeeze?" Is >the question itself a claim? If so, will you allow allow declarer to >give details of his intended line of play? (I've never seen this at >the table, but it could well have happened in the ACBL "simultaneous >pairs" last Tuesday: board 17 if anyone is curious.) Something similar did happen to me during a match the day before yesterday. After losing the first three tricks at 3NT and regaining the lead, declarer faced his hand with the statement, "I'll take my nine tricks; if someone gets squeezed along the way I'll make an overtrick." My partner and I faced our hands and looked at one another's cards. As we did that, declarer set aside three cards from his hand and three from dummy to indicate the end position he intended to reach. We scored up -430 without comment and started the next board. IMO, that's the way claims should work. Everyone's enjoyment of the game was significantly enhanced by our not wasting five unnecessary minutes agonizing over discards against a declarer who was reluctant to claim in a less-than-perfectly-clear position. That's why I oppose any change or interpretation of the Law that would detract from the game by discouraging such claims. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 16 14:53:40 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 16 14:56:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims References: <200509141542.j8EFgXLk027546@cfa.harvard.edu><432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916083119.02bdbb80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: All I can add is BRAVO! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Claims > At 09:55 PM 9/15/05, Steve wrote: > > >Sven, I have a question for you. Suppose declarer, at trick five, > >asks the opponents, "Will you let me claim on a double squeeze?" Is > >the question itself a claim? If so, will you allow allow declarer to > >give details of his intended line of play? (I've never seen this at > >the table, but it could well have happened in the ACBL "simultaneous > >pairs" last Tuesday: board 17 if anyone is curious.) > > Something similar did happen to me during a match the day before > yesterday. After losing the first three tricks at 3NT and regaining > the lead, declarer faced his hand with the statement, "I'll take my > nine tricks; if someone gets squeezed along the way I'll make an > overtrick." My partner and I faced our hands and looked at one > another's cards. As we did that, declarer set aside three cards from > his hand and three from dummy to indicate the end position he intended > to reach. We scored up -430 without comment and started the next board. > > IMO, that's the way claims should work. Everyone's enjoyment of the > game was significantly enhanced by our not wasting five unnecessary > minutes agonizing over discards against a declarer who was reluctant to > claim in a less-than-perfectly-clear position. That's why I oppose any > change or interpretation of the Law that would detract from the game by > discouraging such claims. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 16 14:56:20 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 16 14:59:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (wasSomething surrealistic) References: <200509131450.j8DEoYTJ009090@cfa.harvard.edu><432A2211.1080102@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916075629.02bdcc30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Dear Eric, I am in full agreement with your motives and efforts as far as improvements in the Laws. I welcome contributions from all sides. For the most part I can attest that historically you have provided such input. Where I have a problem is when BLMLer's refuse to accept what the current Laws are. There is all too much effort spent on twisting and "interpreting" words to come up with meanings that for the most part are ludicrous when looked at in the reality of the game. "Well, it could be interpreted to mean XXXXXX" when nobody in their right mind would ever do so, rule that way, or think it logical is simply an exercise of little value. Best regards, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (wasSomething surrealistic) > At 09:38 PM 9/15/05, Steve wrote: > > >>From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > >> I think that BLML, with its frailties, > >>would be better served if we looked at what applies, how to rule, > > > >Indeed. I for one would value your opinions on such questions. > > > >>The ubiquitous posters, for the most part, are not in the least > >>interested in getting the game "right" but rather in impressing all > >>of us with their erudition and ability to "lawyer" the language. > > > >Speculating on other people's motives doesn't seem useful. > > This mailing list was started prior to the publication of the 1997 > version of TFLB. Not long thereafter, I was invited to join what was > described to me as a forum whose primary purpose was to ascertain where > the current laws were weak or ambiguous, and suggest how they might be > improved, in the hope that our findings might be brought to the > attention of the relevant parties and considered in the revision > process. From the start, most of the discussion was about actual > cases, but the point was to examine difficult or inconsistent rulings > for the purpose of determining how the law could be improved to enhance > ease or consistency of rulings on such cases in the future. > > Even then, there were plenty of other fora designed to address "How > should I rule?" questions; BLML was never intended to serve that > particular purpose. It disturbs me when some of our members -- > especially one of those whom the forum was originally designed to > influence -- assert that BLML should stick to discussing rulings in the > context of what current law says rather than turning the discussion to > the subject of what the applicable laws *should* say. That is what we > were formed to do. > > Sure, over the years the discussions here have taught me a lot about > how to rule under current law, and has undoubtedly made me a better > director. But I could have achieved that goal elsewhere -- indeed, > from a practical perspective, as a working TD certified by the ACBL and > employed by one of its constituents, I care far more about how the ACBL > tells me to rule than about how TFLB tells me to, and, if nothing else, > this forum has certainly taught me that those are very different, so I > might have learned a lot more that is directly useful in that regard in > an ACBL-specific forum on rulings. That's not why I'm here. My motive > for contributing to BLML is the hope that I can do my small part to > help make future versions of TFLB better for players, directors and ACs > alike, in both its substance and its language. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 16 14:58:29 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 16 15:00:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <000201c5ba95$3ec812c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <000201c5ba95$3ec812c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916085207.02e5e270@pop.starpower.net> At 04:04 AM 9/16/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > > However, in the situation originally mentioned, we don't have a > problem. > > When declarer faces his cards saying "I am not claiming," he > is not > > suggesting play should be curtailed. On the contrary, he is suggesting > > that play should be sped up. > >Agreed if he demonstrably showed his cards to an opponent just for the >purpose of speeding the game. And that is precisely what Peter suggested in the post with which he began this thread: a procedure sanctioned by law under which a declarer could specify that he was showing his cards to an opponent, or to both opponents, just for the purpose of speeding up the game, thus "demonstrably" indicating that he did not intend to claim. So what are we debating about here? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 16 15:00:17 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Sep 16 15:03:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Marques Rui" Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 20:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > Yes, Rui, there is some astonishment and amazing imagination in the reading > of English. The Law is clear, your analysis is correct --- > There is no reference in Law 34 as to UI or AI, and that is the ONLY > possible problem. I think Law 16 (first general paragraph) is clear on that > part. I think it is muddier than in the way you suggest. S's P was condoned as legal. The other two passes were legal. Supposedly they are cancelled. L16 provides the inferences from those calls are authorized. regards roger pewick > Would that the effort expended to painfully distort the Laws were applied to > making sensible interpretations. We might then have a modicum of value for > the indeterminate posturing of some of our fellow TDs and the wanabe TDs and > their flights of fancy. Most of those arguments remind me of some teenagers > on pot (marijuana) or God knows what else. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rui Marques" > To: "'BLML'" > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:58 AM > Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > I became astonished with the amount of imagination revealed here by some > > readers of the laws! Especially law 34... Of course the auction reverts, > > the > > real question (didnt even imagine that someone would have a problem before > > this) is what to do with the "as if there was no irregularity" and the > > A(U)I > > > > Rui Marques From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 16 15:14:50 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 16 15:17:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 References: Message-ID: At the risk of beating a dead horse ---- There is nothing in Law 34 that says anything about the passes being legal, not legal, accepted, fattening, or sexually provocative. It SIMPLY STATES... (read it!) Which makes it impossible to END the auction under those circumstances, which must end when there are "....three passes in rotation have followed any call...." from Law 17 E. Perhaps Law 34 should be a "2" in Law 17 as a more logical place for it, but that's for the future, ---- perhaps. At the moment it is a separate Law. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Marques Rui" > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 20:36 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > Yes, Rui, there is some astonishment and amazing imagination in the > reading > > of English. The Law is clear, your analysis is correct --- > > There is no reference in Law 34 as to UI or AI, and that is the ONLY > > possible problem. I think Law 16 (first general paragraph) is clear on > that > > part. > > I think it is muddier than in the way you suggest. > > S's P was condoned as legal. The other two passes were legal. Supposedly > they are cancelled. L16 provides the inferences from those calls are > authorized. > > regards > roger pewick > > > Would that the effort expended to painfully distort the Laws were > > applied > to > > making sensible interpretations. We might then have a modicum of value > for > > the indeterminate posturing of some of our fellow TDs and the wanabe TDs > and > > their flights of fancy. Most of those arguments remind me of some > teenagers > > on pot (marijuana) or God knows what else. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rui Marques" > > To: "'BLML'" > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:58 AM > > Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > I became astonished with the amount of imagination revealed here by > > > some > > > readers of the laws! Especially law 34... Of course the auction > > > reverts, > > > the > > > real question (didnt even imagine that someone would have a problem > before > > > this) is what to do with the "as if there was no irregularity" and the > > > A(U)I > > > > > > Rui Marques > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 16 15:41:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 16 15:42:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916085207.02e5e270@pop.starpower.net> References: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <000201c5ba95$3ec812c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916085207.02e5e270@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <432ACB96.7070409@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:04 AM 9/16/05, Sven wrote: > >> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner >> >> > However, in the situation originally mentioned, we don't have a >> problem. >> > When declarer faces his cards saying "I am not claiming," he is >> not >> > suggesting play should be curtailed. On the contrary, he is suggesting >> > that play should be sped up. >> >> Agreed if he demonstrably showed his cards to an opponent just for the >> purpose of speeding the game. > > > And that is precisely what Peter suggested in the post with which he > began this thread: a procedure sanctioned by law under which a declarer > could specify that he was showing his cards to an opponent, or to both > opponents, just for the purpose of speeding up the game, thus > "demonstrably" indicating that he did not intend to claim. So what are > we debating about here? > What we are debating here is a procedure by which a claimer wishes to obtain the same result as claiming, namely to speed up the game, without accepting the penalty for the risk of claiming, namely to be awarded the least possible result. If a player wishes to curtail play, he should claim. If he doesn't, he should not claim. He should not try to wriggle out from under a law which states that a claim is a claim. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 16 15:43:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 16 15:44:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916083119.02bdbb80@pop.starpower.net> References: <200509141542.j8EFgXLk027546@cfa.harvard.edu> <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916083119.02bdbb80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <432ACC1B.4000907@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:55 PM 9/15/05, Steve wrote: > >> Sven, I have a question for you. Suppose declarer, at trick five, >> asks the opponents, "Will you let me claim on a double squeeze?" Is >> the question itself a claim? If so, will you allow allow declarer to >> give details of his intended line of play? (I've never seen this at >> the table, but it could well have happened in the ACBL "simultaneous >> pairs" last Tuesday: board 17 if anyone is curious.) > > > Something similar did happen to me during a match the day before > yesterday. After losing the first three tricks at 3NT and regaining the > lead, declarer faced his hand with the statement, "I'll take my nine > tricks; if someone gets squeezed along the way I'll make an overtrick." > My partner and I faced our hands and looked at one another's cards. As > we did that, declarer set aside three cards from his hand and three from > dummy to indicate the end position he intended to reach. We scored up > -430 without comment and started the next board. > > IMO, that's the way claims should work. Everyone's enjoyment of the > game was significantly enhanced by our not wasting five unnecessary > minutes agonizing over discards against a declarer who was reluctant to > claim in a less-than-perfectly-clear position. That's why I oppose any > change or interpretation of the Law that would detract from the game by > discouraging such claims. > This is indeed how the claim laws should work, and it is how they _do_ work. What this player did is a perfectly legal claim. There is nothing illegal about the claim being dependent on some particular holding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 16 16:12:25 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 16 16:14:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <432ACB96.7070409@hdw.be> References: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <000201c5ba95$3ec812c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916085207.02e5e270@pop.starpower.net> <432ACB96.7070409@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916094951.02c8c4c0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:41 AM 9/16/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>At 04:04 AM 9/16/05, Sven wrote: >> >>> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner >>> >>> > However, in the situation originally mentioned, we don't have a >>> problem. >>> > When declarer faces his cards saying "I am not claiming," he >>> is not >>> > suggesting play should be curtailed. On the contrary, he is >>> suggesting >>> > that play should be sped up. >>> >>>Agreed if he demonstrably showed his cards to an opponent just for the >>>purpose of speeding the game. >> >>And that is precisely what Peter suggested in the post with which he >>began this thread: a procedure sanctioned by law under which a >>declarer could specify that he was showing his cards to an opponent, >>or to both opponents, just for the purpose of speeding up the game, >>thus "demonstrably" indicating that he did not intend to claim. So >>what are we debating about here? > >What we are debating here is a procedure by which a claimer wishes to >obtain the same result as claiming, namely to speed up the game, >without accepting the penalty for the risk of claiming, namely to be >awarded the least possible result. What we started debating here was a *suggestion* for a *proposed* procedure! >If a player wishes to curtail play, he should claim. If he doesn't, he >should not claim. >He should not try to wriggle out from under a law which states that a >claim is a claim. We are not talking about "wriggling out" of anything under current law. We are not talking about current law at all. We are talking about the advisabiliy of modifying the law to sanction a procedure under which delcarer would make it clear that he is doing something which is *not* claiming. Imagine if you will a brand new law, call it L68A2, that says something like: "When a declarer tables his cards with a statement that he is not making a claim, play continues. Declarer's cards remain faced on the table until play ends. Either or both opponents may table their cards before or during the continued play at their own discretion, or may suggest that their partner do so. In addition, either defender may, at his partner's turn to play, suggest that his partner play a particular card or suit, whether or not any of the defenders' cards have been faced." One might support such a new law or might oppose it; what Peter asked for was arguments for and against enacting some such law, or something along similar lines. Arguing about how to deal with a hypothetical case in which a declarer follows such a procedure when ruling under current law -- notwithstanding that such discussion might have some angels-on-a-pinhead interest for some folks, albeit no real-world consequence -- is, IMO, a long way off-topic. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 16 16:31:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 16 16:32:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916094951.02c8c4c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <000201c5ba95$3ec812c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916085207.02e5e270@pop.starpower.net> <432ACB96.7070409@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916094951.02c8c4c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <432AD731.4070601@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:41 AM 9/16/05, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >> What we are debating here is a procedure by which a claimer wishes to >> obtain the same result as claiming, namely to speed up the game, >> without accepting the penalty for the risk of claiming, namely to be >> awarded the least possible result. > > > What we started debating here was a *suggestion* for a *proposed* > procedure! > I quite understand that it was a suggestion - I was answering the same suggestion. >> If a player wishes to curtail play, he should claim. If he doesn't, he >> should not claim. >> He should not try to wriggle out from under a law which states that a >> claim is a claim. > > > We are not talking about "wriggling out" of anything under current law. > We are not talking about current law at all. We are talking about the > advisabiliy of modifying the law to sanction a procedure under which > delcarer would make it clear that he is doing something which is *not* > claiming. > And I am saying it is not advisable at all. As I said - declarer gets the benefit of curtailing play without the risk of losing the benefit of the doubt. > Imagine if you will a brand new law, call it L68A2, that says something > like: "When a declarer tables his cards with a statement that he is not > making a claim, play continues. Declarer's cards remain faced on the > table until play ends. Either or both opponents may table their cards > before or during the continued play at their own discretion, or may > suggest that their partner do so. In addition, either defender may, at > his partner's turn to play, suggest that his partner play a particular > card or suit, whether or not any of the defenders' cards have been faced." > And why would a declarer wish to do such a thing? Only to curtail play, is it not? Then why not simply apply the claim laws? After all, that is what you are doing isn't it - you are giving the opponents the chance to find the defence double dummy? Are you then prepared to judge declarer's counter-defence? > One might support such a new law or might oppose it; what Peter asked > for was arguments for and against enacting some such law, or something > along similar lines. Arguing about how to deal with a hypothetical case > in which a declarer follows such a procedure when ruling under current > law -- notwithstanding that such discussion might have some > angels-on-a-pinhead interest for some folks, albeit no real-world > consequence -- is, IMO, a long way off-topic. > So suggesting this new proposal is all right but argueing against is not? OK. I won't argue any further then - you've read my reaction. I don't think it brings anything new. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 16 17:36:34 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 16 17:38:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <432AD731.4070601@hdw.be> References: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <000201c5ba95$3ec812c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916085207.02e5e270@pop.starpower.net> <432ACB96.7070409@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916094951.02c8c4c0@pop.starpower.net> <432AD731.4070601@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916105712.02c1c7b0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:31 AM 9/16/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 09:41 AM 9/16/05, Herman wrote: >> >>>What we are debating here is a procedure by which a claimer wishes >>>to obtain the same result as claiming, namely to speed up the game, >>>without accepting the penalty for the risk of claiming, namely to be >>>awarded the least possible result. >> >>What we started debating here was a *suggestion* for a *proposed* >>procedure! > >I quite understand that it was a suggestion - I was answering the same >suggestion. Oddly, I thought Herman's post addressed his position relative to a declarer "try[ing] to wriggle out from under a law which states..." Perhaps I was mistaken, but then... >>>If a player wishes to curtail play, he should claim. If he doesn't, >>>he should not claim. >>>He should not try to wriggle out from under a law which states that >>>a claim is a claim. >> >>We are not talking about "wriggling out" of anything under current law. >>We are not talking about current law at all. We are talking about >>the advisabiliy of modifying the law to sanction a procedure under >>which delcarer would make it clear that he is doing something which >>is *not* claiming. > >And I am saying it is not advisable at all. As I said - declarer gets >the benefit of curtailing play without the risk of losing the benefit >of the doubt. "The benefit of the doubt" is what we (may) give to one side or the other when we make an adjudication. Under Peter's proposal, the deal would be played out and a result obtained; there would be no adjudication involved. Who gets "the benefit of the doubt" when a hand is played out normally to the end under current law? The answer would be the same under Peter's proposal, that the question is meaningless. >>Imagine if you will a brand new law, call it L68A2, that says >>something like: "When a declarer tables his cards with a statement >>that he is not making a claim, play continues. Declarer's cards >>remain faced on the table until play ends. Either or both opponents >>may table their cards before or during the continued play at their >>own discretion, or may suggest that their partner do so. In >>addition, either defender may, at his partner's turn to play, suggest >>that his partner play a particular card or suit, whether or not any >>of the defenders' cards have been faced." > >And why would a declarer wish to do such a thing? Only to curtail >play, is it not? Then why not simply apply the claim laws? After all, >that is what you are doing isn't it - you are giving the opponents the >chance to find the defence double dummy? Are you then prepared to >judge declarer's counter-defence? The purpose would be to speed up the remainder of the play of the deal. It works because defenders who are in the tank are usually evaluating the likelihood of various possible layouts. By exposing the actual layout, declarer can eliminate whatever other possibilities the defender(s) might otherwise take a great deal of unneccesary time to think about. Declarer does this when he believes the layout is such that the outcome will not depend on which of the possible holdings the defender might eventually choose to play for. He risks the possibility that, if he is wrong, the defender, knowing the actual layout, might be guided to a successful play which he might otherwise not find. What he does not risk is the possibility that some director or committee might find such a play on the defender's behalf when the defender himself, playing double-dummy (even, perhaps, with his partner's help), would not have found it, nor the possibility of being forced to stay around for an hour or two after the game ends while they are trying to figure out (some would say "mind-read") what the defender might or might not have done. What everyone gains is a faster game. >>One might support such a new law or might oppose it; what Peter asked >>for was arguments for and against enacting some such law, or >>something along similar lines. Arguing about how to deal with a >>hypothetical case in which a declarer follows such a procedure when >>ruling under current law -- notwithstanding that such discussion >>might have some angels-on-a-pinhead interest for some folks, albeit >>no real-world consequence -- is, IMO, a long way off-topic. > >So suggesting this new proposal is all right but argueing against is >not? OK. I won't argue any further then - you've read my reaction. I >don't think it brings anything new. Arguing either for or against it is perfectly OK, but arguing that Peter's proposed procedure, which would create a legal procedure for doing something which is not claiming, would nevertheless constitute claiming, because that's what the current law says, is not helpful. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Sep 16 16:27:16 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri Sep 16 18:19:10 2005 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[blml]_Laws_31=2C_34?= Message-ID: "Roger Pewick" m> cc : Envoy? par : Objet : Re: [blml] Laws 31, 34 blml-bounces@amster damned.org 16/09/2005 13:22 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 2:33 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 "Sven Pran" > cc : Envoy? par : Objet : RE: [blml] Laws 31, 34 blml-bounces@amster damned.org 15/09/2005 19:55 > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick .......... > Not so. The difference is when it is the third pass that is OOT. > Then the missed player[s] have been deprived of the right to act > should the auction be over. Come on! L34 simply states that: When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. *** ok, the problem i see is with "thereby". there is an inconsistency between L17E "when after three passes in rotation..." and L34 "When a call has been followed by three passes, the...". contrary to what is said in L34, 3 consecutive passes, one of which being out of rotation, don't automatically end the auction and deprive a player of his right to call at that turn, because the auction period is not over when the 3 passes are not in rotation. jpr *** L34 says absolutely nothing about which of the three passes must or must not be out of rotation, it is sufficient that one pass (regardless of which) was out of rotation. And L34 says nothing about the pass out of rotation being condoned. Please save your efforts for a more sensible discussion! Sven ----------- The law does not simply state at all. If it states: L34 When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when one of those passes was out of rotation. That is simply stated. However, ', thereby depriving a player of his right to call at that turn.' is complicated as the reader expects the entire paragraph to read in the simple form and misses the impact of the added condition. The added condition in its complicated way says to cancel at most the last pass if the last pass was indeed OOT. The reason for only the last pass is that is the [only] occasion that a skipped player is deprived of that turn due to a pass OOT [as said before his partner controls whether it is better for the partnership to skip the turn or not]. *** we are directed to L34 from L17E. the only way in which L34 is effective would be when there are 3 passes in rotation, one of which is out of rotation. i think the only possibility is when the first pass is OOT. jpr Jean-Pierre Rocafort *** L17E points to L34 on the occasions where pass OOT has been accepted. Such occasions occur at times other than three consecutive passes. What is curious is that law provides for ending the auction period but does not provide for ending the auction. I don't have the stomach to contemplate the ramifications. regards roger pewick __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Sep 16 18:48:52 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Sep 16 19:12:58 2005 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_R=E9f._:_Re:_=5Bblml=5D_Laws_31=2C_34?= References: Message-ID: <003901c5bae1$78e8fc70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> ok, the problem i see is with "thereby". there is an inconsistency between L17E "when after three passes in rotation..." and L34 "When a call has been followed by three passes, the...". contrary to what is said in L34, 3 consecutive passes, one of which being out of rotation, don't automatically end the auction and deprive a player of his right to call at that turn, because the auction period is not over when the 3 passes are not in rotation. jpr ++++An inconsistency OK, but in these laws? ++++ton From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 15 18:00:19 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Sep 16 20:22:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:42:37 BST." <000001c5b9ea$91f07d30$af202b52@Zog> Message-ID: <200509151600.JAA18766@mailhub.irvine.com> Chas Fellows wrote: > Roger Pewick writes: > > > From: "Rui Marques" > > > Another product of my "cadets" imagination... > > > > > > None vul, North dealer > > > > > > W N E S > > > 1H 1S > North's action, followed by the overcall, has messed up normal play of > the board and I'm not sure that play should be allowed to continue from > this point. (L12A2) I don't see how bidding without looking at your cards messes up normal play any more than looking at your cards and bidding some totally different cards (i.e. psyching). -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 15 18:15:15 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Sep 16 20:22:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:34:57 BST." <000001c5b9f1$e1ce0780$af202b52@Zog> Message-ID: <200509151615.JAA18867@mailhub.irvine.com> Chas Fellows wrote: > Secondly, East can *only* be deprived of his chance to call by partner's > (inadvertent or deliberate) acceptance of South's POOT. If your > interpretation were correct, L34 would become redundant! Almost, but not quite. L34 would still have to be applicable in this case: North East South West 1H pass pass pass+ + out of rotation Now nobody condoned anyone else's irregular pass. However, if we accepted Roger's argument that an out-of-turn pass followed by another pass breaks causation and thus prevents L34 from applying, then the *only* case where L34 would apply is if the *last* pass is out of rotation. And somehow I think that if the Laws' authors wanted to write a law that applied only when the last pass was out of rotation, they would have written "when the last pass was out of rotation" instead of writing "when one of those passes was out of rotation". To me, that's sufficient proof that Roger's interpretation is clearly not what was intended and is therefore incorrect. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Thu Sep 15 18:06:16 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Sep 16 20:22:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:45:32 BST." <20050915014545.197EA1AC63@larry.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200509151606.JAA18807@mailhub.irvine.com> Rui Marques wrote: > Just finished today´s session, and here is one of those setups... > > S Ax > H AK10xx > D xxx > C AKx > S xx S KQJ10x > H xxxxx H Qx > D A D Kx > C Jxxxx C xxxx > S xxxx > H J > D Q10xxxx > C Q > > None vul, North dealer > > W N E S > 1H Pass > > West calls TD, accepts the pass. > > 1H Pass > Pass Pass > > Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects to bid 1S > > 1H 1S 2D > Pass Pass Pass... > > TD again... Your spacing on the last auction is messed up. I'm assuming that after the auction reverted to East, East bid 1S, South bid 2D, and this was followed by three passes in rotation. My understanding is that the phrase "the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity" cancels any penalties that might arise from Law 31, but it doesn't cancel Law 16C2. Thus, South's cancelled pass is still UI to North, and thus North's pass is illegal unless N-S are playing non-forcing free bids. I could be wrong about this. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 16 20:38:09 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 16 20:41:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) In-Reply-To: <200509151600.JAA18766@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000601c5baed$c9333900$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan ............. > I don't see how bidding without looking at your cards messes up normal > play any more than looking at your cards and bidding some totally > different cards (i.e. psyching). The major difference is that he has made it clear to the other players that there is no correlation between his cards and the call he made. This information is UI to his partner! If there is a regulation in force that makes random calling illegal, brown sticker or HUM then you can take him on that. Otherwise there is no law except L7B1 to use for a penalty against this player. The board itself should be played out. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 16 22:00:02 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 16 22:02:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 17 (for starters) In-Reply-To: <000601c5baed$c9333900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <200509151600.JAA18766@mailhub.irvine.com> <000601c5baed$c9333900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916152405.02bd1900@pop.starpower.net> At 02:38 PM 9/16/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan >............. > > I don't see how bidding without looking at your cards messes up normal > > play any more than looking at your cards and bidding some totally > > different cards (i.e. psyching). > >The major difference is that he has made it clear to the other players >that >there is no correlation between his cards and the call he made. This >information is UI to his partner! ...if it exists. It is quite possible to give the appearance of examining your cards without actually doing so, then make a blind call without anyone else at the table knowing that you have done so. This, however, is still illegal. >If there is a regulation in force that makes random calling illegal, brown >sticker or HUM then you can take him on that. Otherwise there is no law >except L7B1 to use for a penalty against this player. > >The board itself should be played out. I agree. A player who violates L7B1 is quite clearly, as he should be, subject to a disciplinary penalty as provided by L90 for "any offense that... violates correct procedure". But absent some specific action of the SO to the contrary, the board should, IMO, be played out, then scored as the actual result obtained at the table. However, to do otherwise would appear to be legal even without a regulation per se. Personally, I would have no quarrel with an SO issuing a guideline to their TDs telling them that they should (or shouldn't!) apply the provisions of L12A1 to any violation of L7B1, but I don't like letting every director or AC make that decision on the spot for themselves in each individual case. This is one of those situations in which it is perfectly appropriate for the Law to allow the decision to be made by local authorities in response to the preferences of their constituents. When they don't, however, we are left to debate our philosophical preferences as to whether questionable actions on which both TFLB and SO regulations and guidance are silent should or should not, in general, be allowed. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From emu at fwi.net.au Sat Sep 17 08:40:46 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sat Sep 17 08:43:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (wasSomething surrealistic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c5bb52$bc550cd0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> >I am in full agreement with your motives and efforts as far as improvements in the Laws. Sure, I always like to have a discussion about how the laws could be improved. What if...? If you like. And sometimes that is quite good here. But I am here to learn how to be a better Director, and a better Player for that matter, under the laws as they currently are, not how some would like them to be. I have learnt lots here - I thank all of you for that - and I have ignored lots too, and I sometimes wish I didn't have to. regards, Noel From jkljkl at gmx.de Sat Sep 17 10:08:27 2005 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Sat Sep 17 10:09:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: <000201c5bb52$bc550cd0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> References: Message-ID: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> Hi all, hi Henk, On 17 Sep 2005 at 16:40, Noel & Pamela wrote: > But I am here to learn how to be a better Director, and a better > Player for that matter, under the laws as they currently are, not how > some would like them to be. maybe we need an automated weekly disclaimer to not forget for what blml stands. I thought it is expressly not the above, although you get something along those lines as secondary fall out. A first step would be if Henk could write something on the subscribing homepage http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml under the line "About blml", since it is empty. ciao stefan :-) From toddz at att.net Sat Sep 17 10:49:32 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat Sep 17 10:52:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> Message-ID: <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> stefan filonardi wrote: > On 17 Sep 2005 at 16:40, Noel & Pamela wrote: >>But I am here to learn how to be a better Director, and a better >>Player for that matter, under the laws as they currently are, not how >>some would like them to be. > > maybe we need an automated weekly disclaimer to not forget for what > blml stands. I thought it is expressly not the above, although you > get something along those lines as secondary fall out. I'm bothered by the notion it cannot be both -- what the law currently is and what it could be. Further, there's sometimes discussion about what bridge law was and why it was changed. -Todd From emu at fwi.net.au Sat Sep 17 16:12:58 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sat Sep 17 16:16:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> Message-ID: <000501c5bb91$e876a9b0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> >I'm bothered by the notion it cannot be both -- what the >law currently is and what it could be. Further, there's >sometimes discussion about what bridge law was and why it >was changed. I think it can be *both*, but it has tended to be too much 'It should be this (my?) way and not the way it is.' lately. We need to remember not to go too far. And I too like to know what has gone before - to forget the past is to be condemned to repeat its mistakes... regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Todd M. Zimnoch Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 6:50 PM To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" stefan filonardi wrote: > On 17 Sep 2005 at 16:40, Noel & Pamela wrote: >>But I am here to learn how to be a better Director, and a better >>Player for that matter, under the laws as they currently are, not how >>some would like them to be. > > maybe we need an automated weekly disclaimer to not forget for what > blml stands. I thought it is expressly not the above, although you > get something along those lines as secondary fall out. I'm bothered by the notion it cannot be both -- what the law currently is and what it could be. Further, there's sometimes discussion about what bridge law was and why it was changed. -Todd _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 17 18:44:13 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Sep 17 18:48:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <000501c5bb91$e876a9b0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <002101c5bba7$09a3f600$339868d5@jeushtlj> [Noel] > but it has tended to be too much 'It should > be this (my?) way and not the way it is.' lately. [nigel] BLML provides a medium in which the rank and file can ask law-makers and top directors about "Bridge Law" and offer their own opinions. If we can't discuss "Bridge-Law" improvements before an overdue revision, then when? if we can't discuss them in a "Bridge-Law" mailing list, then where? The main drawback for BLMLers is that simplification and clarification of "Bridge Law" could eliminate most of the practical queries; but imagine the benefits to the game and to the players! From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 17 21:31:00 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Sep 17 21:35:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <000501c5bb91$e876a9b0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <000f01c5bbbe$56889860$169468d5@jeushtlj> [Noel] > And I too like to know what has gone > before - to forget the past is to be > condemned to repeat its mistakes... [Nige1] But with guidance from Kojak and co, there is little danger of that. Anyway It is natural to resist change ... [Lord Byron - "Prisoner of Chillon"] My very chains and I grew friends, So much a long communion tends To make us what we are:- even I Regained my freedom with a sigh. From schuster at eduhi.at Sat Sep 17 21:47:17 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat Sep 17 21:51:13 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? Message-ID: Recently, I was called to a table after play had been finished. All players were quite experienced. East, a defender, complained that declarer (North) had, at about trick 7, played a diamond on West's club lead, and before East had played, picked it up again and played a spade instead. The diamond was a played card (all agreed), and there was no revoke. Without the change of play, defenders would have scored an additional trick. How should the hand be scored? 47F only tells us the card may not be withdrawn, but doesn't say what to do when it is. Change of a played card is not covered by L60. L11 is no help as there is no penalty for this irregularity. Bewildered, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Sep 17 22:16:15 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat Sep 17 22:19:49 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050917160725.03b7ed08@mail.comcast.net> At 03:47 PM 9/17/2005, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >Recently, I was called to a table after play had been finished. All >players were quite experienced. >East, a defender, complained that declarer (North) had, at about trick 7, >played a diamond on West's club lead, and before East had played, picked >it up again and played a spade instead. >The diamond was a played card (all agreed), and there was no revoke. >Without the change of play, defenders would have scored an additional >trick. >How should the hand be scored? I would rule that East and West condoned the irregularity by not calling the TD at the time of the infraction. If they had called you, the diamond would have been a played card, the spade would be AI to the defenders, and the defenders would have obtained the trick. L60 does not cover this case, but E-W certainly committed an infraction by not calling the TD to get a ruling when they needed it. From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 17 23:37:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Sep 17 23:40:39 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20050917160725.03b7ed08@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <000001c5bbd0$05279900$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David J. Grabiner > At 03:47 PM 9/17/2005, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >Recently, I was called to a table after play had been finished. All > >players were quite experienced. > >East, a defender, complained that declarer (North) had, at about trick 7, > >played a diamond on West's club lead, and before East had played, picked > >it up again and played a spade instead. > >The diamond was a played card (all agreed), and there was no revoke. > >Without the change of play, defenders would have scored an additional > >trick. > >How should the hand be scored? > > I would rule that East and West condoned the irregularity by not calling > the TD at the time of the infraction. If they had called you, the diamond > would have been a played card, the spade would be AI to the defenders, > and the defenders would have obtained the trick. > > L60 does not cover this case, but E-W certainly committed an infraction > by not calling the TD to get a ruling when they needed it. OK, that is one opinion, mine is different: May I trust my readers to look up the quoted laws so that I do not have to copy the entire texts here? I would apply Law 12A1 and award an adjusted score effective at least for North/South to what would have been the score had North not changed his play. North shall not gain from his violations of Laws 45C2, 9B and 9C. (Also South did in fact violate law 9B1). Whether the score shall be adjusted effective also for East/West is a matter of judgment by the Director applying Law 11A. Notice the condition in this law that "the Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action ...". In this case the non-offending side apparently did not gain, nor could they (I assume) expect to gain from the irregular action taken by North. As the case has been described here I would probably let the adjusted score be effective for both sides and I would in any case add a procedure penalty in the form of a warning (only) to all four players for violating Law 9B1. Regards Sven From schoderb at msn.com Sun Sep 18 02:08:07 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Sep 18 02:11:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <000501c5bb91$e876a9b0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> <000f01c5bbbe$56889860$169468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: What a beautiful alliteration to something that is no consequence. If you care to label me hide-bound, archaic, stultified, or whatever, please do so, but don't tell me that when someone asks my opinion, and I respond knowing what I'm talking about, that I don't know what I'm saying. I may be completely wrong, but at least I was there when the words were selected and published. Anyone who knows me, has worked under my tutelage, and has been associated with me in the directing and running of tournaments over four decades would, hopefully, find that my reception of innovation, ideas, and improvements has been always there. What I refuse to acknowledge is the "lawyer" who finds some kind of ridiculous avenue on the basis of poor knowledge of the language, poor desire to understand intent, and a chance to shine as a great guru. My "chains" come from trying to save the game from those to whom it is an opportunity to make waves, glorify themselves, and have bridge end up on the garbage pile. If therefore you find me, at times, expressing myself forcefully beyond what you think is necessary and find me offensive to your personal agendas, I can only believe that I'm doing it right. And that, my "friends?" you'll have to live with short of the "delete" key. Nice try, Nigel, but I don't for a moment buy it. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" > [Noel] > > And I too like to know what has gone > > before - to forget the past is to be > > condemned to repeat its mistakes... > > [Nige1] > But with guidance from Kojak and co, there is > little danger of that. Anyway It is natural to > resist change ... > > [Lord Byron - "Prisoner of Chillon"] > > My very chains and I grew friends, > So much a long communion tends > To make us what we are:- even I > Regained my freedom with a sigh. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz at att.net Sun Sep 18 02:10:56 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun Sep 18 02:14:01 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <000001c5bbd0$05279900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5bbd0$05279900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <432CB090.1010608@att.net> Sven Pran wrote: > In this case the non-offending side > apparently did not gain, nor could they (I assume) expect to gain from the > irregular action taken by North. I think they might have expected to gain. They condone an irregularity only until the time they find themselves disadvantaged by it. Looks like they're trying to get the best of what did happen at the table and what should have happened at the table. -Todd From emu at fwi.net.au Sun Sep 18 03:22:15 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sun Sep 18 03:25:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: <000f01c5bbbe$56889860$169468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c5bbef$67fa6c50$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> >But with guidance from Kojak and co, there is >little danger of that. Yes, but for how long? I am *the* Corporate knowledge in my organisation and I have been there 17 years. When I am gone (in less than 10 years or so), what happened in the eighties and nineties (and possibly this decade) will be gone forever. (No, the information systems are not up to it! We can't read the old disks anymore and they stopped funding proper file management 10 years or more ago.) Are the WBF, ACBL, EBU and ABF (largely unpaid, part-time organisations really) immune if major professional organisations are not? I wonder how good the UN archives really are for that matter? Keep reminding us Kojak and co. BLML *is* the archive of the future! regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Guthrie Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 5:31 AM To: BLML Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" [Noel] > And I too like to know what has gone > before - to forget the past is to be > condemned to repeat its mistakes... [Nige1] But with guidance from Kojak and co, there is little danger of that. Anyway It is natural to resist change ... [Lord Byron - "Prisoner of Chillon"] My very chains and I grew friends, So much a long communion tends To make us what we are:- even I Regained my freedom with a sigh. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Sun Sep 18 03:36:51 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Sep 18 03:39:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <000001c5bbef$67fa6c50$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Are you kidding? > > Keep reminding us Kojak and co. BLML *is* the archive of the future! > > regards, > Noel > > From john at asimere.com Sun Sep 18 01:53:32 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun Sep 18 05:44:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <008401c5ba6b$0c5521e0$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200509131508.j8DF8eSc011179@cfa.harvard.edu> <432A2365.2030002@cfa.harvard.edu> <008401c5ba6b$0c5521e0$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In article <008401c5ba6b$0c5521e0$0c9868d5@jeushtlj>, Guthrie writes >[TFLB 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. > >[Nige1] >Tim West-Meads agrees with Jeff Rubens that you >should take the same action irrespective of UI. I can assure you absolutely he does not. John > >Steve Willner argues the more orthodox view that >you should avoid actions suggested by UI. > >To support his position, Steve quoted L73C >(above). Having re-read it, I can't see how >"doing what you would have done anyway" can be >"taking advantage of UI". Although I can >understand why the director is likely to rule >against you. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Sun Sep 18 01:46:44 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun Sep 18 05:44:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Laws 31, 34 In-Reply-To: <200509151606.JAA18807@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20050915014545.197EA1AC63@larry.irvine.com> <200509151606.JAA18807@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: In article <200509151606.JAA18807@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Rui Marques wrote: > >> Just finished today?s session, and here is one of those setups... >> >> S Ax >> H AK10xx >> D xxx >> C AKx >> S xx S KQJ10x >> H xxxxx H Qx >> D A D Kx >> C Jxxxx C xxxx >> S xxxx >> H J >> D Q10xxxx >> C Q >> >> None vul, North dealer >> >> W N E S >> 1H Pass >> >> West calls TD, accepts the pass. >> >> 1H Pass >> Pass Pass >> >> Law 34 comes into action, auction reverts to East, who elects to bid 1S >> >> 1H 1S 2D >> Pass Pass Pass... >> >> TD again... > I agree with Adam, this one's a minefield. With North's hand a raise to 3D seems mandated even facing a NFB. I'm now seriously worried. Perhaps we should make it a "TD question" at the next Brighton Congress. >Your spacing on the last auction is messed up. I'm assuming that >after the auction reverted to East, East bid 1S, South bid 2D, and >this was followed by three passes in rotation. > >My understanding is that the phrase "the auction proceeds as though >there had been no irregularity" cancels any penalties that might arise >from Law 31, but it doesn't cancel Law 16C2. Thus, South's cancelled >pass is still UI to North, and thus North's pass is illegal unless N-S >are playing non-forcing free bids. I could be wrong about this. > > -- Adam > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From emu at fwi.net.au Sun Sep 18 05:53:36 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sun Sep 18 05:56:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5bc04$8c1589c0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> It's the only archive on the laws and how they got to where they are that I have any access to. regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: WILLIAM SCHODER [mailto:schoderb@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 11:37 AM To: 'BLML'; Noel & Pamela Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" Are you kidding? > > Keep reminding us Kojak and co. BLML *is* the archive of the future! > > regards, > Noel > > From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Sep 18 09:55:15 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Sep 18 09:59:11 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20050917160725.03b7ed08@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20050917160725.03b7ed08@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:16:15 +0200, David J. Grabiner wrote: > At 03:47 PM 9/17/2005, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >> Recently, I was called to a table after play had been finished. All >> players were quite experienced. >> East, a defender, complained that declarer (North) had, at about trick >> 7, >> played a diamond on West's club lead, and before East had played, picked >> it up again and played a spade instead. >> The diamond was a played card (all agreed), and there was no revoke. >> Without the change of play, defenders would have scored an additional >> trick. >> How should the hand be scored? > > I would rule that East and West condoned the irregularity by not calling > the TD at the time of the infraction. If they had called you, the > diamond > would have been a played card, the spade would be AI to the defenders, > and the defenders would have obtained the trick. > This is the solution I would prefer: easily understood by the players, and feeling "fair" as both sides are somewhat at fault. But I cannot find any authorization in the Laws. > L60 does not cover this case, but E-W certainly committed an infraction > by not calling the TD to get a ruling when they needed it. > Sure - but that is a seperate infraction which leads us to 9B. And again, that Law is silent on correct procedure after a violation of 9B2. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Sep 18 12:00:30 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Sep 18 12:04:24 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <000001c5bbd0$05279900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5bbd0$05279900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:37:36 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > OK, that is one opinion, mine is different: > > May I trust my readers to look up the quoted laws so that I do not have > to > copy the entire texts here? > > I would apply Law 12A1 and award an adjusted score effective at least for > North/South to what would have been the score had North not changed his > play. North shall not gain from his violations of Laws 45C2, 9B and 9C. > (Also South did in fact violate law 9B1). > > Whether the score shall be adjusted effective also for East/West is a > matter > of judgment by the Director applying Law 11A. Notice the condition in > this > law that "the Director so rules when the non-offending side may have > gained > through subsequent action ...". In this case the non-offending side > apparently did not gain, nor could they (I assume) expect to gain from > the > irregular action taken by North. > As I see it, L11 does not help as the Laws prescribe no penalty for the violation of L47F, so forfeiting the right to impose it does not change anything. As for L12A1, there would have been the simple remedy of calling the TD immediately, so strictly speaking, it is not applicable. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From schoderb at msn.com Sun Sep 18 12:28:05 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Sep 18 12:31:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> Message-ID: This is just to clear the air about where I stand, if anyone cares. I have no objections to proposals for bettering the laws. I have no objection for historical escapades into what and how they got to be what they now are. BLML certainly should not be constrained from those avenues. I do OBJECT to have someone ask what the law IS, and then have a cascade of "well that's the way I read it" twisted misguidance that changes the nature of our game. We have WBFLC minutes on the major problems of wording that have come to its attention, but I greatly dislike the kind of "Well, that may have been the intent, but they published otherwise, so I'm going to do it my way". If anyone thinks that a written law may not need interpreting as to INTENT they are blind to the existence of the world's huge systems of jurisprudence. When those individuals who wrote the laws reveal their intent, that should be what we are looking for, and not continue the constant diatribes about the meaning of Mr. Clinton's "is". I fear those who have all the answers all the time, and who will go to any lengths to shove those answers down my throat, and I greatly dislike the hypothetical cases that are constructed to show that the laws are wanting. They work in real life, as is evidenced by the success of duplicate contract bridge throughout the world. Best regards, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" > stefan filonardi wrote: > > On 17 Sep 2005 at 16:40, Noel & Pamela wrote: > >>But I am here to learn how to be a better Director, and a better > >>Player for that matter, under the laws as they currently are, not how > >>some would like them to be. > > > > maybe we need an automated weekly disclaimer to not forget for what > > blml stands. I thought it is expressly not the above, although you > > get something along those lines as secondary fall out. > > I'm bothered by the notion it cannot be both -- what the > law currently is and what it could be. Further, there's > sometimes discussion about what bridge law was and why it > was changed. > > -Todd > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Sep 18 12:56:11 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Sep 18 12:57:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916105712.02c1c7b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <432A260F.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <000201c5ba95$3ec812c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916085207.02e5e270@pop.starpower.net> <432ACB96.7070409@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916094951.02c8c4c0@pop.starpower.net> <432AD731.4070601@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050916105712.02c1c7b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <432D47CB.5070800@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> And I am saying it is not advisable at all. As I said - declarer gets >> the benefit of curtailing play without the risk of losing the benefit >> of the doubt. > > > "The benefit of the doubt" is what we (may) give to one side or the > other when we make an adjudication. Under Peter's proposal, the deal > would be played out and a result obtained; there would be no > adjudication involved. Who gets "the benefit of the doubt" when a hand > is played out normally to the end under current law? The answer would > be the same under Peter's proposal, that the question is meaningless. > But the hand is perhaps NOT "played out normally". The lawmakers have realised that there is a danger that opponents would play carelessly after a player has stated that "play is over". That is why they have installed the rule that whenever a player "suggests that play be curtailed", he has claimed. It should not be possible therefore to say "play is over, but I'm not claiming". > > The purpose would be to speed up the remainder of the play of the deal. Which is exactly what a claim hopes to do. > It works because defenders who are in the tank are usually evaluating > the likelihood of various possible layouts. By exposing the actual > layout, declarer can eliminate whatever other possibilities the > defender(s) might otherwise take a great deal of unneccesary time to > think about. Declarer does this when he believes the layout is such > that the outcome will not depend on which of the possible holdings the > defender might eventually choose to play for. He risks the possibility > that, if he is wrong, the defender, knowing the actual layout, might be > guided to a successful play which he might otherwise not find. What he > does not risk is the possibility that some director or committee might > find such a play on the defender's behalf when the defender himself, > playing double-dummy (even, perhaps, with his partner's help), would not > have found it, nor the possibility of being forced to stay around for an > hour or two after the game ends while they are trying to figure out > (some would say "mind-read") what the defender might or might not have > done. What everyone gains is a faster game. > What he gains though, is that he does not have the benefit of the doubt against him. By claiming, he does take the risk that opponents find a line he has not envisioned. By "not claiming" that possibility is reduced. I don't believe he should have that option. If he wants to show his cards, let him. But it is by definition a claim, and he should not be able to say it's not. > > Arguing either for or against it is perfectly OK, but arguing that > Peter's proposed procedure, which would create a legal procedure for > doing something which is not claiming, would nevertheless constitute > claiming, because that's what the current law says, is not helpful. > That's not my point. My point is that there are very good reasons why the law is worded like this, and it does no good changing them. Of course if all of you interpret the current law so that Rotterdam3 is ruled against claimer, then by all means change the wording. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 18 13:21:50 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Sep 18 13:24:55 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5bc43$2a643c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB ............. > > I would apply Law 12A1 and award an adjusted score > > effective at least for North/South to what would > > have been the score had North not changed his play. > > North shall not gain from his violations of Laws 45C2, > > 9B and 9C. (Also South did in fact violate law 9B1). > > > > Whether the score shall be adjusted effective also > > for East/West is amatter of judgment by the Director > > applying Law 11A. Notice the condition in this law that > > > > "the Director so rules when the non-offending side may > > have gained through subsequent action ...". > > In this case the non-offending side apparently did not > > gain, nor could they (I assume) expect to gain from the > > irregular action taken by North. > > > > As I see it, L11 does not help as the Laws prescribe no > penalty for the violation of L47F, so forfeiting the right > to impose it does not change anything. > As for L12A1, there would have been the simple remedy of > calling the TD immediately, so strictly speaking, it is > not applicable. The Laws prescribe no penalty for the violation of L47F. This is the single criterion that indeed makes L12A1 applicable whether or not the Director has been called. Failure to call the Director does not automatically forfeit the rights to penalize; L11A says "may be forfeited" and specifies one situation where the Director shall so rule. The Director is of course free to "so rule" at his own discretion also when there has not been any apparent "gain" to non-offending side. As L12A1 is applicable because L47F specifies no penalty for a violation makes it reasonable (not to say "obvious") that "penalize" in Law 11A must include having an adjusted score assigned under L12A1. In Norway we have a practice of adjusting for the offending side whenever they have gained from their own irregularity even if we rule that the non-offending side has forfeited their rights. In my opinion this is a correct approach. We do not allow an offending side to keep a good result obtained through an irregularity. According to this practice there can be no doubt that the Director shall adjust the score for North/South; the only remaining question is whether this adjustment shall be effective also for East/West or if they shall keep their table result. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 18 14:08:58 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Sep 18 14:13:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <000501c5bb91$e876a9b0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> <000f01c5bbbe$56889860$169468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000901c5bc49$c047e9a0$249868d5@jeushtlj> [Kojak] > If you care to label me hide-bound, > archaic, stultified, or whatever, please > do so, but don't tell me that when > someone asks my opinion, and I respond > knowing what I'm talking about, that I > don't know what I'm saying. I may be > completely wrong, but at least I was > there when the words were selected and > published. Anyone who knows me, has > worked under my tutelage, and has been > associated with me in the directing and > running of tournaments over four > decades would, hopefully, find that my > reception of innovation, ideas, and > improvements has been always there. What > I refuse to acknowledge is the "lawyer" > who finds some kind of ridiculous avenue > on the basis of poor knowledge of the > language, poor desire to understand > intent, and a chance to shine as a great > guru. My "chains" come from trying to > save the game from those to whom it is an > opportunity to make waves, glorify > themselves, and have bridge end up on the > garbage pile. If therefore you find me, > at times, expressing myself forcefully > beyond what you think is necessary and > find me offensive to your personal > agendas, I can only believe that I'm > doing it right. And that, my "friends?" > you'll have to live with short of the > "delete" key. Nice try, Nigel, but I > don't for a moment buy it. [nige1] For the most part, Kojak is tilting at windmills. Nobody accuses him of "not knowing what he is saying", being "completely wrong" or many of the other traits he mentions in his first few sentences. IMO, however, if Kojak does welcome "innovations, ideas, and improvements", then it isn't apparent from BLML contributions, to date. Kojaks remarks are "offensive" but not "to personal agendas" as he hardly ever argues specifically against any suggested "improvement". Kojak just pours scorn on those who propose change. He attacks our motives, integrity, knowledge, and language skills. I'm sure, however, that Kojak agrees the need for *some* change: few players understand the laws but whatever the laws appear to say, Kojak knows their real "intent". Clarifying the language of the laws may help redress this imbalance. Most bridge-players (who are not bridge-lawyers and certainly not legal gurus like Kojak) still have the interests of the game to heart. We are entitled to our opinions on the laws, no matter now little impact our views may have. From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Sep 18 21:04:29 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Sep 18 21:08:30 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <000101c5bc43$2a643c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5bc43$2a643c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:21:50 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > The Laws prescribe no penalty for the violation of L47F. This is the > single > criterion that indeed makes L12A1 applicable whether or not the Director > has > been called. I am not so sure about that: When a player has obviously violated correct procedure, the TD, if called immediately, can enforce it. If the NOS does not call the TD, any damage they suffer is the direct consequence of their failure to do so, and L12A does not apply. (Please note the use of "indemnity", not "penalty".) The situation is of course totally different if the infraction is not immediately obvious, but that is not the case here. > > Failure to call the Director does not automatically forfeit the rights to > penalize; L11A says "may be forfeited" and specifies one situation where > the > Director shall so rule. The Director is of course free to "so rule" at > his > own discretion also when there has not been any apparent "gain" to > non-offending side. > Agreed > As L12A1 is applicable because L47F specifies no penalty for a violation > makes it reasonable (not to say "obvious") that "penalize" in Law 11A > must > include having an adjusted score assigned under L12A1. > > In Norway we have a practice of adjusting for the offending side whenever > they have gained from their own irregularity even if we rule that the > non-offending side has forfeited their rights. In my opinion this is a > correct approach. We do not allow an offending side to keep a good result > obtained through an irregularity. > > According to this practice there can be no doubt that the Director shall > adjust the score for North/South; the only remaining question is whether > this adjustment shall be effective also for East/West or if they shall > keep > their table result. > Agreed - if L12A may be used (see above) Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 18 22:18:03 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Sep 18 22:21:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Roger Pewick" Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > At the risk of beating a dead horse ---- > > There is nothing in Law 34 that says anything about the passes being legal, > not legal, accepted, fattening, or sexually provocative. It SIMPLY > STATES... (read it!) Which makes it impossible to END the auction under > those circumstances, which must end when there are "....three passes in > rotation have followed any call...." from Law 17 E. Perhaps Law 34 should > be a "2" in Law 17 as a more logical place for it, but that's for the > future, ---- perhaps. At the moment it is a separate Law. > > Kojak Maybe it does not make a difference but L34 does specify for the auction to proceed from the skipped player as if there had been no irregularity. To me that says that L34 makes the calls legal, whatever their prior status was. However, L29A and L17C speak to the three passes being legal. And L16 speaks to the information arising from the three passes being AI as the passes were legal. I do find it interesting that apparently L34 is the only passage of law that explains why. Particularly as no explanation is needed. Anyway, I can't imagine any reason why an auction where three passes in rotation follow a call should not be over- except when one of the two last passes were induced by MI. But, I can imagine a good reason for cancelling the third pass of three consecutive passes when it was OOT. Actually, several reasons. regards roger pewick > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Pewick" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:00 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > > To: "blml" ; "Marques Rui" > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 20:36 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Rui, there is some astonishment and amazing imagination in the > > reading > > > of English. The Law is clear, your analysis is correct --- > > > There is no reference in Law 34 as to UI or AI, and that is the ONLY > > > possible problem. I think Law 16 (first general paragraph) is clear on > > that > > > part. > > > > I think it is muddier than in the way you suggest. > > > > S's P was condoned as legal. The other two passes were legal. Supposedly > > they are cancelled. L16 provides the inferences from those calls are > > authorized. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > > Would that the effort expended to painfully distort the Laws were > > > applied to > > > making sensible interpretations. We might then have a modicum of value > > for > > > the indeterminate posturing of some of our fellow TDs and the wanabe TDs > > and > > > their flights of fancy. Most of those arguments remind me of some > > > teenagers on pot (marijuana) or God knows what else. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rui Marques" > > > To: "'BLML'" > > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:58 AM > > > Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > > > > I became astonished with the amount of imagination revealed here by > > > > some > > > > readers of the laws! Especially law 34... Of course the auction > > > > reverts, > > > > the > > > > real question (didnt even imagine that someone would have a problem > > before > > > > this) is what to do with the "as if there was no irregularity" and the > > > > A(U)I > > > > > > > > Rui Marques From schoderb at msn.com Mon Sep 19 02:40:09 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Sep 19 02:43:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 References: Message-ID: This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to quit. I quit. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Roger Pewick" > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > At the risk of beating a dead horse ---- > > > > There is nothing in Law 34 that says anything about the passes being > legal, > > not legal, accepted, fattening, or sexually provocative. It SIMPLY > > STATES... (read it!) Which makes it impossible to END the auction under > > those circumstances, which must end when there are "....three passes in > > rotation have followed any call...." from Law 17 E. Perhaps Law 34 > > should > > be a "2" in Law 17 as a more logical place for it, but that's for the > > future, ---- perhaps. At the moment it is a separate Law. > > > > Kojak > > Maybe it does not make a difference but L34 does specify for the auction > to > proceed from the skipped player as if there had been no irregularity. To > me > that says that L34 makes the calls legal, whatever their prior status was. > > However, L29A and L17C speak to the three passes being legal. And L16 > speaks to the information arising from the three passes being AI as the > passes were legal. > > I do find it interesting that apparently L34 is the only passage of law > that > explains why. Particularly as no explanation is needed. > > Anyway, I can't imagine any reason why an auction where three passes in > rotation follow a call should not be over- except when one of the two last > passes were induced by MI. > > But, I can imagine a good reason for cancelling the third pass of three > consecutive passes when it was OOT. Actually, several reasons. > > regards > roger pewick > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roger Pewick" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:00 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > > > To: "blml" ; "Marques Rui" > > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 20:36 PM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Rui, there is some astonishment and amazing imagination in the > > > reading > > > > of English. The Law is clear, your analysis is correct --- > > > > There is no reference in Law 34 as to UI or AI, and that is the ONLY > > > > possible problem. I think Law 16 (first general paragraph) is clear > > > > on > > > that > > > > part. > > > > > > I think it is muddier than in the way you suggest. > > > > > > S's P was condoned as legal. The other two passes were legal. > Supposedly > > > they are cancelled. L16 provides the inferences from those calls are > > > authorized. > > > > > > regards > > > roger pewick > > > > > > > Would that the effort expended to painfully distort the Laws were > > > > applied to > > > > making sensible interpretations. We might then have a modicum of > value > > > for > > > > the indeterminate posturing of some of our fellow TDs and the wanabe > TDs > > > and > > > > their flights of fancy. Most of those arguments remind me of some > > > > teenagers on pot (marijuana) or God knows what else. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Rui Marques" > > > > To: "'BLML'" > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:58 AM > > > > Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > > > > > > > I became astonished with the amount of imagination revealed here > > > > > by > > > > > some > > > > > readers of the laws! Especially law 34... Of course the auction > > > > > reverts, > > > > > the > > > > > real question (didnt even imagine that someone would have a > > > > > problem > > > before > > > > > this) is what to do with the "as if there was no irregularity" and > the > > > > > A(U)I > > > > > > > > > > Rui Marques > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Mon Sep 19 03:11:22 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon Sep 19 03:17:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Let?s see if I have more luck... Roger: When a call has been followed by three passes, the auction does not end when ONE of those passes was out of rotation, thereby depriving a player of his right to call at THAT turn. The auction reverts TO THE PLAYER who missed his turn. ALL SUBSEQUENT PASSES are canceled, and the auction proceeds as though there had been no irregularity. ONE of the passes is not THE LAST pass, just ONE of them. Was there a PASS out of rotation after a call? Yes. Were there three passes after that call? Yes. Otherwise the law would read "When a pass out of rotation is the last pass of an auction, the auction reverts to the first player who missed his turn..." It is nonsense (to put it mildly) to interpret 34 the way you are trying to do! -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: segunda-feira, 19 de Setembro de 2005 1:40 To: blml; Roger Pewick Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to quit. I quit. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Roger Pewick" > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > At the risk of beating a dead horse ---- > > > > There is nothing in Law 34 that says anything about the passes being > legal, > > not legal, accepted, fattening, or sexually provocative. It SIMPLY > > STATES... (read it!) Which makes it impossible to END the auction under > > those circumstances, which must end when there are "....three passes in > > rotation have followed any call...." from Law 17 E. Perhaps Law 34 > > should > > be a "2" in Law 17 as a more logical place for it, but that's for the > > future, ---- perhaps. At the moment it is a separate Law. > > > > Kojak > > Maybe it does not make a difference but L34 does specify for the auction > to > proceed from the skipped player as if there had been no irregularity. To > me > that says that L34 makes the calls legal, whatever their prior status was. > > However, L29A and L17C speak to the three passes being legal. And L16 > speaks to the information arising from the three passes being AI as the > passes were legal. > > I do find it interesting that apparently L34 is the only passage of law > that > explains why. Particularly as no explanation is needed. > > Anyway, I can't imagine any reason why an auction where three passes in > rotation follow a call should not be over- except when one of the two last > passes were induced by MI. > > But, I can imagine a good reason for cancelling the third pass of three > consecutive passes when it was OOT. Actually, several reasons. > > regards > roger pewick > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roger Pewick" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:00 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > > > To: "blml" ; "Marques Rui" > > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 20:36 PM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Rui, there is some astonishment and amazing imagination in the > > > reading > > > > of English. The Law is clear, your analysis is correct --- > > > > There is no reference in Law 34 as to UI or AI, and that is the ONLY > > > > possible problem. I think Law 16 (first general paragraph) is clear > > > > on > > > that > > > > part. > > > > > > I think it is muddier than in the way you suggest. > > > > > > S's P was condoned as legal. The other two passes were legal. > Supposedly > > > they are cancelled. L16 provides the inferences from those calls are > > > authorized. > > > > > > regards > > > roger pewick > > > > > > > Would that the effort expended to painfully distort the Laws were > > > > applied to > > > > making sensible interpretations. We might then have a modicum of > value > > > for > > > > the indeterminate posturing of some of our fellow TDs and the wanabe > TDs > > > and > > > > their flights of fancy. Most of those arguments remind me of some > > > > teenagers on pot (marijuana) or God knows what else. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Rui Marques" > > > > To: "'BLML'" > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:58 AM > > > > Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > > > > > > > > > > > > > I became astonished with the amount of imagination revealed here > > > > > by > > > > > some > > > > > readers of the laws! Especially law 34... Of course the auction > > > > > reverts, > > > > > the > > > > > real question (didnt even imagine that someone would have a > > > > > problem > > > before > > > > > this) is what to do with the "as if there was no irregularity" and > the > > > > > A(U)I > > > > > > > > > > Rui Marques > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Mon Sep 19 03:15:01 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon Sep 19 03:21:31 2005 Subject: [blml] The "34" case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The only problem is if the withdrawn passes are UI or not. Feels like they should be UI. And the "as though there had been no irregularity", IMHO, goes to "as though there was no pass OOT", therefore "as though there was no information from it". So the pass sounds like UI... From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 19 04:55:36 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 19 04:58:54 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <000101c5bc43$2a643c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5bc43$2a643c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9D563B52-E0A6-4560-AE2A-5A6C895FEDD4@rochester.rr.com> There seems to be an assumption made not introduced in evidence. In the original post, Petrus made no mention of whether attention had been drawn to the irregular change of play at the time it was made. If there wasn't, there was no violation of Law 9B1. To rule that a contestant, *knowing* that an irregularity has occurred, has placed himself in jeopardy if he fails to call the director is one thing. To rule that he has placed himself in jeopardy without finding out if he knew is quite another. The Laws tell us that their primary purpose is to redress damage from irregularities. On that basis, it seems reasonable that if a NOS were damaged, they should get redress. OTOH, I sympathize with the argument that the NOS shouldn't get a "double shot". I do not see, however, where the law actually supports that position. I have had it drummed into me, on this list and elsewhere, that a score adjustment is *not* a penalty. So I disagree with Sven - I don't believe you can say that the word "penalize" in 11A refers to adjusting scores. From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 19 08:31:34 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Sep 19 08:34:39 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <9D563B52-E0A6-4560-AE2A-5A6C895FEDD4@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c5bce3$c846fa20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > There seems to be an assumption made not introduced in evidence. In > the original post, Petrus made no mention of whether attention had > been drawn to the irregular change of play at the time it was made. > If there wasn't, there was no violation of Law 9B1. In my reasoning I didn't overlook that. North did not explicitly state that "this is an irregularity" but he IMO still called attention to it the way he acted. According to the "evidence" all four players agreed that the first card had been played. > To rule that a contestant, *knowing* that an irregularity has > occurred, has placed himself in jeopardy if he fails to call the > director is one thing. To rule that he has placed himself in jeopardy > without finding out if he knew is quite another. > > The Laws tell us that their primary purpose is to redress damage from > irregularities. On that basis, it seems reasonable that if a NOS were > damaged, they should get redress. OTOH, I sympathize with the > argument that the NOS shouldn't get a "double shot". I do not see, > however, where the law actually supports that position. > > I have had it drummed into me, on this list and elsewhere, that a > score adjustment is *not* a penalty. So I disagree with Sven - I > don't believe you can say that the word "penalize" in 11A refers to > adjusting scores. Do I understand your position that you agree then in the following logic? Law 47F has been violated. The Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending side for this particular type of violation of law. Therefore the Director should apply Law 12A1 which says that he "may" award an assigned adjusted score. And according to L12C2 the scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. Other relevant laws are IMO: L81C6 and L84E. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 15 11:00:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Sep 19 09:18:40 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: <000001c57c12$4edc1970$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > > L17E does not require the lead to be in turn in order for the > > > > auction period to end. > > > > > > No, but Law 41A does > > > > No it doesn't. L41a defines whose turn it is to lead (no reference > > to the > > auction period whatsoever). > > I think you should do better than that. L41A in fact defines what > constitutes an opening lead; the wording of this law implies that the > player on the presumed declarer's left is the only player who can > (legally) make an opening lead. Well yes - but an illegal opening lead is still an opening lead. > ........... > > > Presumed declarer or dummy can never make an opening lead that will > > > "end" the auction period, such a lead will always be "card exposed > > > or > > > led during auction" and is handled under Law 24. > > > > The auction is over after the third pass. > > I fear I must request you to quote some law for this statement of yours. Why? There exists an interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period during which certain things are supposed to happen. A defender barred from bidding is (if on lead) now entitled to a review of the auction. Declarer-side misexplanations should be corrected. Enquiries as to opening lead may be made. An opening lead is selected and placed face down. (There's a similar interval before the auction begins). I'm afraid I can't quote a law which tells us the difference between "an auction" and "an auction period" but can only fall back on the defintions: Auction 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. 2. The aggregate of calls made (see Law 17E). There's just no way that "selecting an opening lead" fits into the definition. > Don't forget that Law 21B applies without restriction also following the > third pass. It is fully possible for the following sequence of events to > take place: > > 1: During the auction there has been three consecutive passes with > South to become declarer. However North now leads a card face up. North, being dummy, can't lead (OOT or otherwise). During play if dummy plays the first card to a trick when not requested by declarer we use L45d. Opponents do not have the right to "accept". If dummy tries to lead and the auction is rewound for MI the card becomes subject to L24 It is now too late for any calls to be changed. > 2: West (still in possession of all his rights) asks some questions on > the auction and it becomes clear that during the auction misinformation > has been given by South and/or North. Sure - it is too late for a change of call - The auction period is over (see L17e). EW will not be damaged since any adjusted score will be at least as good as that which they may have obtained through a change of call. (Handling this is no different to handling a case where the correction is too late). > 3: The Director allows East or West, the one of them who last passed in > the auction so far to change this pass to some other call, Director error - no changes of call after the auction period is over please. > Do you still believe that the auction was over after the third pass? The auction ends with the third pass. Prior to the end of the auction period it can be rewound - NOS have not been adversely affected. > > The leads referred to in Law24 are "premature leads" > > not LOOTs. > > Quite correct, because there is no such thing as an opening lead (out of > turn) from either presumed declarer or presumed dummy. I'm sorry Sven - maybe this is a translation/language thing but a lead cannot be "premature" once the auction (not auction period) is over. It's a plain and simple LOOT with the rights to NOS that entails. > I'm afraid you would fail a TD exam on the question: Not if the examiners were competent I wouldn't. Declarer and both defenders can "lead" - a lead may be in turn or out of turn but it as an "opening lead" if it is the first lead to the contract. > Dummy makes an opening lead, Ah - a trick question. Dummy (unlike declarer) cannot lead (OOT or otherwise). The applicable law is 45D. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Sep 17 00:40:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Sep 19 09:18:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <432A2365.2030002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > > If a player allows UI to affect his otherwise intended > > action and thereby happens to gain an advantage he is in breach of > > L73c. > > I am surprised to see Tim, of all people, write this. When playing > with beginners or others who transmit UI, I often change my intended > action to avoid taking advantage of the UI. This is my understanding > of what L73C requires. So do I - up to a point. It really depends how firmly my intentions were made. If I'm "walking the dog" I will (and must) carry on doing so. If I have already decided absolutely what to do over a certain rebid then I do it. Of course my experience of playing with beginners here is that the UI so seldom suggests anything (other than the natural uncertainty of beginnerhood) that it's not an issue. Experienced players who use UI generation as a bidding tool find themselves "punished" if they try it as my partner. > > > Players are not expected to > > self-apply L16 at the table, it is a law for TD/ACs not players. > > Of course many players can't apply it or can't be bothered. However, > if one wants to win within the rules, one is well advised to apply L16 > to one's own actions. L73 is good enough for me. Make a planned bid (if you have one), make a bid that you think avoids taking advantage if you can find one, call the TD and let him apply L16 if you think you might have gained advantage through mis-analysis or whatever. Assume self-applying L16 keeps you out of the *failing* 75% slam. Have you gained advantage? L73 isn't interested in whether you *tried* only in *success*. OTOH if you punt slam (as you intended), it makes, you call the TD who adjusts to 5+1 *because* he can't know your intentions then you have fully abided by L73. This also handles those ambiguous hesitations (you know, has pard *really* got extras or is he trying to slow me down with a minimum - knowing my ethics). TDs (being forbidden from looking at hesitator's hand!) do not always work out what it suggests *correctly*. Please bear in mind that much of bridge is of the cut-in/pick-up variety where I cannot choose the ethical standards of my partners. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Sep 17 00:40:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Sep 19 09:18:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050916083119.02bdbb80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > Something similar did happen to me during a match the day before > yesterday. Likewise. A simple "claim" (facing cards) "11 tricks unless D are 3-0 in which case I'll have to play it out." I played it out with my hand open and LHO failed to break up the squeeze against his partner. Quicker than playing concealed, and LHO (a TD) didn't even flicker. Of course I had to play on D straight away or I wouldn't have been entitled to the info that they were 3-0. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 19 10:14:33 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 19 10:15:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432E7369.4050703@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Eric wrote: > > >>Something similar did happen to me during a match the day before >>yesterday. > > > Likewise. A simple "claim" (facing cards) "11 tricks unless D are 3-0 in > which case I'll have to play it out." I played it out with my hand open > and LHO failed to break up the squeeze against his partner. Quicker than > playing concealed, and LHO (a TD) didn't even flicker. Of course I had to > play on D straight away or I wouldn't have been entitled to the info that > they were 3-0. > OK Tim, I might allow you this one. Provided that: -your claim statement is clear enough; -it includes whether you start with the A or the K (if they happen to be in different hands); -the moment at which you start the diamonds is well defined by your claim statement, and it is not just in the next trick; -the claim possibility is already mentioned. I may allow this. Such as: I'll ruff your return, draw trumps and cash the ace of diamonds. If they are 3-0, I'll have to rethink about the squeeze. But if the next card is this ace of diamonds, I won't allow this. You would be gaining nothing timewise. Just play the DA and claim afterwards, or play the squeeze if they are 3-0. Just tell me this - if the claim were really made, would you have given it - or would you rule that the opponents did find the play that broke up the squeeze? Why then should you be allowed this particular trick. After all, you are prevented from revoking in these three tricks, why not opponents as well? > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 19 10:20:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Sep 19 10:23:17 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5bcf2$f44e8020$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: ............. > > I think you should do better than that. L41A in fact defines what > > constitutes an opening lead; the wording of this law implies that the > > player on the presumed declarer's left is the only player who can > > (legally) make an opening lead. > > Well yes - but an illegal opening lead is still an opening lead. Law 54 clearly implies that the only player who can make an opening lead out of turn is presumed declarer's RHO. > > ........... > > > > Presumed declarer or dummy can never make an opening lead that > > > > will "end" the auction period, such a lead will always be > > > > "card exposed or led during auction" and is handled under > > > > Law 24. > > > > > > The auction is over after the third pass. > > > > I fear I must request you to quote some law for this statement of yours. > > Why? There exists an interval between the end of the auction and the end > of the auction period during which certain things are supposed to happen. Nowhere does the law say anything to indicate that the auction as such ends at a different time from when the auction period ends. On the contrary the definition of "Auction" refers to Law 17E which clearly states that the auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced. According to my knowledge of the English language the auction period is the time during which the auction takes place. .............. > > Don't forget that Law 21B applies without restriction also following the > > third pass. It is fully possible for the following sequence of events to > > take place: > > > > 1: During the auction there has been three consecutive passes with > > South to become declarer. However North now leads a card face up. > > North, being dummy, can't lead (OOT or otherwise). During play if dummy > plays the first card to a trick when not requested by declarer we use > L45d. Opponents do not have the right to "accept". If dummy tries to > lead and the auction is rewound for MI the card becomes subject to L24 > > It is now too late for any calls to be changed. This statement is a self-contradiction. How could the auction be rewound if it was too late for any calls to be changed? There is no dummy nor any declarer in the play until the opening lead has been faced. (Consult the definitions for "Dummy" and "Declarer"). This is why Law 41 consistently uses the term "presumed declarer" on every situation that can occur before the opening lead has been faced. The fact is that North has not yet become Dummy; that does not happen until the opening lead has been faced. Thus none of the laws reflecting what dummy does, may do or may not do is relevant at this time. > > 2: West (still in possession of all his rights) asks some questions on > > the auction and it becomes clear that during the auction misinformation > > has been given by South and/or North. > > Sure - it is too late for a change of call - The auction period is over > (see L17e). EW will not be damaged since any adjusted score will be at > least as good as that which they may have obtained through a change of > call. (Handling this is no different to handling a case where the > correction is too late). > > > 3: The Director allows East or West, the one of them who last passed in > > the auction so far to change this pass to some other call, > > Director error - no changes of call after the auction period is over > please. > > > Do you still believe that the auction was over after the third pass? > > The auction ends with the third pass. Prior to the end of the auction > period it can be rewound - NOS have not been adversely affected. Please check your own logic! It is inconsistent. > > > > The leads referred to in Law24 are "premature leads" > > > not LOOTs. > > > > Quite correct, because there is no such thing as an opening lead (out of > > turn) from either presumed declarer or presumed dummy. > > I'm sorry Sven - maybe this is a translation/language thing but a lead > cannot be "premature" once the auction (not auction period) is over. > It's a plain and simple LOOT with the rights to NOS that entails. > > > I'm afraid you would fail a TD exam on the question: > > Not if the examiners were competent I wouldn't. Declarer and both > defenders can "lead" - a lead may be in turn or out of turn but it as an > "opening lead" if it is the first lead to the contract. > > > Dummy makes an opening lead, > > Ah - a trick question. Dummy (unlike declarer) cannot lead (OOT or > otherwise). The applicable law is 45D. I must repeat: There is no Declarer or Dummy before the opening lead has been faced so none of the laws that handle actions by Declarer or Dummy can apply to actions before the opening lead has been faced. You have to find other laws to rule on an "opening lead made by dummy" or for that's sake an "opening lead made by declarer". Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 19 13:54:42 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Sep 19 13:57:53 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? References: <000101c5bcf2$f44e8020$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 3:20 AM Subject: RE: [blml] all drunk ? > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > North, being dummy, can't lead (OOT or otherwise). During play if dummy > plays the first card to a trick when not requested by declarer we use > L45d. Opponents do not have the right to "accept". If dummy tries to > lead and the auction is rewound for MI the card becomes subject to L24 > It is now too late for any calls to be changed. This statement is a self-contradiction. How could the auction be rewound if it was too late for any calls to be changed? Sven The auction can be rewound because the law requires it: ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Roger Pewick" Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 > There is nothing in Law 34 that says anything about the passes being legal, > not legal, accepted, fattening, or sexually provocative. It SIMPLY > STATES... (read it!) >Which makes it impossible to END the auction under > those circumstances, > Kojak regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 19 14:26:00 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Sep 19 14:28:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net> At 06:28 AM 9/18/05, WILLIAM wrote: >I do OBJECT to have someone ask what the law IS, and then have a >cascade of >"well that's the way I read it" twisted misguidance that changes the >nature >of our game. We have WBFLC minutes on the major problems of wording that >have come >to its attention, but I greatly dislike the kind of "Well, that may have >been the intent, but they published otherwise, so I'm going to do it my >way". If anyone thinks that a written law may not need interpreting as to >INTENT they are blind to the existence of the world's huge systems of >jurisprudence. When those individuals who wrote the laws reveal their >intent, that should be what we are looking for, and not continue the >constant diatribes about the meaning of Mr. Clinton's "is". The problem, as this forum has repeatedly discovered, is that when those individuals who wrote the laws reveal their intent, they reveal it to one another. While I'm confident that there are indeed mechanisms in place for communicating that intent "down the line" to low-level working TDs like myself, those mechanisms either are not used or do not function. The choice afforded to me is to either interpret and apply the words of the laws as they appear in their published form, or to base my rulings on hearsay I've picked up through the unofficial back-channel of BLML. Regardless of what I may have learned in this forum, to the people who sign the checks, who do not subscribe to BLML, that looks like a choice between applying the law as written and applying it "my way"; in that context, my choice is clear. Kojak may have the theoretical right of it, but he doesn't sign the checks. The sort of statement Kojak dislikes is really more like, "Well, that may have been the intent, but they have not officially said so, so I'm going to apply the law as written." I dislike having to make them, but suggest that Kojak direct his criticism towards those whose job it is to pass the official word from on high down to folks like me, not those who refuse to follow the views of those more highly placed than themselves as to what it was that should have, but has not, been so communicated, even when we believe they are 100% correct. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 19 15:52:43 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Sep 19 15:55:48 2005 Subject: [blml] all drunk ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c5bd21$68b5c300$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > Sven wrote in a comment to Tim West-Meads: > > (on the opening lead) > > If dummy tries to lead and the auction is rewound > > for MI the card becomes subject to L24 > > It is now too late for any calls to be changed. > >> This statement is a self-contradiction. How could the auction >> be rewound if it was too late for any calls to be changed? > >> Sven > > The auction can be rewound because the law requires it: Precisely. And that is also why it is not too late to have calls changed even at this time (after three consecutive passes), and that is why the auction does not end until end of the auction period as defined in L17E. And finally; that is why any attempted opening lead by either presumed declarer or his partner is not an opening lead (out of turn) but a card exposed during the auction (as a card prematurely led). Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 19 22:35:42 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 19 22:39:03 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <000001c5bce3$c846fa20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5bce3$c846fa20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sep 19, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> There seems to be an assumption made not introduced in evidence. In >> the original post, Petrus made no mention of whether attention had >> been drawn to the irregular change of play at the time it was made. >> If there wasn't, there was no violation of Law 9B1. >> > > In my reasoning I didn't overlook that. North did not explicitly > state that > "this is an irregularity" but he IMO still called attention to it > the way he > acted. According to the "evidence" all four players agreed that the > first > card had been played. North played a card. So far, so good. Then he picked it up, put it back in his hand, and played another card. *That* is the irregularity - and your reasoning is that the mere act of committing an irregularity draws attention to it. I don't buy it. If in fact somebody (defender or declarer) made a comment at the time, that might (probably should) be construed as drawing attention, but if no one said anything, then no. And that evidence is not before us. > Do I understand your position that you agree then in the following > logic? > > Law 47F has been violated. The Laws do not provide indemnity to the > non-offending side for this particular type of violation of law. > Therefore > the Director should apply Law 12A1 which says that he "may" award an > assigned adjusted score. And according to L12C2 the scores awarded > to the > two sides need not balance. > > Other relevant laws are IMO: L81C6 and L84E. Yes. From jvickers at fish.co.uk Mon Sep 19 23:28:25 2005 From: jvickers at fish.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Mon Sep 19 23:30:02 2005 Subject: [blml] test - please ignore Message-ID: <000c01c5bd61$7267a680$f58fbc3e@oemcomputer> From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 20 02:13:39 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Sep 20 02:16:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" > > The sort of statement Kojak dislikes is really more > like, "Well, that may have been the intent, but they > have not officially said so, so I'm going to apply the > law as written." I dislike having to make them, but > suggest that Kojak direct his criticism towards those > whose job it is to pass the official word from on high > down to folks like me, not those who refuse to follow > the views of those more highly placed than themselves > as to what it was that should have, but has not, been > so communicated, even when we believe they are > 100% correct. > +=+ The minutes of the WBFLC are published. They are available to NBOs. Those of recent years are to be found on the web. When information is sought such authorized information as is available can be quoted. The WBF is not responsible for the failure of an NBO to communicate with its members. I do not see what else you would have us do. If you have a problem you should seek guidance from the CTD of your NBO. I respond to enquiries from CTDs from time to time. Blml is an interesting forum for discussion among the informed and the ill-informed but it does not pretend to any authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 08:45:50 2005 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue Sep 20 08:48:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: <000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net> <000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On 20/09/05, Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "The law's made to take care o' raskills." > ~ 'The Mill on the Floss' > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 1:26 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" > > > > > > The sort of statement Kojak dislikes is really more > > like, "Well, that may have been the intent, but they > > have not officially said so, so I'm going to apply the > > law as written." I dislike having to make them, but > > suggest that Kojak direct his criticism towards those > > whose job it is to pass the official word from on high > > down to folks like me, not those who refuse to follow > > the views of those more highly placed than themselves > > as to what it was that should have, but has not, been > > so communicated, even when we believe they are > > 100% correct. > > > > +=+ The minutes of the WBFLC are published. They > are available to NBOs. That's true only as far as it goes. I've been working at the Norwegian Bridge Federation's office for nearly 14 years now. And only a small minority of those minutes have been received by regular mail from the WBF, and none by email, as far as I can recall. >Those of recent years are > to be found on the web. When information is sought > such authorized information as is available can be quoted. > The WBF is not responsible for the failure of an NBO > to communicate with its members. That's true. And here the NBO's (we at least) should improve. But the WBF IS responsible for the failure to communicate with it's NBOs. And that communication has been in a quite sad state for a long time. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > I do not see what else you would have us do. If > you have a problem you should seek guidance from > the CTD of your NBO. I respond to enquiries from > CTDs from time to time. > Blml is an interesting forum for discussion among > the informed and the ill-informed but it does not pretend > to any authority. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 20 09:43:29 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Sep 20 09:48:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net><6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net><000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000b01c5bdb6$ff5fe7a0$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > I do not see what else you would have us > do. If you have a problem you should seek > guidance from the CTD of your NBO. I > respond to enquiries from CTDs from time > to time. Blml is an interesting forum for > discussion among the informed and the > ill-informed but it does not pretend > to any authority. [nigel] What more can the WBF do? Surely its obvious! It can keep at least *one* official web-copy of the laws up-to-date; inserting clarifications and corrections in place; and informing NBOs of changes. Each club, NBO and so on would provide a link to this official copy on their individual web-sites. This would be an asset not only to a few a conscientious Directors but also to the vast mass of actual players. A game *is* its rules. Players should have easy access to them. Why must we be kept "ill-informed"? Currently some of the rules are so complex and sophisticated that only Grattan and Kojak understand them and even they do not always agree on their "intent"; Hence it may be a good idea to simplify and clarify them. But that is a separate matter. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 20 11:15:57 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Sep 20 11:20:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net><6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net><000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002a01c5bdc3$e9ab09a0$159868d5@jeushtlj> [Harald Skj?ran] > And here the NBO's (we at least) should improve. > But the WBF IS responsible for the failure to > communicate with it's NBOs. And that communication > has been in a quite sad state for a long time. [nige1] What players must have is a coherent comprehensive set of Bridge-rules. Since the WBFLC refuses to do anything, perhaps an NBO could: [A] Glean minutes, interpretations, etc from WBF "leopard's loos" [B] Peruse local "leopards loos" for "NBO regulations" "white-books" etc. [C] Take TFLB and cobble the lot together into a complete local book of "Bridge-Rules". I would be far easier for the WBFLC to do something like this, itself, once and for all; but if each NBO does it, at least players will have a single local source on which they can rely. Also if each NBO's version is different, then Grattan will be delighted to have heightened the Tower of Babel. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 20 13:59:49 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 20 14:01:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: <000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net> <000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050920073854.02ae8c80@pop.starpower.net> At 08:13 PM 9/19/05, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" > >>The sort of statement Kojak dislikes is really more like, "Well, that >>may have been the intent, but they have not officially said so, so >>I'm going to apply the law as written." I dislike having to make >>them, but suggest that Kojak direct his criticism towards those whose >>job it is to pass the official word from on high down to folks like >>me, not those who refuse to follow the views of those more highly >>placed than themselves as to what it was that should have, but has >>not, been so communicated, even when we believe they are 100% correct. > >+=+ The minutes of the WBFLC are published. That is another of those undoubtedly correct rumors that have reached me solely via BLML. >They >are available to NBOs. Those of recent years are to be found on the >web. When information is sought such authorized information as is >available can be quoted. >The WBF is not responsible for the failure of an NBO >to communicate with its members. > I do not see what else you would have us do. If >you have a problem you should seek guidance from >the CTD of your NBO. I respond to enquiries from CTDs from time to >time. Blml is an interesting forum for discussion among the >informed and the ill-informed but it does not pretend to any authority. Low-level club TDs seek guidance from the CTD of their NBO? What, write them a letter asking out of the blue whether there are laws in the lawbook that mean something other than what they say? We do not, and should not have to, individually "seek guidance" to learn that an official interpretation of a law has changed. We have two sources of guidance: (1) The occasional communication that goes out to staff TDs and clubs, and (2) "The Bridge Bulletin: The Official Publication of the American Contract Bridge League". In over 40 years as a director, I have seen these channels used to communicate occasional interpretations of law promulgated by and for the ACBL by the ACBLLC, but not once have I seen any reference to such actions by the WBFLC. I have learned a great deal from BLML about how I *ought to* rule in certain situations in which the law appears to say one thing but has been officially determined by the WBFLC to mean something else. But it is only my NBO, or one of its components, who can determine how I *do* rule. Grattan and others have been extraordinarily helpful in passing those undoubtedly correct rumors on to us, but as Grattan points out, "BLML... does not pretend to any authority." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schuster at eduhi.at Tue Sep 20 14:23:15 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue Sep 20 14:47:50 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5bce3$c846fa20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:35:42 +0200, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> There seems to be an assumption made not introduced in evidence. In >>> the original post, Petrus made no mention of whether attention had >>> been drawn to the irregular change of play at the time it was made. >>> If there wasn't, there was no violation of Law 9B1. >>> >> >> In my reasoning I didn't overlook that. North did not explicitly state >> that >> "this is an irregularity" but he IMO still called attention to it the >> way he >> acted. According to the "evidence" all four players agreed that the >> first >> card had been played. > > North played a card. So far, so good. Then he picked it up, put it back > in his hand, and played another card. *That* is the irregularity - and > your reasoning is that the mere act of committing an irregularity draws > attention to it. I don't buy it. If in fact somebody (defender or > declarer) made a comment at the time, that might (probably should) be > construed as drawing attention, but if no one said anything, then no. > And that evidence is not before us. > Allow me to add: attention was immediately drawn to the irregularity, but dummy told the table that declarer could correct a revoke without penalty. Defenders now thought declarer had revoked twice in the same trick, and only after the hand was over did they see that there had not been any revoke after all. When I posted I was above all interested how to untangle the subsequent tricks, and I did not think it relevant how the mess was created in the first place. But of course, if we have to apply L12 we need to find out who is an OS. Regards, Petrus >> Do I understand your position that you agree then in the following >> logic? >> >> Law 47F has been violated. The Laws do not provide indemnity to the >> non-offending side for this particular type of violation of law. >> Therefore >> the Director should apply Law 12A1 which says that he "may" award an >> assigned adjusted score. And according to L12C2 the scores awarded to >> the >> two sides need not balance. >> >> Other relevant laws are IMO: L81C6 and L84E. > > Yes. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From schoderb at msn.com Tue Sep 20 16:01:29 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Sep 20 16:04:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net><6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net><000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20050920073854.02ae8c80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan is completely right. He, as I have, responds to CTDs directly at times. It is always with the caveat that I'm speaking for myself and from my knowledge of the subject matter, but not for the WBFLC. What you are advocating , Eric, is that the WBF through it's LC usurp the rightful authority and role of the Zonal and NBO Authorities in providing their members with Rules and Regulations which , IMO, are absolutely necessary to flesh out the entire panorama of tournament direction and management. Your inquiries should be directed to your NBO, and should be answered by them. When they are unsure, they should come to the WBFLC for guidance and assistance. A step-wise procedure that provides for the many differences in our game throughout the world. The WBFLC, again IMO, is not there to tell China that their alert system should be changed to that of the USA or Europe for instance. Best regards, Kojak ----- Original Message -----From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" > At 08:13 PM 9/19/05, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" > > > >>The sort of statement Kojak dislikes is really more like, "Well, that > >>may have been the intent, but they have not officially said so, so > >>I'm going to apply the law as written." I dislike having to make > >>them, but suggest that Kojak direct his criticism towards those whose > >>job it is to pass the official word from on high down to folks like > >>me, not those who refuse to follow the views of those more highly > >>placed than themselves as to what it was that should have, but has > >>not, been so communicated, even when we believe they are 100% correct. > > > >+=+ The minutes of the WBFLC are published. > > That is another of those undoubtedly correct rumors that have reached > me solely via BLML. > > >They > >are available to NBOs. Those of recent years are to be found on the > >web. When information is sought such authorized information as is > >available can be quoted. > >The WBF is not responsible for the failure of an NBO > >to communicate with its members. > > I do not see what else you would have us do. If > >you have a problem you should seek guidance from > >the CTD of your NBO. I respond to enquiries from CTDs from time to > >time. Blml is an interesting forum for discussion among the > >informed and the ill-informed but it does not pretend to any authority. > > Low-level club TDs seek guidance from the CTD of their NBO? What, > write them a letter asking out of the blue whether there are laws in > the lawbook that mean something other than what they say? > > We do not, and should not have to, individually "seek guidance" to > learn that an official interpretation of a law has changed. We have > two sources of guidance: (1) The occasional communication that goes out > to staff TDs and clubs, and (2) "The Bridge Bulletin: The Official > Publication of the American Contract Bridge League". In over 40 years > as a director, I have seen these channels used to communicate > occasional interpretations of law promulgated by and for the ACBL by > the ACBLLC, but not once have I seen any reference to such actions by > the WBFLC. > > I have learned a great deal from BLML about how I *ought to* rule in > certain situations in which the law appears to say one thing but has > been officially determined by the WBFLC to mean something else. But it > is only my NBO, or one of its components, who can determine how I *do* > rule. Grattan and others have been extraordinarily helpful in passing > those undoubtedly correct rumors on to us, but as Grattan points out, > "BLML... does not pretend to any authority." > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 20 18:41:05 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Sep 20 18:45:45 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5bce3$c846fa20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article , Petrus Schuster OSB writes >On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:35:42 +0200, Ed Reppert >wrote: > >> >> On Sep 19, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>> There seems to be an assumption made not introduced in evidence. In >>>> the original post, Petrus made no mention of whether attention had >>>> been drawn to the irregular change of play at the time it was made. >>>> If there wasn't, there was no violation of Law 9B1. >>>> >>> >>> In my reasoning I didn't overlook that. North did not explicitly state >>> that >>> "this is an irregularity" but he IMO still called attention to it the >>> way he >>> acted. According to the "evidence" all four players agreed that the >>> first >>> card had been played. In my usual mildly seditious manner, I'm seriously inclined to explain to the players that they seem to have chosen to play a game which is closely related to but not actually bridge. Next time, when they play bridge, I will give a ruling. cheers John >> >> North played a card. So far, so good. Then he picked it up, put it back >> in his hand, and played another card. *That* is the irregularity - and >> your reasoning is that the mere act of committing an irregularity draws >> attention to it. I don't buy it. If in fact somebody (defender or >> declarer) made a comment at the time, that might (probably should) be >> construed as drawing attention, but if no one said anything, then no. >> And that evidence is not before us. >> > >Allow me to add: attention was immediately drawn to the irregularity, but >dummy told the table that declarer could correct a revoke without penalty. >Defenders now thought declarer had revoked twice in the same trick, and >only after the hand was over did they see that there had not been any >revoke after all. >When I posted I was above all interested how to untangle the subsequent >tricks, and I did not think it relevant how the mess was created in the >first place. But of course, if we have to apply L12 we need to find out >who is an OS. > >Regards, >Petrus > >>> Do I understand your position that you agree then in the following >>> logic? >>> >>> Law 47F has been violated. The Laws do not provide indemnity to the >>> non-offending side for this particular type of violation of law. >>> Therefore >>> the Director should apply Law 12A1 which says that he "may" award an >>> assigned adjusted score. And according to L12C2 the scores awarded to >>> the >>> two sides need not balance. >>> >>> Other relevant laws are IMO: L81C6 and L84E. >> >> Yes. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 20 19:16:45 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Sep 20 19:20:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost><432BD89C.8060607@att.net><6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net><000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred><6.1.1.1.0.20050920073854.02ae8c80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c5be07$40bdb470$c0d7403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" > Grattan is completely right. He, as I have, responds > to CTDs directly at times. It is always with the caveat > that I'm speaking for myself and from my knowledge > of the subject matter, but not for the WBFLC. > +=+ Unless, of course, quoting minuted decisions. +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 20 20:12:56 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 20 20:16:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net> <000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20050920073854.02ae8c80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D80F376-50D0-455E-9D47-948DCA39A1AA@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 20, 2005, at 10:01 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > What you are advocating , Eric, is that the WBF through it's LC > usurp the > rightful authority and role of the Zonal and NBO Authorities in > providing > their members with Rules and Regulations which , IMO, are absolutely > necessary to flesh out the entire panorama of tournament direction and > management. Your inquiries should be directed to your NBO, and > should be > answered by them. When they are unsure, they should come to the > WBFLC for > guidance and assistance. A step-wise procedure that provides for > the many > differences in our game throughout the world. The WBFLC, again > IMO, is not > there to tell China that their alert system should be changed to > that of the > USA or Europe for instance. No sir. What Eric is advocating does not pertain to rules and regulations, it pertains to laws. Interpretation of the laws, by the WBF By-Laws, is a function of the LC. While the manner in which the LC does that is left to that body, it seems to me that inherent in that function is the duty to make its interpretations known to the member NBOs of the WBF, and to ensure that the *laws* are administered according to those interpretations. The NBOs have an obligation as signatories to the WBF Constitution and By-Laws to implement such interpretations within their jurisdictions. The WBF Executive has the power to compel NBOs who do not do so. If in fact NBOs are not "getting the word", or are ignoring it, then somebody is dropping the ball. I don't really care who that somebody is - WBF Executive, LC, Zonal Authority, NBO, or whoever - I just want the ball picked up. And so, if I may speak for him on this, does Eric. From adam at irvine.com Mon Sep 19 18:14:18 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Sep 20 21:22:24 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:10:56 EDT." <432CB090.1010608@att.net> Message-ID: <200509191614.JAA16041@mailhub.irvine.com> Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > > In this case the non-offending side > > apparently did not gain, nor could they (I assume) expect to gain from the > > irregular action taken by North. > > I think they might have expected to gain. They condone an > irregularity only until the time they find themselves > disadvantaged by it. Looks like they're trying to get the > best of what did happen at the table and what should have > happened at the table. Even if they are, I'm not sure there's anything legally wrong with that. The WBF's rules about double shots apply to a bridge action that is wild, irrational, or gambling; specifically, the WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees says, "The award of an assigned adjusted score ... is appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent side that has not damaged itself by irrational, wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction." I don't see how this criterion could apply to an action that isn't a call or play, and I don't see how "not calling the TD immediately" qualifies as an irrational, wild, or gambling action in any case. May I suggest that perhaps E-W didn't know the best time to call? The Laws do say that once attention has been drawn to an irregularity the TD must be called immediately, but they don't say much about when such attention must be drawn. I was involved in a case some years ago. I was playing with my then-fiancee' Margaret (now my wife), who was a rank beginner. Against declarer's 3NT, she led the 2 from a doubleton 32 of clubs. (I hadn't yet taught her everything about the game, so she had no idea what the correct systemic lead was.) Declarer, with AQT in dummy, put in the 10, and I won my stiff king. A couple tricks later, declarer cashed the club ace, and grumbled about losing to the stiff king when I showed out. Then he cashed the queen, and *everybody* showed out. Of course, I knew this was wrong, but I assumed Margaret had goofed. She was a rank beginner, after all, and I figured that after a lead and two discards, she forgot what suit had been led. Declarer then reentered his hand and proceeded to run the rest of his seven-card club suit. After the hand, I asked everyone not to touch their played cards, and I called the TD. I was looking around the room for the TD so I didn't see what happened, but Margaret said she saw declarer mix up his cards after I called the TD, after I had asked him not to. The TD came and I said there had been a revoke. The TD wanted to review the play, and declarer said he had already mixed up his cards, so the TD said he would have to rule against declarer, but declarer started arguing with TD and trying to convince him that he hadn't revoked and shouldn't be ruled against, and kept arguing for about five minutes (really!) until I finally figured out that if he hadn't revoked he couldn't have taken seven club tricks (since he had lost one), so where did his eleven tricks come from? Declarer tried hard to come up with a rebuttal, but he was stumped. Anyway, when I told some people about this, they suggested that I should have called the TD right away when declarer started running his suit. That might certainly have avoided the problems that happened after the hand. However, nobody said that I had committed an infraction by not calling the TD right away. Really, I just didn't know when to call. I'm bothered by the direction this thread has taken. To me, North committed a quite egregious violation---he played a card and then tried to take it back after seeing more of the trick. Unless I'm misunderstanding what went on at the table, this strikes me as pretty close to blatant cheating. Yet most of this thread has been a discussion of whether E-W did something wrong. Why are we trying so hard to figure out how to rule against the non-offenders? -- Adam From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Sep 20 22:35:34 2005 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Sep 20 22:38:48 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? References: <200509191614.JAA16041@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002601c5be22$ddf5b4c0$f1241d53@kocurzak> > May I suggest that perhaps E-W didn't know the best time to call? The > Laws do say that once attention has been drawn to an irregularity the > TD must be called immediately, but they don't say much about when such > attention must be drawn. I was involved in a case some years ago. I > was playing with my then-fiancee' Margaret (now my wife), who was a > rank beginner. Against declarer's 3NT, she led the 2 from a doubleton > 32 of clubs. (I hadn't yet taught her everything about the game, so > she had no idea what the correct systemic lead was.) Declarer, with > AQT in dummy, put in the 10, and I won my stiff king. A couple tricks > later, declarer cashed the club ace, and grumbled about losing to the > stiff king when I showed out. Then he cashed the queen, and > *everybody* showed out. Of course, I knew this was wrong, but I > assumed Margaret had goofed. She was a rank beginner, after all, and > I figured that after a lead and two discards, she forgot what suit had > been led. Was it in the ACBL-land? If it was - why didn't you ask "no clubs, partner?" at this point? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- O kobietach, dla kobiet... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f18b4 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 20 23:09:42 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 20 23:12:49 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <200509191614.JAA16041@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000c01c5be27$9f14ce30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan ............... > May I suggest that perhaps E-W didn't know the best time to call? The > Laws do say that once attention has been drawn to an irregularity the > TD must be called immediately, but they don't say much about when such > attention must be drawn. I was involved in a case some years ago. I > was playing with my then-fiancee' Margaret (now my wife), who was a > rank beginner. Against declarer's 3NT, she led the 2 from a doubleton > 32 of clubs. (I hadn't yet taught her everything about the game, so > she had no idea what the correct systemic lead was.) Declarer, with > AQT in dummy, put in the 10, and I won my stiff king. A couple tricks > later, declarer cashed the club ace, and grumbled about losing to the > stiff king when I showed out. Then he cashed the queen, and > *everybody* showed out. Of course, I knew this was wrong, but I > assumed Margaret had goofed. She was a rank beginner, after all, and > I figured that after a lead and two discards, she forgot what suit had > been led. > > Declarer then reentered his hand and proceeded to run the rest of his > seven-card club suit. After the hand, I asked everyone not to touch > their played cards, and I called the TD. I was looking around the > room for the TD so I didn't see what happened, but Margaret said she > saw declarer mix up his cards after I called the TD, after I had asked > him not to. The TD came and I said there had been a revoke. The TD > wanted to review the play, and declarer said he had already mixed up > his cards, so the TD said he would have to rule against declarer, but > declarer started arguing with TD and trying to convince him that he > hadn't revoked and shouldn't be ruled against, and kept arguing for > about five minutes (really!) until I finally figured out that if he > hadn't revoked he couldn't have taken seven club tricks (since he had > lost one), so where did his eleven tricks come from? Declarer tried > hard to come up with a rebuttal, but he was stumped. > > Anyway, when I told some people about this, they suggested that I > should have called the TD right away when declarer started running his > suit. That might certainly have avoided the problems that happened > after the hand. However, nobody said that I had committed an > infraction by not calling the TD right away. Really, I just didn't > know when to call. 1: In the case you experienced it was no error to delay calling the Director until play was completed. 2: No player may disorder his played cards until after the final result of the board is agreed upon and recorded. Any player that mixes his cards loses all his rights to claim in which sequence he has played his cards. 3: I disapprove on the Director's handling of the case in just one respect: He should never have allowed any arguing from declarer after informing him that he lost all his rights when he mixed his cards. More specifically I would have imposed a procedure penalty of at least 10% of a "top" (in addition to the adjustment for the revoke) to a player who keeps on arguing. Just for the record: Whenever I arrive at a table to resolve a question that involves determining how the play had progressed and find that a player does not have his played cards orderly in front of him as they were played (like a player who has two piles: Won and lost) I start by ordering him to remain silent during the whole process; the sequence in which he has played his cards will be determined by the other three players and me. Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Tue Sep 20 23:23:33 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Sep 20 23:26:38 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:09:42 +0200." <000c01c5be27$9f14ce30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200509202123.OAA26382@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > 3: I disapprove on the Director's handling of the case in just one respect: > He should never have allowed any arguing from declarer after informing him > that he lost all his rights when he mixed his cards. More specifically I > would have imposed a procedure penalty of at least 10% of a "top" (in > addition to the adjustment for the revoke) to a player who keeps on arguing. Easier said than done, sometimes. This particular declarer is well-known around these parts and I think would be considered to be an expert by many (and a pleasant man by extremely few, if any). I think I would have had trouble if I were in the Director's shoes, and in fact I don't think I would make a good director for that reason---although I think I know the Laws well enough to apply them, my personality is such that I wouldn't be able to put on a cloak of authority in cases like this when it's really needed. And I think that to deal with this particular declarer would have required a really authoritative director. Really, my biggest regret is that I didn't file a recorder form afterwards. > Just for the record: Whenever I arrive at a table to resolve a question that > involves determining how the play had progressed and find that a player does > not have his played cards orderly in front of him as they were played (like > a player who has two piles: Won and lost) I start by ordering him to remain > silent during the whole process If this works for you, please come over to my house and help me deal with my children. :) :) :) :) :) Sigh....... -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 20 23:30:43 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 20 23:32:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net> <000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20050920073854.02ae8c80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050920162252.02f1f690@pop.starpower.net> At 10:01 AM 9/20/05, WILLIAM wrote: >Grattan is completely right. He, as I have, responds to CTDs directly at >times. It is always with the caveat that I'm speaking for myself and >from my >knowledge of the subject matter, but not for the WBFLC. > >What you are advocating , Eric, is that the WBF through it's LC usurp the >rightful authority and role of the Zonal and NBO Authorities in providing >their members with Rules and Regulations which , IMO, are absolutely >necessary to flesh out the entire panorama of tournament direction and >management. Your inquiries should be directed to your NBO, and should be >answered by them. When they are unsure, they should come to the WBFLC >for >guidance and assistance. A step-wise procedure that provides for the >many >differences in our game throughout the world. The WBFLC, again IMO, >is not >there to tell China that their alert system should be changed to that >of the >USA or Europe for instance. Re-reading my message, below, I don't see where I was "advocating" that the WBF do anything at all. Other than that, I have no dispute with anything Kojak has written. I was merely responding to the suggestion that I am doing something wrong or inappropriate when I try to parse the words of particular laws according to the rules of English and then insist on applying those laws *as they are written* rather than according to various re-interpretations, or even actual re-writes, which have been minuted by the WBFLC, and which I have learned about exclusively on BLML, from knowledgeable authorities who, quite properly, when they're not excoriating me for refusing to listen to what they have told me about those minutes, admit that they are speaking for themselves and not for the WBF. The WBFLC is not there to tell China that they should adopt some particular alert procedure. But, apparently, the WBFLC is there to tell North America (and everyone else) that they should, for example, take class of player into account in determining what constitutes an irrational action. These are the WBFLC's own choices, and I have no quarrel with them. Perhaps they do tell "North America" about whatever it is they do, and it is North America's (i.e. the ACBL's) failure to tell me that leaves me in official ignorance, highly unofficial BLML notwithstanding. But nobody outside of BLML tells me, or thousands of other low-level TDs and club-level directors out there. And until somebody does, it cannot affect how I do my job that Kojak, Grattan, and others who live at or near the top of this particular food chain pass on admittedly reliable, but nevertheless entirely unofficial, rumors of what the WBFLC would like to expect me to have been told (perhaps with reason, perhaps not; I don't claim to know where the blame lies). What doesn't get *officially* communicated doesn't *officially* exist, whatever we may have heard goes on behind the "Beware of the Leopard" sign. Kojak tells me that "[my] inquiries should be directed to [my] NBO", but my communication skills are insufficient for me to initiate a series of inquiries to my NBO along the lines of, "I have heard a rumor that law such-and-such, which quite clearly says thus-and-so, actually means something entirely different from what it says; is this really true?" without looking, and feeling, at least a little bit out of line, not to mention more than a bit foolish. So I shall continue, as I have been instructed to when making rulings, to read the words of the Law aloud directly from The Book, and I will continue to rule in a manner that is consistent with the words that have just come from my mouth. What I will not do is rule otherwise, then explain to my customers that a reliable rumor has reached me via the Internet that what I just read really means something entirely different from what it says, and it is that, not The Book, on which my ruling was based. >----- Original Message -----From: "Eric Landau" > > > At 08:13 PM 9/19/05, Grattan wrote: > > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > >>The sort of statement Kojak dislikes is really more like, "Well, that > > >>may have been the intent, but they have not officially said so, so > > >>I'm going to apply the law as written." I dislike having to make > > >>them, but suggest that Kojak direct his criticism towards those whose > > >>job it is to pass the official word from on high down to folks like > > >>me, not those who refuse to follow the views of those more highly > > >>placed than themselves as to what it was that should have, but has > > >>not, been so communicated, even when we believe they are 100% > correct. > > > > > >+=+ The minutes of the WBFLC are published. > > > > That is another of those undoubtedly correct rumors that have reached > > me solely via BLML. > > > > >They > > >are available to NBOs. Those of recent years are to be found on the > > >web. When information is sought such authorized information as is > > >available can be quoted. > > >The WBF is not responsible for the failure of an NBO > > >to communicate with its members. > > > I do not see what else you would have us do. If > > >you have a problem you should seek guidance from > > >the CTD of your NBO. I respond to enquiries from CTDs from time to > > >time. Blml is an interesting forum for discussion among the > > >informed and the ill-informed but it does not pretend to any > authority. > > > > Low-level club TDs seek guidance from the CTD of their NBO? What, > > write them a letter asking out of the blue whether there are laws in > > the lawbook that mean something other than what they say? > > > > We do not, and should not have to, individually "seek guidance" to > > learn that an official interpretation of a law has changed. We have > > two sources of guidance: (1) The occasional communication that goes out > > to staff TDs and clubs, and (2) "The Bridge Bulletin: The Official > > Publication of the American Contract Bridge League". In over 40 years > > as a director, I have seen these channels used to communicate > > occasional interpretations of law promulgated by and for the ACBL by > > the ACBLLC, but not once have I seen any reference to such actions by > > the WBFLC. > > > > I have learned a great deal from BLML about how I *ought to* rule in > > certain situations in which the law appears to say one thing but has > > been officially determined by the WBFLC to mean something else. But it > > is only my NBO, or one of its components, who can determine how I *do* > > rule. Grattan and others have been extraordinarily helpful in passing > > those undoubtedly correct rumors on to us, but as Grattan points out, > > "BLML... does not pretend to any authority." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 21 08:15:21 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 21 08:18:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: References: <432BEB1B.15667.17EF52@localhost> <432BD89C.8060607@att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20050919075032.02e51880@pop.starpower.net> <000001c5bd78$40d5b640$94eb403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20050920073854.02ae8c80@pop.starpower.net> <4D80F376-50D0-455E-9D47-948DCA39A1AA@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4144E686-ECC3-4509-8BB1-57D4FF4BAD3A@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:16 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Interesting that Mr. Landau feels It right to respond for Mr. > Reppert. I > would have thought that Mr. Reppert was capable of making his own > response. I think you have that backwards. Perhaps I was presumptuous to respond to a comment you made to someone else, but I do believe I have his position right, and if not, he will tell us both so. > It is impossible for me to believe that the game of Duplicate > Contract > Bridge was to be played by nothing more than the WBF Laws of > Duplicate > Contract Bridge, ?????, and it was never so intended. Nor so has it so > happened. Thank your (you place your diety). Get off this high > horse and > let's talk about the game at the Club level, where it is really all > where > you are stuck at. Your evaluations of the level of Meckwell, Zia, > aAnd genre > are amusing, but not relevant to the job of the TD. Did you *read* what I wrote? I never said any of that. And I'm not on any "high horse". You want to talk about club level TDs, we can certainly do that. Do you think their training and level of competence in the ACBL is good, bad, or somewhere in between, on average? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 21 08:52:12 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 21 08:55:35 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <200509191614.JAA16041@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200509191614.JAA16041@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2189D7EB-46BA-481D-BECF-E62929BC527D@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 19, 2005, at 12:14 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Anyway, when I told some people about this, they suggested that I > should have called the TD right away when declarer started running his > suit. That might certainly have avoided the problems that happened > after the hand. However, nobody said that I had committed an > infraction by not calling the TD right away. Really, I just didn't > know when to call. I would say "Call the TD when any of the following applies: 1. Someone has drawn attention to an irregularity. (Law 9B1a). 2. When you believe that unauthorized information may have been conveyed by an opponent to his partner, unless the ZO permits you to "reserve your rights". (Law 16A1). 3. When you believe that a player having UI may have chosen an LA suggested by that information. (Law 16A2). 4. When you realize that your explanation of partner's call or play was in error (Law 75D1). 5. When your partner's explanation of your call or play was in error, AND you are a member of the declaring side, AND it is after the final pass, but before the opening lead is chosen. (Law 75D2). 6. When your partner's explanation of your call or play was in error, AND you are a member of the defending side, AND play has been completed. (Law 75D2). 7. In all other cases when you believe an irregularity has occurred which may damage your side. In this case, you need not draw attention to the (presumed) irregularity before you call the TD, but if you *do*, all four players have a responsibility to call him (see item 1 above)." Did I miss any? ;-) As to your anecdote, declarer was in violation of at least four laws: 65D, 72B4, 79A, and 74A3. You might throw in 72B2 as well. IMO, he deserves a procedural penalty under Law 90, and possibly a disciplinary penalty (Law 91). > I'm bothered by the direction this thread has taken. To me, North > committed a quite egregious violation---he played a card and then > tried to take it back after seeing more of the trick. Unless I'm > misunderstanding what went on at the table, this strikes me as pretty > close to blatant cheating. Yet most of this thread has been a > discussion of whether E-W did something wrong. Why are we trying so > hard to figure out how to rule against the non-offenders? Good question. ;-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 21 08:55:24 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 21 08:58:49 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <000c01c5be27$9f14ce30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000c01c5be27$9f14ce30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sep 20, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > 3: I disapprove on the Director's handling of the case in just one > respect: > He should never have allowed any arguing from declarer after > informing him > that he lost all his rights when he mixed his cards. More > specifically I > would have imposed a procedure penalty of at least 10% of a "top" (in > addition to the adjustment for the revoke) to a player who keeps on > arguing. Hm. Seems I left out Laws 74A1, 74B5, and possibly 90B8 in my previous reply. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 21 08:58:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 21 09:01:29 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <200509202123.OAA26382@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200509202123.OAA26382@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <720471F0-FA6F-40A5-839D-569BCF6C1AE4@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 20, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > If this works for you, please come over to my house and help me deal > with my children. :) :) :) :) :) LOL! I have just begun to direct at the club level. I keep saying I ought to go to Toys 'R Us and buy a nerf bat. :-) No, I would not actually hit anyone with it - I'm not *that* stupid. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Sep 20 09:34:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Sep 21 09:15:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <432E7369.4050703@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > > > Likewise. A simple "claim" (facing cards) "11 tricks unless D are > > 3-0 in which case I'll have to play it out." I played it out with my > > hand open and LHO failed to break up the squeeze against his partner. > > Quicker than playing concealed, and LHO (a TD) didn't even flicker. > > Of course I had to play on D straight away or I wouldn't have been > > entitled to the info that they were 3-0. > > > > OK Tim, I might allow you this one. > Provided that: > -your claim statement is clear enough; There was no claim statement per se. Had D been 2-1 a blindingly obvious cross-ruff was available. > -it includes whether you start with the A or the K (if they happen to > be in different hands); They were. The DA was in an opponent's hand (along with the 93) thus I could not play on cross-ruff lines without getting overruffed. > -the moment at which you start the diamonds is well defined by your > claim statement, and it is not just in the next trick; Opps and I considered that my statement (in the context of the hand) made it mandatory for me to play diamonds immediately. > -the claim possibility is already mentioned. > > I may allow this. > > Such as: I'll ruff your return, draw trumps and cash the ace of > diamonds. If they are 3-0, I'll have to rethink about the squeeze. > > But if the next card is this ace of diamonds, I won't allow this. You > would be gaining nothing timewise. Just play the DA and claim > afterwards, or play the squeeze if they are 3-0. > > Just tell me this - if the claim were really made, would you have > given it - or would you rule that the opponents did find the play that > broke up the squeeze? Had it been a claim I'd have ruled the break-up found (because LHO's only objection could have been that he would find the card to break up the squeeze). If opps didn't state a valid objection to the claim I'd uphold it (obviously). >Why then should you be allowed this particular > trick. After all, you are prevented from revoking in these three > tricks, why not opponents as well? Is it not enough that they have been given the chance to find the best line double-dummy - knowing, from my statement, that there is probably a successful line available to them? And yes, one can *always* avoid a penalisable revoke by facing one's cards with the statement that one is not claiming. The process was neither illegal nor a claim. Any gloating about the failure to break the squeeze was a purely personal matter between friends :) Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 21 09:25:52 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Sep 21 09:31:54 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? References: <200509191614.JAA16041@mailhub.irvine.com> <2189D7EB-46BA-481D-BECF-E62929BC527D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c5be7d$b3e5d2e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert"> > I would say "Call the TD when any of the following applies: > > 1. Someone has drawn attention to an irregularity. (Law 9B1a). Good. > 2. When you believe that unauthorized information may have been > conveyed by an opponent to his partner, unless the ZO permits you to > "reserve your rights". (Law 16A1). Not good. Calling the TD every time someone breaks tempo is a time-waster. It is not in itself an irregularity and most of the time the UI leads to no damage. Call the TD only if (1) the UI is very likely to lead to damage, and (2) the opponents do not agree to its existence. In that case the TD's help is needed right now. > 3. When you believe that a player having UI may have chosen an LA > suggested by that information. (Law 16A2). Nitpick: "LA" refers to an action that is *not* suggested by the UI. Paraphrasing of that nature should be more accurate, Ed. The actual wording of L16A2 is that when you have a "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chose an action that could have been suggested by such information," which, the footnote says, can only be "when play ends, or as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." L16A2 is not an SO option, and it says in effect that you don't call the TD merely because you suspect an irregularity, you must see the evidence. > 4. When you realize that your explanation of partner's call or play > was in error (Law 75D1). Good. > 5. When your partner's explanation of your call or play was in error, > AND you are a member of the declaring side, AND it is after the > final pass, but before the opening lead is chosen. (Law 75D2). The TD *should* be called before the opening lead is put face down, but it's never too late to call the TD in this situation (but tardiness could be costly). > 6. When your partner's explanation of your call or play was in error, > AND you are a member of the defending side, AND play has been > completed. (Law 75D2). Good > 7. In all other cases when you believe an irregularity has occurred > which may damage your side. In this case, you need not draw attention > to the (presumed) irregularity before you call the TD, but if you > *do*, all four players have a responsibility to call him (see item 1 > above)." > The belief must be substantial, not just a suspicion. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 21 09:40:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 21 09:41:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43310E55.3010503@hdw.be> Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >>>Likewise. A simple "claim" (facing cards) "11 tricks unless D are >>>3-0 in which case I'll have to play it out." I played it out with my >>>hand open and LHO failed to break up the squeeze against his partner. >>> Quicker than playing concealed, and LHO (a TD) didn't even flicker. >>>Of course I had to play on D straight away or I wouldn't have been >>>entitled to the info that they were 3-0. >>> >> >>OK Tim, I might allow you this one. >>Provided that: >>-your claim statement is clear enough; > > > There was no claim statement per se. Had D been 2-1 a blindingly obvious > cross-ruff was available. > > >>-it includes whether you start with the A or the K (if they happen to >>be in different hands); > > > They were. The DA was in an opponent's hand (along with the 93) thus I > could not play on cross-ruff lines without getting overruffed. > Then this is not the case I was commenting upon. I wanted to allow the following: You claim, and part of your claim includes cashing the DA (or K). If the diamonds fall then the claim is good, and you want to reserve your right to resume playing if they don't drop. That case I was willing to allow. This one, I don't know yet. > >>-the moment at which you start the diamonds is well defined by your >>claim statement, and it is not just in the next trick; > > > Opps and I considered that my statement (in the context of the hand) made > it mandatory for me to play diamonds immediately. > Then why didn't you? What possible gain in time was there? This is one of the reasons why I don't allow this. Were opponents on lead? Then again I might allow a statement like: "I'll take whatever you return and play diamonds immediately - if they are 2-1 I can claim". > >>-the claim possibility is already mentioned. >> >>I may allow this. >> >>Such as: I'll ruff your return, draw trumps and cash the ace of >>diamonds. If they are 3-0, I'll have to rethink about the squeeze. >> >>But if the next card is this ace of diamonds, I won't allow this. You >>would be gaining nothing timewise. Just play the DA and claim >>afterwards, or play the squeeze if they are 3-0. >> >>Just tell me this - if the claim were really made, would you have >>given it - or would you rule that the opponents did find the play that >>broke up the squeeze? > > > Had it been a claim I'd have ruled the break-up found (because LHO's only > objection could have been that he would find the card to break up the > squeeze). If opps didn't state a valid objection to the claim I'd uphold > it (obviously). > So you see that you are trying to speed up play but are refusing to submit to the claim legislation? > >>Why then should you be allowed this particular >>trick. After all, you are prevented from revoking in these three >>tricks, why not opponents as well? > > > Is it not enough that they have been given the chance to find the best > line double-dummy - knowing, from my statement, that there is probably a > successful line available to them? And yes, one can *always* avoid a > penalisable revoke by facing one's cards with the statement that one is > not claiming. > > The process was neither illegal nor a claim. Any gloating about the > failure to break the squeeze was a purely personal matter between > friends :) > I'm not talking about that. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Sep 21 14:15:46 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed Sep 21 14:19:00 2005 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[blml]_Claims?= Message-ID: Herman De Wael Pour : blml Envoy? par : cc : blml-bounces@amster Objet : Re: [blml] Claims damned.org 21/09/2005 09:40 Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >>>Likewise. A simple "claim" (facing cards) "11 tricks unless D are >>>3-0 in which case I'll have to play it out." I played it out with my >>>hand open and LHO failed to break up the squeeze against his partner. >>> Quicker than playing concealed, and LHO (a TD) didn't even flicker. >>>Of course I had to play on D straight away or I wouldn't have been >>>entitled to the info that they were 3-0. >>> >> >>OK Tim, I might allow you this one. >>Provided that: >>-your claim statement is clear enough; > > > There was no claim statement per se. Had D been 2-1 a blindingly obvious > cross-ruff was available. > > >>-it includes whether you start with the A or the K (if they happen to >>be in different hands); > > > They were. The DA was in an opponent's hand (along with the 93) thus I > could not play on cross-ruff lines without getting overruffed. > Then this is not the case I was commenting upon. I wanted to allow the following: You claim, and part of your claim includes cashing the DA (or K). If the diamonds fall then the claim is good, and you want to reserve your right to resume playing if they don't drop. That case I was willing to allow. This one, I don't know yet. > >>-the moment at which you start the diamonds is well defined by your >>claim statement, and it is not just in the next trick; > > > Opps and I considered that my statement (in the context of the hand) made > it mandatory for me to play diamonds immediately. > Then why didn't you? What possible gain in time was there? This is one of the reasons why I don't allow this. Were opponents on lead? Then again I might allow a statement like: "I'll take whatever you return and play diamonds immediately - if they are 2-1 I can claim". *** the goal of such a conditionnal claim is to avoid to have to think. you say: if trumps are 2-1, no problem, i can claim; if 3-0, i have to play on to guess on which side to find the queen. but conditionnal claims lead to difficulties: opponents tell you to play on, so trumps are 3-0. you think for a while before deceiding your play then play a small trump from one hand, and next opponent contributes a small trump. so you finesse; no? jpr *** > >>-the claim possibility is already mentioned. >> >>I may allow this. >> >>Such as: I'll ruff your return, draw trumps and cash the ace of >>diamonds. If they are 3-0, I'll have to rethink about the squeeze. >> >>But if the next card is this ace of diamonds, I won't allow this. You >>would be gaining nothing timewise. Just play the DA and claim >>afterwards, or play the squeeze if they are 3-0. >> >>Just tell me this - if the claim were really made, would you have >>given it - or would you rule that the opponents did find the play that >>broke up the squeeze? > > > Had it been a claim I'd have ruled the break-up found (because LHO's only > objection could have been that he would find the card to break up the > squeeze). If opps didn't state a valid objection to the claim I'd uphold > it (obviously). > So you see that you are trying to speed up play but are refusing to submit to the claim legislation? > >>Why then should you be allowed this particular >>trick. After all, you are prevented from revoking in these three >>tricks, why not opponents as well? > > > Is it not enough that they have been given the chance to find the best > line double-dummy - knowing, from my statement, that there is probably a > successful line available to them? And yes, one can *always* avoid a > penalisable revoke by facing one's cards with the statement that one is > not claiming. > > The process was neither illegal nor a claim. Any gloating about the > failure to break the squeeze was a purely personal matter between > friends :) > I'm not talking about that. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 21 16:57:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 21 16:59:31 2005 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_=5Bblml=5D_Claims?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433174ED.3000804@hdw.be> jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: > > Then why didn't you? What possible gain in time was there? > This is one of the reasons why I don't allow this. > > Were opponents on lead? > Then again I might allow a statement like: > "I'll take whatever you return and play diamonds immediately - if they > are 2-1 I can claim". > > *** > the goal of such a conditionnal claim is to avoid to have to think. you > say: if trumps are 2-1, no problem, i can claim; if 3-0, i have to play on > to guess on which side to find the queen. but conditionnal claims lead to > difficulties: opponents tell you to play on, so trumps are 3-0. you think > for a while before deceiding your play then play a small trump from one > hand, and next opponent contributes a small trump. so you finesse; no? > > jpr > *** > Exactly Jean-Pierre, but I don't believe that was the problem Tim was trying to go around. I also did say that I would accept this only if within the claim statement is mentioned from which side the claimer would check for 3-0 (or if by the lay of the cards this is only possible from one way). Then I could allow play to continue. Something like: "return what you want, I'll take it and draw trumps. Then I'll cash the ace of diamonds. If they are 3-0, I'll continue playing". The problem with this statement is that there is part of a claim here too. Claimer has stated clearly what he'll do, but do we accept that he has claimed on one possible return or all of them. Suppose the following happens: Declarer issues the statement above. Opponents tell him that diamonds are 3-0. "Ok, then I haven't claimed yet". Now they return a heart. Declarer takes this, cashes trumps, and plays one diamond, as announced. Now he continues playing and makes his contract. Afterwards opponents see that if they had returned a spade, the squeeze does not work. How will you rule? Tim? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From adam at irvine.com Wed Sep 21 17:37:44 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Sep 21 17:40:51 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:35:34 +0200." <002601c5be22$ddf5b4c0$f1241d53@kocurzak> Message-ID: <200509211537.IAA32259@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > > May I suggest that perhaps E-W didn't know the best time to call? The > > Laws do say that once attention has been drawn to an irregularity the > > TD must be called immediately, but they don't say much about when such > > attention must be drawn. I was involved in a case some years ago. I > > was playing with my then-fiancee' Margaret (now my wife), who was a > > rank beginner. Against declarer's 3NT, she led the 2 from a doubleton > > 32 of clubs. (I hadn't yet taught her everything about the game, so > > she had no idea what the correct systemic lead was.) Declarer, with > > AQT in dummy, put in the 10, and I won my stiff king. A couple tricks > > later, declarer cashed the club ace, and grumbled about losing to the > > stiff king when I showed out. Then he cashed the queen, and > > *everybody* showed out. Of course, I knew this was wrong, but I > > assumed Margaret had goofed. She was a rank beginner, after all, and > > I figured that after a lead and two discards, she forgot what suit had > > been led. > > > Was it in the ACBL-land? Yes. > If it was - why didn't you ask > "no clubs, partner?" at this point? Good question. This happened a number of years ago, so I don't remember what I might have been thinking at the time. I suppose that even though ACBL allows it, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of asking partner whether they're really out of the suit, especially on defense---something unconsciously seems a bit illegitimate to me even though it's allowed. This seems even more the case when I was *sure* partner had revoked (even though it turned out I was wrong). I usually do ask with my regular partner, because I know he prefers it. The other factor here is that I don't know how Margaret, with her lack of experience, would have reacted to the question. This was maybe her second or third duplicate game, and the practice of saying "no clubs?" or whatever when they show out of a suit was something I hadn't explained or mentioned to her. Interestingly, after the hand was over and the argument was over and we had finally gotten declarer to accept the revoke penalty, however grudgingly, dummy apologized very nicely to declarer for not asking "no clubs?" when he showed out on the third round of the suit. (Dummy was a very nice lady and, I believe, declarer's girlfriend. I have no idea why. Perhaps she thought that if she kept setting a good example maybe he'd become a nicer person.) -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 21 20:37:16 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 21 20:40:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <433174ED.3000804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5bedb$7eb39220$6400a8c0@WINXP> The following description on a "conditional claim" has occurred here on blml: > > the goal of such a conditionnal claim is to avoid to have to think. you > > say: if trumps are 2-1, no problem, i can claim; if 3-0, i have to play > > on Now where in the laws is there any justification whatsoever for making a "conditional claim" to the effect that the player shall be allowed to play on if a certain condition is satisfied (or is not satisfied)? Either a player claims and is subject to the claim laws or he does not claim and just continue playing. Law 68 is very clear that when a player makes a statement to the effect that he will win a specific number of the remaining tricks he is making a claim, one effect of the claim being that he under no circumstances is allowed to continue playing. There is nothing in the laws to prevent a perfectly valid claim statement like: I play my trumps from the top and concede a trick to the Queen if it doesn't drop. 10 or 11 tricks. So in the above case the player must state: If the Diamonds break 2-1 I have the rest, if not I concede one trick. Or he could state: ... if not I try a squeeze along the following line (specified). If that works I still have the rest, otherwise I concede one trick. These are perfectly valid claim statements for results that depend upon the actual layout of the cards. But why waste time and effort on a discussion of a procedure that is clearly forbidden by Law 68D when the discussion doesn't even touch the question of whether such a procedure should be allowed? Sven From schoderb at msn.com Wed Sep 21 21:47:05 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Sep 21 21:50:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: <000001c5bedb$7eb39220$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Thank you Sven, a ray of sunshine! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:37 PM Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) The following description on a "conditional claim" has occurred here on blml: > > the goal of such a conditionnal claim is to avoid to have to think. you > > say: if trumps are 2-1, no problem, i can claim; if 3-0, i have to play > > on Now where in the laws is there any justification whatsoever for making a "conditional claim" to the effect that the player shall be allowed to play on if a certain condition is satisfied (or is not satisfied)? Either a player claims and is subject to the claim laws or he does not claim and just continue playing. Law 68 is very clear that when a player makes a statement to the effect that he will win a specific number of the remaining tricks he is making a claim, one effect of the claim being that he under no circumstances is allowed to continue playing. There is nothing in the laws to prevent a perfectly valid claim statement like: I play my trumps from the top and concede a trick to the Queen if it doesn't drop. 10 or 11 tricks. So in the above case the player must state: If the Diamonds break 2-1 I have the rest, if not I concede one trick. Or he could state: ... if not I try a squeeze along the following line (specified). If that works I still have the rest, otherwise I concede one trick. These are perfectly valid claim statements for results that depend upon the actual layout of the cards. But why waste time and effort on a discussion of a procedure that is clearly forbidden by Law 68D when the discussion doesn't even touch the question of whether such a procedure should be allowed? Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 22 02:02:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Sep 22 02:03:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A delurk by request. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training and Staff Development Section 02 6264 2226 * * * William Schoder: >>>>Grattan is completely right. He, as I have, responds >>>>to CTDs directly at times. It is always with the caveat >>>>that I'm speaking for myself and from my knowledge >>>>of the subject matter, but not for the WBFLC. Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ Unless, of course, quoting minuted decisions. +=+ WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24 August 1998, item 6: >>The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded >>intentions of the Committee represented the position of >>the Committee unless and until it changed them. Richard Hills: >If past decisions and recorded intentions of the WBF LC >pre-1997 are still the position of the WBF LC, but not >even available on the WBF website, is not the availability >of official guidance so indirect as to be useless? > >I am reminded of a true story about an Australian government >organisation. Its original workplace agreement with staff >stated that "leave entitlements will be in accordance with >the Personnel Management Manual". The problem was that the >only copy of the Personnel Management Manual belonged to the >personnel manager. The Personnel Management Manual was >frequently inaccessible because the personnel manager was >frequently on leave. > >Of course, the personnel manager was well acquainted with >their _own_ leave entitlements. > >:-) Grattan Endicott: "The law's made to take care o' raskills." ~ 'The Mill on the Floss' +=+ The question in my mind is whether the Delegates to past Congresses of the NBO members of the WBF have failed to take back to their organizations the minutes available at or subsequent to each Congress, and if so why? I do not believe ignorance of the law serves to excuse failure to conform to the law. All member NBOs have subscribed to the Constitution and ByLaws of the WBF which place upon the WBF the authority to decide what the law is and to interpret it. I know that the ACBL fails to implement its membership obligation fully in this regard but that is not a matter for me. You may quote me if you wish. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Thu Sep 22 03:55:59 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Sep 22 03:59:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: Message-ID: snip ----- Grattan: I know that the ACBL fails > to implement its membership obligation fully in this regard > but that is not a matter for me. > You may quote me if you wish. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Yes I do wish to comment on this sentence. I do not agree. The relationship between the ACBL, its members, its clubs, legal matters, and its authority to enforce Rules and Regulations is not the same as exists in Europe. The rights inherent in private enterprise, I.e. owning and presenting a "bridge club" are not the pyramid you may find in other zones and NBOs. But, as you say, and rightly so, "that is not a matter for me." So, it is better left unsaid than alluded to, no? Kojak From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 22 04:19:30 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Sep 22 04:22:57 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <000d01c5be7d$b3e5d2e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200509191614.JAA16041@mailhub.irvine.com> <2189D7EB-46BA-481D-BECF-E62929BC527D@rochester.rr.com> <000d01c5be7d$b3e5d2e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sep 21, 2005, at 3:25 AM, Marvin French wrote: >> 2. When you believe that unauthorized information may have been >> conveyed by an opponent to his partner, unless the ZO permits you to >> "reserve your rights". (Law 16A1). >> > > Not good. Calling the TD every time someone breaks tempo is a > time-waster. It is not in itself an irregularity and most of the time > the UI leads to no damage. Call the TD only if (1) the UI is very > likely to lead to damage, and (2) the opponents do not agree to its > existence. In that case the TD's help is needed right now. Hm. The actual wording of 16A1 is "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed)." The ACBL election is to prohibit reserving rights, however it goes on to say "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." Since a BIT in itself cannot yet have resulted in "calls or bids, etc." this seems to indicate that the TD should not be called until 16A2 is in effect, unless opponents disagree that there *was* a BIT. >> 3. When you believe that a player having UI may have chosen an LA >> suggested by that information. (Law 16A2). >> > > Nitpick: "LA" refers to an action that is *not* suggested by the UI. "Partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." Law 16, first paragraph. [snip] > Paraphrasing of that nature should be more accurate, Ed. > L16A2 is not an SO option, and it says in effect that you don't call > the TD merely because you suspect an irregularity, you must see the > evidence. Fair enough. I should have left "substantial reason to believe" in my statement. >> 5. When your partner's explanation of your call or play was in >> error, AND you are a member of the declaring side, AND it is after >> the >> final pass, but before the opening lead is chosen. (Law 75D2). > > The TD *should* be called before the opening lead is put face down, > but it's never too late to call the TD in this situation (but > tardiness could be costly). Never say never. :-) Though I grant you it would be a good idea to call him as quickly as you can, even if the lead has been made. >> 7. In all other cases when you believe an irregularity has occurred >> which may damage your side. In this case, you need not draw >> attention to the (presumed) irregularity before you call the TD, >> but if you >> *do*, all four players have a responsibility to call him (see item 1 >> above)." > The belief must be substantial, not just a suspicion. Um. Which law, please? :-) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 22 09:10:15 2005 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Thu Sep 22 09:13:28 2005 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[blml]_Conditional_claim=3F_=28was_claims=29?= Message-ID: "Sven Pran" > cc : Envoy? par : Objet : [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) blml-bounces@amster damned.org 21/09/2005 20:37 The following description on a "conditional claim" has occurred here on blml: > > the goal of such a conditionnal claim is to avoid to have to think. you > > say: if trumps are 2-1, no problem, i can claim; if 3-0, i have to play > > on Now where in the laws is there any justification whatsoever for making a "conditional claim" to the effect that the player shall be allowed to play on if a certain condition is satisfied (or is not satisfied)? *** congratulations. i'm very impressed by your efforts. it never occured to me that, by quoting half of my post, you could have me saying the exact opposite of what i meant. my intention was to point to the fact that many players are very lazy with their claims (at least in my country) and that leads to unforeseen and unfortunate situations. i didn't either advocate a change in claim laws jpr *** Either a player claims and is subject to the claim laws or he does not claim and just continue playing. Law 68 is very clear that when a player makes a statement to the effect that he will win a specific number of the remaining tricks he is making a claim, one effect of the claim being that he under no circumstances is allowed to continue playing. There is nothing in the laws to prevent a perfectly valid claim statement like: I play my trumps from the top and concede a trick to the Queen if it doesn't drop. 10 or 11 tricks. So in the above case the player must state: If the Diamonds break 2-1 I have the rest, if not I concede one trick. Or he could state: ... if not I try a squeeze along the following line (specified). If that works I still have the rest, otherwise I concede one trick. These are perfectly valid claim statements for results that depend upon the actual layout of the cards. But why waste time and effort on a discussion of a procedure that is clearly forbidden by Law 68D when the discussion doesn't even touch the question of whether such a procedure should be allowed? Sven __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 22 09:53:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 22 09:54:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5bedb$7eb39220$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43326302.90102@hdw.be> Well done, Kojak: I write seven mails trying to explain why a certain procedure ought not to be allowed, and Sven writes one too: Well, I guess you've stopped reading my contributions. Why don't I stop reading yours? WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Thank you Sven, a ray of sunshine! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From schoderb at msn.com Thu Sep 22 13:31:48 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Sep 22 13:34:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: <000001c5bedb$7eb39220$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43326302.90102@hdw.be> Message-ID: Dear Herman, I do read your E-mails, but when it takes SEVEN to Sven's one to say the same thing you might think about that. Verbosity is not a virtue. Besides, you can always use the delete key for that personal glow of satisfaction re my messages. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) > Well done, Kojak: > I write seven mails trying to explain why a certain procedure ought > not to be allowed, and Sven writes one too: > Well, I guess you've stopped reading my contributions. > Why don't I stop reading yours? > > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > Thank you Sven, a ray of sunshine! > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 22 15:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Sep 22 15:50:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Claims In-Reply-To: <43310E55.3010503@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Were opponents on lead? Yes! > Then again I might allow a statement like: > "I'll take whatever you return and play diamonds immediately - if they > are 2-1 I can claim". Which is pretty much what I said ferchrissake! (at least that's what opps *thought* I meant. Of course in doing so I must show my hand - or I might be talking garbage. > So you see that you are trying to speed up play but are refusing to > submit to the claim legislation? I accept the claim legislation. Had diamonds been 2-1 it would have been applied. Since diamonds were 3-0 I was demonstrably not claiming - WTP? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 22 15:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Sep 22 15:50:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Claims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jean-Pierre wrote: > > *** > the goal of such a conditionnal claim is to avoid to have to think. you > say: if trumps are 2-1, no problem, i can claim; if 3-0, i have to play > on to guess on which side to find the queen. but conditionnal claims > lead to difficulties: opponents tell you to play on, so trumps are 3-0. > you think for a while before deceiding your play then play a small trump > from one hand, and next opponent contributes a small trump. so you > finesse; no? NO!! This would be using information illegally gleaned from opps and the TD would, quite rightly, adjust against it. The actual case was one where *either* defender (holding DA9x) would prevent me cross-ruffing safely. I'd discover that when I led trumps. My alternative lines were a squeeze (which opps could break if DA was on my left) or a finesse (probably failing if DA was on left!). No way could opps answer to the question about the D break give a clue to the best play. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 22 15:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Sep 22 15:50:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <000001c5bedb$7eb39220$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Now where in the laws is there any justification whatsoever for making a > "conditional claim" to the effect that the player shall be allowed to > play on if a certain condition is satisfied (or is not satisfied)? Really? If the making of a conditional statement (specifically denying a claim) accompanied by showing the hand prevents "prolonging play unnecessarily" and to do otherwise risks disconcerting an opponent then it is close to being required. But, if it makes people happy, next time I'll say "I'm not claiming but you may wish to concede x tricks if diamonds are 2-1". There is no statement regarding a "specific number of tricks" (since the condition may not be met) and the statement "I am not claiming.." should be sufficient evidence, even to the most obtuse, that the player demonstrably does not intend to claim. L68 *does not apply*. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 22 15:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Sep 22 15:50:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > Yes I do wish to comment on this sentence. I do not agree. The > relationship between the ACBL, its members, its clubs, legal matters, > and its authority to enforce Rules and Regulations is not the same as > exists in Europe. Really? Would you be so kind as to point out the relevant parts of the WBF constitution that set the ACBL apart? > The rights inherent in private enterprise, I.e. > owning and presenting a "bridge club" are not the pyramid you may find The right to own/run a bridge club in any EU country is wholly unfettered by the WBF/NBOs. If one *chooses* to affiliate to an NBO/ZO then the laws (and regulations of said NBO/ZO) apply for competitions in which master points are awarded. In such cases the NBO/ZO has a duty to the WBF with regard to enforcing the laws in such competitions. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 22 15:32:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Sep 22 15:50:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > Thank you Sven, a ray of sunshine! A pointless idiocy, adding nothing, least of all conveying any vestige of thought on the issue. If a player demonstrably (ie by his chosen words) does not intend a claim then it is *not* a claim. If he appears to gain a trick by such action we can rule that the *manner* in which he acted was an irregularity and adjust under L72b1. OTOH if his actions make life easier for opponents and help speed up the game there is no irregularity and no problem. We do not need a change of law to allow this process - it is already both legal and efficient. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Thu Sep 22 16:41:34 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Sep 22 16:44:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: Message-ID: Gee, thanks for your most polite opinion. I thought "a ray of sunshine" implied agreement. My apologies, but then my English may be a bit more modern than other's. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) > Kojak wrote: > > > Thank you Sven, a ray of sunshine! > > A pointless idiocy, adding nothing, least of all conveying any vestige of > thought on the issue. If a player demonstrably (ie by his chosen words) > does not intend a claim then it is *not* a claim. If he appears to gain a > trick by such action we can rule that the *manner* in which he acted was > an irregularity and adjust under L72b1. OTOH if his actions make life > easier for opponents and help speed up the game there is no irregularity > and no problem. > > We do not need a change of law to allow this process - it is already both > legal and efficient. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 22 16:54:51 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu Sep 22 16:58:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4332C5BB.9020305@t-online.de> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Kojak wrote: > > > >>Thank you Sven, a ray of sunshine! >> >> > >A pointless idiocy, adding nothing, least of all conveying any vestige of >thought on the issue. > Are you trying to describe the following part of your message, or are you just having a bout of abominable manners? > If a player demonstrably (ie by his chosen words) >does not intend a claim then it is *not* a claim. If he appears to gain a >trick by such action we can rule that the *manner* in which he acted was >an irregularity and adjust under L72b1. OTOH if his actions make life >easier for opponents and help speed up the game there is no irregularity >and no problem. > > OTOH he could just play one more trick, probably in half the time needed to explain what he thinks he is doing. If the contract can be claimed if something is 2-1, where is the problem in actually testing this? Even if conditional claims were legal they would have a terrifying potential for creating mayhem at the table. The risk of having someone blurt out something like "I have no whatevers", or giving the show away in any other way, thereby guaranteeing that the TD will suffer a considerable increase of blood pressure, should kill any thought of making something like this legal on the spot. If you absolutely want to claim you have only to say "plaing a diamond. If they break I draw the trump and have the rest, if they don`t break I do this if the length is here or do that if the length is there." Or you just play a diamond and probably finish the hand in less time than it takes to utter the first part of the sentence above. I am all for not prolonging the game unneccesarily. Therefore I advocate laying off claims until every doubtful point is resolved. It is much faster in more than 99% of cases. If you can make a statement faster than you could play the hand - fine, go ahead and claim. _Every_ "conditional" claim will invariably hold up the game longer than an outright claim or playing one or two tricks at most. >We do not need a change of law to allow this process - it is already both >legal and efficient. > > I disagree on three points of the above sentence. It isn`t legal, it isn`t efficient, and we do not need it. Matthias >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 22 17:06:05 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Sep 22 17:12:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: Message-ID: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven] > Now where in the laws is there any > justification whatsoever for making a > "conditional claim" to the effect that > the player shall be allowed to play on > if a certain condition is satisfied (or > is not satisfied)? [nige1] Tim West-Mead's "conditional claim" idea is a bit complex and would spawn more legal argument - possibly even more complex law. Peter Newman's idea -- that declarer should be allowed to "face his hand but continue playing normally, if necessary" [A] is breathtakingly simple. [B] has been tried and works well on internet bridge sites like BBO. [C} accelerates the game, enormously. [D] requires no director arbitration. [E] could beneficially replace the entire "claim law" (assuming that defenders were no longer allowed to claim). A sensible refinement would be that declarer must specify a number of tricks before he faces his hand and that both opponents must agree to curtail play; but that is hardly a complication; and it does not alter the principle. Sven may be right that Peter's and Tim's proposals are currently illegal (although it's hard to understand why). Luckily, however, the WBFLC are currently undertaking a major legal revision ... :) From schoderb at msn.com Thu Sep 22 18:27:22 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Sep 22 18:30:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" References: Message-ID: My reply would just be further idiocy, I'm sure, in the presence of such superior knowledge. Zones have a "duty" to adhere to WBF By-Laws, Laws, Rules, and Regulations in tournaments conducted under the sanction and control of WBF By-Laws Article 9.1 , and where WBF issues it's "Masterpoints". Beyond that Zones are authorized by Article 4.4.1 to provide their own Constitution and By-Laws ".....which must be in conformity with the principles established by the WBF Constitution and By-Laws ..." -- a fine arrangement which provides for regional, local, geographic, etc., differences. Why in China they may even have Chinese as the official language! You appear to lack awareness of the legal "reach" of the WBF. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" > Kojak wrote: > > > Yes I do wish to comment on this sentence. I do not agree. The > > relationship between the ACBL, its members, its clubs, legal matters, > > and its authority to enforce Rules and Regulations is not the same as > > exists in Europe. > > Really? Would you be so kind as to point out the relevant parts of the > WBF constitution that set the ACBL apart? > > > The rights inherent in private enterprise, I.e. > > owning and presenting a "bridge club" are not the pyramid you may find > > The right to own/run a bridge club in any EU country is wholly unfettered > by the WBF/NBOs. If one *chooses* to affiliate to an NBO/ZO then the laws > (and regulations of said NBO/ZO) apply for competitions in which master > points are awarded. In such cases the NBO/ZO has a duty to the WBF with > regard to enforcing the laws in such competitions. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 22 20:14:20 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Sep 22 20:16:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> At 11:06 AM 9/22/05, Guthrie wrote: >Peter Newman's idea -- that declarer should be >allowed to "face his hand but continue playing >normally, if necessary" >[A] is breathtakingly simple. >[B] has been tried and works well on internet >bridge sites like BBO. >[C} accelerates the game, enormously. >[D] requires no director arbitration. >[E] could beneficially replace the entire "claim >law" (assuming that defenders were no longer >allowed to claim). [F] is, in some places, a common, accepted informal practice which does not seem to cause problems; IOW, has been tried and works well in live play. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Sep 22 21:50:21 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Sep 22 21:46:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Tim West-Meads wrote: > But, if it makes people happy, next time I'll say "I'm not claiming but > you may wish to concede x tricks if diamonds are 2-1". There is > no statement regarding a "specific number of tricks" (since the condition > may not be met) and the statement "I am not claiming.." should be > sufficient evidence, even to the most obtuse, that the player demonstrably > does not intend to claim. L68 *does not apply*. If you're concerned about unnecessary prolonging of the play, it'd take you less time to put a diamond on the table and see who follows to it than it would to give the whole claim-but-not-a-claim spiel, wouldn't it? The only time I can see any use at all for the "conditional claim" is when declarer has only one line of play and just doesn't know what outcome it will produce - something of the "making four or five depending on whether the finesse works, all the rest are winners" variety. As for the various "non-claim statements asking opponents to concede" type of suggestions here... the correct response from the director, I think, is to ask you to either make a proper claim statement or obey L74B2. On a more serious note: What happens if you "invite the opponents to concede", they do, and it turns out that in fact there existed a line where they might have had another trick coming? I think "could have known" is very clearly satisfied, and our path is from 73D2/73F2 directly to a L12C2 adjustment with the inviter as the offending side. No protection from the claim laws for you here, since the infraction was the misleading suggestion which happened before the concession. GRB From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 22 22:34:42 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Sep 22 22:36:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050922160149.02ed9790@pop.starpower.net> At 03:50 PM 9/22/05, Gordon wrote: >If you're concerned about unnecessary prolonging of the play, it'd take >you less time to put a diamond on the table and see who follows to it than >it would to give the whole claim-but-not-a-claim spiel, wouldn't it? Gordon is far from the first to make this point. But in the venues where something like Peter's suggested procedure is an accepted practice, it is never the case. It is done only when a defender is on lead and "in the tank", and declarer would rather risk letting him defend double-dummy than sit there while he analyzes the play, presumably working through the various possible hands that, from his perspective, declarer might hold. This can, and does, speed up the game significantly. Let's see how such a procedure, if made legal, might work: (1) When it is the turn of a defender to lead, declarer may table his cards. Either we would amend the claim laws to prevent this consituting a presumptive claim, or the procedure would require declarer to make some statement indicating that he is invoking this new procedure, not claiming. (2) Defenders do not face their hands, expose any cards, or make any statement as to what they hold. (3) Play continues. Declarer's hand remains open on the table. (4) At a defender's turn to play, his partner may suggest that he play a particular card, suit, or the like. The defender on play is not obligated to follow such a suggestion, and is prohibited from indicating that he cannot. The defenders gain an advantage over normal continued play by getting to defend double-dummy. The declarer gains an advantage over making a claim by not losing a trick that could be lost on some "normal line of play" that his opponents, as opposed to some director or committee, are incapable of finding for themselves playing double-dummy. Defenders are spared the mental effort thinking about potential problems that are revealed not to exist when declarer's hand is made known. Declarer is spared the mental effort of composing, checking and delivering a "committee-proof" claim statement covering every possible contingency in the ensuing play. Both sides get to dinner or bed earlier. The only losers are those deprived of the joy of spending an hour or so in a committee room analyzing the deal in an attempt to find some obscure way declarer might in theory have lost a trick he never would have lost at the table. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 22 23:29:57 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 22 23:31:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:06 AM 9/22/05, Guthrie wrote: > >> Peter Newman's idea -- that declarer should be >> allowed to "face his hand but continue playing >> normally, if necessary" >> [A] is breathtakingly simple. >> [B] has been tried and works well on internet >> bridge sites like BBO. >> [C} accelerates the game, enormously. >> [D] requires no director arbitration. >> [E] could beneficially replace the entire "claim >> law" (assuming that defenders were no longer >> allowed to claim). > > > [F] is, in some places, a common, accepted informal practice which does > not seem to cause problems; IOW, has been tried and works well in live > play. > No it's not Eric. It is, at the moment, always and everywhere considered as a claim. The fact that it works well is only because if the player does get it wrong, the claim laws apply. I don't know precisely what Peter is suggesting, but we have not yet seen what the ruling is if "claimer" gets something wrong. Someone shows his cards, saying "I'm not claiming". The opponents don't pay attention and agree to the claim. Afterwards we discover there is something wrong. What laws do we apply? Since "claimer" was not claiming, it must be defenders - who do we assign the benefit of the doubt to? This mechanism needs to be thought out to a far greater extent than what you seem to have done at the moment. And I give one guarantee : if you end up with sensible laws, they will mean that the non-claimer will be left in exactly the same situation as a current "claimer". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 22 23:34:44 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 22 23:35:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050922160149.02ed9790@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050922160149.02ed9790@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <43332374.9020909@hdw.be> Well Eric, there is another solution to this situation: Eric Landau wrote: > > The defenders gain an advantage over normal continued play by getting to > defend double-dummy. The declarer gains an advantage over making a > claim by not losing a trick that could be lost on some "normal line of > play" that his opponents, as opposed to some director or committee, are > incapable of finding for themselves playing double-dummy. Defenders are > spared the mental effort thinking about potential problems that are > revealed not to exist when declarer's hand is made known. Declarer is > spared the mental effort of composing, checking and delivering a > "committee-proof" claim statement covering every possible contingency in > the ensuing play. Both sides get to dinner or bed earlier. The only > losers are those deprived of the joy of spending an hour or so in a > committee room analyzing the deal in an attempt to find some obscure way > declarer might in theory have lost a trick he never would have lost at > the table. > Just interpret the laws in the way they should be: by assessing an equitable score to both parties. In your example above, the equitable score is to allow the claim. It is only those that refuse to award Rotterdam 3 and 6 that need a different claim procedure. All the rest don't need such a different procedure to arrive at the same solution. Just call it a claim and assess claimer's chances by some degree of "normalcy" and not by the degree advocated by some on this list. (and this is more true of rotterdam 3 than 6, I do admit). > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From toddz at att.net Thu Sep 22 23:34:00 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Sep 22 23:37:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43332348.6000904@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > No it's not Eric. It is, at the moment, always and everywhere considered > as a claim. Are you calling Eric a liar? Whatever your opinion about foreign practices are, it is not your place to say they do not exist. Sheesh! -Todd From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 23 00:37:32 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Sep 23 00:40:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: Message-ID: snip From: "Gordon Bower" > > > > The only time I can see any use at all for the "conditional claim" is when > declarer has only one line of play and just doesn't know what outcome it > will produce - something of the "making four or five depending on whether > the finesse works, all the rest are winners" variety. > > As for the various "non-claim statements asking opponents to concede" type > of suggestions here... the correct response from the director, I think, is > to ask you to either make a proper claim statement or obey L74B2. > snip> _ And here ladies and gentlemen we come to just one of the reasons why we don't play the game by declarer putting his cards on the table face up, without it being a claim. Too many years ago it was almost routine to put your cards on the table_face up and continue to play. You placed them right alongside your wallet and gun, and watched the defenders. It had the effect of greatly increasing the success of two way finesses, and other plays depending on who held what cards. Just put 'em face up, and if you've any skills in reading people's reactions there no longer are two way finesses, plays, for the drop, etc. Is that what you want to have happen? (Before anybody gets hoity-toity this is a rhetorical question, based on real life experience.) I'm glad our game has developed far beyond that. Kojak From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 23 01:14:45 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 23 01:19:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: Message-ID: <008401c5bfcb$791f7c20$0e9468d5@jeushtlj> [Willian Schoder] > Too many years ago it was almost routine to put > your cards on the table_face up and continue to > play. You placed them right alongside your wallet > and gun, and watched the defenders. It had the > effect of greatly increasing the success of two > way finesses, and other plays depending on who held > what cards. Just put 'em face up, and if you've > any skills in reading people's reactions there no > longer are two way finesses, plays, for the drop, > etc. Is that what you want to have happen? (Before > anybody gets hoity-toity this is a rhetorical > question, based on real life experience.) I'm > glad our game has developed far beyond that. [: nigel :] If Kojak offered to declare all his contracts with faced cards, he would be welcome to play rubber bridge anywhere. He would need his full wallet but I suppose a loaded, cocked his gun might keep down the damage it suffered. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 23 04:24:51 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 23 04:28:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <200509222049.j8MKnScm019755@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509222049.j8MKnScm019755@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43336773.2020702@cfa.harvard.edu> Some of the comments in this thread are bizarre. If declarer wants to play the hand with his cards face up on the table, what law or regulation stops him? Analogies to claims or infractions make no sense. (This paragraph does not apply to Eric, whom I quote below.) > From: Eric Landau > Let's see how such a procedure, if made legal, might work: Eric below proposes an entirely different and new procedure. It may or may not be a good idea, but it shouldn't be confused with existing Law. > (1) When it is the turn of a defender to lead, declarer may table his > cards. ... > (2) Defenders do not face their hands.... > (3) Play continues. Declarer's hand remains open on the table. Everything above is legal now, barring certain confused directors who may try to rule that declarer is claiming. > (4) At a defender's turn to play, his partner may suggest that he play > a particular card, suit, or the like. The defender on play is not > obligated to follow such a suggestion, and is prohibited from > indicating that he cannot. Item (4) is the only new part. I fail to see any advantage in it, but perhaps I could be persuaded. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 23 04:43:33 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 23 04:46:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard would have had a funky title In-Reply-To: <200509191705.j8JH5MjW009538@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509191705.j8JH5MjW009538@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43336BD5.5040204@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) >>> If a player allows UI to affect his otherwise intended >>>action and thereby happens to gain an advantage he is in breach of >>>L73c. ... > It really depends how firmly my intentions were > made. If I'm "walking the dog" I will (and must) carry on doing so. If I > have already decided absolutely what to do over a certain rebid then I do > it. Fair enough. I think we are almost on the same page, though I would have put it a bit differently. > Of course my experience of playing with beginners here is that the UI > so seldom suggests anything (other than the natural uncertainty of > beginnerhood) that it's not an issue. Indeed! Well, at least only a small fraction of their mannerisms suggest anything. Even so, beginners (at least some of them) vary their tempo and manner _so often_ that even a small fraction can be a significant number of instances in a session. Usually it's no problem; just avoid taking advantage. >>> Players are not expected to >>>self-apply L16 at the table, it is a law for TD/ACs not players. SW>Of course many players can't apply it or can't be bothered. However, SW>if one wants to win within the rules, one is well advised to apply L16 SW>to one's own actions. > L73 is good enough for me. Make a planned bid (if you have one), make a > bid that you think avoids taking advantage if you can find one, call the > TD and let him apply L16 if you think you might have gained advantage > through mis-analysis or whatever. Nothing wrong with that, but it puts you at more of a disadvantage than necessary. I'll follow L16 as best I can, and if I luck into a good score (rare but sometimes happens), I keep it. Unless, of course, I've misjudged the position. > Assume self-applying L16 keeps you out of the *failing* 75% slam. Have > you gained advantage? L73 isn't interested in whether you *tried* only in > *success*. I don't agree, but we are in tricky semantics territory, specifically the exact meaning of 'avoid'. I think it refers only to foreseeable advantage. In other words, I disagree with your last sentence above. Any other interpretation is unenforceable unless you want to make bad scores automatic after UI is made available. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 23 04:52:08 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 23 04:55:17 2005 Subject: [blml] What have I missed? In-Reply-To: <200509191703.j8JH3pKN009359@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509191703.j8JH3pKN009359@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43336DD8.6080105@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Law 47F has been violated. The Laws do not provide indemnity to the > non-offending side for this particular type of violation of law. Therefore > the Director should apply Law 12A1 which says that he "may" award an > assigned adjusted score. This seems right to me. I would think the TD would need quite a good reason not to adjust when the NOS is damaged. L11A is one such reason, but it also contains "may." The question is how the TD should exercise his discretion. > And according to L12C2 the scores awarded to the > two sides need not balance. Well, yes, but "need not balance" is subsidiary to the other instructions in L12C2 for how to determine the scores. In particular, the score for the NOS must be based on a result "had the irregularity not occurred." In the original case in this thread, there is no doubt what that result would have been. Aside from some vague dislike of "double shots," I haven't seen any sound reason for the TD not to adjust. (Perhaps there are relevant SO regulations in some jurisdictions.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 23 05:01:33 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 23 05:04:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Last two "cases" but mostly 34 In-Reply-To: <200509161448.j8GEmb0W027348@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509161448.j8GEmb0W027348@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4333700D.6060608@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > There is no reference in Law 34 as to UI or AI, and that is the ONLY > possible problem. I think Law 16 (first general paragraph) is clear on that > part. Many people don't think it's clear at all. That is why the thread went on for so long. Could you please explain which of the withdrawn passes are AI or UI for each side? And also how the average reader of TFLB could have determined that? (Prior to 1997 there was indeed no problem, but that's not where we are now.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 23 05:13:10 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Sep 23 05:16:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" (was Something surrealistic) In-Reply-To: <200509161451.j8GEpWAa027615@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509161451.j8GEpWAa027615@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <433372C6.7010900@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > This mailing list was started prior to the publication of the 1997 > version of TFLB. 1996 April 30 or a few days before then. > Not long thereafter, I was invited to join what was > described to me as a forum whose primary purpose was to ascertain where > the current laws were weak or ambiguous,... Purposes can change over time; in practice BLML is whatever its users want it to be. However, I happen to be in a remarkably good position to write about the original purpose. Here's the description that went with the original list (omitting some details about subscribing): > This list is a forum for the card game of Contract Bridge. It is not a > discussion list for How-To-Build-Bridges or what the traffic regulations > are for bridges. I've had questions along those lines -- I want to make > it clear this isn't the right place. > > This list is intended specifically for relatively technical discussion > of bridge Law and procedures. Most questions about "What should the > correct ruling be?" belong in the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.bridge, as > does any other bridge matter that is likely to be of wide interest to > typical players or fans. On the other hand, material of interest only > to directors and others closely concerned with the rules of the game > goes to this list. Markus Buckhorn wrote the first paragraph. I believe I wrote the second, though it would have been in consultation with David Stevenson, who was the original advocate for creating BLML. As noted above, current users are in no way bound by the original intention, but it may be of historical interest. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 23 09:02:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 23 09:03:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <43332348.6000904@att.net> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> Message-ID: <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> No it's not Eric. It is, at the moment, always and everywhere >> considered as a claim. > > > Are you calling Eric a liar? > No I'm not. Eric was adding something to a list of advantages to a change in practice. Something would no longer be considered a claim, in a suggestion made by Nigel. Eric added that this something was already happening. I told him that was not true. What Nigel was talking of were things that were not considered a claim. Anything that currently exists _is_ a claim, so Eric is wrong (not lying) when he says that the practice described by Nigel already exists. > Whatever your opinion about foreign practices are, it is not your > place to say they do not exist. > I know they exist, but they are claims, and are thus not what Nigel was talking of. It would be better if people tried to thread through an argument rather than simply answer a last post - especially if they get that last post wrong. > Sheesh! > yes indeed - sheesh! > -Todd > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 23 09:14:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 23 09:15:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <43336773.2020702@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509222049.j8MKnScm019755@cfa.harvard.edu> <43336773.2020702@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4333AB39.4040702@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: > Some of the comments in this thread are bizarre. If declarer wants to > play the hand with his cards face up on the table, what law or > regulation stops him? Analogies to claims or infractions make no sense. > (This paragraph does not apply to Eric, whom I quote below.) > Steve, there is nothing bizarre. If declarer wants to play with open book, he is allowed to do so - I can imagine one example of a player looking for a squeeze and inviting his opponents to think along with him. That declarer is manifestly not claiming, and the laws provide for that. But all the examples put forward in these threads are of a different notion. They are all attempts, by declarer, to speed up play. Most of them (though not all examples) are by declarer when he sees opponents thinking. By showing defender his cards, he proposes that they curtail play. Well, trying to curtail play is one of the condition which make something a claim, and saying "I'm not claiming" is, IMO, not enough to satisfy the condition of L68A, which, again IMO, does not apply to the curtailing of play anyway. That is one side of the issue - these things are currently claims. The other side of this issue is that some people suggest that they should no longer be claims in further editions of the laws. I believe we have given enough examples of why this should remain the case. >> From: Eric Landau >> Let's see how such a procedure, if made legal, might work: > > > Eric below proposes an entirely different and new procedure. It may or > may not be a good idea, but it shouldn't be confused with existing Law. > Indeed one trap that some have fallen into. >> (1) When it is the turn of a defender to lead, declarer may table his >> cards. ... > he may do so now as well. he may continue to do so, and claim in this manner. > >> (2) Defenders do not face their hands.... > So already at this stage, he must have indicated that he is not claiming. How soon after the adoption of this new law shall we see a claimer invoking this procedure - and how soon will it become the standard procedure, if it is better? "Defender showed his cards, although I did not want to claim, but just show my cards!" > >> (3) Play continues. Declarer's hand remains open on the table. > > > Everything above is legal now, barring certain confused directors who > may try to rule that declarer is claiming. > confused? I'd rather say competent! >> (4) At a defender's turn to play, his partner may suggest that he play >> a particular card, suit, or the like. The defender on play is not >> obligated to follow such a suggestion, and is prohibited from >> indicating that he cannot. > > > Item (4) is the only new part. I fail to see any advantage in it, but > perhaps I could be persuaded. > Well, if you are going to give defenders any chance, you should allow this one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 22 20:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Sep 23 09:29:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: > [Sven] > > Now where in the laws is there any > > justification whatsoever for making a > > "conditional claim" to the effect that > > the player shall be allowed to play on > > if a certain condition is satisfied (or > > is not satisfied)? > > [nige1] > Tim West-Mead's "conditional claim" idea is a bit > complex and would spawn more legal argument - > possibly even more complex law. > > Peter Newman's idea -- that declarer should be > allowed to "face his hand but continue playing > normally, if necessary" > [A] is breathtakingly simple. > [B] has been tried and works well on internet > bridge sites like BBO. > [C} accelerates the game, enormously. > [D] requires no director arbitration. > [E] could beneficially replace the entire "claim > law" (assuming that defenders were no longer > allowed to claim). Sorry Nigel - you'll have to clarify the differences. The heart of both is that declarer faces his cards with the express statement that he is not claiming - playing the hand out if opps do not concede. If declarer chooses to accompany that with a few extra words WTP? BTW, it works perfectly well f2f too. Common under rubber bridge laws - in *very* rare cases declarer is trying to gain an "edge" and a ruling is needed (but far less often than for disputed claims at duplicate). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 23 03:29:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Sep 23 09:29:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <4332C5BB.9020305@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > > OTOH he could just play one more trick, probably in half the time > needed to explain what he thinks he is doing. He can't. His opponent is on lead and in the tank. His opponent's choice of lead is irrelevant but opp doesn't know that. > If the contract can be claimed if something is 2-1, where is the problem in actually testing > this? The "problem" is that RHO is going to spend a long time considering an irrelevant choice. Obviously if declarer is on lead he can simply play a diamond. > Even if conditional claims were legal they would have a > terrifying potential for creating mayhem at the table. The risk of > having someone blurt out something like "I have no whatevers", or > giving the show away in any other way, thereby guaranteeing that the TD > will suffer a considerable increase of blood pressure, should kill any > thought of making something like this legal on the spot. It doesn't have to be "made legal" - there is no law against declarer facing his cards (but if he states his avowed intention not to claim it is not a claim). > I am all for not prolonging the game unneccesarily. Therefore I > advocate laying off claims until every doubtful point is resolved. It > is much faster in more than 99% of cases. If you can make a statement > faster than you could play the hand - fine, go ahead and claim. _Every_ > "conditional" claim will invariably hold up the game longer than an > outright claim or playing one or two tricks at most. Wrong. This one speeded up opps return and allowed the hand to be played out faster than had declarer's hand remained concealed. Sure it doesn't come up particularly often - but when it does it makes things easier for opps, not harder. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 23 03:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Sep 23 09:29:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Spectators, rulings and "in any manner" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > My reply would just be further idiocy, I'm sure I'll play the odds. > > > > Really? Would you be so kind as to point out the relevant parts of > > the WBF constitution that set the ACBL apart? > Zones have a "duty" to adhere to WBF By-Laws, Laws, Rules, and > Regulations in > tournaments conducted under the sanction and control of WBF By-Laws > Article 9.1 , and where WBF issues it's "Masterpoints". Beyond that > Zones are authorized by Article 4.4.1 to provide their own Constitution > and By-Laws ".....which must be in conformity with the principles > established by the WBF Constitution and By-Laws ..." -- a fine > arrangement which provides for regional, local, geographic, etc., > differences. It was your assertion that the strictures on the ACBL were different from those on Europe that confused me. There is nothing in the above that makes such a distinction. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 23 09:47:18 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 23 09:48:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4333B306.5070305@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>I am all for not prolonging the game unneccesarily. Therefore I >>advocate laying off claims until every doubtful point is resolved. It >>is much faster in more than 99% of cases. If you can make a statement >>faster than you could play the hand - fine, go ahead and claim. _Every_ >>"conditional" claim will invariably hold up the game longer than an >>outright claim or playing one or two tricks at most. > > > Wrong. This one speeded up opps return and allowed the hand to be played out faster than had declarer's > hand remained concealed. Sure it doesn't come up particularly often - but when it does it makes things > easier for opps, not harder. > The problem with this action is that it makes defenders believe there are no defensive lines that beat the contract - so they accept the claim. What happens then when this turns out to be wrong? What other than the current claim laws do we have to resolve the problem? You're not going to suggest that the benefit of the doubt will be changed from defenders to declarer, I hope? So you'll need a law to handle this and other than 'withdrawn acquiescence' I don't see how you're going to solve this. Which means the action, if not called a claim, will be resolved exactly like a claim today. If it quacks ... why not call it a duck? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 23 11:57:07 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 23 12:01:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: <4333B306.5070305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> {Herman De Wael] > The problem with this action is that it > makes defenders believe there are no > defensive lines that beat the contract - so > they accept the claim. What happens then > when this turns out to be wrong? > What other than the current claim laws > do we have to resolve the problem? > You're not going to suggest that the > benefit of the doubt will be changed from > defenders to declarer, I hope? > So you'll need a law to handle this and > other than 'withdrawn acquiescence' I don't > see how you're going to solve this. > Which means the action, if not called a > claim, will be resolved exactly like a claim > today. If it quacks ... why not call it a > duck? [nige1] Peter Newman's protocol works well on-line. Declarer claims a number of tricks (with an optional and non-binding "explanation" --so Tim's conditional claim idea could well be OK). Defenders accept or reject the claim. If defenders accept the claim, then there is no comeback, even if declarer forgot to concede a trick to the ace of trumps. If defenders reject the claim, plays continues, with declarer's hand exposed. Arguably, opponents could be allowed to suggest plays to each other - but I reckon that would just cause practical problems. Even when the claim is rejected, the hand is completed relatively quickly. Most Internet players like a fast game; so no on-line player has complained about this procedure (AFAIK). It is simple and fair. Tim West-Meads and Eric Landau say this is already legal (with or without a some kind of statement). If it's not, the WBFLC should make it so. Mercifully, it could scrap the rest of claims law. Defender's on-line claims are treated in a similar way; if declarer rejects the claim, then play resumes normally, except that declarer can peek at defenders' hands. This could be a bit awkward, face-to-face but might work. A simpler alternative solution is to ban defensive claims. The main drawback of Peter's proposal is that law-makers, directors, appeals committees, and BLMLers would have less fun; but for players, it would replace a large chuck of contentious and indigestible law. For them, the game would be more enjoyable. From toddz at att.net Fri Sep 23 13:09:50 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Sep 23 13:13:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4333E27E.4040000@att.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > No I'm not. > Eric was adding something to a list of advantages to a change in > practice. Something would no longer be considered a claim, in a > suggestion made by Nigel. Eric added that this something was already > happening. I told him that was not true. This is ambiguous. Do you mean that the practice is not happening or that the practice's not being considered a claim is not happening? Oh, it hardly matters. If I bothered to read the entire thread I wouldn't have to rely on every post being clear -- there are dozens more to clarify. > What Nigel was talking of were > things that were not considered a claim. Anything that currently exists > _is_ a claim, so Eric is wrong (not lying) when he says that the > practice described by Nigel already exists. Can you offer evidence that contradicts Eric or me? How can you tell us that declarers in the DC area (however infrequently) never give defenders hints, never expose entire hands, and still then never play out the hand as if there were no claim? >> Whatever your opinion about foreign practices are, it is not your >> place to say they do not exist. > > I know they exist, but they are claims, and are thus not what Nigel was > talking of. They might not legally be claims, however, this is not equivalent to your earlier statement. "It is, at the moment, always and everywhere considered as a claim." There is a subset of bridge players who are not treating such behavior as a claim whether or not they have any legal entitlement to do so. > It would be better if people tried to thread through an argument rather > than simply answer a last post - especially if they get that last post > wrong. I believe you're confused -- both about what has actually been said in this thread and that I have not read it in its entirety. -Todd, who hears a plonking sound off in the distance. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 23 13:23:18 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 23 13:24:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> References: <4333B306.5070305@hdw.be> <001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4333E5A6.8080807@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > > [nige1] > Peter Newman's protocol works well on-line. > Declarer claims a number of tricks (with an > optional and non-binding "explanation" --so Tim's > conditional claim idea could well be OK). > Defenders accept or reject the claim. If defenders > accept the claim, then there is no comeback, even > if declarer forgot to concede a trick to the ace > of trumps. This need not be the way afuture claims law should work, but it's a side issue. > If defenders reject the claim, plays > continues, with declarer's hand exposed. Arguably, > opponents could be allowed to suggest plays to > each other - but I reckon that would just cause > practical problems. Even when the claim is > rejected, the hand is completed relatively > quickly. Most Internet players like a fast game; > so no on-line player has complained about this > procedure (AFAIK). It is simple and fair. > And claimer gets to play himself? Does he know who contested the claim? Possibly not - on-line! - but what about f2f? LHO contests, so I'll finesse to the right? > Tim West-Meads and Eric Landau say this is already > legal (with or without a some kind of statement). > If it's not, the WBFLC should make it so. > Mercifully, it could scrap the rest of claims law. > > Defender's on-line claims are treated in a similar > way; if declarer rejects the claim, then play > resumes normally, except that declarer can peek at > defenders' hands. This could be a bit awkward, > face-to-face but might work. A simpler alternative > solution is to ban defensive claims. > > The main drawback of Peter's proposal is that > law-makers, directors, appeals committees, and > BLMLers would have less fun; but for players, it > would replace a large chuck of contentious and > indigestible law. For them, the game would be more > enjoyable. > I really don't like these kinds of statements. One poster thinks something is preferable and suddenly the "players" would find it enjoyable. Please refrain from these kinds of statements. I have never heard any complaints about the claim laws from "players". I should say that the only ones who advocate change are precisely these BLMLers that nigel talks about above. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 23 13:49:20 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 23 13:50:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <4333E27E.4040000@att.net> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> <4333E27E.4040000@att.net> Message-ID: <4333EBC0.5080906@hdw.be> Hello Todd, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> No I'm not. >> Eric was adding something to a list of advantages to a change in >> practice. Something would no longer be considered a claim, in a >> suggestion made by Nigel. Eric added that this something was already >> happening. I told him that was not true. > > > This is ambiguous. Do you mean that the practice is not happening > or that the practice's not being considered a claim is not happening? > Oh, it hardly matters. If I bothered to read the entire thread I > wouldn't have to rely on every post being clear -- there are dozens more > to clarify. > Indeed, but let me try once more: Nigel (or rather someone before him) suggested that the practice be made official - and that it would not be a claim. Nigel listed a number of reasons why this would have been a good idea. Eric added to that list by saying that the practice was already happening, and without problems. That is what I corrected - the practice may well be happening, but the reason why there are no problems is because the practice is regarded as a claim. So Eric's addition to Nigel's list was wrong. > >> What Nigel was talking of were things that were not considered a >> claim. Anything that currently exists _is_ a claim, so Eric is wrong >> (not lying) when he says that the practice described by Nigel already >> exists. > > > Can you offer evidence that contradicts Eric or me? How can you > tell us that declarers in the DC area (however infrequently) never give > defenders hints, never expose entire hands, and still then never play > out the hand as if there were no claim? > If they play out the hand as if there were no claim then obviously there was no claim. As long as there are no problems, there are no problems. But what do you do when the following happens: - declarer tables his cards, saying nothing - defender takes one look at it and returns a spade - declarer makes his contract - other defender says "what if you had led a heart?" Do you rule that it was a claim or not? Declarer will say "I did not claim". Defender will say "I stopped thinking because you showed your cards". I don't like the practice, that's all I'm saying. >>> Whatever your opinion about foreign practices are, it is not your >>> place to say they do not exist. >> >> >> I know they exist, but they are claims, and are thus not what Nigel >> was talking of. > > > They might not legally be claims, however, this is not equivalent to > your earlier statement. "It is, at the moment, always and everywhere > considered as a claim." There is a subset of bridge players who are not > treating such behavior as a claim whether or not they have any legal > entitlement to do so. > >> It would be better if people tried to thread through an argument >> rather than simply answer a last post - especially if they get that >> last post wrong. > > > I believe you're confused -- both about what has actually been said > in this thread and that I have not read it in its entirety. > > -Todd, who hears a plonking sound off in the distance. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 23 14:34:42 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 23 14:39:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: <4333B306.5070305@hdw.be><001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> <4333E5A6.8080807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004601c5c03b$30304380$499468d5@jeushtlj> [Herman de Wael] > I really don't like these kinds of > statements. One poster thinks something is > preferable and suddenly the "players" would > find it enjoyable. Please refrain from these > kinds of statements. I have never heard any > complaints about the claim laws from > "players". [nigel] I forgot the "IMO" qualifier. On BLML it is a heretical belief that for a player to enjoy a game, he should understand its rules. IMO, a typical player prefers a simple objective law that he can understand; he regards such a law as "fair" because it usually results in the same ruling by different directors on the same facts. A player is more likely to complain about a sophisticated subjective law that often results in different rulings by different directors on the same facts; especially if he is the victim of an adverse ruling; my experience at the table and in BLML agrees with this common sense; but I accept that Herman's experience is different. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 23 14:48:19 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 23 14:50:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923083743.02a2bcf0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:29 PM 9/22/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 11:06 AM 9/22/05, Guthrie wrote: >> >>>Peter Newman's idea -- that declarer should be >>>allowed to "face his hand but continue playing >>>normally, if necessary" >>>[A] is breathtakingly simple. >>>[B] has been tried and works well on internet >>>bridge sites like BBO. >>>[C} accelerates the game, enormously. >>>[D] requires no director arbitration. >>>[E] could beneficially replace the entire "claim >>>law" (assuming that defenders were no longer >>>allowed to claim). >> >>[F] is, in some places, a common, accepted informal practice which >>does not seem to cause problems; IOW, has been tried and works well >>in live play. > >No it's not Eric. It is, at the moment, always and everywhere >considered as a claim. The fact that it works well is only because if >the player does get it wrong, the claim laws apply. I don't know >precisely what Peter is suggesting, but we have not yet seen what the >ruling is if "claimer" gets something wrong. Declarer has said nothing, beyond perhaps making a statement that he is not claiming. He offers no comment about how the play will go or how many tricks he will take, or anything else about the play or the outcome. So what is there for him to "get wrong"? He just keeps on playing. >Someone shows his cards, saying "I'm not claiming". The opponents >don't pay attention >and agree to the claim. Afterwards we discover there is something >wrong. What laws do we apply? Since "claimer" was not claiming, it >must be defenders - who do we assign the benefit of the doubt to? There was no claim. There was nothing said about the presumptive play or the eventual outcome. So what is there for the opponents to "agree to"? They just keep on playing. >This mechanism needs to be thought out to a far greater extent than >what you seem to have done at the moment. > >And I give one guarantee : if you end up with sensible laws, they will >mean that the non-claimer will be left in exactly the same situation >as a current "claimer". The current claimer is "left" with the play suspended at the point of the claim and with everyone's cards face up on the table. The non-claimer isn't "left" with anything until the play has concluded and a result has been obtained. I don't see how a "sensible" law would somehow need to transpose these into "exactly the same situation". It appears that Herman simply does not understand what Peter's proposal was. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 23 15:12:42 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 23 15:14:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <43336773.2020702@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200509222049.j8MKnScm019755@cfa.harvard.edu> <43336773.2020702@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923085749.02f15150@pop.starpower.net> At 10:24 PM 9/22/05, Steve wrote: >Some of the comments in this thread are bizarre. If declarer wants to >play the hand with his cards face up on the table, what law or >regulation stops him? Analogies to claims or infractions make no >sense. (This paragraph does not apply to Eric, whom I quote below.) > >>From: Eric Landau >>Let's see how such a procedure, if made legal, might work: > >Eric below proposes an entirely different and new procedure. It may >or may not be a good idea, but it shouldn't be confused with existing Law. > >>(1) When it is the turn of a defender to lead, declarer may table his >>cards. ... > >>(2) Defenders do not face their hands.... > >>(3) Play continues. Declarer's hand remains open on the table. > >Everything above is legal now, barring certain confused directors who >may try to rule that declarer is claiming. > >>(4) At a defender's turn to play, his partner may suggest that he >>play a particular card, suit, or the like. The defender on play is >>not obligated to follow such a suggestion, and is prohibited from >>indicating that he cannot. > >Item (4) is the only new part. I fail to see any advantage in it, but >perhaps I could be persuaded. Item (4) is not intrinsic to what Peter has suggested, but rather reflects what I have seen in practice. Because what I describe is currently an extra-legal procedure, it seems appropriate to insure that the defenders have as clear an advantage as possible (short of having a non-player (read TD or AC) do the double-dummy analysis and find a winning play for them they would not have been up to finding for themselves) so as to avoid any possible notion that the defenders might have suffered any possible disadvantage or that they might need or want to get the director involved. If the procedure were to be formalized and legalized, it would not be necessary. I'm inclined to think it would be appopriate, but, then, it's what I'm familiar with, and I could easily be convinced otherwise. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 23 15:41:05 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 23 15:43:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923091346.02f0eb70@pop.starpower.net> At 03:02 AM 9/23/05, Herman wrote: >Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: >>Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>No it's not Eric. It is, at the moment, always and everywhere >>>considered as a claim. >> >> Are you calling Eric a liar? > >No I'm not. >Eric was adding something to a list of advantages to a change in practice. What I added was that the procedure under discussion is already in informal, extra-legal use in some places in the real world as well as in cyberspace. I made no claim to its being an "advantage"; what I wrote was merely a neutral statement of fact. Herman needs to understand the difference between "it happens" and "it is a good idea"; I assure him they are not equivalent statements. The first is a fact, and indisputable. The second is merely some folks' opinion, and what we are trying to determine the truth of here. >Something would no longer be considered a claim, in a suggestion made >by Nigel. Eric added that this something was already happening. I told >him that was not true. I have done it as declarer, and have had it done by declarer on hands I was defending. On none of those occasions was there a problem, or even a director call. I can assure Herman that I was not hallucinating (at least not every time). Thus I wrote that I have seen it done in practice, and it does not appear to cause problems. So I'm not even sure what Herman means by "not true". >What Nigel was talking of were things that were not considered a >claim. Anything that currently exists _is_ a claim, so Eric is wrong >(not lying) when he says that the practice described by Nigel already >exists. What Nigel was talking of were things that *would not be considered a claim if the law were changed to make it so*. I am not wrong when I say that the practice already exists. I would, arguably, be wrong if I were to say that the practice was already legal, but I have not done so. I am inclined to agree with Herman's position (which is, however, irrelevant) that I would be, but others have called even that into question, and I have been following that aspect of the discussion with an open mind. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 23 15:51:07 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 23 15:53:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> References: <4333B306.5070305@hdw.be> <001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923094631.02f0f600@pop.starpower.net> At 05:57 AM 9/23/05, Guthrie wrote: >Tim West-Meads and Eric Landau say this is already >legal (with or without a some kind of statement). For the record, I have said no such thing. I have said that it occurs in practice, but have repeatedly characterized it as "informal" and "extra-legal". I have expressed, or at least implied, agreement with Peter, Nigel and others that it would be a good idea to make it legal under future law, but that is hardly the same thing. Before this thread started, I would have said that it is not legal under current law, although the arguments of others have caused me to doubt even this. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 23 16:24:44 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 23 16:26:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <4333EBC0.5080906@hdw.be> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> <4333E27E.4040000@att.net> <4333EBC0.5080906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923095653.02f16b60@pop.starpower.net> At 07:49 AM 9/23/05, Herman wrote: >Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > >>Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>No I'm not. >>>Eric was adding something to a list of advantages to a change in >>>practice. Something would no longer be considered a claim, in a >>>suggestion made by Nigel. Eric added that this something was already >>>happening. I told him that was not true. >> >> This is ambiguous. Do you mean that the practice is not >> happening or that the practice's not being considered a claim is not >> happening? >>Oh, it hardly matters. If I bothered to read the entire thread I >>wouldn't have to rely on every post being clear -- there are dozens >>more to clarify. > >Indeed, but let me try once more: > >Nigel (or rather someone before him) suggested that the practice be >made official - and that it would not be a claim. >Nigel listed a number of reasons why this would have been a good idea. >Eric added to that list by saying that the practice was already >happening, and without problems. > >That is what I corrected - the practice may well be happening, but the >reason why there are no problems is because the practice is regarded >as a claim. Sigh. "The practice", as I describe it, is "practiced" by a declarer, two defenders, and an only peripherally invovled dummy. It is not "regarded as a claim" by any of them. There is no director involved. There is no committee involved. There is nobody involved who might "regard[] [it] as a claim". The board is scored normally, the game continues, and eventually ends. Everybody goes home. The only ones left in a position to "regard it as a claim" are the folks who read about it later on BLML. >So Eric's addition to Nigel's list was wrong. > >>>What Nigel was talking of were things that were not considered a >>>claim. Anything that currently exists _is_ a claim, so Eric is wrong >>>(not lying) when he says that the practice described by Nigel >>>already exists. >> >> Can you offer evidence that contradicts Eric or me? How can you >> tell us that declarers in the DC area (however infrequently) never >> give defenders hints, never expose entire hands, and still then >> never play out the hand as if there were no claim? > >If they play out the hand as if there were no claim then obviously >there was no claim. As long as there are no problems, there are no >problems. But what do you do when the following happens: >- declarer tables his cards, saying nothing >- defender takes one look at it and returns a spade >- declarer makes his contract >- other defender says "what if you had led a heart?" > >Do you rule that it was a claim or not? If they play out the hand as if there were no claim then obviously there was no claim. As long as there are no problems, there are no problems. But what does Herman do when the following happens: - Declarer neither does nor says anything. - Defender remains in the tank for eight more minutes and then returns a spade. - Declarer makes his contract. - Other defender says, "What if you had led a heart?" Does Herman rule that it was a claim or not? What's the difference? How can declarer's tabling his cards be construed as putting the defenders at some potential disadvantage? >Declarer will say "I did not claim". >Defender will say "I stopped thinking because you showed your cards". Declarer will say, "What claim? What are you talking about?" Defender will say, "I stopped thinking because the clock was about to run out." In neither scenario is there any suggestion that play be curtailed. There is no statement by declarer regarding potential continuations. There is nothing said to suggest any particular outcome. The defender may get a poor score because he "stopped thinking", but isn't that the way it's supposed to work? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 23 17:00:49 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Sep 23 17:05:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <4333E5A6.8080807@hdw.be> References: <4333B306.5070305@hdw.be> <001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> <4333E5A6.8080807@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4333E5A6.8080807@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Guthrie wrote: snip > >> If defenders reject the claim, plays >> continues, with declarer's hand exposed. Arguably, >> opponents could be allowed to suggest plays to >> each other - but I reckon that would just cause >> practical problems. Even when the claim is >> rejected, the hand is completed relatively >> quickly. Most Internet players like a fast game; >> so no on-line player has complained about this >> procedure (AFAIK). It is simple and fair. >> > >And claimer gets to play himself? Does he know who contested the >claim? Possibly not - on-line! - but what about f2f? LHO contests, so >I'll finesse to the right? 72B1. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 23 17:04:27 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Sep 23 17:09:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <43332255.6060609@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip >> > >No it's not Eric. It is, at the moment, always and everywhere >considered as a claim. The fact that it works well is only because if >the player does get it wrong, the claim laws apply. I don't know >precisely what Peter is suggesting, but we have not yet seen what the >ruling is if "claimer" gets something wrong. > >Someone shows his cards, saying "I'm not claiming". The opponents >don't pay attention >and agree to the claim. Afterwards we discover there is something >wrong. What laws do we apply? Since "claimer" was not claiming, it >must be defenders - who do we assign the benefit of the doubt to? Once the result has been agreed then we have a claim/concession, in effect by the defence. > >This mechanism needs to be thought out to a far greater extent than >what you seem to have done at the moment. > >And I give one guarantee : if you end up with sensible laws, they will >mean that the non-claimer will be left in exactly the same situation >as a current "claimer". > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 23 17:09:10 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Sep 23 17:13:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: <4333B306.5070305@hdw.be> <001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050923094631.02f0f600@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007501c5c050$c0daab40$499468d5@jeushtlj> {Eric Landau] > For the record, I have said no such thing. > I have said that it [Peter Newton's > procedure] occurs in practice, but have > repeatedly characterized it as "informal" > and "extra-legal". I have expressed, or > at least implied, agreement with Peter, > Nigel and others that it would be a good > idea to make it legal under future law, > but that is hardly the same thing. Before > this thread started, I would have said > that it is not legal under current law, > although the arguments of others have > caused me to doubt even this. [nige1] Eric, Please accept my apologies for misrepresenting your original position. From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 23 17:10:03 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Sep 23 17:14:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >snip > > From: "Gordon Bower" >> >> > >> The only time I can see any use at all for the "conditional claim" is when >> declarer has only one line of play and just doesn't know what outcome it >> will produce - something of the "making four or five depending on whether >> the finesse works, all the rest are winners" variety. >> >> As for the various "non-claim statements asking opponents to concede" type >> of suggestions here... the correct response from the director, I think, is >> to ask you to either make a proper claim statement or obey L74B2. >> > snip> _ > >And here ladies and gentlemen we come to just one of the reasons why we >don't play the game by declarer putting his cards on the table face up, >without it being a claim. > >Too many years ago it was almost routine to put your cards on the table_face >up and continue to play. You placed them right alongside your wallet and >gun, and watched the defenders. It had the effect of greatly increasing the >success of two way finesses, and other plays depending on who held what >cards. Just put 'em face up, and if you've any skills in reading people's >reactions there no longer are two way finesses, plays, for the drop, etc. >Is that what you want to have happen? (Before anybody gets hoity-toity this >is a rhetorical question, based on real life experience.) I'm glad our game >has developed far beyond that. C'mon Kojak. 72B1. A "non-claim" <-(Maddog coined word) which depends on a finesse/drop may damage opponents. I nail declarer every time. Trust that the TDs have also developed far beyond that too. John > >Kojak > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 23 17:13:28 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Sep 23 17:17:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <4333AB39.4040702@hdw.be> References: <200509222049.j8MKnScm019755@cfa.harvard.edu> <43336773.2020702@cfa.harvard.edu> <4333AB39.4040702@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4333AB39.4040702@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Steve Willner wrote: > >> Some of the comments in this thread are bizarre. If declarer wants to >> play the hand with his cards face up on the table, what law or >> regulation stops him? Analogies to claims or infractions make no sense. >> (This paragraph does not apply to Eric, whom I quote below.) >> > >Steve, there is nothing bizarre. If declarer wants to play with open >book, he is allowed to do so - I can imagine one example of a player >looking for a squeeze and inviting his opponents to think along with >him. That declarer is manifestly not claiming, and the laws provide >for that. Hehe! I recall playing 2Hxx after a bidding misunderstanding. This was a bottom before the opening lead. I faced my hand and invited opponents to try and get it 8 down, commenting "Let's try and rescue something from this hand". They succeeded and we entered 4600 on the traveller. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Sep 23 17:20:28 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Sep 23 17:25:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <004601c5c03b$30304380$499468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200509231520.j8NFKSAJ007229@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Guthrie writes: > > [Herman de Wael] > > I really don't like these kinds of > > statements. One poster thinks something is > > preferable and suddenly the "players" would > > find it enjoyable. Please refrain from these > > kinds of statements. I have never heard any > > complaints about the claim laws from > > "players". > > [nigel] > I forgot the "IMO" qualifier. On BLML it is a > heretical belief that for a player to enjoy a > game, he should understand its rules. I don't think it's heretical. I simply doubt its general application. Indeed for pure enjoyment, my personal experience is that I probably enjoyed the game most when my information on what the laws were was to put it mildly shaky. I think Dave Kent will understand when I say that I first "learned" the rules from Jonesy at Carleton. o Since we're dealing in IMOs, my opinion is that the vast majority neither knows nor cares about the fine points of laws and are content that it remains that way. In much the same way that most golfers are ignorant of the more arcane rules. > IMO, a typical player prefers a simple objective > law that he can understand; he regards such a law > as "fair" because it usually results in the same > ruling by different directors on the same facts. IMO what players want are laws that are simple and intuitive (so that the rule book need never be referred to) that protect _their current_ *perceived* equity, that can't be abused by the less ethical (or with different take on what is in fact ethical) *AND* is uniformly applied by all directors. And I want a pony. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Sep 23 17:33:39 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Sep 23 17:38:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509231533.j8NFXdRK007322@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > > C'mon Kojak. 72B1. A "non-claim" <-(Maddog coined word) which depends > on a finesse/drop may damage opponents. I nail declarer every time. > Trust that the TDs have also developed far beyond that too. John So how do you rule on the famous Kaplan conditional claim. (Richard if you're lurking and have the hand I'd apreciate it) "If trumps split 2-1 I'm solid." (a zillion tricks but missing QXX of trump in a grand) Neither opponent (Eisenberg and Kantar IIRC) reacted in any way that anybody there could note (but not all players are capable of this -- indeed as Kojak suggests, most aren't. Further, it's far from impossible that a P. Hal Sims or somebody like that *would* get a correct read from even these defenders), Kaplan guessed correctly. I'm of the opinion that a) either defender could ask for a director and that the ruling would (and should) be down 1. b) If neither defender objects to playing it out, declarer is committed to playing for the drop if the first player follows. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 23 18:25:13 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 23 18:26:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: References: <4333B306.5070305@hdw.be> <001f01c5c025$29a17fe0$499468d5@jeushtlj> <4333E5A6.8080807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43342C69.8000100@hdw.be> Sorry John, won't go. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <4333E5A6.8080807@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >>Guthrie wrote: > > snip > >>>If defenders reject the claim, plays >>>continues, with declarer's hand exposed. Arguably, >>>opponents could be allowed to suggest plays to >>>each other - but I reckon that would just cause >>>practical problems. Even when the claim is >>>rejected, the hand is completed relatively >>>quickly. Most Internet players like a fast game; >>>so no on-line player has complained about this >>>procedure (AFAIK). It is simple and fair. >>> >> >>And claimer gets to play himself? Does he know who contested the >>claim? Possibly not - on-line! - but what about f2f? LHO contests, so >>I'll finesse to the right? > > > 72B1. > won't help us. this refers to an irregularity, and even under current rules, showing your cards is not an irregularity. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 23 18:30:26 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 23 18:31:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923095653.02f16b60@pop.starpower.net> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> <4333E27E.4040000@att.net> <4333EBC0.5080906@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050923095653.02f16b60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <43342DA2.9090901@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> That is what I corrected - the practice may well be happening, but the >> reason why there are no problems is because the practice is regarded >> as a claim. > > > Sigh. "The practice", as I describe it, is "practiced" by a declarer, > two defenders, and an only peripherally invovled dummy. It is not > "regarded as a claim" by any of them. There is no director involved. > There is no committee involved. There is nobody involved who might > "regard[] [it] as a claim". The board is scored normally, the game > continues, and eventually ends. Everybody goes home. The only ones > left in a position to "regard it as a claim" are the folks who read > about it later on BLML. > sigh too - and you're talking about a case where there are no problems. (there would be no probles if it were considered a claim either). I'm talking about cases where there would be a problem. Under current law, this is a claim, and we know what to do about it. Under your proposed new laws, this is not a claim. How do you propose to solve the problems? Who gets the benefiot of the doubt? Or do you think you can keep this under wraps and there won't ever be any problems? The just play out Rotterdam 3 or 6 under your scenario. >> >> Do you rule that it was a claim or not? > > > If they play out the hand as if there were no claim then obviously there > was no claim. As long as there are no problems, there are no problems. > But what does Herman do when the following happens: > > - Declarer neither does nor says anything. > - Defender remains in the tank for eight more minutes and then returns a > spade. > - Declarer makes his contract. > - Other defender says, "What if you had led a heart?" > > Does Herman rule that it was a claim or not? What's the difference? Of course that's not a claim - why do you want me to answer something as silly as that? > How can declarer's tabling his cards be construed as putting the > defenders at some potential disadvantage? > Because they will believe it was a claim. As is their right. >> Declarer will say "I did not claim". >> Defender will say "I stopped thinking because you showed your cards". > > > Declarer will say, "What claim? What are you talking about?" > Defender will say, "I stopped thinking because the clock was about to > run out." > Silly example - no reason to answer this. > In neither scenario is there any suggestion that play be curtailed. > There is no statement by declarer regarding potential continuations. > There is nothing said to suggest any particular outcome. The defender > may get a poor score because he "stopped thinking", but isn't that the > way it's supposed to work? > No it's not. A defender is allowed to think for as long as he accepts responsibility for play being late. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 23 19:33:14 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 23 19:35:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <43342DA2.9090901@hdw.be> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> <4333E27E.4040000@att.net> <4333EBC0.5080906@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050923095653.02f16b60@pop.starpower.net> <43342DA2.9090901@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923130451.02e12eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:30 PM 9/23/05, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>In neither scenario is there any suggestion that play be curtailed. >>There is no statement by declarer regarding potential continuations. >>There is nothing said to suggest any particular outcome. The >>defender may get a poor score because he "stopped thinking", but >>isn't that the way it's supposed to work? > >No it's not. A defender is allowed to think for as long as he accepts >responsibility for play being late. Of course he is -- in either scenario. What has that to do with the matter at hand? But it does seem incontrovertable that a defender who has seen declarer's hand will, in general, need to think about what card to play for a lot less time than he would have had he not seen declarer's hand. Is this really in dispute? It is only in a completely different, third, scenario -- one in which declarer does claim -- that the defender gets to "stop thinking" and let someone else (a TD or AC) do his thinking for him -- which is precisely why so many of us are willing to consider an alternative procedure. When there is no claim, nor any suggestion that play should be curtailed, nor any statement regarding the remaining play or the outcome of the deal, the defender merely "stops thinking" and makes the wrong play, he will get a bad score. That is true whether declarer is keeping his hand concealed or has shown it to the table. Why should the latter cause us to become concerned with *why* the defender stopped thinking, when the former does not? Herman persists in treating Peter's proposal as though it were an alternate procedure for claiming. It is not. It is an alternative procedure for playing the hand out to the end and obtaining a table result. To see this, note that the following scenario is not only possible but quite likely if Peter's proposal were to be adopted: A few tricks are played normally. Declarer faces his hand. Play continues. Several more tricks are played. *Then* the declarer claims, stating that he will play thus-and-so and take x number of tricks. *That* is a claim, and would be treated exactly as under current law. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mustikka at charter.net Fri Sep 23 20:15:29 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri Sep 23 20:18:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be><4333E27E.4040000@att.net> <4333EBC0.5080906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000e01c5c06a$c7b2b010$bd150947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) > Hello Todd, > > Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> No I'm not. >>> Eric was adding something to a list of advantages to a change in >>> practice. Something would no longer be considered a claim, in a >>> suggestion made by Nigel. Eric added that this something was already >>> happening. I told him that was not true. >> >> >> This is ambiguous. Do you mean that the practice is not happening or >> that the practice's not being considered a claim is not happening? Oh, >> it hardly matters. If I bothered to read the entire thread I wouldn't >> have to rely on every post being clear -- there are dozens more to >> clarify. >> > > Indeed, but let me try once more: > > Nigel (or rather someone before him) suggested that the practice be made > official - and that it would not be a claim. > Nigel listed a number of reasons why this would have been a good idea. > Eric added to that list by saying that the practice was already happening, > and without problems. > > That is what I corrected - the practice may well be happening, but the > reason why there are no problems is because the practice is regarded as a > claim. This is not a TD opinion, I am just a player. Well, the times it happens at my table - and it has happened - it is not a claim. It happens just as Eric explained, and it is also happening nowhere near where Eric resides. And I, for one, like it. Saves me the trouble to figure out declarer's hand when I am on lead, in the tank. What a relief and saving on the brain energy when I get to see declarer's hand without constructing all hands in my mind. It is a kindness to spread declarer's hand. It places no obligations on the defenders whatsoever and takes away no rights from either side, especially not from the defenders. Nobody is asking that play be ceased, that is up to the defenders. I don't care if you or anyone calls it a claim. Typically, when declarer shows his hand, we fold, or one of the defenders pulls out a card that will win a trick. It is friendly, effective, and as said, another way to speed up the game. If all "speeding up the game" were called "claiming" as Herman suggests, then I suppose speeding up the tempo during bidding is also called "claiming".... tongue in cheek. > > So Eric's addition to Nigel's list was wrong. > >> >>> What Nigel was talking of were things that were not considered a claim. >>> Anything that currently exists _is_ a claim, so Eric is wrong (not >>> lying) when he says that the practice described by Nigel already exists. >> >> >> Can you offer evidence that contradicts Eric or me? How can you tell >> us that declarers in the DC area (however infrequently) never give >> defenders hints, never expose entire hands, and still then never play out >> the hand as if there were no claim? >> > > If they play out the hand as if there were no claim then obviously there > was no claim. As long as there are no problems, there are no problems. But > what do you do when the following happens: > - declarer tables his cards, saying nothing > - defender takes one look at it and returns a spade > - declarer makes his contract > - other defender says "what if you had led a heart?" > > Do you rule that it was a claim or not? > Declarer will say "I did not claim". > Defender will say "I stopped thinking because you showed your cards". > > I don't like the practice, that's all I'm saying. > >>>> Whatever your opinion about foreign practices are, it is not your >>>> place to say they do not exist. >>> >>> >>> I know they exist, but they are claims, and are thus not what Nigel was >>> talking of. >> >> >> They might not legally be claims, however, this is not equivalent to >> your earlier statement. "It is, at the moment, always and everywhere >> considered as a claim." There is a subset of bridge players who are not >> treating such behavior as a claim whether or not they have any legal >> entitlement to do so. >> >>> It would be better if people tried to thread through an argument rather >>> than simply answer a last post - especially if they get that last post >>> wrong. >> >> >> I believe you're confused -- both about what has actually been said >> in this thread and that I have not read it in its entirety. >> >> -Todd, who hears a plonking sound off in the distance. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 23 21:11:14 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 23 21:14:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Speeding up the game? Message-ID: <000201c5c072$91b80c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> The continued discussion on conditional claims has really astonished me. In a book by Ranik Halle back in 1938 ("Better Bridge", incidentally the book where he among other items introduced his opening bid of 2C known as Halle's 2C) he tells the following little story (abbreviated here): South playing a contract of 6H needed all the remaining tricks. North (Dummy) had hearts: King, 8, 4 and 3 while South had Ace, Jack, ten and 9. South took a long pause for thought, so long that she was called upon to play on. She sighed and uttered helplessly: "You should just know how difficult this is!" after which West responded impatiently: "I can't see how this can be so difficult?" And suddenly all problems were gone, the trump finesse was taken through East and the contract won. Morale: Let opponents spend their efforts thinking if they want to. It is they who get exhausted. Any extraneous remark can give important information away to opponents whether you expect it or not. After all Bridge is a game of playing the cards, not exposing them? Claim if you consider it justified but don't try any fancy actions to speed up opponents. Leave that to the Director, it is his job if it is needed. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 23 22:00:38 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Sep 23 22:02:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Speeding up the game? In-Reply-To: <000201c5c072$91b80c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c5c072$91b80c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923152822.02a4ea40@pop.starpower.net> At 03:11 PM 9/23/05, Sven wrote: >The continued discussion on conditional claims has really astonished me. What astonishes me is how a procedure that has nothing whatsoever to do with claiming continues to be referred to as "conditional claims", and why some folks find it so difficult to comprehend. >In a book by Ranik Halle back in 1938 ("Better Bridge", incidentally the >book where he among other items introduced his opening bid of 2C known as >Halle's 2C) he tells the following little story (abbreviated here): > >South playing a contract of 6H needed all the remaining tricks. North >(Dummy) had hearts: King, 8, 4 and 3 while South had Ace, Jack, ten and 9. > >South took a long pause for thought, so long that she was called upon to >play on. She sighed and uttered helplessly: "You should just know how >difficult this is!" after which West responded impatiently: "I can't >see how >this can be so difficult?" > >And suddenly all problems were gone, the trump finesse was taken through >East and the contract won. An interesting story, but what has it to do with the topic? The incident sounds like gamemanship to me. Under current law, South has clearly violated L74B2, and West may have redress coming under L72B1. But that has nothing to do with claims, and nothing to do with Peter's proposal. Sven has not said so explicitly, but we can assume that declarer's hand was, at this point, not known to the opponents. But if declarer's hand had been face up on the table for their inspection, would a single word of the story be different? Well, I suppose it would. Having seen declarer's hand, West *would* have seen declarer's difficulty and would have realized that it was to his own advantage not to say anything, another coffee-houser would have been thwarted, and there would have been no story. That sounds like a net gain to me. >Morale: Let opponents spend their efforts thinking if they want to. It is >they who get exhausted. Any extraneous remark can give important >information >away to opponents whether you expect it or not. After all Bridge is a game >of playing the cards, not exposing them? "Extraneous remarks" have no more to do with the proposed procedure than does the Brooklyn Bridge. Like the laws governing claims, the laws governing extraneous remarks would apply just as they do now. If Sven, Herman or anyone else wants to convince us that Peter's proposal would somehow make it easier for a declarer to "job" a defender, they will need to come up with a scenario in which a defender is somehow disadvantaged by nothing more than the simple fact of his having seen declarer's remaining cards. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 23 23:52:22 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 23 23:55:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Speeding up the game? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923152822.02a4ea40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c5c089$14215af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > >In a book by Ranik Halle back in 1938 ("Better Bridge", incidentally the > >book where he among other items introduced his opening bid of 2C known as > >Halle's 2C) he tells the following little story (abbreviated here): > > > >South playing a contract of 6H needed all the remaining tricks. North > >(Dummy) had hearts: King, 8, 4 and 3 while South had Ace, Jack, ten and > 9. > > > >South took a long pause for thought, so long that she was called upon to > >play on. She sighed and uttered helplessly: "You should just know how > >difficult this is!" after which West responded impatiently: "I can't > >see how this can be so difficult?" > > > >And suddenly all problems were gone, the trump finesse was taken through > >East and the contract won. > > An interesting story, but what has it to do with the topic? The > incident sounds like gamemanship to me. Under current law, South has > clearly violated L74B2, and West may have redress coming under > L72B1. But that has nothing to do with claims, and nothing to do with > Peter's proposal. Did South (under current law) violate Law 74B2? I think not. She responded to a request to play on by giving the reason why she was still considering (without disclosing the precise problem she faced). She did not "make gratuitous comments during ... play" (L74B2). She had a perfectly valid reason for thinking. This cannot be illegal. It was West with his extraneous remark that gave her the game. Halle discusses precisely this question in his book and concludes that South is at liberty to take advantage of West's remark, incidentally a liberty that South enjoys also today. But Halle continues that if West had held the trump Queen and uttered the same remark he would have acted unacceptably. Today we have Law 73F2 which clearly sustains this opinion. > > Sven has not said so explicitly, but we can assume that declarer's hand > was, at this point, not known to the opponents. But if declarer's hand > had been face up on the table for their inspection, would a single word > of the story be different? Contract bridge Law 29.1 as it read at that time began: If declarer claims or concedes one or more of the remaining tricks or so implies by showing his hand or otherwise; he must leave his hand face up on the table, and ..... Duplicate Bridge had its own set of laws which applied to both Auction and Contract. These laws essentially concerned the adoption of contract bridge to duplicate contract bridge. The applicable Duplicate law 41 (a) began: If declarer claims the remaining tricks or any number thereof, he must place his cards face up on the table and ..... I believe that the story would indeed have been different if she had shown her cards. That would have been considered a claim and she would under both laws have been requested to "(must) make a complete statement as to how she intends to play the rest of the hand". Halle's point was the effect of an opponent trying to speed up the game by improper means or remarks and the possible ethic problems arising from that. I do indeed consider a declarer showing his cards "without claiming" to take such an improper action which has no foundation in the laws. The effect of such action can very well be that he gains from opponents' reactions like our female friend did in the story above. I would not allow the party that initiated such a situation to gain from it, but I have no problem allowing the other side to gain. ............... > "Extraneous remarks" have no more to do with the proposed procedure > than does the Brooklyn Bridge. Like the laws governing claims, the > laws governing extraneous remarks would apply just as they do now. > > If Sven, Herman or anyone else wants to convince us that Peter's > proposal would somehow make it easier for a declarer to "job" a > defender, they will need to come up with a scenario in which a defender > is somehow disadvantaged by nothing more than the simple fact of his > having seen declarer's remaining cards. If declarer shall be permitted to select his line of play after seeing his opponents' reactions when showing them his cards I shall consider such exposure of cards an elaborate way of cheating. If not I just do not see any reason why we should not continue to define this action a claim and handle the situation accordingly. Sven From adam at irvine.com Fri Sep 23 17:38:43 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Sat Sep 24 22:22:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:20:28 EDT." <200509231520.j8NFKSAJ007229@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <200509231538.IAA15842@mailhub.irvine.com> Ron Johnson wrote: > IMO what players want are laws that are simple > and intuitive (so that the rule book need never > be referred to) that protect _their current_ > *perceived* equity, that can't be abused by the > less ethical (or with different take on what is > in fact ethical) *AND* is uniformly applied by > all directors. > > And I want a pony. False analogy. Ponies exist. -- Adam From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 25 23:54:30 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Sep 25 23:58:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) References: <200509231533.j8NFXdRK007322@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000001c5c21b$f11ea4b0$63d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) > > "If trumps split 2-1 I'm solid." (a zillion tricks but missing QXX > of trump in a grand) Neither opponent (Eisenberg and Kantar IIRC) > reacted in any way that anybody there could note (but not all > players are capable of this -- indeed as Kojak suggests, most > aren't. Further, it's far from impossible that a P. Hal Sims or > somebody like that *would* get a correct read from even these > defenders), Kaplan guessed correctly. > > I'm of the opinion that > > a) either defender could ask for a director and that the > ruling would (and should) be down 1. > > b) If neither defender objects to playing it out, declarer > is committed to playing for the drop if the first player follows. > +=+ I do not know the background to this thread. However, reading what I see here it is my opinion that the player who says "If trumps split 2-1 I am solid" has made a claim. He has made a statement "to the effect that (he) a contestant will win a specific number of tricks". [Law 68A] The requirement of the law is met whether he defines circumstances in which he will win those tricks or not; the law does not distinguish for conditionality. It follows {Law 68D] that play ceased at that point. Whether a defender objects or not if play continued the Director has the duty [Law 82A and Law 81C6] to rectify the error of procedure. If he becomes aware of the matter before the correction period expires he must deal with the irregularity. Law 82B1 empowers him to award an adjusted score. (b) above is not an option. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 09:39:54 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 09:41:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Conditional claim? (was claims) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923130451.02e12eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <003101c5bf87$284f4120$439468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20050922140128.02edab90@pop.starpower.net> <43332255.6060609@hdw.be> <43332348.6000904@att.net> <4333A885.9030504@hdw.be> <4333E27E.4040000@att.net> <4333EBC0.5080906@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050923095653.02f16b60@pop.starpower.net> <43342DA2.9090901@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20050923130451.02e12eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4337A5CA.1000703@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > But it does seem incontrovertable that a defender who has seen > declarer's hand will, in general, need to think about what card to play > for a lot less time than he would have had he not seen declarer's hand. > Is this really in dispute? > > It is only in a completely different, third, scenario -- one in which > declarer does claim -- that the defender gets to "stop thinking" and let > someone else (a TD or AC) do his thinking for him -- which is precisely > why so many of us are willing to consider an alternative procedure. > When there is no claim, nor any suggestion that play should be > curtailed, nor any statement regarding the remaining play or the outcome > of the deal, the defender merely "stops thinking" and makes the wrong > play, he will get a bad score. That is true whether declarer is keeping > his hand concealed or has shown it to the table. Why should the latter > cause us to become concerned with *why* the defender stopped thinking, > when the former does not? > All this is ONLY true if it is clear to the opponent that it is NOT a claim, and that he is not allowed to stop thinking. This goes do totally against current normal procedure that I fear it sill take at least three editions of the lawbook before the distinction between claiming and non-claiming has reached all the opponents. I don't believe the advantages are enough to warrant such a change. > Herman persists in treating Peter's proposal as though it were an > alternate procedure for claiming. It is not. It is an alternative > procedure for playing the hand out to the end and obtaining a table result. > If you can get the opponents to see this too, then OK. Otherwise, I fear that the Lodz declarer in Rotterdam6 would have gotten away with a faulty claim (as it was he was lucky to get it back from the AC). > To see this, note that the following scenario is not only possible but > quite likely if Peter's proposal were to be adopted: A few tricks are > played normally. Declarer faces his hand. Play continues. Several > more tricks are played. *Then* the declarer claims, stating that he > will play thus-and-so and take x number of tricks. *That* is a claim, > and would be treated exactly as under current law. > I understand that it is possible. I also know that those few tricks played on will be played with less concentration by defenders. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 09:43:25 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 09:44:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Strangest claim ever Message-ID: <4337A69D.5080209@hdw.be> A defender has 2 cards left: the ace and king of trumps. He claims (wouldn't you?). He will now lose 3 more tricks. Impossible? read the threads Beveren ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 09:51:07 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 09:52:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 Message-ID: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> I will cut this story into pieces, because I've had to make a number of decisions, and while I'm confident that they're right, this _is_ blml, and I _am_ Herman, so there are bound to be disagreements. A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs so that's not the incomplete board. Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west chair. Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. What would you do in my position now? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 10:03:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 10:04:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 Message-ID: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be> I am standing behind a player who has just looked into a 12-card hand and has noticed nothing. I have decided to wait until he says anything before giving him the CA, possibly with as little info to the rest of the table as possible. This is the hand: 12 (W/NS) T742 T7 KJ963 KQ AK8 QJ8 942 KQJ86 872 A (A)T75 8642 953 A53 QT54 J93 The bidding goes: W N E S P P 1H P 2H P P X P 2S AP (not an unusual bidding for a deal with only 36 points) (the rest of the room reaches 4H and make that) The play goes: HK HQ to the Ace D4 to King and Ace H ruffed D ruffed C to the King CQ (now there are 3 people thinking - which of those 2 idiots is holding up his Ace?) D to the Q (east throws a club - this will be quite important later on!) Club ruffed Spade to the jack The position is now: 12 (W/NS) T - J9 - AK Q - J8 - - (A) - 95 - T - At this moment, west claims and shows his two top trumps. They all put the hands away. I have not yet said anything. What would you do now? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 10:08:51 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 10:10:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 3 Message-ID: <4337AC93.3080000@hdw.be> I have just watched a hand being played out with 51 cards, and those cards have all been put into the pockets. I now act and put the CA on the table. "what about this one?" After some disbelief West agrees that he must have played with 12 cards. The players have not yet agreed on the number of tricks however. To recap : North is playing 2 spades and has lost 4 tricks in this position: 12 (W/NS) T - J9 - AK Q - J8 - - (A) - 95 - T - when west claims, showing his top two trumps (without any statement - why should he?) although the cards have been put in the pockets, we conclude that if East returns a heart, which he can do, West will ruff, cash his spade, and the last trick is the club ace, ruffed by North. So the result is -1 which is what is noted. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 10:12:56 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 10:14:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 4 Message-ID: <4337AD88.4090707@hdw.be> Of course we've all checked that there was no revoke, nor that there will be any revoke in the last three tricks, and we have to give NS the benefit of the doubt. East has a heart and could play that, which gives North the last trick. We don't even have to wonder if the playing of a heart rather than a trump is rational or not. Benefit of the doubt to non-claimer, and all that. But as I told you, East has thrown a club on a diamond at some point during the play. Suppose he had thrown a heart (which he had more of, after all). Now the final position becomes: 12 (W/NS) T - J9 - AK Q - J - - (A) 8 95 - T - With east on play. West claims the last (two) tricks - how many tricks do we give NS? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Sep 26 11:20:02 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Sep 26 11:23:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 In-Reply-To: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be> References: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5f57e1cccbdc94931e7934e3b211bafe@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Sep 2005, at 09:03, Herman De Wael wrote: > I am standing behind a player who has just looked into a 12-card hand > and has noticed nothing. > > I have decided to wait until he says anything before giving him the > CA, possibly with as little info to the rest of the table as possible. > > This is the hand: > > 12 (W/NS) T742 > T7 > KJ963 > KQ > AK8 QJ8 > 942 KQJ86 > 872 A > (A)T75 8642 > 953 > A53 > QT54 > J93 > > The bidding goes: > W N E S > P P 1H P > 2H P P X > P 2S AP > (not an unusual bidding for a deal with only 36 points) > (the rest of the room reaches 4H and make that) > > The play goes: > HK > HQ to the Ace > D4 to King and Ace > H ruffed > D ruffed > C to the King > CQ > (now there are 3 people thinking - which of those 2 idiots is holding > up his Ace?) > D to the Q (east throws a club - this will be quite important later > on!) > Club ruffed > Spade to the jack > > The position is now: > > 12 (W/NS) T > - > J9 > - > AK Q > - J8 > - - > (A) - > 95 > - > T > - > > At this moment, west claims and shows his two top trumps. They all put > the hands away. I have not yet said anything. > > What would you do now? Regret that I said nothing earlier. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Sep 26 11:21:08 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Sep 26 11:24:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 26 Sep 2005, at 08:51, Herman De Wael wrote: > I will cut this story into pieces, because I've had to make a number > of decisions, and while I'm confident that they're right, this _is_ > blml, and I _am_ Herman, so there are bound to be disagreements. > > A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of > clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He > will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to > realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? > > I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently > playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs > so that's not the incomplete board. > > Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA > has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. > > I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently > playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played > there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from > board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand > records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. > Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west > chair. > > Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the > west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing > wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his > hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing > wrong. > > What would you do in my position now? Say to the whole table that you've found a card on the floor that you think may have come from that board, and ask them to count their cards carefully. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Sep 26 11:23:58 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Sep 26 11:27:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 3 In-Reply-To: <4337AC93.3080000@hdw.be> References: <4337AC93.3080000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <801de76df1a83f74e3493fd55d9adbec@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Sep 2005, at 09:08, Herman De Wael wrote: > I have just watched a hand being played out with 51 cards, and those > cards have all been put into the pockets. > > I now act and put the CA on the table. "what about this one?" Aren't we directors there to assist the players, rather than to amuse ourselves by watching them fall into a trap, which we could (ought) have helped them avoid? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 26 11:27:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Sep 26 11:30:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 3 In-Reply-To: <4337AC93.3080000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5c27c$888d6bf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > I have just watched a hand being played out with 51 cards, and those > cards have all been put into the pockets. > > I now act and put the CA on the table. "what about this one?" This is where I would have acted differently: I would not have told the players in any way that they had been playing the board with a card missing as long as they did not themselves discover any error. True, this has primarily to do with the possible revoke consequences where a Director's interference before it is too late to claim any penalty for the revoke will result in a Director's error ruling. But as you have discovered a Director interfering like this can result in many other complications as well. And I believe you agree that if you had just waited quietly until the board was free for reinstating the missing Ace of clubs there would have been no problem to present on blml at all? Incidentally, it frequently happens that a stray card is found. In such cases I always just take care of that card and wait for somebody to call the Director with a message that they are a card short. And that is all. OK, back to the central question: How would I rule? If a ruling other that that the table result stands is required I would rule Director's error Law 82C. After all it was the Director's intervention that created the possible problems in establishing a final result on the board. Why not Law 81C6? Because we are still within the time limit where players' own reaction if they discover the error can have impact on the ruling. Just my humble opinion. Regards Sven > After some disbelief West agrees that he must have played with 12 > cards. The players have not yet agreed on the number of tricks however. > > To recap : North is playing 2 spades and has lost 4 tricks in this > position: > > 12 (W/NS) T > - > J9 > - > AK Q > - J8 > - - > (A) - > 95 > - > T > - > > when west claims, showing his top two trumps (without any statement - > why should he?) > > although the cards have been put in the pockets, we conclude that if > East returns a heart, which he can do, West will ruff, cash his spade, > and the last trick is the club ace, ruffed by North. So the result is > -1 which is what is noted. > > OK? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From u4110348 at anu.edu.au Mon Sep 26 11:32:35 2005 From: u4110348 at anu.edu.au (Sebastian Yuen) Date: Mon Sep 26 11:35:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Strangest claim ever In-Reply-To: <4337A69D.5080209@hdw.be> Message-ID: Hi all, Strange tale! An opinion from a player: Beveren 1, 2 (counting cards, bidding): Law 7B1: "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards." After the player has made a call, then an irregularity has already been committed, which the director may rectify under Law 81C6. A procedural penalty may be appropriate under Law 90B7 (in fact, it's mentioned as a specific example). (Technically, the rectification is to force the player to correctly count his cards, after which Law 14A1 applies.) It also might seem that the player has committed an irregularity by looking at his cards without making sure there are 13, so one might also take this action at the point of Beveren 1. The advantage of taking action before the player calls is that there's no need to worry about unauthorised information. Having not intervened after player's first call, I think director should choose to remain silent from this point onwards (after all, if director hasn't invoked Law 81C6 yet, then there seems to be no overwhelming reason to do so at any specific subsequent point). Nevertheless, director should retain the right to intervene at any time (after all, we want director to be able to intervene if he happens to come along and notice the card on the floor halfway through the board)... Beveren 2 (end of play): As noted, I wouldn't interfere here. Given the situation, though, I see the following (b, c being the crucial points): a) West has claimed (Law 68A). No dispute here, I think. b) Declarer has acquiesced to the claim (Law 69A). To quote: "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." I guess you can nitpick away at the definition of "assents". However, in light of Law 79A (agreement on tricks won), either there has been agreement, or we might as well assess a procedural penalty for not following it. =) c) Assume that b holds, i.e. the claim is accepted. Law 69B: "Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side." Suppose declarer attempts to withdraw acquiescence. He has not acquiesced in the loss of a trick that he has won, nor is the CA a trick which could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards (see footnote to Law 69 for definition of "normal"). Note how the burden is shifted once declarer has acquiesced to the claim. Given the above, the result should stand. d) Law 14 applies but has no effect, since play is over (as soon as West claimed) and not playing the CA did not constitute a revoke. e) If we *must* rule on the claim, then it is indeed an interesting situation, since West has claimed while East is on lead. Given that the situation is not clearly covered by the Laws, one might be able to cobble together an argument for asking whether a heart return is a logical alternative, and if so, then require that lead from East. As the situation stands, though, I don't think we have to worry about it. =) Just some thoughts from a young and inexperienced player. Regards, Sebastian. From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Mon Sep 26 12:15:32 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Mon Sep 26 12:18:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 References: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001e01c5c283$3bd38770$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 >I am standing behind a player who has just looked into a 12-card hand > and has noticed nothing. > > I have decided to wait until he says anything before giving him the > CA, possibly with as little info to the rest of the table as possible. > Is there a penalty in Law for TDicide? From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 26 12:17:03 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Sep 26 12:22:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 References: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005601c5c283$88b03200$8e8287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 > I am standing behind a player who has just looked > into a 12-card hand and has noticed nothing. > > I have decided to wait until he says anything before > giving him the CA, possibly with as little info to the > rest of the table as possible. > +=+ Am I to understand that the Tournament Director, knowing that the hand was deficient before the auction had commenced failed to restore the card to the hand to which it belonged? If so this Director does not know the laws of the game. Look at Law 14A. The law does not use the words "(found) by a player" - it applies to discovery of the deficiency in any way at all. Sheer incompetence. "What would you do now?" Resign. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 14:24:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 14:25:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 In-Reply-To: <005601c5c283$88b03200$8e8287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be> <005601c5c283$88b03200$8e8287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4337E861.3080606@hdw.be> One point of nitpicking, and one important issue: Grattan Endicott wrote: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************** > 'that unhoped serene that men call age' > ~ Rupert Brooke > --------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:03 AM > Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 > > > >>I am standing behind a player who has just looked >>into a 12-card hand and has noticed nothing. >> >>I have decided to wait until he says anything before >>giving him the CA, possibly with as little info to the >>rest of the table as possible. >> > > > > +=+ Am I to understand that the Tournament Director, > knowing that the hand was deficient before the auction > had commenced failed to restore the card to the hand > to which it belonged? nitpicking 1 : the auction period had started. But (see below) that need not be important. > If so this Director does not know the laws of the > game. Look at Law 14A. The law does not use the > words "(found) by a player" - it applies to discovery > of the deficiency in any way at all. nitpicking 2 : is the TD allowed to correct a mistake made by a player before this mistake becomes important? What about a revoke, then? correct it before it becomes established, shall we? Or this : If a spectator looks into a hand and notices there are only 12 cards there - is he allowed to draw attention to that. Yet, by the same reasoning the hand is "found" to be deficient. I'm not certain that Grattan's interpretation is correct, but I am willing to bow to his expertise if he tells us this was the intent of the lawmakers. I would of course have corrected the hand if I had found where the CA belonged before they started playing it. As it was, I saw the player count and apparently arrive at 13. Should I then tell him he cannot count. I don't think so. The error has been made and the director should not correct that particular error. > Sheer incompetence. > Quite strong words for something which is open to interpretation. > "What would you do now?" Resign. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 14:36:40 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 14:38:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 3 In-Reply-To: <000001c5c27c$888d6bf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5c27c$888d6bf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4337EB58.8010503@hdw.be> As usual, Herman can never do things right. Grattan believes I interfered too late. Sven believes I interfered too soon. Sven may be right in that I ought to have let the bidding on the next board start - so that the revokes, if any, become established. As it happens, at the table there, there was no revoke, so there is no (consequence of) director's error. The establishment of a correct score does not change with the beginning of the next board or round. Sven Pran wrote: >> >>I now act and put the CA on the table. "what about this one?" > > > This is where I would have acted differently: I would not have told the > players in any way that they had been playing the board with a card missing > as long as they did not themselves discover any error. True, this has > primarily to do with the possible revoke consequences where a Director's > interference before it is too late to claim any penalty for the revoke will > result in a Director's error ruling. But as you have discovered a Director > interfering like this can result in many other complications as well. > > And I believe you agree that if you had just waited quietly until the board > was free for reinstating the missing Ace of clubs there would have been no > problem to present on blml at all? > Yes, there would. I still have the duty of correcting any error - and this table was clearly in error as they scored the 13 trick to defence, while dummy still had a trump with which he could ruff the CA that was, and always will be, the first card of trick 13. > Incidentally, it frequently happens that a stray card is found. In such > cases I always just take care of that card and wait for somebody to call the > Director with a message that they are a card short. And that is all. > Which would, in this case, have resulted in exaclty the same situation as we had here. > OK, back to the central question: How would I rule? > > If a ruling other that that the table result stands is required I would rule > Director's error Law 82C. After all it was the Director's intervention that > created the possible problems in establishing a final result on the board. > No it was not. The CA was missing, and 51 cards had been played. > Why not Law 81C6? Because we are still within the time limit where players' > own reaction if they discover the error can have impact on the ruling. > > Just my humble opinion. > > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Sep 26 14:50:09 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Sep 26 14:55:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 References: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be><005601c5c283$88b03200$8e8287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4337E861.3080606@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001301c5c298$eb116350$51a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 2 > > Sheer incompetence. > > > > Quite strong words for something which is > open to interpretation. > +=+ I do not need to say it twice. 'Auction period' is not what 14A mentions. It refers to 'before the play period begins' and the simple question of whether it has come to light that a hand is deficient. Nothing to do with a player's mistake. A straightforward understanding of the English language is all that is required. ~ G ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 26 15:02:31 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Sep 26 15:05:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:51 AM Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 > I will cut this story into pieces, because I've had to make a number > of decisions, and while I'm confident that they're right, this _is_ > blml, and I _am_ Herman, so there are bound to be disagreements. > > A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of > clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He > will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to > realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? > > I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently > playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs > so that's not the incomplete board. > > Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA > has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. > > I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently > playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played > there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from > board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand > records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. > Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west chair. > > Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the > west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing > wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his > hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. > > What would you do in my position now? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be Herman, you have been omitting a plethora of relevant details from your cases, practically all of your cases. You say that it is not relevant who found the faced card- it is. You don't say at what table it was found, what boards were there, the table where B12 was, boards per round, the movement, any finding as to if the board was played with 51 cards twice [it being odd that the final board played would be put on the floor after it was played thereby depositing the card]. You leave too much to the imagination of the reader and then lambast him when he does not come to the same conclusion you do. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 26 15:26:51 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Sep 26 15:30:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 3 In-Reply-To: <4337EB58.8010503@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5c29d$f4a81f80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > > And I believe you agree that if you had just waited quietly until the > board > > was free for reinstating the missing Ace of clubs there would have been > no > > problem to present on blml at all? > > > > Yes, there would. I still have the duty of correcting any error - and > this table was clearly in error as they scored the 13 trick to > defence, while dummy still had a trump with which he could ruff the CA > that was, and always will be, the first card of trick 13. The players had agreed upon a result hadn't they? Why couldn't you leave it right there? By the way, I do indeed agree with Grattan and others that IF you were aware of the situation early enough to reinstate the missing card before this activity could influence normal progression of auction and play (which in my opinion means before the player with only 12 cards has made his first call) then the deficient hand should have been corrected. I am not quite sure about the other disagreements involving L14 here so long as the error has not been detected by the players at the table. (If the players themselves discover the error then L14 is clear enough). Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 15:51:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 15:53:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4337FCED.3030907@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:51 AM > Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 > > > >>I will cut this story into pieces, because I've had to make a number >>of decisions, and while I'm confident that they're right, this _is_ >>blml, and I _am_ Herman, so there are bound to be disagreements. >> >>A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of >>clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He >>will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to >>realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? >> >>I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently >>playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs >>so that's not the incomplete board. >> >>Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA >>has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. >> >>I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently >>playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played >>there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from >>board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand >>records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. >>Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west chair. >> >>Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the >>west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing >>wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his >>hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. >> >>What would you do in my position now? >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be > > > Herman, > > you have been omitting a plethora of relevant details from your cases, > practically all of your cases. You say that it is not relevant who found > the faced card- it is. You don't say at what table it was found, what > boards were there, the table where B12 was, boards per round, the movement, > any finding as to if the board was played with 51 cards twice [it being odd > that the final board played would be put on the floor after it was played > thereby depositing the card]. > Sorry Roger, I thought I had given far too much information already. Anyway, I'll answer your question: - who found the card - a player who would play the board an hour later, from accross the room. Totally irrelevant. - It was found at table 2, if you are interested in a number, although that number was not mentioned. I did say it was under west's chair. That table had played the boards up to 14, in order (starting at nr5) - the movement was teams, with shared boards, the boards going one table down. - the table where the real facts happened had started at board 1 and had just finished 11 when I arrived there, starting the board 12 that contained only 51 cards. - I had no findings as to the board being played with 51 cards before it reached table 2, or that table 2 had played it without the CA (I did ask that question). > You leave too much to the imagination of the reader and then lambast him > when he does not come to the same conclusion you do. > I really don't see the relevance of any of the above. But you can always ask. > 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 guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 26 16:36:10 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Sep 26 16:41:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002101c5c2a7$a44f13e0$139468d5@jeushtlj> [Herman De Wael] > He arranges his hand in a beautiful > 3-3-3-3 > distribution and still notices > nothing wrong. What would you do in my > position now? [nige1] Obviously the director should ask everybody to count their cards and after checking that CA is indeed missing, restore it. He should issue a verbal pp "Count your cards properly" and let play continue. Some BLMLers with a bizarre idea of fair play, would regard this as "inequitable". This Newspeak concept of "Equity" is responsible for much that is wrong with Bridge Law administration. Deluded souls argue that, effectively, a "spectator" (as far as the table in play is concerned) has drawn attention to an anomaly, so he should be sanctioned for telling tales. (That is a "law" that has no place in any book that purports to be a about Law). Paradoxically, the laws go on to state that the director should deal with an infraction, however he becomes aware of it. Nevertheless, several BLMLers perversely maintain that he should metamorphose into a wise monkey and do nothing. Bridge Law "Equity" is a false God. For the cult of believers, however, Equity is a matter of Faith. So logic and argument may be futile. From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 26 17:42:01 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Sep 26 17:45:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <002101c5c2a7$a44f13e0$139468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c5c2b0$d6719dd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie ........... > Some BLMLers with a bizarre idea of fair play, > would regard this as "inequitable". This Newspeak > concept of "Equity" is responsible for much that > is wrong with Bridge Law administration. Deluded > souls argue that, effectively, a "spectator" (as > far as the table in play is concerned) has drawn > attention to an anomaly, so he should be > sanctioned for telling tales. (That is a "law" > that has no place in any book that purports to be > a about Law). Paradoxically, the laws go on to > state that the director should deal with an > infraction, however he becomes aware of it. > Nevertheless, several BLMLers perversely maintain > that he should metamorphose into a wise monkey and > do nothing. It is not the Director's job to intervene and prevent a player from carrying out an irregularity he is about to make. Sven From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 26 18:04:04 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Sep 26 18:08:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <98fOjLA0vBODFwyW@asimere.com> In article , Roger Pewick writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "blml" >Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:51 AM >Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 > > >> I will cut this story into pieces, because I've had to make a number >> of decisions, and while I'm confident that they're right, this _is_ >> blml, and I _am_ Herman, so there are bound to be disagreements. >> >> A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of >> clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He >> will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to >> realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? >> >> I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently >> playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs >> so that's not the incomplete board. >> >> Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA >> has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. >> >> I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently >> playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played >> there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from >> board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand >> records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. >> Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west chair. >> >> Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the >> west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing >> wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his >> hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. >> >> What would you do in my position now? Give him his 13th card and fine him for failing to count to 13 :) All 4 players will find this funny, and furthermore it is what the law says to do. L14A. Suppose they were on a different board and you'd found the CA, you'd have made a quick search to restore it to the correct board, wouldn't you? L81C6? In the US, I could probably sue for entrapment for this effort Herman. >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.hdw.be > >Herman, > >you have been omitting a plethora of relevant details from your cases, >practically all of your cases. You say that it is not relevant who found >the faced card- it is. You don't say at what table it was found, what >boards were there, the table where B12 was, boards per round, the movement, >any finding as to if the board was played with 51 cards twice [it being odd >that the final board played would be put on the floor after it was played >thereby depositing the card]. > >You leave too much to the imagination of the reader and then lambast him >when he does not come to the same conclusion you do. > >regards >roger pewick > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 26 18:04:21 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Sep 26 18:09:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> <002101c5c2a7$a44f13e0$139468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <004f01c5c2b3$f737f020$139468d5@jeushtlj> Sorry, Herman. No rudeness intended. I replied to your first mail before reading the subsequent episodes. I think that what Herman did in the "Tale of the Ace of Clubs" was wrong. I appreciate, however, that what his decisions accord with a popular interoperation of Bridge Law. We players owe a debt of gratitude to Herman: On BLML he describes hilarious Bridge incidents with agreed facts that entail straitforward application of basic Bridge law. He gives the detailed resins for his ruling. (Perhaps sometimes "Tongue in cheek"? It matters not). There is always immediate heated controversy. Top law-administrators tell him he is wrong; and not politely. Herman is an intelligent, knowledgeable and conscientious director. Time and again, Herman demonstrates how legal experts come to different conclusions on basic Bridge law applied to simple agreed facts. Hence, it is obvious (except to bridge-lawyers with a vested interest in the status quo) that Bridge law needs clarification and simplification, if more directors and even some players are to understand it. Some BLMlers opine that only directors need to know the law. Admittedly, a player can muddle along knowing only a few basic rules. Obviously, however, he is at a disadvantage when up against a secretary bird. Players seem to hold Herman in awe because those he rules against happily accept his contentious judgements. Herman's experience must be unique. A player is likely to feel aggrieved whenever he loses a case of a type where he knows that rulings are notoriously subjective and inconsistent. Thank you, Herman! From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 18:24:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 18:26:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c5c2b0$d6719dd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5c2b0$d6719dd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <433820C4.3060300@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Guthrie > > ........... > >>Some BLMLers with a bizarre idea of fair play, >>would regard this as "inequitable". This Newspeak >>concept of "Equity" is responsible for much that >>is wrong with Bridge Law administration. Deluded >>souls argue that, effectively, a "spectator" (as >>far as the table in play is concerned) has drawn >>attention to an anomaly, so he should be >>sanctioned for telling tales. (That is a "law" >>that has no place in any book that purports to be >>a about Law). Paradoxically, the laws go on to >>state that the director should deal with an >>infraction, however he becomes aware of it. >>Nevertheless, several BLMLers perversely maintain >>that he should metamorphose into a wise monkey and >>do nothing. > > > It is not the Director's job to intervene and prevent a player from carrying > out an irregularity he is about to make. > And especially not when he has already made it! I was still looking for the right hand to put the ace in. When I found it - the player had already made his mistake and counted them incorrectly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 26 18:23:33 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Sep 26 18:26:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> <4337FCED.3030907@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 2:51 AM > > Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 > > > > > > > >>I will cut this story into pieces, because I've had to make a number > >>of decisions, and while I'm confident that they're right, this _is_ > >>blml, and I _am_ Herman, so there are bound to be disagreements. > >> > >>A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of > >>clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He > >>will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to > >>realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? > >> > >>I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently > >>playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs > >>so that's not the incomplete board. > >> > >>Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA > >>has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. > >> > >>I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently > >>playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played > >>there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from > >>board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand > >>records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. > >>Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west chair. > >> > >>Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the > >>west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing > >>wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his > >>hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. > >> > >>What would you do in my position now? > >>-- > >>Herman DE WAEL > >>Antwerpen Belgium > >>http://www.hdw.be > > > > > > Herman, > > > > you have been omitting a plethora of relevant details from your cases, > > practically all of your cases. You say that it is not relevant who found > > the faced card- it is. You don't say at what table it was found, what > > boards were there, the table where B12 was, boards per round, the movement, > > any finding as to if the board was played with 51 cards twice [it being odd > > that the final board played would be put on the floor after it was played > > thereby depositing the card]. > > > > Sorry Roger, I thought I had given far too much information already. > Anyway, I'll answer your question: > > - who found the card - a player who would play the board an hour > later, from accross the room. Totally irrelevant. Was the player W? Then there would be no question that the board was playable. A player may well be able to deduce to origin of the errant card, and it being an ace might well be enough to make it a puzzle and solve it. But, since it was the middle of the round the player was wandering around when he saw the CA. It does not add up for the player to be wandering around. > - It was found at table 2, if you are interested in a number, although > that number was not mentioned. I did say it was under west's chair. > That table had played the boards up to 14, in order (starting at nr5) > - the movement was teams, with shared boards, the boards going one > table down. > - the table where the real facts happened had started at board 1 and > had just finished 11 when I arrived there, starting the board 12 that > contained only 51 cards. Since T2 started with #B5 and the errant table started with #B1 and the progression was one down there was a table [two progressions] between the fallen card and B12. > - I had no findings as to the board being played with 51 cards before > it reached table 2, or that table 2 had played it without the CA (I > did ask that question). A PP should be given for the correct reason. Without facts upon which to determine the reason correctly it is a silly exercise. WIth enough facts at least judgments about what happened are more likely to be correct as to what was likely or unlikely/impossible. The card could have been dropped by the person that delivered the board or picked it up. It could have been put there by someone that handled the board [boards were kept on the floor at T2,` perhaps next to W's chair?]. It could have dropped from W's hand while bidding or playing or returning the cards to the board. There may be a question as to who [how long was it there?] could have seen the card- not just the players at T2. regards roger pewick > > You leave too much to the imagination of the reader and then lambast him > > when he does not come to the same conclusion you do. > > > > I really don't see the relevance of any of the above. But you can > always ask. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 19:18:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 19:19:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> <4337FCED.3030907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43382D49.4060404@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>- who found the card - a player who would play the board an hour >>later, from accross the room. Totally irrelevant. > > > Was the player W? Then there would be no question that the board was > playable. A player may well be able to deduce to origin of the errant card, > and it being an ace might well be enough to make it a puzzle and solve it. > But, since it was the middle of the round the player was wandering around > when he saw the CA. It does not add up for the player to be wandering > around. > He was not wandering around. He saw the card on the floor from 5m distance. It is hardly UI to him to know that there is a CA somewhere in the room. Even to know that at some point there will be (or there has been) a CA in a west hand is hardly enough to give any more attention to this player. The first player (at table 4 if you insist on having numbers) is totally irrelevant to the story. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 19:19:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 19:21:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> <4337FCED.3030907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43382DAA.7020903@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > A PP should be given for the correct reason. Without facts upon which to > determine the reason correctly it is a silly exercise. WIth enough facts at > least judgments about what happened are more likely to be correct as to what > was likely or unlikely/impossible. The card could have been dropped by the > person that delivered the board or picked it up. It could have been put > there by someone that handled the board [boards were kept on the floor at > T2,` perhaps next to W's chair?]. It could have dropped from W's hand while > bidding or playing or returning the cards to the board. There may be a > question as to who [how long was it there?] could have seen the card- not > just the players at T2. > I did not give a PP. The card fell out of the board. So what? Please Roger, stick to the real story - it's interesting enough. > regards > roger pewick > > >>>You leave too much to the imagination of the reader and then lambast him >>>when he does not come to the same conclusion you do. >>> >> >>I really don't see the relevance of any of the above. But you can >>always ask. >> >> >> >>>regards >>>roger pewick > > >>Herman DE WAEL > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Sep 26 19:28:24 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 19:29:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <004f01c5c2b3$f737f020$139468d5@jeushtlj> References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> <002101c5c2a7$a44f13e0$139468d5@jeushtlj> <004f01c5c2b3$f737f020$139468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <43382FB8.60902@hdw.be> Hello Nigel, nice post, this: Guthrie wrote: > Sorry, Herman. No rudeness intended. I replied to > your first mail before reading the subsequent > episodes. > I did not (yet) remark any rudeness. Not in your post at any rate. > I think that what Herman did in the "Tale of the > Ace of Clubs" was wrong. I appreciate, however, > that what his decisions accord with a popular > interoperation of Bridge Law. > let me just say that the player accepted without question that he was wrong and he did not criticize me for not giving him the CA after he had failed to count to 13. He was wrong, he knew it, and he accepted it. It seems strange to me that the "popular interpretation of bridge law" (the director shall not interfere with play) is perceived to be wrong because of a literal reading of a law that cannot have been meant like this. > We players owe a debt of gratitude to Herman: On > BLML he describes hilarious Bridge incidents with > agreed facts that entail straitforward application > of basic Bridge law. He gives the detailed resins > for his ruling. (Perhaps sometimes "Tongue in > cheek"? It matters not). There is always > immediate heated controversy. Top > law-administrators tell him he is wrong; and not > politely. > amen. > Herman is an intelligent, knowledgeable and > conscientious director. Time and again, Herman > demonstrates how legal experts come to different > conclusions on basic Bridge law applied to simple > agreed facts. Hence, it is obvious (except to > bridge-lawyers with a vested interest in the > status quo) that Bridge law needs clarification > and simplification, if more directors and even > some players are to understand it. > exactly. I think I know how the laws work, I have shown on a few occasions that I have earnt the qualifications that I have - and still I get things wrong - either in the views of a majority or of a minority (and very occasionally even a unanimity). surely there is something wrong with the laws if a qualified director can still get things wrong - what chance do lesser mortals have. > Some BLMlers opine that only directors need to > know the law. Admittedly, a player can muddle > along knowing only a few basic rules. Obviously, > however, he is at a disadvantage when up against a > secretary bird. > > Players seem to hold Herman in awe because those > he rules against happily accept his contentious > judgements. Herman's experience must be unique. A > player is likely to feel aggrieved whenever he > loses a case of a type where he knows that rulings > are notoriously subjective and inconsistent. > The players don't know this - they sometimes realize that the laws (and the game of bridge) are too complex for all directors to always agree. > Thank you, Herman! > You're welcome! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Mon Sep 26 19:24:51 2005 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon Sep 26 19:35:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000001c5c2b0$d6719dd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> > >It is not the Director's job to intervene and prevent a player from carrying >out an irregularity he is about to make. > I do not agree. If players go to the wrong table, select the wrong compass direction, take a wrong board, forget to shuffle a pack, leave the room because they mistakenly think they have the sit out now, let a card drop on the ground, it is a Chapter III case. It has nothing to do with the auction or play, but just with the preparation and orderly progress of the game. In case a director becomes aware of such an error, not during the auction or play of a board, I think that Law 81C 3,4,6 and Law82A give him no only the power to rectify the irregularity in time and to prevent a breach of Law, but also the duty to do so. Ben From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 26 21:04:21 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Sep 26 21:07:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> <4337FCED.3030907@hdw.be> <43382D49.4060404@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > Roger Pewick wrote: > > >> > >>- who found the card - a player who would play the board an hour > >>later, from accross the room. Totally irrelevant. > > > > > > Was the player W? Then there would be no question that the board was > > playable. A player may well be able to deduce to origin of the errant card, > > and it being an ace might well be enough to make it a puzzle and solve it. > > But, since it was the middle of the round the player was wandering around > > when he saw the CA. It does not add up for the player to be wandering > > around. > > > > He was not wandering around. He saw the card on the floor from 5m > distance. We are informed that the player showed the CA to the TD. We are informed that the player saw the CA and apparently summoned tthe TD to tell him where it was. They are not the same thing. [I think it is stretch to say two tables away is across the room.] Theoretically, it would be possible for the player to determine which pair of boards [as he couldn't see the back, only the front] and the likely hand it was in[west's chair]. Such information would be extraneous and has implications as to being able to play the hand fairly, if not for that player then maybe for some other player who could have seen the card. > It is hardly UI to him to know that there is a CA somewhere in the > room. Even to know that at some point there will be (or there has > been) a CA in a west hand is hardly enough to give any more attention > to this player. > > The first player (at table 4 if you insist on having numbers) is > totally irrelevant to the story. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL I think what should have happened is that the TD should retrieve the card [L81C6]. Then apologize for interrupting [L81C6] to ask that every hand be counted [without looking at the face of the cards] before continuing- for the purpose of searching out a hand that is missing a card. If the hand is found, hold up play at that table to restore the hand and establish the facts. For the TD to dally in finding the hand could lead to unnecessary irregularities- and immediate action could avoid them. After all, the place of the TD is that of servant. Given the facts further irregularities would have been avoided. After that, it would be a matter of figuring out what irregulaities had occurred and their remedies. regards roger pewick From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 23:19:04 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 23:20:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> <4337FCED.3030907@hdw.be> <43382D49.4060404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <433865C8.1080507@hdw.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 12:18 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > > > >>Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> >>>>- who found the card - a player who would play the board an hour >>>>later, from accross the room. Totally irrelevant. >>> >>> >>>Was the player W? Then there would be no question that the board was >>>playable. A player may well be able to deduce to origin of the errant > > card, > >>>and it being an ace might well be enough to make it a puzzle and solve > > it. > >>>But, since it was the middle of the round the player was wandering > > around > >>>when he saw the CA. It does not add up for the player to be wandering >>>around. >>> >> >>He was not wandering around. He saw the card on the floor from 5m >>distance. > > > We are informed that the player showed the CA to the TD. We are informed > that the player saw the CA and apparently summoned tthe TD to tell him where > it was. They are not the same thing. [I think it is stretch to say two > tables away is across the room.] > The player showed to the TD that a card was lying under a chair. Five meters away is accross the room if that room contains just 4 tables. And although it is possible to see that a card is the ace of clubs from such a distance - what is the importancxe of this part of the story. A player sees a card lying on the floor and he tells the TD. So? Are you really going to criticize me for not taking board 12 away from table 4 because a players saw the ace of clubs, one hour earlier, lying on the floor? > Theoretically, it would be possible for the player to determine which pair > of boards [as he couldn't see the back, only the front] and the likely hand > it was in[west's chair]. Such information would be extraneous and has > implications as to being able to play the hand fairly, if not for that > player then maybe for some other player who could have seen the card. > Are you being serious? I'm missing a very big smiley at the end of your post. > >>It is hardly UI to him to know that there is a CA somewhere in the >>room. Even to know that at some point there will be (or there has >>been) a CA in a west hand is hardly enough to give any more attention >>to this player. >> >>The first player (at table 4 if you insist on having numbers) is >>totally irrelevant to the story. >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL > > > I think what should have happened is that the TD should retrieve the card > [L81C6]. Then apologize for interrupting [L81C6] to ask that every hand be > counted [without looking at the face of the cards] before continuing- for > the purpose of searching out a hand that is missing a card. If the hand is > found, hold up play at that table to restore the hand and establish the > facts. > And probably shout all over the room - STOP - count your cards NOW! Are you being serious? Sven's suggestion was more along the lines of what most directors do in such a situation. They pocket the ace of clubs and wait for someone to shout "TD, I have only 12 cards". > For the TD to dally in finding the hand could lead to unnecessary > irregularities- and immediate action could avoid them. After all, the place > of the TD is that of servant. Given the facts further irregularities would > have been avoided. After that, it would be a matter of figuring out what > irregulaities had occurred and their remedies. > Are you being serious? What unnecassery irregularities are you talking of? If I had done nothing, the story at that table would have been exactly the same - possibly lasting a lot longer because we would need to establish the play of the cards - something which I now witnessed. > regards > roger pewick > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Sep 26 23:21:26 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Sep 26 23:22:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> References: <000001c5c2b0$d6719dd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> Message-ID: <43386656.6050008@hdw.be> You have carefully avoided to mention the case at hand. Is it the TD's duty to rectify an error by a competitor when that error would cost that competitor some real bridge points. Should a TD prevent an insufficient bid, for example - like by stopping the player just before the local conditions for when the bid is made? And so on. Ben Schelen wrote: >>It is not the Director's job to intervene and prevent a player from > > carrying > >>out an irregularity he is about to make. >> > > I do not agree. > If players go to the wrong table, select the wrong compass direction, take a > wrong board, forget to shuffle a pack, leave the room because they > mistakenly think they have the sit out now, let a card drop on the ground, > it is a Chapter III case. > It has nothing to do with the auction or play, but just with the preparation > and orderly progress of the game. > In case a director becomes aware of such an error, not during the auction or > play of a board, I think that Law 81C 3,4,6 and Law82A give him no only the > power to > rectify the irregularity in time and to prevent a breach of Law, but also > the duty to do so. > > Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 26 23:20:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Sep 26 23:23:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> Message-ID: <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > >It is not the Director's job to intervene and prevent a player > >from carrying out an irregularity he is about to make. > > > I do not agree. > If players go to the wrong table, select the wrong compass > direction, take a wrong board, forget to shuffle a pack, > leave the room because they mistakenly think they have the > sit out now, let a card drop on the ground, it is a > Chapter III case. > It has nothing to do with the auction or play, but just with > the preparation and orderly progress of the game. > In case a director becomes aware of such an error, not during > the auction or play of a board, I think tha t Law 81C 3,4,6 and > Law82A give him no only the power to rectify the irregularity > in time and to prevent a breach of Law, but also the duty to > do so. > > > Ben So in your opinion the Director shall intervene whenever he notices a player who takes his cards from the board and apparently looks at them without first counting them? And what is the difference when a Director notices that a player is about to revoke? Are you of the opinion that the Director shall intervene to prevent that player from actually carrying out the revoke? Or when the Director notices that a player is about to lead from the wrong hand? There is nothing in the laws that say the Director's duty to rectify errors (l81C6) depends upon which law is actually about to be violated. The Director's duty is to rectify errors, not to prevent them (when his intervention could interfere with "normal" auction and play or with non-offending side's right to penalty). Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 26 23:32:15 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 26 23:35:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c5c2b0$d6719dd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5c2b0$d6719dd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <80ED50DA-2F0D-4B74-AC35-AE52BB72B1A9@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > It is not the Director's job to intervene and prevent a player from > carrying > out an irregularity he is about to make. In general, I agree. But did you mean this as a general statement, or in reference to the case at hand? If the latter, what is the irregularity that a player is about to make? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 26 23:52:35 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Sep 26 23:56:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 2 In-Reply-To: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be> References: <4337AB49.3010002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2DFEBC92-B932-41BE-8B87-5D9B76CCFA0D@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 26, 2005, at 4:03 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > What would you do now? Confiscate their car keys and arrange for some sober person to drive the players at this table home after the game. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 27 00:15:28 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Sep 27 00:18:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> <4337FCED.3030907@hdw.be> <43382D49.4060404@hdw.be> <433865C8.1080507@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 16:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > > For the TD to dally in finding the hand could lead to unnecessary > > irregularities- and immediate action could avoid them. After all, the place > > of the TD is that of servant. Given the facts further irregularities would > > have been avoided. After that, it would be a matter of figuring out what > > irregulaities had occurred and their remedies. > > > > Are you being serious? What unnecassery irregularities are you talking > of? If I had done nothing, the story at that table would have been > exactly the same - possibly lasting a lot longer because we would need > to establish the play of the cards - something which I now witnessed. > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL imo if bridge is about counting one's cards before carrying on then by all means the TD ought not intervene. imo the sole purpose of counting one's cards is an attempt [note that thirteen does not mean that that are the correct thirteen] to maintain duplicated hands- humans being homo sapiens they mingle, mangle, and yes drop cards. It has been noticed and in an attempt to deal with the consequences a rule was written. Requiring that a hand is returned to the board is motivated by the same reason. The reason for counting the hand is not to find something to penalize players over. It is to provide a satisfying playing atmosphere. In a perfect world the player would have gotten his thirteen cards, wouldn't he? When a player receives a deficient hand he has been put at a disadvantage to other players who haven't since the onus has been put on him to fix it. Well, that is what has been implemented. But the implemetation has lost something in the translation. The failure of the player to get his hand corrected does not entitle the opponents to receive the benefit of penalizing the player. No, what is done is to remedy the situation as reasonably as possible. That is why the TD should not delay. In this case, all players get to benefit from the fortuitous circumstance of finding the card sooner than later. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 27 00:16:27 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 27 00:19:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <80ED50DA-2F0D-4B74-AC35-AE52BB72B1A9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: 26. september 2005 23:32 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > > On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > It is not the Director's job to intervene and prevent a player from > > carrying > > out an irregularity he is about to make. > > In general, I agree. But did you mean this as a general statement, or > in reference to the case at hand? If the latter, what is the > irregularity that a player is about to make? A general statement. But it is also an irregularity to continue playing with a deficient hand. A Director's interference to prevent this irregularity will almost certainly interfere with what otherwise would be seen as "normal" play of the cards. As for this particular case if the deficient hand is discovered by any of the players L14 is quite clear on how to handle the situation. But outsiders (including the Director) must IMO not call attention to such an irregularity. (I do hope I got this clear; it is past midnight here and I am nearly sleeping) Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 27 00:56:53 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Sep 27 01:00:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Beveren 1 As for this particular case if the deficient hand is discovered by any of the players L14 is quite clear on how to handle the situation. But outsiders (including the Director) must IMO not call attention to such an irregularity. +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient before the play period commences he must correct the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn of the deficiency from a player. That is not what Law 14A says. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 27 01:45:16 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue Sep 27 01:50:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 4 In-Reply-To: <4337AD88.4090707@hdw.be> References: <4337AD88.4090707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20050926193447.0399e618@mail.comcast.net> At 04:12 AM 9/26/2005, Herman De Wael wrote: >Of course we've all checked that there was no revoke, nor that there >will be any revoke in the last three tricks, and we have to give NS >the benefit of the doubt. East has a heart and could play that, >which gives North the last trick. We don't even have to wonder if >the playing of a heart rather than a trump is rational or not. >Benefit of the doubt to non-claimer, and all that. > >But as I told you, East has thrown a club on a diamond at some point >during the play. Suppose he had thrown a heart (which he had more >of, after all). Now the final position becomes: > >12 (W/NS) T > - > J9 > - > AK Q > - J > - - > (A) 8 > 95 > - > T > - > >With east on play. West claims the last (two) tricks - how many >tricks do we give NS? There is no legal play of the remaining cards on which West gets fewer than two tricks, and therefore he gets those two; we cannot force a claimer to revoke even if we believe that he would have revoked has the hand been played on. Even if West had claimed only one trick, he would still get two tricks under L71A, since the trick could not be lost on any legal play of the remaining cards. Thus, a fortiori, he must get two tricks when he claims two. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 27 01:50:13 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 27 01:53:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <448DF403-45E5-46DC-BBFC-0EFD07FEEE50@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 26, 2005, at 6:56 PM, Grattan wrote: > In reply to Sven's > >> As for this particular case if the deficient hand is discovered by >> any of the players L14 is quite clear on how to handle the >> situation. But outsiders >> (including the Director) must IMO not call attention to such an >> irregularity. > > +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient > before the play period commences he must correct > the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn > of the deficiency from a player. That is not what Law 14A says. I believe I agree with Grattan, and with Roger, here. The idea is to have a game of bridge. In this particular case, play of the hand is more likely to be "normal" if West starts with all 13 of his cards. I see no harm, and great good, from the TD correcting the deficiency before the bidding starts. This is not at all the same thing as, say, calling attention to a revoke before it's established. That, I would not have a TD do. And there is nothing in the laws that prevents a TD, so far as I can see, from correcting the deficient hand in this case. On the contrary, Law 14A says "when a hand is found to be deficient" without saying a thing about *how* it is so found. The hand is deficient, the TD knows it's deficient, play has not started, therefore Law 14A requires him to correct the deficiency. Seems pretty clear to me. I don't think a director gets to "cherry pick" what he thinks is the "right time" to make a ruling. Certainly not when the laws tell him when to do so. From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 27 09:17:32 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 27 09:20:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c5c333$86e1f1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan ................ > As for this particular case if the deficient hand is > discovered by any of the players L14 is quite clear > on how to handle the situation. But outsiders > (including the Director) must IMO not call attention > to such an irregularity. > > +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient > before the play period commences he must correct > the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn > of the deficiency from a player. That is not what > Law 14A says. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ There is nothing special about "before the play period commences" on Director's duty to take such action under Law 14. Law 14B is identical to Law 14A on this duty after the play period has commenced but the consequences can be different. I do not argue that Grattan is wrong, but his position raises some potential problem situations of which I can immediately imagine the following: 1: What if Dummy is the first player at the table to call attention to a deficient hand? Which law takes precedence and why: L14B or L43A1(b)? Does it make any difference if he just quietly leaves the table and informs the Director? 2: If Dummy by violating Law43A2(c) notices that a defender's hand is deficient and then calls attention to this fact shall Law 43B3 apply on for instance any revoke that this defender might have made? 3: What if the Director becomes aware of any other error or irregularity about to happen (like a player he is kibitzing about to lead from the wrong hand or about to make a revoke). Does Law 81C6 instruct the Director to intervene immediately so that the error or irregularity is avoided? Why or why not? Luckily, while Law 14 instructs me to search for a missing card when a deficient hand is detected there is no law that instructs me to search for the deficient hand when a "homeless" card is found. So those potential problem situations will probably remain purely academic where I am directing. Until told otherwise I shall as a Director continue to let events take their place without my intervention and avoid (on my own initiative) taking any action that directly interferes with the auction or play or which can have any impact on a player's rights to penalize opponents for their error(s). Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Sep 27 09:39:44 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Sep 27 09:47:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > > As for this particular case if the deficient hand is > discovered by any of the players L14 is quite clear > on how to handle the situation. But outsiders > (including the Director) must IMO not call attention > to such an irregularity. > > +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient > before the play period commences he must correct > the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn > of the deficiency from a player. That is not what > Law 14A says. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I go even one step further than Grattan and use L81 C6 for it. The TD must correct the hand at any moment he becomes aware of it, not only before the play period commences. So Beveren 1 was the first mistake made by Herman. I don't want to become aware of the others, since that makes it necessary to correct those as well. ton From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 09:53:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 09:55:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4338FA96.7090006@hdw.be> Grattan wrote: > > > As for this particular case if the deficient hand is discovered by any > of the players L14 is quite clear on how to handle the situation. But > outsiders > (including the Director) must IMO not call attention to such an > irregularity. > > +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient > before the play period commences he must correct > the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn > of the deficiency from a player. That is not what Law 14A says. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > If Grattan is so literal in his reading of L14 then what does he think of the kibitzer who sees a player holding only 12 cards? What should that person do? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 09:57:46 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 09:59:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 4 In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20050926193447.0399e618@mail.comcast.net> References: <4337AD88.4090707@hdw.be> <6.2.3.4.0.20050926193447.0399e618@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <4338FB7A.5070804@hdw.be> David makes a common mistake here: David J. Grabiner wrote: > > There is no legal play of the remaining cards on which West gets fewer than > two tricks, and therefore he gets those two; we cannot force a claimer to > revoke even if we believe that he would have revoked has the hand been > played > on. > The laws on claiming are absolutely silent on the word "legal". It is we, as TD's amongst ourselves, who have decided that illegal plays are to be considered irrational and therefor not normal. However, I feel that we should qualify that decision in saying that "illegal" plays that the player realizes are illegal, are irrational. It is (IMO - doesn't everyone agree) completely rational for a player who has two trumps in his hand, and nothing else, to ruff a club trick. Therefor it must be considered a normal play, and yes, this means that we force claimer to revoke. I don't believe this interpretation should be in doubt. > Even if West had claimed only one trick, he would still get two tricks > under L71A, > since the trick could not be lost on any legal play of the remaining > cards. Thus, > a fortiori, he must get two tricks when he claims two. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 12:04:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 12:05:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <43391934.70001@hdw.be> If the Chairman AND Secretary of the WBFLC tell us that this is how we should interpret L14, then so be it. We have learnt something new. I still have one question. What if a kibitzer is the first to remark the 12-card hand? I wouldn't like it if he told the player, but what if he tells the director - who is then bound by this new interpretation to stop play and look for the 13th card! And suppose this is the watching NPC? Are you guys really sure this is the interpretation you want? Because if the wording of L14 is the only way you're going to get there, you're in for far more than you've bargained for! Ton Kooijman wrote: >>As for this particular case if the deficient hand is >>discovered by any of the players L14 is quite clear >>on how to handle the situation. But outsiders >>(including the Director) must IMO not call attention >>to such an irregularity. >> >>+=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient >>before the play period commences he must correct >>the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn >>of the deficiency from a player. That is not what >>Law 14A says. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > > I go even one step further than Grattan and use L81 C6 for it. > The TD must correct the hand at any moment he becomes aware of it, not only > before the play period commences. > So Beveren 1 was the first mistake made by Herman. I don't want to become > aware of the others, since that makes it necessary to correct those as well. > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 27 13:51:20 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 27 13:53:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> References: <4337A86B.1060908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927074056.035eca30@pop.starpower.net> At 03:51 AM 9/26/05, Herman wrote: >A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of >clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He >will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to >realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? > >I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently >playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs >so that's not the incomplete board. > >Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA >has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. > >I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently >playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played >there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from >board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand >records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. >Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west chair. > >Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the >west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing >wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his >hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. > >What would you do in my position now? Hand him the CA, with a warning to count his cards more carefully in the future, unless I've already given him such a warning, in which case I'd now impose a small penalty (1/4 board at matchpoints). If questioned about speaking up at all, read out L81C6. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 27 14:17:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 27 14:20:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927074056.035eca30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c5c35d$5ea7b070$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 03:51 AM 9/26/05, Herman wrote: > > >A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of > >clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He > >will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to > >realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? > > > >I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently > >playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs > >so that's not the incomplete board. > > > >Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA > >has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. > > > >I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently > >playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played > >there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from > >board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand > >records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. > >Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west chair. > > > >Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the > >west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing > >wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his > >hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. > > > >What would you do in my position now? > > Hand him the CA, with a warning to count his cards more carefully in > the future, unless I've already given him such a warning, in which case > I'd now impose a small penalty (1/4 board at matchpoints). If > questioned about speaking up at all, read out L81C6. And then after a few minutes the following three incidents happen almost simultaneously: 1: You are summoned to another table: "Director; I have only twelve cards and the other three hands have thirteen each!" (Nobody at that table has yet looked at their cards). 2: You are summoned to the table where you reinstated the Ace of Clubs: "Director; there are two aces of clubs in this deal!" 3: Someone hands you a deuce of spades that was just found on the floor. What do you do now? This is not imagination; I have experienced events like that; except that I never assume the card I have found to be the missing card in any board without double-checking the board, away from the tables. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 27 14:34:09 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 27 14:36:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> At 05:20 PM 9/26/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > > >It is not the Director's job to intervene and prevent a player > > >from carrying out an irregularity he is about to make. > > > > > I do not agree. > > If players go to the wrong table, select the wrong compass > > direction, take a wrong board, forget to shuffle a pack, > > leave the room because they mistakenly think they have the > > sit out now, let a card drop on the ground, it is a > > Chapter III case. > > It has nothing to do with the auction or play, but just with > > the preparation and orderly progress of the game. > > In case a director becomes aware of such an error, not during > > the auction or play of a board, I think tha t Law 81C 3,4,6 and > > Law82A give him no only the power to rectify the irregularity > > in time and to prevent a breach of Law, but also the duty to > > do so. > > > > > Ben > >So in your opinion the Director shall intervene whenever he notices a >player >who takes his cards from the board and apparently looks at them without >first counting them? > >And what is the difference when a Director notices that a player is >about to >revoke? Are you of the opinion that the Director shall intervene to >prevent >that player from actually carrying out the revoke? > >Or when the Director notices that a player is about to lead from the wrong >hand? The difference is that in Herman's case, the irregularity could have been rectified before the auction and play had begun, indeed, before the offending player had even looked at his cards! >There is nothing in the laws that say the Director's duty to rectify >errors >(l81C6) depends upon which law is actually about to be violated. IMO, a director's #1 priority, above all else, should be to "insure the orderly progress of the game". He would not be doing this by attempting to deal with the missing card in mid-auction or mid-play. But by dealing with it *before* the hand starts he clearly would be. I see little difference between interfering when a player is about to start playing with a deficient hand and interfering when, for example, he is about to start playing the wrong board. >The Director's duty is to rectify errors, not to prevent them (when his >intervention could interfere with "normal" auction and play or with >non-offending side's right to penalty). When an irregularity has occurred and has "damaged" the NOS, they have a right to obtain redress. But the fact of an irregularity occurring does not give them any inherent "right" to be damaged by it. If your house catches fire and burns down, you have a right to collect on your fire insurance. But you do not have the right to prevent the Fire Department from putting out the fire before your house burns down because you'd prefer to collect the insurance. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 27 14:49:24 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 27 14:51:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <80ED50DA-2F0D-4B74-AC35-AE52BB72B1A9@rochester.rr.com> <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927083842.03621900@pop.starpower.net> At 06:16 PM 9/26/05, Sven wrote: >A general statement. But it is also an irregularity to continue >playing with >a deficient hand. A Director's interference to prevent this irregularity >will almost certainly interfere with what otherwise would be seen as >"normal" play of the cards. I know that playing with language is what we do here, but I don't see how it's possible to stretch the language -- or the laws -- to the point where playing out a hand with a 51-card deck becomes "'normal' play of the cards". ISTM that if one can restore the 52nd card to the deck before the deal starts, it is failing to do so that "interfere[s] with what otherwise would be... 'normal' play". Has the claims footnote so distorted our usage of the word "normal" that we no longer use it to mean anything remotely resembling its dictionary definition in any context? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 27 14:59:47 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:01:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000201c5c35d$5ea7b070$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927074056.035eca30@pop.starpower.net> <000201c5c35d$5ea7b070$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927085556.03621370@pop.starpower.net> At 08:17 AM 9/27/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > At 03:51 AM 9/26/05, Herman wrote: > > > > >A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of > > >clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He > > >will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to > > >realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? > > > > > >I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently > > >playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs > > >so that's not the incomplete board. > > > > > >Board 13 is lying next to the table, but it has blue cards and my CA > > >has a red back. That's not the incomplete board either. > > > > > >I move to the table that the boards move to. They are currently > > >playing board 11. At that precise moment the ace of clubs gets played > > >there. Thinking that they would have missed the CA if it had been from > > >board 10, I conclude it must be from board 12. I check my hand > > >records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand. > > >Incidentally the card was originally also lying beneath the west > chair. > > > > > >Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the > > >west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing > > >wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his > > >hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing > wrong. > > > > > >What would you do in my position now? > > > > Hand him the CA, with a warning to count his cards more carefully in > > the future, unless I've already given him such a warning, in which case > > I'd now impose a small penalty (1/4 board at matchpoints). If > > questioned about speaking up at all, read out L81C6. > >And then after a few minutes the following three incidents happen almost >simultaneously: > >1: You are summoned to another table: "Director; I have only twelve cards >and the other three hands have thirteen each!" (Nobody at that table >has yet >looked at their cards). > >2: You are summoned to the table where you reinstated the Ace of Clubs: >"Director; there are two aces of clubs in this deal!" > >3: Someone hands you a deuce of spades that was just found on the floor. > >What do you do now? > >This is not imagination; I have experienced events like that; except >that I >never assume the card I have found to be the missing card in any board >without double-checking the board, away from the tables. Red herring alert! From the fourth paragraph of Herman's original message: "I check my hand records, and I see that the CA in board 12 should be in the west hand." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 27 15:09:01 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:14:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <002301c5c364$b61c2190$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > > I go even one step further than Grattan and use > L81 C6 for it. The TD must correct the hand at > any moment he becomes aware of it, not only > before the play period commences. So Beveren 1 > was the first mistake made by Herman. I don't > want to become aware of the others, since that > makes it necessary to correct those as well. > > ton > +=+ Yes indeed - I only did not mention it because I had already mentioned it in my comment previously on Beveren 2. The only qualification is that once the opening lead has been faced the Director is in Law 14B rather than 14A. Other relevant laws are 82A, 82B1, and, of course, 81C5. We are talking here about the Director's *duty*. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Sep 27 14:39:45 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:18:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <4338FA96.7090006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004701c5c365$7a3983b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > > > > +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient > > before the play period commences he must correct > > the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn > > of the deficiency from a player. That is not what Law 14A says. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > If Grattan is so literal in his reading of L14 then what does he think > of the kibitzer who sees a player holding only 12 cards? What should > that person do? > I have another question for Herman: Why did you make a search for the board with a 12 card pocket? Why not waiting till the player picks up his cards and calls for you? And if he doesn't let him play with 12 cards? Not interfering it shall be. Oh yes, that kibitzer should shut up. But once he speaks, at the table or towards the TD, the problem has to be restored. And the fact that a player doesn't count his cards should lead to a penalty, to be announced when the TD gently offers him the ace of clubs. And if there is a possibility that partner has seen that card on the floor, and the auction has started, you better put it faced up on the table and use L24. ton From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 15:19:03 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:20:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> References: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> A small rectification: Eric Landau wrote: > > > The difference is that in Herman's case, the irregularity could have > been rectified before the auction and play had begun, indeed, before the > offending player had even looked at his cards! > No I could not, short of dragging the cards from his hand. When I looked at the table, west was counting his hand. He appeared to count to 13. When I next looked in his hand (since I could not believe it was neither of the 4 hands I had now inspected) I noticed his distribution 3-3-3-3. By then, the irregularity had happened and I could no longer prevent it. Should I help a player who has made a mistake? Is that fair to opponents? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Sep 27 15:21:47 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:26:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred><001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************** 'that unhoped serene that men call age' ~ Rupert Brooke --------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > If the Chairman AND Secretary of the WBFLC tell > us that this is how we should interpret L14, then so > be it. We have learnt something new. > +=+ It would be difficult to believe that any but the tiniest minority could find this 'new'. Neither is it an 'interpretation', being merely an English lesson.+=+ < > I still have one question. What if a kibitzer is the first > to remark the 12-card hand? I wouldn't like it if he > told the player, but what if he tells the director - who > is then bound by this new interpretation to stop play > and look for the 13th card! > +=+ The Director has become aware of the irregularity and Law 81C6 applies. He has also to deal with the kibitzer under Law 76B. +=+ < > And suppose this is the watching NPC? > +=+ The status and rights of the NPC may be specified in a regulation. No general statement can be made. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 15:35:34 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:36:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <002301c5c364$b61c2190$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <002301c5c364$b61c2190$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43394AA6.3010806@hdw.be> Let's see where Grattan takes us: Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ Yes indeed - I only did not mention it because > I had already mentioned it in my comment previously > on Beveren 2. The only qualification is that once the > opening lead has been faced the Director is in Law 14B > rather than 14A. Other relevant laws are 82A, 82B1, > and, of course, 81C5. We are talking here about the > Director's *duty*. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > 82B1: TD may award an adjusted score - not at all applicable in this case, IMO. 81C5: TD must administer and interpret these laws - isn't that what I'm doing? My interpretation may differ from yours, but I don't see what this law has to do with anything in here. I'm sorry Grattan, but these two are particularly unhelpful. You might as well cite law 1 (yes - that does have a bearing on this case, since the deck presented to these players was not according to that law). OTOH: 82A: It is the duty of the Director to rectify errors of procedure. This one is of application, yes, I admit. But: what is the error of procedure that has happened here? The board presented to these people contained only 51 cards - that is clearly an error, true. According to L82A, it should be corrected, and I was in a position to do so. 82A: To maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. L76B: a spectator may not call attention to any irregularity. I could maintain that I am a spectator, who looks into a hand, notices that there are only 12 cards there, and calls attention to it. I could maintain that to do so I would act in a manner that is contrary to these Laws, and I should therefor not interfere by L82A. I realize I'm going a bit far in my interpretation here - but the words invite them! I always come back to some other points. As Director, I may see all sorts of irregularities (revokes, even insufficient bids), and I don't believe I should do something about them - even while L82A exists. My conclusion is that L82A deals with extra-bridge activities, not with the playing of the bridge hand itself. If a player has miscounted his heart suit and he finesses to a jack that he should know to be bare, should I correct his error? Why then should I correct this error? Because it's a procedure? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 15:37:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:38:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927083842.03621900@pop.starpower.net> References: <80ED50DA-2F0D-4B74-AC35-AE52BB72B1A9@rochester.rr.com> <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927083842.03621900@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <43394B08.8090101@hdw.be> Sorry Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:16 PM 9/26/05, Sven wrote: > >> A general statement. But it is also an irregularity to continue >> playing with >> a deficient hand. A Director's interference to prevent this irregularity >> will almost certainly interfere with what otherwise would be seen as >> "normal" play of the cards. > > > I know that playing with language is what we do here, but I don't see > how it's possible to stretch the language -- or the laws -- to the point > where playing out a hand with a 51-card deck becomes "'normal' play of > the cards". ISTM that if one can restore the 52nd card to the deck > before the deal starts, it is failing to do so that "interfere[s] with > what otherwise would be... 'normal' play". > > Has the claims footnote so distorted our usage of the word "normal" that > we no longer use it to mean anything remotely resembling its dictionary > definition in any context? > If a player has Ace and King of Spades in hand, then it is "normal" for him to lay the ace or the king, but not the ace of clubs. It is not normal to play a card that one does not possess. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 27 15:39:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:42:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <004701c5c365$7a3983b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000001c5c368$d348b5e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > > > +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient > > > before the play period commences he must correct > > > the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn > > > of the deficiency from a player. That is not what Law 14A says. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > If Grattan is so literal in his reading of L14 then what does he think > > of the kibitzer who sees a player holding only 12 cards? What should > > that person do? > > > > I have another question for Herman: > Why did you make a search for the board with a 12 card pocket? Why not > waiting till the player picks up his cards and calls for you? > And if he doesn't let him play with 12 cards? Not interfering it shall be. > > Oh yes, that kibitzer should shut up. But once he speaks, at the table or > towards the TD, the problem has to be restored. > And the fact that a player doesn't count his cards should lead to a > penalty, > to be announced when the TD gently offers him the ace of clubs. And if > there > is a possibility that partner has seen that card on the floor, and the > auction has started, you better put it faced up on the table and use L24. > > ton I'm grateful for seeing some support to my views! Thanks, Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 15:44:01 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:45:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <004701c5c365$7a3983b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <4338FA96.7090006@hdw.be> <004701c5c365$7a3983b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <43394CA1.1030709@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > > I have another question for Herman: > Why did you make a search for the board with a 12 card pocket? Why not > waiting till the player picks up his cards and calls for you? > And if he doesn't let him play with 12 cards? Not interfering it shall be. > Because I do see it as my duty to present as many as possible of the players with 13 cards each. I was on my way to complete the pocket. But when I got to it, the error had already occured - the player had counted his hand and was playing it. > Oh yes, that kibitzer should shut up. But once he speaks, at the table or > towards the TD, the problem has to be restored. OK, that's clear. And the kibitzer who speaks to the table we can deal with. But the kibitzer (NPC) who speaks to the TD - should this be allowed? > And the fact that a player doesn't count his cards should lead to a penalty, > to be announced when the TD gently offers him the ace of clubs. And if there > is a possibility that partner has seen that card on the floor, and the > auction has started, you better put it faced up on the table and use L24. > of course. > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 15:47:06 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 15:48:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred><001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>If the Chairman AND Secretary of the WBFLC tell >>us that this is how we should interpret L14, then so >>be it. We have learnt something new. >> > > +=+ It would be difficult to believe that any but the > tiniest minority could find this 'new'. Neither is it an > 'interpretation', being merely an English lesson.+=+ > < > It is new to me - and to each and every poster on blml who did not shout at once "L14A". >>I still have one question. What if a kibitzer is the first >>to remark the 12-card hand? I wouldn't like it if he >>told the player, but what if he tells the director - who >>is then bound by this new interpretation to stop play >>and look for the 13th card! >> > > +=+ The Director has become aware of the irregularity > and Law 81C6 applies. He has also to deal with the > kibitzer under Law 76B. +=+ > < > indeed. >>And suppose this is the watching NPC? >> > > +=+ The status and rights of the NPC may be specified > in a regulation. No general statement can be made. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > don't go washing your hands too soon, Grattan. In no regulation shall we find that an NPC is allowed to remark to his player that he has only 12 cards. This way the NPC can get around that regulation. I still don't like it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 27 17:27:56 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 27 17:31:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> References: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3BEF8CE2-BECF-42BD-9D6C-38FDEFE734DB@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 27, 2005, at 9:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > When I looked at the table, west was counting his hand. He appeared > to count to 13. When I next looked in his hand (since I could not > believe it was neither of the 4 hands I had now inspected) I > noticed his distribution 3-3-3-3. By then, the irregularity had > happened and I could no longer prevent it. what irregularity? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 27 17:36:26 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Sep 27 17:40:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > It is new to me - and to each and every poster on blml who did not > shout at once "L14A". What is this? "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you"? No thanks, Herman, I'll decide for myself what's new to me and what isn't. > don't go washing your hands too soon, Grattan. > In no regulation shall we find that an NPC is allowed to remark to > his player that he has only 12 cards. This way the NPC can get > around that regulation. > I still don't like it. Can you say "straw man"? :-( From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 27 19:46:15 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Sep 27 19:53:40 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL psych policy Message-ID: <003f01c5c38b$872ef840$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Mike Flader, who writes the column Ruling the Game in the ACBL's Bridge Bulletin, had a fine series of Ruling the Game articles in the Daily Bulletins of the Atlanta summer 2005 NABC. I have to take exception, however, at what he wrote about psychs: ###### Frequent or excessive psychs are illegal. If it is reported that a player has psyched three times in a session, the director should proceed under the assumption that this is the case. [and then the following advice to clubs:] Require that all psychs be reported--twice. Once by the victims and once by the offenders. A notice to this effect should be published in the club's playing area. ###### This is not in accordance with the current ACBL publication "Tournament Decisions, a Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table," which has this to say: ######## Excessive Psychic Bidding - When three or more psychic When three or more psychic initial actions by members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. A presumption of inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that they happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate for psychs. The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience. When the psychic bidder's partner, because of prior usages, has a better chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is presumptive evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, and the result of the board may be adjusted. ####### That is a much more reasonable and more legal approach for clubs. The only fault I can find with it is in the last sentence, as there are some opponents who would never have a chance to catch a psych no matter how obvious. I would add after "either opponent" a parenthetical "(assuming they have a reasonable acquaintance with the game of bridge)". Note that three psychs are not *prima facie* evidence of a psych agreement, as Mike would have it, only that the Director should investigate that possibility. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 20:19:06 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 20:20:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <3BEF8CE2-BECF-42BD-9D6C-38FDEFE734DB@rochester.rr.com> References: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> <3BEF8CE2-BECF-42BD-9D6C-38FDEFE734DB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <43398D1A.8040803@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Sep 27, 2005, at 9:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> When I looked at the table, west was counting his hand. He appeared >> to count to 13. When I next looked in his hand (since I could not >> believe it was neither of the 4 hands I had now inspected) I noticed >> his distribution 3-3-3-3. By then, the irregularity had happened and >> I could no longer prevent it. > > > what irregularity? The irregularity of starting the auction with a hand that contains only 12 cards (L7B1). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Sep 27 20:24:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Sep 27 20:26:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43398E77.9030701@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> It is new to me - and to each and every poster on blml who did not >> shout at once "L14A". > > > What is this? "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you"? > > No thanks, Herman, I'll decide for myself what's new to me and what isn't. > So you are saying that you knew that the Law obliged you to act as you would have? I'm not saying that you would not have done differently than what I had done - but can you honestly say that this is because you realized the exact wording of L14A made my actions wrong and yours right? If so, then you must be a genius. Permit me to doubt that all readers on blml are equally genial. I for one learnt something new. >> don't go washing your hands too soon, Grattan. >> In no regulation shall we find that an NPC is allowed to remark to >> his player that he has only 12 cards. This way the NPC can get around >> that regulation. >> I still don't like it. > > > Can you say "straw man"? :-( > I can, but I've never really understood the notion. Are you saying that there is something wrong with my argument? Do you not agree with me that if an NPC notices that his player is looking at only 12 cards, he is not allowed to say anything to that player? Yet he should be allowed to talk to a director, and if this interpretation is correct, that director should be obliged to tell the player. another new thing learnt by me. I wonder if the international npc's know of this trick. I really don't care what you think of the argument - straw man or not. I'd still like to hear Grattan's and Ton's reaction. And I don't mean that it depends on the regulations in force for the npc's. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 27 22:18:30 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 27 22:20:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> References: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927160643.02a4b330@pop.starpower.net> At 09:19 AM 9/27/05, Herman wrote: >A small rectification: > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>The difference is that in Herman's case, the irregularity could have >>been rectified before the auction and play had begun, indeed, before >>the offending player had even looked at his cards! > >No I could not, short of dragging the cards from his hand. >When I looked at the table, west was counting his hand. He appeared to >count to 13. When I next looked in his hand (since I could not believe >it was neither of the 4 hands I had now inspected) I noticed his >distribution 3-3-3-3. By then, the irregularity had happened and I >could no longer prevent it. >Should I help a player who has made a mistake? Is that fair to opponents? I think we should distinguish bridge mistakes from procedural mistakes, and I do think we should "help" a player who has made the latter, provided it doesn't disrupt a deal which has already begun. If I spot a player sitting down at the wrong table, about to take cards from the board in front of him, I do think I should intervene and send him to the correct table. I don't see how this is "unfair" to his opponents, even in a situation where had the deal begun they might have received an automatic average-plus. IMO, these are comparable situations. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 27 22:22:18 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Sep 27 22:27:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <004701c5c365$7a3983b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <4338FA96.7090006@hdw.be> <004701c5c365$7a3983b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <$H8+djA6naODFwAq@asimere.com> In article <004701c5c365$7a3983b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx>, Ton Kooijman writes > >> > >> > +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient >> > before the play period commences he must correct >> > the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn >> > of the deficiency from a player. That is not what Law 14A says. >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >> >> If Grattan is so literal in his reading of L14 then what does he think >> of the kibitzer who sees a player holding only 12 cards? What should >> that person do? it's not even that beveren 1 is new. try this; http://www.asimere.com/~john/BridgeArticles/VBCandHQ.htm One of a number of cameos from a series of articles published in English Bridge, the official organ of the ebu. John >> > >I have another question for Herman: >Why did you make a search for the board with a 12 card pocket? Why not >waiting till the player picks up his cards and calls for you? >And if he doesn't let him play with 12 cards? Not interfering it shall be. > >Oh yes, that kibitzer should shut up. But once he speaks, at the table or >towards the TD, the problem has to be restored. >And the fact that a player doesn't count his cards should lead to a penalty, >to be announced when the TD gently offers him the ace of clubs. And if there >is a possibility that partner has seen that card on the floor, and the >auction has started, you better put it faced up on the table and use L24. > >ton > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 27 22:23:35 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Sep 27 22:28:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c5c368$d348b5e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <004701c5c365$7a3983b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000001c5c368$d348b5e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c5c368$d348b5e0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Ton Kooijman >> > > +=+ If the Director is aware that a hand is deficient >> > > before the play period commences he must correct >> > > the hand. There is no requirement that he should learn >> > > of the deficiency from a player. That is not what Law 14A says. >> > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > >> > >> > If Grattan is so literal in his reading of L14 then what does he think >> > of the kibitzer who sees a player holding only 12 cards? What should >> > that person do? >> > >> >> I have another question for Herman: >> Why did you make a search for the board with a 12 card pocket? Why not >> waiting till the player picks up his cards and calls for you? >> And if he doesn't let him play with 12 cards? Not interfering it shall be. >> >> Oh yes, that kibitzer should shut up. But once he speaks, at the table or >> towards the TD, the problem has to be restored. >> And the fact that a player doesn't count his cards should lead to a >> penalty, >> to be announced when the TD gently offers him the ace of clubs. And if >> there >> is a possibility that partner has seen that card on the floor, and the >> auction has started, you better put it faced up on the table and use L24. >> >> ton > >I'm grateful for seeing some support to my views! I stick with my original point of view. Give him the card, and fine him for failure to count to 13. i agree with the option of facing it. John > >Thanks, Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 27 22:27:50 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Sep 27 22:32:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <000201c5c35d$5ea7b070$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927074056.035eca30@pop.starpower.net> <000201c5c35d$5ea7b070$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000201c5c35d$5ea7b070$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> At 03:51 AM 9/26/05, Herman wrote: >> >> >A player shows me that there's a card lying under a chair - the ace of >> >clubs. The player who points it out is not important to the story. He >> >will play the board that the ace came from later on, but he's bound to >> >realize there's an ace of clubs in that hand, isn't he? >> > >> >I pick up that ace, and look at the board that table is currently >> >playing (board 14). At that precise moment they play the ace of clubs >> >so that's not the incomplete board. >> > snip >And then after a few minutes the following three incidents happen almost >simultaneously: > >1: You are summoned to another table: "Director; I have only twelve cards >and the other three hands have thirteen each!" (Nobody at that table has yet >looked at their cards). > >2: You are summoned to the table where you reinstated the Ace of Clubs: >"Director; there are two aces of clubs in this deal!" > >3: Someone hands you a deuce of spades that was just found on the floor. > >What do you do now? another one from the archive: http://www.asimere.com/~john/BridgeArticles/Brighton97.htm > >This is not imagination; I have experienced events like that; except that I >never assume the card I have found to be the missing card in any board >without double-checking the board, away from the tables. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 27 22:29:33 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Sep 27 22:34:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 4 In-Reply-To: <4338FB7A.5070804@hdw.be> References: <4337AD88.4090707@hdw.be> <6.2.3.4.0.20050926193447.0399e618@mail.comcast.net> <4338FB7A.5070804@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <4338FB7A.5070804@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David makes a common mistake here: > >David J. Grabiner wrote: > >> >> There is no legal play of the remaining cards on which West gets fewer than >> two tricks, and therefore he gets those two; we cannot force a claimer to >> revoke even if we believe that he would have revoked has the hand been >> played >> on. >> > >The laws on claiming are absolutely silent on the word "legal". It is >we, as TD's amongst ourselves, who have decided that illegal plays are >to be considered irrational and therefor not normal. However, I feel >that we should qualify that decision in saying that "illegal" plays >that the player realizes are illegal, are irrational. > >It is (IMO - doesn't everyone agree) completely rational for a player >who has two trumps in his hand, and nothing else, to ruff a club >trick. Therefor it must be considered a normal play, and yes, this >means that we force claimer to revoke. > >I don't believe this interpretation should be in doubt. As the farmer said when asked how to get to trowbridge "I wouldn't have started from here", but since we are here, I have to agree with herman on this one. > >> Even if West had claimed only one trick, he would still get two tricks >> under L71A, >> since the trick could not be lost on any legal play of the remaining >> cards. Thus, >> a fortiori, he must get two tricks when he claims two. >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 27 22:37:38 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 27 22:39:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <43394AA6.3010806@hdw.be> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <002301c5c364$b61c2190$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43394AA6.3010806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927162725.02ee33a0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:35 AM 9/27/05, Herman wrote: >I always come back to some other points. As Director, I may see all >sorts of irregularities (revokes, even insufficient bids), and I don't >believe I should do something about them - even while L82A exists. > >My conclusion is that L82A deals with extra-bridge activities, not >with the playing of the bridge hand itself. > >If a player has miscounted his heart suit and he finesses to a jack >that he should know to be bare, should I correct his error? Herman makes a sensible argument here. But in applying it to the thread case, he appears to be presuming that counting one's cards before bidding is part of "the playing of the bridge hand itself", as opposed to an "extra-bridge activit[y]". IMO it is the latter, and L82A must apply, whether or not we agree with what Herman writes above. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Tue Sep 27 22:57:40 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue Sep 27 22:53:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > +=+ The status and rights of the NPC may be specified > > in a regulation. No general statement can be made. > > don't go washing your hands too soon, Grattan. > In no regulation shall we find that an NPC is allowed to remark to his > player that he has only 12 cards. This way the NPC can get around that > regulation. > I still don't like it. Well, the NPC's name is listed on the entry form. This makes him a contestant, even if he doesn't have cards in his hand, doesn't it? (Admittedly, the word "contestant" doesn't appear in L14, though it does appear various other places for instance under claims. Let me guess, you don't like the idea of the NPC objecting to a claim that his players were about to accept...) I also notice that L9A1 says "Unless prohibited by Law, *any player* may..." A kibitzer is prohibited by law from so doing. A player at another table who overhears an insufficient bid, however, is not aa kibitzer, and appears to be welcome to call attention to the other table's irregularity and summon the director. (Contrast this with L92A, which is limited to ruling made "at his table.") This is hairsplitting of course - but so have been many of the other arguments in this thread. --- Finally, a practical observation. In my club, I use packs of cards with six different back designs. I make sure they are arranged in a cycle (1,7,13... are one colour, 2,8,14 are another colour, etc). This greatly simplifies the task of finding out where a card found on the floor has come from, and greatly reduces the chance of players taking cards out of the wrong board, or mixing a 53rd card into a pack. This practice has additional benefits in a small club with a playing director: you can tell from across the room what board number each table is playing, with no risk of accidentally seeing key cards on a board you haven't played when you are moving boards around the room or checking to see if tables are playing fast enough. Six colours of cards are not necessary for this purpose; four are adequate to ensure each table never has two identical packs present at the same time except for team matches Law 1 in the rubber bridge laws explicitly states that two packs with different backs should be used. I now regard it as a serious error on the director's part to put out two consecutive boards with identical back designs. Heaven forbid he might use a complete set ALL identical! This wasn't mentioned to me in any director's manual or training course, mind you - I had to learn it the hard way, by fixing fouled boards with identical back designs a few times. GRB From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 27 23:04:28 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 27 23:06:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <43394B08.8090101@hdw.be> References: <80ED50DA-2F0D-4B74-AC35-AE52BB72B1A9@rochester.rr.com> <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927083842.03621900@pop.starpower.net> <43394B08.8090101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927164542.02ee2050@pop.starpower.net> At 09:37 AM 9/27/05, Herman wrote: >Sorry Eric, > >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 06:16 PM 9/26/05, Sven wrote: >> >>>A general statement. But it is also an irregularity to continue >>>playing with >>>a deficient hand. A Director's interference to prevent this irregularity >>>will almost certainly interfere with what otherwise would be seen as >>>"normal" play of the cards. >> >>I know that playing with language is what we do here, but I don't see >>how it's possible to stretch the language -- or the laws -- to the >>point where playing out a hand with a 51-card deck becomes "'normal' >>play of the cards". ISTM that if one can restore the 52nd card to >>the deck before the deal starts, it is failing to do so that >>"interfere[s] with what otherwise would be... 'normal' play". >>Has the claims footnote so distorted our usage of the word "normal" >>that we no longer use it to mean anything remotely resembling its >>dictionary definition in any context? > >If a player has Ace and King of Spades in hand, then it is "normal" >for him to lay the ace or the king, but not the ace of clubs. It is >not normal to play a card that one does not possess. In my English, it is not "normal" to play anything at all from a two-card holding in a three-card end position. In my bridge lexicon, it is "irrational" to attempt to play a bridge deal when holding a twelve-card hand. When we evaluate "normal" lines in the course of adjudicating a contested claim, we do not consider what might have happened had one of the players dropped one of his remaining cards on the floor without noticing it as he was tabling his hand, as we would be required to do if there were any way that continuing to play with a card missing in the end game could be considered "normal". Surely it is even less "normal" to bid and play an entire deal with a card missing throughout. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 27 23:14:58 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Sep 27 23:16:50 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL psych policy In-Reply-To: <003f01c5c38b$872ef840$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003f01c5c38b$872ef840$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050927170736.02ee9880@pop.starpower.net> At 01:46 PM 9/27/05, Marvin wrote: >Mike Flader, who writes the column Ruling the Game in the ACBL's >Bridge Bulletin, had a fine series of Ruling the Game articles in the >Daily Bulletins of the Atlanta summer 2005 NABC. > >I have to take exception, however, at what he wrote about psychs: >###### >Frequent or excessive psychs are illegal. If it is reported that a >player has psyched three times in a session, the director should >proceed under the assumption that this is the case. Ouch! That just doesn't parse. "If it is reported that... the director should proceed under the assumption that this is the case"? That says that when someone tells him that a player has psyched three times, he is not to investigate, but must assume that the player making the report is correct. I know the ACBL doesn't like psychs, but I don't think Mr. Flader wrote what he intended to. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 28 01:06:04 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 28 01:09:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <43398D1A.8040803@hdw.be> References: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> <3BEF8CE2-BECF-42BD-9D6C-38FDEFE734DB@rochester.rr.com> <43398D1A.8040803@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The irregularity of starting the auction with a hand that contains > only 12 cards (L7B1). Law 7B1 requires him to count his cards. He did that. It requires him to be sure he has 13. Arguably, he did that too. He's wrong, of course, but does that make it an irregularity? What of the previous player who failed to ensure that the pocket contained 13 cards after he was through playing the hand? Did he not commit an irregularity? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 28 01:10:56 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Sep 28 01:14:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <43398E77.9030701@hdw.be> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> <43398E77.9030701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <309E3DC2-D723-4396-9F6A-991B216652F2@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I really don't care what you think of the argument And that, sir, in a nutshell describes why I have considerably less respect for you than I might. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 28 03:43:11 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Sep 28 03:49:39 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL psych policy References: <003f01c5c38b$872ef840$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927170736.02ee9880@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00a501c5c3cd$fdd16e00$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Eric Landau wrote: < Marv wrote: > > >Mike Flader, who writes the column Ruling the Game in the ACBL's > >Bridge Bulletin, had a fine series of Ruling the Game articles in the > >Daily Bulletins of the Atlanta summer 2005 NABC. > > > >I have to take exception, however, at what he wrote about psychs: > >###### > >Frequent or excessive psychs are illegal. If it is reported that a > >player has psyched three times in a session, the director should > >proceed under the assumption that this is the case. > > Ouch! That just doesn't parse. "If it is reported that... the > director should proceed under the assumption that this is the > case"? That says that when someone tells him that a player has psyched > three times, he is not to investigate, but must assume that the player > making the report is correct. I know the ACBL doesn't like psychs, but > I don't think Mr. Flader wrote what he intended to. Well, he was writing for the benefit of clubs, where most players wish that psyching were illegal. Still, he perhaps forgot what the ACBL's own advice to clubs was, as stated in "Duplicate Decisions." At NABCs there is no psych reporting policy that I know of, although an opponent will almost always call the TD when victimized. From my experience, ACBL TDs handle such instances very well at NABCs, gently explaining to the victim that psychs are part of the game. Of course they look very closely at the hand held by the psycher's partner, but if they see no evidence of an illegal agreement that's the end of it, no recording. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From walt1 at verizon.net Wed Sep 28 05:37:59 2005 From: walt1 at verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed Sep 28 05:41:33 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL psych policy In-Reply-To: <003f01c5c38b$872ef840$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003f01c5c38b$872ef840$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050927233511.0289a2a0@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:46 PM 9/27/2005, Marvin French wrote: >###### >This is not in accordance with the current ACBL publication >"Tournament Decisions, a Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the >Table," which has this to say: >######## >Excessive Psychic Bidding - > >When three or more psychic When three or more psychic initial actions >by members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and >are called to the attention of the Director, the Director should >investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. A >presumption of inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the >players to demonstrate that they were not just horsing around. It is >up to them to show that they happened, this once, to pick up a string >of hands unusually appropriate for psychs. The continued use of >undisciplined psychic bids tends to create partnership understandings >that are implied from partnership experience. > >When the psychic bidder's partner, because of prior usages, has a >better chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is >presumptive evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding >exists, and the result of the board may be adjusted. >####### >That is a much more reasonable and more legal approach for clubs. The >only fault I can find with it is in the last sentence, as there are >some opponents who would never have a chance to catch a psych no >matter how obvious. I would add after "either opponent" a >parenthetical "(assuming they have a reasonable acquaintance with the >game of bridge)". > >Note that three psychs are not *prima facie* evidence of a psych >agreement, as Mike would have it, only that the Director should >investigate that possibility. Marv The ACBL's positions change so much over time ... what is the copyright date on this? Thanks Walt From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Sep 28 07:41:00 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Sep 28 07:47:53 2005 Subject: [blml] ACBL psych policy References: <003f01c5c38b$872ef840$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.0.20050927233511.0289a2a0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <00ba01c5c3ef$44b5eaa0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Walt" > Marvin French wrote: > > >###### > >This is not in accordance with the current ACBL publication > >"Tournament Decisions, a Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the > >Table," which has this to say: I made a mistake here, first time this year. The right title is "Duplicate Decisions...." > > The ACBL's positions change so much over time ... what is the copyright > date on this? I got it off the ACBL website yesterday, so I assume it's current. I don't think the ACBL changes positions very often. The problem is that the positions aren't always explained correctly. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 28 09:20:17 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 28 09:21:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: References: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> <3BEF8CE2-BECF-42BD-9D6C-38FDEFE734DB@rochester.rr.com> <43398D1A.8040803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <433A4431.60008@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The irregularity of starting the auction with a hand that contains >> only 12 cards (L7B1). > > > Law 7B1 requires him to count his cards. He did that. It requires him > to be sure he has 13. Arguably, he did that too. He's wrong, of course, > but does that make it an irregularity? > I would say yes - he must make sure that he has 13 and he hasn't. > What of the previous player who failed to ensure that the pocket > contained 13 cards after he was through playing the hand? Did he not > commit an irregularity? > Yes, she may have done. But I'm not in the habit of penalizing players because of the laws of gravity. Anyway, that has nothing to do with the story of table 1. You penalize your players if you want to, I'll stick to the important things. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 28 09:23:43 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 28 09:24:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: <309E3DC2-D723-4396-9F6A-991B216652F2@rochester.rr.com> References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> <43398E77.9030701@hdw.be> <309E3DC2-D723-4396-9F6A-991B216652F2@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <433A44FF.9040109@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I really don't care what you think of the argument > > > And that, sir, in a nutshell describes why I have considerably less > respect for you than I might. > And that, sir, is your problem. You ask questions like "can you spell straw man" and you call that respect? You quote halves of sentences out of context and you ask for respect? I was putting forward an argument, which you describe as straw man. I have asked you to elaborate but you apparently don't respect me enough to do so. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Sep 28 11:35:10 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Sep 28 11:38:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> <43398E77.9030701@hdw.be><309E3DC2-D723-4396-9F6A-991B216652F2@rochester.rr.com> <433A44FF.9040109@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002301c5c40f$ecfb68a0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > Ed Reppert wrote: > >> >> On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> I really don't care what you think of the argument >> >> >> And that, sir, in a nutshell describes why I have considerably less >> respect for you than I might. >> > > And that, sir, is your problem. > You ask questions like "can you spell straw man" and you call that > respect? > You quote halves of sentences out of context and you ask for respect? > I was putting forward an argument, which you describe as straw man. > I have asked you to elaborate but you apparently don't respect me enough > to do so. > Lets go back to the start!!!! > > Herman says:--- I will cut this story into pieces, because I've had to make a number of decisions, and while I'm confident that they're right, this _is_ blml, and I _am_ Herman, so there are bound to be disagreements. Herman started this thread having made various decisions and was confident that he was right. > > I disagreed with him, but as he was only telling us a story, not asking for our opinions, I didn't profer mine. I would suggest that others do the same. Respect is something that I have learned not to expect. > Anne From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 28 12:13:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 28 12:14:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited Message-ID: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> Forgive me for starting a new thread, but I'd like to summarize. The problem is that of a Director discovering that a player is holding just 12 cards in stead of 13 (or a similar occurence later on in play). There seem to be 3 different points of view: A) Herman's position: The director should not interfere. To do so would disturb the balance. This player is headed for a bad score and the TD should not help him. B) John's position (and others'): The director should give him the 13th card. Penalize the player for failing to count to 13, but correct the mistakes rather than solve them afterwards. C) Grattan's position: L14A tells the Director to add the missing card - the Director has no choice. I have some sympathy for view B. A director should be allowed to choose - does he want to do good for the tournament or does he wish to let mistakes be punished. Maybe even the level of tournament will influence his decision. I have problems with view C however. I know it's what the laws say - if one takes them literally - but is it really the intent of the people that wrote the law. I know Grattan has told us this is how he interprets the law, but is that because he now reads it or because he wrote it that way? I should point out that the way the law is written "if the hand is found to contain 12 cards" has a good reason: it should not matter who finds this - be it the player himself, the other players when a dummy is spread with 12 cards, or any player looking at an opponent's (or even his partner's) cards and discover there are less there. That is why a passive voice is used. But was it the intent of the lawmakers to include everyone - including kibitzers and non-playing-captains? People seem to agree that if a kibitzer tells the table about the irregularity, L14 applies, but the kibitzer has to be dealt with. It is clear that a kibitzer should not say anything here. However, L14 could again be said to apply - the missing card is "found". Only the table does not know it yet. My point must be valid: if L14 applies to the TD, then it also applies to kibitzers. If there is an overriding rule that applies to kibitzers, then can there not also be an overriding rule that applies to TD's? Ed referred to this argument as "straw man". I have invited him to explain, but apparently he does so only when asked respectfully. So I ask respectfully what blml thinks of this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 28 12:56:22 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 28 12:59:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c5c41b$4365bff0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > The problem is that of a Director discovering that a player is holding > just 12 cards in stead of 13 (or a similar occurence later on in play). > > There seem to be 3 different points of view: > > A) Herman's position: The director should not interfere. To do so > would disturb the balance. This player is headed for a bad score and > the TD should not help him. > > B) John's position (and others'): The director should give him the > 13th card. Penalize the player for failing to count to 13, but correct > the mistakes rather than solve them afterwards. > > C) Grattan's position: L14A tells the Director to add the missing card > - the Director has no choice. > > I have some sympathy for view B. A director should be allowed to > choose - does he want to do good for the tournament or does he wish to > let mistakes be punished. Maybe even the level of tournament will > influence his decision. > > I have problems with view C however. I know it's what the laws say - > if one takes them literally - but is it really the intent of the > people that wrote the law. I know Grattan has told us this is how he > interprets the law, but is that because he now reads it or because he > wrote it that way? > > I should point out that the way the law is written "if the hand is > found to contain 12 cards" has a good reason: it should not matter who > finds this - be it the player himself, the other players when a dummy > is spread with 12 cards, or any player looking at an opponent's (or > even his partner's) cards and discover there are less there. That is > why a passive voice is used. But was it the intent of the lawmakers to > include everyone - including kibitzers and non-playing-captains? > > People seem to agree that if a kibitzer tells the table about the > irregularity, L14 applies, but the kibitzer has to be dealt with. > It is clear that a kibitzer should not say anything here. However, L14 > could again be said to apply - the missing card is "found". Only the > table does not know it yet. > > My point must be valid: if L14 applies to the TD, then it also applies > to kibitzers. If there is an overriding rule that applies to > kibitzers, then can there not also be an overriding rule that applies > to TD's? ........... > So I ask respectfully what blml thinks of this. I have indicated so before, I believe I have some authorities' support for my view, and I say it again: There is no law that suggests the Director should search for the board where a found card is missing and I don't believe it is in the interests of the game that he does so. The only exception is if the Director has reason to suspect that the deficient hand is with a board or boards not currently in play in which case he might, or even should inspect that particular board(s) for the possible deficiency. IMO the Director shall take possession of whatever stray card is found and whenever he is summoned to a table because of a deficient hand he shall apply Law 14 to its letter. The problem Herman is discussing occurs because the Director from his own initiative becomes aware of a deficient hand where the holder of that hand apparently is (still) unaware of its deficiency. I do not appreciate the Director actively go looking for irregularities carried out by players; such activity by the Director will frequently create more problems than it solves. (As appears evident from this thread so far). Regards Sven From toddz at att.net Wed Sep 28 13:54:21 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Sep 28 13:57:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> References: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <433A846D.8050504@att.net> (not directly related to this post, but related to the thread...) What are the ethics of a defender who notices dummy is a card short, but waits until dummy has revoked to bring attention to the irregularity? Also, it's unclear to me whether 64B3 applies here or not as the card was not faced on the table eventhough a player knew it should have been. Herman De Wael wrote: > My point must be valid: if L14 applies to the TD, then it also applies > to kibitzers. If there is an overriding rule that applies to kibitzers, 76B > then can there not also be an overriding rule that applies to TD's? 81C6 As far as I understand how things should happen.... A spectator notices a hand short a card and keeps his mouth shut. The director notices a hand short a card and fixes it. The NPC/spectator notices a hand short a card and calls the director anyway. The director again fixes it. The NPC/spectator is dealt with separately. > Ed referred to this argument as "straw man". I have invited him to > explain, but apparently he does so only when asked respectfully. I believe he was referring to something else. It seems you're attributing a poor argument to Grattan which he has not expressed. You say the argument (that you appear to be accusing Grattan of having said) is wrong, so your conclusion is that Grattan is wrong. That is how a straw man argument works. -Todd From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Sep 28 14:18:39 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Sep 28 14:19:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> References: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <433A8A1F.8030700@hdw.be> I might have known, there is a fourth view (as described by Sven in his post) Herman De Wael wrote: > Forgive me for starting a new thread, but I'd like to summarize. > > The problem is that of a Director discovering that a player is holding > just 12 cards in stead of 13 (or a similar occurence later on in play). > > There seem to be 3 different points of view: > > A) Herman's position: The director should not interfere. To do so would > disturb the balance. This player is headed for a bad score and the TD > should not help him. > > B) John's position (and others'): The director should give him the 13th > card. Penalize the player for failing to count to 13, but correct the > mistakes rather than solve them afterwards. > > C) Grattan's position: L14A tells the Director to add the missing card - > the Director has no choice. > D) Sven's position: Directors should avoid at all cost to find out these things for themselves. Sven does not tell us what a director should do when he does discover this card. > I have some sympathy for view B. A director should be allowed to choose > - does he want to do good for the tournament or does he wish to let > mistakes be punished. Maybe even the level of tournament will influence > his decision. > > I have problems with view C however. I know it's what the laws say - if > one takes them literally - but is it really the intent of the people > that wrote the law. I know Grattan has told us this is how he interprets > the law, but is that because he now reads it or because he wrote it that > way? > > I should point out that the way the law is written "if the hand is found > to contain 12 cards" has a good reason: it should not matter who finds > this - be it the player himself, the other players when a dummy is > spread with 12 cards, or any player looking at an opponent's (or even > his partner's) cards and discover there are less there. That is why a > passive voice is used. But was it the intent of the lawmakers to include > everyone - including kibitzers and non-playing-captains? > > People seem to agree that if a kibitzer tells the table about the > irregularity, L14 applies, but the kibitzer has to be dealt with. > It is clear that a kibitzer should not say anything here. However, L14 > could again be said to apply - the missing card is "found". Only the > table does not know it yet. > > My point must be valid: if L14 applies to the TD, then it also applies > to kibitzers. If there is an overriding rule that applies to kibitzers, > then can there not also be an overriding rule that applies to TD's? > > Ed referred to this argument as "straw man". I have invited him to > explain, but apparently he does so only when asked respectfully. > > So I ask respectfully what blml thinks of this. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 28 16:50:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 28 16:53:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433A846D.8050504@att.net> Message-ID: <000801c5c43b$ef88c640$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Todd M. Zimnoch > What are the ethics of a defender who notices dummy is a > card short, but waits until dummy has revoked to bring > attention to the irregularity? No problem; there is no obligation on any player to actually call attention to an irregularity of which they become aware. However it is not acceptable to attempt covering up your own (or your partner's) irregularity by intentionally committing another irregularity, see Law 72B4 > Also, it's unclear to me > whether 64B3 applies here or not as the card was not faced > on the table eventhough a player knew it should have been. You should never stop reading half way through any law! Law 64B: (The penalty for an established revoke does not apply :) 3. if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand. So there is no doubt that L64B3 applies. However, do not overlook Law 64C which can overrule L64B3 etc. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 28 17:09:12 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 28 17:12:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433A8A1F.8030700@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c5c43e$95d248d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > I might have known, there is a fourth view (as described by Sven in > his post) > > Herman De Wael wrote: .......... > D) Sven's position: Directors should avoid at all cost to find out > these things for themselves. Sven does not tell us what a director > should do when he does discover this card. Strange. I thought I made it perfectly clear that in my opinion the Director shall take possession of the found card but take absolutely no action that involves inspecting boards currently in use for the purpose of identifying the deficient hand and repair it. He shall instead wait for being summoned by the players when they discover the deficiency and then take whatever action he finds called for under the relevant law(s). The Director may (and should if convenient and if he suspects an erratic hand) inspect boards currently not in use for the purpose of repairing any error he might discover. Let me add that in the strange case of a Director kibitzing a player and believing that he sees a hand which is one (or more) card(s) short shall even then not intervene on his own initiative. The player may have hidden the "missing" card(s) behind another card in his hand. The manner in which a player holds his cards is his business; it is none of the Director's business. Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 28 21:20:19 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed Sep 28 21:24:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: References: <005201c5c2c0$318f2020$bb493dd4@bschelen> <000001c5c2e0$11776f70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20050927080722.03604900@pop.starpower.net> <433946C7.10704@hdw.be> <3BEF8CE2-BECF-42BD-9D6C-38FDEFE734DB@rochester.rr.com> <43398D1A.8040803@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes >On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The irregularity of starting the auction with a hand that contains >> only 12 cards (L7B1). > >Law 7B1 requires him to count his cards. He did that. It requires him >to be sure he has 13. Arguably, he did that too. He's wrong, of >course, but does that make it an irregularity? > >What of the previous player who failed to ensure that the pocket >contained 13 cards after he was through playing the hand? Did he not >commit an irregularity? I have no problem fining the player who only put 12 cards back in the pocket too (although for some reason we only do so in the ebu if the next player fails to count.) John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 28 23:23:24 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Sep 28 23:39:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> <43398E77.9030701@hdw.be><309E3DC2-D723-4396-9F6A-991B216652F2@rochester.rr.com><433A44FF.9040109@hdw.be> <002301c5c40f$ecfb68a0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000201c5c474$952b23d0$e404e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > > > Herman started this thread having made various > decisions and was confident that he was right. >> >> > I disagreed with him, but as he was only telling > us a story, not asking for our opinions, I didn't > proffer mine. I would suggest that others do the same. > Respect is something that I have learned not to expect. >> > Anne > +=+ I have dug up the original email from HDeW. Can you really say, Anne, that he did not ask for opinions? His message ends: "Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the west player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing wrong. He looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his hand in a beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. What would you do in my position now?" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 28 23:51:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Sep 28 23:54:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c5c476$bdb18540$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst ............. > >What of the previous player who failed to ensure that the pocket > >contained 13 cards after he was through playing the hand? Did he not > >commit an irregularity? > > I have no problem fining the player who only put 12 cards back in the > pocket too (although for some reason we only do so in the ebu if the > next player fails to count.) John In Norway we never penalize the player that allegedly shall have restored a deficient hand to the board without solid evidence that he is the only person that can possibly have caused the hand to become deficient. This calls for evidence that ho third person, whether another player, a kibitzer or a helper can possibly have handled the board and that the missing card can not have been lost by some accident. "I don't believe anybody else can have caused the hand to become deficient" is not considered sufficient evidence! In practice the only times we penalize the previous player(s) is when the Director or one of his assistants has seen those players handling the cards improperly after completing their play (i.e. violating Law 7C). Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 29 09:22:37 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 29 09:23:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <000901c5c43e$95d248d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c5c43e$95d248d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <433B963D.9080909@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>I might have known, there is a fourth view (as described by Sven in >>his post) >> >>Herman De Wael wrote: > > .......... > >>D) Sven's position: Directors should avoid at all cost to find out >>these things for themselves. Sven does not tell us what a director >>should do when he does discover this card. > That should have been worded different: when he does discover a hand of only 12 cards. > > Strange. > > I thought I made it perfectly clear that in my opinion the Director shall > take possession of the found card but take absolutely no action that > involves inspecting boards currently in use for the purpose of identifying > the deficient hand and repair it. He shall instead wait for being summoned > by the players when they discover the deficiency and then take whatever > action he finds called for under the relevant law(s). > > The Director may (and should if convenient and if he suspects an erratic > hand) inspect boards currently not in use for the purpose of repairing any > error he might discover. > > Let me add that in the strange case of a Director kibitzing a player and > believing that he sees a hand which is one (or more) card(s) short shall > even then not intervene on his own initiative. The player may have hidden > the "missing" card(s) behind another card in his hand. The manner in which a > player holds his cards is his business; it is none of the Director's > business. > Actually Sven, your position is exactly like mine. But I did not want to presume this. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 29 10:39:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 29 10:42:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433B963D.9080909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5c4d1$55b5bd70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... [Sven:] > > I thought I made it perfectly clear that in my opinion > > the Director shall take possession of the found card > > but take absolutely no action that involves inspecting > > boards currently in use for the purpose of identifying > > the deficient hand and repair it. He shall instead wait > > for being summoned by the players when they discover > > the deficiency and then take whatever action he finds > > called for under the relevant law(s). > > > > The Director may (and should if convenient and if he > > suspects an erratic hand) inspect boards currently not > > in use for the purpose of repairing any error he might > > discover. > > > > Let me add that in the strange case of a Director kibitzing > > a player and believing that he sees a hand which is one > > (or more) card(s) short shall even then not intervene on > > his own initiative. The player may have hidden the > > "missing" card(s) behind another card in his hand. > > The manner in which a player holds his cards is his > > business; it is none of the Director's business. > > Actually Sven, your position is exactly like mine. But I did > not want to presume this. In that case you probably realize that I disagree with your action as described by you in Beveren 3: > I have just watched a hand being played out with 51 cards, > and those cards have all been put into the pockets. > I now act and put the CA on the table. "what about this one?" Once you took this action you got yourself into trouble, I should have delayed my actions until the play was definitely completed with the result agreed upon and recorded and the board becomes available to me for reconstruction away from the table. Of course in the case of a contested claim (ref Beveren 4) the deficiency is likely to become discovered, at least by the Director when judging the number of tricks to be awarded, and then the Director will follow Laws 14B and 70 to the letter, but in this situation that will give no problem. Sven From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Thu Sep 29 10:39:51 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Thu Sep 29 10:43:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 References: <000101c5c2e7$f0ad4b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c5c2ed$bbe28730$c1e9403e@Mildred> <001901c5c337$3d6d2d70$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <43391934.70001@hdw.be> <002b01c5c366$7e5d6e60$c3a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43394D5A.6080808@hdw.be> <43398E77.9030701@hdw.be><309E3DC2-D723-4396-9F6A-991B216652F2@rochester.rr.com><433A44FF.9040109@hdw.be><002301c5c40f$ecfb68a0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> <000201c5c474$952b23d0$e404e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <001601c5c4d1$5d29b2f0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Right again Grattan!! Sorry I missed the relevance and read that as a rhetoric. I regret that my concern was what trouble I would get into for killing said TD at that point in time. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "The law's made to take care o' raskills." > ~ 'The Mill on the Floss' > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 > > >> >> >> Herman started this thread having made various decisions and was >> confident that he was right. >>> >>> >> I disagreed with him, but as he was only telling us a story, not asking >> for our opinions, I didn't proffer mine. I would suggest that others do >> the same. Respect is something that I have learned not to expect. >>> >> Anne > +=+ I have dug up the original email from HDeW. Can you really say, Anne, > that he did not ask for opinions? His message ends: > "Meanwhile however, the players have taken the board and I watch the west > player counting his hand. He counts 4-4-3-1 and sees nothing wrong. He > looks into his hand and I also take a peep. He arranges his hand in a > beautiful 3-3-3-3 distribution and still notices nothing wrong. > What would you do in my position now?" > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 29 11:12:04 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Sep 29 11:20:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited References: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> <433A846D.8050504@att.net> Message-ID: <002201c5c4d6$734f7600$689a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* The problem with political suicide is that you live to regret it. ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited > > I believe he was referring to something else. > It seems you're attributing a poor argument to > Grattan which he has not expressed. You say > the argument (that you appear to be accusing > Grattan of having said) is wrong, so your > conclusion is that Grattan is wrong. That is > how a straw man argument works. > > -Todd > +=+ Herman likes to tilt at windmills. In this thread he is going on and on with a lot of discussion that ignores the wording of the laws. Whilst I have no doubt that these laws should be more simply and directly expressed, the law on this point is not unclear. Herman has described the action of a Director who does not apply the law and seeks to find some excuse for it in arguing that the law requires 'interpretation'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 29 11:39:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 29 11:40:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <002201c5c4d6$734f7600$689a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> <433A846D.8050504@att.net> <002201c5c4d6$734f7600$689a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <433BB65D.807@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ Herman likes to tilt at windmills. In this > thread he is going on and on with a lot of > discussion that ignores the wording of the laws. > Whilst I have no doubt that these laws should > be more simply and directly expressed, the law > on this point is not unclear. Herman has > described the action of a Director who does > not apply the law and seeks to find some > excuse for it in arguing that the law requires > 'interpretation'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, Can you honestly say that when the WBFLC last looked at the wording of L14 (probably many a lawbook generation ago), they forsaw this problem? Is it not the task of the WBFLC to look at cases that arrive and that were not foreseen? Whilst in the meantime the literal interpretation is probably the best, should not the WBFLC look into these matters? And sorry to be going on and on about this, do you not agree that this interpretation causes troubles when NPCs are going to use this newfound knowledge and call the TD when they see their players with only 12 cards? Do you not agree that this is a loophole that should be plugged - and that this can best be plugged by allowing a director not to count himself as someone who "found" the board to be deficient? I accept that you call my actions in Beveren "sheer incompetence" (well, I don't accept the severity of the remark) but I don't accept that you disregard my concern for this interpretation to have unthought of consequences. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 29 12:35:58 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 29 12:39:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433BB65D.807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5c4e1$94b89e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > And sorry to be going on and on about this, do you not agree that this > interpretation causes troubles when NPCs are going to use this > newfound knowledge and call the TD when they see their players with > only 12 cards? I am not quite sure where you are aiming here, but can we at least agree that there is no difference between NPC calling attention and "ordinary" spectators calling attention to an irregularity? Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Sep 29 13:18:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Sep 29 13:20:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <000101c5c4e1$94b89e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5c4e1$94b89e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <433BCD91.9000806@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>And sorry to be going on and on about this, do you not agree that this >>interpretation causes troubles when NPCs are going to use this >>newfound knowledge and call the TD when they see their players with >>only 12 cards? > > > I am not quite sure where you are aiming here, but can we at least agree > that there is no difference between NPC calling attention and "ordinary" > spectators calling attention to an irregularity? > I quite realize that this is true in legal terms. But in "equity" terms, we are on different ground. A Non-Playing Captain is more than a mere spectator, even when the laws do not distinguish between the two. When I want to show that there is something lacking in the laws, I try to paint a picture of a person doing something we think of as "wrong". A spectator knows he should not say anything, and so does an NPC. But an NPC is sometimes better versed in the laws and when he knows about this (what I call a) loophole, he might start using it. It will be done on purpose, with the intent of gaining something. We may think this is "wrong". If I use the example with an ordinary spectator, the effect will be less clear. OK? > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 29 14:21:26 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Sep 29 14:23:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Speeding up the game? In-Reply-To: <000301c5c089$14215af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050923152822.02a4ea40@pop.starpower.net> <000301c5c089$14215af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20050929075449.02f3f460@pop.starpower.net> At 05:52 PM 9/23/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > Sven has not said so explicitly, but we can assume that declarer's hand > > was, at this point, not known to the opponents. But if declarer's hand > > had been face up on the table for their inspection, would a single word > > of the story be different? > >Contract bridge Law 29.1 as it read at that time began: > >If declarer claims or concedes one or more of the remaining tricks or so >implies by showing his hand or otherwise; he must leave his hand face >up on >the table, and ..... > >Duplicate Bridge had its own set of laws which applied to both Auction and >Contract. These laws essentially concerned the adoption of contract bridge >to duplicate contract bridge. The applicable Duplicate law 41 (a) began: > >If declarer claims the remaining tricks or any number thereof, he must >place >his cards face up on the table and ..... > >I believe that the story would indeed have been different if she had shown >her cards. That would have been considered a claim and she would under >both >laws have been requested to "(must) make a complete statement as to >how she >intends to play the rest of the hand". That misses the point of my post, and takes us off the topic at hand. We were allegedly discussing Peter's proposal for a legal alternative to claiming. Imagine that Peter's proposal had been adopted, and declarer's hand had been placed face up on the table *without* that action having been construed as a claim. Under those circumstances, how would the story have been any different? >Halle's point was the effect of an opponent trying to speed up the game by >improper means or remarks and the possible ethic problems arising from >that. We are talking of the hypothetical situation in which Peter's proposal, or something like it, is legal. Declarer has, in that situation, tried to speed up the game by proper means involving no remarks of any kind regarding the continuing play (notwithstanding that, in practice, our hypothetical procedure might involve declarer stating that he is not claiming). The situation would be one in which everything happened as Halle described, except that declarer's hand was open for the opponents to see. Neither Halle's story, nor his point, would be affected. >I do indeed consider a declarer showing his cards "without claiming" >to take >such an improper action which has no foundation in the laws. And Sven is right. But we are talking about what might happen when a declarer showing his cards without claiming is taking a proper action which has been sanctioned by the laws. >The effect of >such action can very well be that he gains from opponents' reactions like >our female friend did in the story above. I would not allow the party that >initiated such a situation to gain from it, but I have no problem allowing >the other side to gain. In Halle's story, "such action" was an improper remark which, under Peter's proposal, would still be an improper remark, and neither Sven, I, nor, I would assume, anyone else would allow the side which made such a remark to gain from it. > > "Extraneous remarks" have no more to do with the proposed procedure > > than does the Brooklyn Bridge. Like the laws governing claims, the > > laws governing extraneous remarks would apply just as they do now. > > > > If Sven, Herman or anyone else wants to convince us that Peter's > > proposal would somehow make it easier for a declarer to "job" a > > defender, they will need to come up with a scenario in which a defender > > is somehow disadvantaged by nothing more than the simple fact of his > > having seen declarer's remaining cards. > >If declarer shall be permitted to select his line of play after seeing his >opponents' reactions when showing them his cards I shall consider such >exposure of cards an elaborate way of cheating. Under what circumstance, when declarer takes some perfectly proper and legal action, is it inappropriate for him to select his line of play after seeing his opponents' reactions to whatever it is he did? In the situation in which the law explicitly sanctioned Peter's procedure, why would using it be "cheating", any more than would be declarer's selecting his line of play based on his opponents' reactions to anything else that had transpired to that point? We call this "table feel", and it is an intrinsic element of the game of bridge. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 29 19:43:58 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 29 19:47:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433BCD91.9000806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c5c51d$5f8321c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ........... > > > >>And sorry to be going on and on about this, do you not agree that this > >>interpretation causes troubles when NPCs are going to use this > >>newfound knowledge and call the TD when they see their players with > >>only 12 cards? > > > > > > I am not quite sure where you are aiming here, but can we at least agree > > that there is no difference between NPC calling attention and "ordinary" > > spectators calling attention to an irregularity? > > > > I quite realize that this is true in legal terms. > But in "equity" terms, we are on different ground. > A Non-Playing Captain is more than a mere spectator, even when the > laws do not distinguish between the two. > > When I want to show that there is something lacking in the laws, I try > to paint a picture of a person doing something we think of as "wrong". > > A spectator knows he should not say anything, and so does an NPC. > > But an NPC is sometimes better versed in the laws and when he knows > about this (what I call a) loophole, he might start using it. > It will be done on purpose, with the intent of gaining something. > > We may think this is "wrong". > > If I use the example with an ordinary spectator, the effect will be > less clear. > > OK? No sorry, I don't see the difference and I don't see the loophole. The NPC is a spectator like everybody else when he watches a table. And what is even more important: If he watches players from his own team then this team is responsible for his presence at the table in situations where Law 11B can be applicable. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 29 20:00:48 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Sep 29 20:04:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Speeding up the game? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20050929075449.02f3f460@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c5c51f$b9408ac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............ > Under what circumstance, when declarer takes some perfectly proper and > legal action, is it inappropriate for him to select his line of play > after seeing his opponents' reactions to whatever it is he did? In the > situation in which the law explicitly sanctioned Peter's procedure, why > would using it be "cheating", any more than would be declarer's > selecting his line of play based on his opponents' reactions to > anything else that had transpired to that point? We call this "table > feel", and it is an intrinsic element of the game of bridge. I have taken the liberty to strip away the bulk of this post. My example happened about 70 years ago and I tried to show both the effects of an extraneous remark and that declarer at that time could not expose all her cards without being ruled to have claimed. As I have stated a couple of times my opinion is that even today a declarer who shows his cards to one or both defenders in an act that resembles a claim shall be bound by the claim laws on his continued play even if he states that he does not claim (e.g. Peter's procedure). More specifically he shall not be allowed to take any advantage of any defender's reactions from seeing his cards when he specifies the sequence in which he will play his remaining cards. "When it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck even if it says that it is not a duck". Sven From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 29 23:37:11 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu Sep 29 23:41:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Speeding up the game? In-Reply-To: <000301c5c51f$b9408ac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20050929075449.02f3f460@pop.starpower.net> <000301c5c51f$b9408ac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000301c5c51f$b9408ac0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >............ >> Under what circumstance, when declarer takes some perfectly proper and >> legal action, is it inappropriate for him to select his line of play >> after seeing his opponents' reactions to whatever it is he did? In the >> situation in which the law explicitly sanctioned Peter's procedure, why >> would using it be "cheating", any more than would be declarer's >> selecting his line of play based on his opponents' reactions to >> anything else that had transpired to that point? We call this "table >> feel", and it is an intrinsic element of the game of bridge. > >I have taken the liberty to strip away the bulk of this post. > >My example happened about 70 years ago and I tried to show both the effects >of an extraneous remark and that declarer at that time could not expose all >her cards without being ruled to have claimed. > >As I have stated a couple of times my opinion is that even today a declarer >who shows his cards to one or both defenders in an act that resembles a >claim shall be bound by the claim laws on his continued play even if he >states that he does not claim (e.g. Peter's procedure). > >More specifically he shall not be allowed to take any advantage of any >defender's reactions from seeing his cards when he specifies the sequence in >which he will play his remaining cards. we all agree with this bit Sven. I'm content that 72B1 allows me to adjust. However, my take on "shows his hand" is "shows his hand to the table at large", so we're still in disagreement on that point. Jack Marx would have been deemed to have claimed at trick one on every deal he declared otherwise. Unusually for a high stake rubber player he was always showing his hand, albeit not intentionally, and I see no question of intent other than "demonstrably" and if I say I'm not claiming that's demonstrable. cheers John > >"When it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a >duck even if it says that it is not a duck". > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 30 00:19:23 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 30 00:20:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <000201c5c51d$5f8321c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c5c51d$5f8321c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <433C686B.8050304@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > No sorry, I don't see the difference and I don't see the loophole. > > The NPC is a spectator like everybody else when he watches a table. And what > is even more important: If he watches players from his own team then this > team is responsible for his presence at the table in situations where Law > 11B can be applicable. > I'm trying to show to people that the practice is "wrong". I think that if I tell a story by which a kibitzer tells a director that a player has only 12 cards, people would not feel it as "wrong" to have the TD then being forced by law to inform the player that he has miscounted. But if that kibitzer is instead the NPC of that player, people might believe there is less desirability in accepting this practice. Same Law, same application, but different perception of desirability. OK Sven? > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 30 00:45:31 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Sep 30 00:48:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433C686B.8050304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5c547$7f7aeec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > No sorry, I don't see the difference and I don't see the loophole. > > > > The NPC is a spectator like everybody else when he watches a table. > > And what is even more important: If he watches players from his > > own team then this team is responsible for his presence at the > > table in situations where Law 11B can be applicable. > > > > I'm trying to show to people that the practice is "wrong". I think > that if I tell a story by which a kibitzer tells a director that a > player has only 12 cards, people would not feel it as "wrong" to have > the TD then being forced by law to inform the player that he has > miscounted. > But if that kibitzer is instead the NPC of that player, people might > believe there is less desirability in accepting this practice. > > Same Law, same application, but different perception of desirability. > > OK Sven? No, I don't understand why the rules for spectators are wrong or can lead to undesirable practice nor do I see any reason to treat NPC as a different kind of spectator than the ordinary kibitzer. There might be one clarifying detail on spectators as we practice Law 11B in Norway: We consider a participant "responsible" for a spectator at his table if that spectator is a teammate, a club fellow or otherwise particularly associated with that participant. I believe this practice can have some bearing on your distinction between NPC and the ordinary kibitzer? However I doubt that I can have anything more to add to this discussion. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 30 02:41:03 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri Sep 30 02:45:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <433C686B.8050304@hdw.be> References: <000201c5c51d$5f8321c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <433C686B.8050304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8FEedpAfmIPDFwJj@asimere.com> In article <433C686B.8050304@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Sven Pran wrote: >> >> No sorry, I don't see the difference and I don't see the loophole. >> >> The NPC is a spectator like everybody else when he watches a table. And what >> is even more important: If he watches players from his own team then this >> team is responsible for his presence at the table in situations where Law >> 11B can be applicable. >> > >I'm trying to show to people that the practice is "wrong". I think >that if I tell a story by which a kibitzer tells a director that a >player has only 12 cards, people would not feel it as "wrong" to have >the TD then being forced by law to inform the player that he has >miscounted. >But if that kibitzer is instead the NPC of that player, people might >believe there is less desirability in accepting this practice. > >Same Law, same application, but different perception of desirability. I think 11b can be made to apply Herman. I don't think we disagree. That the npc transfers his responsibility through the TD doesn't affect its validity? john > >OK Sven? > > >> Sven >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Sep 30 09:13:35 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Sep 30 09:15:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <8FEedpAfmIPDFwJj@asimere.com> References: <000201c5c51d$5f8321c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <433C686B.8050304@hdw.be> <8FEedpAfmIPDFwJj@asimere.com> Message-ID: <433CE59F.8050002@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <433C686B.8050304@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > > > I think 11b can be made to apply Herman. I don't think we disagree. That > the npc transfers his responsibility through the TD doesn't affect its > validity? john > Yes John, you might be right. But this interpretation of L11B is again a stretch. After all, some people will say the NPC has not "drawn attention" he has only "told the TD". Does the WBFLC agree that this stretch shall be used to plug the loophole? Now just read L11B2 again: "the right to correct an irregularity may be forfeited". But if you apply L14 in the way it apparently should, there is no question of "right". The card has to be added. L11b does not provide any other penalty. (in this way, L11b2 is deficient - what if an NPC draws attention to a not yet established revoke?) So actually, this does not help us at all! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be