From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Oct 2 11:34:42 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun Oct 2 11:39:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: <002301c5c40f$ecfb68a0$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: The ACBL publishes appeals cases and commentary by Rich Colker for all its major events. These are absolutely brilliant imo. Still sometimes you come across something which is shocking. Appeals at the 2002 summer NABC Washington DC "Crimes and Misdemeanors" Case 43 Event 0-1500 Mini Spinggold, 1st Semifinal Board 26 Dealer East Vul all S AT8xx H 9xx D Kx C KJx S 9x \ S Qxx H AQJx \ H KT8xx D A9xx \ D Qxx C Txx \ C Qx S KJx H x D JTxx C A9xxx W N E S P P 1D 1S Dbl 2H** 3H P 3NT All Pass Result: 3NT -6 Facts : 2H was alerted by South to west as a spade raise (ie) Cue bidding the implied heart suit by the double. North did not alert this to east, who took 3H as asking for a heart stop. Apparently the alert chart defines a cue bid as a bid in a suit which an opponent has shown 4 or more cards. These cue bids are not alertable (eg) 1H 1S 2D 2H is not alertable unless 2H is natural. Rich goes on to say ".... it does not matter whether the negative double guarantees four of the other major or only suggests four. In either case advancer's bid of the suit "shown" on his right is a cue-bid (by definition) and is not alertable. " Ok I have major issue with this. 1st off there is a massive difference between "shown"/"proven" and "suggested"/"implied". They are universes apart. If you can show that someone is guilty they go to jail. Implying someone is guilty is not the same or anywhere close. Similarly I still contend that IF stayman guarantees/shows a 4CM for one pair and implies it for the another then the opponents are entitled to this information and 2C should be alerted. If you want to make one the default and alert the other fine ... but one case should be alertable. The opponents are entitled to this information. The negative double does NOT show 4 hearts. It covers tons and tons of hands of which quite a few may contain 4 hearts BUT it does not guarantee 4 hearts. It is perfectly normal to have the 2H bid over the double as natural. You can always bid openers suit as a raise. Rich goes on to give an example ... " ... supose the auction starts on your left 1Nt P 2H (transfer). 2S is clearly a cue bid even though RHO didn't actually bid spades he implied them ..." Utter rubbish. 2H transfer SHOWS 5+ spades conclusively. 1NT 99% of the time SHOWS 2+S's so bidding 2S's here as natural is clearly artifical. 1D doesn't show any hearts. Double does not SHOW any hearts, so 2H's is natural and if it is used as a spade raise it is 300% alertable. Now I understand (or I really hope so) that this is an ACBL rule and not a WBF one ?? If there is ANY thought of including this into the laws, I implore you to reconsider. This is a disaster of a rule and will cause grief and undue stress. Karel From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 3 06:52:26 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Oct 3 06:55:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C31A243-5AAB-4C1D-9AA4-8E37734925E9@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 2, 2005, at 5:34 AM, Karel wrote: > Apparently the alert chart defines a cue bid as a bid in a suit > which an > opponent has shown 4 or more cards. No. From the Alert Procedure: "Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards." Note that the ACBL defines an opening bid in a three card minor suit as natural. > These cue bids are not alertable (eg) > 1H 1S 2D 2H is not alertable unless 2H is natural. The regulation says "Most cuebids are not alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unexpected or unusual meaning is alertable." > The negative double does NOT show 4 hearts. It covers tons and > tons of > hands of which quite a few may contain 4 hearts BUT it does not > guarantee 4 > hearts. "Shows", as you yourself said, is not the same as "guarantees". A negative double, as I understand that call, and as I believe most people play it around here (I'm in the ACBL :-) "shows" 4 hearts on this auction. > It is perfectly normal to have the 2H bid over the double as natural. Not around here. > Utter rubbish. 2H transfer SHOWS 5+ spades conclusively. Says who? I think Mats Nilsland, for one, would disagree. See his "Notrump Bidding the Scanian Way". > 1NT 99% of the time SHOWS 2+S's so bidding 2S's here as natural is > clearly artifical. What? A natural bid is artificial? I think you better reconsider that statement. > 1D doesn't show any hearts. Double does not SHOW any hearts, so > 2H's is > natural and if it is used as a spade raise it is 300% alertable. 1D doesn't deny four hearts in Standard American. The negative double, OTOH, *does* show (but not guarantee, necessarily) 4 hearts, at least the way I've seen it played around here. > Now I understand (or I really hope so) that this is an ACBL rule > and not a > WBF one ?? If there is ANY thought of including this into the laws, I > implore you to reconsider. This is a disaster of a rule and will > cause > grief and undue stress. It is an ACBL regulation. It is not a law. The WBF regulation may or may not be different - I haven't looked. Apparently, you think the ACBL regulation is somehow "wrong". You may be right about that, but your argument doesn't hold water. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 3 10:51:54 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Oct 3 10:58:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited References: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> <433A846D.8050504@att.net><002201c5c4d6$734f7600$689a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <433BB65D.807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002301c5c7f7$fd4abb70$379287d9@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: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited > > 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? > +=+ I do not think the committee has ever foreseen what a muddle Herman De Wael may get himself into by an idiosyncratic application of a law. On the other hand I would say quite confidently that, with all its potential for diverse opinions, the WBFLC would be of a single mind in understanding this law as ton and I have indicated. They would agree with us that there is no problem of the kind you suggest, nor that there is in it anything 'newfound'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Oct 3 11:09:05 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Oct 3 11:14:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: <7C31A243-5AAB-4C1D-9AA4-8E37734925E9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: The regulation says "Most cuebids are not alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unexpected or unusual meaning is alertable." +++ goodness. I know nothing of the ACBL regulations and laws - but erhh is there some list/definition of "very unexpected or unusual meanings". Is there a list of normal meanings ?? So who plays god on this one?? More to the point does your average local ACBL player know and understand this regulation ?? "Shows", as you yourself said, is not the same as "guarantees". A negative double, as I understand that call, and as I believe most people play it around here (I'm in the ACBL :-) "shows" 4 hearts on this auction. +++ Lets just say a pair play this double a tad more flexible. I believe I'm correct in saying the double (infact most doubles) are not alertable in Acbl land. As the meaning now of 2H's is dependent on there being 4 hearts (as per regulation) with RHO one would need to enquire if that is the case, and in so doing so pass ui to pd (no screen). Or worse - with a screen N asks east what the double means - gets an explanation (doesnt show hearts). S "assumes" the default meaning of the double and bids 2H's as a cue raise. N now does what ?? Did S ask or didn't he. If he did then 2H's is Nat. If he didn't its a cue raise. I suppose we get around all this by asking nothing, assuming everything and bidding on oblivious. Well if everyone is happy with that great. Seriously you can't really believe this won't cause problems ?? I just hope the WBF rules/regulation makers see that there is a big problem here and don't include this or anything similar in the wbf rules. On top of this apparently this bid may be self alertable ?? Why and how does this work ?? From an objective point of view a self alertable bid would seem to be necessary to cover a problem or loop hole in a normal alert scenario ?? +++ tbh though - I dont really have any problem with cue of an implied suit via a double as a raise. I would be very surprised though if your grass roots or majority or even minority of the ACBL players are aware of this default understanding. It means that ALL ACBL players need to be familar with this particular sequence and the rule and regulation covering it or else they are at a disadvantage. A case occured to me recently. Playing with screens I was declarer. Rho lead out of turn. Neither of us was particularly awake. We knocked on the screen to have the slot opened. The slot was opened and the lead out of turn exposed. Now it came to light that depending on who opens the screen (dummy or defender) the lead is either a lead out of turn or accepted. No one at the table had ever heard of this rule. So ineffect one side or the other got disadvantaged due to their ignorance of the laws. It would seem that bridge players are soon going to have to go on bridge law courses before they start to play. Laws are there to amend error. They should not give an advantage to those who know them and disadvantage the rest. The original case is about E/W quite possibly being ignorant of the laws on this sequence (just like I would be, having never heard of this regulation), assuming bids were natural (as I would), and bidding in a reasonable fashion depending on what set of information you are working off. They did nothing wrong but got nailed by an apparently standard treatment protected in the laws. E/W got hammered for not asking questions. Why should they, if from their perspective the auction seems reasonable and natural?? Regardless of who is right or wrong, this case indicates there are issues with this regulation and alot of fuzzy ground. Again just my opinion and I'm thankful I'm not subject to it. Karel From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Oct 3 11:46:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Oct 3 11:47:26 2005 Subject: [blml] advantage to people who know the law (was ACBL something) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4340FDDD.2090206@hdw.be> Karel wrote: > > A case occured to me recently. Playing with screens I was declarer. Rho > lead out of turn. Neither of us was particularly awake. We knocked on the > screen to have the slot opened. The slot was opened and the lead out of > turn exposed. Now it came to light that depending on who opens the screen > (dummy or defender) the lead is either a lead out of turn or accepted. No > one at the table had ever heard of this rule. So ineffect one side or the > other got disadvantaged due to their ignorance of the laws. It would seem > that bridge players are soon going to have to go on bridge law courses > before they start to play. Laws are there to amend error. They should not > give an advantage to those who know them and disadvantage the rest. > First of all, there is a remark - these regulations are not world-wide, but should be written for every competition again. Which is something the WBF should do something about. Secondly, a regulation that only looks at who opens the screen, and not also at who knocks on the screen to have it opened, has not much sense. After all, you are at fault too, for having knocked on the screen. Thirdly, if players from both sides do something wrong, then of course the LOOT should be accepted. There is no need for anyone to know the rules about screens, only the rule about who's on lead should suffice for someone to say "no, it's not your turn". So I really don't accept this as an example of a situation in which there exists an advantage to those who know the regulations. As to whether such an advantage should be labelled an "unfair" advantage, that is another question. > > > The original case is about E/W quite possibly being ignorant of the laws on > this sequence (just like I would be, having never heard of this regulation), > assuming bids were natural (as I would), and bidding in a reasonable fashion > depending on what set of information you are working off. They did nothing > wrong but got nailed by an apparently standard treatment protected in the > laws. E/W got hammered for not asking questions. Why should they, if from > their perspective the auction seems reasonable and natural?? Regardless of > who is right or wrong, this case indicates there are issues with this > regulation and alot of fuzzy ground. Again just my opinion and I'm thankful > I'm not subject to it. > > > Karel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 3 11:53:14 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Oct 3 11:54:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Beveren 1 revisited In-Reply-To: <002301c5c7f7$fd4abb70$379287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <433A6CB8.2090408@hdw.be> <433A846D.8050504@att.net><002201c5c4d6$734f7600$689a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <433BB65D.807@hdw.be> <002301c5c7f7$fd4abb70$379287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4340FF8A.1020104@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >>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? >> > > +=+ I do not think the committee has ever foreseen > what a muddle Herman De Wael may get himself > into by an idiosyncratic application of a law. This is unfair. By the time I arrive at the table, I have not yet applied anything, so there is no "idiosyncratic" (whatever that may mean) application of any law. I have arrived at a table, and have "found" that a player is playing with 12 cards. No muddle or anything. > On the > other hand I would say quite confidently that, with > all its potential for diverse opinions, the WBFLC > would be of a single mind in understanding this > law as ton and I have indicated. They would agree > with us that there is no problem of the kind you > suggest, nor that there is in it anything 'newfound'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > You are quite confident that all your members would be of a single mind? Great confidence, Grattan! I shall ask this question of a number of qualified TD's. (there are a lot of them in Belgium that don't read blml) I shall then ask then to read the lawbook too. I shall let you know whether this interpretation seems "natural" to them. It does not seem "natural" to me. I would ask for the law to be re-written, since I am not happy with this way of ruling. I don't like to interfere. I am usually quite content with the ways the laws deal with several issues. But not this one. In the meantime, I shall adopt Sven's attitude, and not go looking for the proprietor of the 13th card, lest I should find it and have to interfere. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Oct 3 14:36:44 2005 From: gordon at gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon Oct 3 14:40:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2 Oct 2005, at 10:34, Karel wrote: > The negative double does NOT show 4 hearts. It covers tons and tons of > hands of which quite a few may contain 4 hearts BUT it does not > guarantee 4 > hearts. That depends whose bidding is being discussed. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 3 15:44:54 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Oct 3 15:48:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? Message-ID: <000401c5c820$a3004620$6400a8c0@WINXP> The following problem situation was described on rgb: Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a different denomination. LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of course a violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but not everywhere. However for the situation in question this does not matter. Either RHO confirms that he is void or he doesn't say anything at all. In my opinion this particular detail is unimportant for the case. Declarer plays a card to the trick and then RHO announces that he has revoked. Within ACBL the revoke is not established, but regardless of jurisdiction the revoke must be corrected. (Either Law 62A or Law 63B) The question is now if LHO by asking his question "drew attention to the revoke" with the consequence that Declarer is forbidden to withdraw the card he played to that trick? (Law 62C1) The alternative is of course that "attention to the revoke" (if there was one) is not "drawn" until RHO announces that he has indeed revoked, in which case Declarer is free to withdraw any card he played to the trick because this card was played before RHO confirmed that he had revoked. Those who follow rgb already know my position; I am referring the case here for unbiased opinions. Authoritative comments are particularly welcome! Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Oct 3 16:10:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Oct 3 16:11:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <000401c5c820$a3004620$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c5c820$a3004620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43413BDC.90309@hdw.be> This is just plain silly. If need be, then attention has been drawn to the revoke when revoker admitted he had revoked, not earlier. Of course declarer may change his card! Besides - L47D allows declarer to change, since the (non-established) revoke will also be a changed card! WTP? Sven Pran wrote: > The following problem situation was described on rgb: > > Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a different > denomination. > > LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of course a > violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but not everywhere. However > for the situation in question this does not matter. > > Either RHO confirms that he is void or he doesn't say anything at all. In my > opinion this particular detail is unimportant for the case. > > Declarer plays a card to the trick and then RHO announces that he has > revoked. Within ACBL the revoke is not established, but regardless of > jurisdiction the revoke must be corrected. (Either Law 62A or Law 63B) > > The question is now if LHO by asking his question "drew attention to the > revoke" with the consequence that Declarer is forbidden to withdraw the card > he played to that trick? (Law 62C1) > > The alternative is of course that "attention to the revoke" (if there was > one) is not "drawn" until RHO announces that he has indeed revoked, in which > case Declarer is free to withdraw any card he played to the trick because > this card was played before RHO confirmed that he had revoked. > > Those who follow rgb already know my position; I am referring the case here > for unbiased opinions. Authoritative comments are particularly welcome! > > 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 Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Mon Oct 3 16:36:39 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon Oct 3 16:40:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6523@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 15:45 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? > > The following problem situation was described on rgb: > > Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a > different denomination. > > LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of > course a violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but > not everywhere. However for the situation in question this > does not matter. If I recall correctly, it is NOT a violation in ACBL-land. > > Either RHO confirms that he is void or he doesn't say > anything at all. In my opinion this particular detail is > unimportant for the case. > > Declarer plays a card to the trick and then RHO announces > that he has revoked. Within ACBL the revoke is not > established, but regardless of jurisdiction the revoke must > be corrected. (Either Law 62A or Law 63B) > > The question is now if LHO by asking his question "drew > attention to the revoke" with the consequence that Declarer > is forbidden to withdraw the card he played to that trick? (Law 62C1) I would say no; attention to the revoke is drawn by the revoker, who discovered that he revoked. After all, LHO normally does not know whether there has been a revoke. > > The alternative is of course that "attention to the revoke" > (if there was > one) is not "drawn" until RHO announces that he has indeed > revoked, in which case Declarer is free to withdraw any card > he played to the trick because this card was played before > RHO confirmed that he had revoked. That would be my opinion as well. If it were not, in ACBL-land I would always ask partner whether he revoked if he didn't follow, for the sole purpose of freezing any card declarer plays. That cannot be the meaning of the Laws. (of course, in Europe, where I live, this would be too costly due to the penalty tricks :) ) > > Those who follow rgb already know my position; I am referring > the case here for unbiased opinions. Authoritative comments > are particularly welcome! > > Regards Sven Regards -- Martin Sinot From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 3 16:44:54 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Oct 3 16:48:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <43413BDC.90309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c5c829$0629bc60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > This is just plain silly. > If need be, then attention has been drawn to the revoke when revoker > admitted he had revoked, not earlier. Of course declarer may change > his card! > Besides - L47D allows declarer to change, since the (non-established) > revoke will also be a changed card! > WTP? Simply that Law 62C1 includes an absolute condition for non-offending side to be allowed withdrawing a played card that the card had already been played at the moment attention was drawn to the revoke. This condition cannot be overridden by Law 47D because if that should be the case then the condition in Law 62C1 would ALWAYS be overridden! Now consider a slightly different situation: Dealer (your LHO) opens the auction with 1S and your partner bids 1H (verbally!) You ask your partner: "Did you bid 1H partner?" Is asking this question "drawing attention" to the insufficient bid? Back to square one. Sven > Sven Pran wrote: > > > The following problem situation was described on rgb: > > > > Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a different > > denomination. > > > > LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of course a > > violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but not everywhere. > However > > for the situation in question this does not matter. > > > > Either RHO confirms that he is void or he doesn't say anything at all. > In my > > opinion this particular detail is unimportant for the case. > > > > Declarer plays a card to the trick and then RHO announces that he has > > revoked. Within ACBL the revoke is not established, but regardless of > > jurisdiction the revoke must be corrected. (Either Law 62A or Law 63B) > > > > The question is now if LHO by asking his question "drew attention to the > > revoke" with the consequence that Declarer is forbidden to withdraw the > card > > he played to that trick? (Law 62C1) > > > > The alternative is of course that "attention to the revoke" (if there > was > > one) is not "drawn" until RHO announces that he has indeed revoked, in > which > > case Declarer is free to withdraw any card he played to the trick > because > > this card was played before RHO confirmed that he had revoked. > > > > Those who follow rgb already know my position; I am referring the case > here > > for unbiased opinions. Authoritative comments are particularly welcome! > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Oct 3 16:59:41 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Oct 3 17:05:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510031459.j93ExfSR021550@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Karel writes: > > > The regulation says "Most cuebids are not alertable. However, any > cuebid which conveys a very unexpected or unusual meaning is alertable." > > +++ goodness. I know nothing of the ACBL regulations and laws - but erhh > is there some list/definition of "very unexpected or unusual meanings". Nope. The intent I believe is to make alerts convey maximum possible signal (at the inevitable cost of increased complexity/controversy) by making the alert rules in effect customized to location. > Is > there a list of normal meanings ?? So who plays god on this one?? Director and possibly the AC. Who else. > More to > the point does your average local ACBL player know and understand this > regulation ?? Know the regulation? Probably not. But "When in doubt, alert" is advice widely given and frankly covers the intent. From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 3 17:21:17 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Oct 3 17:25:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <43413BDC.90309@hdw.be> References: <000401c5c820$a3004620$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43413BDC.90309@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <43413BDC.90309@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >This is just plain silly. >If need be, then attention has been drawn to the revoke when revoker >admitted he had revoked, not earlier. Of course declarer may change >his card! >Besides - L47D allows declarer to change, since the (non-established) >revoke will also be a changed card! >WTP? agree with herman. John > >Sven Pran wrote: > >> The following problem situation was described on rgb: >> >> Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a different >> denomination. >> >> LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of course a >> violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but not everywhere. However >> for the situation in question this does not matter. >> snip -- 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 Mon Oct 3 17:35:19 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Oct 3 17:38:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? References: <200510031459.j93ExfSR021550@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: And here is another case of where semantics and interpretation of words has created a controversy. The original intent of the ACBL was that "naming a suit that has been previously named by an opponent" (my words) was self alerting. So if the word "Hearts" was previously used by my opponent(s), then my using the word "Hearts" was considered sufficiently unusual to not need the warning of an alert. It was not meant that other calls which showed/implied/guaranteed hearts were not to be alerts. But, the administrators and players promptly grabbed on to the idea of "cue" bid and extended it to inferential, etc. meanings, forgetting that all pigs are animals but all animals are not pigs. This gave the bridge lawyers a great time in promptly getting away with not alerting their opponents. "Why, I showed hearts when I doubled/redoubled/bid NT/skipped in suit/you name it, so I don't HAVE TO alert." Then , and now, came the "very unexpected or unusual meaning is alertable" which covers the waterpront, rather than a clarification of the original intent. Having attended numerous meetings on this subject at the time I came away with the clear indication that word games were a lot more fun, showed a great command of language, impressed the average and below average players with the great erudition they demonstrated -- and not that we really wanted to fix a simple problem. Sort of sounds like what happens daily on certain (naming names not needed, is it?) BLML postings. Best regards, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? > Karel writes: > > > > > > The regulation says "Most cuebids are not alertable. However, any > > cuebid which conveys a very unexpected or unusual meaning is alertable." > > > > +++ goodness. I know nothing of the ACBL regulations and laws - but > > erhh > > is there some list/definition of "very unexpected or unusual meanings". > > Nope. The intent I believe is to make alerts convey maximum possible > signal (at the inevitable cost of increased complexity/controversy) > by making the alert rules in effect customized to location. > > > Is > > there a list of normal meanings ?? So who plays god on this one?? > > Director and possibly the AC. Who else. > > > More to > > the point does your average local ACBL player know and understand this > > regulation ?? > > Know the regulation? Probably not. But "When in doubt, alert" is > advice widely given and frankly covers the intent. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Oct 3 17:39:17 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Oct 3 17:40:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <000601c5c829$0629bc60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c5c829$0629bc60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <434150A5.4080602@hdw.be> OK Sven, I'll bite. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>This is just plain silly. >>If need be, then attention has been drawn to the revoke when revoker >>admitted he had revoked, not earlier. Of course declarer may change >>his card! >>Besides - L47D allows declarer to change, since the (non-established) >>revoke will also be a changed card! >>WTP? > > > Simply that Law 62C1 includes an absolute condition for non-offending side > to be allowed withdrawing a played card that the card had already been > played at the moment attention was drawn to the revoke. This condition > cannot be overridden by Law 47D because if that should be the case then the > condition in Law 62C1 would ALWAYS be overridden! > OK, so we have: 1) a revoke (not yet known it's a revoke of course) 2) a statement drawing attention to the revoke 3) a played card by an opponent of the revoke it seems clear that L62C1 does not apply 4) a director call 5) director establishes the revoke is not established 6) card is changed 7) is there any reason why 47D does not apply? 47D points to 62C2, but that seems to be for the fourth card. The fourth card, if second hand has revoked, may only be retracted if the 3rd is as well, and L62C2, in addition, tells us that this card becomes a penalty card. It does seem as if L61C serves no purpose. Which does not mean that it should disappear - this is where we're going to look for it. > Now consider a slightly different situation: Dealer (your LHO) opens the > auction with 1S and your partner bids 1H (verbally!) > > You ask your partner: "Did you bid 1H partner?" > > Is asking this question "drawing attention" to the insufficient bid? > No it's not. It's asking for a repeat. Of course if the intonation is added, this intonation might be the "drawing attention". > Back to square one. > > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 3 11:11:17 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Oct 3 17:43:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? References: <7C31A243-5AAB-4C1D-9AA4-8E37734925E9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c5c830$9b5806f0$33c687d9@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: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? > > Note that the ACBL defines an opening bid in a > three card minor suit as natural. > +=+ The Law Book defines a bid showing three or more cards in a suit as not conventional. The suit may be a minor or a major. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 3 17:38:25 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Oct 3 17:44:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? References: <7C31A243-5AAB-4C1D-9AA4-8E37734925E9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001301c5c830$9c630e50$33c687d9@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: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? > > It is an ACBL regulation. It is not a law. The WBF > regulation may or may not be different - I haven't > looked. > +=+ WBF regulations do not contain any definition of "cue bid". It is general bridge knowledge, I believe, that a bid in a suit opponent is known to hold is likely not to be natural. The requirement in WBF tournaments for players to protect their own backs to a reasonable extent would allow that such a bid, if not alerted and showing no more than possession of a hand asking partner to bid and not specifying weakness, would not be held to damage opponent. If the cue specified a weak hand or if it conveyed specific information about suit holding(s) an alert would be called for (and there should be information on the CC). Any cue bid that shows a strong hand is exempted from classification as brown sticker; any other cue bid is brown sticker if it does not guarantee at least four cards in a specified suit unless it is a defence to a strong artificial opening bid, a BS or a HUM convention. ['Strong' - a K or more above average strength - one assumes "shows a full opening bid" would satisfy this in the case of a cue bid, although I am unsure whether this has been confirmed anywhere]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Mon Oct 3 17:54:19 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Oct 3 17:57:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? References: <7C31A243-5AAB-4C1D-9AA4-8E37734925E9@rochester.rr.com> <001301c5c830$9c630e50$33c687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan and my postings crossed in time. The only thing I would add to Grattan's declarations is to again remind everyone that WBF rules apply only to WBF tournaments. The level of play at these invitational tournaments fully justifies their rules. When rules are written for ACBL which supposedly cover a much wider range and mix of player expertise the water gets a lot muddier when we use words such as "unusual" "very" and "unexpected". It's a different situation when Meckwell sits down against Zia and Rosenberg than when Meckwell sits down against an inexperienced low level pair. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? > > 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: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:52 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? > > > > > > It is an ACBL regulation. It is not a law. The WBF > > regulation may or may not be different - I haven't > > looked. > > > +=+ WBF regulations do not contain any definition of > "cue bid". It is general bridge knowledge, I believe, that > a bid in a suit opponent is known to hold is likely not to > be natural. The requirement in WBF tournaments for > players to protect their own backs to a reasonable > extent would allow that such a bid, if not alerted and > showing no more than possession of a hand asking > partner to bid and not specifying weakness, would not > be held to damage opponent. If the cue specified a weak > hand or if it conveyed specific information about suit > holding(s) an alert would be called for (and there should > be information on the CC). > Any cue bid that shows a strong hand is exempted > from classification as brown sticker; any other cue bid > is brown sticker if it does not guarantee at least four cards > in a specified suit unless it is a defence to a strong artificial > opening bid, a BS or a HUM convention. ['Strong' - a K > or more above average strength - one assumes "shows a > full opening bid" would satisfy this in the case of a cue bid, > although I am unsure whether this has been confirmed > anywhere]. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 4 00:13:09 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Oct 4 00:17:00 2005 Subject: [blml] advantage to people who know the law (was ACBL something) References: <4340FDDD.2090206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001501c5c867$cd5c6ba0$a6d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:46 AM Subject: [blml] advantage to people who know the law (was ACBL something) > > First of all, there is a remark - these regulations are not > world-wide, but should be written for every competition > again. Which is something the WBF should do something > about. > > Secondly, a regulation that only looks at who opens the > screen, and not also at who knocks on the screen to have > it opened, has not much sense. After all, you are at fault > too, for having knocked on the screen. > +=+ In a matter of regulation the WBF can only seek to lead by example. The WBFLC did encourage Bill Schoder in his desire to prepare a revised set of screen regulations. I believe his draft was forwarded for consideration by the Rules and Regulations Committee. I think the seed is still there, somewhere, in the ground - but as to germination I have heard no more. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 4 00:09:00 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Oct 4 00:24:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Season's greetings [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Voltaire (1694 - 1778): Si nous ne trouvons pas des choses agreables, nous trouverons du moins des choses nouvelles. [If we do not find anything pleasant, at least we shall find something new.] * * * Yes, I know it is more than two months to Christmas, but local supermarkets are _already_ selling Christmas stockings. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training and Staff Development Section 02 6264 2226 From emu at fwi.net.au Tue Oct 4 14:09:20 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Tue Oct 4 14:12:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c5c8dc$79a9ab10$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> >Grattan and my postings crossed in time. The only thing I would add to >Grattan's declarations is to again remind everyone that WBF rules apply only >to WBF tournaments. The level of play at these invitational tournaments >fully justifies their rules. When rules are written for ACBL which >supposedly cover a much wider range and mix of player expertise the water >gets a lot muddier when we use words such as "unusual" "very" and "unexpected". It's a different situation when Meckwell >>sits down against >Zia and Rosenberg than when Meckwell sits down against an inexperienced low >level pair. >Kojak I actually think that Australia has got this one nailed. A bid of the opponents bid is a cue bid no matter what it meant: ----- 2.3 Cue bids For the purposes of these Regulations, a cue bid of opponent?s suit is defined as a bid of any denomination bid by the opponent or of a suit shown by the opponent?s bid. Example: If an opponent opens 1? showing spades, then 1? and 2? are both cue bids. Similarly a 2NT overcall of 1NT is also a cue bid. 2.4 Self-alerting calls There are four different types of self-alerting calls, viz. ?doubles ?redoubles ?cue bids of an opponent?s denomination/suit, and ?all calls at the four level or higher. These calls carry their own alert and should not be alerted. It may be risky to make assumptions as to the meaning of such a call. You are entitled (at your turn to call) to ask for your own protection, but bear in mind that unnecessary questions may be more helpful to the opponents than to your own side, and may convey unauthorised information thereby limiting partner?s options. ------- Simple, easy to understand, non-arguable [except maybe on BLML ;-)] regards, Noel From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Oct 4 20:12:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Oct 5 09:27:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <000401c5c820$a3004620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > The following problem situation was described on rgb: > > Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a different > denomination. > > LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of course a > violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but not everywhere. > However for the situation in question this does not matter. Definitely NOT a violation in the ACBL. Certainly in ridiculous Europe (in a sensible world the enquiry should be treated as UI and the revoke corrected without penalty). > Either RHO confirms that he is void or he doesn't say anything at all. > In my opinion this particular detail is unimportant for the case. It's quite important. Declarer should wait for the possible revoker to "act" or in some way to show assent/dissent. Although if I deem his play was already "in motion" when the enquiry was made then I deem the play was before the enquiry. > Declarer plays a card to the trick and then RHO announces that he has > revoked. Within ACBL the revoke is not established, but regardless of > jurisdiction the revoke must be corrected. (Either Law 62A or Law 63B) > > The question is now if LHO by asking his question "drew attention to the > revoke" with the consequence that Declarer is forbidden to withdraw the > card he played to that trick? (Law 62C1) And (assuming defender confirmed the void) the answer is "Which Revoke?". There were *two* revokes on the same trick. The first (to which attention was drawn) was when defender failed to follow suit. Attention was, clearly, drawn to this revoke. That created a requirement for the revoke to be corrected by a legal play. The second revoke was the failure to "correct" (L61A ..or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, constitutes a revoke..). Attention was drawn to the *second* revoke after declarer had played - WTP? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Oct 4 20:12:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Oct 5 09:27:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: <000a01c5c8dc$79a9ab10$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel wrote: > There are four different types of self-alerting calls, viz. > •doubles > •redoubles > •cue bids of an opponent’s denomination/suit, and > •all calls at the four level or higher. > Simple, easy to understand, non-arguable [except maybe on BLML ;-)] So just to check: The auction is (1C)-1S-(X)-2H a) Opps play SAYC so the double promises 4H and 2H is a cue and not alertable. b) Opps play negative doubles and have not "promised" 4H (double includes a number of strong hands with a possible H doubleton). 2H is *not* a cue -bid and must be alerted if artificial. c) Opps play "negative doubles" but no further agreement - 2H is...? Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 5 12:04:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Oct 5 12:07:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c5c994$1f2d6a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? > > > The following problem situation was described on rgb: > > > > Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a different > > denomination. > > > > LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of course a > > violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but not everywhere. > > However for the situation in question this does not matter. > > Definitely NOT a violation in the ACBL. Certainly in ridiculous Europe > (in a sensible world the enquiry should be treated as UI and the revoke > corrected without penalty). This was a typo of which I became aware immediately after pressing "send". As I trusted most readers to know that the correct phrase should have been: "This is of course a violation of Law 61B in some zones but not everywhere (e.g.ACBL)" and also rather irrelevant for the base question I didn't bother to send another message. > > Either RHO confirms that he is void or he doesn't say anything at all. > > In my opinion this particular detail is unimportant for the case. > > It's quite important. Declarer should wait for the possible revoker to > "act" or in some way to show assent/dissent. Although if I deem his play > was already "in motion" when the enquiry was made then I deem the play was > before the enquiry. > > > Declarer plays a card to the trick and then RHO announces that he has > > revoked. Within ACBL the revoke is not established, but regardless of > > jurisdiction the revoke must be corrected. (Either Law 62A or Law 63B) > > > > The question is now if LHO by asking his question "drew attention to the > > revoke" with the consequence that Declarer is forbidden to withdraw the > > card he played to that trick? (Law 62C1) > > And (assuming defender confirmed the void) the answer is "Which Revoke?". > There were *two* revokes on the same trick. The first (to which attention > was drawn) was when defender failed to follow suit. Attention was, > clearly, drawn to this revoke. That created a requirement for the revoke > to be corrected by a legal play. The second revoke was the failure to > "correct" (L61A ..or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or > specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, constitutes > a revoke..). Attention was drawn to the *second* revoke after declarer had > played - WTP? > > Tim This is an interesting view which indeed has some merits. My first reaction was "splitting hairs", but maybe it is the best approach. However, even this approach leaves us with the problem: Law 62C1 doesn't say anything about "a split second" or "one minute" after attention was drawn and it does not say anything about a play being "in motion", so if we shall understand Law 62C1 that the question draws attention to the revoke then this law literally forbids Declarer to withdraw a card he has played a split second after the question was asked (even if that play "was in motion" before the question was asked) if the revoke is confirmed at this time. I refuse to accept that this has been the intention of Law 62C1. In the actual case Declarer was in the motion of playing his card when the question was asked, thus technically the play was made (a split second) after the question, and the answer to the question (that the player had indeed revoked) came after that again. There has been an argument that Law 47D should override law 62C1 and allow Declarer to withdraw any card he has played to the revoke trick before the revoke is corrected even if it was played after attention was drawn to the revoke. If this should be the case what is then the purpose of Law 62C1? We have one final possibility which I begin to assume is the "real" law: Law 47D applies in any case after an opponent has changed his play regardless of the situation. Law 62C1 applies *only* when a revoke is NOT corrected by the offender! (?) This will make sense (even to me), but in that case I think that Law 62C is misplaced and should instead have been a Law 63D. Law 62 deals with situations when a revoke is corrected, Law 63 deals with established revokes. Incidentally I have a feeling that Law 63B had better been positioned somewhere under Law 62 because as it reads now it clearly implies that a defender's violation of Law 61B does NOT establish a revoke although the revoke is penalized "as if it (the revoke) had been established". Is this a case for Grattan's notebook? Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 5 13:54:45 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Oct 5 13:56:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <000301c5c994$1f2d6a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c5c994$1f2d6a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051005074243.02ed4c00@pop.starpower.net> At 06:04 AM 10/5/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? > > > > > The following problem situation was described on rgb: > > > > > > Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a different > > > denomination. > > > > > > LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of course a > > > violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but not everywhere. > > > However for the situation in question this does not matter. > > > > Definitely NOT a violation in the ACBL. Certainly in ridiculous Europe > > (in a sensible world the enquiry should be treated as UI and the revoke > > corrected without penalty). > >This was a typo of which I became aware immediately after pressing "send". >As I trusted most readers to know that the correct phrase should have >been: >"This is of course a violation of Law 61B in some zones but not everywhere >(e.g.ACBL)" and also rather irrelevant for the base question I didn't >bother >to send another message. > > > > Either RHO confirms that he is void or he doesn't say anything at > all. > > > In my opinion this particular detail is unimportant for the case. > > > > It's quite important. Declarer should wait for the possible revoker to > > "act" or in some way to show assent/dissent. Although if I deem > his play > > was already "in motion" when the enquiry was made then I deem the > play was > > before the enquiry. > > > > > Declarer plays a card to the trick and then RHO announces that he has > > > revoked. Within ACBL the revoke is not established, but regardless of > > > jurisdiction the revoke must be corrected. (Either Law 62A or Law > 63B) > > > > > > The question is now if LHO by asking his question "drew attention > to the > > > revoke" with the consequence that Declarer is forbidden to > withdraw the > > > card he played to that trick? (Law 62C1) > > > > And (assuming defender confirmed the void) the answer is "Which > Revoke?". > > There were *two* revokes on the same trick. The first (to which > attention > > was drawn) was when defender failed to follow suit. Attention was, > > clearly, drawn to this revoke. That created a requirement for the > revoke > > to be corrected by a legal play. The second revoke was the failure to > > "correct" (L61A ..or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or > > specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, > constitutes > > a revoke..). Attention was drawn to the *second* revoke after > declarer had > > played - WTP? > > > > Tim > >This is an interesting view which indeed has some merits. My first >reaction >was "splitting hairs", but maybe it is the best approach. However, >even this >approach leaves us with the problem: > >Law 62C1 doesn't say anything about "a split second" or "one minute" after >attention was drawn and it does not say anything about a play being "in >motion", so if we shall understand Law 62C1 that the question draws >attention to the revoke then this law literally forbids Declarer to >withdraw >a card he has played a split second after the question was asked (even if >that play "was in motion" before the question was asked) if the revoke is >confirmed at this time. > >I refuse to accept that this has been the intention of Law 62C1. > >In the actual case Declarer was in the motion of playing his card when the >question was asked, thus technically the play was made (a split second) >after the question, and the answer to the question (that the player had >indeed revoked) came after that again. > >There has been an argument that Law 47D should override law 62C1 and allow >Declarer to withdraw any card he has played to the revoke trick before the >revoke is corrected even if it was played after attention was drawn to the >revoke. If this should be the case what is then the purpose of Law 62C1? > >We have one final possibility which I begin to assume is the "real" law: > >Law 47D applies in any case after an opponent has changed his play >regardless of the situation. > >Law 62C1 applies *only* when a revoke is NOT corrected by the >offender! (?) > >This will make sense (even to me), but in that case I think that Law >62C is >misplaced and should instead have been a Law 63D. > >Law 62 deals with situations when a revoke is corrected, Law 63 deals with >established revokes. > >Incidentally I have a feeling that Law 63B had better been positioned >somewhere under Law 62 because as it reads now it clearly implies that a >defender's violation of Law 61B does NOT establish a revoke although the >revoke is penalized "as if it (the revoke) had been established". > >Is this a case for Grattan's notebook? I think we need to distinguish between a failure to follow suit and a revoke; they are obviously not the same thing. "No spades, partner?" calls attention to a failure to follow, but does not call attention to a revoke -- after all, there usually wasn't one. If we simply accept that "before attention was drawn to it" in L61C1 means before the revoker acknowledged it, doesn't the problem disappear? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Wed Oct 5 13:57:18 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Oct 5 14:00:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? References: <000301c5c994$1f2d6a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20051005074243.02ed4c00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: OK -- if you obviously meant Law 62C1. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 7:54 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? > At 06:04 AM 10/5/05, Sven wrote: > > > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? > > > > > > > The following problem situation was described on rgb: > > > > > > > > Declarer leads a card from Dummy and RHO plays a card in a different > > > > denomination. > > > > > > > > LHO asks "Void partner?" or words to that effect. This is of course > > > > a > > > > violation of Law 61B in some zones (e.g.ACBL) but not everywhere. > > > > However for the situation in question this does not matter. > > > > > > Definitely NOT a violation in the ACBL. Certainly in ridiculous > > > Europe > > > (in a sensible world the enquiry should be treated as UI and the > > > revoke > > > corrected without penalty). > > > >This was a typo of which I became aware immediately after pressing > >"send". > >As I trusted most readers to know that the correct phrase should have > >been: > >"This is of course a violation of Law 61B in some zones but not > >everywhere > >(e.g.ACBL)" and also rather irrelevant for the base question I didn't > >bother > >to send another message. > > > > > > Either RHO confirms that he is void or he doesn't say anything at > > all. > > > > In my opinion this particular detail is unimportant for the case. > > > > > > It's quite important. Declarer should wait for the possible revoker > > > to > > > "act" or in some way to show assent/dissent. Although if I deem > > his play > > > was already "in motion" when the enquiry was made then I deem the > > play was > > > before the enquiry. > > > > > > > Declarer plays a card to the trick and then RHO announces that he > > > > has > > > > revoked. Within ACBL the revoke is not established, but regardless > > > > of > > > > jurisdiction the revoke must be corrected. (Either Law 62A or Law > > 63B) > > > > > > > > The question is now if LHO by asking his question "drew attention > > to the > > > > revoke" with the consequence that Declarer is forbidden to > > withdraw the > > > > card he played to that trick? (Law 62C1) > > > > > > And (assuming defender confirmed the void) the answer is "Which > > Revoke?". > > > There were *two* revokes on the same trick. The first (to which > > attention > > > was drawn) was when defender failed to follow suit. Attention was, > > > clearly, drawn to this revoke. That created a requirement for the > > revoke > > > to be corrected by a legal play. The second revoke was the failure to > > > "correct" (L61A ..or play, when able, a card or suit required by law > > > or > > > specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, > > constitutes > > > a revoke..). Attention was drawn to the *second* revoke after > > declarer had > > > played - WTP? > > > > > > Tim > > > >This is an interesting view which indeed has some merits. My first > >reaction > >was "splitting hairs", but maybe it is the best approach. However, > >even this > >approach leaves us with the problem: > > > >Law 62C1 doesn't say anything about "a split second" or "one minute" > >after > >attention was drawn and it does not say anything about a play being "in > >motion", so if we shall understand Law 62C1 that the question draws > >attention to the revoke then this law literally forbids Declarer to > >withdraw > >a card he has played a split second after the question was asked (even if > >that play "was in motion" before the question was asked) if the revoke is > >confirmed at this time. > > > >I refuse to accept that this has been the intention of Law 62C1. > > > >In the actual case Declarer was in the motion of playing his card when > >the > >question was asked, thus technically the play was made (a split second) > >after the question, and the answer to the question (that the player had > >indeed revoked) came after that again. > > > >There has been an argument that Law 47D should override law 62C1 and > >allow > >Declarer to withdraw any card he has played to the revoke trick before > >the > >revoke is corrected even if it was played after attention was drawn to > >the > >revoke. If this should be the case what is then the purpose of Law 62C1? > > > >We have one final possibility which I begin to assume is the "real" law: > > > >Law 47D applies in any case after an opponent has changed his play > >regardless of the situation. > > > >Law 62C1 applies *only* when a revoke is NOT corrected by the > >offender! (?) > > > >This will make sense (even to me), but in that case I think that Law > >62C is > >misplaced and should instead have been a Law 63D. > > > >Law 62 deals with situations when a revoke is corrected, Law 63 deals > >with > >established revokes. > > > >Incidentally I have a feeling that Law 63B had better been positioned > >somewhere under Law 62 because as it reads now it clearly implies that a > >defender's violation of Law 61B does NOT establish a revoke although the > >revoke is penalized "as if it (the revoke) had been established". > > > >Is this a case for Grattan's notebook? > > I think we need to distinguish between a failure to follow suit and a > revoke; they are obviously not the same thing. "No spades, partner?" > calls attention to a failure to follow, but does not call attention to > a revoke -- after all, there usually wasn't one. If we simply accept > that "before attention was drawn to it" in L61C1 means before the > revoker acknowledged it, doesn't the problem disappear? > > > 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 5 15:03:27 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Oct 5 15:06:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c5c9ad$2da720e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > OK -- if you obviously meant Law 62C1. > > Kojak > From: "Eric Landau" ........... > > I think we need to distinguish between a failure to follow suit and a > > revoke; they are obviously not the same thing. "No spades, partner?" > > calls attention to a failure to follow, but does not call attention to > > a revoke -- after all, there usually wasn't one. If we simply accept > > that "before attention was drawn to it" in L61C1 means before the > > revoker acknowledged it, doesn't the problem disappear? > > Indeed! But I have asked several players who appear unanimous that the question "No spades partner?" does draw attention to the revoke if there is one. So I wonder if distinguishing between not following suit and actually revoking will eliminate the linguistic problem. However they also appear unanimous that the effect of a player on the non-offending side being prohibited from changing a card he has played after the question but before the revoke was actually confirmed cannot have been the intention of L62C1. The more I think of it the more I believe in understanding L62C1 to only apply when the revoke has been established (i.e. the offender does not replace his revoke card with a legal play). Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 5 20:17:37 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Oct 5 20:22:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? References: <000301c5c994$1f2d6a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c5c9d9$144157c0$d58987d9@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: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 11:04 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? > Is this a case for Grattan's notebook? +=+ Grattan's notebook is closed until after the WBF Executive Council has met in Estoril. I am told the subject of the revision of the laws is to be discussed in that forum and I shall await the outcome. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 7 00:52:53 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Oct 7 00:55:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? References: <000601c5c9ad$2da720e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000a01c5cac8$b959d7b0$86ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:03 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? But I have asked several players who appear unanimous that the question "No spades partner?" does draw attention to the revoke if there is one. So I wonder if distinguishing between not following suit and actually revoking will eliminate the linguistic problem. < +=+ Not sure the point of this. However, I recall that one of the major objections to the question, voiced in discussions to which I was party, was that when there has been no revoke the surprise of the questioner often conveys significant unauthorized information about the length of the suit in the closed hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 7 11:49:21 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Oct 7 11:52:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <000a01c5cac8$b959d7b0$86ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c5cb24$64c3c560$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan ............ [Sven:] > But I have asked several players who appear > unanimous that the question "No spades partner?" > does draw attention to the revoke if there is one. > So I wonder if distinguishing between not following > suit and actually revoking will eliminate the linguistic > problem. > < > +=+ Not sure the point of this. However, I recall > that one of the major objections to the question, > voiced in discussions to which I was party, was that > when there has been no revoke the surprise of the > questioner often conveys significant unauthorized > information about the length of the suit in the closed > hand. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Indeed a valid point. If it is still possible to suggest specific changes I do suggest that Law 62C should be moved to a new Law 63D. This will make it clear that the current law 62C applies (only) when there is an established revoke (in which case the offender may not change his played card) and thus acts as an extension to Law 47D rather than as a limitation of this law. Today we apparently have some confusion about which law takes precedence when an offender that committed a revoke not yet established changes his play: Does his non-offending LHO enjoy the full privilege of Law 47D or is this LHO restricted by the condition in Law 62C1 (and the uncertainty on exactly when and how attention was drawn to the revoke)? Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 7 17:34:28 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Oct 7 17:40:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? References: <000001c5cb24$64c3c560$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000d01c5cb54$b0fd9f70$8fa587d9@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: "Sven Pran" To: "'Grattan'" Cc: "blml" Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? > > This will make it clear that the current law 62C applies (only) when > there is an established revoke (in which case the offender may not > change his played card) and thus acts as an extension to Law 47D > rather than as a limitation of this law. > > Today we apparently have some confusion about which law takes > precedence when an offender that committed a revoke not yet > established changes his play: Does his non-offending LHO enjoy > the full privilege of Law 47D or is this LHO restricted by the > condition in Law 62C1 (and the uncertainty on exactly when and > how attention was drawn to the revoke)? > +=+ I share the opinion that the questioner is in no position to draw attention to the revoke if there is one. Until the revoke is apparent (when revoker confirms he has revoked) it is not in evidence for attention to be drawn to it. However, the distinction is fine and problematic. On the other hand, if the argument succeeds that attention has been drawn to the revoke by the question it must be allowed that Law 9B1 applies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Fri Oct 7 23:07:27 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Fri Oct 7 23:10:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Appeals Message-ID: <000e01c5cb83$20370c40$b4300952@AnnesComputer> There were only 3 appeals recorded by the WBU L&EC during 2004. They have now been published with the usual commentaries. I am most grateful to all who spent their valuable time making this possible. http://www.blakjak.com/appeals.htm Anne From emu at fwi.net.au Sat Oct 8 08:56:30 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sat Oct 8 08:59:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002801c5cbd5$699719f0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> >So just to check: The auction is (1C)-1S-(X)-2H >a) Opps play SAYC so the double promises 4H and 2H is a cue and not >alertable. >b) Opps play negative doubles and have not "promised" 4H (double includes >a number of strong hands with a possible H doubleton). 2H is *not* a cue -bid and must be alerted if artificial. >c) Opps play "negative doubles" but no further agreement - 2H is...? I'm waiting for Laurie Kelso, the Australian expert on these matters and a frequent lurker on this site, to pipe up and ensure that my understanding of the regulations is correct. a) 2H is natural and not alertable b) 2H is natural and not alertable c) 2H is natural and not alertable If anyone thought that 2H was a cue, it too would be not alertable. And if it were a cue, the 2H bidding side became the declaring side they must offer an explanation before the opening lead - no questions required, it must be simply offered. (But of course, I don't think it is a cue. None of your options 'guarantees' 4H, and I doubt X ever does. I might simply double there with a 2344 13-15 count and no spade stopper with my Monday night partner. On Thursday however, my partner and I play Lebensohl so 3NT would show that.) [But of course, 2H might be a psyche, which will be revealed when they run to Spades after a double!] If I'm not right, we will all be educated. regards, Noel From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Oct 9 01:25:57 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun Oct 9 01:31:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Which law, when, where ?? In-Reply-To: <000e01c5cb83$20370c40$b4300952@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Law 48(a) Declarer Exposes a Card Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of declarer?s or dummy?s hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally. Law 45c(4b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law 47E). Scenario S - S AKQJxxx H AT9x H KJx D KQ9x D x C A9654 C Tx Declarer is in 3NT. Opening DJ lead to the ace and diamond back to the Q. Heart to the K and starts to run the spades. On the 1st 2 he discards C5,C6. On the SQ he "discards"/"plays" the CA. Now he tries to retract the CA and subtitute another C ... The CA can be clearly seen by all players (a) The CA hits the table. (b) The CA hits the table but does not leave declarers hand (c) The CA does not hit the table but is at a forward angle so that all including dummy can see it (d) The CA does not hit the table but declarer utters "oh" (e) The CA does not hit the table and it takes declarer say between 0.5 and 1 sec to change the card played. (ie) Not instant but fast. Ok so in the above scenario (a) -> (e) what law(s) should be applied ?? What is the definition of "pause without thought" ?? When is a card deemed to be played ?? Does it have to physically touch the table or is it enough that both defenders can see it and it has been detached from the rest of declarer's hand ?? It seems Laws 45C and 48 "clash" ?? Karel From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 9 03:33:53 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Oct 9 03:36:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? References: <002801c5cbd5$699719f0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: <000401c5cc71$8afd3d30$baa1403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 7:56 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? +=+ It seems a dubious use of the term 'cue' to describe an overbid in the named denomination when that denomination shows a holding in a different suit and says nothing of the holding in the named suit. It is a situation in which the bid, at the partnership's option, may often be natural. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 9 11:00:24 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Oct 9 11:04:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Which law, when, where ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c5ccaf$e39d5810$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel ............. > Law 48(a) Declarer Exposes a Card > > Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of > declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not > required to play any card dropped accidentally. > > > > Law 45c(4b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation > > A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if > he does > so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a > card > that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may > withdraw > without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law 47E). > > > Scenario > > > S - S AKQJxxx > H AT9x H KJx > D KQ9x D x > C A9654 C Tx > > > Declarer is in 3NT. Opening DJ lead to the ace and diamond back to the Q. > Heart to the K and starts to run the spades. On the 1st 2 he discards > C5,C6. On the SQ he "discards"/"plays" the CA. Now he tries to retract > the > CA and subtitute another C ... > > The CA can be clearly seen by all players > > > (a) The CA hits the table. > > (b) The CA hits the table but does not leave declarers hand > > (c) The CA does not hit the table but is at a forward angle so that all > including dummy can see it > > (d) The CA does not hit the table but declarer utters "oh" > > (e) The CA does not hit the table and it takes declarer say between 0.5 > and > 1 sec to change the card played. (ie) Not instant but fast. > > > Ok so in the above scenario (a) -> (e) what law(s) should be applied ?? Law 45C4 is applicable when declarer names or otherwise designates a card, i.e. most commonly when he refers to a card in Dummy. This law would apply to a card from declarer's hand if he says something like "here comes the Ace of Clubs". In all your scenarios it would appear that the applicable law is Law 45C2. > What is the definition of "pause without thought" ?? That he apparently did not change his mind but corrected a mechanical error. > > When is a card deemed to be played ?? Does it have to physically touch > the > table or is it enough that both defenders can see it and it has been > detached from the rest of declarer's hand ?? Law 45C1 for defenders, Law 45C2 for Declarer and Law 45C3 for Dummy. > > It seems Laws 45C and 48 "clash" ?? Law 48 is never applicable when Declarer apparently intentionally (however irrational) has played a card. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 9 12:13:28 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Oct 9 12:18:08 2005 Subject: [blml] Which law, when, where ?? References: <000101c5ccaf$e39d5810$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c5ccba$4d3a0ac0$90de403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 10:00 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Which law, when, where ?? > > What is the definition of "pause without thought" ?? > That he apparently did not change his mind but corrected a mechanical error. > +=+ corrected a slip of the tongue, the inadvertent placing of a bidding card etc. +=+ From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Sun Oct 9 22:25:52 2005 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Sun Oct 9 22:29:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Appeals References: <200510080211.j982BGNW009683@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002301c5cd0f$a66d4670$b4300952@AnnesComputer> I am not the expert in this field but David tells me that "Zip files are slightly more durable, but also smaller. But they shrink some files much more than others, and they do not shrink PDF files much. However, I always put zipped files up, and do not see why not.Certainly zipped files are easier to download, being smaller." Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 3:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeals > Thanks, Anne. > > The compression seems to shrink the file size by only a tiny amount. > It would be much easier to download and use files that are not compressed. > From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Oct 10 00:11:10 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Oct 10 00:16:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Which law, when, where ?? In-Reply-To: <000001c5ccba$4d3a0ac0$90de403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > What is the definition of "pause without thought" ?? > That he apparently did not change his mind but corrected a mechanical error. > +=+ corrected a slip of the tongue, the inadvertent placing of a bidding card etc. +=+ +++ Ok so just to verify. If a card is "played" (declarer) as per Law 45C2 ... then that card can never be retracted as the action of playing it cancels out any retraction via the "without pause for thought" criteria ?? Would it also be fair to say that if declarer vocally expresses his surprise or other similar sentiment that this also cancels the "pause without thought" criteria in 45C4 ?? Karel From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 10 00:29:09 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Oct 10 00:32:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Which law, when, where ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BA05E82-9EB7-4A1D-9155-42ED46F7A124@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 9, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Karel wrote: > Would it also be fair to say that if declarer vocally expresses his > surprise > or other similar sentiment that this also cancels the "pause without > thought" criteria in 45C4 ?? Not sure what you're getting at here. I should think that it would be rare for declarer to "name or otherwise designate" a card he intends to play from his hand. If he does not, then L45C4 is irrelevant. If he does do so, and then plays a *different* card, then I would think the "pause for thought" begins at the point where he realizes there's a difference, and 45C4(b) would apply. If he names a card he did not intend to play, then he must correct the designation as soon as he realizes that he named the wrong card, and "pause for thought" begins at his realization. But I think it would be difficult to convince a director that "yeah, I named the 3 of clubs, but I intended to play the ace all along" is true. From bbickford at charter.net Mon Oct 10 03:09:02 2005 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Mon Oct 10 03:12:41 2005 Subject: Fw: [blml] Appeals Message-ID: <019d01c5cd37$344e4fd0$c1a20c47@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Anne Jones" Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeals > The actual shrinkage was 18% which is significant. Because of the > relatively small size of the original, the bytes shrunk was not major. > However, due to the general ease with which zip files are handled, I would > be in favor of continuing the use. With non-PDF files, I have seen > shrinkage in excess of 90%. > > Cheers.................................../Bill Bickford > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:25 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Appeals > > >>I am not the expert in this field but David tells me that "Zip files are >>slightly more durable, but also smaller. But they shrink some files much >>more than others, and they do not shrink PDF files much. However, I always >>put zipped files up, and do not see why not.Certainly zipped files are >>easier to download, being smaller." >> >> Anne >> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Willner" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 3:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Appeals >> >> >>> Thanks, Anne. >>> >>> The compression seems to shrink the file size by only a tiny amount. >>> It would be much easier to download and use files that are not >>> compressed. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Oct 10 04:51:21 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon Oct 10 04:54:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200510091956.j99Jugek018479@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200510091956.j99Jugek018479@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4349D729.9070307@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > In all [Karel's] scenarios it would appear that the applicable law is Law 45C2. Indeed. K>What is the definition of "pause without thought" ?? > That he apparently did not change his mind but corrected a mechanical error. This is a correct definition of "inadvertent." In case it wasn't clear, "inadvertent" and "pause for thought" are irrelevant in L45C2 cases. K>When is a card deemed to be played ?? > Law 45C1 for defenders, Law 45C2 for Declarer and Law 45C3 for Dummy. Also L45C4 for dummy (and occasionally L45C5 for defenders). From: "Karel" > If a card is "played" (declarer) as per Law 45C2 > ... then that card can never be retracted as the action of playing it > cancels out any retraction via the "without pause for thought" criteria ?? Not exactly. As noted above, "pause for thought" and "inadvertent" apply only to cards _designated_ under L45C4. Normally this applies only to dummy's cards, but there can be exceptions as has been mentioned in this thread. Declarer's played card usually cannot be retracted, but there are some situations under L47 (and perhaps elsewhere) that allow retraction. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Oct 10 05:03:53 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon Oct 10 05:07:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <200510051449.j95Enx0u017571@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200510051449.j95Enx0u017571@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4349DA19.9080309@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > There has been an argument that Law 47D should override law 62C1 and allow > Declarer to withdraw any card he has played to the revoke trick before the > revoke is corrected even if it was played after attention was drawn to the > revoke. I don't understand why there is a problem. L47D gives an _unconditional_ right to withdraw a card after an opponent's change of play. > If this should be the case what is then the purpose of Law 62C1? L62C1 gives an _additional_ right for a member of the NOS to withdraw a card after a revoke, even if no opponent's card is changed. > We have one final possibility which I begin to assume is the "real" law: > > Law 47D applies in any case after an opponent has changed his play > regardless of the situation. Yes, how could it not? > Law 62C1 applies *only* when a revoke is NOT corrected by the offender! (?) Apparently so. Or else it's simply redundant, as is for example L23 (encompassed by L72B1). > This will make sense (even to me), but in that case I think that Law 62C is > misplaced and should instead have been a Law 63D. Probably. It wouldn't be the only misplaced law in the book. In fact, L62C appears to be worse than misplaced. Based on the heading, the intent is to allow correction only of cards in the revoke trick. However, the wording literally allows correction of _all_ cards played by the NOS subsequent to the revoke and before attention was drawn. I hope I'm missing something! Grattan? From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 6 10:58:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:23:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20051005074243.02ed4c00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > I think we need to distinguish between a failure to follow suit and a > revoke; they are obviously not the same thing. "No spades, partner?" > calls attention to a failure to follow, but does not call attention to > a revoke -- after all, there usually wasn't one. If we simply accept > that "before attention was drawn to it" in L61C1 means before the > revoker acknowledged it, doesn't the problem disappear? Not sure this will work in Europe. We have to deal with the stupidity of "attention illegally drawn" (OK headings aren't technically part of the laws but that's a hard sell) besides a "failure to follow" *is* a revoke in all cases where the question is relevant. Sven made some points on what we might deem "simultaneous" or "before/after". The existence (or otherwise) of simultaneity in a quantum (or otherwise) universe I will leave to philosophers. In bridge practical terms I will rule two events simultaneous if my judgement is that they occurred too close together for one to be a reaction to the other. If you wish you may take that while I think "having none?" *draws* attention attention has not "been drawn" until declarer's brain has had a chance to register the question. I'm not arguing that this is the only way in which the law could be interpreted, just that it is one legal way of avoiding problems in cases like this. For example if (in Europe) declarer (legally) and other defender (illegally) enquire about a revoke at "about the same time" I'll not rule the revoke established. Tim From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Fri Oct 7 09:23:07 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:23:41 2005 Subject: [blml] FW: Yet another quote of the day Message-ID: <00a301c5cb0f$f6d920e0$0100000a@BigPond> FYI Helen Hills -----Original Message----- From: Helen Hills [mailto:hmhills@bigpond.net.au] Sent: Friday, 7 October 2005 6:21 PM To: 'liz.quinn@immi.gov.au'; 'rosemary.pedder@immi.gov.au'; 'blml@rtlb.org' Cc: 'jim.ascione@immi.gov.au'; 'greg.haron@immi.gov.au'; 'andrew.metcalfe@immi.gov.au' Subject: Yet another quote of the day WARD & LOCK'S Universal Instructor SELF CULTURE FOR ALL VOL II. WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS LONDON WARD . LOCK . & . CO pages 3-4: Melanchthon, always anxious to promote peace, had softened various doctrines of the Lutheran faith, in the hope of including the various branches of the Protestant Church in a general union. The result was a division of the Lutherans into two sections : the orthodox party, who strictly followed Luther, and whose tower of strength was the university of Jena ; and the Philipists or Crypto-Calvinists, the followers of Melanchthon, who maintained their position at Wittenberg, the birthplace of the Reformation. After Melanchthon's death, when this great peacemaker's voice was withdrawn, the strife between the sects raged fiercely. The Protestant house was thoroughly divided against itself ; and the frank fearless spirit of the Reformation was lost in the jangling strife of angry theologians. Political jealousies among the Protestant princes, the revival of the old quarrel between the Albertine and Ernestine lines in Saxony, and the envy with which the Saxon elector Augustus looked on the increasing influence of the Count Palatine Frederick, who had been converted to Protestantism, embittered the division between the strict Lutherans and the Adiaphorists, who looked upon many ceremonies and outward forms as non-essential. The Lutherans also, while they quarrelled with the Philipists, utterly repudiated all association with the Calvinists. While the Protestant Church was thus split up into factions, the Jesuits made the most of the opportunity afforded by their opponents' disunion. They represented Protestantism as an accursed thing, the herald of confusion and rebellion ; and standing firmly together, under excellent discipline, they brought many waverers back into the Catholic camp. Best wishes Richard James Hills amicus curiae 14 Braeside Crescent Sandy Bay TASMANIA 7005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: 6/10/05 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: 6/10/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051007/9c74aa7d/attachment-0001.htm From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Fri Oct 7 12:46:16 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:23:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Of the day of the day Message-ID: <00b701c5cb2c$583205c0$0100000a@BigPond> Robert Sheckley, Mindswap, page 469: > He lay beneath Stanhope's familiar green >sky and considered this possibility. It >seemed unlikely: for did not the giant oak >trees still migrate each year to the >south? Did not the huge red sun move >across the sky, pursued by its dark >companion? Did not the triple moons >return each month with their new >accumulation of comets? > > These familiar sights reassured him. >Everything seemed to be as it always had >been. And so, willingly and with a good >grace, Marvin accepted his world at face >value, married Marsha Baker, and lived >forever after. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training and Staff Development Section (02) 6264 2226 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: 6/10/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051007/a329b971/attachment-0001.htm From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Fri Oct 7 23:12:36 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:23:45 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU casebook proofread - Sorry about that, Chief Message-ID: <006601c5cb83$d84238a0$0100000a@BigPond> Would you believe that the Comrie Report described the administration of the Aussie Department of Immigration as "catastrophic"? Would you believe that the Palmer Report of three months ago saw our Secretary and two Deputy Secretaries transferred to the Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea? Would you believe that I will be slightly busy with the unreal world of DIMIA until circa Easter 2006? Would you believe that I will be in the Cone of Silence until then? I will still make occasional passing comments on my passing fancies in the real world of blml. Having a wonderful wine. Wish you were beer. Best wishes Richard James Hills amicus curiae 14 Braeside Crescent Sandy Bay TASMANIA 7005 DIMIA Apologises to Ms Alvarez, Commits to Reform: Secretary DPS 038/2005 The Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Andrew Metcalfe, today publicly apologised to Vivian Alvarez and her family, and reiterated his Department's commitment to reform and improvement. The Comrie Report into the department's dealings with Ms Alvarez was tabled today in the Senate, following the Ombudsman's decision to release the report publicly. 'I'd like to assure Ms Alvarez and her family, and the Australian community as a whole that we have learned from the mistakes made in the past, and are working diligently to rectify the systems and cultures which lead to Ms Alvarez's removal from Australia,' Mr Metcalfe said. 'In fact many of the issues are already addressed in the detailed implementation plan responding to the Palmer Report, tabled in the Senate by Minister Vanstone today. 'I am completely committed to driving these necessary changes, and I have been heartened by the similar commitment shown by so many DIMIA officers. 'Recommendation one of Mr Comrie's report asked that I take all necessary steps to address the negative culture in the Brisbane Compliance and Investigations unit and to ensure that deficiencies identified in that office do not exist elsewhere in the department. 'I have already announced a major restructure of the relevant parts of our National Office in Canberra, and appointed a new First Assistant Secretary, Mr Neil Mann, to head the division. 'Mr Mann will work very closely with the Minister, the Deputy Secretaries and myself to drive reform throughout our compliance activities. 'He will also be assisted by Mr Mick Roche, a former head of the Defence Materiel Organisation and former Deputy CEO of the Australian Customs Service, who will undertake a major consulting role in this area, as outlined in recommendation 7.3 of the Palmer Report. 'I am very pleased that Mr Roche is able to provide this assistance to the department,' Mr Metcalfe said. He said that the department was substantially strengthening its management capacity in the Brisbane office by appointing a new Senior Deputy State Director. That officer would be specifically charged with working with the State Director and relevant staff to achieve the necessary reforms to the compliance and related areas of that office. 'Recommendation 12 of the Comrie Report found that the conduct of three departmental officers might constitute a breach of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, as detailed in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999,' Mr Metcalfe said. 'Following my receipt of the report, I appointed a senior delegate to determine whether a Code of Conduct investigation should be undertaken in accordance with the department's procedures and the requirements of the Public Service Act 1999. He has advised me that he has reached such a conclusion. 'A senior external consultant is being appointed to undertake the investigation into the conduct of the officers concerned, and to make a report to the senior delegate who will make a determination on these issues in due course,' Mr Metcalfe said. For the Department's full response to the Comrie Report, links to the report itself, and for the Palmer implementation plan tabled today in the Senate by Minister Vanstone, go to www.immi.gov.au 6 October 2005 Helen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051007/4b7b80f4/attachment-0001.htm From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 8 08:05:16 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:23:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Three Act Play of the day - act one Message-ID: <000501c5cbce$42a5f0c0$0100000a@BigPond> HARDING'S LUCK A tragedy in three acts By Timothy Evers and Helen Hills Cast (in order of appearance): Voice off Hugo Weaving Another voice off Andy Serkis Dying pope Hugo Weaving Dying pope's secretary Andy Serkis Another voice off Hugo Weaving Voice off Andy Serkis Act One A bare stage. Zero props. Zero scenery. Voice off: GIVE IT TO ME! Another voice off: Security; we need a straightjacket pronto. Another voice off: Patient secured. Another voice off: Right. Now force-feed the patient Largactil. Voice off: Thank you for finally giving me the anti-psychotic medication Largactil. Next time, please be a bit more prompt in giving me my vitally needed anti-psychotic medication, so I will not have to yell to get results. After all, there is a proverb which states: "Punctuality is the politeness of princes." Another voice off: I am the doctor, you are the patient. Another voice off: And I am your assigned nurse for the afternoon, my name is Mary. Voice off: Do you have only one name? Another voice off: Ummm... Voice off: Pleased to meet you. I also have only one name. My name is Jesus. Another voice off: Why don't you sit in the patient's lounge and have a chat with Miriam? Or why don't you solve yet another of your favourite Sudoko puzzles? Voice off: Why don't I do both? Another voice off: Hi, my name is Miriam. What is your name? Voice off: My name is Jesus. Pleased to meet you Miriam. Do you have any cats? Another voice off: Hi, Jesus. Did you know that Miriam is the Hebrew name for Mary? - so I must be the Virgin Mary. Voice off: Hm. That would mean that you are my mother. Hi, mum! Long time no see. Did you like the set of steak knives I gave you for Christmas? Another voice off: But this is October. Voice off: Do you have any cats? Another voice off: Yes, a small white one that my daddy is looking after for me. What a coincidence; here is my daddy arrived to visit me this very minute! Voice off: Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so. Another voice off: What are you doing? Voice off: I am engaging in occupational therapy by solving a Sudoko puzzle. Just a moment ... finished. That is my tenth Sudoku problem for the day. Another voice off: You cunning mad dog. What is your name? Voice off: I am Jesus. Another voice off: NO. I AM JESUS! Voice off: Let's come to a win-win certified agreement. You can be Jesus, and I can be the second coming of Jesus. Another voice off: Timothy, time for your temazipan. Voice off: Why did you wake me up to give it to me? Another voice off: I am the nurse, you are the patient. Voice off: But the doctor prescribed the temazipan to help me sleep. Another voice off: Were you a good boy today? Did you do _all_ of your compulsory occupational therapy? Voice off (singing): Hold your hand out You naughty boy! Hold your hand out You naughty boy! I saw you in the pale moonlight I saw you I saw you You were kissing In the park With a nice girl In the dark And you told me you never kissed a girl before. Hold your hand out You naughty boy! Another voice off: Timmy, I repeat my question just once more. Did you do _all_ of your compulsory occupational therapy? Voice off: Yes. And I also did some voluntary occupational therapy by solving ten Sudoko problems. Another voice off: Liar. liar, pants on fire. Actually you did rather well. You solved the first nine Sudoku problems, but you must have made a _big_ mistake on the tenth Sudoko problem - it doesn't match the answer in the book. Voice off: Actually, there was a geeky error in this particular Sudoku computer program. One problem in every ten has an alternate solution, what chess problemists term a "cook". Another voice off: All patients report to the kitchen - it's lunchtime! Voice off: Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so. INTERMISSION -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 7/10/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051008/a23303be/attachment-0001.htm From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 8 08:51:28 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:23:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Three act tragedy of the day - Act Four Message-ID: <000a01c5cbd4$b5925aa0$0100000a@BigPond> INTERMISSION Act Two, Scene One The scene is the pope's private bedroom. The pope's bed is stage left. The pope's window is stage right. The pope's writing desk is stage centre. The pope is seated at his writing desk, with his back to the audience. Just before the curtain rises on this act, the pope has just suffered a massive stroke, which has just paralysed the right-hand side of his body. Fortunately, the pope is left-handed, so the pope starts scrawling his last will and testament while praying. DYING POPE: Thy will be done. Thy will be done. Thy will be done. Thy will be done. Thy will be done. Thy will be done. Thy will be done. The pope dies. Curtain Act Two, Scene Two The scene is the pope's private bedroom. The pope is dead. Curtain Act Three, Scene Three The scene is the pope's private bedroom. The pope is dead. Enter the DYING POPE'S SECRETARY. DYING POPE'S SECRETARY: Oh my god! The DYING POPE'S SECRETARY runs like the wind to the body of the pope. Unlucky, it is obvious that the pope has been dead for some time. The DYING POPE'S SECRETARY cries, and tenderly removes a ring from the DYING POPE'S finger. DYING POPE'S SECRETARY: Our Father Who art in heaven Hallowed by thy name Thy kingdom come Thy will be done On earth as it is..... The DYING POPE'S SECRETARY weeps, then shakes his fist at the ceiling. DYING POPE'S SECRETARY: You supreme fascist! Curtain Act Three, Scene Four The pope is dead. The late pope's secretary is weeping Eventually the late pope's secretary stumbles to their feet, and dazedly looks around. The late pope's secretary notices the late pope's will, and starts reading it aloud. DYING POPE'S SECRETARY: Last wol and testy To the world - peace To my secretary - my favourite book in my personal library. INTERMISSION -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 7/10/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051008/23056144/attachment-0001.htm From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 8 09:14:55 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:23:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard Message-ID: <000001c5cbd7$fc634ae0$0100000a@BigPond> Hello, I hope Richard hasn't been annoying you with all his emails - he is staying with me for 10 days and is a bit high at the moment. regards, Helen Hills -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 7/10/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051008/8c885b90/attachment-0001.htm From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 8 10:41:00 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:24:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Three act comedy of the day, act one Message-ID: <000e01c5cbe4$02dac180$0100000a@BigPond> INTERMISSION Act Three A bare stage. Zero props. Zero scenery. ANOTHER VOICE OFF: Habeus papem. Innocent XV. VOICE OFF: Urbi et Orbi. Um... This whole secret ballot election thingy came as a little bit of a surprise to me. I wish to apologise for being a bit of a monoglot - I come from a far country, where the insects are different. I only had a brief time to scrawl some notes. Could you fetch me a glass of port? ANOTHER VOICE OFF: At once, Holy Father. VOICE OFF: I am not holey, I am portly. Thanks for the glass of port. ANOTHER VOICE OFF: You can't drink during the most important speech of your life! VOICE OFF: Did not Jesus associate with wine-bibbers? ANOTHER VOICE OFF: Okay then, I will have a glass of port too. VOICE OFF: Let's make this Urbi et Orbi a real picnic - I will get the Vatican caterers to send up some loaves and fishes. ANOTHER VOICE OFF: You _must_ finish your Urbi and Orbi speech before the picnic; the Vatican television has booked only three hours of satellite time! VOICE OFF: Okay, fetch my favourite book from my personal library. ANOTHER VOICE OFF: Pardon, Innocent? VOICE OFF: How can you pardon an innocent? ANOTHER VOICE OFF: Holy Father? VOICE OFF: I am not wholely, I am portly. ANOTHER VOICE OFF: Since you say go, I will go. VOICE OFF: However, all the rest of you listening to this Urbi et Orbi speech can stay. ANOTHER VOICE OFF: Since you say stay, I will stay. VOICE OFF: While we are awaiting the arrival of my favourite book from my personal library, I did scrawl some notes for this Urbi et Orbi. Here they are: "Wol and last testy". FINAL CURTAIN -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 7/10/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051008/be29089c/attachment-0001.htm From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Sat Oct 8 11:54:03 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:24:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Three act tragedy of the day, act one Message-ID: <002301c5cbee$374a5340$0100000a@BigPond> HARDING'S LUCK A tragedy in three acts By Timothy Evers and Helen Hills Cast (in order of appearance): Voice off Hugo Weaving Another voice off Andy Serkis Dying pope Hugo Weaving Dying pope's secretary Andy Serkis Another voice off Hugo Weaving Voice off Andy Serkis Act One A bare stage. Zero props. Zero scenery. Voice off: GIVE IT TO ME! Another voice off: Security; we need a straightjacket pronto. Another voice off: Patient secured. Another voice off: Right. Now force-feed the patient Largactil. Voice off: Thank you for finally giving me the anti-psychotic medication Largactil. Next time, please be a bit more prompt in giving me my vitally needed anti-psychotic medication, so I will not have to yell to get results. After all, there is a proverb which states: "Punctuality is the politeness of princes." Another voice off: I am the doctor, you are the patient. Another voice off: And I am your assigned nurse for the afternoon, my name is Mary. Voice off: Do you have only one name? Another voice off: Ummm... Voice off: Pleased to meet you. I also have only one name. My name is Jesus. Another voice off: Why don't you sit in the patient's lounge and have a chat with Miriam? Or why don't you solve yet another of your favourite Sudoko puzzles? Voice off: Why don't I do both? Another voice off: Hi, my name is Miriam. What is your name? Voice off: My name is Jesus. Pleased to meet you Miriam. Do you have any cats? Another voice off: Hi, Jesus. Did you know that Miriam is the Hebrew name for Mary? - so I must be the Virgin Mary. Voice off: Hm. That would mean that you are my mother. Hi, mum! Long time no see. Did you like the set of steak knives I gave you for Christmas? Another voice off: But this is October. Voice off: Do you have any cats? Another voice off: Yes, a small white one that my daddy is looking after for me. What a coincidence; here is my daddy arrived to visit me this very minute! Voice off: Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so. Another voice off: What are you doing? Voice off: I am engaging in occupational therapy by solving a Sudoko puzzle. Just a moment ... finished. That is my tenth Sudoku problem for the day. Another voice off: You cunning mad dog. What is your name? Voice off: I am Jesus. Another voice off: NO. I AM JESUS! Voice off: Let's come to a win-win certified agreement. You can be Jesus, and I can be the second coming of Jesus. Another voice off: Timothy, time for your temazipan. Voice off: Why did you wake me up to give it to me? Another voice off: I am the nurse, you are the patient. Voice off: But the doctor prescribed the temazipan to help me sleep. Another voice off: Were you a good boy today? Did you do _all_ of your compulsory occupational therapy? Voice off (singing): Hold your hand out You naughty boy! Hold your hand out You naughty boy! I saw you in the pale moonlight I saw you I saw you You were kissing In the park With a nice girl In the dark And you told me you never kissed a girl before. Hold your hand out You naughty boy! Another voice off: Timmy, I repeat my question just once more. Did you do _all_ of your compulsory occupational therapy? Voice off: Yes. And I also did some voluntary occupational therapy by solving ten Sudoko problems. Another voice off: Liar. liar, pants on fire. Actually you did rather well. You solved the first nine Sudoku problems, but you must have made a _big_ mistake on the tenth Sudoko problem - it doesn't match the answer in the book. Voice off: Actually, there was a geeky error in this particular Sudoku computer program. One problem in every ten has an alternate solution, what chess problemists term a "cook". Another voice off: All patients report to the kitchen - it's lunchtime! Voice off: Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so. INTERMISSION -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/124 - Release Date: 7/10/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051008/b73a8e76/attachment-0001.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Oct 9 21:38:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Oct 10 07:24:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? In-Reply-To: <002801c5cbd5$699719f0$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> Message-ID: Noel or Pamela wrote: > >a) Opps play SAYC so the double promises 4H and 2H is a cue and not > >alertable. > > I'm waiting for Laurie Kelso, the Australian expert on these matters > and a frequent lurker on this site, to pipe up and ensure that my > understanding of the regulations is correct. > > a) 2H is natural and not alertable > b) 2H is natural and not alertable > c) 2H is natural and not alertable > > If anyone thought that 2H was a cue, it too would be not alertable. > And if it were a cue, the 2H bidding side became the declaring side they > must offer an explanation before the opening lead - no questions > required, it must be simply offered. So basically 2H is not alertable whether natural or artificial whatever the double. While I agree this is "simple" I'm not sure I'd regard it as "helpful". > (But of course, I don't think it is a cue. None of your options > 'guarantees' 4H, and I doubt X ever does. >From the SAYC system notes "Negative doubles are used through 2S promising four cards (at least) in any unbid major." The X "guarantees" 4H in exactly the same way as an Acol 1H opening "guarantees" 4H - the player may have made an anti-systemic call with fewer hearts in either case. > I might simply double there with a 2344 13-15 count and no spade stopper As might I, but not if I'm playing vanilla SAYC. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 10 10:23:06 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Oct 10 10:26:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Which law, when, where ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002f01c5cd73$d839d8d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel > > What is the definition of "pause without thought" ?? > > > That he apparently did not change his mind but > corrected a mechanical error. > > > +=+ corrected a slip of the tongue, the inadvertent > placing of a bidding card etc. +=+ > > > +++ Ok so just to verify. If a card is "played" (declarer) as per Law > 45C2 > ... then that card can never be retracted as the action of playing it > cancels out any retraction via the "without pause for thought" criteria ?? > > Would it also be fair to say that if declarer vocally expresses his > surprise > or other similar sentiment that this also cancels the "pause without > thought" criteria in 45C4 ?? Like Ed has already commented your intention here is not easily understood. But there is a well established principle that if the player who has played a card shows surprise over a card an opponent had already played then this is an indication that the player intended to play the card he played. However if he shows surprise over a card he discovers that he himself has played then this is an equally good indication that he indeed intended to play a different card. It all ends up with the Director as a matter of judgment. But as Ed also stated: "Pause for thought" is to be "measured" from the moment a player discovers his alleged own mistake until he indicates that it was a mistake. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 10 11:32:07 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Oct 10 11:35:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Law 62C1 - When is attention drawn to a revoke? In-Reply-To: <4349DA19.9080309@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003001c5cd7d$7bb2f920$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > There has been an argument that Law 47D should override > > law 62C1 and allow Declarer to withdraw any card he has > > played to the revoke trick before the revoke is corrected > > even if it was played after attention was drawn to the > > revoke. > > I don't understand why there is a problem. L47D gives an > _unconditional_ right to withdraw a card after an opponent's > change of > play. > > > If this should be the case what is then the purpose of Law 62C1? > > L62C1 gives an _additional_ right for a member of the NOS to withdraw > a card after a revoke, even if no opponent's card is changed. That is my firm belief is the intention of the laws, but alas the way the laws are structured this is not what they say. > > We have one final possibility which I begin to assume is the "real" law: > > > > Law 47D applies in any case after an opponent has changed his play > > regardless of the situation. > > Yes, how could it not? Because whenever a revoke is not established you first arrive at L62C which on a certain condition prevents non-offending side from changing his played card even after the offender has changed his. ................. > > This will make sense (even to me), but in that case I think that > > Law 62C is misplaced and should instead have been a Law 63D. > > Probably. It wouldn't be the only misplaced law in the book. > > In fact, L62C appears to be worse than misplaced. Based on the heading, > the intent is to allow correction only of cards in the revoke trick. > However, the wording literally allows correction of _all_ cards played > by the NOS subsequent to the revoke and before attention was drawn. No, Law 62C is not and shall not be limited to changing cards played to the revoke trick. Example: Declarer has a long spade suit headed by Ace King; Defenders hold between them the Queen and two small, and Dummy is void. All defenders' trumps are gone. Declarer leads the Ace of Spades, LHO plays a spade, Dummy discards and RHO shows out. Declarer plays a small spade and RHO states: "Hey I had a spade" (the revoke is not established) or LHO plays a spade causing the revoke to become established. First of all Declarer may withdraw and replace the card he led to the subsequent trick, but before that other played cards may or may not be withdrawn: If the revoke was not established then RHO must withdraw his revoke card (this becomes a major penalty card) and replace it with a spade, after which Dummy may withdraw and replace the card that was originally played to the revoke trick. Question: If RHO has more than one card that he can legally play to the trick is he free to finally select the card he plays after Dummy has decided his play or may the card to be played from Dummy be decided after RHO has selected his play? Now consider the situation when the revoke became established: 1: The revoke trick may not be corrected but stands as played (Law 63C). 2: Declarer may withdraw and replace the card discarded from Dummy to this revoke trick (Law 62C1). If he does so then RHO may withdraw and replace the card he played to that revoke trick (Law 62C2). So what is there to be in this case? Frankly I have no idea. The paradox above tends to indicate that L62C shall indeed only apply when a revoke trick is corrected (and to cards played to tricks subsequent to the revoke trick), but as we have already seen this leads to other inconsistencies in the laws. I shall be looking forward for some clarification. At present I just feel confused. (And I shall not be surprised if I have overlooked something myself) Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 10 15:54:00 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon Oct 10 15:59:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <4349D729.9070307@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200510091956.j99Jugek018479@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <4349D729.9070307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <4349D729.9070307@cfa.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Sven Pran" >> In all [Karel's] scenarios it would appear that the applicable law is Law >45C2. > >Indeed. > >K>What is the definition of "pause without thought" ?? > >> That he apparently did not change his mind but corrected a mechanical error. > >This is a correct definition of "inadvertent." In case it wasn't clear, >"inadvertent" and "pause for thought" are irrelevant in L45C2 cases. > >K>When is a card deemed to be played ?? > >> Law 45C1 for defenders, Law 45C2 for Declarer and Law 45C3 for Dummy. > >Also L45C4 for dummy (and occasionally L45C5 for defenders). > >From: "Karel" >> If a card is "played" (declarer) as per Law 45C2 >> ... then that card can never be retracted as the action of playing it >> cancels out any retraction via the "without pause for thought" criteria ?? > >Not exactly. As noted above, "pause for thought" and "inadvertent" >apply only to cards _designated_ under L45C4. Normally this applies >only to dummy's cards, but there can be exceptions as has been mentioned >in this thread. Declarer's played card usually cannot be retracted, but >there are some situations under L47 (and perhaps elsewhere) that allow >retraction. As a player, defender or declarer, I occasionally designate a card. Usually because I have both hands full, or because I'm crawling round on the floor looking for a dropped card. Aside from this to me designating a card applies only to dummy. Otherwise a card is played when the law says it's played. 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 guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 10 16:20:04 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Oct 10 16:25:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Acbl or wbf "cue" bidding law ?? References: Message-ID: <002c01c5cda5$b83053c0$1a9868d5@jeushtlj> [Noel or Pamela] > The X "guarantees" 4H in exactly the > same way as an Acol 1H opening "guarantees" > 4H - the player may have made an anti- > systemic call with fewer hearts in either > case. I might simply double there with a > 2344 13-15 count and no spade stopper. [nige1] Suppose partner is aware that you double with a 2344 13-15 count and no spade stopper. IMO it is illegal and immoral for partner to tell opponents only that this double shows four hearts. I'm sure that neither Noel nor Pamela would do this. Nevertheless, I accept that views like mine are in a minority, judging from many previous BLML discussion of "psyches", "deviations", "misbids", "misexplanations" and ways of evading "disclosure" obligations. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 11 23:08:01 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Oct 11 23:14:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 Message-ID: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> The Daily Bulletin in Atlanta started off with number 4 when printing a limited number of the appeals writeups during the NABC. That seemed odd, so I nosed around and someone told me it was because the first three cases involved TD rulings that were changed by the AC. Now I have copies of all the NABC+ case writeups, and sure enough the first three rulings were changed. Tsk, tsk. I've been asked to comment on the Atlanta cases, but I'm too lazy to put them all on BLML, maybe Adam will do that. However, I need some help with comments on some of the cases when I disagree with a ruling or decision, so perhaps y'all will assist me. I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have been changed. In a nutshell, this was the situation: The bidding went P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C-P-2D; P-3S-All pass. Responder had J8543 10 A10763 Q3 and went two down. It's irrelevant, but opener had A102 AKQ43 Q J1075. The 2D bid was Alerted but not questioned. Opener took 2D to be Fourth Suit Forcing, but reponder didn't think FSF (which they play) applied in view of his failure to redouble. The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at all probable). Four players were polled on South's action over 3S, assuming no UI, and three bid 4S, so the TD ruled 4S an LA to passing. The ruling was appealed. The AC cavalierly decided that 4S was not an LA with that hand, and restored the table result of 3S off two. I don't realy need help on this one, the AC's decision was outrageous. Not surprising, because: The AC consisted of Bill Cole, Chair, Jo Morse and Sheri Winestock. I have a listing entitled "NABC Appeals Committee Atlanta NABC 2005" and none of them is included. This case arose the first day of the NABC (GNT finals, nothing else scheduled that day), so probably no AC members were available for duty. It might be better to have TD Panels (used in regionally-rated events) decide appeals when that is the case. Ah, now looking at the next two cases, same day, I see Bob Hamman, Steve Robinson, Bruce Keidan, Ken Kranyak, and Kit Woolsey serving on those appeals. They are not on the ACBL NABC Appeals Committee either. Perhaps this was the reason the first three cases were not printed in the Daily Bulletin. Tsk, tsk. Let's hear from anyone who agrees with the AC on N-01. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 12 00:23:04 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Oct 12 00:26:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c5ceb2$5a4355b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French ............. > I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have been changed. > In a nutshell, this was the situation: > > The bidding went P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C-P-2D; P-3S-All pass. > > Responder had J8543 10 A10763 Q3 and went two down. It's > irrelevant, but opener had A102 AKQ43 Q J1075. > > The 2D bid was Alerted but not questioned. Opener took 2D > to be Fourth Suit Forcing, but reponder didn't think FSF > (which they play) applied in view of his failure to redouble. > > The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at all probable). > Four players were polled on South's action over 3S, assuming > no UI, and three bid 4S, so the TD ruled 4S an LA to passing. Opener has indicated a hand apparently limited to 14 (or maybe 15) HCP with a probable distribution 3-5-1-4. I understand that there is no allegation of him being in possession of any UI. Responder has limited his hand to 9 HCP and indicated holding a spade suit. In his own opinion he has probably shown at least 5-4 in spades and diamonds, in his partner's opinion he has made a fourth suit forcing. He may be in possession of UI from seeing the alert by his partner to his own bid of 2D. According to this the 3S bid by the opener must for the responder look like a simple preference and for the opener look like a simple signoff. I have a problem understanding how the possible UI from the alert can suggest a pass for the responder's next call more than the fact that the 3S bid itself in either case must suggest a pass. I tend to agree with the AC that regardless of the possible UI he should not be forced a raise to 4S on a combined strength apparently limited to 23 HCP and no good fit between the two hands. (The fact that opener actually held 16 HCP is as you stated irrelevant). It would be of interest to know what contracts were reached at the other tables in the room. Regards Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Oct 12 03:37:15 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Oct 12 03:40:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200510101641.j9AGf8lS024143@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200510101641.j9AGf8lS024143@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <434C68CB.4090306@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > No, Law 62C is not and shall not be limited to changing cards played to the > revoke trick. > > Example: Really good one! > Declarer has a long spade suit headed by Ace King; Defenders hold between > them the Queen and two small, and Dummy is void. All defenders' trumps are > gone. > > Declarer leads the Ace of Spades, LHO plays a spade, Dummy discards and RHO > shows out. > > Declarer plays a small spade and RHO states: "Hey I had a spade" (the revoke > is not established) or LHO plays a spade causing the revoke to become > established. > > First of all Declarer may withdraw and replace the card he led to the > subsequent trick, but before that other played cards may or may not be > withdrawn: Yes, this is allowed under both L47D and 62C1. > If the revoke was not established then RHO must withdraw his revoke card > (this becomes a major penalty card) and replace it with a spade, after which > Dummy may withdraw and replace the card that was originally played to the > revoke trick. > > Question: If RHO has more than one card that he can legally play to the > trick is he free to finally select the card he plays after Dummy has decided > his play or may the card to be played from Dummy be decided after RHO has > selected his play? Where does it say dummy's play may be changed? After all, it was made before the revoke happened; I don't see anything allowing a change. I think RHO can change his revoke card, then declarer can lead any card to the next trick. I also think L47D suffices to allow declarer's change. > Now consider the situation when the revoke became established: Presumably LHO has played, and then RHO announces the revoke? > 1: The revoke trick may not be corrected but stands as played (Law 63C). OK. > 2: Declarer may withdraw and replace the card discarded from Dummy to this > revoke trick (Law 62C1). Are you talking about the revoke trick or the subsequent trick on which RHO announces he has revoked? Per L63C, I don't think the revoke trick can be changed. But let's say LHO follows to the trick after the revoke (thereby establishing the revoke), dummy plays, and then RHO produces a spade. I think L62C1 but not L47D allows dummy's card to be changed. What puzzles me is this: what limits the time provided by L62C1? Suppose the revoke is at trick 5 but isn't revealed until trick 10. Can all declarer's cards from tricks 6 through 10 be changed? If not, why not? > If he does so then RHO may withdraw and replace the > card he played to that revoke trick (Law 62C2). Also under L47D (but I think you mean the subsequent trick, not the revoke trick). > I shall be looking forward for some clarification. At present I just feel > confused. (And I shall not be surprised if I have overlooked something > myself) Me too! From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Oct 12 09:13:33 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:14:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <000001c5ceb2$5a4355b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5ceb2$5a4355b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <434CB79D.6040103@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Marvin French > > ............. > >>I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have been changed. >>In a nutshell, this was the situation: >> >>The bidding went P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C-P-2D; P-3S-All pass. >> >>Responder had J8543 10 A10763 Q3 and went two down. It's >>irrelevant, but opener had A102 AKQ43 Q J1075. >> >>The 2D bid was Alerted but not questioned. Opener took 2D >>to be Fourth Suit Forcing, but reponder didn't think FSF >>(which they play) applied in view of his failure to redouble. >> >>The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at all probable). >>Four players were polled on South's action over 3S, assuming >>no UI, and three bid 4S, so the TD ruled 4S an LA to passing. > > > Opener has indicated a hand apparently limited to 14 (or maybe 15) HCP with > a probable distribution 3-5-1-4. I understand that there is no allegation of > him being in possession of any UI. > > Responder has limited his hand to 9 HCP and indicated holding a spade suit. > In his own opinion he has probably shown at least 5-4 in spades and > diamonds, in his partner's opinion he has made a fourth suit forcing. He may > be in possession of UI from seeing the alert by his partner to his own bid > of 2D. > > According to this the 3S bid by the opener must for the responder look like > a simple preference and for the opener look like a simple signoff. > This is how I analyse it too. Opener thinks the situation is FG, responder doesn't. Responder has UI about what opene thinks. According to that UI, Opener's 3S may well be on-going, or stronger than 4S. I would say that 4S is the suggested alternative. > I have a problem understanding how the possible UI from the alert can > suggest a pass for the responder's next call more than the fact that the 3S > bid itself in either case must suggest a pass. > I agree with Sven. > I tend to agree with the AC that regardless of the possible UI he should not > be forced a raise to 4S on a combined strength apparently limited to 23 HCP > and no good fit between the two hands. (The fact that opener actually held > 16 HCP is as you stated irrelevant). > I agree with the AC. > It would be of interest to know what contracts were reached at the other > tables in the room. > > Regards Sven > I'll take one more sentence from Marv's post that Sven has snipped: I don't realy need help on this one, the AC's decision was outrageous. What have we said before about politeness? Marv then continues to question the composition of the AC. I notice several names that I know and I've never been to the US. I think Marv should refrain from such personalized comments. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005 From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 09:11:41 2005 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:15:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <434C68CB.4090306@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200510101641.j9AGf8lS024143@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <434C68CB.4090306@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 12/10/05, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > No, Law 62C is not and shall not be limited to changing cards played to the > > revoke trick. > > > > Example: > > Really good one! > > > Declarer has a long spade suit headed by Ace King; Defenders hold between > > them the Queen and two small, and Dummy is void. All defenders' trumps are > > gone. > > > > Declarer leads the Ace of Spades, LHO plays a spade, Dummy discards and RHO > > shows out. > > > > Declarer plays a small spade and RHO states: "Hey I had a spade" (the revoke > > is not established) or LHO plays a spade causing the revoke to become > > established. > > > > First of all Declarer may withdraw and replace the card he led to the > > subsequent trick, but before that other played cards may or may not be > > withdrawn: > > Yes, this is allowed under both L47D and 62C1. > > > If the revoke was not established then RHO must withdraw his revoke card > > (this becomes a major penalty card) and replace it with a spade, after which > > Dummy may withdraw and replace the card that was originally played to the > > revoke trick. > > > > Question: If RHO has more than one card that he can legally play to the > > trick is he free to finally select the card he plays after Dummy has decided > > his play or may the card to be played from Dummy be decided after RHO has > > selected his play? > > Where does it say dummy's play may be changed? After all, it was made > before the revoke happened; I don't see anything allowing a change. I > think RHO can change his revoke card, then declarer can lead any card to > the next trick. I also think L47D suffices to allow declarer's change. > > > Now consider the situation when the revoke became established: > > Presumably LHO has played, and then RHO announces the revoke? > > > 1: The revoke trick may not be corrected but stands as played (Law 63C). > > OK. > > > 2: Declarer may withdraw and replace the card discarded from Dummy to this > > revoke trick (Law 62C1). > > Are you talking about the revoke trick or the subsequent trick on which > RHO announces he has revoked? Per L63C, I don't think the revoke trick > can be changed. But let's say LHO follows to the trick after the revoke > (thereby establishing the revoke), dummy plays, and then RHO produces a > spade. I think L62C1 but not L47D allows dummy's card to be changed. Huh? Now you're talking about events after the revoke has been established. That's not Law 62 territory. L62 is only effective until the revoke has been established. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > What puzzles me is this: what limits the time provided by L62C1? > Suppose the revoke is at trick 5 but isn't revealed until trick 10. Can > all declarer's cards from tricks 6 through 10 be changed? If not, why not? > > > If he does so then RHO may withdraw and replace the > > card he played to that revoke trick (Law 62C2). > > Also under L47D (but I think you mean the subsequent trick, not the > revoke trick). > > > I shall be looking forward for some clarification. At present I just feel > > confused. (And I shall not be surprised if I have overlooked something > > myself) > > Me too! > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Wed Oct 12 09:15:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed Oct 12 09:19:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <000001c5ceb2$5a4355b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5ceb2$5a4355b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1EPaq1-0YhBbM0@fwd29.sul.t-online.de> Hi Sven, "Sven Pran" wrote: > > On Behalf Of Marvin French > ............. > > I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have been changed. > > In a nutshell, this was the situation: > > > > The bidding went P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C-P-2D; P-3S-All pass. > > [snip] > > According to this the 3S bid by the opener must for the responder look like > a simple preference and for the opener look like a simple signoff. perhaps you agree, that 3S is neither a _simple_ preference nor a _simple_ signoff (in this bidding) ;-) Regards Peter > [snip] > Regards Sven > From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Wed Oct 12 10:20:49 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Wed Oct 12 10:22:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard recovering Message-ID: <005801c5cf05$dab97320$0100000a@BigPond> At 08:17 10/10/2005, Helen Hills wrote: >My son Richard is a member of this list, and is using my email >temporarily. He is in hospital - could you unsubscribe him for the time >being, or at least put him on daily digest instead of individual >emails? I am being overwhelmed with his emails! I've put him on digest mode (1 mail/day), if this is too much, I can switch off all mail delivery. Best wishes to Richard, hope he recovers soon, Henk * * * >From Wikipedia -> Delirium is probably the single most common acute disorder affecting adults in general hospitals. It affects 10-20% of all adults in hospital, and 30-40% in older patients. The core features are: * disturbance of consciousness (that is, reduced clarity of awareness of the environment, with reduced ability to focus, sustain, or shift attention) * change in cognition (e.g., memory impairment) or a perceptual disturbance * onset of hours to days, and tendency to fluctuate. Delirium should be distinguished from psychosis, in which consciousness and cognition may not be impaired, and dementia which describes an acquired intellectual impairment usually resulting from a degenerative brain disease. Delirium may be caused by severe physical or mental illness. Fever, poisons (including toxic drug reactions), brain injury, surgery, severe lack of food or ====water====, drug and severe alcohol withdrawal are all known to cause delirium. * * * I carelessly allowed myself to become severely dehydrated during the almost non-stop Virgin Blue flight from Canberra to Hobart. Therefore, like Dean Jones (when he scored his double century in India), I found myself in the Royal Hobart Hospital attached to a saline drip. I may be contacted via my mother's email address up to and including Sunday 16th October; from Monday 17th October please use my usual Canberra email address. Best wishes Richard James Hills amicus curiae 14 Braeside Crescent Sandy Bay TASMANIA 7005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/129 - Release Date: 11/10/05 From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 12 11:33:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Oct 12 11:36:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <434C68CB.4090306@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000301c5cf10$00ec7510$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > No, Law 62C is not and shall not be limited to changing cards > > played to the revoke trick. > > > > Example: > > Really good one! > > > Declarer has a long spade suit headed by Ace King; Defenders > > hold between them the Queen and two small, and Dummy is void. > > All defenders' trumps are gone. > > > > Declarer leads the Ace of Spades, LHO plays a spade, Dummy > > discards and RHO shows out. > > > > Declarer plays a small spade and RHO states: "Hey I had a spade" > > (the revoke is not established) or LHO plays a spade causing the > > revoke to become established. > > > > First of all Declarer may withdraw and replace the card he led > > to the subsequent trick, but before that other played cards may > > or may not bewithdrawn: > > Yes, this is allowed under both L47D and 62C1. > > > If the revoke was not established then RHO must withdraw his revoke > > card (this becomes a major penalty card) and replace it with a spade, > > after which Dummy may withdraw and replace the card that was > > originally played to the revoke trick. > > > > Question: If RHO has more than one card that he can legally play to > > the trick is he free to finally select the card he plays after Dummy > > has decided his play or may the card to be played from Dummy be > > decided after RHO has selected his play? > > Where does it say dummy's play may be changed? After all, it was made > before the revoke happened; I don't see anything allowing a change. I > think RHO can change his revoke card, then declarer can lead any card to > the next trick. I also think L47D suffices to allow declarer's change. Sorry, I managed to confuse myself! I believe I must have had L47D in mind but of course the play from Dummy was not subsequent to the play that was changed so it cannot be changed. > > Now consider the situation when the revoke became established: > > Presumably LHO has played, and then RHO announces the revoke? Yes. > > > 1: The revoke trick may not be corrected but stands as played (Law 63C). > > OK. > > > 2: Declarer may withdraw and replace the card discarded from Dummy > > to this revoke trick (Law 62C1). > > > > Are you talking about the revoke trick or the subsequent trick on which > RHO announces he has revoked? Per L63C, I don't think the revoke trick > can be changed. But let's say LHO follows to the trick after the revoke > (thereby establishing the revoke), dummy plays, and then RHO produces a > spade. I think L62C1 but not L47D allows dummy's card to be changed. I believe I may have confused myself also here. The idea was that because of the revoke Declarer "knows" that he must ruff one of his small spades (to "kill" the Queen), while with spades split 2-1 the suit runs by itself. I was really talking about the revoke trick where I thought I had stumbled upon a conflict between Law 62C1 and Law 63C, but L62C cannot logically apply here (see below). > What puzzles me is this: what limits the time provided by L62C1? > Suppose the revoke is at trick 5 but isn't revealed until trick 10. Can > all declarer's cards from tricks 6 through 10 be changed? If not, why > not? > > > If he does so then RHO may withdraw and replace the > > card he played to that revoke trick (Law 62C2). > > Also under L47D (but I think you mean the subsequent trick, not the > revoke trick). Frankly, at this moment I no longer remember what I really meant! 8-) But sorting my thoughts out me thinks that Law 62C1 applies to the revoke trick only when the revoke is not established, and applies to subsequent tricks (after the revoke trick) when the revoke is established. (And if this leaves any damage for NOS we must use L64C) > > I shall be looking forward for some clarification. At present I just > > feel confused. (And I shall not be surprised if I have overlooked > > something myself) > > Me too! Starting with what appeared to be a simple question difficult to answer I feel that I have made a real mess of how to use L62C1. I'm ashamed! But I am still confused. Regards Sven From con.holzscherer at philips.com Wed Oct 12 12:00:05 2005 From: con.holzscherer at philips.com (Con Holzscherer) Date: Wed Oct 12 12:06:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: I do agree with the AC and - therefore - not with Marvin. I am European however, so I may not understand ACBL bidding :) The meaning of 2C in the sequence P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C for me is: 11-16 points, 5+ hearts, 4+ clubs and 3- spades (usually 2-). With J8543 10 A10763 Q3 opposite such a hand, it is i.m.o. completely ridiculous to expect that 4 spades (or any onther game) will make. When I bid 2D (hoping partner will have 1-5-3-4 and pass) and partner bids 3S, I would expect to go down about 2 and never never never bid 4S. Regards, Con Holzscherer From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 12 14:38:55 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Oct 12 14:44:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 References: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002601c5cf29$e9d0a120$099468d5@jeushtlj> [Marvin French] > I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have > been changed ... > Opener S:AT2 H:AKQ43 D:Q C:JT75. > Responder S:J8543 H:T D:AT763 C:Q3 > (P)1H(X)1S; (P)2C(P)2D; (P)3S AP. > 3S went two down. > The 2D bid was alerted but not questioned. > Opener took 2D to be Fourth Suit Forcing, > but responder didn't think FSF (which they > play) applied in view of his failure to XX. > The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at > all probable). Four players were polled on > South's action over 3S, assuming no UI, and > three bid 4S, so the TD ruled 4S an LA to > passing. The ruling was appealed. The AC > cavalierly decided that 4S was not an LA > with that hand, and restored the table > result of 3S off two. I don't relay need > help on this one, the AC's decision was > outrageous. Not surprising, because: > The AC consisted of Bill Cole, Chair, Jo > Morse and Sheri Winestock. I have a > listing entitled "NABC Appeals Committee > Atlanta NABC 2005" and none of them > is included ... [nige1] I agree with Marv. The TD decision was right. The AC was wrong. Opener seems to have jumped in spades because he thought that responder's fourth suit bid showed a stronger hand than he held. The UI from the alert suggested that responder pass. 4S is a logical alternative to pass. 4S was the bid chosen by a majority of a sample of Opener's peers. QED. Inevitably, some BLMLers will argue that an AC have the right to use judgement to over-ride the facts and ignore the law; but surely most will agree with Marv that, on the facts presented, this was a travesty of justice. AC inexperience is feeble excuse. When I'm co-opted onto an AC, before it delivers its verdict, I always ask the TD to come back to advise us whether our reasoning is lawful. From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Oct 12 15:27:35 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Oct 12 15:29:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <002601c5cf29$e9d0a120$099468d5@jeushtlj> References: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002601c5cf29$e9d0a120$099468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <434D0F47.1010003@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > > [nige1] > I agree with Marv. The TD decision was right. The > AC was wrong. Opener seems to have jumped in > spades because he thought that responder's fourth > suit bid showed a stronger hand than he held. The > UI from the alert suggested that responder pass. > 4S is a logical alternative to pass. 4S was the > bid chosen by a majority of a sample of Opener's > peers. QED. > let's agree to disagree. However: > Inevitably, some BLMLers will argue that an AC > have the right to use judgement to over-ride the > facts and ignore the law; what? The AC have the duty to use judgment! and no-one is overriding any facts. or ignoring any laws. > but surely most will > agree with Marv that, on the facts presented, this > was a travesty of justice. > so far, there have been 3 reactions to Marv, and one (that is not "most") agree with him. "surely". and then, to call any idea other than your own a 'travesty of justice' is exactly the reason why people are dropping out of this list. > AC inexperience is feeble excuse. When I'm > co-opted onto an AC, before it delivers its > verdict, I always ask the TD to come back to > advise us whether our reasoning is lawful. > both your and our reasoning is completely lawful. all that is needed is an analysis of what the UI is, and what it suggests. IMO, only responder has UI: the failure to alert. that failure tells responder that opener has misinterpreted his bid of 2D. What this suggests is not clear, because we have not a complete description of the system. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/129 - Release Date: 11/10/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 12 18:06:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Oct 12 18:12:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 References: Message-ID: <001601c5cf47$1076dca0$7caa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* The problem with political suicide is that you live to regret it. ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Con Holzscherer" To: " Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 > I do agree with the AC and - therefore - not with > Marvin. > > I am European however, so I may not understand > ACBL bidding :) > +=+ Don't worry Con. There are lots of non-Europeans also who do not understand ACBL bidding. But the players are always willing to explain. The question I would be asking here is the extent to which the appellants have shown the Director's ruling to be flawed. If he is listening I would have expected Kojak to raise a question about that. It is a very brave AC that concludes 4S is not a logical alternative when that is the action taken by 75% of the players consulted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 12 18:51:59 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Oct 12 18:58:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 References: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002601c5cf29$e9d0a120$099468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005401c5cf4d$4ce90c20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" (who must have had to reformat a lot because of line length, sorry about that). > [Marvin French] > > I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have > > been changed ... > > Opener S:AT2 H:AKQ43 D:Q C:JT75. > > Responder S:J8543 H:T D:AT763 C:Q3 > > (P)1H(X)1S; (P)2C(P)2D; (P)3S AP. > > 3S went two down. > > The 2D bid was alerted but not questioned. > > Opener took 2D to be Fourth Suit Forcing, > > but responder didn't think FSF (which they > > play) applied in view of his failure to XX. > > The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at > > all probable). Four players were polled on > > South's action over 3S, assuming no UI, and > > three bid 4S, so the TD ruled 4S an LA to > > passing. The ruling was appealed. The AC > > cavalierly decided that 4S was not an LA > > with that hand, and restored the table > > result of 3S off two. I don't relay need > > help on this one, the AC's decision was > > outrageous. Not surprising, because: > > The AC consisted of Bill Cole, Chair, Jo > > Morse and Sheri Winestock. I have a > > listing entitled "NABC Appeals Committee > > Atlanta NABC 2005" and none of them > > is included ... > > [nige1] > I agree with Marv. The TD decision was right. The > AC was wrong. Opener seems to have jumped in > spades because he thought that responder's fourth > suit bid showed a stronger hand than he held. The > UI from the alert suggested that responder pass. > 4S is a logical alternative to pass. 4S was the > bid chosen by a majority of a sample of Opener's > peers. QED. > > Inevitably, some BLMLers will argue that an AC > have the right to use judgement to over-ride the > facts and ignore the law; but surely most will > agree with Marv that, on the facts presented, this > was a travesty of justice. > > AC inexperience is feeble excuse. When I'm > co-opted onto an AC, before it delivers its > verdict, I always ask the TD to come back to > advise us whether our reasoning is lawful. > I omitted the AC's reasoning because I didn't want it to affect any opinions. They said that 3S shows the same hand whether 2D is FSF or natural, so South's pass was okay. I disagree with that. An FSF 3S shows only a queen or so of extra values opposite a non-game-forcing FSF (as a passed hand's must be). Opposite a possibly weak two-suiter, 3S shows a fine fitting hand. In this case, for instance, North did not have his 3S bid if 2D is natural and possibly weak, with his values mostly outside of South's suits, a takeout double over him, and a singleton diamond besides. As South behind a screen, I would expect something like AKx Axxxx x KJxx for the 3S bid, a cold hand for game with any lead, even with Q10xx spades in the East hand. That queen of clubs is worth a lot, after all, and South would have bid 2D without it. Rightly or wrongly (well, wrongly), the ACBL relies heavily on polls, so the AC had no business changing the TD's ruling. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 12 19:01:53 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Oct 12 19:02:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:23:04 +0200." <000001c5ceb2$5a4355b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200510121701.KAA13456@mailhub.irvine.com> > > On Behalf Of Marvin French > ............. > > I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have been changed. > > In a nutshell, this was the situation: > > > > The bidding went P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C-P-2D; P-3S-All pass. > > > > Responder had J8543 10 A10763 Q3 and went two down. It's > > irrelevant, but opener had A102 AKQ43 Q J1075. > > > > The 2D bid was Alerted but not questioned. Opener took 2D > > to be Fourth Suit Forcing, but reponder didn't think FSF > > (which they play) applied in view of his failure to redouble. > > > > The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at all probable). > > Four players were polled on South's action over 3S, assuming > > no UI, and three bid 4S, so the TD ruled 4S an LA to passing. > > Opener has indicated a hand apparently limited to 14 (or maybe 15) HCP with > a probable distribution 3-5-1-4. I understand that there is no allegation of > him being in possession of any UI. Why is opener limited? I don't see this at all. Unless this quote... > According to this the 3S bid by the opener must for the responder look like > a simple preference and for the opener look like a simple signoff. means that you failed to notice that opener's third bid was a jump. > Responder has limited his hand to 9 HCP and indicated holding a spade suit. I'm also not so sure about responder's hand being limited to 9 HCP. There may still be some players around that believe that you must redouble with all hands with 10+ points. Good players have abandoned that view. On the other hand, the comments about "failure to redouble" may indicate that they still play that way. In any case, it doesn't matter. From responder's point of view, if his auction is limited to 9 HCP and opener has still made a third-round jump, responder must have a good hand for game. He has an extra trump (I don't buy the argument that his auction already showed 5 spades), and a good card in partner's second suit. The negative is that the takeout doubler is likely to have something in spades. It's close, but I think I'd bid 4S, especially at IMPs (Marv didn't tell us the form of scoring or the vulnerability). In any case, I don't see any merit to the position that 4S is not a LA. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 12 19:09:49 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Oct 12 19:16:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 References: <000001c5ceb2$5a4355b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <434CB79D.6040103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005d01c5cf4f$c2545580$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" Marv wrote: > I don't realy need help on this one, the AC's decision was outrageous. > > What have we said before about politeness? Okay, bad adjective. The decision was extremely inappropriate. Better? > > Marv then continues to question the composition of the AC. I notice > several names that I know and I've never been to the US. I think Marv > should refrain from such personalized comments. > ACBL AC members have presumably been trained to render decisions properly, that is why the ACBL has named this committee (which receives remuneration for its efforts). Even very good players are not necessarily good arbiters, because many (most?) are not familiar with the subtleties involved in the application of the Laws. Certainly they do not have as much ability, typically, as the very experienced TDs who run NABC+ events. Conversely, there are some rather mediocre players on the NABC AC who are very good arbiters, probably as a result of training. The ACBL puts on an AC seminar at every NABC, open to all, but I don't see any experts showing up for them. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 12 19:18:22 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Oct 12 19:18:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:51:59 PDT." <005401c5cf4d$4ce90c20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200510121718.KAA13557@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > I omitted the AC's reasoning because I > didn't want it to affect any opinions. They said that 3S shows the > same hand whether 2D is FSF or natural, so South's pass was okay. Interesting. In your earlier post, you said that that the AC decided 4S was not a LA. Now it appears that they ruled that the table result should stand because the actual pass was not suggested over 4S by the hesitation. I'm trusting that your reporting is correct, so it appears that this AC may not have understood the difference between ruling that an alternative call is not a LA and ruling that a call is not suggested by UI. > I disagree with that. An FSF 3S I'm sure you mean FSF 2D? > shows only a queen or so of > extra values opposite a non-game-forcing FSF (as a passed hand's > must be). The way you presented the original auction: >> The bidding went P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C-P-2D; P-3S-All pass. the dealer was the opening bidder's RHO and passed, then opener opened 1H. So there weren't any passed hands involved. (Maybe you were speaking hypothetically about a passed hand's FSF in some other auction?) In any case, I think responder's last pass clearly *was* suggested by the UI, and you don't need an analysis of what 3S would show in this or that auction to see this (although I'm sure your analysis is correct). Very simply: A player who does not know the rules about not taking advantage of UI, and who receives UI that his bid showed more strength than he thought it did, is going to try to compensate by underbidding next time. That's what I think happened here. This was a terrible ruling by the AC. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 12 19:22:55 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Oct 12 19:23:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:01:53 PDT." <200510121701.KAA13456@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200510121722.KAA13602@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > It's close, but I think I'd bid 4S, especially at IMPs (Marv didn't > tell us the form of scoring or the vulnerability). Well, actually, he did later say "GNT finals, nothing else scheduled for that day", so I guess I should have figured out that it was IMPs. (For non-ACBL readers: GNT is the Grand National Teams and is a knockout event.) -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 12 19:25:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Oct 12 19:28:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <005401c5cf4d$4ce90c20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c5cf51$e1639e70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French > Sent: 12. oktober 2005 18:52 > To: BLML@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 > > > From: "Guthrie" (who must have had to reformat a lot because of line > length, sorry about that). > > > [Marvin French] > > > I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have > > > been changed ... > > > Opener S:AT2 H:AKQ43 D:Q C:JT75. > > > Responder S:J8543 H:T D:AT763 C:Q3 > > > (P)1H(X)1S; (P)2C(P)2D; (P)3S AP. > > > 3S went two down. > > > The 2D bid was alerted but not questioned. > > > Opener took 2D to be Fourth Suit Forcing, > > > but responder didn't think FSF (which they > > > play) applied in view of his failure to XX. > > > The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at > > > all probable). Four players were polled on > > > South's action over 3S, assuming no UI, and > > > three bid 4S, so the TD ruled 4S an LA to > > > passing. The ruling was appealed. The AC > > > cavalierly decided that 4S was not an LA > > > with that hand, and restored the table > > > result of 3S off two. I don't relay need > > > help on this one, the AC's decision was > > > outrageous. Not surprising, because: > > > The AC consisted of Bill Cole, Chair, Jo > > > Morse and Sheri Winestock. I have a > > > listing entitled "NABC Appeals Committee > > > Atlanta NABC 2005" and none of them > > > is included ... > > > > [nige1] > > I agree with Marv. The TD decision was right. The > > AC was wrong. Opener seems to have jumped in > > spades because he thought that responder's fourth > > suit bid showed a stronger hand than he held. The > > UI from the alert suggested that responder pass. > > 4S is a logical alternative to pass. 4S was the > > bid chosen by a majority of a sample of Opener's > > peers. QED. > > > > Inevitably, some BLMLers will argue that an AC > > have the right to use judgement to over-ride the > > facts and ignore the law; but surely most will > > agree with Marv that, on the facts presented, this > > was a travesty of justice. > > > > AC inexperience is feeble excuse. When I'm > > co-opted onto an AC, before it delivers its > > verdict, I always ask the TD to come back to > > advise us whether our reasoning is lawful. > > > I omitted the AC's reasoning because I > didn't want it to affect any opinions. They said that 3S shows the > same hand whether 2D is FSF or natural, so South's pass was okay. > > I disagree with that. An FSF 3S shows only a queen or so of > extra values opposite a non-game-forcing FSF (as a passed hand's > must be). Opposite a possibly weak two-suiter, 3S shows a fine > fitting hand. In this case, for instance, North did not have his 3S > bid if 2D is natural and possibly weak, with his values mostly > outside of South's suits, a takeout double over him, and a singleton > diamond besides. As South behind a screen, I would expect something > like AKx Axxxx x KJxx for the 3S bid, a cold hand for game with any > lead, even with Q10xx spades in the East hand. That queen of clubs > is worth a lot, after all, and South would have bid 2D without it. > > Rightly or wrongly (well, wrongly), the ACBL relies heavily on > polls, so the AC had no business changing the TD's ruling. Important question: Was the poll representative for the field? I asked for and still would like to know the contracts across the entire field. Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 12 19:34:26 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Oct 12 19:34:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:25:02 +0200." <000101c5cf51$e1639e70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200510121734.KAA13693@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > Important question: Was the poll representative for the field? > > I asked for and still would like to know the contracts across the entire > field. It appears to me that the event was a KO event and thus there was no field---the hand would have been played just one other time. Of course your first question is still important since the players polled should ideally be at the same general level of experience as the actual players. Marv said this was a GNT (Grand National Team) finals; but the GNT is divided into three flights (or is it four now?), and we haven't been told what flight this was. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 12 20:56:25 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Oct 12 20:59:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <200510121701.KAA13456@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000201c5cf5e$a57a7a70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > > ............. > > > I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have been changed. > > > In a nutshell, this was the situation: > > > > > > The bidding went P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C-P-2D; P-3S-All pass. > > > > > > Responder had J8543 10 A10763 Q3 and went two down. It's > > > irrelevant, but opener had A102 AKQ43 Q J1075. > > > > > > The 2D bid was Alerted but not questioned. Opener took 2D > > > to be Fourth Suit Forcing, but reponder didn't think FSF > > > (which they play) applied in view of his failure to redouble. > > > > > > The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at all probable). > > > Four players were polled on South's action over 3S, assuming > > > no UI, and three bid 4S, so the TD ruled 4S an LA to passing. > > > > Opener has indicated a hand apparently limited to 14 > > (or maybe 15) HCP with a probable distribution 3-5-1-4. > > I understand that there is no allegation of him being > > in possession of any UI. > > Why is opener limited? I don't see this at all. Well, I assumed a natural system, and the way I know natural systems an opening bid of one in a suit followed up with a "cheap" rebid in a second suit (a rebid that is not a reverse bid and not a jump bid) limits the hand to 14 or maximum 15 HCP. If the opener holds at least 16 HCP he is supposed to present a reverse bid or a jump bid as his second call. Unless this quote... > > > According to this the 3S bid by the opener must > > for the responder look like a simple preference > > and for the opener look like a simple signoff. > > means that you failed to notice that opener's third bid was a jump. I did indeed. And if my partner came back to me with an auction like that I would hold him for 14 or maximum 15 HCP and a bulk of them in a three card spade suit. (When he bid 2C he denied 4 cards support in spades so the jump bid to 3S must show a solid three card support, still within a total of 14 or 15 HCP) > > > Responder has limited his hand to 9 HCP and indicated > > holding a spade suit. > > I'm also not so sure about responder's hand being limited to 9 HCP. > There may still be some players around that believe that you must > redouble with all hands with 10+ points. Good players have abandoned > that view. On the other hand, the comments about "failure to > redouble" may indicate that they still play that way. In my book it is imperative that you inform your partner with a redouble (or some other agreed upon conventional call) that you hold 10+ HCP if you do. All other calls limit the hand to 9 HCP. > > In any case, it doesn't matter. From responder's point of view, if > his auction is limited to 9 HCP and opener has still made a > third-round jump, responder must have a good hand for game. He has an > extra trump (I don't buy the argument that his auction already showed > 5 spades), and a good card in partner's second suit. The negative is > that the takeout doubler is likely to have something in spades. Sure the responder has indicated holding 5 spades with his secondary suit bid in Diamonds after first bidding spades which the doubler must be expected to have as well? Does the responder really hold any value in excess of what he has already shown, value sufficient to play for game rather than for a part score? > > It's close, but I think I'd bid 4S, especially at IMPs (Marv didn't > tell us the form of scoring or the vulnerability). In any case, I > don't see any merit to the position that 4S is not a LA. > > -- Adam Here I agree. At IMP I dare not stop in partscore contracts if there is a reasonable chance of making game. But what are seriously the chances for game "knowing" that the players have a maximum of 24 HCP between them and only 8 spades together with not a too good fit in the other suits? I still wonder what the contracts were around the field. Sven From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 12 21:08:12 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Oct 12 21:08:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:56:25 +0200." <000201c5cf5e$a57a7a70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200510121908.MAA14202@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > Why is opener limited? I don't see this at all. > > Well, I assumed a natural system, and the way I know natural systems an > opening bid of one in a suit followed up with a "cheap" rebid in a second > suit (a rebid that is not a reverse bid and not a jump bid) limits the hand > to 14 or maximum 15 HCP. If the opener holds at least 16 HCP he is supposed > to present a reverse bid or a jump bid as his second call. I don't think that fits in with American practice. A new suit rebid by opener, even if not a reverse or a jump, can have a pretty wide range, even though it's not forcing. (A new suit at the *one* level is often considered to be 99% forcing, or even 100% forcing by some players. At the two level, in the auction 1X-1Y-2Z, the rebid can be passed more often but is still not narrowly limited.) -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 12 21:12:23 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Oct 12 21:12:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:56:25 +0200." <000201c5cf5e$a57a7a70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200510121912.MAA14229@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > I'm also not so sure about responder's hand being limited to 9 HCP. > > There may still be some players around that believe that you must > > redouble with all hands with 10+ points. Good players have abandoned > > that view. On the other hand, the comments about "failure to > > redouble" may indicate that they still play that way. > > In my book it is imperative that you inform your partner with a redouble (or > some other agreed upon conventional call) that you hold 10+ HCP if you do. > All other calls limit the hand to 9 HCP. I should have qualified my post by saying "good American players". As far as I know, American experts no longer recommend the treatment you describe. I'm not criticizing your methods---perhaps your method is standard expert practice in Norway, but not here. -- Adam From adam at tameware.com Wed Oct 12 07:00:47 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed Oct 12 22:36:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 2:08 PM -0700 10/11/05, Marvin French wrote: >I've been asked to comment on the Atlanta cases, but I'm too lazy to put >them all on BLML, maybe Adam will do that. I've just posted cases N-01 through N-11. The others will follow later this week. http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Wed Oct 12 23:27:15 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Wed Oct 12 23:29:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Richard recovering In-Reply-To: <003c01c5cf14$2d64e650$71c487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <009501c5cf73$b7df98c0$0100000a@BigPond> >>+=+ Some old salt you had met? >> Cheers and Good Luck, my son. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Ernest Hemingway: >The son also rises. A.A. Milne (freely adapted): >The more it snows >Tiddley pom >The more it goes >Tiddley pom >The more it goes >Tiddley pom >On >Snowing > >And somebody knows >Tiddley pom >How cold my toes >Tiddley pom >How cold my toes >Tiddley pom >Are >Growing Grattan Endicott - Thank you very much for the Best wishes Richard James Hills amicus curiae 14 Braeside Crescent Sandy Bay TASNANIA 7005 >>The problem with political suicide is >>that you live to regret it. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/131 - Release Date: 12/10/05 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 12 23:24:10 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Oct 12 23:31:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 References: <200510121701.KAA13456@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001901c5cf73$52d7f300$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" (big snip) > > In any case, it doesn't matter. From responder's point of view, if > his auction is limited to 9 HCP and opener has still made a > third-round jump, responder must have a good hand for game. He has an > extra trump (I don't buy the argument that his auction already showed > 5 spades), and a good card in partner's second suit. The negative is > that the takeout doubler is likely to have something in spades. He also has the queen of partner's club suit, producing a good play for game opposite S-AQx H-Axxxx D-x C-KJxx, which looks like a minimum to me for bidding 3S opposite a possbly weak two-suiter in spade-diamonds, with a takeout double on the left. To beat 4S with typical E-W holdings, East with Kxxx spades and 4=1=4=4 distribution, Deep Finesse says West must lead a trump and East must hop up with the ace on a club lead from dummy (even with A1098), or ruff with the king on the second round of hearts, in order to continue trumps. That's a doubtful parlay. > > It's close, but I think I'd bid 4S, especially at IMPs (Marv didn't > tell us the form of scoring or the vulnerability). In any case, I > don't see any merit to the position that 4S is not a LA. > I think I said it was the GNT pairs championship, which means IMPs, but I should have noted that N-S were not vulnerable, which could be important I suppose. I believe the AC would say that whether 4S is an LA is less important than whether the Alert suggested that a pass would be better. If not, an LA is irrelevant, as are the polls, and South's pass is okay.. I think most of us agree that the Alert would suggest to South that bidding 4S would be dangerous when North expects values for an FSF bid, as the requirements for bidding 3S opposite 2D FSF are less than for bidding 3S opposite 2D showing a weak two-suiter. If that is so, then the existence of an LA is relevant, as are the polls. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 12 17:23:19 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Oct 13 01:12:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 References: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002601c5cf29$e9d0a120$099468d5@jeushtlj> <434D0F47.1010003@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c5cf81$97cf4040$1a9868d5@jeushtlj> [Herman de Wael] > and then, to call any idea other than > your own a 'travesty of justice' is > exactly the reason why people are dropping > out of this list. [nige1] Herman's statement is as extreme as mine and I dispute its truth. I hardly ever use the clich? "Travesty of Justice" (although its does seems appropriate in this instance and it is surely acceptable in a discussion about Law). Except in rare cases that seem incontrovertible, I preface my thoughts with IMO and qualify my opinions with a plethora of "likely"s and "may"s. From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 13 03:00:31 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Oct 13 03:00:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:00:47 EDT." Message-ID: <200510130100.SAA16373@mailhub.irvine.com> > I've just posted cases N-01 through N-11. The others will follow > later this week. > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 Adam, what happened with N-03? The facts of the case appear to be mucked up. There are at least three errors (the compass direction of the player who bid 3S was wrong twice, and the ruling had to do with whether pass was a logical alternative to the bid on which a tempo break occurred, not to a later bid). That makes it hard to discern just what did happen. -- Adam Beneschan From adam at tameware.com Thu Oct 13 04:51:54 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu Oct 13 04:55:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: <200510130100.SAA16373@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200510130100.SAA16373@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: At 6:00 PM -0700 10/12/05, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > I've just posted cases N-01 through N-11. The others will follow >> later this week. >> > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 > >Adam, what happened with N-03? The facts of the case appear to be >mucked up. There are at least three errors (the compass direction of >the player who bid 3S was wrong twice, and the ruling had to do with >whether pass was a logical alternative to the bid on which a tempo >break occurred, not to a later bid). That makes it hard to discern >just what did happen. > > -- Adam Beneschan Earlier today I posted a note to the effect that these write-ups will be revised in a day or two, but for a reason I don't understand my note is waiting for moderator approval. If the facts are as I suspect they are then it looks to me as though the TD skipped the part where he ought to have determined whether the UI demonstrably suggested the action taken. I'd say that the UI demonstrably suggested Pass over 4S! What do you think would be the effect of a form which all TDs and ACs had to fill in for UI cases? It would ask something like this: 1. Was UI available? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2. What were the logical alternatives to the action taken by the player who had UI available? List them here: 3. Did the UI demonstrably suggest the action taken over a logical alternative which would have been less successful? ( ) Yes ( ) No -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 12 13:56:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Oct 13 09:10:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <00dc01c5cea7$e061e720$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > I think the N-01 TD ruling should not have been changed. In a nutshell, > this was the situation: > > The bidding went P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C-P-2D; P-3S-All pass. > > Responder had J8543 10 A10763 Q3 and went two down. It's irrelevant, but > opener had A102 AKQ43 Q J1075. > > The 2D bid was Alerted but not questioned. Opener took 2D to be Fourth > Suit Forcing, but reponder didn't think FSF (which they play) applied in > view of his failure to redouble. > > The TD ruled 4S down three (a double not at all probable). Four players > were polled on South's action over 3S, assuming no UI, and three bid 4S, > so the TD ruled 4S an LA to passing. The ruling was appealed. > > The AC cavalierly decided that 4S was not an LA with that hand, Truly bizarre - particularly by US standards. I'd have thought a majority of people would "seriously consider" bidding four. > and restored the table result of 3S off two. > I don't realy need help on this one, the AC's decision was outrageous. Outrageous or misreported? Like others I can see no reason why the LA of 4S is *suggested* by the UI. Whatever pard thinks 2D was he is surely showing a 3514 hand with extras (possibly lots of extras if FSFG would be a possible interpretation). Even if their reasoning *was* at fault it is some consolation they got the right result. Tim From adam at tameware.com Wed Oct 12 20:55:04 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu Oct 13 09:10:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta Appeals (was Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01) Message-ID: <694eadd40510121155t2b4a47e0m77a261e3f8458b45@mail.gmail.com> On 10/12/05, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > I've just posted cases N-01 through N-11. The others will follow > later this week. > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 Dave Smith at the ACBL tells me that he has several typos to fix and missing footnotes to add, so you may want to wait to download the file. I'll post to BLML when a new version is available. With luck that will be in a day or two. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051013/796498db/attachment-0001.htm From craigstamps at comcast.net Thu Oct 13 05:51:58 2005 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Thu Oct 13 09:10:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 References: <000001c5ceb2$5a4355b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <434CB79D.6040103@hdw.be> <005d01c5cf4f$c2545580$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <009d01c5cfa9$76270ae0$4e125344@craigjkd4vrl7u> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" > ACBL AC members have presumably been trained to render decisions > properly, that is why the ACBL has named this committee (which > receives remuneration for its efforts). Even very good players are > not necessarily good arbiters, because many (most?) are not familiar > with the subtleties involved in the application of the Laws. > Certainly they do not have as much ability, typically, as the very > experienced TDs who run NABC+ events. Anyone who has sat across the table from Bill Cole, Jo Morse or Stevie Robinson would be loathe to question their familiarity with the laws. All are well known in D.C. bridge not only as fine players but as thoroughly conversant with ruling the game. My faith in the ACBL is less than in the WBL, NVBA or MABC. I have considered it a privilege in past to contest with (and of course most often lose to) such knowledgeable and pleasant people and take offense at any implication that they are less than capable of sitting on *any* AC. However, as I have communicated to MArv privately, I do not believe he intended in any way to slander these and other AC members...he would have preferred if the decisions had been made by a hand-picked coterie. I would question that would make for better decisions...what would you say Kojak?...would you as chief TD (and with midatlantic experience aplenty) have been seriously uncomfortable in asking these people to serve if the designated crew had not been available? You know them all better than almost anyone on list! Craig From hmhills at bigpond.net.au Thu Oct 13 07:31:27 2005 From: hmhills at bigpond.net.au (Helen Hills) Date: Thu Oct 13 09:10:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlantis (was Atlanta ... ) Message-ID: <00e401c5cfb7$5c30e440$0100000a@BigPond> The unfallen Adam asked: [snip] >What do you think would be the effect of >a form which all TDs and ACs had to fill >in for UI cases? It would ask something >like this: > >1. Was UI available? >( ) Yes ( ) No > >2. What were the logical alternatives >to the action taken by the player who >had UI available? >List them here: > >3. Did the UI demonstrably suggest the >action taken over a logical alternative >which would have been less successful? >( ) Yes ( ) No The fallen Lucifer adds an adder to Adam's apple: 4. Did the use of UI damage the NOS? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, proofreader Training and Staff Development Section (02) 6264 2226 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/131 - Release Date: 12/10/05 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051013/a215c4f2/attachment.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 13 15:08:14 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Oct 13 15:13:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510130100.SAA16373@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002c01c5cff7$2c24ad00$339868d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavsky] > What do you think would be the effect of a > form which all TDs and ACs had to fill in > for UI cases? It would ask something like > this: > 1. Was UI available? ( ) Yes ( ) No > 2. What were the logical alternatives to > the action taken by the player who had UI > available? List them here: > ........ > 3. Did the UI demonstrably suggest the > action taken over a logical alternative > which would have been less successful? > ( ) Yes ( ) No [nige1] Good idea. Perhaps you could adapt Adam's idea to other laws, that are often misinterpreted, like claims and concealed partnership understandings (as evidenced by "fielded" deviations). You don't even need a physical form. Were such flow-charts included in the law-book, both players and directors would have a better idea of the practical meaning and intended impact of the law. IMO, unless the accusers are popular experts, it's hard for a TD or AC to rule against putative offenders. Such flow-charts would make the distasteful duty more palatable. Obviously, anything that makes correct adverse rulings seem automatic and inexorable will redress more damage and deter more law-breaking. From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Oct 13 16:16:32 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu Oct 13 16:20:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C823@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Wildavsky [mailto:adam@tameware.com] Sent: 13 October 2005 03:52 What do you think would be the effect of a form which all TDs and ACs had to fill in for UI cases? It would ask something like this: 1. Was UI available? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2. What were the logical alternatives to the action taken by the player who had UI available? List them here: 3. Did the UI demonstrably suggest the action taken over a logical alternative which would have been less successful? ( ) Yes ( ) No ----- Adam The EBU appeals form http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/TD%20Forms/Appeal%20form.pdf does more or less what you suggest. The TD has to answer 5 questions for UI ruling and in overturning the ruling the AC is required to say which answer(s) they disagree with. A Which action is being questioned? B Might the player concerned have received unauthorised information in consequence of an action by his partner? Y/N C Could the opponents have suffered damage as a consequence of the alleged unauthorised information? Y/N D Were there one or more logical alternatives to the action which is being questioned? If yes, what are they? Y/N E Could the alleged unauthorised information suggest that the player's selected action might be more likely to be successful than one of the logical alternatives? Y/N 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 adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 13 17:27:49 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Oct 13 17:28:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:51:54 EDT." Message-ID: <200510131527.IAA21310@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > If the facts are as I suspect they are then it looks to me as though > the TD skipped the part where he ought to have determined whether the > UI demonstrably suggested the action taken. I'd say that the UI > demonstrably suggested Pass over 4S! When I first read it, before I reread it more carefully, it looked like a problem where there was a break in tempo before West's *pass*, and the issue was whether pass was a logical alternative to East's 3S bid. That, to me, would have been a case where there might be arguments both ways, and it certainly would look more like most UI cases tend to look (hesitation-then-pass showing extra strength). But I'll wait for a correct version before I comment further. -- Adam Beneschan From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 13 21:36:24 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Oct 13 21:43:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510130100.SAA16373@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <006e01c5d02d$6701bcc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > >Adam, what happened with N-03? The facts of the case appear to be > >mucked up. There are at least three errors (the compass direction of > >the player who bid 3S was wrong twice, and the ruling had to do with > >whether pass was a logical alternative to the bid on which a tempo > >break occurred, not to a later bid). That makes it hard to discern > >just what did happen. > > > > -- Adam Beneschan > > Earlier today I posted a note to the effect that these write-ups will > be revised in a day or two, but for a reason I don't understand my > note is waiting for moderator approval. > > If the facts are as I suspect they are then it looks to me as though > the TD skipped the part where he ought to have determined whether the > UI demonstrably suggested the action taken. His ruling determined that by implication. You don't talk about LAs without first determining that there was UI demonstrably suggesting an action taken, at least not at the NABC+ level.. > I'd say that the UI > demonstrably suggested Pass over 4S! Yes, if West passed 3S with that hand after East's BIT and it only made three, there would be hell to pay. East first bid a "free" 2S in response to the double, which West passed despite having values for a 2NT (or 3H?) bid. He feared, evidently, insufficient heart stoppage and only four spades in the East hand. When East bid freely again (3S), I don't see how West could pass with 20 HCP, a doubleton heart, and quick tricks besides. Of course East should not bid 3S quickly, but he apparently took a little too much time. With nothing to think about (both pass, not vulnerable, and 4S out of the question), I don't understand the reason for the BIT. Maybe he was afraid of pushing N-S to a makeable 4H (one trick short of being true). An AWMW was richly deserved but not given, tsk tsk. Members of the NABC AC would undoubtedly have given one, but this was an *ad hoc* committee. Mere bridge expertise does not equate with expertise in applying the Laws. > > What do you think would be the effect of a form which all TDs and ACs > had to fill in for UI cases? It would ask something like this: > > 1. Was UI available? > > ( ) Yes ( ) No > > 2. What were the logical alternatives to the action taken by the > player who had UI available? > > List them here: > > 3. Did the UI demonstrably suggest the action taken over a logical > alternative which would have been less successful? > > ( ) Yes ( ) No Or more clearly, "any logical alternatives that would have been less successful?" and 4. If so, adjust the score in accordance with L12C2. > There was such a chart composed by Alan Le Bendig five or six years ago, which he distributed to AC members in a little seminar he was holding. I remember it having a serious flaw, but it was a good idea. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 14 00:33:33 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Oct 14 00:40:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510130100.SAA16373@mailhub.irvine.com> <006e01c5d02d$6701bcc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <010f01c5d046$26964e80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> I wrote: > > Of course East should not bid 3S quickly, but he apparently took a > little too much time. With nothing to think about (both pass, not > vulnerable, and 4S out of the question), I don't understand the > reason for the BIT. Maybe he was afraid of pushing N-S to a makeable > 4H (one trick short of being true). Guess I had this wrong. The revised writeup now makes clear that it was West who broke tempo, before his pass to East's free 2S bid. Now we have a real case. I'll have to think about this one. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 14 03:27:15 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Oct 14 03:30:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <200510121421.j9CEL0pP006509@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200510121421.j9CEL0pP006509@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <434F0973.6040601@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Con Holzscherer > I am European however, so I may not understand ACBL bidding :) I think a lot of correspondents had the same misunderstanding. > The meaning of 2C in the sequence P-1H-Dbl-1S; P-2C > for me is: > 11-16 points, 5+ hearts, 4+ clubs and 3- spades (usually 2-). Over here the 2C bid is not so limited; up to 19 (just less than GF) is possible. Opener's subsequent 3S bid promises the upper end of that range and exactly 3 spades. Of course the TD and AC should have verified that these usual methods were the ones used by the partnership concerned. I'm mystified by the European methods. How can opener force to game with only 17-18 support points? Or would 3C not be GF? > With J8543 10 A10763 Q3 There is no doubt whatever that 4S is a LA, given the above methods. After all, 3 of 4 players polled bid it! And don't forget the ACBL's expansive definition of LA. I also don't see any doubt about "suggested over another." If 2D is natural and could be a minimum, the 3S bid promises 18-19 support points. If 2D is GF or even shows a non-minimum, 3S can be bid on a much weaker hand, perhaps 14+. I find the AC's decision inexplicable unless there is something unusual (for America) about the partnership methods. From adam at tameware.com Fri Oct 14 06:07:36 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Oct 14 06:11:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta Cases Posted Message-ID: I've posted an updated version of cases N01-N11, and in addition the rest of the NABC cases and the Regional cases: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 I've haven't started my casebook comments yet. Once I've written some I'll post them on the same page. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri Oct 14 06:41:07 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Oct 14 06:45:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C823@hotel.npl.co.uk> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C823@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: At 3:16 PM +0100 10/13/05, Robin Barker wrote: >The EBU appeals form > >http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/TD%20Forms/Appeal%20form.pdf > >does more or less what you suggest. Fantastic! Can anyone share their experience with these forms? I'd love to learn how well they've fared. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri Oct 14 06:38:40 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Oct 14 06:45:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: <002c01c5cff7$2c24ad00$339868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200510130100.SAA16373@mailhub.irvine.com> <002c01c5cff7$2c24ad00$339868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: At 2:08 PM +0100 10/13/05, Nigel wrote: >You don't even need a physical form. Were such >flow-charts included in the law-book, both players >and directors would have a better idea of the >practical meaning and intended impact of the law. I think the forms would be important. In other areas of endeavor I've found that forms can help encourage compliance with appropriate procedure. I've seen a number of poor decisions that I can't imagine the TD or AC would have got wrong had they had a form to fill in. I can easily imagine them getting those cases wrong were the law book to include flowcharts. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 14 09:12:31 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Oct 14 09:18:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C823@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <002901c5d08e$bb4100a0$6a9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "He swathed himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors." ['Many Inventions'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Robin Barker" Cc: Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 5:41 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) > At 3:16 PM +0100 10/13/05, Robin Barker wrote: > >The EBU appeals form > > > >http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Publications/TD%20F orms/Appeal%20form.pdf > > > >does more or less what you suggest. > > Fantastic! Can anyone share their experience with these forms? I'd > love to learn how well they've fared. > +=+ The forms work well. This perhaps largely because we have a post-facto review of appeals forms and a procedure for advising the appeals committees of any major criticisms that the Laws & Ethics Committee has of their work. This is an ongoing educational process and the dripping water hollows out the stone (Ovid). It does not change the AC decision (for which process of appeal to the national authority provides separately). We believe. And of course, once in a while the form itself is reviewed as to layout and content. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Oct 14 19:32:36 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Oct 14 19:39:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C823@hotel.npl.co.uk> <002901c5d08e$bb4100a0$6a9787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002301c5d0e5$45f1f460$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ The forms work well. This perhaps largely because > we have a post-facto review of appeals forms and a > procedure for advising the appeals committees of any major > criticisms that the Laws & Ethics Committee has of their > work. This is an ongoing educational process and the > dripping water hollows out the stone (Ovid). It does not > change the AC decision (for which process of appeal > to the national authority provides separately). More reasons why *ad hoc* ACs should not take the place of the ACBL NABC Appeals Committee for NABC+ appeals. The latter is presumably better-trained and its performance constantly reviewed/upgraded (e.g., in the casebooks). If mere bridge expertise or solid reputation were enough for such service, there would be no need for a standing committee. Just grab whoever is available and proceed, as is done in most ACBL Regional and Sectional championships. I have been criticized for my objection to the *ad hoc* ACs that served on Atlanta Appeals N-01, 02, and 03, with implications that I am impugning their knowledge and integrity. I certainly did not mean to do that, and am willing to stipulate that they are all marvelous people, despite their questionable decisions in appeals N-01 and N-03. It was Lucretius (94?-55 BC) who first said dripping water hollows out the stone (and a ring is worn away by use), as part of his brilliant arguments for an atomic theory of matter (Book I, 311-322). Ovid (43 BC-17AD) was merely echoing those words, but he always gets credit for them. AC performance is augmented, not diminished, by constant little improvements, so Grattan's learned analogy is not a good one. "Pile little on little, and before long you will have a mountain" (also Ovid, I believe) would be a better one. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam at irvine.com Sat Oct 15 04:15:17 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Sat Oct 15 04:17:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:33:33 PDT." <010f01c5d046$26964e80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > Guess I had this wrong. The revised writeup now makes clear that it > was West who broke tempo, before his pass to East's free 2S bid. > > Now we have a real case. I'll have to think about this one. Thanks to Adam Wildavsky for posting the corrected version. This is one where I tend to think pass is a logical alternative, and the TD got it right. I can see the other viewpoint, though. What baffles me is that the committee overturned the TD's ruling and restored the table result WITHOUT COMMENT. Isn't this a close enough case that some explanation was warranted? Actually, I'd say any case where the TD ruled one way and the committee found this ruling to be wrong should be considered a close case, and I'd think some comment is called for. What went on here? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Teams A 9 8 None vul K Q 9 7 5 4 2 Dlr: North Q T 4 J T 6 Q 7 5 3 2 A T J A J 9 3 K 7 4 A K Q 9 6 5 3 2 K 4 8 6 3 T 8 6 5 2 J 8 7 North East South West 1H pass 1NT dbl 2H 2S pass ...pass 3H 3S pass 4S, all pass The write-up says South was the dealer, but shows North as making the first call and also says it was Board 1. There was an agreed hesitation before West's pass. The TD ruled that pass was a logical alternative to East's 3S, and adjusted to 3S making 5. There's no indication of how the TD got to this result. Presumably he figured that if East passed (as he legally should have done), West would have balanced with 3S, and East would have passed again (perhaps he thought that for East to bid 4S at this point would also have been suggested by the UI). "In a decision without comment, the committee allowed the table result [4S making 5] to stand." -- Adam Beneschan From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 15 07:51:57 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Oct 15 07:58:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Marv wrote: > > > Guess I had this wrong. The revised writeup now makes clear that it > > was West who broke tempo, before his pass to East's free 2S bid. > > > > Now we have a real case. I'll have to think about this one. > > Thanks to Adam Wildavsky for posting the corrected version. > > This is one where I tend to think pass is a logical alternative, and > the TD got it right. I can see the other viewpoint, though. > > What baffles me is that the committee overturned the TD's ruling and > restored the table result WITHOUT COMMENT. Isn't this a close enough > case that some explanation was warranted? Actually, I'd say any case > where the TD ruled one way and the committee found this ruling to be > wrong should be considered a close case, and I'd think some comment is > called for. What went on here? > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Teams A 9 8 > None vul K Q 9 7 5 4 2 > Dlr: North Q > T 4 > J T 6 Q 7 5 3 2 > A T J > A J 9 3 K 7 4 > A K Q 9 6 5 3 2 > K 4 > 8 6 3 > T 8 6 5 2 > J 8 7 > > North East South West > 1H pass 1NT dbl > 2H 2S pass ...pass > 3H 3S pass 4S, all pass > > The write-up says South was the dealer, but shows North as making the > first call and also says it was Board 1. North was the dealer, obviously. I'll send a note to Dave Smith (who is editing these appeals) > > There was an agreed hesitation before West's pass. > > The TD ruled that pass was a logical alternative to East's 3S, and > adjusted to 3S making 5. There's no indication of how the TD got to > this result. Presumably he figured that if East passed (as he legally > should have done), West would have balanced with 3S, and East would > have passed again (perhaps he thought that for East to bid 4S at this > point would also have been suggested by the UI). > > "In a decision without comment, the committee allowed the table result > [4S making 5] to stand." I don't think the TD went past the point of East's 3S bid in his/her thinking, and then presumed that West would bid 3S if East passed, but why not put that in the writeup? However, West would not bid 3S, he would double. This shows a strong hand like the one he had, with only three spades, probably support for the minors, and good defensive values if East decides to pass. East would certainly bid 4S after this second double, holding five good spades and a stiff heart, his 2S bid having been possible with neither. Actually I don't think the BIT could possibly have affected this East, who is an aggressive bidder, but we can't base decisions on that consideration, can we? Well, the "class of player" enthusiasts would probably say yes. But let's suppose that the TD was correct in saying that pass was an LA for East. Then the matter to decide is whether West would double a second time, and whether East would then bid 4S absent the previous BIT by West. I say yes to both, but I hope I'm not being influenced by knowing who E-W were. This was a pretty strong event, with GNT contestants having won in their districts to get this far, and I think the typical E-W would bid as I suggest (or as E-W actually bid). The AC might have used similar reasoning, but they should have explained it. Of course this was just an "ad hoc" AC, perhaps unaware of proper AC procedure. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Oct 15 14:44:45 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Oct 15 14:50:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> > [Adam Beneschan NABC Appeal N-03] >> Teams A98 >> #1 KQ97542 >> LA/N Q >> T4 >> JT6 D Q7532 >> AT N J >> AJ93 W E K74 >> AKQ9 S 6532 >> K4 >> 863 >> T8652 >> J87 >> -- 1H P 1N >> X 2H 2S P >> P..3H 3S P >> 4S AP >> ... There was an agreed hesitation >> before West's pass. The TD ruled that >> pass was a logical alternative to >> East's 3S, and adjusted to 3S making >> 5. There's no indication of how the >> TD got to this result. Presumably he >> figured that if East passed (as he >> legally should have done), West would >> have balanced with 3S, and East would >> have passed again (perhaps he thought >> that for East to bid 4S at this point >> would also have been suggested by the UI). >> In a decision without comment, the >> committee allowed the table result [4S >> making 5] to stand." [Marvin French] > However, West would not bid 3S, he would > double. This shows a strong hand like > the one he had, with only three spades, > probably support for the minors, and good > defensive values if East decides to pass. > East would certainly bid 4S after this > second double, holding five good spades and > stiff heart, his 2S bid having been possible > with neither. [nige1] Again the TD seems to be right and the AC wrong. I agree with Adam's and Marvin's analysis up to a point. Over 3H, Pass is an LA to 3S for East; but I agree with Marvin that West would probably then double rather than bid 3S; but IMO 3S is then an LA for East. The earlier hesitation *when East was presumably thinking of raising* combined with the strength showing second double suggests 4S over the LA of 3S. Adam and Marvin are right that the TD should explain his reasoning more fully; and if there is any reason other than "judgement" behind the AC's decision, it should have revealed it. Perhaps, like Marv, the AC are more familiar with the appellants than we are. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 15 20:23:31 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Oct 15 20:30:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002601c5d1b5$8cb22ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > > [Adam Beneschan NABC Appeal N-03] > >> Teams A98 > >> #1 KQ97542 > >> LA/N Q > >> T4 > >> JT6 D Q7532 > >> AT N J > >> AJ93 W E K74 > >> AKQ9 S 6532 > >> K4 > >> 863 > >> T8652 > >> J87 > >> -- 1H P 1N > >> X 2H 2S P > >> P..3H 3S P > >> 4S AP > >> ... There was an agreed hesitation > >> before West's pass. The TD ruled that > >> pass was a logical alternative to > >> East's 3S, and adjusted to 3S making > >> 5. There's no indication of how the > >> TD got to this result. Presumably he > >> figured that if East passed (as he > >> legally should have done), West would > >> have balanced with 3S, and East would > >> have passed again (perhaps he thought > >> that for East to bid 4S at this point > >> would also have been suggested by the UI). > >> In a decision without comment, the > >> committee allowed the table result [4S > >> making 5] to stand." > > [Marvin French] > > However, West would not bid 3S, he would > > double. This shows a strong hand like > > the one he had, with only three spades, > > probably support for the minors, and good > > defensive values if East decides to pass. > > East would certainly bid 4S after this > > second double, holding five good spades and > > stiff heart, his 2S bid having been possible > > with neither. > > [nige1] > Again the TD seems to be right and the AC > wrong. I agree with Adam's and Marvin's analysis > up to a point. Over 3H, Pass is an > LA to 3S for East; but I agree with Marvin that > West would probably then double rather than bid > 3S; but IMO 3S is then an LA for East. The earlier > hesitation *when East was presumably thinking of > raising* combined with the strength showing second > double suggests 4S over the LA of 3S. > Adam and Marvin are right that the TD should > explain his reasoning more fully; and if there > is any reason other than "judgement" behind the > AC's decision, it should have revealed it. > Perhaps, like Marv, the AC are more familiar with > the appellants than we are. Birds of a feather? Surely not. It seems to me that the BIT provides no more UI than would a second double by West (AI), which shows a strong hand, not merely a balancing hand (as 3S would show). If West were to bid 3S instead of doubling, as the TD seems to have supposed, then indeed East could not be allowed a 4S bid (with pass an LA). This is a decision best reached by a good committee It could logically go either way, but let's see the logic, please. I would bet they just accepted East's 3S bid, thinking perhaps that it's what they would do. If so, that is not good AC thinking, as members of the NABC AC (which this AC was not) would know. You have to consider UI and LAs, not just what seems like a good auction, and not take the identity of players into account (a belief of mine not shared by the ACBL, which considers the "class of player"). I still vote for the table result, 4S making five. One way or another, nearly every pair in this GNT event would reach 4S after the auction leading to North's 3H bid, even with no UI. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam at tameware.com Sat Oct 15 23:44:00 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat Oct 15 23:47:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: At 7:15 PM -0700 10/14/05, Adam Beneschan wrote: >What baffles me is that the committee overturned the TD's ruling and >restored the table result WITHOUT COMMENT. Indeed this is unacceptable. It would not be acceptable even in a simple case. Jeff Rubens mentioned to me years ago, in the context of a different case, that no one would be happy with even perfect AC verdicts if the AC did not explain how it had arrived at its decision. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sat Oct 15 23:53:40 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat Oct 15 23:57:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: At 1:44 PM +0100 10/15/05, Nigel wrote: >Over 3H, Pass is an >LA to 3S for East; but I agree with Marvin that >West would probably then double rather than bid >3S; but IMO 3S is then an LA for East. It is not relevant whether or not a call would have been a LA in an auction which did not take place. The questions to ask are what were the most favorable of the likely results for the NOS and the most unfavorable of the at all probable results for the OS. Nigel, I'm sure you knew this. Would a form to fill in have helped remind you? If a form for UI works well then I expect a form for 12C2 would also help. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 16 01:20:23 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Oct 16 01:27:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005101c5d1df$058bfe20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Nigel wrote: > >Over 3H, Pass is an > >LA to 3S for East; but I agree with Marvin that > >West would probably then double rather than bid > >3S; but IMO 3S is then an LA for East. > > It is not relevant whether or not a call would have been a LA in an > auction which did not take place. The questions to ask are what were > the most favorable of the likely results for the NOS and the most > unfavorable of the at all probable results for the OS. I hate to tilt with Adam, he's so damn smart, but I guess I'll have to. Let's quote accurately and fully, Adam. It's the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity (presumably the 3S bid) not occurred, not "the most favorable of the likely results." The most favorable result that was likely may not be a likely result. When I was young, single, and broke, I might try to proposition some gal, after which the most favorable result that was likely would be success, but that would not be a likely result. Also, it's the most unfavorable result that was at all probable [in any event, for me and the WBFLC, but absent the irregularity for Adam]. Adam's words are close enough, but I like accurate quotes when citing the Laws. Now to this case. If East had not bid 3S, I say West would double, the double providing AI that is equivalent to the previous UI, making it moot. Then it must be decided whether East would bid 4S provided with this AI, and it seems clear to me that he would. Nigel sees it differently. He says that the UI is alive, not erased, if East passes 3H and West doubles. East's actions would still be constrained because the UI from the BIT suggests bidding 4S more than the AI from a double would, and passing is an LA. He would therefore adjust the score to 3S making five, which satisfies L12C2's requirements for both sides. That is a reasonable opinion, and I don't see what objection you can have to it. > > Nigel, I'm sure you knew this. Would a form to fill in have helped > remind you? If a form for UI works well then I expect a form for 12C2 > would also help. I don't think Nigel needs any help, but he might do well to express his meaning in greater detail. We have to guess at auctions that might have come about if an irregularity had not occurred, and those imagined auctions are still subject to any UI created before the irregularity. Whatever action the UI would demonstrably suggest in a predicted auction is barred if there is an LA, that's all Nigel is saying, WTP? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Oct 16 01:24:35 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Oct 16 01:30:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavsky] > It is not relevant whether or not a call > would have been a LA in an auction which > did not take place. The questions to ask > are what were the most favorable of the > likely results for the NOS and the most > unfavorable of the at all probable results > for the OS. Nigel, I'm sure you knew this. > Would a form to fill in have helped > remind you? If a form for UI works well > then I expect a form for 12C2 would also > help. [nige1] You flatter me Adam :) I'm just a player not a director and my limited legal knowledge is all courtesy of BLML. But what you say seems reasonable and vaguely familiar. It certainly reinforces my view that the director was right and the committee wrong in N-03. IMO, it is more important that *players* know the rules than that *directors* know them. The director can wander away to peruse TFLB, regulations, interpretations, minutes, and so on; if necessary, he can also consult with colleagues; all at his leisure. (In a multiple teams final, the director ruled on board 1 of our first match, at the end of the last match). In contrast, the rules affect every action by every player, *at the table*, *in real time*; in their present form, however, it is virtually impossible for a player to be familiar with all the rules. IMO, simple flow-charts, included in a more comprehensive TFLB, would help the player to understand the rules better than forms would. I agree, however, that forms are a boon when they ... [A] Encourage the TD and AC to give reasons for their decisions. [B] Railroad timorous and compassionate TDs and ACs to rule against putative offenders, (especially their friends) on the balance of probability rather than insist that some infractions be proved beyond reasonable doubt. From toddz at att.net Sun Oct 16 10:03:49 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun Oct 16 10:07:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: <005101c5d1df$058bfe20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <005101c5d1df$058bfe20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <43520965.1050103@att.net> Marvin French wrote: > From: "Adam Wildavsky" >>It is not relevant whether or not a call would have been a LA in an >>auction which did not take place. The questions to ask are what were >>the most favorable of the likely results for the NOS and the most >>unfavorable of the at all probable results for the OS. > > I hate to tilt with Adam, he's so damn smart, but I guess I'll have to. > > Let's quote accurately and fully, Adam. It's the most favorable result > that was likely had the irregularity (presumably the 3S bid) not > occurred, not "the most favorable of the likely results." The most > favorable result that was likely may not be a likely result. I understand the difference between the most likely favorable result and the most favorable result that was likely. But I don't understand why this 3rd option (the most favorable of likely results) is any different from the latter. > When I was young, single, and broke, I might try to proposition some > gal, after which the most favorable result that was likely would be > success, but that would not be a likely result. Then it wasn't very likely, no matter how favorable it could have been. Don't mind me, I played bridge well this morning, poorly this evening, and already having embarrassed myself at the table I tried a variation of Marvin's ploy here. I received the most likely of favorable results (unbruised ego), but would gladly have accepted either of the most favorable of likely results or the most favorable result that was likely as I believe they are the same. -Todd (Allow me the small privilege of believing whatever was likely.) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 16 12:02:11 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Oct 16 12:06:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c5d238$ef5a9620$3da2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Guthrie" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) > > It is not relevant whether or not a call would have been a LA in an > auction which did not take place. The questions to ask are what were > the most favourable of the likely results for the NOS and the most > unfavourable of the at all probable results for the OS. > > Nigel, I'm sure you knew this. Would a form to fill in have helped > remind you? If a form for UI works well then I expect a form for 12C2 > would also help. > +=+ I am not sure whether Adam will be in Estoril next week. I must remember to bring one or two completed EBU forms for him to look at should he be there. Standards of completion do vary, of course, but this is merely the natural condition of humanity. ~ G ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Sun Oct 16 16:27:00 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Oct 16 16:30:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: <005101c5d1df$058bfe20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <005101c5d1df$058bfe20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 4:20 PM -0700 10/15/05, Marvin French wrote: >We have to guess at auctions that might have come about if an >irregularity had not occurred, and those imagined auctions are still >subject to any UI created before the irregularity. Whatever action the >UI would demonstrably suggest in a predicted auction is barred if there >is an LA, that's all Nigel is saying, WTP? If that's what Nigel meant then he was correct. I was mistaken in any case -- I made a broader point than I intended to. The UI will still exist in a hypothetical auction. The point I wanted to make was just that if we adjust then we adjust on the basis of 12C2. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Mon Oct 17 00:18:36 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun Oct 16 23:27:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002c01c5d29f$91e71240$7a711bac@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) > [Adam Wildavsky] > > It is not relevant whether or not a call > > would have been a LA in an auction which > > did not take place. The questions to ask > > are what were the most favorable of the > > likely results for the NOS and the most > > unfavorable of the at all probable results > > for the OS. Nigel, I'm sure you knew this. > > Would a form to fill in have helped > > remind you? If a form for UI works well > > then I expect a form for 12C2 would also > > help. > [nige1] > > You flatter me Adam :) I'm just a player not a > director and my limited legal knowledge is all > courtesy of BLML. But what you say seems > reasonable and vaguely familiar. It certainly > reinforces my view that the director was right and > the committee wrong in N-03. > > IMO, it is more important that *players* know the > rules than that *directors* know them. > > The director can wander away to peruse TFLB, > regulations, interpretations, minutes, and so on; > if necessary, he can also consult with colleagues; > all at his leisure. (In a multiple teams final, > the director ruled on board 1 of our first match, > at the end of the last match). > > In contrast, the rules affect every action by > every player, *at the table*, *in real time*; in > their present form, however, it is virtually > impossible for a player to be familiar with all > the rules. > > IMO, simple flow-charts, included in a more > comprehensive TFLB, would help the player to > understand the rules better than forms would. > > I agree, however, that forms are a boon when they > ... > [A] Encourage the TD and AC to give reasons for > their decisions. > [B] Railroad timorous and compassionate TDs and > ACs to rule against putative offenders, > (especially their friends) on the balance of > probability rather than insist that some > infractions be proved beyond reasonable doubt. > > Who insists that "infraction be proved beyond reasonable doubt'? Don't you think that it is the "offender" should prove that there was no infraction? Best regards Israel > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Mon Oct 17 00:28:22 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Sun Oct 16 23:37:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <002601c5d1b5$8cb22ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003501c5d2a0$ef405c20$7a711bac@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) > > From: "Guthrie" > > > > [Adam Beneschan NABC Appeal N-03] > > >> Teams A98 > > >> #1 KQ97542 > > >> LA/N Q > > >> T4 > > >> JT6 D Q7532 > > >> AT N J > > >> AJ93 W E K74 > > >> AKQ9 S 6532 > > >> K4 > > >> 863 > > >> T8652 > > >> J87 > > >> -- 1H P 1N > > >> X 2H 2S P > > >> P..3H 3S P > > >> 4S AP > > >> ... There was an agreed hesitation > > >> before West's pass. The TD ruled that > > >> pass was a logical alternative to > > >> East's 3S, and adjusted to 3S making > > >> 5. There's no indication of how the > > >> TD got to this result. Presumably he > > >> figured that if East passed (as he > > >> legally should have done), West would > > >> have balanced with 3S, and East would > > >> have passed again (perhaps he thought > > >> that for East to bid 4S at this point > > >> would also have been suggested by the UI). > > >> In a decision without comment, the > > >> committee allowed the table result [4S > > >> making 5] to stand." > > > > [Marvin French] > > > However, West would not bid 3S, he would > > > double. This shows a strong hand like > > > the one he had, with only three spades, > > > probably support for the minors, and good > > > defensive values if East decides to pass. > > > East would certainly bid 4S after this > > > second double, holding five good spades and > > > stiff heart, his 2S bid having been possible > > > with neither. > > > > [nige1] > > Again the TD seems to be right and the AC > > wrong. I agree with Adam's and Marvin's analysis > > up to a point. Over 3H, Pass is an > > LA to 3S for East; but I agree with Marvin that > > West would probably then double rather than bid > > 3S; but IMO 3S is then an LA for East. The earlier > > hesitation *when East was presumably thinking of > > raising* combined with the strength showing second > > double suggests 4S over the LA of 3S. > > Adam and Marvin are right that the TD should > > explain his reasoning more fully; and if there > > is any reason other than "judgement" behind the > > AC's decision, it should have revealed it. > > Perhaps, like Marv, the AC are more familiar with > > the appellants than we are. > > Birds of a feather? Surely not. It seems to me that the BIT provides > no more UI than would a second double by West (AI), which shows a > strong hand, not merely a balancing hand (as 3S would show). If West > were to bid 3S instead of doubling, as the TD seems to have > supposed, then indeed East could not be allowed a 4S bid (with pass > an LA). > > This is a decision best reached by a good committee It could > logically go either way, but let's see the logic, please. I would > bet they just accepted East's 3S bid, thinking perhaps that it's > what they would do. If so, that is not good AC thinking, as members > of the NABC AC (which this AC was not) would know. You have to > consider UI and LAs, not just what seems like a good auction, and > not take the identity of players into account (a belief of mine not > shared by the ACBL, which considers the "class of player"). > > I still vote for the table result, 4S making five. One way or > another, nearly every pair in this GNT event would reach 4S after > the auction leading to North's 3H bid, even with no UI. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > Assuming every pair reached 4 S the question > remains whether THIS pair having bid the way they did HAVE THE RIGHT to reach 4S > Best regards Israel > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 17 00:17:56 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Oct 17 00:21:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: <002c01c5d29f$91e71240$7a711bac@mycomputer> Message-ID: <000a01c5d29f$760c2e70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Israel Erdnbaum ........... > > Who insists that "infraction be proved beyond reasonable doubt'? > Don't you think that it is the "offender" should prove that > there was no infraction? "What is the infraction I am accused of having committed please?" Or do you find it quite OK if I as TD arrive at your table, look at you and say: "Can you prove that there is no infraction here?" or "Can you prove that you have not committed any infraction?". Get your horse before the cart: The Director's duty is first to establish whether there is an infraction and then (when he finds so) who he considers to be the offender. (And eventually he must of course make a ruling on that infraction). Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 17 00:40:54 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Oct 17 00:48:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> {Ed Reppert] > Which rules? There are laws (and > regulations) which define proper procedure. > Players should certainly know those (and > many do not). There are some laws which > specify what to do when an irregularity > occurs. Those are the purview, IMO, of the > director. All players need to know, then, > is Law 9B - which tells them to call the > director. Or (Law 9A) they can ignore the > irregularity and live with the result. > There are some other laws, too, which don't > really seem to fit into "proper procedure" > or "correcting irregularities" (the scoring, > the proprieties, the preliminaries). Some of > those are important to players, some to > directors. [nige1] Of no concern to players are fine distinctions between Laws, Regulations, Interpretations, Minutes and so on. It is awful that a player has to wade through reams of such documents to try to understand the basic rules of Bridge. For a player's purposes, they are just rules and he would like to understand all that affect him, directly or indirectly. Thus, the rules that affect the director's decision, are often of crucial importance to a player, especially if he is up against opponents who are experts in rule evasion (For example see BLML discussions about "deviation"). A typical player is so ignorant that he would be as amazed as I am about many BLML revelations. For example, many BLML directors who accidentally witness repeated blatant infractions by a partnership, will do nothing about them, as a matter of principle, in spite of L81b6. So a director watching you does not mean you are safe. I'm among the few players who read our local regulations, the EBU Orange Book. Again, only a player who also reads BLML would realise that the editor allows so-called "judgement" exceptions. IMO, sophisticated rules are pointless, if only a handful of gurus know or understand them, and even they can't agree on their simplest application. My interest in Bridge Law is mostly in clarifying and simplifying it so that a player has some chance of understanding it. A game is its rules. Players should be able to understand the rules; but at the current pace of reform, they never will. Power to the players! From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 17 02:57:18 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Oct 17 02:58:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03] In-Reply-To: <008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> <008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Of no concern to players are fine distinctions > between Laws, Regulations, Interpretations, > Minutes and so on. > Who said they were? I mentioned regulations because such things as bidding box and skip bid regulations *are* of concern to players. As for "fine distinctions" in Interpretations and minutes (and anywhere else for that matter) I can't think of any that apply to what is proper procedure. > It is awful that a player has to wade through > reams of such documents to try to understand the > basic rules of Bridge. > Pfui. > For a player's purposes, they are just rules and > he would like to understand all that affect him, > directly or indirectly. Thus, the rules that > affect the director's decision, are often of > crucial importance to a player, especially if he > is up against opponents who are experts in rule > evasion (For example see BLML discussions about > "deviation"). > You know, while I grant you there are cheats and rules lawyers in the world, I doubt there are nearly as many as some people posting here seem to think. > A typical player is so ignorant that he would be > as amazed as I am about many BLML revelations. > Ignorance is corrected by education. > For example, many BLML directors who accidentally > witness repeated blatant infractions by a > partnership, will do nothing about them, as a > matter of principle, in spite of L81b6. So a > director watching you does not mean you are safe. > Hm. Does a football referee watch any particular player to ensure that player is "safe", or does he watch the *field*? As for your interpretation of what's been said here about some infractions, I think you've blown it out of proportion. > I'm among the few players who read our local > regulations, the EBU Orange Book. Again, only a > player who also reads BLML would realise that the > editor allows so-called "judgement" exceptions. > Hm. It is not the editor who allows or disallows anything, but the promulgating body (in this case, the EBU L&EC). [snip] > A game is its rules. > On this much, we agree. > Players should be able to understand the rules; > but at the current pace of reform, they never > will. > I doubt it has as much to do with the pace of reform or the complexity of the laws as it does with the laziness of the players. > Power to the players! > Bah. From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Oct 17 04:01:19 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Oct 17 04:04:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03] In-Reply-To: References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> <008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:57:18 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >On Oct 16, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Guthrie wrote: > > > >> I'm among the few players who read our local >> regulations, the EBU Orange Book. Again, only a >> player who also reads BLML would realise that the >> editor allows so-called "judgement" exceptions. >> > >Hm. It is not the editor who allows or disallows anything, but the >promulgating body (in this case, the EBU L&EC). > Nigel has a valid point here, IMO. When a publication such as the Orange book states something in mathematically precise terms, such as a "Rule of 19", then it should be made crystal clear whether that rule is to be applied precisely, or whether judgment is allowed. I'm no longer in the EBU's area, but based on my experience there in years past, it *is* unsatisfactory from a player's point of view when the *interpretation of the laws and regulations* that you get depends upon the TD giving it, such as when one TD permits judgment variations and another TD does not. Note that I'm not talking about real judgment decisions here, there's always going to be some variation in those dependent on the TD. Brian. -- Invalid address used for Usenet postings. Replace 'usenetposting' with my name for a valid e-mail address. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 14 11:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Oct 17 12:25:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-01 In-Reply-To: <434F0973.6040601@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > I also don't see any doubt about "suggested over another." If 2D is > natural and could be a minimum, the 3S bid promises 18-19 support > points. If 2D is GF Well, I too play that 2C can be up to 19 points (albeit NF) and if I were playing 4SFG I'd want a better hand than was actually held for the 3S bid (which would be a significant slam try). > or even shows a non-minimum, Playing 2D as it natural it would still, IMO, show a non-minimum (pass or 2H being the options with a minimum). > 3S can be bid on a much weaker hand, perhaps 14+. Not "much weaker", again IMO, perhaps one could lose the DQ and still justify a 3S jump - but then I'd probably bid 3S without the DQ over a natural 2D too. This may well be "non-standard" in the US but my support for the AC ruling is based on my belief that whether partner thinks 2D is FSF(ng) or natural he is showing the same sort of hand (to within a couple of thicknesses of cigarette paper) and if he thinks it was FSFG he is showing a stronger hand (suggesting 4S over the LA of pass). Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 17 14:27:52 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Oct 17 14:34:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppeal N-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "He swathed himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors." ['Many Inventions'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppeal N-03] > >On Oct 16, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Guthrie wrote: >> > Nigel has a valid point here, IMO. When a publication > such as the Orange book states something in mathematically > precise terms, such as a "Rule of 19", then it should be made > crystal clear whether that rule is to be applied precisely, or > whether judgment is allowed. > +=+ The EBU L&E committee is a sophisticated body and very street-wise. Therefore it is entirely up to the task of qualifying its language if it should be qualified. The statements are weighed with care. Ergo I consider that the wording of regulations in the Orange Book should be read as it is written. In the case of 'Rule of 19' the judgement is contained in, or if you prefer it substituted by, the Rule. I do not believe it allows of or calls for any additional exercise of judgement by the player or by the Director. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Oct 17 14:53:36 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Oct 17 14:58:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppeal N-03] In-Reply-To: <000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> <000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:27:52 +0100, Grattan wrote: >From: "Brian Meadows" >>> >> Nigel has a valid point here, IMO. When a publication >> such as the Orange book states something in mathematically >> precise terms, such as a "Rule of 19", then it should be made >> crystal clear whether that rule is to be applied precisely, or >> whether judgment is allowed. >> >+=+ The EBU L&E committee is a sophisticated body and >very street-wise. Therefore it is entirely up to the task of >qualifying its language if it should be qualified. The statements >are weighed with care. Ergo I consider that the wording of >regulations in the Orange Book should be read as it is written. > In the case of 'Rule of 19' the judgement is contained in, >or if you prefer it substituted by, the Rule. I do not believe it >allows of or calls for any additional exercise of judgement by >the player or by the Director. Well, unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I think that a differing opinion has been offered on BLML by at least one rather well-known EBU TD. My knowledge of the EBU rules and regulations is a few years out of date, but once again, if memory serves me correctly, the Orange Book stated explicitly that the requirements for the multi 2D had to be followed in order for it to retain its (then) General Licence. It would seem to me to be at least as important that if judgment is to be suspended for the 'Rule of 19' it should be stated with equal clarity - and at least in the last Orange Book that I saw as an EBU member, there was no such statement. I understand what you say about the wording being read as it is written, but given the extent to which a player is *normally* allowed to use judgment in hand valuation, I think it makes sense to flag exceptions explicitly, rather than by implication. How much effort would it have taken to add such a rider to the "Rules of N" in the Orange Book? The ACBL has taken a lot of stick for its rigid insistence on a 10 HCP lower limit for a mini 1NT opener, but like it or loathe it, at least there's no possible room for doubt in their regulation. Brian. -- Invalid address used for Usenet postings. Replace 'usenetposting' with my name for a valid e-mail address. From adam at irvine.com Mon Oct 17 17:29:44 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Oct 17 17:33:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03 (was N-01) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:44:45 BST." <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200510171529.IAA18123@mailhub.irvine.com> > [nige1] > Perhaps, like Marv, the AC are more familiar with > the appellants than we are. All the more reason why the AC should have taken care to explain their reasoning. Otherwise it could lead average players to the impression that committees give breaks to players they know. Although I don't think I've ever been one to feel that TDs and ACs treat experts better than the rest of us, some of those thoughts did go through my mind when I saw who East and West were, and when I saw that the AC had overturned a TD ruling against them "without comment". So how would it look to players who *do* have a tendency to think TDs/ACs favor experts? -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 17 19:15:51 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Oct 17 19:21:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002e01c5d33e$6dd2ece0$159868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > In the case of 'Rule of 19' the judgement is > contained in, or if you prefer it substituted by, > the Rule. I do not believe it allows of or calls > for any additional exercise of judgement by > the player or by the Director. [Brain Meadows] > Well, unless my memory is playing tricks on me, > I think that a differing opinion has been offered > on BLML by at least one rather well-known EBU TD. [nige1] A typical context is an EBU level 3 event, in third seat, after two passes. John Probst, Tim West-Meads and other directors and administrators say it is "just Bridge" to agree to open certain "rule of 17 or 18" hands. Eventually, David Stevenson admitted that he relaxes requirements in third seat. David Burn objected that such agreements are in clear breach of the rules. I complained that we often lose matches by adhering slavishly to the letter of this Orange Book rule. I agree with Grattan Endicott and David Burn that the Orange Book is crystal clear but we seem to be in a tiny minority. {Brian] > if memory serves me correctly, the Orange Book > stated explicitly that the requirements for the > multi 2D had to be followed in order for it to > retain its (then) General Licence ... [nigel] IMO the Multi is another daft example. The Orange book insists that you must not "treat" Multi requirements *in any way*; but several BLMLers state (sensibly in my opinion) that you should be allowed to vary your requirements, depending on vulnerability and position at the table. For example, would you really be happy with an agreement to open 2H, vulnerable at teams, fourth in hand after three passes, with 6 hearts and 8 HCP :) There are other grey areas. For example, according to the rules ... [A] It is quite ethical to state a notrump range as "12-14 HCP", although you bid it with a "good" 11. But ... [B] If you play a strong 1C, you must not agree to open 1C on "rule of 25" hands with 15 HCP. Such anomalies put the ordinary player at a disadvantage compared with, say, BLMLers, who are privy to such exceptions and reminded about obscure interpretations and minutes. The WBF and EBU law-makers' concept of "Equity" is an enigma. A possible solution is to tighten up the wording of the rules, explicitly disallowing scope for spurious "judgement". From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Oct 17 20:39:51 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Oct 17 20:43:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <002e01c5d33e$6dd2ece0$159868d5@jeushtlj> References: <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c5d33e$6dd2ece0$159868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:15:51 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >A possible solution is to tighten up the wording >of the rules, explicitly disallowing scope for >spurious "judgement". > You would alter the game too much if all scope for judgment was disallowed. I think the sensible solution would be for all regulation-making bodies to *explicitly state* which rules must be applied exactly, at least for as long as such rules are in the minority. In the last Orange Book that I saw, the EBU did it for the permitted (general licence) multi 2D hands, so the fact that they didn't also do it for the Rule of 19 at the very least suggested that the latter *was* subject to a player's judgment. IMO, anyway. Brian. -- Invalid address used for Usenet postings. Replace 'usenetposting' with my name for a valid e-mail address. From ooga at shaw.ca Mon Oct 17 23:22:39 2005 From: ooga at shaw.ca (Bruce McIntyre) Date: Mon Oct 17 23:27:14 2005 Subject: [blml] 7-level logical alternative ruling / possible double shot as well Message-ID: <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> ACBL: North American Pairs Unit Final Second of two sessions: twinned Howells, following an 8-table skip Mitchell. Matchpoints. Flight B/C Stratified, all pairs under 2000 MP Both pairs in this case were Flight C pairs, under 500 MP and non-LM (at the beginning of the club stage at least, N-S now are both LMs over 500 MP but the CoCs specify masterpoint holding at the June 2005 cycle.) Board 27 4 None Vul 7 S Dealer KJ98764 T632 5 AQJ873 KQJ98632 AT A KQ4 AJ985 KT962 54 QT532 7 EAST NORTH WEST SOUTH Pass 1C* Pass 1H* Pass 1S* 2D 3D 5D 6H Pass 7S Double Pass Pass 7N Double End * asterisks denote timely alerts and explanations where asked for: --1C was a Precision strong opener, 16+ (or apparently a shapely 15...) --1H was a transfer --1S was a forced bid TD (me) was called when dummy appeared. I gave a stern lecture to North before hearing the facts because he was pointing angrily at West and holding court as I was making my way to the table. Both sides agreed that there was a break in tempo by East after the double of 7S. I told them to get a result and I would look at the deal and decide if an adjustment was warranted. 7NT was laydown and NS were calling me back before I returned to the desk. 1) Is pass a logical alternative for West? (Don't answer yes without considering what East can possibly have for his Precision opener from West's point of view.) 2) Is South's double of 7NT an egregious attempt at a double shot? 3) How do you rule? (my ruling below) My ruling: With the help of three players who were present but not kibitzing, it was determined that pass was certainly a logical alternative. I actually didn't listen much to their conversation so I don't know if they considered the "what can he have for 1C?" argument later made by West. The call came just as I had figured out how to get ACBLScore to handle the Mitchell/twinned Howell and finally entered the scores from round one, then when I picked up the slips for round two the call came and I was distracted. I resumed entering the round two scores by picking up round one's slips again and discovered that everyone had played the wrong boards in round two. Five frantic minutes went by while I tried to work out a solution until I saw the other set of slips... :) I decided to agree with the panel that pass was an LA, adjusted the EW score to 7S*-3, and then turned to the second question. The panel was split on the issue of whether the double of 7NT was a double shot. I decided that the level of the players did not warrant calling this a double shot. If N-S were Flight A players or even strong Flight B players I would have made them eat -1790. Predictably, letting the players know about the decision did not go well. I began with NS, first repeating my stern warning about North's behavior, then telling them I had decided to adjust to 7S*-3. When I informed South that the double of 7NT was very close to a double shot, he began interrupting me repeatedly and I had to say "Excuse me--this is NOT a conversation or a debate, this is an announcement and a warning and I will penalize you for further such interruptions." I don't think South has learned his lesson: "I never considered it a double-shot," he continued to insist long after I had warned him not to argue further. I expect he will have to eat a similar score in future. East-West were unhappy with the decision but were more accepting of it. I told them that I had given both North and South severe warnings for North's behavior and for South's very questionable double of 7NT. They asked if I had considered the fact that the Precision 1C opener allowed East to infer a strong possibility of having the AD, and I told them that this had been considered and made it a closer decision that it would have in a standard auction. I also, of course, told them that they were free to appeal if they wished, since the ruling was a judgment ruling. Later during a break I talked to them and assured them that I did not think either of them were guilty of an ethical lapse. I think this is a widely misunderstood point, especially with intermediate players who think that an adjustment automatically means somebody deliberately did something wrong. Not that it matters, or that any sane Director would ever consider changing a ruling because of the effect it has on the score, but: In the end both pairs qualified and in fact EW finished well ahead of NS, qualifying in the B and C field. EW lost a place to the ruling, NS would still have qualified easily if forced to eat -1790, as they were the third of five C pairs in the 16-pair field. More oddities for BLML regulars to comment on: With sixteen pairs, is there a better two-session movement than the one I chose? We played a skip Mitchell in the afternoon, 28 boards, and twinned four-table Howells in the evening, scored across the field and sharing one set of boards. This meant all pairs played four boards against 14 of the 15 other pairs, missing only the pair that they skipped or skipped them during the afternoon session. I of course ensured that the C-pairs and the best of the B-pairs did not skip one another. One oddity that made things interesting was that the club had two sets of four-table Howell table markers that were slightly different. ACBLScore recognizes this and asks whether the table markers are the standard or alternate version. We actually had one player notice that the two movements were slightly different! I probably would have noticed--possibly I would have been informed by ACBLScore--but I was told by a member of my ad hoc appeals panel at the beginning of the second session that factoring would be necessary, since top in the afternoon was 6 and top in the evening was 7. One suggestion that was made might have worked a little better: set the second session up as the twinned Howells, but give one section only the first two boards of each four-board set, and the other section the second two boards of each four-board set. Play seven rounds of two boards, exchange, and play seven more two-board rounds. This would eliminate the sharing of boards (I preduplicated all of the boards as I usually do to avoid duplication errors), and would even allow for a leaderboard with 14 boards left to be posted. The drawbacks, I felt, would be the likelyhood that one side would get a round ahead of the other, making it difficult to control, and that the 3/4 time leaderboard would induce some wild actions in the final quarter. Opinions? As a TD running a two-session game for the first time, I found ACBLScore to be marvelously self-explanatory in helping with the crossovers and the factoring. I am sure that tournament TDs do this all the time and it is routine, but for me it was all new and I found all of the information I needed in the help files. Kudos to Jim Lopushinsky and others who have helped with ACBLScore. -- .-----------------------.----------------------------------. | Bruce McIntyre | email: ooga@shaw.ca | | 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" | | Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer | | V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)| }-----------------------?----------------------------------{ | Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm | | (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) | }----------------------------------------------------------{ | www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com | | (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) | `----------------------------------------------------------? From adam at irvine.com Mon Oct 17 23:51:06 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Oct 17 23:55:11 2005 Subject: [blml] 7-level logical alternative ruling / possible double shot as well In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:22:39 PDT." <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <200510172151.OAA20485@mailhub.irvine.com> > ACBL: North American Pairs Unit Final > Second of two sessions: twinned Howells, following an 8-table skip Mitchell. > Matchpoints. > Flight B/C Stratified, all pairs under 2000 MP > > Both pairs in this case were Flight C pairs, under 500 MP and non-LM (at the > beginning of the club stage at least, N-S now are both LMs over 500 MP but the > CoCs specify masterpoint holding at the June 2005 cycle.) > > Board 27 4 > None Vul 7 > S Dealer KJ98764 > T632 > 5 AQJ873 > KQJ98632 AT > A > KQ4 AJ985 > KT962 > 54 > QT532 > 7 > > EAST NORTH WEST SOUTH > Pass > 1C* Pass 1H* Pass > 1S* 2D 3D 5D > 6H Pass 7S Double > Pass Pass 7N Double > End > 3) How do you rule? Procedural penalties all around for bidding an entire hand out of rotation. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 18 00:11:34 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Oct 18 00:12:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03] In-Reply-To: References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> <008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Oct 16, 2005, at 10:01 PM, Brian Meadows wrote: > Nigel has a valid point here, IMO. When a publication such as the > Orange book states something in mathematically precise terms, > such as a "Rule of 19", then it should be made crystal clear > whether that rule is to be applied precisely, or whether judgment > is allowed. > > I'm no longer in the EBU's area, but based on my experience there > in years past, it *is* unsatisfactory from a player's point of > view when the *interpretation of the laws and regulations* that > you get depends upon the TD giving it, such as when one TD > permits judgment variations and another TD does not. Hm. IMO, a rule that says numerically "this and only this", such as the rule of 19, if judgement is not allowed, or an absolute minimum of 16 HCP for a Precision 1 Club opening, is, at best, a mistake. Given such an interpretation, the game in question is not bridge as I understand it. So I guess we agree, pretty much. OTOH, trying to get different TDs, with different opinions, experiences, and training, to agree on *anything* seems problematic, especially at the club level.:-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 18 00:27:22 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Oct 18 00:28:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <002e01c5d33e$6dd2ece0$159868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> <008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> <000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c5d33e$6dd2ece0$159868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <536BF83A-409C-4E9B-B77E-7C9EA5E600E8@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:15 PM, Guthrie wrote: > IMO the Multi is another daft example. The Orange > book insists that you must not "treat" Multi > requirements *in any way*; but several BLMLers > state (sensibly in my opinion) that you should be > allowed to vary your requirements, depending on > vulnerability and position at the table. For > example, would you really be happy with an > agreement to open 2H, vulnerable at teams, fourth > in hand after three passes, with 6 hearts and 8 > HCP :) > > There are other grey areas. For example, according > to the rules ... > [A] It is quite ethical to state a notrump range > as "12-14 HCP", although you bid it with a "good" > 11. > But ... > [B] If you play a strong 1C, you must not agree to > open 1C on "rule of 25" hands with 15 HCP. > > Such anomalies put the ordinary player at a > disadvantage compared with, say, BLMLers, who are > privy to such exceptions and reminded about > obscure interpretations and minutes. > > The WBF and EBU law-makers' concept of "Equity" is > an enigma. > > A possible solution is to tighten up the wording > of the rules, explicitly disallowing scope for > spurious "judgement". Define "spurious". :-) I noticed some time ago that most bidding regulations do not differentiate according to the things that I have learned matter: vulnerability, position at the table, state of the match, etc. The ACBL convention card, which most players here regard as exemplifying the regulations, makes only two references to these things: it asks for the range of a balancing one notrump bid in addition to a direct one, and it has a separate line for a double raise of a one of a suit opening "after an overcall". This has led some players here to conclude that those are the only places the difference matters, and others to conclude that the ACBL has decided that the rules should be the same regardless of such considerations (which flies in the face of logic, imo). My only conclusion is a question: did the regulators even *consider* such questions when they made the regulations? From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Oct 18 00:45:39 2005 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue Oct 18 00:51:29 2005 Subject: [blml] 7-level logical alternative ruling / possible double shot as In-Reply-To: <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Board 27 4 None Vul 7 S Dealer KJ98764 T632 5 AQJ873 KQJ98632 AT A KQ4 AJ985 KT962 54 QT532 7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C* Pass 1H* Pass 1S* 2D 3D 5D 6H Pass 7S Double Pass Pass 7N Double End 1) Is pass a logical alternative for East? Well I dont know what the heck 7S's was. I would assume 6H is to play tons of hearts and clearly no interest in spades. Maybe 6H's was taken as a grandslam try for spades ?? God knows. Certainly with the west hand after south doubles 7S (not very bright) I would bid 7NT - I just need 3 aces which pd is bound to have for a 7S bid. I would also redouble 7NT on the same basis. Pass by west would imo show some tolerance for spades, seemingly happy enough with the double. What would u do with SK and singleton diamond same hand?? Against that the opps has doubled you. Does he hold the DA or is it based on trumps or maybe alot of hearts give his pd a ruff ? pd has passed and should NOT have the hand he has. Bidding 7NT with a D void and the opps bidding diamonds seems a gamble, even with the fact that your combined total points comes to 31+ and if the double is based on the SK, better again. You are probably regretting 7S now. Imo Passing or 7NT or even redouble are all options 2) Is South's double of 7NT an egregious attempt at a double shot? Well he knows he's getting a diamond lead. So the opps have to make 11 tricks in clubs and hearts. West clearly has alot of hearts but no garuntee that 4C tricks are there. IF you double 7S then you must be prepared to double 7NT. I dont agree with the double of 7S but having done so doubling 7NT seems routine. 3) How do you rule? Without the pause pass or redouble are I think LA's ... pretty much do what you want. Pd has passed indicating that he is happy enough with 7S's. With his actual hand 7NT should be bid, so one must assume he doesnt have that hand. With the pause now we know pd has a problem and I think it is much clearer to run. Having said that the catch all bid is rdbl passing the buck. 7NT is abit of a gamble. I rule : 7S*-3 seems about right for both sides. Karel From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 18 01:19:50 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Oct 18 01:23:53 2005 Subject: [blml] 7-level logical alternative ruling / possible double shot as well In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:22:39 PDT." <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <200510172319.QAA20929@mailhub.irvine.com> OK, I saw your r.g.b post correcting the directions, so I have a better idea of what happened. At first, I was wondering whether maybe part of the problem was that East opened 1C and West forgot that 1H was a transfer... > ACBL: North American Pairs Unit Final > Second of two sessions: twinned Howells, following an 8-table skip Mitchell. > Matchpoints. > Flight B/C Stratified, all pairs under 2000 MP > > Both pairs in this case were Flight C pairs, under 500 MP and non-LM (at the > beginning of the club stage at least, N-S now are both LMs over 500 MP but the > CoCs specify masterpoint holding at the June 2005 cycle.) > > Board 27 4 > None Vul 7 > S Dealer KJ98764 > T632 > 5 AQJ873 > KQJ98632 AT > A > KQ4 AJ985 > KT962 > 54 > QT532 > 7 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass > 1C* Pass 1H* Pass > 1S* 2D 3D 5D > 6H Pass 7S Double > Pass Pass 7N Double > End > > * asterisks denote timely alerts and explanations where asked for: > --1C was a Precision strong opener, 16+ (or apparently a shapely 15...) > --1H was a transfer > --1S was a forced bid > > TD (me) was called when dummy appeared. I gave a stern lecture to > North before hearing the facts because he was pointing angrily at > West and holding court as I was making my way to the table. > > Both sides agreed that there was a break in tempo by East I assume you mean West? (You didn't change that one in your r.g.b post.) > after the > double of 7S. I told them to get a result and I would look at the > deal and decide if an adjustment was warranted. 7NT was laydown and > NS were calling me back before I returned to the desk. > > 1) Is pass a logical alternative for [East]? > (Don't answer yes without considering what [West] can possibly have > for his Precision opener from [East]'s point of view.) Missing question: If the answer to #1 is yes, then 1a) was East's 7NT bid suggested over passing by the tempo break? Unfortunately, I didn't see this question addressed in the rest of your post, either. Where are those forms we've been discussing? I certainly think passing is an LA for East (I don't see any reason West couldn't have the KQ of diamonds instead of the A, and one fewer heart). I'm not clear what the tempo break suggests, though. Especially if South did not hesitate before doubling (he really should have, since the previous bid was a jump), West may just need some time to take in this unexpected turn of events. > 2) Is South's double of 7NT an egregious attempt at a double shot? No. Not even close. At this level of experience, I wouldn't expect South *not* to double. He just blew it by allowing East to run to a possibly making contract, probably converting a top into a bottom. So what's to lose, bridge-wise, by doubling? In fact, I don't think I'd consider this a double shot at *any* level of experience, although at higher levels of experience, I'd expect South to refrain from doubling 7S in the first place. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 18 01:26:56 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Oct 18 01:32:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABC Appeal N-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003901c5d372$44661380$259868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > Hm. IMO, a rule that says numerically > "this and only this", such as the rule > of 19, if judgement is not allowed, or an > absolute minimum of 16 HCP for a Precision > 1 Club opening, is, at best, a mistake. > Given such an interpretation, the game in > question is not bridge as I understand it. > So I guess we agree, pretty much. > OTOH, trying to get different TDs, with > different opinions, experiences, and > training, to agree on *anything* seems > problematic, especially at the club > level.:-) [nige1] I don't agree with all that Ed says. A friend and I wrote to the EBU about the lower HCP limit on a strong club and we both got similar answers saying that the 16 HCP lower limit was not really a matter of judgement. We were disappointed not to be allowed to open all "rule of 25" hands, but we don't teally complain. We dislike all system restrictions but if we must have them, then we prefer simple unambiguous statements that require a minimum of judgement. Players' problems really start when the law encourages directors to use judgement when it's not really needed. Especially when directors are also players and they allow themselves judgement, to play their favourite methods. Rulings are fairly consistent at club level because the director just reads TFLB or the Orange book. He then naively applies the rules as printed. His ruling would be even fairer if the rules were more complete, clear and simple. It's much harder for national TD's trained in obscure interpretations and minutes that explain the law-makers true intentions. The poor souls are also expected to temper justice with "judgement" and consult with equally sophisticated colleagues. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 18 01:47:53 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Oct 18 01:54:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c5d33e$6dd2ece0$159868d5@jeushtlj> <536BF83A-409C-4E9B-B77E-7C9EA5E600E8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003f01c5d375$3336f040$259868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > Define "spurious". :-) [nige1] "bastard" but Thanks Ed: I should simply have written "unecesssary" which has more of the meaning that I intended. From walt1 at verizon.net Tue Oct 18 02:16:41 2005 From: walt1 at verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue Oct 18 02:20:22 2005 Subject: [blml] 7-level logical alternative ruling / possible double shot as In-Reply-To: References: <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20051017201443.032e1070@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:45 PM 10/17/2005, Karel wrote: >I rule : 7S*-3 seems about right for both sides. 7N making seems about right to me for the side that doubled 7S. Walt From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 18 02:46:21 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Oct 18 02:53:19 2005 Subject: [blml] 7-level logical alternative ruling / possible double shot aswell References: <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <003501c5d37d$5cf10800$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Bruce McIntyre" < 2) Is South's double of 7NT an egregious attempt at a double shot? There is no law against the so-called double shot. If it works, no problem, you keep the result. If it doesn't, you keep the bad result even if the other side's score is adjusted, unless there was no way to avoid being damaged. Not clear? Example: N-S reach 6S only because of UI, which E-W "know." East underleads an ace, the only lead to let it make, figuring to get redress if it doesn't work. N-S have their score adjusted to the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, let's say 4S making five. E-W keep their bad result, 6S making by N-S, because of the egregious action taken. They weren't damaged by the irregularity, they shot themselves in the foot. However, had 6S been cold with any defense, E-W would get the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred, probably from an adjusted score of 5S making six by N-S. With no way to avoid damage, whatever action E-W takes after the irregularity is irrelevant. Now suppose the "double shot" underlead works, and is the only way to beat the slam. Now they keep the good result. There is no case against N-S despite the UI, because it did not lead to damage for E-W or gain an improvement in their score (definition of "damage" for the OS). Double shots are legal gambles, but very unwise because they can jeopardize the right to get redress. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 18 04:09:31 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Oct 18 04:13:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Simple MI problem Message-ID: <4354595B.2080607@cfa.harvard.edu> This occurred in a tournament over the weekend. No world champions in this field, but no really bad players either. (Never mind what my partner says about that last. :-) ) Matchpoints, both vul, Dlr W K952 Q76 T KJ654 AJ T43 AT95 43 AQ865 K97432 82 QT Q876 KJ82 J A973 Auction: 1NT(15-17)-x!-2NT!-P 3C-P-3D-3S 4D-ap Double showed spades and another suit, alerted and explained (at East's request). 2NT was alerted and (on South's request) explained as puppet to 3C, usually for signoff in an unknown suit (i.e. lebensohl). The true agreement, explained by East at the end of the auction, was that 2NT showed diamonds, and 3C showed a good hand for diamonds (i.e., four-suit transfers, "system on" after double). The TD was called at the end of the auction and in usual ACBL practice asked North and South privately what they would have done differently. South said he would have bid 3S directly over 2NT. The TD ordered the 4D contract played (ending -1, +100 NS). NS called the TD back at the end of play and asked for an adjustment, suggesting that South's 3S might have ended the auction and made +140. 1. What's your ruling? 2. What do you think the ACBL director ruled? Hint: don't expect the two to be the same. The ruling, or at least the legal basis for it, looks pretty simple to me. There are no subtleties intended. In particular, I don't think UI is an issue, but maybe I'm missing something. I post mainly for the amusement value of 2, which I'll reveal in a few days. From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Oct 17 19:47:21 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Oct 18 09:40:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <002e01c5d33e$6dd2ece0$159868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c5d33e$6dd2ece0$159868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4353E3A9.8020806@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > > Such anomalies put the ordinary player at a > disadvantage compared with, say, BLMLers, who are > privy to such exceptions and reminded about > obscure interpretations and minutes. > > The WBF and EBU law-makers' concept of "Equity" is > an enigma. > > A possible solution is to tighten up the wording > of the rules, explicitly disallowing scope for > spurious "judgement". > > hear hear - I agree with Nigel > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/132 - Release Date: 13/10/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Oct 18 10:54:45 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Oct 18 10:56:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABC Appeal N-03] In-Reply-To: <003901c5d372$44661380$259868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj> <003901c5d372$44661380$259868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4354B855.2020508@hdw.be> Again, I completely agree with Nigel (must be something I ate :-)) Guthrie wrote: > [Ed Reppert] > >>Hm. IMO, a rule that says numerically >>"this and only this", such as the rule >>of 19, if judgement is not allowed, or an >>absolute minimum of 16 HCP for a Precision >>1 Club opening, is, at best, a mistake. >>Given such an interpretation, the game in >>question is not bridge as I understand it. >>So I guess we agree, pretty much. >>OTOH, trying to get different TDs, with >>different opinions, experiences, and >>training, to agree on *anything* seems >>problematic, especially at the club >>level.:-) > > > [nige1] > I don't agree with all that Ed says. > > A friend and I wrote to the EBU about the lower > HCP limit on a strong club and we both got similar > answers saying that the 16 HCP lower limit was not > really a matter of judgement. We were > disappointed not to be allowed to open all "rule > of 25" hands, but we don't teally complain. We > dislike all system restrictions but if we must > have them, then we prefer simple unambiguous > statements that require a minimum of judgement. > You see: as a player, it's better to have unambiguous regulations. As a TD, it is as well! > Players' problems really start when the law > encourages directors to use judgement when it's > not really needed. Especially when directors are > also players and they allow themselves judgement, > to play their favourite methods. > > Rulings are fairly consistent at club level > because the director just reads TFLB or the Orange > book. He then naively applies the rules as > printed. > > His ruling would be even fairer if the rules were > more complete, clear and simple. > > It's much harder for national TD's trained in > obscure interpretations and minutes that explain > the law-makers true intentions. The poor souls are > also expected to temper justice with "judgement" > and consult with equally sophisticated colleagues. > Completely in agreement! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/140 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 18 12:49:43 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Oct 18 12:55:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "He swathed himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors." ['Many Inventions'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:27:52 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ The EBU L&E committee is a sophisticated body and > >very street-wise. Therefore it is entirely up to the task of > >qualifying its language if it should be qualified. The statements > >are weighed with care. Ergo I consider that the wording of > >regulations in the Orange Book should be read as it is written. > > In the case of 'Rule of 19' the judgement is contained in, > >or if you prefer it substituted by, the Rule. I do not believe it > >allows of or calls for any additional exercise of judgement by > >the player or by the Director. > ---------------- snip ----------------- < > Brian: > I understand what you say about the wording being read as it is > written, but given the extent to which a player is *normally* > allowed to use judgment in hand valuation, I think it makes sense > to flag exceptions explicitly, rather than by implication. How > much effort would it have taken to add such a rider to the "Rules > of N" in the Orange Book? > +=+ I am not sure that one should expect negative exceptions to be stated - "There is no exception to this requirement". However, I have the final draft of the 2006 Orange Book beside me and I can quote from the sections on partnership agreements. The first of the quotes does establish a principle. Note that the regulations deal with agreements so that use of judgement to by-pass a regulation requires that there be no partnership agreement on the matter, explicit or implicit. As to 3rd-in-hand, general bridge knowledge could warn opponents that a substandard opener may occur but I see nothing to say that partner is allowed to anticipate it as a matter of partnership understanding. Let me then quote from the 2006 OB text: "If a call is permitted but says "Rule of 19" (for example) without further explanation this means that this is the minimum permitted." and "The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP." and "In general the Laws only permit controlling conventional bids. However, the WBF Laws Committee has sanctioned using the powers in Law 40D to use this control to make certain non- conventional bids nearly unplayable. Levels 2 and 3: (a) you may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than Rule of 19, or 11 HCP, by agreement but only if your side do not play ANY artificial calls thereafter in the subsequent auction. Furthermore, no such opening is allowed on 7 HCP or fewer. (b) etc through (e)......" [At level 4 Rule of 18 applies not Rule of 19, with the same provisos. At all levels there are in addition other grounds (b) through (e) - e.g.overcalls on 3 cards by agreement - for the exclusion of artificial calls from the ensuing auction. .] I have not checked to see whether the above constitutes a change at any point, other than as to language, from the current OB. However, there is a change as I understand it in the designation of levels 2, 3 and 4. This last would apply to all national tournaments organized by the EBU unless targeted on inexperienced players; County Assocn events and those of other sponsors would normally, but in their sponsors' discretion, fall into levels 2 or 3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Oct 18 14:03:55 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue Oct 18 14:07:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:49:43 +0100, Grattan wrote: >> Brian: >> I understand what you say about the wording being read as it is >> written, but given the extent to which a player is *normally* >> allowed to use judgment in hand valuation, I think it makes sense >> to flag exceptions explicitly, rather than by implication. How >> much effort would it have taken to add such a rider to the "Rules >> of N" in the Orange Book? >> >+=+ I am not sure that one should expect negative exceptions to >be stated - "There is no exception to this requirement". If the rule is expected to be applied with mathematical precision, then I would have thought that a rider more along the lines of "A player may not assess a hand that does not fully meet these requirements as being a legitimate opener on the grounds of intermediate cards or any other criteria" would be clear(er). Your view, I believe, is that the current wording is clear, but as Nigel also noted, experienced EBU TDs have stated on this list that they thought otherwise. >However, >I have the final draft of the 2006 Orange Book beside me and I >can quote from the sections on partnership agreements. The first >of the quotes does establish a principle. Note that the regulations >deal with agreements so that use of judgement to by-pass a >regulation requires that there be no partnership agreement on >the matter, explicit or implicit. I think this is asking for trouble. What it actually says, IMO, is that it's OK for a new partnership to use judgment but not an established one. How many times must a partnership judge to bypass the rule of 19 before it becomes an implicit agreement? >As to 3rd-in-hand, general bridge >knowledge could warn opponents that a substandard opener >may occur but I see nothing to say that partner is allowed to >anticipate it as a matter of partnership understanding. But maybe partner is allowed to anticipate it as a matter of general bridge knowledge? Mind-reading time for the TD again if so! >Let me then quote from the 2006 OB text: > "If a call is permitted but says "Rule of 19" (for example) >without further explanation this means that this is the minimum >permitted." >and "The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule >of 19, or 11 HCP." But then how do you deal with a partnership who refer you back to your first quote, and claim that the sub-minimum opener has not happened to them often enough for it to constitute an implicit agreement? >and >"In general the Laws only permit controlling conventional bids. >However, the WBF Laws Committee has sanctioned using the >powers in Law 40D to use this control to make certain non- >conventional bids nearly unplayable. >Levels 2 and 3: >(a) you may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker >than Rule of 19, or 11 HCP, by agreement but only if your >side do not play ANY artificial calls thereafter in the subsequent >auction. As I've noted before, I'm no longer subject to EBU regulations, but this used to be one of my pet peeves - opponents who would complain about my opening a Precision 1D on a 4333 11 count with very good fillers, but who would have opened a mini 1NT on exactly the same hand. The 11 HCP clause hadn't been added at that point, so at least there's been one step in the right direction. >Furthermore, no such opening is allowed on 7 HCP or >fewer. (b) etc through (e)......" > >[At level 4 Rule of 18 applies not Rule of 19, with the same >provisos. At all levels there are in addition other grounds (b) >through (e) - e.g.overcalls on 3 cards by agreement - for the >exclusion of artificial calls from the ensuing auction. .] > >I have not checked to see whether the above constitutes a >change at any point, other than as to language, from the >current OB. However, there is a change as I understand >it in the designation of levels 2, 3 and 4. This last would >apply to all national tournaments organized by the EBU >unless targeted on inexperienced players; County Assocn >events and those of other sponsors would normally, but in >their sponsors' discretion, fall into levels 2 or 3. I left the UK (just) before the 1998 OB introduced the concept of levels, so although I know the rough equivalences in terms of General, Restricted, etc, I've no first hand experience of the scheme. However, if the change means that those few counties who refused to play any restricted licence events are to be brought into line, then all I can say is that it's about time too. I still hold the view that the EBU should send the Orange book through a good technical author. I'm sure DWS has done his best, but bridge is complex enough in its own right, it can stand a clearly-written and unambiguous set of laws and regulations. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 18 15:45:04 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Oct 18 15:46:32 2005 Subject: [blml] 7-level logical alternative ruling / possible double shot as well In-Reply-To: <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> References: <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051018091138.02b2c600@pop.starpower.net> At 05:22 PM 10/17/05, Bruce wrote: >ACBL: North American Pairs Unit Final >Second of two sessions: twinned Howells, following an 8-table skip >Mitchell. Matchpoints. >Flight B/C Stratified, all pairs under 2000 MP > >Both pairs in this case were Flight C pairs, under 500 MP and non-LM >(at the beginning of the club stage at least, N-S now are both LMs >over 500 MP but the CoCs specify masterpoint holding at the June 2005 >cycle.) > >Board 27 4 >None Vul 7 >S Dealer KJ98764 > T632 >5 AQJ873 >KQJ98632 AT >A >KQ4 AJ985 > KT962 > 54 > QT532 > 7 > >EAST NORTH WEST SOUTH > Pass > 1C* Pass 1H* Pass > 1S* 2D 3D 5D > 6H Pass 7S Double >Pass Pass 7N Double > End > >* asterisks denote timely alerts and explanations where asked for: >--1C was a Precision strong opener, 16+ (or apparently a shapely 15...) >--1H was a transfer >--1S was a forced bid > >TD (me) was called when dummy appeared. I gave a stern lecture to >North before hearing the facts because he was pointing angrily at West >and holding court as I was making my way to the table. > >Both sides agreed that there was a break in tempo by East after the >double of 7S. I told them to get a result and I would look at the >deal and decide if an adjustment was warranted. 7NT was laydown and >NS were calling me back before I returned to the desk. East is West and West is East; Bruce must not have read his Kipling. >1) Is pass a logical alternative for West? (Don't answer yes without >considering what East can possibly have for his Precision opener from >West's point of view.) Yes. W could easily be gambling that E has either pretty good spades or some hearts with something like Kx/KQJxxx/Kx/KQx, offering E a choice of slams, and expecting him to bid a grand with all four aces. >2) Is South's double of 7NT an egregious attempt at a double shot? Absolutely not. Once S doubles 7S he must double 7NT; he committed himself 100% before there was any potential infraction to take a double shot at. >3) How do you rule? Adjust to the result in 7SX. From E's point of view, W's huddle over 7SX makes it far more likely than he holds the DA than if he had passed in tempo. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 18 16:12:23 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Oct 18 16:13:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Simple MI problem In-Reply-To: <4354595B.2080607@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4354595B.2080607@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051018095613.02b29eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:09 PM 10/17/05, Steve wrote: >This occurred in a tournament over the weekend. No world champions in >this field, but no really bad players either. (Never mind what my >partner says about that last. :-) ) > >Matchpoints, both vul, Dlr W > > K952 > Q76 > T > KJ654 >AJ T43 >AT95 43 >AQ865 K97432 >82 QT > Q876 > KJ82 > J > A973 > >Auction: 1NT(15-17)-x!-2NT!-P > 3C-P-3D-3S > 4D-ap >Double showed spades and another suit, alerted and explained (at >East's request). 2NT was alerted and (on South's request) explained >as puppet to 3C, usually for signoff in an unknown suit (i.e. >lebensohl). The true agreement, explained by East at the end of the >auction, was that 2NT showed diamonds, and 3C showed a good hand for >diamonds (i.e., four-suit transfers, "system on" after double). > >The TD was called at the end of the auction and in usual ACBL practice >asked North and South privately what they would have done differently. >South said he would have bid 3S directly over 2NT. The TD ordered the >4D contract played (ending -1, +100 NS). NS called the TD back at the >end of play and asked for an adjustment, suggesting that South's 3S >might have ended the auction and made +140. > >1. What's your ruling? No damage; score stands. Because of the infraction it took an extra round before everyone knew that E had wanted to play 3D all along, but after that there was no reason to think that either S or W would have bid their hands any differently. >2. What do you think the ACBL director ruled? A+ to N-S; A- to E-W? >Hint: don't expect the two to be the same. We'd never do that! Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Oct 18 16:23:11 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Oct 18 16:28:15 2005 Subject: [blml] 7-level logical alternative ruling / possible double shot as well In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20051018091138.02b2c600@pop.starpower.net> References: <4354161F.3060404@shaw.ca> <6.1.1.1.0.20051018091138.02b2c600@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4355054F.10404@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > >> 3) How do you rule? > > > Adjust to the result in 7SX. From E's point of view, W's huddle over > 7SX makes it far more likely than he holds the DA than if he had passed > in tempo. > And more likely than the diamond void, surely! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/140 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 18 17:59:58 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Oct 18 18:05:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001b01c5d3fc$fe3f2e60$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > As to 3rd-in-hand, general bridge knowledge > could warn opponents that a substandard > opener may occur but I see nothing to say > that partner is allowed to anticipate it as > a matter of partnership understanding. [nigel] Please clarify that ... [A] In a level three EBU event, third in hand, may you deliberately open one of a suit on some rule of 17 and 18 hands, and still use conventions thereafter? [B] May you have an implicit agreement to do so? (For example, you've never discussed it, but partner is aware that you have that tendency)? [C] May you have an explicit agreement to do so? (for example, you insist that it is "just Bridge" and discuss suitable candidates with partner)? [D] If any of the answers is "YES" should the Orange Book say so? Otherwise ordinary players will be at a disadvantage compared with BLML insiders. I disapprove of limits on opening bid requirements but if the EBU must impose them, I'd prefer a simple rule "NO" to all these questions rather than contend with a superfluous "director judgement" can of worms. From john at asimere.com Tue Oct 18 18:55:16 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:00:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Cheating MadDogs Message-ID: <4vE$XtA0jSVDFwbf@asimere.com> So, I took jon Cooke over to frankfurt and we played the ACBL regional. Great fun. High spot was winning the midnights with a 12 yr old girl on the team. now here's a fun one. The cards have gotten a bit sticky from all the beer poured into them over the last few days and I irrelevantly revoked in clubs while declarer was running his club suit. As it was I tossed the club into the pot once I spotted it, won our side's only trick at trick 13 and gave him back the trick for -520. No-one said a word, and we didn't bother Kojak who was on great form as usual. But it crossed my mind, what would a cheat do? He'll hold up the club till it's a winner and then cash out for 3N-1 (we have the spade suit established). Kojak thinks it's only 12 tricks now, and is of the view that he can't punish the cheat (much as he wants to). Matthias Schueller wants to go down 72B1 and is happy with that. Much as I like 72B1 I'm not entirely sure. Now when I talk about cheats I'm talking about 1) LOL who genuinely hasn't spotted the club, 2) a savvy player trying it on with no knowledge of law, 3) me, for example. read 64C VERY carefully, then enjoy. 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 adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 18 18:58:23 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:03:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Cheating MadDogs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:55:16 BST." <4vE$XtA0jSVDFwbf@asimere.com> Message-ID: <200510181658.JAA26388@mailhub.irvine.com> John wrote: > So, I took jon Cooke over to frankfurt and we played the ACBL regional. > Great fun. High spot was winning the midnights with a 12 yr old girl on > the team. now here's a fun one. > > The cards have gotten a bit sticky from all the beer poured into them > over the last few days and I irrelevantly revoked in clubs while > declarer was running his club suit. As it was I tossed the club into the > pot once I spotted it, won our side's only trick at trick 13 and gave > him back the trick for -520. No-one said a word, and we didn't bother > Kojak who was on great form as usual. > > But it crossed my mind, what would a cheat do? Pour the beer into his mouth, instead of into the cards? Just a thought... -- Adam From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 18 19:17:43 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Oct 18 19:27:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c5d408$807b2c70$c19387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "He swathed himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors." ['Many Inventions'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > > >Note that the regulations > >deal with agreements so that use of judgement to by-pass a > >regulation requires that there be no partnership agreement on > >the matter, explicit or implicit. > > I think this is asking for trouble. What it actually says, IMO, > is that it's OK for a new partnership to use judgment but not an > established one. How many times must a partnership judge to > bypass the rule of 19 before it becomes an implicit agreement? > +=+ Very few. I do not think it is a matter of 'new' partnerships and 'established' partnerships; the watershed comes when the partners become mutually aware of the possibilities.+=+ < < > But maybe partner is allowed to anticipate it as a matter of > general bridge knowledge? < +=+ Not, I think, in the face of specific regulation.+=+ < > But then how do you deal with a partnership who refer you > back to your first quote, and claim that the sub-minimum > opener has not happened to them often enough for it to > constitute an implicit agreement? > +=+ I tell myself that I am unable to establish this as a fact. I make a ruling on the basis of my opinion as to the probabilities, implementing Law 85B. If the pair looked as though they could open a can of beans I would incline strongly to rule against them. If there is to be an appeal they should be the ones funding it. +=+ < > I still hold the view that the EBU should send the Orange book > through a good technical author. I'm sure DWS has done his > best, but bridge is complex enough in its own right, it can stand > a clearly-written and unambiguous set of laws and regulations. > +=+ David Stevenson is Editor. He proposes wording but the eventual text has been sieved by the whole L&E Committee and is the product of the group. This body disposes of a proper level of technical expertise and authorship. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 18 23:06:06 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Oct 18 23:19:49 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001b01c5d3fc$fe3f2e60$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c5d428$96560f90$47ac403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > [Grattan Endicott] >> As to 3rd-in-hand, general bridge knowledge >> could warn opponents that a substandard >> opener may occur but I see nothing to say >> that partner is allowed to anticipate it as >> a matter of partnership understanding. > > [nigel] > Please clarify that ... > > [A] In a level three EBU event, third in hand, may > you deliberately open one of a suit on some rule > of 17 and 18 hands, and still use conventions > thereafter? > > [B] May you have an implicit agreement to do so? > (For example, you've never discussed it, but > partner is aware that you have that tendency)? > > [C] May you have an explicit agreement to do so? > (for example, you insist that it is "just Bridge" > and discuss suitable candidates with partner)? > > [D] If any of the answers is "YES" should the > Orange Book say so? Otherwise ordinary players > will be at a disadvantage compared with BLML > insiders. > > I disapprove of limits on opening bid requirements > but if the EBU must impose them, I'd prefer a > simple rule "NO" to all these questions rather > than contend with a superfluous "director > judgement" can of worms. > +=+ I will return, to the subject after Estoril.+=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Oct 19 02:13:44 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed Oct 19 02:17:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <000001c5d408$807b2c70$c19387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000001c5d408$807b2c70$c19387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6q2bl1d5hhfkim7b7qlqd2ohcoidjvht03@4ax.com> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:17:43 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ David Stevenson is Editor. He proposes wording but the >eventual text has been sieved by the whole L&E Committee >and is the product of the group. This body disposes of a proper >level of technical expertise and authorship. I have no basis on which to discuss or dispute the level of technical expertise and authorship of the L&E committee, other than to look at the end product, i.e. the various Orange, and previously Yellow, books that I received as an EBU member. I have not seen the latest books. Based on the versions I have seen, I think that the clarity and ease of use of same could have been improved. It's a humbling experience to see the improvements that a good technical author can make while revising documentation, and yes, I speak from personal experience with my own work, albeit in an area unrelated to bridge. I remain convinced that both the Orange book and TFLB itself would benefit from such a process, but I've no doubt that you will disagree. Brian. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 19 10:00:45 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Oct 19 10:07:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><008d01c5d2a2$ab83be80$119468d5@jeushtlj><000701c5d316$54f91b40$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><000001c5d408$807b2c70$c19387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6q2bl1d5hhfkim7b7qlqd2ohcoidjvht03@4ax.com> Message-ID: <002c01c5d483$5cb75450$10ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "He swathed himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors." ['Many Inventions'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > It's a humbling experience to see the improvements that a good > technical author can make while revising documentation, and yes, > I speak from personal experience with my own work, albeit in an > area unrelated to bridge. > > I remain convinced that both the Orange book and TFLB itself > would benefit from such a process, but I've no doubt that you > will disagree. > +=+ The combined talents of David Burn, Nick Doe, Richard Fleet, Steve Barnfield, Jeremy Dhondy, David Martin, impress me as adequate to the need - and these are supplemented by such contributions as Gerard Faulkner, Martin Pool and myself are able to offer. (Gerard and I are not members of the committee but entitled to attend and speak as Vice Presidents of the EBU). As for the Law Book I will leave comment on that exercise in international collaboration for another time. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Oct 19 13:57:38 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Oct 19 13:59:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Cheating MadDogs In-Reply-To: <4vE$XtA0jSVDFwbf@asimere.com> References: <4vE$XtA0jSVDFwbf@asimere.com> Message-ID: <435634B2.5060104@hdw.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > The cards have gotten a bit sticky from all the beer poured into them > over the last few days and I irrelevantly revoked in clubs while > declarer was running his club suit. As it was I tossed the club into the > pot once I spotted it, won our side's only trick at trick 13 and gave > him back the trick for -520. No-one said a word, and we didn't bother > Kojak who was on great form as usual. > > But it crossed my mind, what would a cheat do? > > He'll hold up the club till it's a winner and then cash out for 3N-1 (we > have the spade suit established). Kojak thinks it's only 12 tricks now, > and is of the view that he can't punish the cheat (much as he wants to). > Matthias Schueller wants to go down 72B1 and is happy with that. Much as > I like 72B1 I'm not entirely sure. > What we are talking of is a player who discovers he has revoked, and knows it's too late to correct the revoke, as it has become established. The player has the right to know what the penalties are going to be. It is illegal for him to revoke a second time, or to claim and not show his cards. But apart from that, he is allowed to choose if he's going to "throw the card in the pot", or to keep it to some other use, including making a trick with it. Normally, if he takes a trick with it, he will lose two, so he cannot really gain from this manoeuver. If it helps him to keep the card (I can only imagine it being a trump) until the right time so that he can make 7 tricks with it, and give those seven tricks back for the loss of nothing - then that is also OK. So I don't think there is any cheating going on. As for Mathias applying law 72B1, I don't see how he can. He cannot be taliking of the first irregularity (the revoke) as it is difficult to imagine that any revoke can gain - and besides, it won't gain to the normal result. If the revoker does something afterwards, that is a second infraction. As we see, only revoking again (knowingly) is an infraction. I presume John is not talking about that case. So I would say: a player is entitled to extract the maximum damage control from his revoke. If that means he limits his damage to zero, WTP? > Now when I talk about cheats I'm talking about 1) LOL who genuinely > hasn't spotted the club, 2) a savvy player trying it on with no > knowledge of law, 3) me, for example. > > read 64C VERY carefully, then enjoy. John 64C talkas about the damage from the revoke - You are talking about the damage from the controlling operation. That is not illegal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 From nistler at bridgehands.com Thu Oct 20 02:44:45 2005 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Michael Nistler) Date: Thu Oct 20 02:48:33 2005 Subject: [blml] L45C4a - Run the suit, then oops... References: <4vE$XtA0jSVDFwbf@asimere.com> <435634B2.5060104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4356E87D.464B194D@bridgehands.com> In an ACBL Club game, during play it becomes apparent the declarer mistakenly believes the contract in Notrump. On the third round of play of a promoted dummy suit, declarer states "run the suit". RHO then asks "what's the contract?" and the declarer becomes aware the contract is another suit (not the dummy's 5 card side suit). The RHO is void but does not ruff, with the Dummy winning the trick. Before LHO plays to the trick, Declarer provides amended instructions to the Dummy. Naturally, Declarer instructs Dummy to switch to the newly discovered trump suit. RHO summons Director, insisting Dummy is bound to continue playing the side-suit. Do we interpret L45C4a here that Declarer's instructions are irrevocable, thus Dummy must continue play indefinitely from prior trick instructions? Michael From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 20 02:56:42 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Oct 20 03:02:04 2005 Subject: [blml] L45C4a - Run the suit, then oops... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:44:45 PDT." <4356E87D.464B194D@bridgehands.com> Message-ID: <200510200056.RAA03729@mailhub.irvine.com> Michael wrote: > In an ACBL Club game, during play it becomes apparent the declarer mistakenly > believes the contract in Notrump. On the third round of play of a promoted > dummy suit, declarer states "run the suit". RHO then asks "what's the > contract?" and the declarer becomes aware the contract is another suit (not > the dummy's 5 card side suit). The RHO is void but does not ruff, with the > Dummy winning the trick. > > Before LHO plays to the trick, Declarer provides amended instructions to the > Dummy. Naturally, Declarer instructs Dummy to switch to the newly discovered > trump suit. > > RHO summons Director, insisting Dummy is bound to continue playing the > side-suit. > > Do we interpret L45C4a here that Declarer's instructions are irrevocable, thus > Dummy must continue play indefinitely from prior trick instructions? This has been discussed several times in BLML and/or RGB before, and I believe the answer is unequivocally "no". Just to make sure, I checked to see if there were any WBFLC minutes on the subject, and I found this, from January 12, 2000: # Being aware that Declarers sometimes give an instruction to Dummy to # run a suit and then leave him to do this without giving, as is # procedurally correct, a separate instruction for each card. A question # can arise as to when the second, or a later, card is played from # dummy, since the Declarer is not able to stop play of the card once it # is played. The Committee ruled that the card is deemed to be played # when Declarer's RHO follows to the trick. However, the committee # deprecates instructions given to Dummy in this irregular manner. This doesn't directly answer the question. It does say, though, that (1) telling dummy to run a suit, without giving a separate instruction for each card, is procedurally incorrect and the committee disapproves of it; (2) if declarer tells dummy to run a suit, and then on the next trick dummy plays a card without being told to do so and declarer's RHO follows, then dummy's card is deemed to be played. I think this implies that that's the only case where dummy's card is deemed to be played when he plays a card without a specific instruction on that trick. Thus, if dummy plays a card on the next trick, and declarer corrects him *before* RHO follows, declarer's correction stands. Similarly in the example you give, where declarer corrects his "run the suit" instruction *before* dummy plays to the next trick. In any case, every indication is that an instruction to run a suit is *not* irrevocable on subsequent tricks, except in the one specific case mentioned. Hope this helps, -- Adam From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Oct 20 03:43:26 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Oct 20 03:46:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Cheating MadDogs In-Reply-To: <200510181754.j9IHsccC009807@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200510181754.j9IHsccC009807@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4356F63E.3090102@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I irrelevantly revoked in clubs while declarer was running his club suit. > But it crossed my mind, what would a cheat do? > > He'll hold up the club till it's a winner and then cash out for 3N-1 (we > have the spade suit established). We've discussed this before. My view is that L64C is completely clear. The TD should restore equity _from the moment just before the second revoke_ (or any subsequent revoke if that happens to be worse for the OS). That is to say, revoking a second, third, or fourth time should do the cheat (or an honest but careless citizen) no good at all. Other people have disagreed with this view, but I can't imagine why. Why would anyone want to give a player who revokes twice a better score than a player who revokes only once? And if your jurisdiction subscribes to the CoP, the answer is even clearer. See the CoP definition of "damage." From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 19 23:23:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Oct 20 08:13:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: <003501c5d3d1$c0111de0$fcac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Gratan wrote: > (a) you may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker > than Rule of 19, or 11 HCP, by agreement but only if your > side do not play ANY artificial calls thereafter in the subsequent > auction. Furthermore, no such opening is allowed on 7 HCP or > fewer. (b) etc through (e)......" This was clarified by DWS a while back. Note that the words used are "weaker than rule of 19" and not "which does not comply with the rule of 19". Not all non-Ro19 are "weaker than Ro19". It is a matter of TD judgement firstly as to whether an agreement exists (generally it does) and secondly as whether a specific hand is "weaker than Ro19". In addition it only becomes relevant if partner uses a conventional bid (obviously one can easily avoid using a convention oneself). Sick and twisted use of words? Maybe - but the EBU can correctly claim that this regulation does not restrict the application of judgement (albeit one must hope that the TD will agree about the "not weaker than". (NB, for comparison purposes the Ro19 hand I keep in mind is QJ,5432,65432,AK - a total dog that even in my most aggressive moments I would pass* without thinking). Oh, and just for the record Nigel I don't think anything (least of all judgement) is "just bridge". Light one-level action is "old-fashioned Acol" but that (in terms of disclosure, education, judgement and everything else) is not the same thing. *Oh, OK, I might consider 3D (or psyching a weak 2C) third in at favourable & MPs but even by old-fashioned Acol standards it's not a 1 level opener). Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 20 13:32:34 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Oct 20 13:36:18 2005 Subject: [blml] L45C4a - Run the suit, then oops... References: <4vE$XtA0jSVDFwbf@asimere.com> <435634B2.5060104@hdw.be> <4356E87D.464B194D@bridgehands.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Nistler" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 19:44 PM Subject: [blml] L45C4a - Run the suit, then oops... > In an ACBL Club game, during play it becomes apparent the declarer mistakenly > believes the contract in Notrump. On the third round of play of a promoted > dummy suit, declarer states "run the suit". At this point the criteria [68 &68A] of a claim have been met- Declarer has stated that he will win the current spade trick and two future spade tricks and L68 specifies that it be treated as a claim. regards roger pewick. >RHO then asks "what's the > contract?" and the declarer becomes aware the contract is another suit (not > the dummy's 5 card side suit). The RHO is void but does not ruff, with the > Dummy winning the trick. > > Before LHO plays to the trick, Declarer provides amended instructions to the > Dummy. Naturally, Declarer instructs Dummy to switch to the newly discovered > trump suit. > > RHO summons Director, insisting Dummy is bound to continue playing the > side-suit. > Do we interpret L45C4a here that Declarer's instructions are irrevocable, thus > Dummy must continue play indefinitely from prior trick instructions? > > Michael From j.vickers at hotmail.co.uk Thu Oct 20 15:03:57 2005 From: j.vickers at hotmail.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Thu Oct 20 15:07:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:23 +0100 (BST) > >Gratan wrote: > > > (a) you may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker > > than Rule of 19, or 11 HCP, by agreement but only if your > > side do not play ANY artificial calls thereafter in the subsequent > > auction. Furthermore, no such opening is allowed on 7 HCP or > > fewer. (b) etc through (e)......" > >This was clarified by DWS a while back. Note that the words used are >"weaker than rule of 19" and not "which does not comply with the rule of >19". Not all non-Ro19 are "weaker than Ro19". It is a matter of TD >judgement firstly as to whether an agreement exists (generally it does) >and secondly as whether a specific hand is "weaker than Ro19". In >addition it only becomes relevant if partner uses a conventional bid >(obviously one can easily avoid using a convention oneself). It's not whether you or your partner *use* a conventional bid, but whether you have conventional bids available. If the director deems you to have an agreement to open one of a suit on hands which do not conform to the rule of 19 and your convention card features Jacoby, Bergen, inverted raises, splinters, Baron 2NT or the like, you are in breach of the regulations, whether or not you have actually used them. I hope this is not splitting hairs: I had a dispute with a pair in the days when conventional overcalls to 1NT in England had to guarantee an anchor suit, and I told them their Capalletti defence (2C = an undefined single-suiter, 2D = both majors, 2M = that suit and a minor) was illegal because 2C did not guarantee a specified suit. The TD went away to get advice, and when he finally returned the pair conceded that he was right, but said in their defence that they hadn't actually used that bid any time during the tournament, only bids which did indeed show an anchor suit. If you were TD in this case, would you adjust all boards played by the pair since the initial director call: 1. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with 2C 2. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with any suit at the two level 3. on which the non-offenders had opened 1NT (even if the opposition did nothing but pass)? James _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here. http://messenger.msn.co.uk From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 20 18:00:00 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Oct 20 18:05:04 2005 Subject: [blml] L45C4a - Run the suit, then oops... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:32:34 CDT." Message-ID: <200510201559.IAA08313@mailhub.irvine.com> Roger wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Nistler" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 19:44 PM > Subject: [blml] L45C4a - Run the suit, then oops... > > > > In an ACBL Club game, during play it becomes apparent the declarer > mistakenly > > believes the contract in Notrump. On the third round of play of a > promoted > > dummy suit, declarer states "run the suit". > > At this point the criteria [68 &68A] of a claim have been met- Declarer has > stated that he will win the current spade trick and two future spade tricks > and L68 specifies that it be treated as a claim. In looking through past BLML e-mails to see what discussions there had previously been, I found something I wrote back in November 1996. I think it answers the above point well enough that I can reproduce it without changing it. That way, I can claim that something I once wrote on BLML was useful enough to be quoted many years later. (Never mind that I'm the one quoting myself.) [Jens Brix Christiansen:] > > I feel that L68A applies here, because "run the clubs" in may book > > is, after all, a statement to the effect that declarer will win all > > the clubs; thus it would be ruled as a claim (unless he demonstrably > > did not intend to claim). [Me:] > It may well be "a statement to the effect that declarer will win all > the clubs." However, this still doesn't by itself make it a claim. A > claim is a "statement to the effect that a contestant will win a > specific number of tricks". That is to say, the contestant is saying > how many tricks he will win OVER THE ENTIRE REMAINDER OF THE HAND. > (This is the only sensible interpretation.) A statement that means in > effect "I'm going to win 6 club tricks, but I don't know how many > tricks I'm going to win after that" is not a claim, by this > definition. > > In order to claim, declarer is going to have to say something more > than "Run the clubs" (e.g. "I'll run the clubs and concede the rest"), > or he'll have to face his hand or do something else to indicate that > play is over. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 20 22:36:57 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Oct 20 22:43:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta Message-ID: <005d01c5d5b6$047d1e80$069468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > This was clarified by DWS a while back... {nige1] This is more of a "special exception to the EBU Orange Book rules" than a "clarification"! That this is an official change is news to me and to those whom I've asked! BLMLers must be careful not to let the cat out of the bag to ordinary players or we'll lose one of our insider advantages :) Since the most vocal pressure group of players for this change are also tournament-directors, it is lucky for them that it will become a matter of "director judgement" :) Keeping objective rules might be simpler but would be a retrograde step as it would also undermine the insider advantage :) John Probst, Tim West-Meads and David Stevenson (among others) will be relieved that this rule change will now allow them to start taking the same liberties with their third in hand openers as they habitually do with other bids :) BTW, IMO, psyches and deviations are part of the game. The rules should not interfere with them, in the way that they do now. Of course if, for example, partner often opens light third in hand, then it becomes a partnership agreement and should be declared. On the other hand, if this ever becomes "just Bridge", then the rules should state that players who do *not* do this often, should alert. (Or maybe when self-alerts become part of the rules, this could be a candidate). My partnership indulges in the occasional psyche; but, unfortunately, these are more of a surprise to partner than to opponents. On the last three occasions, opponents made overtricks in doubled contracts :( We counted ourselves lucky that opponents forgot to redouble :( From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 21 03:38:04 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Oct 21 03:41:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: <200510201451.j9KEp533028930@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200510201451.j9KEp533028930@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4358467C.4070202@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "James Vickers" > I had a dispute with a pair in the days > when conventional overcalls to 1NT in England had to guarantee an anchor > suit, and I told them their Capalletti defence (2C = an undefined > single-suiter, 2D = both majors, 2M = that suit and a minor) was illegal > because 2C did not guarantee a specified suit. > If you were TD in this case, would you adjust all boards played by the pair > since the initial director call: > 1. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with 2C Yes; 2C was illegal. > 2. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with any suit at the two level Their other two-level bids appear to be legal. Why would you adjust? > 3. on which the non-offenders had opened 1NT (even if the opposition did > nothing but pass)? What infraction is there? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Oct 21 03:39:39 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Oct 21 03:43:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051020213442.03b82bd8@mail.comcast.net> At 09:03 AM 10/20/2005, James Vickers wrote: >I hope this is not splitting hairs: I had a dispute with a pair in >the days when conventional overcalls to 1NT in England had to >guarantee an anchor suit, and I told them their Capalletti defence >(2C = an undefined single-suiter, 2D = both majors, 2M = that suit >and a minor) was illegal because 2C did not guarantee a specified >suit. The TD went away to get advice, and when he finally returned >the pair conceded that he was right, but said in their defence that >they hadn't actually used that bid any time during the tournament, >only bids which did indeed show an anchor suit. > >If you were TD in this case, would you adjust all boards played by >the pair since the initial director call: > >1. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with 2C >2. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with any suit at the two level >3. on which the non-offenders had opened 1NT (even if the opposition >did nothing but pass)? Normally, only category 1. The opponents could be damaged by the offenders' illegal convention, but without the illegal convention, the offenders' system was legal (if inferior, since they had no meaning for a bid of 2C). From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Oct 21 09:55:19 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Oct 21 09:58:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta References: <200510201451.j9KEp533028930@cfa.harvard.edu> <4358467C.4070202@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000301c5d614$c851ef30$0307a8c0@david> Well let us suppose a pair is illegally playing a 7-9 point 1NT opening (with conventions), then is an opening pass also illegal in that it is now (illegally) known not to contain 7-9 points balanced? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta >> From: "James Vickers" >> I had a dispute with a pair in the days >> when conventional overcalls to 1NT in England had to guarantee an anchor >> suit, and I told them their Capalletti defence (2C = an undefined >> single-suiter, 2D = both majors, 2M = that suit and a minor) was illegal >> because 2C did not guarantee a specified suit. > >> If you were TD in this case, would you adjust all boards played by the >> pair since the initial director call: >> 1. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with 2C > > Yes; 2C was illegal. > >> 2. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with any suit at the two >> level > > Their other two-level bids appear to be legal. Why would you adjust? > >> 3. on which the non-offenders had opened 1NT (even if the opposition did >> nothing but pass)? > > What infraction is there? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.1.360 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/145 - Release Date: 20/10/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.360 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/145 - Release Date: 20/10/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 20 17:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Oct 21 10:20:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > >To: blml@rtflb.org > >Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta > >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:23 +0100 (BST) > > > >Gratan wrote: > > > > > (a) you may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker > > > than Rule of 19, or 11 HCP, by agreement but only if your > > > side do not play ANY artificial calls thereafter in the subsequent > > > auction. Furthermore, no such opening is allowed on 7 HCP or > > > fewer. (b) etc through (e)......" > > > >This was clarified by DWS a while back. Note that the words used are > >"weaker than rule of 19" and not "which does not comply with the rule > of > >19". Not all non-Ro19 are "weaker than Ro19". It is a matter of TD > >judgement firstly as to whether an agreement exists (generally it does) > >and secondly as whether a specific hand is "weaker than Ro19". In > >addition it only becomes relevant if partner uses a conventional bid > >(obviously one can easily avoid using a convention oneself). > > It's not whether you or your partner *use* a conventional bid, but > whether you have conventional bids available. If the director deems you > to have an agreement to open one of a suit on hands which do not > conform to the rule of 19 and your convention card features Jacoby, > Bergen, inverted raises, splinters, Baron 2NT or the like, you are in > breach of the regulations, whether or not you have actually used them. That is not what the OB says. It explicitly uses the word "thereafter" in the restriction. No conventional calls, no illegal convention, no adjustment can legally be given. NB, if it were illegal to have an agreement to open "weaker than Ro19" and "play" conventions one would have to call the TD every time opps used a convention (regardless of the opening hand strength) and ask him to investigate whether opps might have such an agreement. All-in-all it's a pig's breakfast the EBU has created by trying to regulate natural bids (not in their remit) by the back door of convention regulation. > I hope this is not splitting hairs: I had a dispute with a pair in the > days when conventional overcalls to 1NT in England had to guarantee an > anchor suit, and I told them their Capalletti defence (2C = an > undefined single-suiter, 2D = both majors, 2M = that suit and a minor) > was illegal because 2C did not guarantee a specified suit. The TD went > away to get advice, and when he finally returned the pair conceded that > he was right, but said in their defence that they hadn't actually used > that bid any time during the tournament, only bids which did indeed > show an anchor suit. Which is fine (albeit I would have investigated). Law40 empowers the SO to regulate the *use* of conventions only. If one wants to waste a bid by having an illegal convention on the CC and never using it one may do so. > If you were TD in this case, would you adjust all boards played by the > pair since the initial director call: > > 1. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with 2C > 2. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with any suit at the two > level > 3. on which the non-offenders had opened 1NT (even if the opposition > did nothing but pass)? I'd adjust any hands on which I discovered an illegal conventional call had been made (the 2C bid in this case). I'd disqualify the offenders for telling me they hadn't bid 2C only for me to find that they had. Basically the EBU licensing process does not recognise conventions such as Capelletti "in toto" but by allowing (or not) each component call on its merits. Tim From j.vickers at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 21 15:45:34 2005 From: j.vickers at hotmail.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Fri Oct 21 15:49:15 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta Message-ID: >From: Steve Willner >>If you were TD in this case, would you adjust all boards played by the >>pair since the initial director call: >>1. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with 2C > >Yes; 2C was illegal. > >>2. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with any suit at the two >>level > >Their other two-level bids appear to be legal. Why would you adjust? > >>3. on which the non-offenders had opened 1NT (even if the opposition did >>nothing but pass)? > >What infraction is there? I'm not sure there is one, but I did have in mind the way that assigning a meaning for one bid can have implications for the meanings of other calls, as David says: >Well let us suppose a pair is illegally playing a 7-9 point >1NT opening (with conventions), then is an opening pass >also illegal in that it is now (illegally) known not to contain >7-9 points balanced? The problem is that if you extend this to its natural conclusion you could justify banning every action by the offenders. [Tim West-Meads:] > > It's not whether you or your partner *use* a conventional bid, but > > whether you have conventional bids available. If the director deems you > > to have an agreement to open one of a suit on hands which do not > > conform to the rule of 19 and your convention card features Jacoby, > > Bergen, inverted raises, splinters, Baron 2NT or the like, you are in > > breach of the regulations, whether or not you have actually used them. > >That is not what the OB says. It explicitly uses the word "thereafter" in >the restriction. No conventional calls, no illegal convention, no >adjustment can legally be given. That's not how I understand "thereafter". If that word were not there the regulation would impose a ban on *all* conventional bids by the partnership, whether or not they had been preceded by a one-of-a-suit opener (e.g. Acol 2C, Texas 4m openers, Stayman, transfers - all banned). [Tim West-Meads:] >Which is fine (albeit I would have investigated). Law40 empowers the SO >to regulate the *use* of conventions only. If one wants to waste a bid by >having an illegal convention on the CC and never using it one may do so. I'm aware that the EBU licences the specific meanings given to calls rather than conventions, so I suspect you may be right. But if the director finds a pair with an illegal convention on the card they will tell the offending pair to amend it immediately as the agreement is illegal. It doesn't seem fair to allow them to carry on and only apply sanctions when they are caught using the bid. For one thing, many opponents won't realise that it is illegal, and won't see the need to call the director. They may also waste time and mental effort forging a counter measure to a convention that they shouldn't be playing in the first place. James _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here. http://messenger.msn.co.uk From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 21 17:02:37 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Oct 21 17:15:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051021101224.02b438b0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:45 AM 10/21/05, James wrote: >>From: Steve Willner >>>If you were TD in this case, would you adjust all boards played by >>>the pair since the initial director call: >>>1. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with 2C >> >>Yes; 2C was illegal. >> >>>2. on which the offenders had overcalled 1NT with any suit at the >>>two level >> >>Their other two-level bids appear to be legal. Why would you adjust? >> >>>3. on which the non-offenders had opened 1NT (even if the opposition >>>did nothing but pass)? >> >>What infraction is there? > >I'm not sure there is one, but I did have in mind the way that >assigning a meaning for one bid can have implications for the >meanings of other calls, as David says: > >>Well let us suppose a pair is illegally playing a 7-9 point >>1NT opening (with conventions), then is an opening pass >>also illegal in that it is now (illegally) known not to contain >>7-9 points balanced? > >The problem is that if you extend this to its natural conclusion you >could justify banning every action by the offenders. > >[Tim West-Meads:] > >> > It's not whether you or your partner *use* a conventional bid, but >> > whether you have conventional bids available. If the director >> deems you >> > to have an agreement to open one of a suit on hands which do not >> > conform to the rule of 19 and your convention card features Jacoby, >> > Bergen, inverted raises, splinters, Baron 2NT or the like, you are in >> > breach of the regulations, whether or not you have actually used them. >> >>That is not what the OB says. It explicitly uses the word >>"thereafter" in >>the restriction. No conventional calls, no illegal convention, no >>adjustment can legally be given. > >That's not how I understand "thereafter". If that word were not there >the regulation would impose a ban on *all* conventional bids by the >partnership, whether or not they had been preceded by a one-of-a-suit >opener (e.g. Acol 2C, Texas 4m openers, Stayman, transfers - all banned). > >[Tim West-Meads:] > >>Which is fine (albeit I would have investigated). Law40 empowers the SO >>to regulate the *use* of conventions only. If one wants to waste a >>bid by >>having an illegal convention on the CC and never using it one may do so. > >I'm aware that the EBU licences the specific meanings given to calls >rather than conventions, so I suspect you may be right. But if the >director finds a pair with an illegal convention on the card they will >tell the offending pair to amend it immediately as the agreement is >illegal. It doesn't seem fair to allow them to carry on and only apply >sanctions when they are caught using the bid. For one thing, many >opponents won't realise that it is illegal, and won't see the need to >call the director. They may also waste time and mental effort forging >a counter measure to a convention that they shouldn't be playing in >the first place. The ACBL has been using this form of backhanded regulation for a long time now, and its application is considered to be unambiguous. The rule is that your agreed methods may not include the particular natural treatment *unless* your agreements are such that all responses and subsequent rebids by either partner are non-conventional. If your *agreements* violate the condition, the initial natural *call* is thus rendered illegal. If you are discovered to be in violation of the rule, any prior use of the agreed treatment may be subject to a score adjustment and/or a penalty, whether or not your actual call violated the constraint that made the agreement subject to the rule, and whether or not you actually used any of your agreed conventional responses or rebids. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 21 23:26:24 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Oct 21 23:28:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Unofficial thoughts on UI [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200510210956.j9L9uef9006590@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tagline for the movie Jaws 2: >Just when you thought it was safe to go >back into the water. Richard James Hills: Yes, I am back, and I am angry. :-) Many thanks to those blmlers who emailed me their personal best wishes during my recent illness. I spent my recuperating time compiling -> * * * Orlando Furioso Unauthorised Information Two cases unofficially discussed by BLMLers NABC+ Appeals Fall 2004 Note: To download the complete and official ACBL Orlando appeals casebook (and earlier official ACBL appeals casebooks), visit the ACBL website at: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html * * * This unofficial 10-page mini-casebook will be ready for unofficial release Real Soon Now. I am merely awaiting an official clearance from a highly unofficial Deep Throat source lurking within the highly officious ACBL higherarchy. (Sic). :-) As well as huge thanks to Deep Throat, I also wish to publicly thank my other co-authors of Orlando Furioso -> Robin Barker Ron Johnson (no relation to Ron Johnston) Eric Landau Con Holzscherer Adam Beneschan David J. Grabiner Steve Willner Especial thanks to Nigel Guthrie, who played the same role in this casebook as Saruman played in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (theatrical release). My sincere apologies to Nigel Guthrie for not producing a The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (extended DVD release). Off-topic; attached is my ranking of the six The Lord of the Rings movies -> 1st The Two Towers (extended DVD) 2nd The Fellowship of the Ring (theatrical) 3rd The Return of the King (theatrical) 4th The Fellowship of the Ring (extended DVD) 5th The Return of the King (extended DVD) 6th The Two Towers (theatrical) 7th The Lord of the Rings (Ralph Bakshi) Best wishes Mycroft Hills, amicus curiae Training and Staff Development Section 02 6264 2226 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sat Oct 22 02:24:47 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sat Oct 22 02:28:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta References: Message-ID: <000301c5d69f$02542420$0307a8c0@david> > > > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, David Barton wrote: > >> Well let us suppose a pair is illegally playing a 7-9 point >> 1NT opening (with conventions), then is an opening pass >> also illegal in that it is now (illegally) known not to contain >> 7-9 points balanced? > > The pass ought to be legal. > > There is nothing stopping you from agreeing to (for instance) open 2 of > your longest suit with a balanced 7, and legally rremoving these hands > from Pass. > > GRB > Here is an example:- The uncontested auction goes P 1H//2H P The 1H bidder has a flat 17 count and does not make a try after his partner's raise because he (illegally) knows his partner has less than 7 points. Should they keep their good score when 3H goes down? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Oct 22 02:47:34 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Oct 22 02:51:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Simple MI problem In-Reply-To: <4354595B.2080607@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4354595B.2080607@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43598C26.3030903@cfa.harvard.edu> A few days ago, I wrote: > Matchpoints, both vul, Dlr W > > K952 > Q76 > T > KJ654 > AJ T43 > AT95 43 > AQ865 K97432 > 82 QT > Q876 > KJ82 > J > A973 > > Auction: 1NT(15-17)-x!-2NT!-P > 3C-P-3D-3S > 4D-ap > Double showed spades and another suit, alerted and explained (at East's > request). 2NT was alerted and (on South's request) explained as puppet > to 3C, usually for signoff in an unknown suit (i.e. lebensohl). The > true agreement, explained by East at the end of the auction, was that > 2NT showed diamonds, and 3C showed a good hand for diamonds (i.e., > four-suit transfers, "system on" after double). This deal didn't generate much interest, though there was some private correspondence not posted to the list. South's claim that he would bid 3S over 2NT if he knows 2NT shows diamonds seems OK to me, and I don't see that either West or East will bid anything over that. Thus we need to determine "likely" and "at all probable" results in a 3S contract. Possible results are +170 if West misdefends in various ways, +140 if South gets both black suits right, -100 or -200 if he gets one or both wrong. Neither extreme score looks "at all probable" to me. Getting the spades right looks routine, but I don't see any obvious reason for South to get the clubs right unless he's an "8 ever, 9 never" type. So I think I probably rule no damage for NS, result stands (+100 better than -100), but I may well give EW -140 thinking 3S= is "at all probable" despite not being "likely." Anyway, this is an ordinary bridge judgment issue, and I'd surely want to consult. Further comments welcome if anyone is interested. Somebody had a good guess at the ACBL director's ruling with "Avg+, Avg-," but that wasn't quite it. I think the following is a near verbatim quote: "I've looked at the results, and +100 is above average. Nobody else played it in spades." (This was during round 5 of 9, not that it matters.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 22 23:04:48 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Oct 22 23:07:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Who should know what rules? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200510220956.j9M9uepH025054@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: James: >That's not how I understand "thereafter". If that >word were not there the regulation would impose a >ban on *all* conventional bids by the partnership, >whether or not they had been preceded by a one-of- >a-suit opener (e.g. Acol 2C, Texas 4m openers, >Stayman, transfers - all banned). Richard: Even I do not understand the word "thereafter". I suggest that a full paragraph replace this single word "thereafter" in a less super-succinct edition of The Fabulous Lawbook in 2008. Best wishes Mycroft Hills, amicus curiae Training and Staff Development Section 02 6264 2226 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Oct 23 08:06:12 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Oct 23 08:13:28 2005 Subject: [blml] Disclosure Message-ID: <00ac01c5d797$e287a0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> The ACBL encourages the declaring side to explain any of its auction that may not be understood fully, without being asked, before the opening lead. Shouldn't this be a requirement, in view of Laws 40B and 75A? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Sun Oct 23 16:22:50 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Sun Oct 23 16:26:33 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some Message-ID: <435B9CBA.8090904@hotmail.com> IMP's; face to face bridge; Contract 3NT S/All Q - - xxx xxxx - - KJ9x - - - - K QT8 - - EW did already make 5 tricks and West now plays a small Spade. At that moment East throws his cards on the table and concedes all tricks. He thinks that South still has Kx of spades and that North will be able to run his Clubs. West wonders if this is correct and objects the concession by asking to see the cards of South. Question: - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) if East did show his cards? - When does law 71A (...a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play) apply and when 71C (.. not have lost by any normal play )? According to Law 71A East could have discarded HK on the Spade trick, played HJ under HQ... and does not make any more tricks in accordance to his concession. Law 71C: Is it 'normal' to discard HK on the S trick if you are convinced that South still has a small S so that North will make all tricks with Clubs? - how do you rule? Thanks, Koen From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 23 17:16:30 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Oct 23 17:20:11 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some In-Reply-To: <435B9CBA.8090904@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <001001c5d7e4$beef3430$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of koen > IMP's; face to face bridge; Contract 3NT > S/All > Q > - > - > xxx > xxxx - > - KJ9x > - - > - - > K > QT8 > - > - > EW did already make 5 tricks and West now plays a small Spade. > At that moment East throws his cards on the table and concedes all > tricks. He thinks that South still has Kx of spades and that North will > be able to run his Clubs. West wonders if this is correct and objects > the concession by asking to see the cards of South. > Question: > - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) if East did show his > cards? Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). > - When does law 71A (...a trick his side could not have lost by any > legal play) apply and when 71C (.. not have lost by any normal play )? > According to Law 71A East could have discarded HK on the Spade trick, > played HJ under HQ... and does not make any more tricks in accordance to > his concession. Originally Law 71C ("normal play") applied if the concession was objected to before a player on the conceding side made a call on a subsequent board or the round ended. This was changed by the WBFLC so that Law 71C like Law 71A ("legal play") applied whenever the concession was objected to within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. The net effect of this change was that the second clause in law 71A became redundant (A "normal" play can never be "illegal" and v.v.). > Law 71C: Is it 'normal' to discard HK on the S trick if you are > convinced that South still has a small S so that North will make all > tricks with Clubs? No. > - how do you rule? Declarer has the right to specify that East discards his penalty cards starting with the HK on the spade trick (Law 51A) so declarer will make the rest. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 23 18:12:38 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Oct 23 18:16:26 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some References: <001001c5d7e4$beef3430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some > On Behalf Of koen > IMP's; face to face bridge; Contract 3NT > S/All > Q > - > - > xxx > xxxx - > - KJ9x > - - > - - > K > QT8 > - > - > EW did already make 5 tricks and West now plays a small Spade. > At that moment East throws his cards on the table and concedes all > tricks. He thinks that South still has Kx of spades and that North will > be able to run his Clubs. West wonders if this is correct and objects > the concession by asking to see the cards of South. > Question: > - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) if East did show his > cards? Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). While it may be true in a different case, after thinking about it a bit I do not believe that it is true in this case. The specification is that the objection be made immediately. It was stated that W wondered if it were correct before he objected. Well, actually he asked to see declarer's cards. In every event W did not object immediately and as such the law thus provides that play does not continue. regards roger pewick Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 23 19:33:56 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Oct 23 19:37:41 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c5d7f7$f29cbf60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............. >>> - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) >>> if East did show his cards? >> >> Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's >> (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). > > While it may be true in a different case, after thinking > about it a bit I do not believe that it is true in this > case. The specification is that the objection be made > immediately. It was stated that W wondered if it were > correct before he objected. Well, actually he asked to > see declarer's cards. In every event W did not object > immediately and as such the law thus provides that play > does not continue. West's action questioned the concession and as such is an objection to it. This objection was made immediately at the moment he noticed the action by East to concede the remaining tricks so Law 68B indeed applies. "Immediately" certainly does not require that the objection is made within a split second, the condition must be considered satisfied if the objection is made with no intervening activity other than questioning the conditions for the concession and/or summoning the Director. There is nothing in Law 68B to indicate that the manner in which a defender concedes the remaining tricks is essential for his partner's right to object to that concession. On the contrary Law 68B is very specific that the partner can always object ("Regardless of the foregoing, ..."). Now please explain why Law 49 shall not apply for this case. (Under which law is Law 49 made inapplicable?) Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 23 21:41:40 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Oct 23 21:45:23 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some References: <001401c5d7f7$f29cbf60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:33 PM Subject: RE: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............ >>> - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) >>> if East did show his cards? >> >> Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's >> (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). > > While it may be true in a different case, after thinking > about it a bit I do not believe that it is true in this > case. The specification is that the objection be made > immediately. It was stated that W wondered if it were > correct before he objected. Well, actually he asked to > see declarer's cards. In every event W did not object > immediately and as such the law thus provides that play > does not continue. West's action questioned the concession and as such is an objection to it. This objection was made immediately at the moment he noticed the action by East to concede the remaining tricks so Law 68B indeed applies. "Immediately" certainly does not require that the objection is made within a split second, the condition must be considered satisfied if the objection is made with no intervening activity other than questioning the conditions for the concession and/or summoning the Director. There is nothing in Law 68B to indicate that the manner in which a defender concedes the remaining tricks is essential for his partner's right to object to that concession. On the contrary Law 68B is very specific that the partner can always object ("Regardless of the foregoing, ..."). Now please explain why Law 49 shall not apply for this case. (Under which law is Law 49 made inapplicable?) Regards Sven There is no other meaning for immediately than 'without delay'. Should there be any intervening activity there has been delay- including the activity of questioning. And of course, merely because there has been no intervening activity does not mean that objection has been immediate, only if the condition without delay is satisfied has the objection been immediate. As such, the condition for continuing play is immediate objection by a defender. If the objection doesn't satisfy the condition then there is the matter of cancelling the concession. As play does not continue in this case there is no matter of PC. And even if there was continuation of play [a different case with otherwise the same facts] there is no basis for PC because there was no fact establishing that E has exposed his cards- only that he put his cards on the table. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 23 23:16:10 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Oct 23 23:19:54 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c5d816$fe015ef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > Sent: 23. oktober 2005 21:42 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ............ > >>> - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) > >>> if East did show his cards? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > >> > >> Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's > >> (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). > > > > While it may be true in a different case, after thinking > > about it a bit I do not believe that it is true in this > > case. The specification is that the objection be made > > immediately. It was stated that W wondered if it were > > correct before he objected. Well, actually he asked to > > see declarer's cards. In every event W did not object > > immediately and as such the law thus provides that play > > does not continue. > > West's action questioned the concession and as such is an objection to it. > This objection was made immediately at the moment he noticed the action by > East to concede the remaining tricks so Law 68B indeed applies. > > "Immediately" certainly does not require that the objection is made > within a split second, the condition must be considered satisfied > if the objection is made with no intervening activity other than > questioning the conditions for the concession and/or summoning > the Director. > > There is nothing in Law 68B to indicate that the manner in which a > defender concedes the remaining tricks is essential for his > partner's right to object to that concession. On the contrary Law 68B > is very specific that the partner can always object > ("Regardless of the foregoing, ..."). > > Now please explain why Law 49 shall not apply for this case. (Under which > law is Law 49 made inapplicable?) > > Regards Sven > > > There is no other meaning for immediately than 'without delay'. Should > there be any intervening activity there has been delay- including the > activity of questioning. And of course, merely because there has been no > intervening activity does not mean that objection has been immediate, only > if the condition without delay is satisfied has the objection been > immediate. We obviously have some difference of opinions. However, it is a well established practice (at least where I direct) that a player not satisfied with the circumstances in some case trying to clarify those for the purpose of determining whether there is any reason to summon the Director does not forfeit his rights in any way because of the delay caused by this questioning. This includes his right to (temporarily) objecting to partner's concession by clarifying the situation until he is satisfied whether he will sustain his objection or accept partner's concession. He will of course (and explicitly in Law 68B) be forbidden to make any use of information that could have arisen from the concession if this is cancelled and play continues. > > As such, the condition for continuing play is immediate objection by a > defender. If the objection doesn't satisfy the condition then there is > the matter of cancelling the concession. > > As play does not continue in this case there is no matter of PC. > > And even if there was continuation of play [a different case with > otherwise the same facts] there is no basis for PC because there was > no fact establishing that E has exposed his cards- only that he put > his cards on the table. > > regards > roger pewick Please reread the statement from the original post still present near the top of this message and now highlighted by me with a lot of left arrows. Maybe we can avoid derailing this discussion? Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Oct 23 23:41:55 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Oct 23 23:45:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Disclosure In-Reply-To: <00ac01c5d797$e287a0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <00ac01c5d797$e287a0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <05D88732-4D0A-4DE0-BE2B-366FA49CB797@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 23, 2005, at 2:06 AM, Marvin French wrote: > The ACBL encourages the declaring side to explain any of its auction > that may not be understood fully, without being asked, before the > opening lead. Shouldn't this be a requirement, in view of Laws 40B and > 75A? How do we define "may not be understood fully"? Even when both pairs at the table put the same system name or other phrase down for "basic approach" there may be some inferences in one pair's system that do not apply in the other. How is a player to know? I would not be averse to a law that explicitly requires the declaring side to fully disclose what they know about each others' hands before the opening lead is faced. But I have a problem where the defending side is concerned. In disclosing to declarer, they may also pass UI to partner which helps in the defense, and I suspect it would often be difficult to show that a player did take, or even might have taken, advantage of that. OTOH, if they do *not* have the same requirement to fully disclose, then the declarer may be placed at a disadvantage. That can't be right, either. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 23 23:42:14 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Oct 23 23:46:03 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some References: <001801c5d816$fe015ef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 16:16 PM Subject: RE: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > Sent: 23. oktober 2005 21:42 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ............ > >>> - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) > >>> if East did show his cards? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > >> > >> Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's > >> (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). > > > > While it may be true in a different case, after thinking > > about it a bit I do not believe that it is true in this > > case. The specification is that the objection be made > > immediately. It was stated that W wondered if it were > > correct before he objected. Well, actually he asked to > > see declarer's cards. In every event W did not object > > immediately and as such the law thus provides that play > > does not continue. > > West's action questioned the concession and as such is an objection to it. > This objection was made immediately at the moment he noticed the action by > East to concede the remaining tricks so Law 68B indeed applies. > > "Immediately" certainly does not require that the objection is made > within a split second, the condition must be considered satisfied > if the objection is made with no intervening activity other than > questioning the conditions for the concession and/or summoning > the Director. > > There is nothing in Law 68B to indicate that the manner in which a > defender concedes the remaining tricks is essential for his > partner's right to object to that concession. On the contrary Law 68B > is very specific that the partner can always object > ("Regardless of the foregoing, ..."). > > Now please explain why Law 49 shall not apply for this case. (Under which > law is Law 49 made inapplicable?) > > Regards Sven > > > There is no other meaning for immediately than 'without delay'. Should > there be any intervening activity there has been delay- including the > activity of questioning. And of course, merely because there has been no > intervening activity does not mean that objection has been immediate, only > if the condition without delay is satisfied has the objection been > immediate. We obviously have some difference of opinions. However, it is a well established practice (at least where I direct) that a player not satisfied with the circumstances in some case trying to clarify those for the purpose of determining whether there is any reason to summon the Director does not forfeit his rights in any way because of the delay caused by this questioning. This includes his right to (temporarily) objecting to partner's concession by clarifying the situation until he is satisfied whether he will sustain his objection or accept partner's concession. He will of course (and explicitly in Law 68B) be forbidden to make any use of information that could have arisen from the concession if this is cancelled and play continues. > > As such, the condition for continuing play is immediate objection by a > defender. If the objection doesn't satisfy the condition then there is > the matter of cancelling the concession. > > As play does not continue in this case there is no matter of PC. > > And even if there was continuation of play [a different case with > otherwise the same facts] there is no basis for PC because there was > no fact establishing that E has exposed his cards- only that he put > his cards on the table. > > regards > roger pewick Please reread the statement from the original post still present near the top of this message and now highlighted by me with a lot of left arrows. Maybe we can avoid derailing this discussion? Sven THere was a case given. It was not given as fact that E exposed his cards. It was asked if it makes a difference for the purpose of continuing play if E exposed his cards. I said no. I said that the condition of immediacy is the determining factor. What the dictionary says of the definition of immediately is apparently very different from what it is you.practice. Once the time has passed for an objection that continues play the TD explains that he will consider arguments for cancelling the concession because that is the option that is available at that time. Upon learning that W asked first to see declarer's cards it is clear to the TD that he had not objected immediately and imo it is his duty to explain the provisions of L71. regards roger pewick From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Mon Oct 24 00:12:02 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Mon Oct 24 00:23:05 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some Message-ID: <435C0AB2.50101@hotmail.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:59:14 +0200 From: koen To: Sven Pran References: <001001c5d7e4$beef3430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of koen >>IMP's; face to face bridge; Contract 3NT >>S/All >> Q >> - >> - >> xxx >>xxxx - >>- KJ9x >>- - >>- - >> K >> QT8 >> - >> - >>EW did already make 5 tricks and West now plays a small Spade. >>At that moment East throws his cards on the table and concedes all >>tricks. He thinks that South still has Kx of spades and that North will >>be able to run his Clubs. West wonders if this is correct and objects >>the concession by asking to see the cards of South. >>Question: >>- Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) if East did show his >>cards? >> >> > >Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's (exposed) cards become >major penalty cards (Law 49). > > > >>- When does law 71A (...a trick his side could not have lost by any >>legal play) apply and when 71C (.. not have lost by any normal play )? >>According to Law 71A East could have discarded HK on the Spade trick, >>played HJ under HQ... and does not make any more tricks in accordance to >>his concession. >> >> > >Originally Law 71C ("normal play") applied if the concession was objected to >before a player on the conceding side made a call on a subsequent board or >the round ended. This was changed by the WBFLC so that Law 71C like Law 71A >("legal play") applied whenever the concession was objected to within the >correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. > >The net effect of this change was that the second clause in law 71A became >redundant (A "normal" play can never be "illegal" and v.v.). > > > >>Law 71C: Is it 'normal' to discard HK on the S trick if you are >>convinced that South still has a small S so that North will make all >>tricks with Clubs? >> >> > >No. > > > >>- how do you rule? >> >> > >Declarer has the right to specify that East discards his penalty cards >starting with the HK on the spade trick (Law 51A) so declarer will make the >rest. > >Regards Sven > > > > very strange! this would mean: - If West objects the claim then all cards become major penalty cards and South makes all the tricks. - If West does not immediatly objects the claim, but reconsiders after one minute then - considering the 'normal' play - South has to give 2 tricks to East. (Remark: East did throw his cards on the table face up - he showed his cards). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051024/f8625596/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 24 01:16:03 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Oct 24 01:19:45 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some Message-ID: <001f01c5d827$bcf05b80$6400a8c0@WINXP> I received this in private from koen and therefore answered in private. Now that he posted on blml I feel that I should also post my answer here. Sven -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 23. oktober 2005 18:17 To: 'koen' Subject: RE: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some -----Original Message----- From: koen [mailto:kgrauwel@hotmail.com] Sent: 23. oktober 2005 17:59 To: Sven Pran Subject: Re: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some Sven Pran wrote: On Behalf Of koen IMP's; face to face bridge; Contract 3NT S/All Q - - xxx xxxx - - KJ9x - - - - K QT8 - - EW did already make 5 tricks and West now plays a small Spade. At that moment East throws his cards on the table and concedes all tricks. He thinks that South still has Kx of spades and that North will be able to run his Clubs. West wonders if this is correct and objects the concession by asking to see the cards of South. Question: - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) if East did show his cards? Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). - When does law 71A (...a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play) apply and when 71C (.. not have lost by any normal play )? According to Law 71A East could have discarded HK on the Spade trick, played HJ under HQ... and does not make any more tricks in accordance to his concession. Originally Law 71C ("normal play") applied if the concession was objected to before a player on the conceding side made a call on a subsequent board or the round ended. This was changed by the WBFLC so that Law 71C like Law 71A ("legal play") applied whenever the concession was objected to within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. The net effect of this change was that the second clause in law 71A became redundant (A "normal" play can never be "illegal" and v.v.). Law 71C: Is it 'normal' to discard HK on the S trick if you are convinced that South still has a small S so that North will make all tricks with Clubs? No. - how do you rule? Declarer has the right to specify that East discards his penalty cards starting with the HK on the spade trick (Law 51A) so declarer will make the rest. Regards Sven very strange! this would mean: - If West objects the claim then all cards become major penalty cards and South makes all the tricks. - If West does not immediately objects the claim, but reconsiders after one minute then - considering the 'normal' play - South has to give 2 tricks to East. Assuming of course that East actually exposed his cards when he conceded (That is how I read what you wrote in your original post). If he just threw his cards on the table face down then none of them were exposed in which case they did not become penalty cards. Literally Law 71C tells us to rule the case according to "normal" play if the objection is raised afterwards, that is a major reason why I disagree with the change made to this law. However, if I am told that East actually exposed his cards when conceding then I will still rule all tricks to declarer because "normal" play includes the effects of the penalty cards. If I am not told that East actually exposed his cards with the concession then yes, I shall award EW two more tricks. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 24 01:42:44 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Oct 24 01:46:28 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002001c5d82b$777dbe90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > ............ > > >>> - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) > > >>> if East did show his cards? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >> > > >> Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's > > >> (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). > > > > > > While it may be true in a different case, after thinking > > > about it a bit I do not believe that it is true in this > > > case. The specification is that the objection be made > > > immediately. It was stated that W wondered if it were > > > correct before he objected. Well, actually he asked to > > > see declarer's cards. In every event W did not object > > > immediately and as such the law thus provides that play > > > does not continue. > > > > West's action questioned the concession and as such is an > > objection to it. This objection was made immediately at the > > moment he noticed the action by East to concede the remaining > > tricks so Law 68B indeed applies. > > > > "Immediately" certainly does not require that the objection is made > > within a split second, the condition must be considered satisfied > > if the objection is made with no intervening activity other than > > questioning the conditions for the concession and/or summoning > > the Director. > > > > There is nothing in Law 68B to indicate that the manner in which a > > defender concedes the remaining tricks is essential for his > > partner's right to object to that concession. On the contrary Law 68B > > is very specific that the partner can always object > > ("Regardless of the foregoing, ..."). > > > > Now please explain why Law 49 shall not apply for this case. > > (Under which law is Law 49 made inapplicable?) > > > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > There is no other meaning for immediately than 'without delay'. Should > > there be any intervening activity there has been delay- including the > > activity of questioning. And of course, merely because there has been > > no intervening activity does not mean that objection has been immediate, > > only if the condition without delay is satisfied has the objection been > > immediate. > > We obviously have some difference of opinions. > > However, it is a well established practice (at least where I direct) that > a player not satisfied with the circumstances in some case trying to > clarify those for the purpose of determining whether there is any reason > to summon the Director does not forfeit his rights in any way because of > the delay caused by this questioning. > > This includes his right to (temporarily) objecting to partner's concession > by clarifying the situation until he is satisfied whether he will sustain > his objection or accept partner's concession. He will of course (and > explicitly in Law 68B) be forbidden to make any use of information that > could have arisen from the concession if this is cancelled and play > continues. > > > > > As such, the condition for continuing play is immediate objection by a > > defender. If the objection doesn't satisfy the condition then there is > > the matter of cancelling the concession. > > > > As play does not continue in this case there is no matter of PC. > > > > And even if there was continuation of play [a different case with > > otherwise the same facts] there is no basis for PC because there was > > no fact establishing that E has exposed his cards- only that he put > > his cards on the table. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > Please reread the statement from the original post still present near the > top of this message and now highlighted by me with a lot of left arrows. > > Maybe we can avoid derailing this discussion? > > Sven > > THere was a case given. It was not given as fact that E exposed his > cards. No? I wonder which case you read. > > It was asked if it makes a difference for the purpose of continuing play > if E exposed his cards. I said no. Good. > I said that the condition of immediacy is the determining factor. What > the dictionary says of the definition of immediately is apparently very > different from what it is you practice. Have you still not realized that the interpretation of the language in the laws does not necessarily always match exactly what some dictionaries say? > > Once the time has passed for an objection that continues play the TD > explains that he will consider arguments for cancelling the concession > because that is the option that is available at that time. Upon learning > that W asked first to see declarer's cards it is clear to the TD that he > had not objected immediately and imo it is his duty to explain the > provisions of L71. So I take it that your advice to players is: Whenever you defend against a contract and your partner concedes you must by all means first and immediately object to his concession. Otherwise you will lose your right to equity when questioning the concession reveals that your side in fact should have more tricks? A few variations to the actual case: East abandons his hand and West asks declarer: "Do you really have the rest?" and then summons the Director when declarer shows him his cards (or maybe doesn't answer that question but just begins to record a result). Or East says to declarer: "OK, you have the rest" after both Declarer and East returns their cards to the board. Now West says: "Hey, what is going on here?" and summons the Director. Has West "objected immediately" to the concessions in these two scenarios? Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 24 08:47:26 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Oct 24 08:54:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Disclosure References: <00ac01c5d797$e287a0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <05D88732-4D0A-4DE0-BE2B-366FA49CB797@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007901c5d866$cd9b54a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" < , Marvin French wrote: > > > The ACBL encourages the declaring side to explain any of its auction > > that may not be understood fully, without being asked, before the > > opening lead. Shouldn't this be a requirement, in view of Laws 40B > > and 75A? > > How do we define "may not be understood fully"? Even when both pairs > at the table put the same system name or other phrase down for "basic > approach" there may be some inferences in one pair's system that do > not apply in the other. How is a player to know? Declarer could be required to ask the defenders if they want an explanation of the auction, and if they say yes then declarer can explain everything. Defenders can't ask about a particular call, however (L20F2). If they want an explanation they have to listen to it all, as with bidding reviews. > > I would not be averse to a law that explicitly requires the declaring > side to fully disclose what they know about each others' hands before > the opening lead is faced. Yes, that's what I'm getting at. However, that could be a time-waster when the defenders don't want the information. Offer it to them, then give it if they want it. Failure to offer an explanation would imply that there is nothing left to disclose, so the defense could get redress if that proves to be false. Right now there is no redress when defenders go wrong because they didn't understand an auction that included some subtle partnership agreement not covered by disclosure regulations. >But I have a problem where the defending > side is concerned. In disclosing to declarer, they may also pass UI > to partner which helps in the defense, and I suspect it would often > be difficult to show that a player did take, or even might have > taken, advantage of that. OTOH, if they do *not* have the same > requirement to fully disclose, then the declarer may be placed at a > disadvantage. That can't be right, either. I would never suggest that, and didn't. This represents a serious hole in the disclosure laws/regulations, because defenders are not allowed to volunteer information about their auction. The only cure for that is for declarers to ask questions, which they are free to do at any time. Unlike defenders, who can ask only for an "explanation of opposing auction," declarers can ask about specific calls (L20F2). Thank you Ed, for replying, the only one so far. Maybe I should have asked on rgb. It seems like such an obvious requirement that I thought perhaps there is some objection to it that I'm not thinking of. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 24 14:50:23 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Oct 24 14:51:39 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some In-Reply-To: References: <001801c5d816$fe015ef0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051024082907.02be0b80@pop.starpower.net> At 05:42 PM 10/23/05, Roger wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > ............ > > >>> - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) > > >>> if East did show his cards? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >> > > >> Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's > > >> (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). > > > > > > While it may be true in a different case, after thinking > > > about it a bit I do not believe that it is true in this > > > case. The specification is that the objection be made > > > immediately. It was stated that W wondered if it were > > > correct before he objected. Well, actually he asked to > > > see declarer's cards. In every event W did not object > > > immediately and as such the law thus provides that play > > > does not continue. > > > > West's action questioned the concession and as such is an objection > to it. > > This objection was made immediately at the moment he noticed the > action by > > East to concede the remaining tricks so Law 68B indeed applies. > > > > "Immediately" certainly does not require that the objection is made > > within a split second, the condition must be considered satisfied > > if the objection is made with no intervening activity other than > > questioning the conditions for the concession and/or summoning > > the Director. > > > > There is nothing in Law 68B to indicate that the manner in which a > > defender concedes the remaining tricks is essential for his > > partner's right to object to that concession. On the contrary Law 68B > > is very specific that the partner can always object > > ("Regardless of the foregoing, ..."). > > > > Now please explain why Law 49 shall not apply for this case. (Under > which > > law is Law 49 made inapplicable?) > > > > Regards Sven > > > > There is no other meaning for immediately than 'without delay'. Should > > there be any intervening activity there has been delay- including the > > activity of questioning. And of course, merely because there has > been no > > intervening activity does not mean that objection has been > immediate, only > > if the condition without delay is satisfied has the objection been > > immediate. > >We obviously have some difference of opinions. > >However, it is a well established practice (at least where I direct) >that a >player not satisfied with the circumstances in some case trying to clarify >those for the purpose of determining whether there is any reason to summon >the Director does not forfeit his rights in any way because of the delay >caused by this questioning. > >This includes his right to (temporarily) objecting to partner's concession >by clarifying the situation until he is satisfied whether he will sustain >his objection or accept partner's concession. He will of course (and >explicitly in Law 68B) be forbidden to make any use of information that >could have arisen from the concession if this is cancelled and play >continues. > > > > > As such, the condition for continuing play is immediate objection by a > > defender. If the objection doesn't satisfy the condition then there is > > the matter of cancelling the concession. > > > > As play does not continue in this case there is no matter of PC. > > > > And even if there was continuation of play [a different case with > > otherwise the same facts] there is no basis for PC because there was > > no fact establishing that E has exposed his cards- only that he put > > his cards on the table. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > >Please reread the statement from the original post still present near the >top of this message and now highlighted by me with a lot of left arrows. > >Maybe we can avoid derailing this discussion? > >Sven > >THere was a case given. It was not given as fact that E exposed his >cards. > >It was asked if it makes a difference for the purpose of continuing >play if >E exposed his cards. I said no. I said that the condition of >immediacy is >the determining factor. What the dictionary says of the definition of >immediately is apparently very different from what it is you.practice. > >Once the time has passed for an objection that continues play the TD >explains that he will consider arguments for cancelling the concession >because that is the option that is available at that time. Upon learning >that W asked first to see declarer's cards it is clear to the TD that he >had not objected immediately and imo it is his duty to explain the >provisions of L71. West concedes. East, who is not a law maven, says, "What happens now? Let's get a director." The director is called, and explains the rules regarding concessions. East now says that he wishes to object to West's concession. If Roger's logic is correct, he has not so stated "immediately", therefore he has forfeited whatever rights would have been granted him under L68B by having taken the time to find out what those rights are. That can't possibly be right. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 24 15:14:20 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:15:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: <000301c5d69f$02542420$0307a8c0@david> References: <000301c5d69f$02542420$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051024085855.02c0f650@pop.starpower.net> At 08:24 PM 10/21/05, David wrote: >>>Well let us suppose a pair is illegally playing a 7-9 point >>>1NT opening (with conventions), then is an opening pass >>>also illegal in that it is now (illegally) known not to contain >>>7-9 points balanced? >> >>The pass ought to be legal. >> >>There is nothing stopping you from agreeing to (for instance) open 2 of >>your longest suit with a balanced 7, and legally rremoving these hands >>from Pass. > >Here is an example:- >The uncontested auction goes P 1H//2H P >The 1H bidder has a flat 17 count and does not make a try after his >partner's >raise because he (illegally) knows his partner has less than 7 points. >Should they keep their good score when 3H goes down? Yes. They are illegally playing a 7-9 point 1NT opening (with conventions); they could be given a PP for that (or even a DP, if they knew it was illegal). But you aren't entitled to a score adjustment because your opponents have an illegal convention on their CC; you are entitled to one only if they have actually used it to your disadvantage. In this case, they have gained their advantage by virtue of their agreement that a single raise shows less than 7 HCP. If *that* agreement is legal, there is no adjustment. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 24 15:14:37 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Oct 24 15:18:26 2005 Subject: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some References: <002001c5d82b$777dbe90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 18:42 PM Subject: RE: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > ............ > > >>> - Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) > > >>> if East did show his cards? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > >> > > >> Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's > > >> (exposed) cards become major penalty cards (Law 49). > > > > > > While it may be true in a different case, after thinking > > > about it a bit I do not believe that it is true in this > > > case. The specification is that the objection be made > > > immediately. It was stated that W wondered if it were > > > correct before he objected. Well, actually he asked to > > > see declarer's cards. In every event W did not object > > > immediately and as such the law thus provides that play > > > does not continue. > > > > West's action questioned the concession and as such is an > > objection to it. This objection was made immediately at the > > moment he noticed the action by East to concede the remaining > > tricks so Law 68B indeed applies. > > > > "Immediately" certainly does not require that the objection is made > > within a split second, the condition must be considered satisfied > > if the objection is made with no intervening activity other than > > questioning the conditions for the concession and/or summoning > > the Director. > > > > There is nothing in Law 68B to indicate that the manner in which a > > defender concedes the remaining tricks is essential for his > > partner's right to object to that concession. On the contrary Law 68B > > is very specific that the partner can always object > > ("Regardless of the foregoing, ..."). > > > > Now please explain why Law 49 shall not apply for this case. > > (Under which law is Law 49 made inapplicable?) > > > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > There is no other meaning for immediately than 'without delay'. Should > > there be any intervening activity there has been delay- including the > > activity of questioning. And of course, merely because there has been > > no intervening activity does not mean that objection has been immediate, > > only if the condition without delay is satisfied has the objection been > > immediate. > > We obviously have some difference of opinions. > > However, it is a well established practice (at least where I direct) that > a player not satisfied with the circumstances in some case trying to > clarify those for the purpose of determining whether there is any reason > to summon the Director does not forfeit his rights in any way because of > the delay caused by this questioning. > > This includes his right to (temporarily) objecting to partner's concession > by clarifying the situation until he is satisfied whether he will sustain > his objection or accept partner's concession. He will of course (and > explicitly in Law 68B) be forbidden to make any use of information that > could have arisen from the concession if this is cancelled and play > continues. > > > > > As such, the condition for continuing play is immediate objection by a > > defender. If the objection doesn't satisfy the condition then there is > > the matter of cancelling the concession. > > > > As play does not continue in this case there is no matter of PC. > > > > And even if there was continuation of play [a different case with > > otherwise the same facts] there is no basis for PC because there was > > no fact establishing that E has exposed his cards- only that he put > > his cards on the table. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > Please reread the statement from the original post still present near the > top of this message and now highlighted by me with a lot of left arrows. > > Maybe we can avoid derailing this discussion? > > Sven > > THere was a case given. It was not given as fact that E exposed his > cards. No? I wonder which case you read. > > It was asked if it makes a difference for the purpose of continuing play > if E exposed his cards. I said no. Good. > I said that the condition of immediacy is the determining factor. What > the dictionary says of the definition of immediately is apparently very > different from what it is you practice. Have you still not realized that the interpretation of the language in the laws does not necessarily always match exactly what some dictionaries say? ***It sounds like you have missed the distinction between that which is an interpretation and that which is a change of law. The meaning of the subject words is clear and thus a change of their meaning is a change of law. To view an example of interpretation look to L48B2 where it says ...he may be deemed to have...... just what is supposed to be done when declarer exposes his cards at any time other than immediately after an OLOOT? Is declarer supposed to have a claim thrust upon him? Is declarer supposed to not have a claim thrust upon him? If the TD likes the declarer is he supposed to elect to not deem a claim was made and have play continue upon returning the cards to declarer's hand? That passage of law that solves nothing nor provides guidance as to the expected remedy. It calls for interpretation. > Once the time has passed for an objection that continues play the TD > explains that he will consider arguments for cancelling the concession > because that is the option that is available at that time. Upon learning > that W asked first to see declarer's cards it is clear to the TD that he > had not objected immediately and imo it is his duty to explain the > provisions of L71. So I take it that your advice to players is: Whenever you defend against a contract and your partner concedes you must by all means first and immediately object to his concession. Otherwise you will lose your right to equity when questioning the concession reveals that your side in fact should have more tricks? ***I did not write the law nor would I have written such tripe. As written a defender would be stupid to immediately object to his partner's concession/claim if his side would thereby acquire PCs. Given the ramifications of UI and improper deception there is likely to be more downside little upside from doing something that would cause play to continue. A few variations to the actual case: East abandons his hand and West asks declarer: "Do you really have the rest?" and then summons the Director when declarer shows him his cards (or maybe doesn't answer that question but just begins to record a result). Or East says to declarer: "OK, you have the rest" after both Declarer and East returns their cards to the board. Now West says: "Hey, what is going on here?" and summons the Director. Has West "objected immediately" to the concessions in these two scenarios? ***As declarer was first to be mentioned there is a presumption that it was declarer that abandoned his hand first. It was declarer that conceded the rest of the tricks L68B. When E abandoned his hand it was after the hand was over. Therefore E statement was agreeing that the rest of the tricks were declarer's L72A2. And W was objecting to that agreement L79A. regards roger pewick Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 25 01:52:53 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Oct 25 02:11:31 2005 Subject: [blml] The Lion, the Wildavsky and the War Drobe [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Orlando Furioso Unauthorised Information Two cases unofficially discussed by BLMLers NABC+ Appeals Fall 2004 Note: To download the complete and official ACBL Orlando appeals casebook (and earlier official ACBL appeals casebooks), visit the ACBL website at: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html Abbreviations AC = Appeals Committee ACBL = American Contract Bridge League AI = authorised information AWMW = appeal without merit warning BIT = break in tempo BLML = bridge laws mailing list, http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml CoP = WBF Code of Practice for appeals committees (not yet officially endorsed by the ACBL) DIC = Director-in-Charge LA = logical alternative MI = misinformation PP = procedural penalty TD = Tournament Director UI = unauthorised information WBF = World Bridge Federation CASE N-01 Subject: UI DIC: Cukoff LM Open Pair 2nd Qualification Bd: 7 Albert Lochli Dlr: South AK4 Vul: Both QJ73 KQ83 32 Fred Hamilton Mark Itabashi QT872 J5 A65 4 --- 9642 QJT86 AK9754 Stephen Brauss 963 KT982 AJT75 --- West North East South --- --- --- Pass Pass 1NT 3C 3H 5C Dbl(1) Pass 5D Pass 5H Pass Pass Pass (1) Agreed-upon break in tempo Facts: The director, who was called after the 5D bid, determined that the double was preceded by an extended break in tempo of about 25 seconds. The STOP card had been used prior to the 5C bid. NS play 15-17 1NT. NS had not discussed whether 3H was forcing, but both treated it as highly constructive. EW play DONT over opponents' 1NT opening bid. Director's Ruling: The director ruled that the break in tempo suggested doubt about the double of 5C, which in turn suggested that 5D would be a more attractive alternative for South, as pass is a logical alternative to bidding 5D. Hence, the result was adjusted to 5C doubled for +750 EW. The Appeal: South disagreed with the director's finding that pass was a logical alternative, especially against top level players. The Decision: The Committee considered many typical North hands and estimated that pulling the double would produce a better result than passing a little more than half the time. However, this clearly did not make passing an illogical alternative. Since the slowness of tempo suggested that bidding was more attractive than passing, the Committee determined that South must pass. The play in 5C would easily achieve eleven tricks and no more. Therefore, the adjustment of the board's result to +750 EW was made. The Committee determined that NS were experienced players and should have been familiar with Law 16, Unauthorized Information, which governs situations such as this. The Committee decided that the appeal was without merit and an AWMW was issued. The Panel: Richard Popper, chairperson, Gail Greenberg, Ellen Melson, Bob Schwartz, Larry Cohen. * * * BLML commentary Robin Barker: Very good all round, including AWMW. Ron Johnson (no relation to Ron Johnston): Good job by all concerned. I'm really surprised to see NS appeal what is a truly routine UI ruling. Eric Landau: I agree with the committee's decision. But, as they themselves noted, most players would bid absent the tempo break. While pass is, in my opinion, a logical alternative here, this is a close enough judgment that we shouldn't be expecting players to determine that definitively for themselves. I strongly disagree with the committee's finding that the appeal was without merit. Con Holzscherer: I strongly disagree with Eric's disagreement. An immediate double would (or at least should) show a hand without a reasonable heart fit and certainly with wasted club values. At best (from South's viewpoint) something like: KJTx Axx KQx QJx which should yield about 800 against 5 clubs opposite a doubtful 5 hearts. My opinion is that after partner's double, pass is not only "an alternative", but the best bid. By the way, North's double is ridiculous. If South would have passed after half a minute and South would have bid 5 diamonds and the TD would not have accepted the 5 diamond bid, NS would have had a legitimate case, but after North's double? NO! Adam Beneschan: Keep in mind that E-W were experts, and they were vulnerable. They're not going to be bidding like this, on holey club suits, without extra distribution. I think 200 is more likely than 800---you're counting on N-S taking three tricks in the red suits, which isn't all that likely in my opinion. I agree with Eric---I think the committee was out of line to issue the AWMW. N-S can certainly be expected to know Law 16, but they should not be expected to know how a TD or AC member is going to judge which calls are logical alternatives. I think it's reasonable for South to see this as a close decision whether passing is a LA (mostly because of the club void), and he shouldn't be punished for thinking it might be, in spite of the TD's decision (especially if the TD made that decision without consultation). Richard Hills: Keep in mind that Ruritanian Doubles (slow doubles with some defensive strength; fast doubles with huge defensive strength) should be discouraged, especially since "NS were experienced players". If I had been the TD, I would not only have adjusted the score to +750 EW, but I would also have fined NS the standard ACBL procedural penalty for infracting Law 73C. * * * To be continued..... Best wishes Mycroft Hills, amicus curiae Training and Staff Development Section 02 6264 2226 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 25 02:11:43 2005 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Oct 25 02:21:20 2005 Subject: [blml] The Lion, the Wildavsky and the War Drobe [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: CASE N-02 Subject: UI DIC: Ron Johnston Event LM Women?s Pairs 4th Session Bd: 26 Kathleen Sulgrove Dlr: East J Vul: Both QT8 87632 J532 Cindy Sealy Patty Adamle KQ8532 A74 6 AK7 954 AKQJT KQ4 A6 JoAnn Sprung T96 J95432 --- T987 West North East South --- --- 2C Pass 2S Pass 4NT Pass 5D Pass 5H Pass 5S(1) Pass 7NT Pass Pass Pass (1) BIT Facts: The final contract was 7NT making for +2220 for EW after the lead of the C10. The 5D bid showed one key card. There was an extended pause (about 30 seconds) before the 5S bid, which happened to be observed by the director. East, in consultation with the director away from the table after the auction was completed, said that she thought that her partner was confused and that she thought the King sixth of spades would be enough for her to justify her bidding 7NT. Director's Ruling: The director ruled that unauthorized information existed from the hesitation and that it suggested that West was confused and might have the SQ, which was systemically denied by the 5S bid. Applying Law 16A, the director adjusted the score to 6S making seven, E-W +1460, per Law 12C2. The Appeal: The EW pair acknowledged that there was a significant BIT over the 5H queen ask. The pair also said that the positive 2S response could be made on as little as the king sixth of spades and an outside queen. East acknowledged that she thought her partner could be uncertain about the meaning of the 5H bid. The NS pair contended that the BIT should constrain EW from bidding at the seven level. NS also pointed out that 6S could be held to 6 with a diamond lead. The Decision: The Committee determined that the BIT suggested that West's 5S response might not be accurate and, therefore, made bidding a grand slam more attractive. The Committee found that without the BIT there were logical alternatives to bidding a grand slam. Applying Law 12C2, the AC determined that the most unfavorable result at all probable for EW was 6NT, not 6S. The Committee considered that the same rationale used by East to opt for 7NT instead of 7S would also lead East to choose NT at the six level, if a grand slam were not to be bid. Therefore, the best result likely for NS was 6NT by EW. Also the worst result at all probable for EW was 6NT. The contract easily makes all the tricks for reciprocal 1470s. Since the Committee?s decision gave EW a better score than the director had done, the Committee did not seriously consider whether the appeal was without merit. Committee: Jon Wittes, chairperson, Riggs Thayer, John Solodar, Ed Lazarus, Aaron Silverstein * * * BLML commentary David J. Grabiner: The Committee's claim is wrong here. If 7S makes, then 7NT must make, as there are at least five spades, two hearts, five diamonds, and one club. But it isn't clear whether 6S or 6NT is more likely to make, and 6S is more likely to make an overtrick. Give West Kxxxxx Jxx x Qxx, and if clubs aren't led against 6NT, East must duck the second spade to keep an entry to dummy; 6S makes seven on a 2-2 spade break. If clubs are led, the opening leader doesn't have the CK, and spades don't break, 6S might still make if the club losers can be pitched on the diamonds, and is otherwise down one, while 6NT is down two. Yes, I would bid 6NT after considering the issues (West might have the CK, or the HQ and no club lead, or the CQ and opening leader holds the CK), but 6S is a logical alternative. I could see +1430 for E-W and -1460 for N-S (ruling that it was not at all probable both that East would bid 6S and that North would lead a diamond). Steve Willner: I can see why West had a problem; for some partnerships, 5H would be to play, not a queen ask. (In such partnerships, East needs to bid 3S first to set trumps.) It might be useful to know what West's 2S bid promised. Would it have been consistent with KJxxxx QJ xxx xx or similar? If so, 6S might be "at all probable," though I don't think it is "likely" (L12C2). On the other hand, if 2S promised a suit headed by two top honors, West has a good case that 7NT is the only LA. But if that were the case, why bother with a queen ask? The parlay of a 6S contract followed by a diamond lead doesn't strike me as even "at all probable," regardless of what 2S means. I expect the committee satisfied itself on all these matters and just didn't bother putting details into the report. Richard Hills: Given that the ACBL _pays_ their NABC+ committee members, "just didn't bother putting details into the report" (if true) would mean that the committee is being _over_paid. Of course, in my opinion, better results are gained by not paying committee members, since - in my opinion - committee members inspired by a noblesse oblige sense of civic duty give better performances than committee members inspired by Mammon. Reference: Alfie Kohn, "Punished by Rewards" Robin Barker: The TD, if adjusting to 6S, should have adjusted to 6S= (EW +1430). But the AC are right that Pass (as opposed to 6NT) is not a LA for East. If EW appealed on the basis of restoring the table score (7NT) then the appeal would be without merit and deserved an AWMW, even though AC improved their score. Only if they (EW) appealed to achieve +1470 for 6NT+1 did they deserve to avoid AWMW. Best wishes Mycroft Hills, amicus curiae Training and Staff Development Section 02 6264 2226 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 26 08:37:37 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Oct 26 08:44:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Pittsburgh NABC casebook Message-ID: <00d101c5d9f7$c2e404c0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> The appeals casebook for the Pittsburgh NABC is now viewable/downloadable from the ACBL website, www.acbl.org. Click on "Play" in the site index, which gets you to a menu that includes "Casebooks." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 26 10:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Oct 26 17:12:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > It's not whether you or your partner *use* a conventional bid, but > > > whether you have conventional bids available. If the director deems > > > you > > > to have an agreement to open one of a suit on hands which do not > > > conform to the rule of 19 and your convention card features Jacoby, > > > Bergen, inverted raises, splinters, Baron 2NT or the like, you are > > > in > > > breach of the regulations, whether or not you have actually used > > > them. > > > >That is not what the OB says. It explicitly uses the word > "thereafter" in > >the restriction. No conventional calls, no illegal convention, no > >adjustment can legally be given. > > That's not how I understand "thereafter". If that word were not there > the regulation would impose a ban on *all* conventional bids by the > partnership, whether or not they had been preceded by a one-of-a-suit > opener (e.g. Acol 2C, Texas 4m openers, Stayman, transfers - all > banned). Doubtless that'll be the next version :). There is a grammatical difference between "You may have an agreement to open....thereafter" (what the writer probably intended) and "You may open...thereafter" (what he actually wrote). Of course there may, in theory, be a few UI issues. I open light, pard makes a bid that would be conventional had I not opened light. I "know" the bid is natural, bidding my own hand accordingly - and of course don't alert, so now he knows I have opened light. Hasn't happened yet thankfully - but I'm sure the Mad Dog will be up to it when it does. Basically the regulation is nearly as badly written as it is ill- conceived. The sooner it is out of the OB altogether the happier I will be but in the meantime I'm bound (as player or TD) by the *exact* words. > [Tim West-Meads:] > > >Which is fine (albeit I would have investigated). Law40 empowers the > > SO to regulate the *use* of conventions only. If one wants to waste a > > bid by having an illegal convention on the CC and never using it one > > may do so. > > I'm aware that the EBU licences the specific meanings given to calls > rather than conventions, so I suspect you may be right. But if the > director finds a pair with an illegal convention on the card they will > tell the offending pair to amend it immediately as the agreement is > illegal. As might I. I was unclear earlier when I talked about Law40 (I was thinking L40d). The EBU *could* have a regulation (under L40e) forbidding one from having an illegal convention on the CC but it does not currently have such a regulation. This may, of course, lead to adjustments relating to disclosure but imagine a pair, thinking they would be playing in a Level 4 event arriving to find it is actually level 3. They explain on arrival at each table that although their (extremely neat and helpful, plastic coated) CC says "Capp" they play 2C as [something legal]. IMO they have not committed any offence. As a TD I'd just tell the pair to carry on (although I'd probably never get to hear about it anyway). With non-coated CCs amendments are more easily made so I'd take a different approach - basically whatever I think is best for the circumstances. > It doesn't seem fair to allow them to carry on and only apply > sanctions when they are caught using the bid. Except that having told them it was illegal the sanction would be a whole lot tougher (e.g if I ask them to warn opps and they don't!). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 26 10:36:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Oct 26 17:12:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: <005d01c5d5b6$047d1e80$069468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: > [Tim West-Meads] > > This was clarified by DWS a while back... > > {nige1] > This is more of a "special exception to the EBU > Orange Book rules" than a "clarification"! > > That this is an official change is news to me and > to those whom I've asked! It wasn't a "change", it wasn't even a direct clarification. DWS just kept telling me to read the regulation. Eventually (after about 37 readings) I realised that "is weaker than Ro19" inherently includes judgement (since "Rule of x" is only *a* method of hand evaluation and one might be using something different) while "non-compliant with Ro19" would preclude judgement. Such is life. Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 26 22:40:23 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Oct 26 22:47:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Justice vs Equity Message-ID: <003201c5da6d$7e3f5f60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Grattan is fond of quoting the classic writers, so here are some quotes for him and his associates to keep in mind when working on the Laws revision: Michel de Montaigne: "The very laws of justice cannot subsist without some mixture of injustice." Plato: "Those men are undertaking to cut off the Hydra's head who aspire to remove all drawbacks and disadvantages from the laws." Tacitus: "Every exemplary punishment has in it some injustice against individuals, which is compensated by public utility." We who are merely players, not members of any governing board or committee, and not recipients of any income from the game, want simple justice in the Laws, not complicated equity. Our wishes should be solicited and respected, as we are the great majority. The chain of representation, at least in ACBL-land, is too long for us to get our desires recognized on high. We elect our unit boards, who elect our district boards and district representative on the Board of Directors, who elect a president, who appoints LC members. Our voices don't carry that far, so I am bypassing the chain and appealing directly to the WBFLC: Please give us justice, not equity. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 27 01:55:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Oct 27 02:08:44 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Regulations. Message-ID: Hi all, The EBU L&EC has published its September minutes containing the following little nugget. "The L&E decided that the regulation should be that if a player has knowledge that his partner tends to forget a particular agreement, that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon." Does anybody else feel that this conflicts (just a tad perhaps) with Law75c: "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience,.." Tim From henk at ripe.net Thu Oct 27 02:13:14 2005 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu Oct 27 02:17:02 2005 Subject: [blml] EBU Regulations. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051027020857.02cdba60@localhost> Tim, You are posting from an account that is not subscribed to the mailing list. Your postings thus end up in the moderators queue and have to be approved by hand. I've repeatedly asked you to to fix this but so-far, you have not done this. If you want to continue posting, please subscribe as "twm@cix.co.uk". Henk >The EBU L&EC has published its September minutes containing the following >little nugget. > >"The L&E decided that the regulation should be that if a player has >knowledge that his partner tends to forget a particular agreement, that >tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon." > >Does anybody else feel that this conflicts (just a tad perhaps) with >Law75c: "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in >reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all >special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or >partnership experience,.." > >Tim > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look here junior, don't you be so happy. And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine) From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Oct 27 09:42:42 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Oct 27 09:44:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <436084F2.3010607@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Of course there may, in theory, be a few UI issues. I open light, pard > makes a bid that would be conventional had I not opened light. I > "know" the bid is natural, bidding my own hand accordingly - and of course > don't alert, so now he knows I have opened light. Hasn't happened yet > thankfully - but I'm sure the Mad Dog will be up to it when it does. > This cannot be happening. You are allowed to systemically open very weak hands, only if you play no conventions afterwards- so you either play: -1 diamond = 10-12 (rule of xx applies) and conventions; or -1 diamond = 8-12 (rule of xx does not apply) and no conventions It's your choice and you should put that on your CC. If you choose the first one, and you then open too light, you are in breach of the regulation, even if you interpret the conventional reply as natural, or even if no conventional reply comes. > Basically the regulation is nearly as badly written as it is ill- > conceived. The sooner it is out of the OB altogether the happier I will > be but in the meantime I'm bound (as player or TD) by the *exact* words. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/149 - Release Date: 25/10/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 27 18:54:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Oct 27 18:58:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: <436084F2.3010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > This cannot be happening. You are allowed to systemically open very > weak hands, only if you play no conventions afterwards- We are not talking about "very weak hands" which, being a King or more below average strength, are subject to regulation. We are talking about old-fashioned Acol openers that, while clearly within a King of average strength, do not comply with a "Rule of.." evaluation. Such bids are not subject to regulation and thus cannot be ruled "illegal". > so you either play: > -1 diamond = 10-12 (rule of xx applies) and conventions; or > -1 diamond = 8-12 (rule of xx does not apply) and no conventions > > If you choose the first one, and you then open too light, you are in > breach of the regulation, even if you interpret the conventional reply > as natural, or even if no conventional reply comes. *I* am not in breach of the regulation - having used no conventions. Partner is, unwittingly, in breach of the regulation but the schmuck doesn't know, at the time of his bid, that my hand doesn't comply with the rule. If there is no conventional bid made there cannot possibly be illegal use of a convention. It would have been possible to write a regulation such as "No conventions may be played after 1 level suit openers which may, by explicit or implicit agreement, not comply with the Rule of 19". However, it would not be hands on which a non-Ro19 hand was opened which were subject to adjustment but *any* hand on which a convention was used regardless of opener's strength. I think that was probably the regulation the EBU intended to write but instead they wrote something which required both a non Ro19 opening *and* a subsequent conventional bid *on the same hand* before an adjustment can be given. They also used the term "weaker than" rather than "does not comply with" which makes everything a (perhaps murky) judgement issue. It is possible that nuances between the wording I have given above and the actual wording used by the EBU are obscured when translating to a foreign language. Even many native English speakers have problems seeing the difference (partly because they don't start from the absolute given that the opening bid itself can, if "natural", never be illegal). Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 19:51:32 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu Oct 27 19:55:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: References: <436084F2.3010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0510271051he8343bchee53c0872f28efd7@mail.gmail.com> I'm completely with Tim on this one... The regulators decided long ago that they would resort to stupid rules lawyering to twist the laws as they see fit. Who gives a damn about the spirit of the rules, so long as there is a loophole than can be exploited. It seems only appropriate that players respond in kind... From j.vickers at hotmail.co.uk Fri Oct 28 19:00:48 2005 From: j.vickers at hotmail.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Fri Oct 28 19:04:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) >Herman wrote: > > > > This cannot be happening. You are allowed to systemically open very > > weak hands, only if you play no conventions afterwards- > >We are not talking about "very weak hands" which, being a King or more >below average strength, are subject to regulation. We are talking about >old-fashioned Acol openers that, while clearly within a King of average >strength, do not comply with a "Rule of.." evaluation. Such bids are not >subject to regulation and thus cannot be ruled "illegal". > > > so you either play: > > -1 diamond = 10-12 (rule of xx applies) and conventions; or > > -1 diamond = 8-12 (rule of xx does not apply) and no conventions > > > > If you choose the first one, and you then open too light, you are in > > breach of the regulation, even if you interpret the conventional reply > > as natural, or even if no conventional reply comes. > >*I* am not in breach of the regulation - having used no conventions. [snip] >I think that was probably the regulation the EBU intended to write but >instead they wrote something which required both a non Ro19 opening *and* >a subsequent conventional bid *on the same hand* before an adjustment can >be given. They also used the term "weaker than" rather than "does not >comply with" which makes everything a (perhaps murky) judgement issue. >Tim I admit that what I wrote earlier about a pair playing an illegal 2C overcall to a 1NT opener was nonsense (i.e. that all their defensive measures to 1NT would thereby be rendered illegal), but I agree with Herman and disagree with Tim on this one. What the Orange Book actually says is: "One of a suit opening bids - minimum opening bids The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP; except - You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter" (OB12.2.1) I agree that you cannot adjust the score against transgressors until you actually catch them using a conventional response opposite an agreed weak opening, but simply having the agreement to open under-strength one-of-a-suit opening bids and the agreement to play conventional responses to one-of-a-suit opening bids is illegal and subject to penalty. Tim seems to be reading something into the word "thereafter" which I cannot see. As I said before, if that word were not there it would mean that a pair agreeing to play under-strength openers would be banned from playing ALL conventions, regardless of whether or not they follow an opening bid of one-of-a-suit. A similar regulation regarding under-strength 1NT openers at OB12.5.2 had an explanatory amendment added in Oct 1998: "The word 'thereafter' should be used in the context of the auction on the hand concerned". I assumed this just meant that the ban on conventional calls after 1NT openers expires when the players move on to the next hand. Does anyone read it differently? I also find the OB wording curious: "...the *minimum agreement* for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19 or 11 HCP" This at least is unambiguous - "minimum" qualifies "agreement", not the strength of the hand, nor the HCPs, nor the "X" in "rule of X". So presumably a bridge lawyer could argue that their agreement to play "Rule of 10, at least 5 HCP, minor suit pips summing to at least four, and a picture card" is more than the minimum agreement stipulated above. A silly argument, of course, but legally unassailable. James _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here. http://messenger.msn.co.uk From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Oct 29 01:18:45 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Oct 29 01:26:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta References: Message-ID: <003b01c5dc15$f26a3dc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "James Vickers" > I also find the OB wording curious: "...the *minimum agreement* for opening > 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19 or 11 HCP" > > This at least is unambiguous - Not really. Is it Rule of 19 or is it 11 HCP? Tell us which, don't keep it a secret. "Or" is one of those ambiguous connectors, as it can be exclusive or inclusive. Whoever uses it must be careful to insure that the intended meaning is clear. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Oct 29 11:49:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Oct 29 11:53:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: James wrote: > Tim seems to be reading something into the word "thereafter" which I > cannot see. It is not the word "thereafter" per se. It is the use of the word in conjunction with the "action" statement "You may open.." as opposed to a statement purely relating to agreements e.g. "You may have an agreement to open...". The actual wording means that it is only an infraction if a convention is used after a sub-19 opening - any agreement made *before* the opening is outwith the regulation as written. That's probably not what the weasels intended when they created the whole misbegotten concept - but it is what they wrote. Tim From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 31 16:14:56 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Oct 31 16:19:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: <436084F2.3010607@hdw.be> References: <436084F2.3010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: In message <436084F2.3010607@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Of course there may, in theory, be a few UI issues. I open light, >>pard makes a bid that would be conventional had I not opened light. I >>"know" the bid is natural, bidding my own hand accordingly - and of >>course don't alert, so now he knows I have opened light. Hasn't >>happened yet thankfully - but I'm sure the Mad Dog will be up to it >>when it does. >> > >This cannot be happening. You are allowed to systemically open very >weak hands, only if you play no conventions afterwards- >so you either play: >-1 diamond = 10-12 (rule of xx applies) and conventions; or >-1 diamond = 8-12 (rule of xx does not apply) and no conventions > >It's your choice and you should put that on your CC. > >If you choose the first one, and you then open too light, you are in >breach of the regulation, even if you interpret the conventional reply >as natural, or even if no conventional reply comes. > Except that Tim and I use our 3 quid a hundred style for 1 level openers. We have no agreements to open light, but we do play bridge. John >> Basically the regulation is nearly as badly written as it is ill- >> conceived. The sooner it is out of the OB altogether the happier I >>will be but in the meantime I'm bound (as player or TD) by the >>*exact* words. >> > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > -- John Probst From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 31 23:41:01 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Nov 1 00:18:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta References: <003b01c5dc15$f26a3dc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00d301c5de70$6e6bf740$279468d5@jeushtlj> [Marvin French] > Not really. Is it Rule of 19 or is it > 11 HCP? Tell us which, don't keep it a > secret. "Or" is one of those ambiguous > connectors, as it can be exclusive or > inclusive. Whoever uses it must be careful > to insure that the intended meaning is > clear. [nigel] IMO, an exclusive interoperation makes little sense. "OR" was obviously meant inclusively so that both the following are legal openers. [1] Kxxxx Kxxxx Kx x [2] Kxxx Kxx Kxx Qxx I vaguely understand how Tim West-Meads, Eric Landau, and Richard Willey can stretch the wording of the rules to interpret the "no conventions thereafter" clause in the way that suits their purposes; but I doubt whether many ordinary players can match their mental agility. I am afraid that this illustrates the danger of rules that are unnecessarily sophisticated and complex; and specifically how they disadvantage ordinary players. Currently, players struggle to enjoy a game, the rules of which they will never understand. Directors are better off. They are privy to masses of minutes and things. Even so, judging by BLML, most of them have conflicting ideas of the basic rules. Some BLMLers seem to object to abiding by the spirit as well as the letter of the rules. Given the state of the rules that is understandable; but IMO it is better to argue for rule changes rather than to stretch or to bend existing rules. From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Fri Oct 28 15:06:02 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Nov 1 13:24:50 2005 Subject: FW: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some In-Reply-To: <001f01c5d827$bcf05b80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001f01c5d827$bcf05b80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4362223A.4030202@hotmail.com> Sven Pran wrote: >I received this in private from koen and therefore answered in private. > >Now that he posted on blml I feel that I should also post my answer here. > >Sven > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] >Sent: 23. oktober 2005 18:17 >To: 'koen' >Subject: RE: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: koen [mailto:kgrauwel@hotmail.com] >Sent: 23. oktober 2005 17:59 >To: Sven Pran >Subject: Re: [blml] East concedes all tricks...but would have made some > >Sven Pran wrote: >On Behalf Of koen >IMP's; face to face bridge; Contract 3NT >S/All > Q > - > - > xxx >xxxx - >- KJ9x >- - >- - > K > QT8 > - > - >EW did already make 5 tricks and West now plays a small Spade. >At that moment East throws his cards on the table and concedes all >tricks. He thinks that South still has Kx of spades and that North will >be able to run his Clubs. West wonders if this is correct and objects >the concession by asking to see the cards of South. >Question: >- Can West still object the confession (Law 68B) if East did show his >cards? > > >Sure, and the concession is cancelled but all East's (exposed) cards become >major penalty cards (Law 49). > > >- When does law 71A (...a trick his side could not have lost by any >legal play) apply and when 71C (.. not have lost by any normal play )? >According to Law 71A East could have discarded HK on the Spade trick, >played HJ under HQ... and does not make any more tricks in accordance to >his concession. > > >Originally Law 71C ("normal play") applied if the concession was objected to >before a player on the conceding side made a call on a subsequent board or >the round ended. This was changed by the WBFLC so that Law 71C like Law 71A >("legal play") applied whenever the concession was objected to within the >correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. > >The net effect of this change was that the second clause in law 71A became >redundant (A "normal" play can never be "illegal" and v.v.). > > >Law 71C: Is it 'normal' to discard HK on the S trick if you are >convinced that South still has a small S so that North will make all >tricks with Clubs? > > >No. > > >- how do you rule? > > >Declarer has the right to specify that East discards his penalty cards >starting with the HK on the spade trick (Law 51A) so declarer will make the >rest. > >Regards Sven > > > >very strange! this would mean: >- If West objects the claim then all cards become major penalty cards and >South makes all the tricks. >- If West does not immediately objects the claim, but reconsiders after one >minute then - considering the 'normal' play - South has to give 2 tricks to >East. > > >Assuming of course that East actually exposed his cards when he conceded >(That is how I read what you wrote in your original post). If he just threw >his cards on the table face down then none of them were exposed in which >case they did not become penalty cards. > >Literally Law 71C tells us to rule the case according to "normal" play if >the objection is raised afterwards, that is a major reason why I disagree >with the change made to this law. > >However, if I am told that East actually exposed his cards when conceding >then I will still rule all tricks to declarer because "normal" play includes >the effects of the penalty cards. > >If I am not told that East actually exposed his cards with the concession >then yes, I shall award EW two more tricks. > >Regards Sven > > > I did also post this on BBO forum. Below a valid point that was raised there: "LAW 58 - SIMULTANEOUS LEADS OR PLAYS ... B. Simultaneous Cards from One Hand If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: 1. One Card Visible If only one card is visible, that card is played; all other cards are picked up without penalty. 2. More Cards Visible If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)." => I think EAST gets to choose which of his 4 cards gets played on this trick. All the others are penalty cards. So wouldn't EAST get to choose an x instead of the K to throw on the spade? After that declarer gets to choose which penalty card EAST plays, allowing EAST to take one more trick? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051028/39839a58/attachment.htm