From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 00:28:02 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Nov 1 00:31:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: <00d301c5de70$6e6bf740$279468d5@jeushtlj> References: <003b01c5dc15$f26a3dc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <00d301c5de70$6e6bf740$279468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0510311528k2cd59eb2o5bcc39df0715e7ad@mail.gmail.com> > Some BLMLers seem to object to abiding by the > spirit as well as the letter of the rules. Let me clarfiy my earlier comments: The regulators have made it perfectly clear over the years that playing the "Rules Lawyer" is a right and proper activity. The widespread abuse of Law40D to enable regulators do do whatever they damn well please is, of course, the classic example. Given that the "spirit" of the Laws has already been tossed out the window, I see no reason not to engage in similar behavior. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 1 13:46:12 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Nov 1 13:50:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: <00d301c5de70$6e6bf740$279468d5@jeushtlj> References: <003b01c5dc15$f26a3dc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <00d301c5de70$6e6bf740$279468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051101073752.02b7eb00@pop.starpower.net> At 05:41 PM 10/31/05, Guthrie wrote: >[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. I don't see why. What is being regulated here isn't opening bids, but agreements about opening bids. So it would make perfect sense if it said that you must either agree to an 11 HCP minimum or agree to a Ro19 minimum. Just as it would if it said that you may agree to open a hand meeting either criterion. I'll let others figure out which meaning was intended by the regulators, but neither one "makes little sense". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Nov 2 11:28:39 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Nov 2 11:30:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta In-Reply-To: References: <436084F2.3010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <436894D7.3020900@hdw.be> John Probst wrote: >> >> 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. > The problem is that the regulators have expliciteely forbidden you to play what you call "bridge". So calling it "bridge" is no argument. We're just playing bridge - no you're not, you're using light openings! And praise the regulators that they have been more inspired than you in defining what is a light opening. I would never be able to play a tournament that used the "probst" rule for defining light openings, since I won't have john at my side every time I wish to open something light. I can play in an EBU event though, since I can quite easily check to see if a particular hand would be considered too light under EBU rules. > 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 >> >> >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.7/155 - Release Date: 1/11/2005 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 4 17:04:30 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 4 17:11:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Announcements Message-ID: <002f01c5e159$70c62560$029868d5@jeushtlj> There are rumours that the EBU are about to introduce "Announcements" into local regulations. What is the experience of players in countries where they are already used? They must be popular with directors as they increase the demand for their services. Alerts are already responsible for more law-breaking than any other aspect of bidding or play. Alerts and enquiries about alerts transmit unauthorised information that is routinely used by most players with little risk of detection. This has become so habitual that few players are even conscious of doing it. Arguably, it would be a good idea to completely replace Alerts with Announcements -- especially if you had an option to switch them off. The game would be more simple and honest if you had the option to stop opponents using either. However, if some calls are to be alerted and others to be announced, then the additional complication and confusion is a daunting prospect. Presumably, announcements are just as often forgotten or misused as alerts; presumably, as with the alert system, even then the innocent side will be punished "if they fail to protect themselves." From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Nov 4 17:42:40 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri Nov 4 17:46:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Announcements In-Reply-To: <002f01c5e159$70c62560$029868d5@jeushtlj> References: <002f01c5e159$70c62560$029868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0511040842n586c5ab4iefed2a03ba224498@mail.gmail.com> > What is the experience of players in countries > where they are already used? They must be popular > with directors as they increase the demand for > their services. Personally, I like announcements. For better or worse, people play lots of strange stuff. I think that its become readily apparant that the word "Alert" is woefully insufficient to convey any useful information. Over the years, people have experimented with lots of different mechanisms to try to improve players abilities to provide their opponents with full disclosure. (Anyone remember "special alerts"?) Personally, I think that announcements serve a pretty useful purpose. Most announcements focus on "bread and butter" / vanilla auctions where there is little or no danger of conveying UI to partner. The main downside is increased complexity. Unfortunately, Bridge is a complex game. I readily admit that I have some issues with the way that some regulations are arrived at. However, I'd never dream of suggesting that the regulations surround disclosure are part of some grand nefarious scheme by TDs looking to generate extra business for themselves. Rather, i think that these portions of the regulations represent a genuine attempt to minize the friction inherent to the game. -- "The key thing to remember about Bush's nominees: they are all completely craven with respect to the executive's powers in wartime. And wartime is now defined as: for ever. In my view, the real upshot of the Court's shift under Bush may well be not in terms of the usual culture-war battles, but in terms of unrestricted executive power - to detain without charge, to cover up its own actions, and to torture." Jan Crawford Greenburg From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 4 19:32:42 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 4 19:39:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Expert bias? Message-ID: <005f01c5e16e$25b37fe0$029868d5@jeushtlj> The rules of a game should reward skill; but some bridge rules seem completely unnecessary and especially biased against the ordinary player. For example ... [A] An expert has a mental aberration and makes an inadequate claim but gets away with it because the correct play would be "rational" for him (but not for a lesser player). [B] An expert commits any infraction but his less skilled opponents are denied redress because, subsequently, they make some typical mistake that the director can construe as "wild and gambling" or "double shot" or "egregious error". Are there other examples? Are there any counter-examples? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 4 19:38:39 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Nov 4 19:43:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Announcements References: <002f01c5e159$70c62560$029868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003201c5e16e$faa819e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > There are rumours that the EBU are about to > introduce "Announcements" into local regulations. That's good. > > What is the experience of players in countries > where they are already used? They must be popular > with directors as they increase the demand for > their services. I have had no problem with Announcements made at my table, except for those nincompoops who Announce the meaning of calls that are Alertable. The ACBL Announcement requirements are so simple that this is unacceptable, but usually not worth a TD call. There are only five Announceable calls: -- The range of an opening 1NT bid -- Diamond-to-heart or heart-to-spade transfer in response to any notrump opening or overcall -- "Forcing" for a forcing 1NT response to 1H or 1S -- "Semi-Forcing" for a semi-forcing 1NT response to 1H or 1S (opener can pass with a balanced minimum) -- "May be short" for a non-forcing 1C or 1D opening that might be based on fewer than three cards. Anyone should be able to learn them. > > Alerts are already responsible for more > law-breaking than any other aspect of bidding or > play. Alerts and enquiries about alerts transmit > unauthorised information that is routinely used by > most players with little risk of detection. This > has become so habitual that few players are even > conscious of doing it. Selective requests for an Alert explanation should be barred, as they are convenient UI transmitters. As is required for the STOP card (use it always or never when jumping), consistency should be required in requesting Alert explanations. I do not ask for one if I can get the answer from the opposing convention card, which I routinely consult in that case, even if I am sure of the answer. Forcing an opponent to create UI by an Alert explanation isn't fair, and anyway I would rather not let my LHO hear what my RHO has to say, which may clear up some confusion on their part. If the answer is not provided by the convention card, I routinely ask for an explanationof their auction, as L20F1 requires. Questioning an individual call ("What did three clubs mean?) is intolerable, even though the WBFLC considers it a minor infraction that will seldom be penalized. (An unwarranted intrusion into a field where they don't belong, as this sort of UI causes serious trouble in my part of the world, and isn't minor at all) If my practice were required for all, a lot of the Alert problems would go away. > > Arguably, it would be a good idea to completely > replace Alerts with Announcements -- especially if > you had an option to switch them off. The game > would be more simple and honest if you had the > option to stop opponents using either. I could live with that Announcements only, provided that a careful UI watch is kept. When Alerts first came out in the old days, we could ask opponents not to Alert. After conventions became so numerous and complicated that became a bad idea, and in fact is not allowed anymore. Some calls are so commonly ambiguous, even for established partnerships, that Announcing their meaning would not be good. I'm thinking especially of doubles in competitive situations. Penalty? Card-showing? Takeout? Do something intelligent? As of now the ACBL requires neither an Alert nor an Announcement of most doubles (except my penalty doubles of overcalls, of course), which is probably wise. > However, if some calls are to be alerted and > others to be announced, then the additional > complication and confusion is a daunting prospect. > > Presumably, announcements are just as often > forgotten or misused as alerts; presumably, as > with the alert system, even then the innocent side > will be punished "if they fail to protect > themselves." > If you restrict the number of Announcements, requiring them only for very common conventions, there is no reason for any confusion. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 4 20:00:58 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Nov 4 20:06:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Expert bias? References: <005f01c5e16e$25b37fe0$029868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003701c5e172$18f8b140$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > The rules of a game should reward skill; but some > bridge rules seem completely unnecessary and > especially biased against the ordinary player. For > example ... > [A] An expert has a mental aberration and makes an > inadequate claim but gets away with it because the > correct play would be "rational" for him (but not > for a lesser player). This is unacceptable. It means that different rulings will be given for the same situation, which is intolerable. The "level of player" concept should be expunged from the claim laws. It is not possible to know the ability of every player in an event, and not possible to tailor rulings according to some ability scale, even if you did know. Everyone in an event should be treated equally, with an assumed skill level typical of those in the event. Any other policy is elitist and unfair. > [B] An expert commits any infraction but his less > skilled opponents are denied redress because, > subsequently, they make some typical mistake that > the director can construe as "wild and gambling" > or "double shot" or "egregious error". If they lose redress because of some stupid irrational action, and could have easily avoided any damage without it, I don't see why they should get redress. They weren't damaged, they shot themselves in the foot. However, when the damage is unavoidable, no action on the part of the non-offenders can annul the redress they have coming. Okay, example: An expert pair reaches a spade slam by means of UI, which is made only because an opponent revoked. The OS score is adjusted back to a spade game (keeping the revoke, by the way), but the NOS gets the table result, and why shouldn't they? The irregularity did not damage them, after all, they damaged themselves. But say the slam is unbeatable, which makes damage to the NOS irreparable.. Then the score for both sides is adjusted back to a spade game, with a score that includes the revoke penalty (the play of the hand should be assumed to be the same unless the level of contract might have affected it). It is widely believed that the "double shot" is an illegal action that denies redress for the NOS in any case. No, double shots are perfectly legal, if usually unwise (because they risk loss of redress when a rational action would have avoided damage). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mustikka at charter.net Fri Nov 4 20:09:07 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri Nov 4 20:13:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Announcements References: <002f01c5e159$70c62560$029868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001101c5e173$3b462ab0$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:04 AM Subject: [blml] Announcements > There are rumours that the EBU are about to > introduce "Announcements" into local regulations. > > What is the experience of players in countries > where they are already used? They must be popular > with directors as they increase the demand for > their services. (snipped speculation) I play in ACBL where announcements have been used for a few years; I like them and I think announcements are helpful and speed up the game. Some Alerts lost their meaning when everybody alerted for example in the auction 1NT-(P)-2D!. One might get tired of constant asking each time, just in case it was something other than a transfer to hearts...then assume it as transfer and, ouch, it was not. Now, if it is a transfer to hearts and promising hearts, 1NT opener simply says "transfer" when the bid is made. No asking and no answering and no inadvertent UI trap for opponents. Any other conventional use is alerted. Works great. Announcements do not increase director's work load IMO. If I had to guess one way or another, I would guess announcements would reduce it. The requirement to announce opening NT range, regardless of what the range is, has found resistance among players, in my experience. Some forget to do it, but no big deal, opponent can always ask. I don't know what the ruling would be if announcement was not made (they play 12-14) and opponent assumed 15-17 and acted accordingly, resulting in damage to the opponent. I would imagine both are now OS although first offense was "no announcement" and second offense "didn't ask" or "didn't call director to complain about missing announcement" :) (smiley) I won't comment on the rest. Cheers, Raija Davis From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 4 20:13:08 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Nov 4 20:17:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Expert bias? In-Reply-To: <005f01c5e16e$25b37fe0$029868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c5e173$cb5b63e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > The rules of a game should reward skill; but some > bridge rules seem completely unnecessary and > especially biased against the ordinary player. For > example ... > [A] An expert has a mental aberration and makes an > inadequate claim but gets away with it because the > correct play would be "rational" for him (but not > for a lesser player). > [B] An expert commits any infraction but his less > skilled opponents are denied redress because, > subsequently, they make some typical mistake that > the director can construe as "wild and gambling" > or "double shot" or "egregious error". > > Are there other examples? Sure. Every now and then the less skilled player has such respect for the expert that he simply does not "dare" to call attention to what he believes could be an infraction (which indeed it pretty often is). > Are there any counter-examples? Some "experts" are so ethical that they do indeed call attention to their own irregularities. Regards Sven From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Nov 4 20:44:07 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Nov 4 20:50:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Expert bias? In-Reply-To: <000001c5e173$cb5b63e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200511041944.jA4Ji7ih025827@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Sven Pran writes: > > > On Behalf Of Guthrie > > The rules of a game should reward skill; but some > > bridge rules seem completely unnecessary and > > especially biased against the ordinary player. For > > example ... > > [A] An expert has a mental aberration and makes an > > inadequate claim but gets away with it because the > > correct play would be "rational" for him (but not > > for a lesser player). > > [B] An expert commits any infraction but his less > > skilled opponents are denied redress because, > > subsequently, they make some typical mistake that > > the director can construe as "wild and gambling" > > or "double shot" or "egregious error". > > > > Are there other examples? > > Sure. Every now and then the less skilled player has such respect for the > expert that he simply does not "dare" to call attention to what he believes > could be an infraction (which indeed it pretty often is). > > > Are there any counter-examples? > > Some "experts" are so ethical that they do indeed call attention to their > own irregularities. Not exactly the same thing, but Ron Gerald was once the NOS when Meckwell failed to alert a weird sequence. Asked what he'd have done had he been alerted he said he really couldn't say for sure -- he knew too much now. For what it's worth, the AC eventually ruled that table result stood but hit Meckwell with a fairly heavy procedural penalty. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 5 18:46:15 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Nov 5 18:51:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Announcements References: <002f01c5e159$70c62560$029868d5@jeushtlj> <001101c5e173$3b462ab0$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <001b01c5e230$d2f97ac0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "raija" (snip) > The requirement to announce opening NT range, regardless of what the range > is, has found resistance among players, in my experience. Some forget to do > it, but no big deal, opponent can always ask. The reason for this unpopular requirement was that players were asking selectively, i.e., only when interested. Hence the requirement to announce the range of an opening 1NT bid. The C&C felt there was too great a possibility of harmful UI in announcing the range of a 1NT overcall, direct or balancing, but there is no reason why the announcement could not have been extended to 2NT openings. I like to know how many points declarer can have when I'm defending, but I have to look at the opposing cc every time to find out. (My policy is not to ask a question if the answer is clearly shown on the cc, even if dummy would be the one questioned). > I don't know what the ruling > would be if announcement was not made (they play 12-14) and opponent assumed > 15-17 and acted accordingly, resulting in damage to the opponent. I would > imagine both are now OS although first offense was "no announcement" and > second offense "didn't ask" or "didn't call director to complain about > missing announcement" :) (smiley) "Didn't ask" is never an offense, but no redress is due of course, as the smiley suggests. Anyone who constantly fails to announce the range should be given a PP if a little lecture doesn't work. Asking defeats the purpose of the regulation, which should therefore be enforced. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 5 18:52:47 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Nov 5 18:57:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Announcements References: <002f01c5e159$70c62560$029868d5@jeushtlj> <2da24b8e0511040842n586c5ab4iefed2a03ba224498@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002301c5e231$bce31240$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "richard willey" -- "The key thing to remember about Bush's nominees: they are all completely craven with respect to the executive's powers in wartime. And wartime is now defined as: for ever. In my view, the real upshot of the Court's shift under Bush may well be not in terms of the usual culture-war battles, but in terms of unrestricted executive power - to detain without charge, to cover up its own actions, and to torture." Jan Crawford Greenburg Richard, please do not include political comments on this mailing list devoted to bridge laws and regulations. They are very annoying and very inappropriate, especially the irrational ones. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 5 19:25:08 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Nov 5 19:30:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Procedural Penaltties Message-ID: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> A lot of you may rush for the delete key when you see the subject, figuring that I'm going to rehash a bunch of my long-standing arguments against using PPs for disciplinary purposes. Those arguments included PPs' historical origins; lack of precedent prior to the 90s; the change in the title of the Law in 1975 from Disciplinary Penalties to Procedural Penalties, with no significant change in content; lack of cross-references to L90 in the MI and UI Laws; and a final argument based on the English language and its subtleties, which says that any list prefaced with words in the nature of "including, but not limited to," has an understood "and the like" at the end. Now I find that all those other arguments were needless as the last one is a clincher. Unknown to me until recently, it is a recognized canon of statuatory construction. "Canons of statutory construction" are rules of construction for the interpretation of statute law in the United States. They should apply to any book that purports to be "Laws." The four main canons are *ejusdem generis*, *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*, *noscitur a sociis*, and *in pari materia*. The first applies to L90B. *Ejusdem generis* (of the same, kind, class, or nature) says that where general words follow or precede an enumeration of specific items, the general words are read as applying to other items akin to those specifically enumerated. In the case of L90B, the general words are "include, but are not limited to." All the examples provided in L90B are instances of violations of procedures that are peculiar to duplicate bridge, and none are of the nature of blatant ethical misbehavior involved in the violations of other Laws. That means using PPs to punish blatant UI or MI-related offenses is not in accord with L90B, because it is not "akin" to the examples given, not *ejusdem generis*. Another argument has been brought to my attention. Using PPs for ethical violations does not give the miscreants due process. The ACBL has carefully-crafted detailed steps for handling ethical violations, and ACs are flirting with danger by ignoring them in favor of punishment with PPs. By danger, I mean the danger of being sued by someone who has been denied due process in accordance with ACBL disciplinary regulations. Don't laugh, it has happened a number of times in the past. I have sent a recommendation to the ACBLLC that it publish an interpretation of L90, which would go something like this: #### Procedural penalties are to be assessed only for offenses typified by the examples given in Law 90B, which relate to irregularities associated with procedures peculiar to duplicate bridge. They are not to be used for disciplinary purposes, e.g., to punish unethical actions. To quote "The Scope of the Laws" preceding the Laws themselves, "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for infractions but as redress for damage." #### If that passes muster at the Atlanta NABC ACBLLC meeting this month, I will forward it to the WBFLC also. Or if it doesn't, but how can it not? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Nov 5 23:49:13 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Nov 5 23:56:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Procedural Penaltties References: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001401c5e25b$258b13a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> [Marvin French] > A lot of you may rush for the delete > key when you see the subject, figuring > that I'm going to rehash a bunch of my > long-standing arguments against using > PPs for disciplinary purposes. > Those arguments included PPs' historical > origins; lack of precedent prior to the > 90s; the change in the title of the Law > in 1975 from Disciplinary Penalties to > Procedural Penalties, with no significant > change in content; lack of cross- > references to L90 in the MI and UI > Laws; and a final argument based on the > English language and its subtleties, > which says that any list prefaced with > words in the nature of "including, but > not limited to," has an understood "and > the like" at the end. > > Now I find that all those other arguments > were needless as the last one is a > clincher. Unknown to me until recently, > it is a recognised canon of statutory > construction. "Canons of statutory > construction" are rules of construction > for the interpretation of statute law in > the United States. They should apply to > any book that purports to be "Laws." > The four main canons are ... > *ejusdem generis*, > *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*, > *noscitur a sociis*, and > *in pari materia*. > > The first applies to L90B. *Ejusdem > generis* (of the same, kind, class, or > nature) says that where general words > follow or precede an enumeration of > specific items, the general words are > read as applying to other items akin to > those specifically enumerated. In the > case of L90B, the general words are > "include, but are not limited to." > All the examples provided in L90B are > instances of violations of procedures > that are peculiar to duplicate bridge, > and none are of the nature of blatant > ethical misbehavior involved in the > violations of other Laws. That means > using PPs to punish blatant UI or > MI-related offenses is not in accord with > L90B, because it is not "akin" to the > examples given, not *ejusdem generis*. > Another argument has been brought to my > attention. Using PPs for ethical > violations does not give the miscreants > due process. The ACBL has carefully- > crafted detailed steps for handling > ethical violations, and ACs are flirting > with danger by ignoring them in favor > of punishment with PPs. By danger, I mean > the danger of being sued by someone who > has been denied due process in accordance > with ACBL disciplinary regulations. > Don't laugh, it has happened a number > of times in the past. > I have sent a recommendation to the > ACBLLC that it publish an interpretation > of L90, which would go something like > this: > #### > Procedural penalties are to be assessed > only for offenses typified by the > examples given in Law 90B, which relate > to irregularities associated with > procedures peculiar to duplicate bridge. > They are not to be used for disciplinary > purposes, e.g., to punish unethical > actions. To quote "The Scope of the Laws" > preceding the Laws themselves, "The Laws > are primarily designed not as punishment > for infractions but as redress for > damage." > #### > If that passes muster at the Atlanta > NABC ACBLLC meeting this month, > I will forward it to the WBFLC also. > Or if it doesn't, but how can it not? [nige1] Having perused L90B (copied below) I agree with Marvin that it needs tightening up. But I would extend it by specifically including cases of misinformation and the use of unauthorised information, especially where the culprit would otherwise escape unpunished. If the penalty is in the form of an score adjustment for offenders, then the law should stipulate an equal and opposite adjustment for the victims. This would encourage victims to report violations even if (on this particular occasion), they may not be damaged. Most infractions go undetected and unpunished with no redress to the victim, so this would make the law slightly fairer. It is right that Law-makers should seek true "Equity" but not a comic cut-down Bridge version. TFLB "Equity" does make the directors life more peaceful by allowing the delighted law-breaker to keep almost all of his ill-gotten gains. The inadequately compensated victim licks his wounds in silence. Naturally, he may ponder whether to join the law-breakers when he realises that the law is not designed to help him to beat them. Marvin is also right that we must insure that any adverse ruling is related only to the facts of the situation as far as they can be determined. It must cast no aspersion of unethical conduct on any player. IMO, the identity of the players involved in an infraction should be concealed from the adjudicator. [TFLB L90B] > Offences subject to penalty include but > are not limited to: > 1. Tardiness: arrival of a contestant > after the specified starting time. > 2. Slow Play: unduly slow play by a > contestant. > 3. Loud Discussion: discussion of the > bidding, play or result of a board, which > may be overheard at another table. > 4. Comparing Scores: unauthorised > comparison of scores with another > contestant. > 5. Touching Another's Cards: touching or > handling of cards belonging to another > player (Law 7). > 6. Misplacing Cards in Board: placing one > or more cards in an incorrect pocket of > the board. > 7. Errors in Procedure: errors in > procedure (such as failure to count cards > in one's hand, playing the wrong board, > etc.) that require an adjusted score for > any contestant. > 8. Failure to Comply: failure to comply > promptly with tournament regulations or > with any instruction of the Director From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 6 08:32:18 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Nov 6 08:37:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Procedural Penaltties References: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <001401c5e25b$258b13a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <006501c5e2a4$38991e80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > Having perused L90B I agree with > Marvin that it needs tightening up. No, I like it as it is. > But I would > extend it by specifically including cases of > misinformation and the use of unauthorised > information, especially where the culprit would > otherwise escape unpunished. The ACBL has Player Memo forms for that purpose. Anyone can fill out a PM for behavior they witness that doesn't seem right. PMs are filed away and are part of the very fair system of disciplinary procedures adopted by the ACBL. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 6 16:47:40 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Nov 6 16:52:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Procedural Penaltties In-Reply-To: <001401c5e25b$258b13a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> References: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <001401c5e25b$258b13a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Nov 5, 2005, at 5:49 PM, Guthrie wrote: > IMO, the identity of the players involved > in an infraction should be concealed from the > adjudicator. And how, pray tell, are you going to do that in face to face bridge, particularly as played in clubs around the world? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Nov 5 21:08:00 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Nov 6 19:32:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Announcements In-Reply-To: <200511041640.jA4GebSf006412@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511041640.jA4GebSf006412@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <436D1120.4060906@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Guthrie" > There are rumours that the EBU are about to > introduce "Announcements" into local regulations. More than a rumor: announcements are in the draft Orange Book. Try David Stevenson's web site if you haven't seen it. > What is the experience of players in countries > where they are already used? As other Americans have said, they work well around here (Boston area). I expect they will work even better in England, where there are more alertable bids that "everybody" plays. > Arguably, it would be a good idea to completely > replace Alerts with Announcements I don't think so. Announcements work well when they are used in limited circumstances that are precisely defined. I doubt they would work nearly so well if players were allowed to "do their own thing." > -- especially if you had an option to switch them off. This is a separate subject; it has nothing to do with announcements _per se_. Whether "switching off" alerts and announcements should be allowed is a difficult question with (IMHO) no clear answer. From: "raija" > The requirement to announce opening NT range, regardless of what the range > is, has found resistance among players, in my experience. It did at first around here, but nowadays it is rare for anyone to forget. When it happens, it is more often general inattention (like revoking or leading out of turn) than willful failure. > I don't know what the ruling > would be if announcement was not made (they play 12-14) and opponent assumed > 15-17 and acted accordingly, resulting in damage This is an interesting question. The failure to announce is MI, just like any failure to alert. However, because an announcement is always required in this situation, opponents _know_ there has been an infraction. I think the TD could reasonably apply L11A and L21A and rule "result stands." I'm not aware of any official guidelines, but I'd almost certainly rule this way if opener's side had a convention card in plain sight. If not, that's yet another infraction, and I'd be inclined to rule against them. Does anyone else know of any official guidelines? The EBU L&EC might want to consider this question as part of their new procedures if they haven't already. From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Nov 6 19:49:11 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun Nov 6 19:53:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Procedural Penaltties In-Reply-To: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0511061049x198ab0d7h875fe84aaa6c4c9@mail.gmail.com> > "Canons of statutory construction" are rules of construction for the > interpretation of statute law in the United States. They should > apply to any book that purports to be "Laws." This is a mighty big assumption. Said assumption is especially problematic when the ACBL's jursidication extends to countries like Canada and Mexico which do not necessarily share the same legal traditions. The legal structure of Mexico and Louisiana is based on the Code Napoleon. Should bridge laws be adjudicated differently in these regions? What about Europe, or, for that matter Asia? Is China's strong Confucian tradition a valid reason to ban appeals committees? -- "The key thing to remember about Bush's nominees: they are all completely craven with respect to the executive's powers in wartime. And wartime is now defined as: for ever. In my view, the real upshot of the Court's shift under Bush may well be not in terms of the usual culture-war battles, but in terms of unrestricted executive power - to detain without charge, to cover up its own actions, and to torture." Jan Crawford Greenburg From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 7 01:30:44 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Nov 7 01:35:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Hiding Identities During Adjudication References: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <001401c5e25b$258b13a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002f01c5e332$7f4ab6c0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" Let's change the subject line when it is no longer pertinent, as I have done. This has nothing to do with Procedural Penalties, the former subject. > > > IMO, the identity of the players involved > > in an infraction should be concealed from the > > adjudicator. > > And how, pray tell, are you going to do that in face to face bridge, > particularly as played in clubs around the world? Clubs are in general hopeless, as you know from experience. Why bring them into the discussion? Let's talk about rulings and appeals at NABCs, which should be models for lesser tournaments. When a TD confers with peers about a ruling he has made, as is usual at NABCs, the identify or "level of player" of those at the table should not be revealed. That will eliminate any social or class (e.g., masterpoint total) bias from playing a part in their discussions. The majority of NABC appeals could be presented to the AC by the TD (usually in writing) while the unknown players involved are sitting in a separate "player room." The AC should come to an agreement about as much of the case as possible (which may be 0% or100%) without their attendance. The players are then invited in to answer questions that might be necessary, and offered a chance to produce hard evidence (not subjective opinions or intents) that may be pertinent (e.g., system notes). If the AC has already come to a tentative decision, the players can present arguments as to why the decision is wrong before it becomes final, and hear from the AC why the decision is right. I do not believe in sending the participants out of the room while a final decision is being debated, because frequently there will be new arguments introduced by AC members that the participants should hear and have the right to rebut. As it stands now, the players must leave the room, returning later to hear the decision, with no right to rebut any new arguments that might have arisen in conference, or any surprise statements made by the AC when giving them the decision. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 7 21:50:22 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Nov 7 22:00:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Procedural Penaltties References: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <2da24b8e0511061049x198ab0d7h875fe84aaa6c4c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004a01c5e3dd$8b82a640$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "richard willey" Marv wrote: >> "Canons of statutory construction" are rules of construction for the >> interpretation of statute law in the United States. They should >> apply to any book that purports to be "Laws." >This is a mighty big assumption. Said assumption is especially problematic when the ACBL's jursidication extends to countries like Canada and Mexico which do not necessarily share the same legal traditions. The legal structure of Mexico and Louisiana is based on the Code Napoleon. Should bridge laws be adjudicated differently in these regions? I doubt that any reasonable person or set of laws would deny the principle of *ejusdem generis.* More than a legal principle, it is a product of simple logic. And anyway, the principle is recognized by the International Laws Commission, what more do you want? What about Europe, or, for that matter Asia? Is China's strong Confucian tradition a valid reason to ban appeals committees? In a word, yes. Confucius lived in a time when government workers had to pass difficult examinations in order to serve. ACs should have that requirement or be banned. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 8 01:56:13 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Nov 8 02:03:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Procedural Penaltties References: <003601c5e236$424ed0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><001401c5e25b$258b13a0$189868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <00b701c5e3ff$37f81ce0$089868d5@jeushtlj> > [nige1] >> IMO, the identity of the players involved >> in an infraction should be concealed from >> the adjudicator. > [Ed Reppert] > And how, pray tell, are you going to do > that in face to face bridge, particularly > as played in clubs around the world? [nige1] I thought what I meant was obvious; but since Ed has asked so nicely, I'll clarify further. My suggestion assumed that it was conveniently possible. For instance, if a tournament has several directors they are meant to consult over rulings. The director who investigated the alleged infraction can omit the names of the players, when he reports the facts to the others, and he can take no further part in the ruling. From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 8 10:38:38 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Nov 8 10:42:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Procedural Penaltties In-Reply-To: <00b701c5e3ff$37f81ce0$089868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000201c5e448$32910430$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > >> IMO, the identity of the players involved > >> in an infraction should be concealed from > >> the adjudicator. > > [Ed Reppert] > > And how, pray tell, are you going to do > > that in face to face bridge, particularly > > as played in clubs around the world? > > [nige1] > I thought what I meant was obvious; but since > Ed has asked so nicely, I'll clarify further. > My suggestion assumed that it was conveniently > possible. For instance, if a tournament has > several directors they are meant to consult > over rulings. The director who investigated > the alleged infraction can omit the names of > the players, when he reports the facts to the > others, and he can take no further part in the > ruling. And how do you then cater for all the cases where the nature and size of a procedure penalty depends on whether it is the first time or a repeated irregularity? We do not announce to everybody that John Smith now received a procedure penalty but we certainly file a note of it among the Directors etc. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 8 18:39:26 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Nov 8 18:46:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Hiding Identities During Adjudication References: <000201c5e448$32910430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c5e48b$5e0fad80$469468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > And how do you then cater for all the > cases where the nature and size of a > procedure penalty depends on whether it > is the first time or a repeated > irregularity? [nige1] Easy :) Three phases (: 1. Director imparts facts to colleagues but withholds names. Director may then investigate the alleged offender's history for phase 3. 2. Colleagues decide whether there has been an infraction without knowing dramatis personae. 3. Only when sentencing, do they take into account "past convictions" (as now reported by the director) but still without knowing who the players are. OK Sven. Maybe it's not quite so easy :( It was just a suggestion ): I haven't worked out complete answers to all criticisms. For example, suppose that "red" pyschs have been recorded against a pair. Then that history may greatly increase the likelihood that this "red" psych was really fielded. Hence, rarely, there may be two initial judgements, contingent on history. Then final judgement would have to be postponed to the "sentencing" phase when past history is revealed. All procedures seem to have flaws. The main advantage of this suggestion is that nobody can complain of personal bias in a judgement decision based on the balance of probability. I feel that there is less danger of successful libel or slander actions when it is demonstrable that cases have been decided on facts rather than personalities. Even more important for players: this procedure is more in keeping with ideals of "fair play". BTW, I know that these suggestions have little chance of becoming law in my life-time. Maybe I'll write a sequel to "Alice through the Looking Glass", in the hope that it may help the next generation of law-makers, assuming that the game survives. Actually, I'm hopeful for the future of Bridge because on-line sites like BBO have done such a magnificent job. They are a shot in the arm for Bridge. Not only do they provide a hassle-free environment for new players; but also they invent simple clear new regulations and eliminate many mechanical infractions. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 9 19:46:22 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Nov 9 19:50:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Estoril 2005 - appeals Message-ID: <000001c5e55e$0a6d02d0$d5e7403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <003c01c5e604$54545dc0$299468d5@jeushtlj> > +=+ I discussed with Max Bavin, the > CTD, the use of Law 12C3 in Estoril. > He attributed the small number of > appeals in Estoril (11 from the three > prime events, none whatsoever from the > Transnational) to the fact that (under > his leadership in the WBF) as in the EBL > the Directors have abandoned use of Law > 12C2; all judgemental rulings are 12C3 > rulings. Searching around for any use of > 12C2 he could only come up with one case, > one in which both sides were egregiously > at fault and each was given the worst of > it - something of which 12C3 allows > anyway. Weighted score adjustments were > accepted readily by the players. As I > recall only one of the rulings appealed > involved a weighted adjusted score and > the weighting was not the issue. The > drafting committee agreed in Estoril that > use of 12C3 by Directors should be > authorized in the 2006/7 code of laws. [nigel1] Max Bavin is obviously right that L12C3 makes the directors life more peaceful and reduces appeals. But .... [A] Offenders are delighted to have escaped so lightly. Most infractions go undetected and unpunished, so such "equity" rulings guarantee habitual law-breakers a greater long term profit. [B] Habitual victims just lick their wounds and put a brave face on it. What is the point of risking an appeal when committees are instructed to resist readjustment? More sensible to accept that, in the interests of a quite life, law-makers have decided to appease law-breakers; and to modify one's future behaviour accordingly :( Hence, IMO, the WBFLC should think carefully before they "sow the wind" [Hosea 8:7]. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 10 17:20:48 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Nov 10 17:28:09 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$839b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <008d01c5e612$b7aa0560$299468d5@jeushtlj> > [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 judgement > is allowed. > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ 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. [nige1] John Probst, Tim West-Meades and even David Stevenson himself disagree with Grattan. Until this matter is officially resolved, such players have an advantage over those who interpret the regulations literally. Tim has drawn attention to another loop-hole. He interprets "no conventions thereafter" to apply only to the player who "exercises his judgement" to flout the rule of 19 (or whatever); Tim states that this restriction does not apply to his partner and does not even apply to him when he has not "shaded" his opening. If this fantastic claim is true then it too requires official confirmation. Grattan said he would report on this after discussion with colleagues at Estoril ... From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 10 19:12:49 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Nov 10 19:18:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <000201c5e5c3$200fb190$abeb403e@Mildred> <003c01c5e604$54545dc0$299468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <004c01c5e622$5d64f0a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Thank you, Nigel, for stating this opinion that I share with you much better than I could. I have great hopes that, whatever happens, the ACBL will continue to reject L12C3 in the next version of the Laws. From: "Guthrie" > > +=+ I discussed with Max Bavin, the > > CTD, the use of Law 12C3 in Estoril. > > He attributed the small number of > > appeals in Estoril (11 from the three > > prime events, none whatsoever from the > > Transnational) to the fact that (under > > his leadership in the WBF) as in the EBL > > the Directors have abandoned use of Law > > 12C2; all judgemental rulings are 12C3 > > rulings. Searching around for any use of > > 12C2 he could only come up with one case, > > one in which both sides were egregiously > > at fault and each was given the worst of > > it - something of which 12C3 allows > > anyway. Weighted score adjustments were > > accepted readily by the players. As I > > recall only one of the rulings appealed > > involved a weighted adjusted score and > > the weighting was not the issue. The > > drafting committee agreed in Estoril that > > use of 12C3 by Directors should be > > authorized in the 2006/7 code of laws. > > [nigel1] > Max Bavin is obviously right that L12C3 makes the > directors life more peaceful and reduces appeals. > But .... > > [A] Offenders are delighted to have escaped so > lightly. Most infractions go undetected and > unpunished, so such "equity" rulings guarantee > habitual law-breakers a greater long term profit. > > [B] Habitual victims just lick their wounds and > put a brave face on it. What is the point of > risking an appeal when committees are instructed > to resist readjustment? More sensible to accept > that, in the interests of a quite life, law-makers > have decided to appease law-breakers; and to > modify one's future behaviour accordingly :( > > Hence, IMO, the WBFLC should think carefully > before they "sow the wind" [Hosea 8:7]. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Thu Nov 10 19:23:58 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Nov 10 19:27:48 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Guthrie" Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. We have been using 12C3 by the TDs in WBF for over three years (since the Code of Practice was published in Lausanne) for arriving at assigned adjusted scores involving bridge judgement rulings that cannot be fairly effected by using Law 12C2. Max Bavin is not ignoring Law 12C2, he is using the broader options of 12C3 when C2 doesn't do the job. In doing so we are effectively having a committee ruling be the initial ruling. We've had great success with the players being satisfied by having had a review of their problems by not only a group of TDs but by fellow players. I maintain that there are many "book" rulings which see to it that offenders do not get away with anything. The comment on the peacefulness of the TDs is ludicrous. This process is far from something making the job of TDs easier. It takes a lot of time, attention, and work to do it correctly, as we can see from its success in Estoril. It also takes TDs that understand the game, are reasonably good players, good analysts, and willing to have their judgement questioned and/or affirmed. If anyone thinks for a moment that the world's top players would just meekly go belly up at a world championship were they not satisfied with the treatment of their problems they simply demonstrate ignorance of facts and tournament players. Infractions do NOT (shouting, I know) go unpunished; "habitual victims" are a figment of imagination including the paranoid; and the competitiveness and zeal with which top level players approach this game assures that we "get it right." We are not "sowing the wind". We are requiring that TDs do their job, that players are treated fairly, and that Appeals Committees are in fact doing their job of "....review of any ruling..." (Law 92A) and no longer solely possess a right (Law 12C3) not available to the TDs in making rulings. I've had over 40 years experience as a TD at all levels of the game, and have had to go to Appeals Committees with rulings that we did not want to make, but had no choice to do otherwise in arriving at an assigned adjusted score by the constraints of Law 12C2. Now players know that there are no additional or different rules which might get them something when it comes to an Appeals Committee, and even the lazy TDs (aw come on there has be at least some) can't just pass their assigned job to someone else to do for them. I suggest a reading of the Scope of the Laws, particularly the last sentence. Starting on the premise that irregularities and infractions of law are not intentional , we have Law 72B2 when needed. When 134 transnational teams, playing 10 board matches for 15 rounds (looks like 20,150 boards to me) and KO matches to produce a winner from amongst the first 8 places produce no appeals, Max and his crew are to be congratulated, and not snidely criticized with such drivel as "law-makers have decided to appease law-breakers". With only 11 appeals for the entire tournament it provides meager fodder for those who are ready to show us their great erudition, wise judgement, and second-guessing powers -- sorry, but the welfare of the players comes way ahead of that. The frequent use of "we" in the foregoing is because I'm proud of my continued participation as Chief TD WBF, Emeritus. Makes a guy feel all kinds of warm and fuzzy all over, while Max and the outstanding crew do all the work. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Guthrie To: BLML Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > +=+ I discussed with Max Bavin, the > CTD, the use of Law 12C3 in Estoril. > He attributed the small number of > appeals in Estoril (11 from the three > prime events, none whatsoever from the > Transnational) to the fact that (under > his leadership in the WBF) as in the EBL > the Directors have abandoned use of Law > 12C2; all judgemental rulings are 12C3 > rulings. Searching around for any use of > 12C2 he could only come up with one case, > one in which both sides were egregiously > at fault and each was given the worst of > it - something of which 12C3 allows > anyway. Weighted score adjustments were > accepted readily by the players. As I > recall only one of the rulings appealed > involved a weighted adjusted score and > the weighting was not the issue. The > drafting committee agreed in Estoril that > use of 12C3 by Directors should be > authorized in the 2006/7 code of laws. [nigel1] Max Bavin is obviously right that L12C3 makes the directors life more peaceful and reduces appeals. But .... [A] Offenders are delighted to have escaped so lightly. Most infractions go undetected and unpunished, so such "equity" rulings guarantee habitual law-breakers a greater long term profit. [B] Habitual victims just lick their wounds and put a brave face on it. What is the point of risking an appeal when committees are instructed to resist readjustment? More sensible to accept that, in the interests of a quite life, law-makers have decided to appease law-breakers; and to modify one's future behaviour accordingly :( Hence, IMO, the WBFLC should think carefully before they "sow the wind" [Hosea 8:7]. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund at mosquitonet.com Thu Nov 10 20:21:08 2005 From: siegmund at mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Nov 10 20:17:07 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Now players know that there are no additional or different rules which might > get them something when it comes to an Appeals Committee, and even the lazy > TDs (aw come on there has be at least some) can't just pass their assigned > job to someone else to do for them. This is a good point. Forcing directors to use 12C2 when committees can use 12C3 is silly, and WILL result in additional appeals by anyone who wants a 12C3 ruling. There are, of course, two solutions to that: have everyone use 12C2, which is what one camp including Marvin, me, and several other BLMLers mostly in North America want; or have everyone use 12C3, which is what the European tournaments have been doing the past few years. As far as "having to give a ruling under 12C2 that I didn't like and taking it to a committee myself," well, that I can't help you with... some of us are 'true believers' in the philosophy behind 12C2 and have never seen a 12C3 ruling we did like! GRB From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 10 21:15:29 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Nov 10 21:20:10 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <000201c5e633$afa5dad0$37ee403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" ; "Guthrie" ; "WILLIAM SCHODER" Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > Max Bavin is not ignoring Law 12C2, he is using the > broader options of 12C3 when C2 doesn't do the job. +=+ Which is 'always'. There were no 12C2 rulings in Estoril. In the following I have reported Max accurately: > > > +=+ I discussed with Max Bavin, the > > CTD, the use of Law 12C3 in Estoril. > > He attributed the small number of > > appeals in Estoril (11 from the three > > prime events, none whatsoever from the > > Transnational) to the fact that (under > > his leadership in the WBF) as in the EBL > > the Directors have abandoned use of Law > > 12C2; all judgemental rulings are 12C3 > > rulings. +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Thu Nov 10 21:42:38 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Nov 10 21:46:28 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: I'm as aware of the North American prevailing attitude as I am of what is done in other parts of the world. As I agreed with Gary Blaiss sometime back, either 12C3 for all, or no 12C3 for anyone including the Appeals Committees. I do not believe that the record of Appeals Committees in ACBL land, or for that matter in WBF is sufficiently good to justify this bonus to their cogitations. Strangely, it was frequently a member of the ACBL on the WBF ACs that wanted to use 12C3, even in cases where it was not warranted. I can't expect the TDs to do their best when they know that they are denied all the tools that a review authority has beyond the ones they have. In 40 years in ACBL I've been unhappy with "Rule against the Infractor and let the AC work it out" which makes for lazy, sloppy, and unprofessional performance. Edgar and I had a running battle on this. I think ACBL has taken giant steps at the NABCs to overcome this. However, I see nothing wrong with what we are doing in WBF and in Europe if there is careful application of 12C3 after 12C2 doesn't appear to give a fair result, and it works a lot better in team play, particularly in KOs. Whether that qualifies for an 'always' is a moot point. To me the necessary step, which is not in the laws, is that the TDs consult, discuss, agree, disagree, and arrive at their rulings on bridge judgement by a group effort of TDs and players, be it 12C3 or 12C2, BEFORE presenting the ruling to the players. For the 15 years I was CTD of WBF I deplored and worked against the "My ruling is....." attitude of some TDs, which sometimes was an ego thing towards the players, and certainly in front of the ACs. I think it is this aspect of TD rulings that has had the most profound effect on lowering the number of appeals, and not that they were arrived at under any particular provision of law. The players have had a hearing of their complaint by more than just a TD when judgement played a role. It's not me-against-you, but you-against-a-jury-of-your-peers. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > Now players know that there are no additional or different rules which > > might > > get them something when it comes to an Appeals Committee, and even the > > lazy > > TDs (aw come on there has be at least some) can't just pass their > > assigned > > job to someone else to do for them. > > This is a good point. Forcing directors to use 12C2 when committees can > use 12C3 is silly, and WILL result in additional appeals by anyone who > wants a 12C3 ruling. > > There are, of course, two solutions to that: have everyone use 12C2, which > is what one camp including Marvin, me, and several other BLMLers mostly in > North America want; or have everyone use 12C3, which is what the European > tournaments have been doing the past few years. > > As far as "having to give a ruling under 12C2 that I didn't like and > taking it to a committee myself," well, that I can't help you with... some > of us are 'true believers' in the philosophy behind 12C2 and have never > seen a 12C3 ruling we did like! > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Thu Nov 10 21:43:00 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Nov 10 21:46:50 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <000201c5e633$afa5dad0$37ee403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Gee, is the "one" you said he found part of the "always"? Is it wrong to assume that when 12C3 is used to come to the same conclusion that 12C2 would have, that the former one could be credited? I can't see Max ignoring a provision of the laws because he liked another better without the approval of the WBFLC. What concerns me is that C2 does not include "equity" in its wording while C3 does. -- not that I know what that word is supposed to mean anyhow. Further I can't find where the WBF laws give the Zonal Organizations an option on C2, as they do on C3. Is someone going it their own way, (I don't mean Max) when they are so ready to castigate ACBL for exercising their legal options? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" ; "Guthrie" Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "blml" ; "Guthrie" ; > "WILLIAM SCHODER" > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:23 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > > > Max Bavin is not ignoring Law 12C2, he is using the > > broader options of 12C3 when C2 doesn't do the job. > > +=+ Which is 'always'. There were no 12C2 rulings in > Estoril. In the following I have reported Max accurately: > > > > > +=+ I discussed with Max Bavin, the > > > CTD, the use of Law 12C3 in Estoril. > > > He attributed the small number of > > > appeals in Estoril (11 from the three > > > prime events, none whatsoever from the > > > Transnational) to the fact that (under > > > his leadership in the WBF) as in the EBL > > > the Directors have abandoned use of Law > > > 12C2; all judgemental rulings are 12C3 > > > rulings. +=+ > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Thu Nov 10 17:39:33 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Nov 10 23:00:40 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <000201c5e5c3$200fb190$abeb403e@Mildred> <003c01c5e604$54545dc0$299468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: We have been using 12C3 by the TDs in WBF for over three years (since the Code of Practice was published in Lausanne) for arriving at assigned adjusted scores involving bridge judgement rulings that cannot be fairly effected by using Law 12C2. Max Bavin is not ignoring Law 12C2, he is using the broader options of 12C3 when C2 doesn't do the job. In doing so we are effectively having a committee ruling be the initial ruling. We've had great success with the players being satisfied by having had a review of their problems by not only a group of TDs but by fellow players. I maintain that there are many "book" rulings which see to it that offenders do not get away with anything. The comment on the peacefulness of the TDs is ludicrous. This process is far from something making the job of TDs easier. It takes a lot of time, attention, and work to do it correctly, as we can see from its success in Estoril. It also takes TDs that understand the game, are reasonably good players, good analysts, and willing to have their judgement questioned and/or affirmed. If anyone thinks for a moment that the world's top players would just meekly go belly up at a world championship were they not satisfied with the treatment of their problems they simply demonstrate ignorance of facts and tournament players. Infractions do NOT (shouting, I know) go unpunished; "habitual victims" are a figment of imagination including the paranoid; and the competitiveness and zeal with which top level players approach this game assures that we "get it right." We are not "sowing the wind". We are requiring that TDs do their job, that players are treated fairly, and that Appeals Committees are in fact doing their job of "....review of any ruling..." (Law 92A) and no longer solely possess a right (Law 12C3) not available to the TDs in making rulings. I've had over 40 years experience as a TD at all levels of the game, and have had to go to Appeals Committees with rulings that we did not want to make, but had no choice to do otherwise in arriving at an assigned adjusted score by the constraints of Law 12C2. Now players know that there are no additional or different rules which might get them something when it comes to an Appeals Committee, and even the lazy TDs (aw come on there has be at least some) can't just pass their assigned job to someone else to do for them. I suggest a reading of the Scope of the Laws, particularly the last sentence. Starting on the premise that irregularities and infractions of law are not intentional , we have Law 72B2 when needed. When 134 transnational teams, playing 10 board matches for 15 rounds (looks like 20,150 boards to me) and KO matches to produce a winner from amongst the first 8 places produce no appeals, Max and his crew are to be congratulated, and not snidely criticized with such drivel as "law-makers have decided to appease law-breakers". With only 11 appeals for the entire tournament it provides meager fodder for those who are ready to show us their great erudition, wise judgement, and second-guessing powers -- sorry, but the welfare of the players comes way ahead of that. The frequent use of "we" in the foregoing is because I'm proud of my continued participation as Chief TD WBF, Emeritus. Makes a guy feel all kinds of warm and fuzzy all over, while Max and the outstanding crew do all the work. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Guthrie To: BLML Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > +=+ I discussed with Max Bavin, the > CTD, the use of Law 12C3 in Estoril. > He attributed the small number of > appeals in Estoril (11 from the three > prime events, none whatsoever from the > Transnational) to the fact that (under > his leadership in the WBF) as in the EBL > the Directors have abandoned use of Law > 12C2; all judgemental rulings are 12C3 > rulings. Searching around for any use of > 12C2 he could only come up with one case, > one in which both sides were egregiously > at fault and each was given the worst of > it - something of which 12C3 allows > anyway. Weighted score adjustments were > accepted readily by the players. As I > recall only one of the rulings appealed > involved a weighted adjusted score and > the weighting was not the issue. The > drafting committee agreed in Estoril that > use of 12C3 by Directors should be > authorized in the 2006/7 code of laws. [nigel1] Max Bavin is obviously right that L12C3 makes the directors life more peaceful and reduces appeals. But .... [A] Offenders are delighted to have escaped so lightly. Most infractions go undetected and unpunished, so such "equity" rulings guarantee habitual law-breakers a greater long term profit. [B] Habitual victims just lick their wounds and put a brave face on it. What is the point of risking an appeal when committees are instructed to resist readjustment? More sensible to accept that, in the interests of a quite life, law-makers have decided to appease law-breakers; and to modify one's future behaviour accordingly :( Hence, IMO, the WBFLC should think carefully before they "sow the wind" [Hosea 8:7]. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051110/5c791601/attachment.htm From john at asimere.com Thu Nov 10 22:55:03 2005 From: john at asimere.com (john@asimere.com) Date: Thu Nov 10 23:00:41 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200511102155.jAALt3sO025309@mozart.asimere.com> RCPT TO: RCPT TO: DATA RCPT TO: DATA DATA Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:53:50 +0000 To: WILLIAM SCHODER Cc: Gordon Bower , blml From: John Probst Disposition-Notification-To: John Probst Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.05-S () In message , WILLIAM SCHODER writes >I'm as aware of the North American prevailing attitude as I am of what is >done in other parts of the world. As I agreed with Gary Blaiss sometime >back, either 12C3 for all, or no 12C3 for anyone including the Appeals >Committees. I do not believe that the record of Appeals Committees in ACBL >land, or for that matter in WBF is sufficiently good to justify this bonus >to their cogitations. Strangely, it was frequently a member of the ACBL on >the WBF ACs that wanted to use 12C3, even in cases where it was not >warranted. 12C3 in the hands of a TD who is prepared to consult *IS* in my experience the single reason why appeals are far fewer. I'm TD'ing at most major UK events, I see the difference. For myself, since I've used 12C3 I've had one appeal in about 5 years (over a last qualification spot, with merit, not 12C2/C3 and I "won" that one). Before that at least one a year (most of which I agreed with, and many of which were resolved by the AC with a 12C3 ruling.) cheers John > >I can't expect the TDs to do their best when they know that they are denied >all the tools that a review authority has beyond the ones they have. In 40 >years in ACBL I've been unhappy with "Rule against the Infractor and let the >AC work it out" which makes for lazy, sloppy, and unprofessional >performance. Edgar and I had a running battle on this. I think ACBL has >taken giant steps at the NABCs to overcome this. > >However, I see nothing wrong with what we are doing in WBF and in Europe if >there is careful application of 12C3 after 12C2 doesn't appear to give a >fair result, and it works a lot better in team play, particularly in KOs. 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 guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 10 23:41:09 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Nov 10 23:48:30 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. Message-ID: <013c01c5e647$d8d2fe60$299468d5@jeushtlj> [Kojak] > Max Bavin is not ignoring Law 12C2, he is > using the broader options of 12C3 when C2 > doesn't do the job. In doing so we are > effectively having a committee ruling be > the initial ruling. We've had great success > with the players being satisfied by having > had a review of their problems by not only > a group of TDs but by fellow players. > I maintain that there are many "book" > rulings which see to it that offenders > do not get away with anything. > The comment on the peacefulness of the TDs > is ludicrous. > This process is far from something making > the job of TDs easier. It takes a lot of > time, attention, and work to do it correctly, > as we can see from its success in Estoril. > It also takes TDs that understand the game, > are reasonably good players, good analysts, > and willing to have their judgement questioned > and/or affirmed. If anyone thinks for a moment > that the world's top players would just > meekly go belly up at a world championship were > they not satisfied with the treatment of > their problems they simply demonstrate > ignorance of facts and tournament players. [nige1] The director's job may not be easier but Grattan Endicott and Max Bavin tell us that it is more peaceful. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 10 23:42:52 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Nov 10 23:50:13 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <015601c5e648$16886b00$299468d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > We have been using 12C3 by the TDs in WBF > for over three years (since the Code of > Practice was published in Lausanne) for > arriving at assigned adjusted scores > involving bridge judgement rulings that > cannot be fairly effected by using Law 12C2. [Nige1] Can anybody supply an example that 12C2 cannot handle? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 10 23:44:00 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Nov 10 23:51:21 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <015a01c5e648$3ed66940$299468d5@jeushtlj> [Kojak] > Infractions do NOT (shouting, I know) go > unpunished; "habitual victims" are a figment > of imagination including the paranoid; and > the competitiveness and zeal with which top > level players approach this game assures that > we "get it right." [nige1] No victim of an infraction, to whom I've talked, who has been given an l2C3 ruling, shares Kojak's option. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 10 23:45:16 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Nov 10 23:52:37 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <015e01c5e648$6bf24340$299468d5@jeushtlj> [Kojak] > Infractions do NOT (shouting, I know) go > unpunished; "habitual victims" are a figment > of imagination including the paranoid; and > the competitiveness and zeal with which top > level players approach this game assures that > we "get it right." [nige1] No victim of an infraction, to whom I've talked, who has been given an l2C3 ruling, shares Kojak's option. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 10 23:46:52 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Nov 10 23:54:13 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <016201c5e648$a513cfe0$299468d5@jeushtlj> [Kojak] > We are not "sowing the wind". We are requiring > that TDs do their job, that players are > treated fairly, and that Appeals Committees > are in fact doing their job of "....review of > any ruling..." (Law 92A) and no longer solely > possess a right (Law 12C3) not available to > the TDs in making rulings. I've had over 40 > years experience as a TD at all levels of the > game, and have had to go to Appeals Committees > with rulings that we did not want to make, but > had no choice to do otherwise in arriving at > an assigned adjusted score by the constraints > of Law 12C2. Now players know that there are > no additional or different rules which might > get them something when it comes to an Appeals > Committee, and even the lazy TDs (aw come on > there has be at least some) can't just pass > their assigned job to someone else to do for > them. I suggest a reading of the Scope of the > Laws, particularly the last sentence. [Nigel] As Gordon Bower points out, scrapping L12C3 would also ensure that committees and directors share the same legal menu. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 00:35:48 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Nov 11 00:39:55 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 13:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > Now players know that there are no additional or different rules which might > > get them something when it comes to an Appeals Committee, and even the lazy > > TDs (aw come on there has be at least some) can't just pass their assigned > > job to someone else to do for them. > > This is a good point. Forcing directors to use 12C2 when committees can > use 12C3 is silly, and WILL result in additional appeals by anyone who > wants a 12C3 ruling. > > There are, of course, two solutions to that: have everyone use 12C2, which > is what one camp including Marvin, me, and several other BLMLers mostly in > North America want; or have everyone use 12C3, which is what the European > tournaments have been doing the past few years. > > As far as "having to give a ruling under 12C2 that I didn't like and > taking it to a committee myself," well, that I can't help you with... some > of us are 'true believers' in the philosophy behind 12C2 and have never > seen a 12C3 ruling we did like! > > GRB The purpose of 12C2 is to thrust upon players outcomes they did not earn. The rare occasions where the two coincide have everything to do with happenstance. regards roger pewick From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 11 00:32:37 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 11 00:39:57 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> [Kojak] > Starting on the premise that irregularities > and infractions of law are not intentional, > we have Law 72B2 when needed. [nige1] Conscious deliberate cheating is rare. The problem is rationalisation, self-delusion, relaxation of conscience and the feeling that "everybody is doing it". Income tax and speed-limits are real-life examples. For an example in a Bridge context, consider .... In the past, you could expect several tops per session from system-disasters by opponents. Since alerting became mandatory, such windfalls are much rarer. Have systems become simpler? Does memory improve as players get older? Or do players take advantage of unauthorised information from partner's alerts and explanations? OK. Perhaps players can convince themselves that they would have remembered anyway, without unauthorised information. Perhaps players are unclear about the law against using such information. Perhaps it is all unconscious. Anyway, in general, whenever a law is unenforceable -- or is inadequately protects victims -- or fails to punish habitual offenders -- then human nature seems to do the rest. When considering deterrents, law-makers must bear in mind that many infractions are undetected, unreported, and unpunished, especially in games like Bridge. This is realism not cynicism. It is a problem with all so-called "equity" laws. 12C3 is an example of a law that actively encourages such trends. For a time, I played Mah Jong in a school where it was perfectly OK to cheat; but if detected, you had to pay everyone a double-limit. That was the most honest game, I've ever played in. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 11 00:34:47 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 11 00:42:08 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <016701c5e64f$56a843c0$299468d5@jeushtlj> [kojak] > When 134 transnational teams, playing 10 board > matches for 15 rounds (looks like 20,150 boards > to me) and KO matches to produce a winner from > amongst the first 8 places produce no appeals, > Max and his crew are to be congratulated, and > not snidely criticized with such drivel as > "law-makers have decided to appease law- > breakers". With only 11 appeals for the entire > tournament it provides meager fodder for those > who are ready to show us their great erudition, > wise judgement, and second-guessing powers -- > sorry, but the welfare of the players comes way > ahead of that. The frequent use of "we" in the > foregoing is because I'm proud of my continued > participation as Chief TD WBF, Emeritus. > Makes a guy feel all kinds of warm and fuzzy > all over, while Max and the outstanding crew > do all the work. [nige1] I am glad to see that Kojak's warm fuzzy feeling has mellowed his attitude to constructive critics of the laws. "Snide, paranoid, ignorant, drivelling, second-guessers". Pretty mild stuff compared with his previous posts! :) :) :) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 11 01:39:58 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Nov 11 01:44:00 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <200511102204.jAAM4inq000794@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511102204.jAAM4inq000794@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4373E85E.1090408@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Grattan" [using L12C3 instead of 12C2] > +=+ Which is 'always'. There were no 12C2 rulings in > Estoril. In the following I have reported Max accurately: ... >> > the Directors have abandoned use of Law >> > 12C2; all judgemental rulings are 12C3 >> > rulings. +=+ Thanks, Grattan, for the report, but I am astounded by this. Can he really mean that all adjusted scores were weighted ones? How can that be? Surely there must have been some cases involving, say, UI, where it was obvious what would have happened if the illegal option had not been selected. And there are lots of other cases where the result "had the irregularity not occurred" is obvious. I'll look forward to reading the appeals cases when they are ready, but it seems what is more important is what happened in the vast bulk of cases that were not appealed. From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >... either 12C3 for all, or no 12C3 for anyone including the Appeals > Committees. I would _almost_ be willing to bet this sentiment would be unanimous on BLML. Whatever the correct ruling might be in a given case, there should be no difference whether the ruling is reached by a TD or an AC. > To me the necessary step, which is not in the laws, is that the TDs consult, > discuss, agree, disagree, and arrive at their rulings on bridge judgement by > a group effort of TDs and players I recall writing, some years ago, that the best way to minimize appeals would be to make correct rulings in the first place. Ruling correctly is more work for the directors (as Kojak indicates), but it is bound to make the game better for the players. The "more work" includes advance study and training as well as the extra effort of thorough fact-finding and consulting during the event. I wish the ACBL would do more in this regard. Another important ingredient in this quest is to have rules that are clear and unambiguous. That doesn't mean all bridge judgment has to be eliminated -- I don't think that's possible or desirable -- but the exact nature of the judgment to be made and the outcome of each possible decision should be clear to all. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 11 07:28:17 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Nov 11 07:32:23 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <200511102204.jAAM4inq000794@cfa.harvard.edu> <4373E85E.1090408@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c5e689$3cd57fa0$11ac403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > Thanks, Grattan, for the report, but I am astounded > by this. Can he really mean that all adjusted scores > were weighted ones? How can that be? Surely there > must have been some cases involving, say, UI, where it > was obvious what would have happened if the illegal > option had not been selected. < +=+ No doubt there were a fair number of cases where the same score was awarded to both sides because only a single possible outcome was envisaged.. My point is that there was *no* case where the Directors gave any thought to awarding the sides 100% of 'the most favourable result that was likely' and 100% of the 'most unfavourable result that was at all probable', respectively - a weighted score was awarded. Either side could appeal such an award; players (including some of the strongest players in the tournament) did not make appeals of these awards . The practice in Europe is to give very full weight to the score element most unfavourable to the offending side; the effect is that the ingredient of punishment in the award (which takes the form of a single table score) exists but is reduced by comparison with the extreme measure present in 12C2; it may be assumed that in the WBF Max has extended the Directors' approach to encompass this philosophy. Max told me that over half of the awards were weighted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 11 07:51:58 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Nov 11 07:56:03 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <000001c5e68c$8b9561c0$400be150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > >> >> This is a good point. Forcing directors to use 12C2 when committees can >> use 12C3 is silly, and WILL result in additional appeals by anyone who >> wants a 12C3 ruling. >> +=+ In Estoril the drafting committee moved to extend the power to Directors in the laws. For now it is only in the Code of Practice and the acquiescence of the WBFLC in that. +=+ >> There are, of course, two solutions to that:: have everyone use 12C2, >> which is what one camp including Marvin, me, and several other >> BLMLers mostly in North America want; or have everyone use 12C3, >>. which is what the European tournaments have been doing the past > > few years. >> +=+ Increasingly since 1987 in fact when we only agreed to the institution of 12C2, which the North Americans wanted, if given the right to avoid its use. It does seem apparent that many North Americans are espoused of the concept of punishment for irregularities over redress for damage. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 11 10:58:33 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 11 11:00:25 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: References: <000201c5e5c3$200fb190$abeb403e@Mildred> <003c01c5e604$54545dc0$299468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <43746B49.3020600@hdw.be> Well said, Kojak, I agree 100M, and i hope you can convince the ACBL that L12C3 is the right way to go. It strikes me as odd that the people who are argueing against L12C3 (such as Marvin) are those that have never come into contact with it. Me too, I have had opportunity to use L12C3 in Belgium, and I've never had complaints by the players on either side of the infraction. WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > We have been using 12C3 by the TDs in WBF for over three years (since > the Code of Practice was published in Lausanne) for arriving at assigned > adjusted scores involving bridge judgement rulings that cannot be > fairly effected by using Law 12C2. > > Max Bavin is not ignoring Law 12C2, he is using the broader options of > 12C3 when C2 doesn't do the job. In doing so we are effectively having a > committee ruling be the initial ruling. We've had great success with the > players being satisfied by having had a review of their problems by not > only a group of TDs but by fellow players. I maintain that there are > many "book" rulings which see to it that offenders do not get away with > anything. > > The comment on the peacefulness of the TDs is ludicrous. This process > is far from something making the job of TDs easier. It takes a lot of > time, attention, and work to do it correctly, as we can see > from its success in Estoril. It also takes TDs that understand the game, > are reasonably good players, good analysts, and willing to have their > judgement questioned and/or affirmed. > > If anyone thinks for a moment that the world's top players would just > meekly go belly up at a world championship were they not satisfied with > the treatment of their problems they simply demonstrate ignorance of > facts and tournament players. > > Infractions do NOT (shouting, I know) go unpunished; "habitual victims" > are a figment of imagination including the paranoid; and the > competitiveness and zeal with which top level players approach this game > assures that we "get it right." > > We are not "sowing the wind". We are requiring that TDs do their job, > that players are treated fairly, and that Appeals Committees are in fact > doing their job of "....review of any ruling..." (Law 92A) and no longer > solely possess a right (Law 12C3) not available to the TDs in > making rulings. I've had over 40 years experience as a TD at all levels > of the game, and have had to go to Appeals Committees with rulings that > we did not want to make, but had no choice to do otherwise in arriving > at an assigned adjusted score by the constraints of Law 12C2. > > Now players know that there are no additional or different rules which > might get them something when it comes to an Appeals Committee, and even > the lazy TDs (aw come on there has be at least some) can't just pass > their assigned job to someone else to do for them. > I suggest a reading of the Scope of the Laws, particularly the last > sentence. Starting on the premise that irregularities and infractions > of law are not intentional , we have Law 72B2 when needed. > > When 134 transnational teams, playing 10 board matches for 15 rounds > (looks like 20,150 boards to me) and KO matches to produce a winner from > amongst the first 8 places produce no appeals, Max and his crew are to > be congratulated, and not snidely criticized with such drivel as > "law-makers have decided to appease law-breakers". With only 11 appeals > for the entire tournament it provides meager fodder for those who are > ready to show us their great erudition, wise judgement, and > second-guessing powers -- sorry, but the welfare of the players comes > way ahead of that. > > The frequent use of "we" in the foregoing is because I'm proud of my > continued participation as Chief TD WBF, Emeritus. Makes a guy feel all > kinds of warm and fuzzy all over, while Max and the outstanding crew do > all the work. > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Guthrie > To: BLML > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:37 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > > +=+ I discussed with Max Bavin, the > > CTD, the use of Law 12C3 in Estoril. > > He attributed the small number of > > appeals in Estoril (11 from the three > > prime events, none whatsoever from the > > Transnational) to the fact that (under > > his leadership in the WBF) as in the EBL > > the Directors have abandoned use of Law > > 12C2; all judgemental rulings are 12C3 > > rulings. Searching around for any use of > > 12C2 he could only come up with one case, > > one in which both sides were egregiously > > at fault and each was given the worst of > > it - something of which 12C3 allows > > anyway. Weighted score adjustments were > > accepted readily by the players. As I > > recall only one of the rulings appealed > > involved a weighted adjusted score and > > the weighting was not the issue. The > > drafting committee agreed in Estoril that > > use of 12C3 by Directors should be > > authorized in the 2006/7 code of laws. > > [nigel1] > Max Bavin is obviously right that L12C3 makes the > directors life more peaceful and reduces appeals. > But .... > > [A] Offenders are delighted to have escaped so > lightly. Most infractions go undetected and > unpunished, so such "equity" rulings guarantee > habitual law-breakers a greater long term profit. > > [B] Habitual victims just lick their wounds and > put a brave face on it. What is the point of > risking an appeal when committees are instructed > to resist readjustment? More sensible to accept > that, in the interests of a quite life, law-makers > have decided to appease law-breakers; and to > modify one's future behaviour accordingly :( > > Hence, IMO, the WBFLC should think carefully > before they "sow the wind" [Hosea 8:7]. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release Date: 9/11/2005 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release Date: 9/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 11 11:03:14 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 11 11:05:05 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <015a01c5e648$3ed66940$299468d5@jeushtlj> References: <015a01c5e648$3ed66940$299468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <43746C62.2010301@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Kojak] > >>Infractions do NOT (shouting, I know) go >>unpunished; "habitual victims" are a figment >>of imagination including the paranoid; and >>the competitiveness and zeal with which top >>level players approach this game assures that >>we "get it right." > > > [nige1] > No victim of an infraction, to whom I've talked, > who has been given an l2C3 ruling, shares Kojak's > option. > All the victims of infractions in Estoril (and several other tournaments besides) were sufficiently satisfied with their L12C3 ruling that they did not appeal it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release Date: 9/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 11 11:06:49 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 11 11:08:41 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > > In the past, you could expect several tops per > session from system-disasters by opponents. Since > alerting became mandatory, such windfalls are much > rarer. Have systems become simpler? Does memory > improve as players get older? Or do players take > advantage of unauthorised information from > partner's alerts and explanations? > Nigel, are you sufficiently ancient to remember how things were in the times before alerts? Do you have sufficient statistical information to prove your statement above. Does that statistical analysis include a clear elimination of all other possible factors that could explain a fall in system-disasters? And are your directors so inept as to not be able to rule against a player who makes a system mistake but lands on his feet because of the explanation? Come off it, this is one of the least convincing arguments possible. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release Date: 9/11/2005 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 11 12:31:05 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 11 12:38:27 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <015a01c5e648$3ed66940$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746C62.2010301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001501c5e6b3$67f6f720$109468d5@jeushtlj> {Herman De Wael] > All the victims of infractions in Estoril > (and several other tournaments besides) > were sufficiently satisfied with their > L12C3 ruling that they did not appeal it. [Nigel] Grattam, Kojak and now herman have all emphasised the point that players rarely appeal L12C3 rulings. Earlier, I stated that committees are instructed to resist claims for a fairer readjustment. If that is the case then your argument is featherweight. Does anybody find it surprising that there are few complaints, if protest is futile and an appeal is a waste of time and money? The main hope for the poor victim is a change in the law or conditions of contest. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 14:10:57 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Nov 11 14:15:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <000001c5e68c$8b9561c0$400be150@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "blml" Cc: "Roger Pewick" Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 0:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "A classic book is a book that > survives the circumstances that > made it possible, yet alone keeps > those circumstances alive." > [Alfred Kazin] > > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Pewick" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:35 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > >> This is a good point. Forcing directors to use 12C2 when committees can > >> use 12C3 is silly, and WILL result in additional appeals by anyone who > >> wants a 12C3 ruling. > >> > +=+ In Estoril the drafting committee moved to extend the power > to Directors in the laws. For now it is only in the Code of Practice > and the acquiescence of the WBFLC in that. +=+ > > >> There are, of course, two solutions to that:: have everyone use 12C2, > >> which is what one camp including Marvin, me, and several other > >> BLMLers mostly in North America want; or have everyone use 12C3, > >>. which is what the European tournaments have been doing the past > > > few years. > >> > +=+ Increasingly since 1987 in fact when we only agreed to the institution > of 12C2, which the North Americans wanted, if given the right to avoid its > use. It does seem apparent that many North Americans are espoused of > the concept of punishment for irregularities over redress for damage. > ~ G ~ +=+ In an Oct 99 BW article I believe Chris Compton utilized the word universal in that context. regards roger pewick From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 11 14:37:07 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 11 14:44:30 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> [Herman de Wael] > Nigel, are you sufficiently ancient to > remember how things were in the times > before alerts? Do you have sufficient > statistical information to prove your > statement above. Does that statistical > analysis include a clear elimination of > all other possible factors that could > explain a fall in system-disasters? And > are your directors so inept as to not be > able to rule against a player who makes a > system mistake but lands on his feet > because of the explanation? Come off it, > this is one of the least convincing > arguments possible. [nige1] Younger than Springtime am I! but yes. Many of us do yearn back to our middle-age, before compulsory alerts. Some pairs asked opponents to volunteer explanations; but we asked only when we needed to know. Notice that this policy was automatically compliant with the modern legal imperative that players "protect themselves". Anyway, in practice, ours was a successful strategy because opponents often had system disasters. Not only did misunderstandings seem more frequent than now but also more severe. Lacking unauthorised information from alerts and explanations to rescue them, misunderstandings would often go unresolved for round after round of bidding, dragging bewildered opponents further and further into the mire. :( Of course, Herman is right that my contention about rationalisation being human-nature even among bridge-players is difficult to prove. I don't claim "statistical evidence". I simply suggest a loose analogy to apparent rationalisation of law-breaking in other contexts like income-tax or speed-limits. Herman asks whether our directors are so inept as to not be able to rule against a player who makes a system mistake but lands on his feet because of the explanation? The relevant case is when partner's alert or explanation awakens you to your mistake but, luckily, your hand is consistent with partner's explanation -- or you can plausibly claim to have stretched the system. Since few of our directors are telepaths, they find such cases hard to detect, let alone rule against. Anyway, I haven't heard of such a ruling. IMO another common but unrelated situation, where cynics may suspect law-breaking is when an experienced expert partnership claim "no agreement" about a common bidding situation. They can easily rationalise this economy with the truth on the grounds that they aren't 100% sure -- and law-makers stipulate that they mustn't guess. Again, they know that a director won't rule against them, without hard evidence (like an explicit mention on a convention card). I think Herman would like the law changed, to insist that players "guess"; if so I agree with him. A forlorn hope, when the legal trend is towards a so-called "equity", that makes life easier for law-breakers. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 11 15:26:06 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 11 15:33:28 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage Message-ID: <00ab01c5e6cb$daa4a520$109468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ 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. [nige11] John Probst, Tim West-Meads and even David Stevenson himself disagree with Grattan. Until this matter is officially resolved, such players enjoy an advantage over those like Grattan and me who interpret the regulations literally. Tim has drawn attention to another loop-hole. He interprets "no conventions thereafter" to apply only to the player who "exercises his judgement" to flout the rule of 19 (or whatever); Tim states that this restriction does not apply to his partner. It does not even apply to him when he hasn't "shaded" his opening. If this fantastic claim is true then it too requires official confirmation. Grattan said he would report on these matters after discussion with colleagues at Estoril ... [Nige2] I've reposted this because we don't want to lose more matches by masochistically adhering to the letter of the regulations, when so many directors, including the author of the Orange Book, insist that they may use "judgement" in their interpretation. It is all very well for David Stevenson to tell Tim West-Meads what he intended by what he wrote. Such hearsay isn't official, however, until formally endorsed by the EBU law committee. Hence we would be grateful if they would urgently address such issues. Such matters are clarifications not changes. Nevertheless, they will decide events. A level playing field depends on their resolution. Can players be expected to wait patiently for a new edition of the Orange Book? From toddz at att.net Fri Nov 11 16:40:33 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:44:43 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be> <006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4374BB71.1050608@att.net> Guthrie wrote: > [snip] For lower levels of play, where the TD might not be as well-trained or as bridge-knowledgeable as Max Bavin and his crew there may be more need to worry. But for WBF competitions, which are conducted with screens, neither do system mishaps seem to have much frequency nor does UI come to the rescue. The concerns you bring up seem irrelevant to a community of players who are all experts. When about 1,000 players attend a tournament and the biggest complaint about rules is that they don't like the implementation of carry over from RR to KO, the WBF must have done a good job catering to its players, which will never likely include me. -Todd From petern at au.fujitsu.com Fri Nov 11 01:20:49 2005 From: petern at au.fujitsu.com (peter newman) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:47:19 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <015a01c5e648$3ed66940$299468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200511110006.jAB06Lt10567@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> Hi Nigel and others, > > [nige1] > No victim of an infraction, to whom I've talked, > who has been given an l2C3 ruling, shares Kojak's > option. I have been silently listening to this and want to point out as a player I strongly support 12C3 when used correctly. Obviously the people that I play with are rather different to those of your acquaintance because I really haven't heard this negative type of comment. It seems to work really well in the situations where you just don't know what was going to happen. I will give you an example from real life. 1NT (2C)* .... (2C) was incorrectly alerted as majors. It in fact showed Clubs and a higher suit. As a result the NOS had no chance to reach their 'normal' contract. The NOS with the correct information had absolutely no idea what contract they would have reached. They thought roughly 1/3rd of the time they would have reached 3D, 1/3rd of the time they would reach a M part score and 1/3rd of the time a major game. The major game they reckoned they would make most of the time. For a start this is not a straightforward 12C2 ruling but assume that you decide: +/-420 for both sides (I can't remember the VUL but it isn't important). The NOS would have considered it most unfair to receive the game score after this infraction. Give friendly weightings to the NOS in 12C3 and the OS get worse than if they hadn't offended and the NOS feel they haven't been given an arbitrary gift. # I don't have the full details - but the appeals committee awarded a score comparable to around half way between part score and game I think. Everyone was happy. Cheers, Peter Newman Sydney From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 11 18:01:18 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 11 18:08:41 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <200511110006.jAB06Lt10567@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> Message-ID: <011a01c5e6e1$89335540$109468d5@jeushtlj> [Peter Newman] > I will give you an example from real life. > 1NT (2C)* .... > (2C) was incorrectly alerted as majors. It > in fact showed Clubs and a higher suit. As > a result the NOS had no chance to reach > their 'normal' contract. The NOS with the > correct information had absolutely no idea > what contract they would have reached. They > thought roughly 1/3rd of the time they > would have reached 3D, 1/3rd of the time > they would reach a M part score and 1/3rd > of the time a major game. The major game > they reckoned they would make most of the > time. For a start this is not a > straightforward 12C2 ruling but assume > that you decide: +/-420 for both sides > (I can't remember the VUL but it isn't > important). The NOS would have considered > it most unfair to receive the game score > after this infraction. Give friendly > weightings to the NOS in 12C3 and the OS > get worse than if they hadn't offended > and the NOS feel they haven't been given > an arbitrary gift. > # I don't have the full details - but the > appeals committee awarded a score > comparable to around half way between part > score and game I think. Everyone was happy. [nige1] Thank you Peter for your excellent example. Ideal for either side of the argument :) From mustikka at charter.net Fri Nov 11 18:47:46 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri Nov 11 18:51:55 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <200511110006.jAB06Lt10567@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <011a01c5e6e1$89335540$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002c01c5e6e8$08bc3380$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > [Peter Newman] >> I will give you an example from real life. >> 1NT (2C)* .... >> (2C) was incorrectly alerted as majors. It >> in fact showed Clubs and a higher suit. As >> a result the NOS had no chance to reach >> their 'normal' contract. The NOS with the >> correct information had absolutely no idea >> what contract they would have reached. They >> thought roughly 1/3rd of the time they >> would have reached 3D, 1/3rd of the time >> they would reach a M part score and 1/3rd >> of the time a major game. The major game >> they reckoned they would make most of the >> time. For a start this is not a >> straightforward 12C2 ruling but assume >> that you decide: +/-420 for both sides >> (I can't remember the VUL but it isn't >> important). The NOS would have considered >> it most unfair to receive the game score >> after this infraction. Give friendly >> weightings to the NOS in 12C3 and the OS >> get worse than if they hadn't offended >> and the NOS feel they haven't been given >> an arbitrary gift. >> # I don't have the full details - but the >> appeals committee awarded a score >> comparable to around half way between part >> score and game I think. Everyone was happy. > > [nige1] > Thank you Peter for your excellent example. > Ideal for either side of the argument :) > And the OS will take no greater care in the future to remember their system....since there in fact is no incentive for them to do so...since their is no punitive element at all. They got a result close to normal as did the OS. This is far from ideal IMO. I would have preferred +/-420. But then again, I am no TD. From schuster at eduhi.at Fri Nov 11 20:45:29 2005 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri Nov 11 20:49:54 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <002c01c5e6e8$08bc3380$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> References: <200511110006.jAB06Lt10567@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <011a01c5e6e1$89335540$109468d5@jeushtlj> <002c01c5e6e8$08bc3380$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:47:46 +0100, raija wrote: > > And the OS will take no greater care in the future to remember their > system....since there in fact is no incentive for them to do so...since > their is no punitive element at all. They got a result close to normal > as did the OS. This is far from ideal IMO. > > I would have preferred +/-420. But then again, I am no TD. So what has that got to do with it? To the TD, 12C3 only means more work than +420, and he does not earn a penny more for that. It makes for fairer score adjustments - especially in those cases where the players involved are so far out of contention that they don't care to appeal a 12C2 ruling to get their 12C3 ruling from the AC. Why don't I hear any objection from the "protect-the-field" brigade to the 420 in Peter's example? Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 11 21:08:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 11 21:10:52 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <001501c5e6b3$67f6f720$109468d5@jeushtlj> References: <015a01c5e648$3ed66940$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746C62.2010301@hdw.be> <001501c5e6b3$67f6f720$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4374FA5A.4060009@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > {Herman De Wael] > >>All the victims of infractions in Estoril >>(and several other tournaments besides) >>were sufficiently satisfied with their >>L12C3 ruling that they did not appeal it. > > > [Nigel] > Grattam, Kojak and now herman have all emphasised > the point that players rarely appeal L12C3 > rulings. > > Earlier, I stated that committees are instructed > to resist claims for a fairer readjustment. > No they are not. They have stated that since these adjustments are somewhat arbitrary, they shall not change weights from 25 to 33% say. However, if a claim for a fairer weight is sought, it will be considered. In this context, it is very interesting to see that at Turin '04, two separate directors considered the same appeal to be one of the more interesting. In that appeal, the directors weighting was changed. The directors had blindly followed the room's percentage and given (i believe) 33%. The AC changed this to 67% because they considered that the likelihood was different at the table concerned. > If that is the case then your argument is > featherweight. Does anybody find it surprising > that there are few complaints, if protest is > futile and an appeal is a waste of time and money? > My point was that there are few appeals! If you would use my argument by saying that there may be few appeals but still some complaints, you would be right. But in fact you yourself write that there are few complaints. That renders your argument futile. Indeed, there are few complaints. Which proves my point. I think that that the number of appeals is related to the number of complaints, even if there are fewer of them. I don't want to say that there are few complaints, you can deduce that for yourself. > The main hope for the poor victim is a change in > the law or conditions of contest. > What poor victim? The fellow who complains yet does not appeal because he thinks it's futile? Point me out one and I'll talk to him. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release Date: 9/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 11 21:14:08 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 11 21:15:56 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <002c01c5e6e8$08bc3380$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> References: <200511110006.jAB06Lt10567@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <011a01c5e6e1$89335540$109468d5@jeushtlj> <002c01c5e6e8$08bc3380$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4374FB90.1060809@hdw.be> raija wrote: > > And the OS will take no greater care in the future to remember their > system....since there in fact is no incentive for them to do so...since > their is no punitive element at all. They got a result close to normal > as did the OS. This is far from ideal IMO. > There remains enough incentive for them. Five times out of six, they will reach a bad score after forgetting their system. This time they got lucky and scored a huge plus. That plus got taken away from them. They received something average, true - not ?much of a disincentive. But it does not need a -420 for them to think twice about forgetting their system. They know that already. OTOH, the NOS did not merit +420 either. > I would have preferred +/-420. But then again, I am no TD. You are a player though. Would you feel you were "due" a +420 (and 99%) if you were NOS? Would you feel you would merit a -420 (and 1%) if you were OS? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release Date: 9/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 11 21:22:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 11 21:24:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be> <006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be> Hello Nigel, Guthrie wrote: > [Herman de Wael] > >>Nigel, are you sufficiently ancient to >>remember how things were in the times >>before alerts? Do you have sufficient >>statistical information to prove your >>statement above. Does that statistical >>analysis include a clear elimination of >>all other possible factors that could >>explain a fall in system-disasters? And >>are your directors so inept as to not be >>able to rule against a player who makes a >>system mistake but lands on his feet >>because of the explanation? Come off it, >>this is one of the least convincing >>arguments possible. > > > [nige1] > Younger than Springtime am I! but yes. Many of us > do yearn back to our middle-age, before compulsory > alerts. > Well, I have played for 20 years and alerts have always been part of my regulations. But then of course you are talking about compulsary alerts. You could ask opponents not to alert. OK. > Some pairs asked opponents to volunteer > explanations; but we asked only when we needed to > know. Notice that this policy was automatically > compliant with the modern legal imperative that > players "protect themselves". > > Anyway, in practice, ours was a successful > strategy because opponents often had system > disasters. Not only did misunderstandings seem > more frequent than now but also more severe. > Lacking unauthorised information from alerts and > explanations to rescue them, misunderstandings > would often go unresolved for round after round of > bidding, dragging bewildered opponents further and > further into the mire. :( > Whereas of course, if you allow them use of UI, they do not end up in the mire. You do realize of course, that a competent TD will put them back in the mire if they use UI. > Of course, Herman is right that my contention > about rationalisation being human-nature even > among bridge-players is difficult to prove. > > I don't claim "statistical evidence". I simply > suggest a loose analogy to apparent > rationalisation of law-breaking in other contexts > like income-tax or speed-limits. > Now Nigel, you do realize that both income-tax evasion and speed-limits have penalties that are prohibitive. Yet they still exist. Whereas use of UI has penalties which are merely restorative (in general). Yet most players are aware of UI limitations and will follow them. Your analogy is therefore quite a stretch. > Herman asks whether our directors are so inept as > to not be able to rule against a player who makes > a > system mistake but lands on his feet because of > the explanation? > > The relevant case is when partner's alert or > explanation awakens you to your mistake but, > luckily, your hand is consistent with partner's > explanation -- or you can plausibly claim to have > stretched the system. Since few of our directors > are telepaths, they find such cases hard to > detect, let alone rule against. > You say it yourself - "luckily" - the laws are not perfect, but it takes a combination of luck and willingness to lie in order for them to be proven imperfect. Pretty good for me. > Anyway, I haven't heard of such a ruling. > So why bring the case up? > IMO another common but unrelated situation, where > cynics may suspect law-breaking is when an > experienced expert partnership claim "no > agreement" about a common bidding situation. They > can easily rationalise this economy with the truth > on the grounds that they aren't 100% sure -- and > law-makers stipulate that they mustn't guess. > Again, they know that a director won't rule > against them, without hard evidence (like an > explicit mention on a convention card). > Claiming "no agreement" yet landing on your feet? I may be more harsh on that than some directors, but I don't feel the laws are insufficient to be able to deal with this occurence. > I think Herman would like the law changed, to > insist that players "guess"; if so I agree with > him. > > A forlorn hope, when the legal trend is towards a > so-called "equity", that makes life easier for > law-breakers. > If law-breakers were a problem, wou would be right. I happen to believe that most bridge players are law-abiders, and the few that are not are caught most of the time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/165 - Release Date: 9/11/2005 From mustikka at charter.net Fri Nov 11 21:52:24 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri Nov 11 21:56:31 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <200511110006.jAB06Lt10567@sercit.fujitsu.com.au><011a01c5e6e1$89335540$109468d5@jeushtlj><002c01c5e6e8$08bc3380$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000501c5e701$d2145aa0$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:47:46 +0100, raija wrote: >> >> And the OS will take no greater care in the future to remember their >> system....since there in fact is no incentive for them to do so...since >> their is no punitive element at all. They got a result close to normal >> as did the OS. This is far from ideal IMO. >> >> I would have preferred +/-420. But then again, I am no TD. > > So what has that got to do with it? > To the TD, 12C3 only means more work than +420, and he does not earn a > penny more for that. It makes for fairer score adjustments - especially in > those cases where the players involved are so far out of contention that > they don't care to appeal a 12C2 ruling to get their 12C3 ruling from the > AC. > Why don't I hear any objection from the "protect-the-field" brigade to the > 420 in Peter's example? > Regards, > Petrus Because field protection is not part of TD's job, nor is it any part of the Laws to my knowledge. From mustikka at charter.net Fri Nov 11 22:07:20 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri Nov 11 22:11:28 2005 Subject: Fw: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. Message-ID: <001701c5e703$e7a9a4e0$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> Sorry, sent to Herman in error. Meant for blml. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:14 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > > raija wrote: > >> >> And the OS will take no greater care in the future to remember their >> system....since there in fact is no incentive for them to do so...since >> their is no punitive element at all. They got a result close to normal as >> did the OS. This is far from ideal IMO. >> > > There remains enough incentive for them. Five times out of six, they > will reach a bad score after forgetting their system. > This time they got lucky and scored a huge plus. That plus got taken > away from them. They received something average, true - not ?much of a > disincentive. But it does not need a -420 for them to think twice > about forgetting their system. They know that already. > OTOH, the NOS did not merit +420 either. > >> I would have preferred +/-420. But then again, I am no TD. > > You are a player though. Would you feel you were "due" a +420 (and > 99%) if you were NOS? Would you feel you would merit a -420 (and 1%) > if you were OS? > > If the NOS had a legitimate chance to get to game on their own without the > MI, then yes, +420. Luck factor exists in other cirumstances, why not > here? For example, revokes give NOS a windfall they would never get on > their own; should those also be scrapped in the spirit of never giving > unmerited awards in rulings. > > The OS should get -420 in any case, not an average, even if the NOS gets > some calculated score between partscore and game. The Laws do not > encourage forgetting one's system and the TD's should not give rulings > that encourage that kind of behaviour (I know, I know, it was not > intentional, but that does not matter, laws do not deal with the inside of > a player's head). Raija From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Nov 12 00:13:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Nov 12 00:17:26 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <00ab01c5e6cb$daa4a520$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > Tim has drawn attention to another loop-hole. He > interprets "no conventions thereafter" to apply > only to the player who "exercises his judgement" > to flout the rule of 19 (or whatever); A "whatever" rather than a flout. I evaluate my hands on the basis of HCP, tens/nines/eights, honour combinations and placements, the possession of the spade suit and various other considerations. I do not open hands "weaker than the Rule 19" by agreement but I do open a small number of hands which are stronger than, but not compliant with, a weak Ro19 hand (John's hand evaluations are sufficiently similar to my own that there is implicit agreement to do this). >Tim states that this restriction does not apply to his partner. I did not state that at all. I stated that partner could not *knowingly* be in breach of the regulation when making a conventional bid because he would be unaware (at the time of bidding) if the opening was weaker > It does not even apply to him when he > hasn't "shaded" his opening. That is certainly true - the restriction applies only when a hand weaker than R019 has been opened. > If this fantastic claim is true then it too requires official > confirmation. Nothing "fantastic" about it. All it requires is a simple linguistic analysis of the written regulation. > Grattan said he would report on these matters > after discussion with colleagues at Estoril ... > > > It is all very well for David Stevenson to tell > Tim West-Meads what he intended by what he wrote. He didn't. He merely told BLML (repeatedly) that I had misunderstood the regulation when I suggested that the regulation banned "old-fashioned Acol" openings like 1S on KJT98x,KJTx,x,xx. It was on about my 14th reading/analysis of the law that I finally realised what he meant (a hint would have nice). Any player *could* have made the same analysis so in a sense the failure to have done so is a self-imposed penalty (albeit I consider both DWS and the EBU to have been culpably unhelpful in creating the situation). > Such hearsay isn't official, however, until > formally endorsed by the EBU law committee. Hence > we would be grateful if they would urgently > address such issues. They have addressed the issue - they have published a clarification drafted for the next OB. Since it is a clarification (not a change) it can be considered "current". I draw Nigel, and Herman's, attention to the following paragraph: A note to be introduced that whilst other methods of hand valuation are permitted, compliance with minimum strength requirements will be measured strictly in accordance with HCP and/or Rule of X, as appropriate. I hope they will both agree that the above is a clear and unambiguous "no judgement allowed" regulation. Sadly for them, and happily for me, it is not the "clarification" the EBU has chosen to write. Instead they say: A note to be introduced that whilst other methods of hand valuation are permitted,compliance with minimum strength requirements will be assessed by reference to HCP and/or Rule of X, as appropriate. That they have deliberately selected "judgement" words when they might have selected "absolutes" is totally clear. Consult legal counsel or linguistic experts as you wish boys - "my" interpretation will stand up in any court in the land, yours will not. So, sorry Herman - it turns out that you cannot "easily check to see if a particular hand would be considered too light under EBU rules" because they don't actually explain *how* the hand will be assessed. And sorry Nigel, you have been labouring under a misinterpretation and getting bad results for trying to do the right thing (that the EBU did nothing to help you in your distress reflects as poorly on them as your efforts reflect well on you). And sorry Richard as well. I didn't have to twist a single thing to arrive at an analysis of the regulation wholly consistent with the spirit and letter of the laws. > Such matters are clarifications not changes. > Nevertheless, they will decide events. A level > playing field depends on their resolution. Can > players be expected to wait patiently for a new > edition of the Orange Book? The text is already available to the less patient player. http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and% 20Ethics%20Committee/2005/12%20September%20plus%20appendix%20awaiting% 20approval.pdf Best wishes to all, Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Nov 12 00:10:05 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Nov 12 00:17:31 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be><006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> <4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> [Herman De Wael] > If law-breakers were a problem, you would > be right. I happen to believe that most > bridge players are law-abiders, and the few > that are not are caught most of the time. [Nigel] There are local clubs where most members habitually break the law (disclosure, using unauthorised information, deceptive hesitations in the play, and so on). Such ploys are so widespread, that members regard a director call as a personal affront - and the director will express his annoyance as well. Surely, these players start off trying to conform to the rules. Presumably, they gradually discover that, at Bridge, law-breakers prosper and offenders receive inadequate redress. Eventually, they reluctantly decide "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Herman is certainly right that most players would much prefer a fair and honest game -- just watch how beginners in a Bridge Class behave. Hence, arguably, this deterioration is the result of legal inadequacies. The high priests of so-called "Equity" ignore the obvious fact that many infractions go undetected or unproven, so occasional restitution of the status quo neither deters habitual offenders nor redresses the recurrent damage suffered by victims. I hope that Herman is right but I fear that the trend towards "equity" is making things worse. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Nov 12 02:07:38 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat Nov 12 02:11:47 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be><006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> <4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be> <000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4375405A.4070904@t-online.de> Guthrie wrote: >[Herman De Wael] > > >>If law-breakers were a problem, you would >>be right. I happen to believe that most >>bridge players are law-abiders, and the few >>that are not are caught most of the time. >> >> > >[Nigel] >There are local clubs where most members >habitually break the law (disclosure, using >unauthorised information, deceptive hesitations in >the play, and so on). Such ploys are so >widespread, that members regard a director call as >a personal affront - and the director will express >his annoyance as well. > Thia is true in a couple of clubs around here, but this is a small number. Most of the time people try to do it right. They don`t always succed, but this is not from lack of trying. > Surely, these players start >off trying to conform to the rules. Presumably, >they gradually discover that, at Bridge, >law-breakers prosper and offenders receive >inadequate redress. Eventually, they reluctantly >decide "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." > > I disagree, and do so quite violently. Most people start off not knowing the rules, and most of the times they "get help" by people who don`t know the first thing about the rules either. Nearly all of them don`t know that they are doing something wrong. The people you describe do in fact exist, no question about it, but they are so few that I do not worry about them. TDs got enough rules to handle them, no problem. >Herman is certainly right that most players would >much prefer a fair and honest game -- just watch >how beginners in a Bridge Class behave. Hence, >arguably, this deterioration is the result of >legal inadequacies. > > What deterioration? I haven`t observed anything like this here, and have never encountered anyone who has. In 20 years of Bridge things have improved considerably, and they have done so especially where good directors are at work. It is a tedious road, no doubt about it, but it is worth travelling. >The high priests of so-called "Equity" ignore the >obvious fact that many infractions go undetected >or unproven, so occasional restitution of the >status quo neither deters habitual offenders nor >redresses the recurrent damage suffered by >victims. > > Undetected? Maybe so, sometimes, TDs can`t be everywhere, but you can heighten the awareness of players concerning possible infractions, and you can show them that calling the TD isn`t a personal affront. This takes some effort, true, and it takes some time, but in the past years we got this attitude out of our club, using nothing more than patience. There are no "habitual offenders" left. Oh, people err sometimes, this is only human, but they are treated none the worse for that by TDs and players alike. Unproven? I do not have to prove anything as TD. Laws like 72B1 are quite sufficient to persuade people to change their habits, should they have some which do not conform to the rules. All I have to do is explain why the player could have known...., and if I do it right (and I take some pride in doing it right more often than not) the player will understand and even ask me what to do to avoid any infraction. As you observed (and I very much agree) people usually try to be fair and honest. If I can convince them that I do my utmost to be fair to them, explaining the rules (explaining, not just quoting) and - probably most important - explaining what the rules are trying to achieve, then they do their utmost to understand what they have done wrong, why they infracted a rule and how to avoid further mishaps. >I hope that Herman is right but I fear that the >trend towards "equity" is making things worse. > > So a trend towards inequity is making things better? I do not believe this. I do not believe to cater to "habitual offenders" either. They do not really play Bridge since they do not follow the fundamental rules of the game. Newbies can be taught, they will understand given enough time and instruction. The cheaters will not gain if we apply 12C3, they will just lose less sometimes, but still enough to not make it worthwhile to cheat. We have to cater to the honest people, not to the cheaters. We still catch them, we still make them unhappy. If this drives them out of Brdge, fine. Mind you, I see problems with 12C3 myself, but not in a place like Estoril, with lots of experienced directors knowing how to handle judgement cases. The problems is in the lower strata of the game, where the directors don`t know how to handle habitual offenders. But even there I cannot see how 12C3 could make things worse. Regards Matthias From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Nov 12 09:58:53 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Nov 12 10:00:42 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <000b01c5e703$6b3cec00$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> References: <200511110006.jAB06Lt10567@sercit.fujitsu.com.au> <011a01c5e6e1$89335540$109468d5@jeushtlj><002c01c5e6e8$08bc3380$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> <4374FB90.1060809@hdw.be> <000b01c5e703$6b3cec00$3dd2cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4375AECD.8070209@hdw.be> raija wrote: > > The OS should get -420 in any case, not an average, even if the NOS gets > some calculated score between partscore and game. The Laws do not > encourage forgetting one's system and the TD's should not give rulings > that encourage that kind of behaviour (I know, I know, it was not > intentional, but that does not matter, laws do not deal with the inside > of a player's head). > The laws do not discourage forgetting one's system either. Don't try to use one side of an argument when the other side says nothing about it. Besides, what is there to encourage? These people receive a very ordinary score, somewhat below average. That's no encouragement, is it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Nov 12 10:01:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Nov 12 10:03:19 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be><006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> <4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be> <000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4375AF6C.70300@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > >>If law-breakers were a problem, you would >>be right. I happen to believe that most >>bridge players are law-abiders, and the few >>that are not are caught most of the time. > > > [Nigel] > There are local clubs where most members > habitually break the law (disclosure, using > unauthorised information, deceptive hesitations in > the play, and so on). Such ploys are so > widespread, that members regard a director call as > a personal affront - and the director will express > his annoyance as well. Surely, these players start > off trying to conform to the rules. Presumably, > they gradually discover that, at Bridge, > law-breakers prosper and offenders receive > inadequate redress. Eventually, they reluctantly > decide "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." > Those clubs are not playing bridge - why should we even talk about them. And in those clubs L12C2 will not be a bigger deterrent than L12C3. Please start the cbml (cheating bridgers mailing list) and continue your argument on that list. blml is for real bridge. > Herman is certainly right that most players would > much prefer a fair and honest game -- just watch > how beginners in a Bridge Class behave. Hence, > arguably, this deterioration is the result of > legal inadequacies. > > The high priests of so-called "Equity" ignore the > obvious fact that many infractions go undetected > or unproven, so occasional restitution of the > status quo neither deters habitual offenders nor > redresses the recurrent damage suffered by > victims. > > I hope that Herman is right but I fear that the > trend towards "equity" is making things worse. > Since these people have never seen a ruling from close up, they don't really care if it's a L12C3 ruling or a L12C2 one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 13 02:53:52 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Nov 13 03:20:57 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: Message-ID: <000001c5e7f8$7116c330$afea403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] TD advantage > > > The text is already available to the less > patient player. > +=+ And to EBU TDs +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 13 03:15:50 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Nov 13 03:20:59 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be><006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> <4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be><000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> <4375405A.4070904@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000101c5e7f8$72078bd0$afea403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. >> > Someone wrote: >>I hope that Herman is right but I fear that the >>trend towards "equity" is making things worse. >> >> > And Matthias replied: > So a trend towards inequity is making things > better? I do not believe this. > +=+ I am puzzled by this talk of trends. As I understand the law book the Laws are primarily designed "not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". Equity has long been the chief objective of the laws of the game. ~ G ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Nov 13 06:57:15 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Nov 13 07:04:42 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <00ab01c5e6cb$daa4a520$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <008501c5e817$1a444220$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> Tim, Grattan, I am even more confused. I intend to seek urgent clarification on this matter from the EBU before we get knocked out of too many events, this season. I will wait a couple of days before I send my email to Nick so that, if I've inadvertently misrepresented either of you, you can correct my misapprehensions. +++++++++++++ Dear Nick Doe, Tim West Meads and Grattan Endicott tell me that the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee have recently made decisions about matters like that below. [A] In regular partnerships, in level three events, after two passes, John Probst, Tim West-Meads David Stevenson and others say that they habitually open one of a suit on certain rule of 17 or 18 hands. For example, AJTxx KTxxx xx x They say that it is "just Bridge" to use "judgement" to open such hands. I don't think I'm misrepresenting them but if I am, then David S is on the committee and he can tell you what he actually does. My team interpreted the Orange book restriction literally. As a result we lost matches. We lost decisive boards, where opponents opened light third in hand but we did not. By the time that we noticed what had happened it was too late to ask for a ruling. So I would appreciate official clarification. Especially if the regulation has changed. [B] Tim West-Meads says the partnership can agree to play conventions after one-openers, as normal. A partner need only eschew conventions, on the board where he does open light (as above). Again, I would like to know if this OK now; or if it is an official change. Regards and best wishes, Nigel From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Nov 13 06:59:17 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Nov 13 07:06:43 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <000001c5e7f8$7116c330$afea403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <008601c5e817$625bc380$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] >> The text is already available to the less >> patient player. [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ And to EBU TDs +=+ [nige1] Grattan and Tim suggest we peruse ... http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%20and%20 Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/2005/12%20 September%20plus%20appendix%20awaiting%20approval. pdf To save anybody else wasting there time: there is no mention in this minute of "rule of 18/19" restrictions on opening bids; or what the regulations mean by "no conventions thereafter". From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 13 13:02:56 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Nov 13 13:07:16 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <000001c5e7f8$7116c330$afea403e@Mildred> <008601c5e817$625bc380$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000301c5e84a$5946c000$3c0ae150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 5:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] TD advantage > [Tim West-Meads] >>> The text is already available to the less >>> patient player. > [Grattan Endicott] >> +=+ And to EBU TDs +=+ > > [nige1] > > Grattan and Tim suggest we peruse ... > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%20and%20 > Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/2005/12%20 > September%20plus%20appendix%20awaiting%20approval. > pdf > > To save anybody else wasting there time: there is > no mention in this minute of "rule of 18/19" > restrictions on opening bids; or what the > regulations mean by "no conventions thereafter". > +=+ In point of fact I did not mention this minute; that was Tim's referral. EBU Directors have the White Book and all the past minutes, plus regular seminars, to inform them. It does not take genius to understand the statement that "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 you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". Should anyone be in doubt, if you *agree* (explicitly or implicitly) that an opening bid of 1S may be Rule of 17, then if you open 1S for the remainder of that hand you may not use any conventional call for the duration of the hand. That applies even if your opener has in fact 15 HCP and qualifies as Rule-of-20". When it says 'you' the regulation refers back to "you agree" and covers both members of the partnership. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Nov 13 14:18:17 2005 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sun Nov 13 14:21:35 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <000001c5e7f8$7116c330$afea403e@Mildred><008601c5e817$625bc380$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> <000301c5e84a$5946c000$3c0ae150@Mildred> Message-ID: <000501c5e854$b5e04d40$0307a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "BLML" ; "Guthrie" Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] TD advantage > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "A classic book is a book that > survives the circumstances that > made it possible, yet alone keeps > those circumstances alive." > [Alfred Kazin] > > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 5:59 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] TD advantage > > >> [Tim West-Meads] >>>> The text is already available to the less >>>> patient player. >> [Grattan Endicott] >>> +=+ And to EBU TDs +=+ >> >> [nige1] >> >> Grattan and Tim suggest we peruse ... >> >> http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%20and%20 >> Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/2005/12%20 >> September%20plus%20appendix%20awaiting%20approval. >> pdf >> >> To save anybody else wasting there time: there is >> no mention in this minute of "rule of 18/19" >> restrictions on opening bids; or what the >> regulations mean by "no conventions thereafter". >> > +=+ In point of fact I did not mention this minute; that was > Tim's referral. EBU Directors have the White Book and > all the past minutes, plus regular seminars, to inform them. > It does not take genius to understand the statement that > "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 > you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". Should > anyone be in doubt, if you *agree* (explicitly or implicitly) > that an opening bid of 1S may be Rule of 17, then if you > open 1S for the remainder of that hand you may not use > any conventional call for the duration of the hand. That > applies even if your opener has in fact 15 HCP and > qualifies as Rule-of-20". When it says 'you' the regulation > refers back to "you agree" and covers both members of > the partnership. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I do not claim to be a genius but it is obvious to me that (a) that there are multiple possible interpretations of the rule as published in the Orange Book. (b) there has been no attempt to clarify the interpretation to the membership at large. (c) there has been no attempt to enforce Grattan's intrpretation. On this last point I am sure there are large numbers of partnerships that make "tactical" third in hand openers with sufficient frequency that they constitute an implicit agreement. Has there been ANY examples of such parterships been found guilty of using conventions? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 13 16:38:16 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Nov 13 16:42:35 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <000101c5e7f8$72078bd0$afea403e@Mildred> References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$29946 8d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be><006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> <4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be><000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> <4375405A.4070904@t-online.de> <000101c5e7f8$72078bd0$afea403e@Mildred> Message-ID: At 2:15 AM +0000 11/13/05, Grattan wrote: >As I understand the law book the Laws are primarily designed "not as >punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". >Equity has long been the chief objective of the laws of the game. I believe that the objective of the Laws is and ought to be justice. I do not find any conflict between my view and the preface to the Laws. As I understand the preface it means that, with certain exceptions (e.g. revokes), the Laws provide for score adjustments after irregularities only when damage results. For instance, if I misinform the opponents but they reach their best spot anyway then my side is not subject to penalty. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Nov 13 17:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Nov 13 17:22:25 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <000301c5e84a$5946c000$3c0ae150@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott > To save anybody else wasting there time: there is > > no mention in this minute of "rule of 18/19" > > restrictions on opening bids; or what the > > regulations mean by "no conventions thereafter". > > > +=+ In point of fact I did not mention this minute; that was > Tim's referral. EBU Directors have the White Book and > all the past minutes, plus regular seminars, to inform them. > It does not take genius to understand the statement that > "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 > you do not play any conventional calls thereafter". Should > anyone be in doubt, if you *agree* (explicitly or implicitly) > that an opening bid of 1S may be Rule of 17, then if you > open 1S for the remainder of that hand you may not use > any conventional call for the duration of the hand. That > applies even if your opener has in fact 15 HCP and > qualifies as Rule-of-20". When it says 'you' the regulation > refers back to "you agree" and covers both members of > the partnership. Sorry Grattan, that is definitely NOT what the OB says - apart from anything else there is no "you agree" in the regulation for the "you" to refer back to. Firstly one may agree to open rule of 17/18 hands providing they are *not WEAKER than R019*. If the agreement is only to open hands which are equal to or stronger than R019 there is no restriction on conventions. Secondly the restriction which does apply is written in the active tense "You may open..thereafter". If the hand actually opened is Ro19 or stronger then any of the normally permitted conventions are allowed. I care not one whit the intention of the EBU when these regulations were written - the words actually used are not consistent with your assertions as to their meaning. Your assertions would be correct if the text was, eg. "..do not comply with the rule of 19.." or "You may have an agreement to open hands which are...thereafter." Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Nov 13 17:18:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Nov 13 17:22:26 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <008501c5e817$1a444220$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: > Tim, Grattan, I am even more confused. I intend to > seek urgent clarification on this matter from the > EBU before we get knocked out of too many events, > this season. I will wait a couple of days before I > send my email to Nick so that, if I've > inadvertently misrepresented either of you, you > can correct my misapprehensions. > +++++++++++++ > > Dear Nick Doe, > > Tim West Meads and Grattan Endicott tell me that > the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee have recently > made decisions about matters like that below. > > [A] In regular partnerships, in level three > events, after two passes, John Probst, Tim > West-Meads David Stevenson and others say that > they habitually open one of a suit on certain rule > of 17 or 18 hands. For example, > > AJTxx KTxxx xx x The above would be a 2S opener in 3rd seat for me (can't speak for John). Make the hand AJT9x,KT97x,xx,x (a stronger hand I hope all would agree) and I would open 1S in any seat (except third perhaps where 2S is still more likely than 1S). Make the hand AJT52,KT964,xx,x and I might sometimes open 1S in 1st/2nd but would not always do so. A better example of a 3rd seat only opening might be xx,AKQT,JT9x,xxx where the lead- directing properties of 1H would cause me to open a hand I wouldn't consider opening 1H in any other seat (playing a 10.5-13 NT in 1st/2nd I might well open it 1N). > They say that it is "just Bridge" to use "judgement" to open such hands. *I* have never said any such thing (I don't believe there is such a thing as "just bridge"). I maintain that 1S on AJT9x,KT97x,xx,x is an old- fashioned Acol opening (there are many books from the '50s-'70s that support this assertion). I also maintain that players are allowed (but not required) to apply judgement as to whether a given hand is "weaker than Ro19". Such judgement is subject to TD/AC review and, if the TD/AC believe the hand to be *weaker* than R019 the regulation may be applied. > I don't think I'm misrepresenting them but if I > am, then David S is on the committee and he can > tell you what he actually does. Nigel, I'm not unhappy with you putting forward my views (as they appear above) - and will willingly provide you with further examples/comments if you wish. However, spot cards in long suits are terribly important to me on borderline openings so please be careful as to how my thoughts are presented. I believe John has slightly different requirements (perhaps by seat/vul) and we will not always make the same judgement on the same hand. I'll try and make sure he has seen your post. DWS is, as you say, on the committee but I have never seen specific examples of his thinking on suit quality requirements. The most I think we can say of his view is "players may exercise a degree of judgement". > My team interpreted the Orange book restriction > literally. I don't think this is true. You didn't analyse the exact words carefully enough IMO and built a rod for your own back (albeit a rod the EBU probably *wished* was actually in the regs). > So I would appreciate official clarification. > Especially if the regulation has changed. > > [B] Tim West-Meads says the partnership can agree > to play conventions after one-openers, as normal. > A partner need only eschew conventions, on the > board where he does open light (as above). Not quite how I phrased it, although correct in effect. There can be no adjustment on a hand for using an illegal convention if no conventions are used on that hand. There can, fairly obviously, be no adjustments for opening an illegal natural bid if the hand is "within a king of average strength". Thus the only time there will be evidence of a breach of regulation is when there is both a light opener and a conventional bid thereafter. > Again, I would like to know if this OK now; or if > it is an official change. I doubt very much it is "OK" with the EBU L&EC. It certainly isn't an "official change". It is the way the words have always been and personally I consider it highly likely that the EBUL&EC *intended* the regulation to be as Grattan erroneously maintains they are. (see my reply to him if you want to check the basic linguistic differences between their presumed intent and their actual efforts). > Regards and best wishes, Nigel Best wishes, Tim From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Nov 13 18:23:12 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun Nov 13 18:27:15 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: References: <008501c5e817$1a444220$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <38ten1tggelr0obtm926bcbbrhn0lm5l8d@4ax.com> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim West-Meads wrote: > >I doubt very much it is "OK" with the EBU L&EC. It certainly isn't an >"official change". It is the way the words have always been and >personally I consider it highly likely that the EBUL&EC *intended* the >regulation to be as Grattan erroneously maintains they are. (see my reply >to him if you want to check the basic linguistic differences between their >presumed intent and their actual efforts). > Well, Grattan has stated his opinion that the L&EC has a proper level of expertise as far as writing the Orange Book is concerned, and also that the statements are carefully considered by all concerned, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to apply them *exactly* as written. Personally, I still think the whole lot should be run past a competent technical author, I suspect the end product would be an Orange book that was far more understandable, and therefore more useful, to the membership as a whole. It would certainly clear up (perceived) ambiguities like this 'rule of 19' business. Brian. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 13 18:24:52 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Nov 13 18:30:00 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj><43746D39.9050600@hdw.be><006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj><4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be><000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj><4375405A.4070904@t-online.de> <000101c5e7f8$72078bd0$afea403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c5e877$6ebd0200$0b0be150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > I believe that the objective of the Laws is and > ought to be justice. < +=+ That leaves hanging the question of what is justice. In my opinion you are saying that the chief objective is punishment, a view that I find much more prevalent in your zone than in mine. It is indeed what caused North American drafters to want 12C2 in 1984/7 and what caused the EBL to insist on the right not to apply 12C2 as a prior condition of acquiescing in its presence in the 1987 law book. There is a long history of this dichotomy between the EBL and ACBL approaches, each of which is defensible, causing me to believe that the method of making assigned score adjustments ought to be a matter controlled by regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 13 19:00:24 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Nov 13 19:19:17 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: Message-ID: <000001c5e87e$51658c20$d9ac403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] TD advantage > > I doubt very much it is "OK" with the EBU L&EC. > It certainly isn't an "official change". It is the way > the words have always been and personally I > consider it highly likely that the EBUL&EC > *intended* the regulation to be as Grattan > erroneously maintains they are. (see my reply > to him if you want to check the basic linguistic > differences between their presumed intent and > their actual efforts). > +=+ I apologise if my shorthand confused you. "You agree" was a brevity for "you may....etc...by agreement", where the 'you' is unmistakably plural. In turn I find your reference to Rulo of 17/18 equally confusing; I would say that a Rule of 17 hand is weaker than a Rule of 19 hand. Please explain your alternative opinion. Perhaps the only other thing to add is that the decision what constitutes an agreement and what is merely an exercise of judgement about a matter not the subject of agreement remains under the control of the EBU. ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 13 19:21:42 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Nov 13 19:27:02 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <"016601c5e64f$093377e0$29946 8d5"@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be> <006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> <4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be> <000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> <4375405A.4070904@t-online.de> <000101c5e7f8$72078bd0$afea403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002c01c5e87f$19cd4220$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Grattan wrote: > >As I understand the law book the Laws are primarily designed "not as > >punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". > >Equity has long been the chief objective of the laws of the game. > > I believe that the objective of the Laws is and ought to be justice. > I do not find any conflict between my view and the preface to the > Laws. As I understand the preface it means that, with certain > exceptions (e.g. revokes), the Laws provide for score adjustments > after irregularities only when damage results. For instance, if I > misinform the opponents but they reach their best spot anyway then my > side is not subject to penalty. > It has always seemed obvious to me that, perhaps not well stated, the quoted statement from the Scope of the Laws is merely meant to tell players that they should not take umbrage when a TD rules against them. Don't think of it as a penalty, it says, the aim is to protect the other side, not to punish you. It does not mean that an irregularity should be redressed only to the extent perceived as "equitable" by some all-knowing TD or AC. We players want simple clear-cut laws like those relating to a revoke. We don't want the revoke penalty changed to take away the exact number of tricks won by the revoker's side that is attributable to the revoke. That's way too complicated, often impossible to adjudicate, and does not serve as a deterrent to revoking. The same principle should apply throughout the Laws, including giving much benefit of doubt to the NOS and little benefit of doubt to the OS, as L12C2 and other Laws provide. Most equity enthusiasts decry the windfalls that sometimes accrue to the non-offending side. Windfalls add spice to the game, they are not something bad. Irregularities by opponents are in the same class as blunders, and in fact are blunders. Show them no mercy. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Nov 13 21:35:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Nov 13 21:39:59 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <000001c5e87e$51658c20$d9ac403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > +=+ I apologise if my shorthand confused you. "You > agree" was a brevity for "you may....etc...by agreement", > where the 'you' is unmistakably plural. Shorthand you may have intended, but that was not the effect. The difference between what you assert and what is written is that the active verb is actually "open". > In turn I find your reference to Rulo of 17/18 equally > confusing; I would say that a Rule of 17 hand is weaker > than a Rule of 19 hand. Please explain your alternative > opinion. My opinion, and I do not expect any disagreement is that KT9872,KT982,x,x is a "stronger" hand than 5432,KQ,QJ,Q5432 (while 5432,KQ,QT,J5432 is clearly "weaker"). Obviously a minimum "Rule of 19" hand is the benchmark against which the actual opening hand should be assessed. I don't suppose anybody out there will actually claim the above Ro19 hand is stronger than (or even equal to) my Ro17 hand but if anybody does I am prepared to risk a little experiment. 100 deals, Chicago scoring, £5/100. In each case I will take the R017 hand above (KT9872,KT982,x,x) and the contender the Ro19 hand (KQ,QJ,5432,Q5432). Remaining cards to be dealt randomly to the 3 other players, bid and play normally (albeit somewhat double dummy unless one has a lot of spare players available). And, TBH, I consider "my" hand *so* much stronger than the one you will be holding that I don't care if you get Meckstroth or Rodwell to play on your behalf. I would not dispute the assertion that Ro17 hands are, on average, weaker than Ro19 hands. Tim From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Sun Nov 13 21:38:08 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun Nov 13 21:41:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Transfer non alerted Message-ID: Hi all, I am sure this is clear for most of you, but ther is two opinions aroud here. Auction: 2NT - P - 3H - P 3NT - P - 4S all P 3H is a transfer to S, alertable, but the opener did not. Responder bid 4S with only 5 cards and 5 HCP (5-2-3-3). Opinion A: The non-alert is UI to the responder. 4S may have been suggested by the non-alert. TD will allow an adjusted score if 4S is better than 3NT (Law 16C2). Using opinion A, responder should P. Opinion B: The non-alert has no real effect on responder's second call (4S). Just using calls (AI), he may Pass on 3NT or bid 4S at his own risk (not knowing how many Spades opener has). TD will use Law 16, but let the score stands most of the time. Do you have the same approach if responder has 6 Spades? Any difference on this auction: 2NT - P - 3H -P 4H - P - ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Nov 13 22:29:08 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun Nov 13 22:33:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Transfer non alerted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051113160759.03a9f4c8@mail.comcast.net> At 03:38 PM 11/13/2005, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi all, > >I am sure this is clear for most of you, but ther is >two opinions aroud here. > >Auction: 2NT - P - 3H - P > 3NT - P - 4S all P > >3H is a transfer to S, alertable, but the opener did not. >Responder bid 4S with only 5 cards and 5 HCP (5-2-3-3). > >Opinion A: The non-alert is UI to the responder. 4S may > have been suggested by the non-alert. TD will > allow an adjusted score if 4S is better than 3NT > (Law 16C2). Using opinion A, responder should P. > >Opinion B: The non-alert has no real effect on responder's > second call (4S). Just using calls (AI), he may > Pass on 3NT or bid 4S at his own risk (not > knowing how many Spades opener has). TD will use > Law 16, but let the score stands most of the time. The failure to alert is UI, but the 3NT bid is AI. If 3NT is an impossible call, then the UI gives no new information, and responder can do whatever he wishes. If 3NT is a possible call, then the UI gives responder information, and he may not bid 4S when pass is a LA. So, is 3NT a possible call here? I have never seen the call, but I could see a possible meaning: a good spade fit with everything well stopped and 4-3-3-3 distribution, expecting to run the spades and lose the same number of tricks in any contract. If you accept this as a possibility, then pass is a LA. (What would opener hold? Axxx KQJ KQJ KQJ looks like a possibility.) If there is an agreement on 3NT as a super-accept, then the UI depends on what it shows. If 3NT shows a 4-3-3-3 super-accept, for example, then pass is not a LA because opener never had any intention of playing there, just of helping responder make a slam decision. >Do you have the same approach if responder has 6 Spades? This depends on the exact hand. Again, if 3NT is an attempt to play there, and responder could expect 3NT and 4S to make the same number of tricks (actually more likely if he holds six spades), then passing 3NT is a LA. >Any difference on this auction: 2NT - P - 3H -P > 4H - P - ? Here, 4S should be allowed. Alerted or not, responder should take 4H as a super-accept of the transfer, showing something about hearts; without any special agreement, it shows heart values. Passing by responder is not a LA unless he has four hearts and expects opener to have four for the super-accept. If responder has a balanced 5-count, 4S is his only LA. And the UI may make 4S less attractive; opener, who doesn't know about the misunderstanding, should take 4S as a slam try in hearts. Whatever opener does over the 4S call will alert responder to the misunderstanding, but unless opener's next call is 4NT (which responder can pass), the resulting contract is likely to be worse than 4H. From nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk Mon Nov 14 00:06:28 2005 From: nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) Date: Mon Nov 14 00:08:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Transfer non alerted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1ungftg5kcnvh.7ug2e7z01rc5.dlg@40tude.net> Laval Dubreuil skrev: > I am sure this is clear for most of you, but ther is > two opinions aroud here. > Auction: 2NT - P - 3H - P > 3NT - P - 4S all P > 3H is a transfer to S, alertable, but the opener did not. > Responder bid 4S with only 5 cards and 5 HCP (5-2-3-3). > Opinion A: The non-alert is UI to the responder. 4S may > have been suggested by the non-alert. TD will > allow an adjusted score if 4S is better than 3NT > (Law 16C2). Using opinion A, responder should P. > Opinion B: The non-alert has no real effect on responder's > second call (4S). Just using calls (AI), he may > Pass on 3NT or bid 4S at his own risk (not > knowing how many Spades opener has). TD will use > Law 16, but let the score stands most of the time. David J. Grabiner wrote a good answer. I will just add that 3 NT here is not part of my agreements with my partner. Therefore I still do not get any new information about his hand from the 3NT-bid. I only know that he has 2 spades, and bidding 4S when I only have 5 is risky. I go with option B. In fact 3 NT would be such an error that the bid tells me that he has forgotten our system. He has other ways in the normal system to explain about his hand later. > Do you have the same approach if responder has 6 Spades? 4S is then not risky, more like automatic. -- Bertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ http://fiduso.dk/ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 14 01:30:18 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Nov 14 01:37:46 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. Message-ID: <006c01c5e8b2$972c1b00$1f9468d5@jeushtlj> [Marven French] > Most equity enthusiasts decry the windfalls that > sometimes accrue to the non-offending side. > Windfalls add spice to the game, they are > not something bad. Irregularities by opponents > are in the same class as blunders, and in fact > are blunders. Show them no mercy. [nige1] Excellent argument IMO; although, often, under equity law, infractions aren't "blunders". There are many laws that are easy and profitable to break but hard to detect. Under equity law ... [A] The law breaker gains when such infractions go unrecognised or unreported -- or the director decides in favour of the offender. Usually, the victim keeps all his losses and the offender all his profits. [B] When the law-breaker is unlucky enough to be reported and the director rules against him, an equity ruling just restores the status quo; although sometimes there may be a few crumbs of "benefit of the doubt" to the victim. Bridge players are not saints. Equity laws put enormous pressure on them to rationalise law-breaking. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Nov 14 11:39:13 2005 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon Nov 14 11:43:33 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <000101c5e7f8$72078bd0$afea403e@Mildred> References: <016601c5e64f$093377e0$299468d5@jeushtlj> <43746D39.9050600@hdw.be><006401c5e6c5$03492c00$109468d5@jeushtlj> <4374FD74.5040801@hdw.be><000f01c5e715$0ddc5480$129868d5@jeushtlj> <4375405A.4070904@t-online.de> <000101c5e7f8$72078bd0$afea403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <43786951.7020309@t-online.de> Grattan wrote: > >> Someone wrote: >> >>> I hope that Herman is right but I fear that the >>> trend towards "equity" is making things worse. >>> >>> >> And Matthias replied: >> So a trend towards inequity is making things better? I do not believe >> this. >> > +=+ I am puzzled by this talk of trends. As I > understand the law book the Laws are primarily > designed "not as punishment for irregularities, but > rather as redress for damage". Equity has long been the chief > objective of the laws of the game. > ~ G ~ +=+ > There we go again... Expressing one`s thoughts in a foreign language remains a difficult thing to do, even with some practice. I do not believe in any trend either. What I wanted to express (but failed to do, obviously) was that holding on to L12C2 as a "ultima ratio" is not the way to go. The "problem" I see with 12C3 is not in acceptance by the players, not in someone getting off "too cheaply", but in TDs with little experience and knowledge, TDs on the club level making a mess of things. I could easily be dead wrong, but I have taught quite a number of courses for TDs on all national levels. Some people on the club level will be in over their heads for sure. On the other hand those TDs don`t get 12C2 right either..... This may actually work to our advantage. The number of people actually showing up at those courses may increase, helping us in the long run. There is no doubt in my mind that cumpetent players _want_ us to give 12C3 rulings. Lots of players have asked me why we don`t apply 12C3, the answer being that our regulations didn`t allow us to. This started to change this year. Best regards Matthias From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 14 13:46:23 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Nov 14 13:53:55 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <000001c5e87e$51658c20$d9ac403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003f01c5e919$6c3e3ec0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > In point of fact I did not mention this > minute; that was Tim's referral. EBU > Directors have the White Book and all the > past minutes, plus regular seminars, to > inform them. It does not take genius to > understand the statement that "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 you do not play any > conventional calls thereafter". [nige1] The unfortunate fact is that in spite of all these minutes and seminars, some directors, as well as many ordinary players act according to a different interpretation. I agree with the meaning understood by Grattan Endicott, David Burn, Gordon Rainsford and the few other players who have read the Orange Book. This is a practical matter. In the past, it has decided matches in favour of the former group. In the future, it may continue to do so, until the position is clarified, officially. {Grattan in a subsequent posting] > Perhaps the only other thing to add is that > the decision what constitutes an agreement > and what is merely an exercise of judgement > about a matter not the subject of > agreement remains under the control of > the EBU. [nige1] Grattan pinpoints one of the problems. Just when does "an exercise an judgement" become "an agreement". If the criteria are not blatantly obvious but instead are secretly defined in obscure EBU whitebooks, minutes and intimate director "seminars", then those in the know will continue to benefit from unfair advantages over ordinary players. Please note: Like many players, I would prefer that there were no Orange Book. I abhor regulations that restrict agreements except at the lowest level. OK, perhaps there should be an intermediate level that prohibits poison gas like random overcalls (for example "undiscussed" Truscott and Ghosted) But if we must have restrictions then they should be [A] Clear, simple, and as objective as possible. Currently, the ruling you would get depends on the director you call. Presumably, if the director chooses the wrong group with which to "consult", then you will *never* get a ruling :) [B] Widely publicised and enforced - or failing that - complied with by director-players - or at least - complied with by the editor of the regulations. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 14 15:34:03 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Nov 14 15:38:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Transfer non alerted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051114092309.031c2640@pop.starpower.net> At 03:38 PM 11/13/05, Laval wrote: >I am sure this is clear for most of you, but ther is >two opinions aroud here. > >Auction: 2NT - P - 3H - P > 3NT - P - 4S all P > >3H is a transfer to S, alertable, but the opener did not. >Responder bid 4S with only 5 cards and 5 HCP (5-2-3-3). > >Opinion A: The non-alert is UI to the responder. 4S may > have been suggested by the non-alert. TD will > allow an adjusted score if 4S is better than 3NT > (Law 16C2). Using opinion A, responder should P. > >Opinion B: The non-alert has no real effect on responder's > second call (4S). Just using calls (AI), he may > Pass on 3NT or bid 4S at his own risk (not > knowing how many Spades opener has). TD will use > Law 16, but let the score stands most of the time. > >Do you have the same approach if responder has 6 Spades? > >Any difference on this auction: 2NT - P - 3H -P > 4H - P - ? Both obvious bridge logic and universal practice where I play dictates that *any* rebid over 3H other than 3S guarantees better-than-average spade support, so there's no problem with responder's bidding 4S on either auction. The logic is: Opener is limited; 3H is not a game force, 3S may be the intended contract; opener's bypassing 3S creates a game force; therefore opener's hand must have been significantly improved by responder's 3H bid; therefore opener must have a good fit for spades. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 14 15:44:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Nov 14 15:48:35 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <006c01c5e8b2$972c1b00$1f9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: While I feel that some TDs overuse L12c3 I am firmly of the opinion that it has its place. Suppose an infraction keeps NOS from bidding 4S. We consider this will make 10 tricks 75% of the time and 11 tricks the remaining 25%. Using L12c2 we arrive at +420/-450. To my mind NOS have been somewhat deprived. I would certainly adjust for NOS to 30% of 450 + 70% of 420 under 12c3. As it happens I would also (normally) adjust the same way for OS. They have scored sufficiently less well than they likely would have done absent the infraction to provide a disincentive. The exception would be if I consider the infraction deliberate/negligent where I would still award 100% of -450 to OS (and perhaps issue a PP in severe abuse cases). I would wish that TD/AC guidance included "Do not use L12c3 when L12c2 gives a clear and balancing result." (It shouldn't need to be said but apparently it does!). I believe this would assuage many of the doubts people have around L12c3 (and guys, if the TD/AC are incompetent it really doesn't matter what the laws say!). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 14 15:44:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Nov 14 15:48:36 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <003f01c5e919$6c3e3ec0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > The unfortunate fact is that in spite of all these > minutes and seminars, some directors, as well as > many ordinary players act according to a different > interpretation. I agree with the meaning > understood by Grattan Endicott, David Burn, Gordon > Rainsford and the few other players who have read > the Orange Book. Make that "misread". This is a very simple English language issue. Once the authors use a word like "weaker" or "stronger" they acknowledge that the "Rule of" is not an exact form of measurement. The authors *could* have written "..does not comply with..". They did NOT. A TD (or player) does not have to attend any special seminars to reach the correct interpretation (despite the fact that the EBU have been singularly unhelpful in clarifying the matter). Note that it will be necessary for the EBU to change the words of the regulation before any TD may legally apply a "no judgement" ruling. > This is a practical matter. In the past, it has > decided matches in favour of the former group. In > the future, it may continue to do so, until the > position is clarified, officially. > [nige1] > Grattan pinpoints one of the problems. Just when > does "an exercise an judgement" become "an > agreement". This one is easy. Any partnership with any significant degree of experience will be deemed to have an implicit agreement as to what constitutes a minimum opening (unless they have an explicit disagreement - which I would expect to be listed on the CC). > If the criteria are not blatantly > obvious but instead are secretly defined in > obscure EBU whitebooks, minutes and intimate > director "seminars", then those in the know will > continue to benefit from unfair advantages over > ordinary players. Ordinary players are not excluded from reading these materials, nor from attending EBU TD training courses. It takes a significant effort, I grant you, but there is nothing "unfair" about those who *make* the effort having an advantage over those who do not. A player who works through "Shortcut to Winning Bridge" will have an advantage over one who doesn't. By all means blame the EBU for poor writing/dissemination - but don't accuse *me* of having an "unfair advantage" just because I have worked at understanding the laws/regs. > Please note: Like many players, I would prefer > that there were no Orange Book. I abhor > regulations that restrict agreements except at the > lowest level. OK, perhaps there should be an > intermediate level that prohibits poison gas like > random overcalls (for example "undiscussed" > Truscott and Ghosted) > > But if we must have restrictions then they should > be > > [A] Clear, simple, and as objective as possible. That would be nice, but must be subordinate to a requirement that the regulations be defensible, logical and supportive of good bridge - and any regulation which restricts bidding based solely on hcp/Rule of can *never* be that. > [B] Widely publicised I have no criticism of the EBU here. The OB is readily available both as hard copy and (updated regularly) on the web. The content may be garbage in parts but there seems little one could do differently. For example the "minute" I referred to is currently "awaiting approval" (along with a raft of other OB changes). While it is not yet "in force" it does provide insight into what the current regulation means. It is not the publicity process which is at issue here but the inordinate length of time the EBU has taken in making a decision. > and enforced There are problems at club level (mostly related to amateur TD competence) but the OB regs are enforced at major tournaments. > - or failing that - complied with by director-players - As far as I am aware TD-players *do* comply with the regulations as written (at least as far as their competence allows - personally I still struggle to use the stop card correctly). > or at least - complied with by the editor of the > regulations. As far as I am aware the editor does comply with the regulations as written. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 14 16:44:34 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Nov 14 17:22:08 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: Message-ID: <006a01c5e936$82dc2b20$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > That would be nice, but must be subordinate > to a requirement that the regulations be > defensible, logical and supportive of good > bridge - and any regulation which restricts > bidding based solely on hcp/Rule of can > *never* be that. [nigel] Grattan Endicott and David Stevenson have known of this issue for at least three years (there are over 500 postings on the subject here and in rgb) but still the laws and ethics committee refuse to pronounce on which interpretation is official. IMO the regulation as written is based simply on HCP (A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1) and suit lengths with no scope for "judgement". Try as I may, I cannot derive the interpretation that justifies what you, John Probst and David Stevenson say you do. I think that David Stevenson is on record as agreeing that opening 1S on (say) ATxxxx QTxxx x x is "just Bridge" and should always be allowed as an exercise in "general bridge knowledge" You and John are equally up-front and consistent; Here and on rgb, you have publicised and justified your agreements to open 1 of a suit on a wide variety of rule of 17 and 18 hands in level three events. As far as I know, none of you has ever been ruled against for flouting this regulation. This is evidence that you are right (: or have friends in high places :) but I will still have doubts until we get an official clarification. If you are right, the rule may as well be scrapped. If the hand evaluation criteria for the rule cannot be expressed objectively, then compliance makes impossible "judgement" demands on the average player. From toddz at att.net Mon Nov 14 17:33:58 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Nov 14 17:38:06 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4378BC76.9000101@att.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Make that "misread". This is a very simple English language issue. > Once the authors use a word like "weaker" or "stronger" they acknowledge > that the "Rule of" is not an exact form of measurement. I'm not convinced this is true. Sulfuric acid is stronger than citric acid. The pH scale is exact. You seem to believe that because players use more than one metric for hand evaluation that the regulations must too. In this particular case, the regulation uses two and you only need to satisfy one. Lucky for all concerned the regulation appears to have little respect amongst players and TDs. By accounts on blml, the enforcement is lax. -Todd From Frances.Hinden at Shell.com Mon Nov 14 19:02:15 2005 From: Frances.Hinden at Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-SXP) Date: Mon Nov 14 19:06:34 2005 Subject: [blml] TD Advantage Message-ID: <2E75A1B8A2078F48A13245536664E3D20166A65E@rijpat-s-351.europe.shell.com> Nigel, I agree that the regulation is unclear and should be clarified one way or the other. However, you totally lose any sympathy you may have started with by saying things such as "My team interpreted the Orange book restriction literally. As a result we lost matches." "Before before we get knocked out of too many events" "In the past, it has decided matches" I have lost a (very) large number of number of bridge matches, and in every single one of them this has been due, in varying proportions, to playing worse than than the other team and bad luck. Frances Hinden Strategic Planning Shell International BV PO Box 162, 2501 AN The Hague, The Netherlands Tel: +31 (0) 70 377 3004 Mobile: +31 (0) 652 586675 Email: Frances.Hinden@ shell.com Internet: http://www.shell.com/ This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information which should not be used, copied or disclosed without permission. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 14 23:15:10 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Nov 14 23:20:36 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: Message-ID: <004e01c5e968$e21c4020$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > I would wish that TD/AC guidance included "Do not use L12c3 when L12c2 > gives a clear and balancing result." (It shouldn't need to be said but > apparently it does!). I believe this would assuage many of the doubts > people have around L12c3 (and guys, if the TD/AC are incompetent it really > doesn't matter what the laws say!). > What's wrong with L12C2's leading to an unbalanced result? The criteria for adjusting the score for the OS and NOS are different and may yield an unbalanced result. We don't need L12C3 for that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 15 01:54:29 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Nov 15 01:58:46 2005 Subject: Fwd: [blml] Transfer non alerted References: Message-ID: Oops, meant to send this to the list. Sorry, David. Begin forwarded message: > From: Ed Reppert > Date: November 14, 2005 7:53:43 PM EST > To: David J. Grabiner > Subject: Re: [blml] Transfer non alerted > > > On Nov 13, 2005, at 4:29 PM, David J. Grabiner wrote: > > >> If 3NT is a possible call, then the UI gives responder information, >> and he may not bid 4S when pass is a LA. >> > > No. He may not bid 4S when pass is an LA *and* the UI suggests > bidding 4S. > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 15 02:20:05 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Nov 15 02:27:39 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <200511141548.jAEFmYIa022949@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <001f01c5e982$b6587d40$129868d5@jeushtlj> [Ron Johnson] > No it hasn't. Despite the frequency of > your repeating this. There may have been > close matches won (and lost) where > the winning (or losing) side opened very > light in third hand, but opening light > wasn't what decided the match. (Or > even what generated the swing on the > decisive board) [Nige1] We lost several matches by 1-3 imps. In each match there were many boards where a different decision would have decided the match in our favour. In particular, each match featured a board, where we lost 4 or more imps when an opponent opened a rule of 17 or 18 hand and we didn't. IMO, if we had opened light, too, we would have flattened or won those boards, and hence the matches. To what does Ron attribute our losses? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 15 03:01:48 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Nov 15 03:09:22 2005 Subject: [blml] TD Advantage References: <2E75A1B8A2078F48A13245536664E3D20166A65E@rijpat-s-351.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <002901c5e988$8a16c7e0$129868d5@jeushtlj> [Frances Hinden] > Nigel, I agree that the regulation is > unclear and should be clarified one way or > the other. However, you totally lose any > sympathy you may have started with by > saying things such as > "My team interpreted the Orange book > restriction literally. As a result we lost > matches." "Before we get knocked out > of too many events" "In the past, it has > decided matches" [Frances] > I have lost a (very) large number of number > of bridge matches, and in every single one > of them this has been due, in varying > proportions, to playing worse than the > other team and bad luck. [Nigel] I tell the truth as I see it. In any close match that we lost, there are boards which account for more than the losing margin and on which we could have won the match with a different decision. We call each such board "decisive" because it alone is sufficient to decide the match. In some matches a decisive board resulted from our literal interpretation of the Orange Book, which prevented us from opening a rule of 17 or 18 hand that an opponent achieved a good result by opening - for example reaching a good sacrifice. Of course, I know that Francis doesn't class following your conception of the rules as "playing badly". (Although admittedly it can have the same effect). I don't expect sympathy but I would be grateful for further explanation. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 15 06:22:25 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Nov 15 07:18:34 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <004e01c5e968$e21c4020$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c5e9ab$f6687f10$7ece403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > >> I would wish that TD/AC guidance included "Do not use > L12c3 when L12c2 gives a clear and balancing result." (It > shouldn't need to be said but apparently it does!). I believe > this would assuage many of the doubts people have around > L12c3 (and guys, if the TD/AC are incompetent it really >> doesn't matter what the laws say!). >> Marvin: < > What's wrong with L12C2's leading to an unbalanced result? > The criteria for adjusting the score for the OS and NOS are > different and may yield an unbalanced result. We don't need > L12C3 for that. > +=+ Illustrating the dichotomy between my Zone and Marvin's in our respective approaches to score adjustment. Since it is certain we will not give up our general use of 12C3 and likely, I assume, that the ACBL will not cease to use 12C2, my view is that the method of score adjustment should be a matter for regulation in these regards. I am also in support of ton kooijman's proposal that when the 12C3 possibilities are numerous or overly complicated recourse to an artificial adjusted score should be allowed. Since it is now the case that in WBF tournaments the Directors no longer give thought to "the most favourable result that was likely" or "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable", but move at once to apply 12C3, as (with the acquiescence of the WBFLC) the Code of Practice allows), there are grounds for hope that the 2006/7 code of laws will extend the use of 12C3 to the Director and transfer to regulation the approach to assigned score adjustment. Every regulating authority could then follow its own inclination in the matter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 15 07:12:48 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Nov 15 07:18:36 2005 Subject: [blml] TD Advantage References: <2E75A1B8A2078F48A13245536664E3D20166A65E@rijpat-s-351.europe.shell.com> <002901c5e988$8a16c7e0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000201c5e9ab$f92a3720$7ece403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] TD Advantage > [Frances Hinden] > >> Nigel, I agree that the regulation is >> unclear and should be clarified one way or >> the other. However, you totally lose any >> sympathy you may have started with by >> saying things such as > >> "My team interpreted the Orange book >> restriction literally. As a result we lost >> matches." "Before we get knocked out >> of too many events" "In the past, it has >> decided matches" > > [Frances] >> I have lost a (very) large number of number >> of bridge matches, and in every single one >> of them this has been due, in varying >> proportions, to playing worse than the >> other team and bad luck. > > [Nigel] > I tell the truth as I see it. > > In any close match that we lost, there are boards > which account for more than the losing margin and > on which we could have won the match with a > different decision. > > We call each such board "decisive" because it > alone is sufficient to decide the match. > > In some matches a decisive board resulted from our > literal interpretation of the Orange Book, which > prevented us from opening a rule of 17 or 18 hand > that an opponent achieved a good result by > opening - for example reaching a good sacrifice. > > Of course, I know that Francis doesn't class > following your conception of the rules as "playing > badly". (Although admittedly it can have the same > effect). I don't expect sympathy but I would be > grateful for further explanation. > +=+ I find it difficult to believe that Nigel does not know how this regulation is applied. It seems to me that he chooses to cocoon himself in a regulatory world of his own making. I am uncertain whether he has tested the question by seeking a ruling in one or more cases where he doubts an opponent's action - and appealing it if he was dissatisfied with the answer. ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Sun Nov 13 22:29:50 2005 From: john at asimere.com (john@asimere.com) Date: Tue Nov 15 09:21:42 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200511132129.jADLTosO013080@mozart.asimere.com> RCPT TO: DATA DATA Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:28:08 +0000 To: blml@rtflb.org From: John Probst Subject: Re: [blml] TD advantage References: <008501c5e817$1a444220$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.05-S () In message , Tim West-Meads writes >> Tim, Grattan, I am even more confused. I intend to >> seek urgent clarification on this matter from the >> EBU before we get knocked out of too many events, >> this season. I will wait a couple of days before I >> send my email to Nick so that, if I've >> inadvertently misrepresented either of you, you >> can correct my misapprehensions. >> +++++++++++++ >> >> Dear Nick Doe, >> >> Tim West Meads and Grattan Endicott tell me that >> the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee have recently >> made decisions about matters like that below. >> >> [A] In regular partnerships, in level three >> events, after two passes, John Probst, Tim >> West-Meads David Stevenson and others say that >> they habitually open one of a suit on certain rule >> of 17 or 18 hands. For example, >> >> AJTxx KTxxx xx x Tim and I have very slightly different requirements for 3rd seat openers, we had a long discussion as to the minimum 1S opener, 3rd in, nv. I favoured AJ9x xx xxx Axxx and he favoured AJTx xx xxx Axxx (and the exact number of cards and honour location in each suit is relevant). We both consider these hands are clear Ro18 hands, as we can upgrade the two Aces and useful honour cards. We will pass any response from partner of course. The ebu TD's are somewhat split on this when I polled them, the more senior ones generally accepting it. We don't play Ro19 events fwiw, but both would make the bid playing 5 pound a hundred rubber bridge. fwiw I'd open your hand 2S at any form of scoring (and take another bid in some cases), but 1S is acceptable in 1st and 4th. > >The above would be a 2S opener in 3rd seat for me (can't speak for John). >Make the hand AJT9x,KT97x,xx,x (a stronger hand I hope all would agree) >and I would open 1S in any seat (except third perhaps where 2S is still >more likely than 1S). Make the hand AJT52,KT964,xx,x and I might >sometimes open 1S in 1st/2nd but would not always do so. A better example >of a 3rd seat only opening might be xx,AKQT,JT9x,xxx where the lead- >directing properties of 1H would cause me to open a hand I wouldn't >consider opening 1H in any other seat (playing a 10.5-13 NT in 1st/2nd I >might well open it 1N). -- 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 14 14:19:15 2005 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue Nov 15 09:21:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Message-ID: I was quite sure I had a firm and correct understanding of the claim laws, but a recent case gave me a couple of surprising views. I'm not sure why my fellow TDs disagree with me, ad therefore I present the case to BLML. In a knock out match this occured: AKJxx AQxx Kxx K xx 98x xxxx xx Jxx Qxxx Axxx QJTx QTx KJx Axx xxxx Contract: 6S by North. Lead: CQ to the ace. North now claimed the rest of the tricks, saying he would discard a diamond in dummy on the fourth heart and ruff a diamond. This, of cource, would only succed if after drawing two rounds of trump the hand with long trumps held four hearts. Thus, if the opponents protested the claim, the contract would fail. As it happened, the opponents was just as asleep as declarer, and acquiesced to the claim. After the match the board was discussed, and the discovered that the claim was false. But that the contract could have been made playing on reverse dummy. But they still didn't protest against the claim within the correction period, which for this tournament is prolonged to 24 hours after finishing the match. (Matches are played privately, frequently with no TD present.) The board decided the match. The losing team contacted our federation two days after the correction period ended. Supposing the opponents protested against the claim within the 24 hour correction period, how would you rule? -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051114/e1a4b97f/attachment.htm From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Nov 15 09:55:52 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Nov 15 09:57:41 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <004e01c5e968$e21c4020$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004e01c5e968$e21c4020$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <4379A298.4020107@hdw.be> I had a chance to use L12C3 yesterday evening in a very simple club game. The story was as follows: 1Cl pass 2NT all pass 2NT is explained as "natural 10-11", but in fact sha had the inverted minor meaning of "0-7, 5 clubs". The man behind the 2NT had 16HCP, and we all agreed that he would not pass with the "correct" explanation. But would they reach 4Sp though? In the end, we decided on 50% 4S+1 + 50% 3Sp+2. Everyone found this to be an equitable result. To the ACBL members who think that we should give -450, I say this: Yes, NS made a mistake, and yes, EW should not be punished for this. But in truth, the mistake is no more than forgetting to clearly set their system. The score they did get turned into -3IMPs, so there is no incentive to keep forgetting their system. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Nov 15 10:04:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Nov 15 10:06:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4379A4B7.4080103@hdw.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > I was quite sure I had a firm and correct understanding of the claim > laws, but a recent case gave me a couple of surprising views. I'm not > sure why my fellow TDs disagree with me, ad therefore I present the case > to BLML. > > In a knock out match this occured: > > AKJxx > AQxx > Kxx > K > xx 98x > xxxx xx > Jxx Qxxx > Axxx QJTx > QTx > KJx > Axx > xxxx > > Contract: 6S by North. > Lead: CQ to the ace. > North now claimed the rest of the tricks, saying he would discard a > diamond in dummy on the fourth heart and ruff a diamond. > This, of cource, would only succed if after drawing two rounds of trump > the hand with long trumps held four hearts. > Thus, if the opponents protested the claim, the contract would fail. > As it happened, the opponents was just as asleep as declarer, and > acquiesced to the claim. > > After the match the board was discussed, and the discovered that the > claim was false. > But that the contract could have been made playing on reverse dummy. > But they still didn't protest against the claim within the correction > period, which for this tournament is prolonged to 24 hours after > finishing the match. > (Matches are played privately, frequently with no TD present.) > > The board decided the match. > The losing team contacted our federation two days after the correction > period ended. > > Supposing the opponents protested against the claim within the 24 hour > correction period, how would you rule? > If I understand the claim laws correctly, the acquiescence will be withdrawn if all normal lines fail. The problem here is that apparently all normal lines "within the claim statement" do fail, but that there are normal lines "not included in the claim statement" that succeed (I conclude this from Harald's statements, I have not yet discovered nor even looked for this winning line). I believe that in this case the acquiescence must stand and the result stays at contract made. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Nov 15 11:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Nov 15 11:08:41 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <006a01c5e936$82dc2b20$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > Try as I may, I cannot derive the interpretation > that justifies what you, John Probst and David > Stevenson say you do. Try harder. "..weaker than.." is a construction with allows for an evaluated comparison as in "is hand A weaker than hand B?". The EBU did not choose to use the construction "..does not comply with...". As A TD I am duty bound, when ruling, to accept the words they *used* regardless of what may have been their intent. Strict LTC adherents regard all 8 loser hands as being weaker than all 7.5 loser hands for example (broadly Ro19 equates to about 7.5 losers I think). I regard the hands on which I open (non-psychically) at the one level as being stronger than most Ro19 hands (and certainly much stronger than the weaker Ro19 ones). I'm prepared to back that judgement for a considerable sum of money but nevertheless I accept that a TD/AC *might* rule that a given opener is "weaker" than a "weak Ro19" (they won't if they are decent players) and certainly I don't dispute their *legal right* to rule a hand to be "weaker". However, I am never going to fight on the issue of having/not having an implicit agreement - all my partners *know* what sort of hands I open and none of them object. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Nov 15 11:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Nov 15 11:08:43 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <4378BC76.9000101@att.net> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Make that "misread". This is a very simple English language issue. > > Once the authors use a word like "weaker" or "stronger" they > > acknowledge that the "Rule of" is not an exact form of measurement. > > I'm not convinced this is true. Sulfuric acid is stronger > than citric acid. The pH scale is exact. The pH scale may be, but is not the strength (corrosiveness) of any quantity of acid a function of concentration as well as raw oxidising power? Does not the temperature of the acid affect the reactivity? The phrase "Do not use any acid stronger than sulphuric" is without real meaning. But we digress, I can ask "Which is the stronger hand, KJT98x,KT9xx,x,x or QJ,KQ,5432,Q5432 and the question has meaning. I can ask "Which hand complies with the Ro19?", again the question has meaning. It is the context in which the author uses "weaker than" rather than "compliant with" (or similar) which requires us to apply judgement - and so I ask "Is the first hand stronger or weaker than the example Ro19 hand?". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Nov 15 11:04:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Nov 15 11:08:45 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <004e01c5e968$e21c4020$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > > I would wish that TD/AC guidance included "Do not use L12c3 when > L12c2 gives a clear and balancing result." (It shouldn't need to be > said but apparently it does!). > What's wrong with L12C2's leading to an unbalanced result? Because for this to happen we are saying that NOS had 17-32% chance of a better result (that given to OS) than the NOS received after the adjustment. L12c3 allows us to award NOS a percentage of that score rather than deprive them of it entirely. To my mind this restores the "equity" of NOS in a way which L12c2 does not. NB I should have written "adjustment" rather than "result" last time. I'm happy for L12c3 to be used if the ruling is "result stands" and yet we believe there was a 10% chance of NOS having received a better score than had there been no infraction (for example an MI case where the chance of a more effective defence being found is only 10%). > The criteria for adjusting the score for the OS and NOS are different > and may yield an unbalanced result. We don't need L12C3 for that. Nor are we required to give balancing adjustments under L12c3. I consider it "fair" to give a more lenient adjustment to novices who have made simple MI mistakes than experts doing the same. I consider it "fair" to give a more lenient adjustment in a UI case where everybody I consult says "It's really close whether pass is an LA" than one where the consultees say "Pass is an obvious LA and a decent player would know that." Tim From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Nov 15 11:15:07 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Nov 15 11:19:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589AA07@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:05 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > > I was quite sure I had a firm and correct understanding of > the claim > > laws, but a recent case gave me a couple of surprising > views. I'm not > > sure why my fellow TDs disagree with me, ad therefore I > present the case > > to BLML. > > > > In a knock out match this occured: > > > > AKJxx > > AQxx > > Kxx > > K > > xx 98x > > xxxx xx > > Jxx Qxxx > > Axxx QJTx > > QTx > > KJx > > Axx > > xxxx > > > > Contract: 6S by North. > > Lead: CQ to the ace. > > North now claimed the rest of the tricks, saying he would discard a > > diamond in dummy on the fourth heart and ruff a diamond. > > This, of cource, would only succed if after drawing two > rounds of trump > > the hand with long trumps held four hearts. > > Thus, if the opponents protested the claim, the contract would fail. > > As it happened, the opponents was just as asleep as declarer, and > > acquiesced to the claim. > > > > After the match the board was discussed, and the discovered > that the > > claim was false. > > But that the contract could have been made playing on reverse dummy. > > But they still didn't protest against the claim within the > correction > > period, which for this tournament is prolonged to 24 hours after > > finishing the match. > > (Matches are played privately, frequently with no TD present.) > > > > The board decided the match. > > The losing team contacted our federation two days after the > correction > > period ended. > > > > Supposing the opponents protested against the claim within > the 24 hour > > correction period, how would you rule? > > > > If I understand the claim laws correctly, the acquiescence will be > withdrawn if all normal lines fail. The problem here is that > apparently all normal lines "within the claim statement" do fail, but > that there are normal lines "not included in the claim > statement" that > succeed (I conclude this from Harald's statements, I have not yet > discovered nor even looked for this winning line). > I believe that in this case the acquiescence must stand and > the result > stays at contract made. Agree. In short, if you protest in time, declarer has to prove that his claim is correct. If you protest later (within the correction period), then protester has to prove that the claim is false. Here declarer can ruff one club low and two clubs high, and scores twelve tricks. Since this line of play is certainly a lot better than declarer's claim statment (it requires the trumps to be 3-2 and the hearts 4-2), it must surely be considered a normal line. No adjustment therefore. But if the opponents had protested immediately, then of course the claim would be rejected. -- Martin Sinot From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Tue Nov 15 11:25:00 2005 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue Nov 15 11:29:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589AA07@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: Stated: ------------ declarer can ruff one club low and two clubs high, and scores twelve tricks. Since this line of play is certainly a lot better than declarer's claim statment (it requires the trumps to be 3-2 and the hearts 4-2), it must surely be considered a normal line. No adjustment therefore. ------------ I just say: "this line"... "better than declarer?s line"... Therefore normal line? You mean that you are judging that declarer, evensaying that he would play line A, would be playing line Bjust because B is better than A??? Rui Marques From nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk Tue Nov 15 12:01:08 2005 From: nospamfilius at lundhansen.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) Date: Tue Nov 15 12:02:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589AA07@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589AA07@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: Sinot Martin skrev: > Agree. In short, if you protest in time, declarer has to prove that > his claim is correct. If you protest later (within the correction > period), then protester has to prove that the claim is false. The play suggested by declarer in his statement is normal. It loses a trick. QED. -- Bertel http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ http://fiduso.dk/ From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 15 12:09:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Nov 15 12:13:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <4379A4B7.4080103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000501c5e9d5$02d4e620$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > > I was quite sure I had a firm and correct understanding of the claim > > laws, but a recent case gave me a couple of surprising views. I'm not > > sure why my fellow TDs disagree with me, ad therefore I present the case > > to BLML. > > > > In a knock out match this occured: > > > > AKJxx > > AQxx > > Kxx > > K > > xx 98x > > xxxx xx > > Jxx Qxxx > > Axxx QJTx > > QTx > > KJx > > Axx > > xxxx > > > > Contract: 6S by North. > > Lead: CQ to the ace. > > North now claimed the rest of the tricks, saying he would discard a > > diamond in dummy on the fourth heart and ruff a diamond. > > This, of cource, would only succed if after drawing two rounds of trump > > the hand with long trumps held four hearts. > > Thus, if the opponents protested the claim, the contract would fail. > > As it happened, the opponents was just as asleep as declarer, and > > acquiesced to the claim. > > > > After the match the board was discussed, and the discovered that the > > claim was false. > > But that the contract could have been made playing on reverse dummy. > > But they still didn't protest against the claim within the correction > > period, which for this tournament is prolonged to 24 hours after > > finishing the match. > > (Matches are played privately, frequently with no TD present.) > > > > The board decided the match. > > The losing team contacted our federation two days after the correction > > period ended. > > > > Supposing the opponents protested against the claim within the 24 hour > > correction period, how would you rule? > > > > If I understand the claim laws correctly, the acquiescence will be > withdrawn if all normal lines fail. The problem here is that > apparently all normal lines "within the claim statement" do fail, but > that there are normal lines "not included in the claim statement" that > succeed (I conclude this from Harald's statements, I have not yet > discovered nor even looked for this winning line). > I believe that in this case the acquiescence must stand and the result > stays at contract made. Declarer has just sufficient communications to force out the AC, and then enter dummy three times for club ruffs, a fourth time for pulling the outstanding trump(s) and finally get home for the last tricks in hearts. So if he had claimed on reverse dummy there had been no case. As it is the acquiescence must stand due to inactivity by the losing team, but the question Harald asks is: What if they had made a formal complaint within the correction period? There is no "normal" line of play embraced within the claim statement where the defense can fail to set the contract as the cards lie, so it would appear that according to L69B the acquiescence should be withdrawn and the contract ruled one down. However when L69B uses the term "normal play" shall this apply only to plays by the acquiescing side? We must admit that there certainly is some "normal play" (reverse dummy) resulting in the contract made although this "normal play" was not embraced in the original claim statement. Does the clause "normal play" in L69B include plays not embraced in the original claim statement? I shall not be comfortable if this is the case, but L69B does not seem clear on this question. IMO the claimer must still be bound by his original claim statement also when L69B is applicable. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Nov 15 13:56:39 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Nov 15 13:58:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <000501c5e9d5$02d4e620$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c5e9d5$02d4e620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4379DB07.6090005@hdw.be> Sven, Sven, Sven, you are completely right up to one point: Sven Pran wrote: > > As it is the acquiescence must stand due to inactivity by the losing team, > but the question Harald asks is: What if they had made a formal complaint > within the correction period? > > There is no "normal" line of play embraced within the claim statement where > the defense can fail to set the contract as the cards lie, so it would > appear that according to L69B the acquiescence should be withdrawn and the > contract ruled one down. > And where in L69B do you read the words "within the claim statement"? > However when L69B uses the term "normal play" shall this apply only to plays > by the acquiescing side? > > We must admit that there certainly is some "normal play" (reverse dummy) > resulting in the contract made although this "normal play" was not embraced > in the original claim statement. > > Does the clause "normal play" in L69B include plays not embraced in the > original claim statement? I shall not be comfortable if this is the case, > but L69B does not seem clear on this question. > Well, it seems perfectly clear to me. There is no mention of the claim statement, so all (normal) lines must be taken into consideration. > IMO the claimer must still be bound by his original claim statement also > when L69B is applicable. > IMO, he should not be bound to this. Look at it this way: North claims, and issues a claim statement. East acquiesces and starts the next board. Then East reconsiders and finds a play that would defeat the contract. Now L69B clearly states that the claim shall stand if there is a normal line that still wins - surely that normal line will always fall outside of the claim statement? So in order for L69B to have any sense at all, the normal lines that are considered must be both those within and those outside of the claim statement. Harald's case is particular in the sense that the winning line (a normal one) is so completely outside of the stated line that it seems strange to apply L69B to it. But you cannot have it both ways. There is no way you can read L69B as only 'normal lines which are close to the claim statement' shall count. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 15 15:05:20 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Nov 15 15:09:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051115085803.04d1b0c0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:19 AM 11/14/05, Harald wrote: > AKJxx > AQxx > Kxx > K >xx 98x >xxxx xx >Jxx Qxxx >Axxx QJTx > QTx > KJx > Axx > xxxx > >Contract: 6S by North. >Lead: CQ to the ace. >North now claimed the rest of the tricks, saying he would discard a >diamond in dummy on the fourth heart and ruff a diamond. >This, of cource, would only succed if after drawing two rounds of >trump the hand with long trumps held four hearts. >Thus, if the opponents protested the claim, the contract would fail. >As it happened, the opponents was just as asleep as declarer, and >acquiesced to the claim. > >After the match the board was discussed, and the discovered that the >claim was false. >But that the contract could have been made playing on reverse dummy. >But they still didn't protest against the claim within the correction >period, which for this tournament is prolonged to 24 hours after >finishing the match. >(Matches are played privately, frequently with no TD present.) > >The board decided the match. >The losing team contacted our federation two days after the correction >period ended. > >Supposing the opponents protested against the claim within the 24 hour >correction period, how would you rule? No adjustment, as I would consider the dummy reversal to be a "normal" line. L69B and L71C both use the words "lost by any normal* play" with no implication that it is incumbent on the claimer to "propose" such a line, hence L70D should not apply. If the authors of the claims laws intended it to, I'd expect (at least) an explicit reference to it in L69B. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Nov 15 15:11:44 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Nov 15 15:15:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589AA0B@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Bertel Lund Hansen > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:01 > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > Sinot Martin skrev: > > > Agree. In short, if you protest in time, declarer has to prove that > > his claim is correct. If you protest later (within the correction > > period), then protester has to prove that the claim is false. > > The play suggested by declarer in his statement is normal. It > loses a trick. QED. Yes, but the dummy reversal is also normal, and once the claim is accepted, the acceptance can only be cancelled if there are no normal plays leading to success (69B). If he had protested in time, according to 69A, then the claim would fail, because declarer's statement fails. -- Martin Sinot From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Nov 15 15:12:57 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Nov 15 15:17:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589AA0C@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Rui Marques [mailto:rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt] > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 11:25 > To: Sinot Martin; 'blml' > Subject: RE: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > Stated: > ------------ > declarer can ruff one club low and two clubs high, and scores > twelve tricks. > Since this line of play is certainly a lot better than > declarer's claim > statment (it requires the trumps to be 3-2 and the hearts > 4-2), it must > surely be considered a normal line. No adjustment therefore. > ------------ > > I just say: > "this line"... "better than declarer?s line"... Therefore normal line? > > You mean that you are judging that declarer, evensaying that > he would play > line A, would be playing line Bjust because B is better than A??? > > Rui Marques > > > Saying that a line is normal is not equal to saying that declarer would have found it (this declarer obviously wouldn't). But after acquiescence in claim, we are no longer interested in the claim statement of declarer, but only whether all normal lines would lead to defeat of the claim. A sound line of play, leading to success, whether declarer would have found it or not, certainly qualifies as such - you don't need to be particularly brilliant to find it. If the claim was contested in time, it would fail, as I said, but now that it has been agreed upon, it stands. -- Martin Sinot From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 15 17:14:59 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Nov 15 17:22:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <000501c5e9d5$02d4e620$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4379DB07.6090005@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003801c5e9ff$cf832d60$06bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity. It is a part of nature." [Herbert Spencer] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > > > Does the clause "normal play" in L69B include plays > > not embraced in the original claim statement? I shall > > not be comfortable if this is the case, but L69B does > > not seem clear on this question. > > > > Well, it seems perfectly clear to me. There is no > mention of the claim statement, so all (normal) lines > must be taken into consideration. > +=+ I agree. Law 70B says " *any* normal play " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From toddz at att.net Tue Nov 15 17:20:17 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Nov 15 17:24:30 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <437A0AC1.6070001@att.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > real meaning. But we digress, I can ask "Which is the stronger hand, > KJT98x,KT9xx,x,x or QJ,KQ,5432,Q5432 and the question has meaning. > I can ask "Which hand complies with the Ro19?", again the question has > meaning. It is the context in which the author uses "weaker than" rather > than "compliant with" (or similar) which requires us to apply judgement - My own judgement is that the stronger hand has the greater number of losers. Your judgement, while less antagonistic, is no more permissible. > and so I ask "Is the first hand stronger or weaker than the example Ro19 > hand?". Unless I've seriously misread the regulation, hands are compared against the evaluation method, not against other hands -- "weaker than RoX" as opposed to "weaker than some RoX hand". I agree with you that the latter comparison is meaningless. OB2006 10 E 3 (a) "You may open a natural one of a suit that may be weaker than Rule of 18 by agreement, but only if your side do not play ANY artificial calls in the subsequent auction." The 1st hand is weaker than Ro18. The 2nd hand is not weaker than Ro18. -Todd From toddz at att.net Tue Nov 15 18:10:36 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Nov 15 18:14:45 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <437A0AC1.6070001@att.net> References: <437A0AC1.6070001@att.net> Message-ID: <437A168C.2000403@att.net> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: >> KJT98x,KT9xx,x,x or QJ,KQ,5432,Q5432 > > OB2006 10 E 3 (a) > "You may open a natural one of a suit that may be weaker than Rule of 18 > by agreement, but only if your side do not play ANY artificial calls in > the subsequent auction." > > The 1st hand is weaker than Ro18. > The 2nd hand is not weaker than Ro18. Don't mind my arithmetic. OB2006 10 E 2 (a) has the similar rule for Levels 2 and 3 using Rule of 19. The first hand is weaker than Ro19.... -Todd From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 15 18:46:52 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Nov 15 18:55:22 2005 Subject: [blml] TD Advantage References: <2E75A1B8A2078F48A13245536664E3D20166A65E@rijpat-s-351.europe.shell.com><002901c5e988$8a16c7e0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <000201c5e9ab$f92a3720$7ece403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001201c5ea0c$aa284480$189468d5@jeushtlj> > +=+ I find it difficult to believe that > Nigel does not know how this regulation is > applied. It seems to me that he chooses to > cocoon himself in a regulatory world of his > own making. I am uncertain whether he has > tested the question by seeking a ruling in > one or more cases where he doubts an > opponent's action - and appealing it > if he was dissatisfied with the answer. [Grattan] I've explained my understanding of the regulations but few on BLML agree with me. Grattan, if you know the official meaning of the regulation, please tell us, clearly, in practical terms that we can understand. I know how the regulation is applied. Grattan knows too. We all know. In short... It is *not* applied. Surely Grattan does not believe that non-enforcement justifies infraction? In each case the match was at a private house. As previously stated, we discovered what had happened, *too late to ask for a ruling*. I admit, we wouldn't have asked for a ruling, anyway. We lost the matches because *we did not open a rule of 17/18 hand*. *That our opponents did is a matter for them*, in the current confused state of the regulations. Few players have read the Orange book. Those, like us, who've read it aren't much the wiser. If rule of 17/18 openings *are* illegal, our opponents were almost certainly unaware of it. Finally, who're you gonna call? On BLML evidence, over half the TDs would have ruled against us on principle. Others might judge the "light" opening to be a "psych" rather than an illegal agreement. Until there's an official interpretation, an isolated ruling will resolve nothing; and an appeal will just sacrifice time and money. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 15 19:06:55 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Nov 15 19:12:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <6.1.1.1.0.20051115085803.04d1b0c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001601c5ea0f$5def4ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" (big snip) > No adjustment, as I would consider the dummy reversal to be > a "normal" line. L69B and L71C both use the words "lost by > any normal* play" with no implication that it is incumbent on > the claimer to "propose" such a line, hence L70D should not > apply. If the authors of the claims laws intended it to, I'd > expect (at least) an explicit reference to it in L69B. > It is odd that almost everyone reads L69B in a way that favors a false claimer. As I have pointed out before, the word "any" is ambiguous. In speech the ambiguity is removed by word emphasis: ANY normal line of play or any NORMAL line of play, that's two different meanings. In print the ambiguity should be resolved by using italics or boldface to provide the intended meaning. Since L69B is ambiguous, we can interpret it in either way. It seems much more fair to interpret it in a way that does not favor the claimer. If there is a normal* play that would invalidate the claim, it's invalidated. The footnote says that includes play by the claimer that would be careless or inferior. That means a careful expert line of play doesn't qualify. Isn't this plain common sense? Why should it make a *big* difference whether I see a flaw in a claim at the time of the claim or after I take the next hand out of the board and pass, or after the next round has been called? An acquiescence is not the same as a concession. Law 69B deals with an acquiescence, L71C with a concession. If they were to be dealt with identically, you would not need two laws. Those who inititiate termination of play by a concession should not be given the benefit of doubt that is due to those who acquiesce in a claim or concession. Law 71's words should therefore be interpreted as ANY normal line of play. L70D wasn't referenced in L69B because it deals with a contested claim, not an acquiescence. When a claim is contested, the hands have not been returned to the board. The TD listens to what everyone has to say, asks about any original claim statement, and so forth, while the hands are out on the table. In the case of a mistaken acquiescence, hands having been returned to the board and another board started (or the round called), the procedures of L70D are not practical and the TD must therefore exercise his judgment, as explicitly stated in L69B but not in L70D. That allows a less-rigorous ruling that might favor the claimer more than L70D would, and that's enough leeway to give a claimer. And, by the way, (ignoring its sometimes inappropriate appendage to other Laws), to whom would the footnotes's "careless or inferior" apply if the claimer is to be allowed any line of play, no matter which? Are you really going to allow an unstated line of play by the claimer that would not succeed without "careless or inferior" play by the defense? If so, just think, a claimer could appeal a ruling that goes against him and then show the AC a normal line of play consisting of a dummy-reversal-unblocking double squeeze whose success depends on poor discarding, and the AC would have to overturn the ruling. That makes no sense at all. Don't say that play wouldn't be "normal," because with your interpretation "normal" refers to the play of the acquiescing side, not the claiming side, going by the footnote. If your interpretation were valid, then the footnote should say that "normal" includes play by the claiming side that would be expert or very advanced, but not double-dummy. Off to Atlanta, unsubscribing for a while, and so can't participate in any further discussion of this matter. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Nov 15 19:18:20 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Nov 15 19:20:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <001601c5ea0f$5def4ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20051115085803.04d1b0c0@pop.starpower.net> <001601c5ea0f$5def4ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <437A266C.3060903@hdw.be> Marvin French wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > (big snip) > > > > > It is odd that almost everyone reads L69B in a way that favors a > false claimer. Since this law results in giving a claimer an extra trick, it is no wonder it "favours" a false claimer. > As I have pointed out before, the word "any" is > ambiguous. In speech the ambiguity is removed by word emphasis: ANY > normal line of play or any NORMAL line of play, that's two > different meanings. In print the ambiguity should be resolved by > using italics or boldface to provide the intended meaning. Since > L69B is ambiguous, we can interpret it in either way. It seems much > more fair to interpret it in a way that does not favor the claimer. > I have absolutely no idea what difference the emphasis makes. ANY normal play means if you find just one, then it's OK. any NORMAL play means that this play has to be normal. Stress what you want, all you need is one normal play. > If there is a normal* play that would invalidate the claim, it's > invalidated. The footnote says that includes play by the claimer > that would be careless or inferior. That means a careful expert line > of play doesn't qualify. Isn't this plain common sense? Why should > it make a *big* difference whether I see a flaw in a claim at the > time of the claim or after I take the next hand out of the board and > pass, or after the next round has been called? > because the laws have said that it matters! > An acquiescence is not the same as a concession. Law 69B deals with > an acquiescence, L71C with a concession. If they were to be dealt > with identically, you would not need two laws. Those who inititiate > termination of play by a concession should not be given the benefit > of doubt that is due to those who acquiesce in a claim or > concession. Law 71's words should therefore be interpreted as ANY > normal line of play. > SO? > L70D wasn't referenced in L69B because it deals with a contested > claim, not an acquiescence. When a claim is contested, the hands > have not been returned to the board. The TD listens to what everyone > has to say, asks about any original claim statement, and so forth, > while the hands are out on the table. In the case of a mistaken > acquiescence, hands having been returned to the board and another > board started (or the round called), the procedures of L70D are not > practical and the TD must therefore exercise his judgment, as > explicitly stated in L69B but not in L70D. That allows a > less-rigorous ruling that might favor the claimer more than L70D > would, and that's enough leeway to give a claimer. > L69 and L70 deal with late objections by two different sides - so there is no reason whatsoever to compare the two laws. > And, by the way, (ignoring its sometimes inappropriate appendage to > other Laws), to whom would the footnotes's "careless or inferior" > apply if the claimer is to be allowed any line of play, no matter > which? Are you really going to allow an unstated line of play by the > claimer that would not succeed without "careless or inferior" play > by the defense? If so, just think, a claimer could appeal a ruling > that goes against him and then show the AC a normal line of play > consisting of a dummy-reversal-unblocking double squeeze whose > success depends on poor discarding, and the AC would have to > overturn the ruling. That makes no sense at all. > Yes it does. > Don't say that play wouldn't be "normal," because with your > interpretation "normal" refers to the play of the acquiescing side, > not the claiming side, going by the footnote. If your interpretation > were valid, then the footnote should say that "normal" includes play > by the claiming side that would be expert or very advanced, but not > double-dummy. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From adam at irvine.com Tue Nov 15 19:38:18 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Nov 15 19:42:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:06:55 PST." <001601c5ea0f$5def4ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200511151838.KAA06830@mailhub.irvine.com> Marvin wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > (big snip) > > > No adjustment, as I would consider the dummy reversal to be > > a "normal" line. L69B and L71C both use the words "lost by > > any normal* play" with no implication that it is incumbent on > > the claimer to "propose" such a line, hence L70D should not > > apply. If the authors of the claims laws intended it to, I'd > > expect (at least) an explicit reference to it in L69B. > > > > It is odd that almost everyone reads L69B in a way that favors a > false claimer. It doesn't seem odd to me. I've always interpreted the rules on claims as resolving doubtful points against the claimer *until* there's an acquiescence, and then resolving doubtful points in the claimer's favor if the other side decides to withdraw an acquiescence that it should not have made in the first place. I think this is fair enough. You may not; but I think our interpretation of 69B is in accordance with what the intent of the Laws is, even if you think that intent isn't fair. > As I have pointed out before, the word "any" is > ambiguous. In speech the ambiguity is removed by word emphasis: ANY > normal line of play or any NORMAL line of play, that's two > different meanings. In print the ambiguity should be resolved by > using italics or boldface to provide the intended meaning. Since > L69B is ambiguous, we can interpret it in either way. It seems much > more fair to interpret it in a way that does not favor the claimer. However, as others have pointed out, Law 69B talks about "any" normal play, period---not about "any" normal play that is in accord with the original claim statement. If "any" could be interpreted in the way you suggest, then if declarer claims and states the line of play he's going to take, I could acquiesce, then I could later withdraw my acquiescence on the grounds that there is a normal play that would cause declarer to go down, even a normal play that contradicts declarer's claim statement. That clearly wouldn't make any sense. So I think we have to reject that interpretation. Perhaps you would like it better if the Laws applied the same standards to a later acquiescence as it did to a contested claim (i.e. if there is a normal line of play CONTAINED WITHIN THE CLAIM STATEMENT that makes declarer go down, we go with that). Maybe it would be better. But I don't think you can interpret the existing Laws in a way that makes the standards the same. > If there is a normal* play that would invalidate the claim, it's > invalidated. The footnote says that includes play by the claimer > that would be careless or inferior. That means a careful expert line > of play doesn't qualify. Isn't this plain common sense? Why should > it make a *big* difference whether I see a flaw in a claim at the > time of the claim or after I take the next hand out of the board and > pass, or after the next round has been called? Probably for the same reason it should make a big difference whether I see the correct line of play while I'm playing the hand, or while I'm studying the hand while eating dinner. :) Acquiescence isn't something to be done carelessly. That's something I've had to learn from experience, though (some of it from my experience of watching careless opponents acquiesce to my bad claims). -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Nov 15 22:02:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Nov 15 22:06:30 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <437A0AC1.6070001@att.net> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > real meaning. But we digress, I can ask "Which is the stronger hand, > > KJT98x,KT9xx,x,x or QJ,KQ,5432,Q5432 and the question has meaning. > > I can ask "Which hand complies with the Ro19?", again the question > > has meaning. It is the context in which the author uses "weaker > > than" rather than "compliant with" (or similar) which requires us to > > apply judgement - > > My own judgement is that the stronger hand has the greater > number of losers. Your judgement, while less antagonistic, > is no more permissible. My judgement, and yours, is subject to the review of the TD/AC. If, in their judgement, stronger hands are those with more losers you will be OK. I suspect they will rule that *your* judgement is weird and thus you have an agreement to open hands weaker than Ro18. They might rule the same on my judgement (but given the example hands they would, IMO, require a total lack of bridge ability to do so). I have consulted widely, amongst players whose ability I respect, on the example hands and opinions so far vary between the first hand being 2-3 tricks stronger. > > and so I ask "Is the first hand stronger or weaker than the example > > Ro19 hand?". > > Unless I've seriously misread the regulation, hands are > compared against the evaluation method, not against other You have seriously misread it. > hands -- "weaker than RoX" as opposed to "weaker than some > RoX hand". I agree with you that the latter comparison is > meaningless. To be "weaker than RoX" a hand must be weaker than a minimum RoX - unless you wish suggest that "all RoX hands are equally weak/strong". I can't really believe that anyone thinks that BTW. > OB2006 10 E 3 (a) > "You may open a natural one of a suit that may be weaker > than Rule of 18 by agreement, but only if your side do not > play ANY artificial calls in the subsequent auction." Actually 19 in the current OB Level 3, but that's not important. > The 1st hand is weaker than Ro18. > The 2nd hand is not weaker than Ro18. The first hand does not comply with rule of 18, the second hand does. The regulation, however, does not talk about "compliant with". The second hand is about as weak as a Ro18 hand can get and thus can usefully serve as a benchmark. I'm not married to it, one could use any minimum Ro18 hand as an example. The first hand is stronger than the second (by any reasonable measure of strength - and let us not pretend that the RoX is anything like robust enough to measure that). However, the thing that really matters is that the EBU chose not to use the (judgement free) construction "compliant with" and instead chose to offer a comparative phrase based on the relative strength of the hands opened by agreement. Whatever their intent TDs/Players *must* assume their choice was deliberate *until* they change the words. Language is important, the use of inexact/incorrect language changes the meaning. If a regulator writes "You may not open on less than 12HCP" we are absolutely guaranteed that HCP (whatever they may be) are not integers or they would/should have written "You may not open on fewer than 12HCPs". As a TD it is a complete PITA when my SO uses incorrect/ambiguous language and I mean what say (or I say what I mean). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Nov 15 22:02:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Nov 15 22:06:34 2005 Subject: [blml] TD Advantage In-Reply-To: <001201c5ea0c$aa284480$189468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > I know how the regulation is applied. Then you know a damn sight more than most. I have never had to give a ruling under this regulation, I have never had opps seek a ruling (even after checking they are aware of the regulation. I only know what the regulation *says* and therefore how *I* would feel legally obliged to apply it. > Grattan knows too. We all know. > In short... It is *not* applied. Do you mean "it is not applied to prevent judgement on hands which are stronger than but not compliant with Ro19" or "it has never been invoked one way or another". > In each case the match was at a private house. > > As previously stated, we discovered what had > happened, *too late to ask for a ruling*. Careless. > I admit, we wouldn't have asked for a ruling, > anyway. So pointless to whinge. > We lost the matches because *we did not open a > rule of 17/18 hand*. *That our opponents did is a > matter for them*, in the current confused state of > the regulations. They are entitled to their interpretation of the regs - if you have a problem with that it is your problem not theirs. > Few players have read the Orange book. Those, like > us, who've read it aren't much the wiser. If rule > of 17/18 openings *are* illegal, our opponents > were almost certainly unaware of it. > Finally, who're you gonna call? Does it matter? You call a TD, it goes to an AC, it goes to the National Authority on a point of principle. > On BLML evidence, over half the TDs would have > ruled against us on principle. > Others might judge > the "light" opening to be a "psych" rather than an > illegal agreement. Shouldn't happen. If it's close to an opener it can't be a gross distortion and thus can't be a psych. > Until there's an official interpretation, an > isolated ruling will resolve nothing; and an > appeal will just sacrifice time and money. There is no such thing as an "isolated ruling" if you appeal to the National Authority. It doesn't cost money if the appeal is on a point of principle (this obviously is). The EBU will take a credit/debit card number but no money. The time involved will less than you have spent posting to this thread in the last few days. You might not like the ruling you get - but the process had always been there to use. However, it should no longer be necessary to take this route. As of 26th July 2005 the EBU L&EC is, supposedly, open to resolving such matters in response to an approach via Nick Doe rather than forcing a TD-AC-NA route as they did before that. Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 15 23:05:27 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Nov 15 23:09:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <003801c5e9ff$cf832d60$06bc87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000f01c5ea30$afe33500$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > > > Does the clause "normal play" in L69B include plays > > > not embraced in the original claim statement? I shall > > > not be comfortable if this is the case, but L69B does > > > not seem clear on this question. > > > > > > > Well, it seems perfectly clear to me. There is no > > mention of the claim statement, so all (normal) lines > > must be taken into consideration. > > > +=+ I agree. Law 70B says " *any* normal play " > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I take it you meant L69B? And there is certainly a reference in L69B to opponent's claim which according to L68C requires a claim statement. But does L69B refer to "any normal play" in the situation that existed before or after the claim was made? In the case Harald raised there was no normal play in the situation immediately after the claim was made which would give declarer 12 tricks, but there certainly was one such play in the situation immediately *before* the claim was made. So the question can also be stated: When L69B is applied do we roll back to the state just before or just after the claim was made? This distinction is all-important and the answer is IMO not obvious from L69B. Regards Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 16 03:59:11 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Nov 16 04:03:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Two-part MI question Message-ID: <437AA07F.2080707@cfa.harvard.edu> Here's an actual case from last weekend. The TD arrives at the table to find West's opening lead, the S-2, face up on the table. Dummy is not yet revealed. The contract is 3NT, and South has bid spades, originally explained as artificial, but after some discussion between North and South now explained as natural (by South). West, not surprisingly, wants to lead a different suit. Question 1: Your ruling? The actual TD ruled that West could change his lead (saying nothing about AI/UI). West chose a diamond. East won trick 1 and led back the S-J, which turned out to be disastrous for the defense when South had S-QT98. After play was over, EW called the TD back and suggested that if the MI had not been given, West would not have led S-2, and East would not have been misled by the lead into thinking West had good spades. East would then have made a neutral lead at trick 2, which would have beaten the contract. Question 2: Is any adjustment due? (Assume East's spade lead was not irrational, wild, or gambling or an egregious error.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 16 04:29:08 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Nov 16 04:33:04 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <200511111622.jABGMRJV024341@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511111622.jABGMRJV024341@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <437AA784.8060606@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan" > +=+ No doubt there were a fair number of cases where > the same score was awarded to both sides because only a > single possible outcome was envisaged.. That was my question. Was "a fair number" a large fraction or a small one? I understood the original message to mean a small fraction, which surprised me. > My point is that > there was *no* case where the Directors gave any thought > to awarding the sides 100% of 'the most favourable result > that was likely' and 100% of the 'most unfavourable result > that was at all probable', Why wouldn't this be the award in all cases where there was "only a single possible outcome?" From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > I would wish that TD/AC guidance included "Do not use L12c3 when L12c2 > gives a clear and balancing result." This sounds reasonable. I'd suggest further that split scores should be prohibited when a weighted score is given. (I tend to think that split scores should be prohibited altogether, but I'm uncertain about going that far.) My own objection to L12C3 is not that its principle is wrong but rather that it states no principle whatsoever, leaving an AC (or TD) free to do anything at all. That seems a recipe for chaos, though of course competent TDs and ACs will produce reasonable rulings most of the time. But why not write something to the effect of "consider possible outcomes had the irregularity not occurred, and give a score for each outcome weighted by its probability?" That at least gives a definite objective the TD and AC can seek. > From: "Grattan" > my view is that the method of score adjustment should be a matter for > regulation This seems another recipe for chaos, though it may alas be politically necessary. I very much hope it can be avoided. I might naively hope that giving definite guidelines for weighted scores could be an approach with appeal to all jurisdictions. > I am also in support of ton kooijman's > proposal that when the 12C3 possibilities are numerous or overly > complicated recourse to an artificial adjusted score should be > allowed. With definite guidelines, this could be OK, but an automatic 60/40 would be horrible. Avoiding detailed enumeration of weights and scores is sensible, but the assigned score ought to reflect plausible outcomes absent the infraction. For example, if the NOS will play game, and the only issue is overtricks, then the award should _start_ at game just making and go upwards from there depending on how likely the overtricks are deemed to be. If game just making is already 90%, awarding 60% is a travesty. > there are grounds for hope that the 2006/7 code of laws will > extend the use of 12C3 to the Director Whatever the rule is, it should be the same regardless of whether the decision is made by TD or AC. People need not agree on bridge judgment in close cases, but at least it can be clear what questions are to be judged. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 16 04:41:05 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Nov 16 04:45:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <200511151613.jAFGD2Cb008602@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511151613.jAFGD2Cb008602@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <437AAA51.8020300@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Sven Pran" > Does the clause "normal play" in L69B include plays not embraced in the > original claim statement? Along with others, I think it includes all normal plays. When I read L69B, two things surprised me. 1. Once acquiescence occurs, the claim statement is irrelevant. 2. The time for possible withdrawal of acquiescence is the end of the _correction period_, not the _appeals period_. These are often the same but need not be. What happens if the correction period has not yet expired, an AC is needed to rule whether a line of play is "normal," but the appeals period has expired, and no potential AC members are available? Obviously an unlikely situation, but it could happen. (More likely, I suppose, would be that a low-level TD remains on duty to accept score corrections, but the high level TDs who could make judgment rulings have all departed.) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 16 04:42:10 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed Nov 16 04:46:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Two-part MI question In-Reply-To: <437AA07F.2080707@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <437AA07F.2080707@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051115221645.02aec6e0@mail.comcast.net> At 09:59 PM 11/15/2005, Steve Willner wrote: >Here's an actual case from last weekend. The TD arrives at the >table to find West's opening lead, the S-2, face up on the >table. Dummy is not yet revealed. The contract is 3NT, and South >has bid spades, originally explained as artificial, but after some >discussion between North and South now explained as natural (by >South). West, not surprisingly, wants to lead a different suit. > >Question 1: Your ruling? L47E2(a) says that a card may be retracted if it was played based on misinformation, as long as nobody has subsequently played to the trick and (if it was the opening lead) dummy has not been exposed. Therefore, West may change his lead. West's lead is UI to N-S and AI to E-W. If West made the initial lead face up, he may have violated L41A, but I won't penalize him for that. Technically, correct procedure would be for N-S to call the TD under L75D to correct the MI before the lead was made, and then there would be no faced lead, but that rarely happens. More likely is that the lead would be face down, East would say, "No questions", and then South would correct the MI as the card was faced. Thus I would say that the S2 would have been faced even under correct procedure. (If I did penalize West under L41A, then the fact that he wanted to change his lead would still be AI because that would always happen, but the rank of the spade he withdrew would be UI.) >The actual TD ruled that West could change his lead (saying nothing >about AI/UI). West chose a diamond. East won trick 1 and led back >the S-J, which turned out to be disastrous for the defense when >South had S-QT98. After play was over, EW called the TD back and >suggested that if the MI had not been given, West would not have led >S-2, and East would not have been misled by the lead into thinking >West had good spades. East would then have made a neutral lead at >trick 2, which would have beaten the contract. >Question 2: Is any adjustment due? (Assume East's spade lead was >not irrational, wild, or gambling or an egregious error.) East had AI that West chose the lead of the S2 against a different auction. This AI gave him a potential advantage, and he isn't entitled to a further adjustment when he guesses wrong with the additional information. He was not directly damaged by the MI, and South could not have known that the infraction would work to East's disadvantage. Therefore, the table result stands. The TD should have clarified the UI/AI situation, but otherwise he ruled correctly, and I have never heard a TD give that clarification. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 16 04:53:26 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Nov 16 04:57:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Transfer non alerted In-Reply-To: <200511141604.jAEG4fJ1002421@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511141604.jAEG4fJ1002421@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <437AAD36.5060108@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > Auction: 2NT - P - 3H - P > 3NT - P - 4S all P > > 3H is a transfer to S, alertable, but the opener did not. > Responder bid 4S with only 5 cards and 5 HCP (5-2-3-3). > > Opinion A: The non-alert is UI to the responder. This much is clear. > 4S may > have been suggested by the non-alert. TD will > allow an adjusted score if 4S is better than 3NT > (Law 16C2). More likely, it seems to me, is that pass is suggested by the non-alert. The 3NT bid itself must show a spade fit. Without a fit, opener could not afford to bid above 3S, which might be the last making contract (or the contract going down the least). Why couldn't responder have six weak spades and nothing else? If opener has a spade fit, though, such a hand will give game chances, and opener can afford to break the transfer. This is just bridge logic, regardless of agreement. Thus the non-alert suggests opener _lacks_ the spade fit that the 3NT bid ought to show. The actual ruling depends on responder's hand, but if he has some values, you might well end up adjusting to likely results in some score above 4S. If 3NT shows a fit, will responder really stop in game without the UI? If responder is weak, though, bidding 4S is probably the only LA, and the table result should stand. If responder passes 3NT, and 4S would have been worse, there should be a score adjustment. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 16 05:14:57 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed Nov 16 05:19:28 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. In-Reply-To: <437AA784.8060606@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511111622.jABGMRJV024341@cfa.harvard.edu> <437AA784.8060606@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051115225907.02ab4048@mail.comcast.net> At 10:29 PM 11/15/2005, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Grattan" >>I am also in support of ton kooijman's >>proposal that when the 12C3 possibilities are numerous or overly >>complicated recourse to an artificial adjusted score should be >>allowed. > >With definite guidelines, this could be OK, but an automatic 60/40 >would be horrible. Avoiding detailed enumeration of weights and >scores is sensible, but the assigned score ought to reflect >plausible outcomes absent the infraction. For example, if the NOS >will play game, and the only issue is overtricks, then the award >should _start_ at game just making and go upwards from there >depending on how likely the overtricks are deemed to be. If game >just making is already 90%, awarding 60% is a travesty. L12C3 could help in this guideline; we could state the rule, "A L12C2 score must be an actual score, while an L12C3 score must achieve equity." This would eliminate the problems with inequitable rulings of A+/A-. For example, suppose NS on Team A created MI in a complicated competitive part-score deal, and there are many likely results between -140 and +140; the table result was +200. NS on Team B were +470, a result which would not have been likely in the other room. Team B would get something between +8 and +12 IMPs without the MI, so a ruling of average-plus (+3 IMPs), or even the better of the table score of +7 and average-plus, is not equitable. But a ruling of +10 or +11 IMPs could be an equitable ruling. One way to look at the equity is to say that Team B already had a plus position of, say, 8 IMPs (+470 versus a normal +110), and the MI denied them any chance at a better plus position, so 8+2 IMPs is fair. From toddz at att.net Wed Nov 16 08:46:31 2005 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Nov 16 08:50:43 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <437AE3D7.3000701@att.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > lack of bridge ability to do so). I have consulted widely, amongst > players whose ability I respect, on the example hands and opinions so far > vary between the first hand being 2-3 tricks stronger. Even on defense? I figured it would be much closer on defense. On offense there's no question which hand is stronger. > To be "weaker than RoX" a hand must be weaker than a minimum RoX - unless > you wish suggest that "all RoX hands are equally weak/strong". > I can't really believe that anyone thinks that BTW. OB2006 10 B 1 "This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding the HCP to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits. It is used for defining the agreed strength ? normally the minimum strength ? which is permitted for various bids, most commonly opening bids." I don't see a basis for using other systems to compare the strengths of hands -- especially not one so poorly defined as a poll of one's friends. RoX is a horrible hand evaluation tool, but the one chosen for regulation. > that the RoX is anything like robust enough to measure that). However, the > thing that really matters is that the EBU chose not to use the (judgement > free) construction "compliant with" and instead chose to offer a > comparative phrase based on the relative strength of the hands opened by > agreement. Whatever their intent TDs/Players *must* assume their choice > was deliberate *until* they change the words. There are other constructions they failed to use. They failed to say "weaker than every RoX hand" or "weaker than a minimum RoX hand". > Language is important, the use of inexact/incorrect language changes the > meaning. If a regulator writes "You may not open on less than 12HCP" we > are absolutely guaranteed that HCP (whatever they may be) are not > integers or they would/should have written "You may not open on fewer than > 12HCPs". I understand your point, but that's a poor example. 'Less' does not have an absolute association with things that cannot be subdivided. Less than 50 people showed up. All this for less than 50 cents a day. 50 words or less. With bridge and language, you make negative inferences at your own risk. -Todd From john at asimere.com Tue Nov 15 18:55:27 2005 From: john at asimere.com (john@asimere.com) Date: Wed Nov 16 09:19:56 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200511151755.jAFHtRsO031093@mozart.asimere.com> DATA Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:54:19 +0000 To: blml@rtflb.org From: John Probst Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <4379A4B7.4080103@hdw.be> In-Reply-To: <4379A4B7.4080103@hdw.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1;format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Turnpike/6.05-S (<4jDjlr05WV7b6GQqxnKJGSofrX>) In message <4379A4B7.4080103@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael =20 writes >Harald Skj=E6ran wrote: > >> I was quite sure I had a firm and correct understanding of the claim=20 >>laws, but a recent case gave me a couple of surprising views. I'm not=20 >>sure why my fellow TDs disagree with me, ad therefore I present the=20 >>case to BLML. >> In a knock out match this occured: >> AKJxx >> AQxx >> Kxx >> K >> xx 98x >> xxxx xx >> Jxx Qxxx >> Axxx QJTx >> QTx >> KJx >> Axx >> xxxx Contract: 6S by North. >> Lead: CQ to the ace. >> North now claimed the rest of the tricks, saying he would discard a=20 >>diamond in dummy on the fourth heart and ruff a diamond. >> This, of cource, would only succed if after drawing two rounds of=20 >>trump the hand with long trumps held four hearts. >> Thus, if the opponents protested the claim, the contract would fail. >> As it happened, the opponents was just as asleep as declarer, and=20 >>acquiesced to the claim. >> After the match the board was discussed, and the discovered that=20 >>the claim was false. >> But that the contract could have been made playing on reverse dummy. >> But they still didn't protest against the claim within the correction=20 >>period, which for this tournament is prolonged to 24 hours after=20 >>finishing the match. >> (Matches are played privately, frequently with no TD present.) >> The board decided the match. >> The losing team contacted our federation two days after the=20 >>correction period ended. >> Supposing the opponents protested against the claim within the 24=20 >>hour correction period, how would you rule? >> > >If I understand the claim laws correctly, the acquiescence will be=20 >withdrawn if all normal lines fail. The problem here is that apparently=20 >all normal lines "within the claim statement" do fail, but that there=20 >are normal lines "not included in the claim statement" that succeed (I=20 >conclude this from Harald's statements, I have not yet discovered nor=20 >even looked for this winning line). >I believe that in this case the acquiescence must stand and the result=20 >stays at contract made. I would so rule, one can use 2 H entries and a trump to ruff 3 C losers,=20 cash a trump in hand, and cross to the DA to draw trump. Since this is a=20 legal play the acquiescence stands. (We're in the time frame of "any=20 legal play of the cards and errors of tabulation" not "any normal=20 play"), and were so from the time the scores were agreed, at the end of=20 the match. cheers John > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 16 10:37:52 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Nov 16 10:45:29 2005 Subject: [blml] Two-part MI question References: <437AA07F.2080707@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001301c5ea91$6b332a80$169868d5@jeushtlj> [Steve Willner] > The TD arrives at the table to find West's > opening lead, the S-2, face up on the > table. Dummy is not yet revealed. The > contract is 3NT, and South has bid spades, > originally explained as artificial, but > after some discussion between North and > South now explained as natural (by South). > West, not surprisingly, wants to lead a > different suit. > Question 1: Your ruling? > The actual TD ruled that West could change > his lead (saying nothing about AI/UI). > West chose a diamond. East won trick 1 and > led back the S-J, which turned out to be > disastrous for the defense when South had > S-QT98. After play was over, EW called the > TD back and suggested that if the MI had > not been given, West would not have led > S-2, and East would not have been misled by > the lead into thinking West had good > spades. East would then have made a > neutral lead at trick 2, which would have > beaten the contract. > Question 2: Is any adjustment due? > (Assume East's spade lead was not > irrational, wild, or gambling or an > egregious error.) [nige1] Usual disclaimer: I'm a poor ignorant player not a director. Question 1. If West had reason to believe that the explanations were over when he faced his lead, then I would allow him to retract it. Question 2. Can defenders have their cake and eat it? IMO, No. East's inference from West's withdrawn lead is like the inferences from opponents mannerisms. You take them at your own risk. Yes Yes I know. Analogies are rarely apt in Bridge rules and this analogy *is* rather stretched. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 16 11:01:53 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Nov 16 11:09:30 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <437AE3D7.3000701@att.net> Message-ID: <002301c5ea94$c590fcc0$169868d5@jeushtlj> [OB2006 10 B 1] > "This is a method of hand valuation > calculated by adding the HCP to the sum of > the number of cards in the two longest > suits. It is used for defining the agreed > strength ? normally the minimum strength ? > which is permitted for various bids, most > commonly opening bids." [Todd M Zimnoch] > I don't see a basis for using other > systems to compare the strengths of hands [Nige1] Suggestion: to avoid clumsiness and circumlocution, let us define a new evolution unit, the English (or European?) Bridge Unit as ebu = points + lengths of 2 longest suits So that "Rule of 19" (say) is a synonym for "19 ebu of more". Back to the argument: (Arguably) in defence against seven spades, S:T9876 H:32 D:432 C:432 is a stronger hand than S- H:AKQJT987 D:KQJT C:QJ A regulation that allowed for many possible evaluation methods would be practically meaningless. There are almost as many evaluation methods as authors of books on bidding. Different methods order hands differently. Clearly, in the context of opening bids, the Orange Book refers only to its ebu method. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 16 11:00:30 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Nov 16 11:10:47 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <437AE3D7.3000701@att.net> Message-ID: <002501c5ea95$1a28df00$bba987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity. It is a part of nature." [Herbert Spencer] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] TD advantage > > OB2006 10 B 1 > "This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding > the HCP to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest > suits. It is used for defining the agreed strength ? > normally the minimum strength ? which is permitted for > various bids, most commonly opening bids." > > I don't see a basis for using other systems to compare the > strengths of hands -- especially not one so poorly defined > as a poll of one's friends. RoX is a horrible hand > evaluation tool, but the one chosen for regulation. > +=+ Perhaps the regulation should say "where for purposes of comparison these regulations quote a method of hand valuation the comparison is to be made in those same terms". Meanwhile I would think the minutes of a meeting could happily incorporate this direction. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 16 13:34:20 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Nov 16 13:38:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437AAA51.8020300@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001101c5eaaa$11c99290$6400a8c0@WINXP> The general consensus appears to be that when L69B applies then the claim starting the whole thing is no longer binding and relevant, this claim shall be sustained if there is at least one normal line of play that will lead to the claimed number of tricks regardless of whether this line of play is consistent with the original claim statement. This consensus surprises me and I wonder if the possible consequences of that attitude are well considered. The following situation may easily occur (and I would be very surprised if it has not already occurred in one way or another): A player concedes three tricks and claims the rest for a total of ten tricks. The claim and concession is acquiesced to but this acquiescence is later withdrawn on the ground that the claim must result in a loss of four tricks (which is true!). At this time the claimer discovers a different line of play which absolutely falls within the scope of "normal" plays (say that it was actually followed at another table) under which he cannot lose more than one trick rather than the three tricks he originally conceded! The claimer now wants not only that his claim is sustained but that his concession of three tricks is cancelled under Law 71C because with this new line of play he cannot possibly lose more than one trick. So he requests that the final result on the board be adjusted to twelve tricks made. IMO the result shall be adjusted to one down because the claimer is held to his original claim. However if the understanding of Law 69B shall be that the claimer is no longer bound by his claim and that any "normal" play in the situation immediately prior to this claim shall be considered then I need some very convincing reasoning why not also Law 71C is to be applied (on the conceding part of the claim) and the result adjusted to twelve tricks made. Do I still hear the same consensus on the understanding of L69B? Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: 16. november 2005 04:41 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Does the clause "normal play" in L69B include plays not embraced in the > > original claim statement? > > Along with others, I think it includes all normal plays. When I read > L69B, two things surprised me. > > 1. Once acquiescence occurs, the claim statement is irrelevant. > > 2. The time for possible withdrawal of acquiescence is the end of the > _correction period_, not the _appeals period_. These are often the same > but need not be. What happens if the correction period has not yet > expired, an AC is needed to rule whether a line of play is "normal," > but the appeals period has expired, and no potential AC members are > available? Obviously an unlikely situation, but it could happen. (More > likely, I suppose, would be that a low-level TD remains on duty to > accept score corrections, but the high level TDs who could make judgment > rulings have all departed.) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 16 13:51:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Nov 16 13:55:42 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <437AE3D7.3000701@att.net> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > lack of bridge ability to do so). I have consulted widely, amongst > > players whose ability I respect, on the example hands and opinions so > > far vary between the first hand being 2-3 tricks stronger. > > Even on defense? I figured it would be much closer on > defense. Defence? This hand is *not* going to be on defence if partner has a fit (unless partner is taking a lot of tricks). Given the misfit the kings are working values and there is a possible short hand ruff if pard has a minor ace. But it's close I grant you - I'd not criticise a person who judged it slightly weaker defensively. > On offense there's no question which hand is stronger. And so much stronger as to compensate for any slight defensive weakness. > > To be "weaker than RoX" a hand must be weaker than a minimum RoX - > > unless you wish suggest that "all RoX hands are equally weak/strong". > > I can't really believe that anyone thinks that BTW. > > OB2006 10 B 1 > "This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding > the HCP to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest > suits. It is used for defining the agreed strength – > normally the minimum strength – which is permitted for > various bids, most commonly opening bids." Yep, and our agreement is to only open hands which meet the RoX or are stronger than a minimum RoX. RoX is "a" method of hand evaluation (not the only permitted method of hand evaluation. > I don't see a basis for using other systems to compare the > strengths of hands -- especially not one so poorly defined > as a poll of one's friends. How about Law40E (the one where we disclose our agreements) "such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method" - we cannot disclose our methods based solely on the Ro19 (we do not open all Ro19 hands). Not every player I respect is a friend:) This is (given the interpretation of the law as above) a judgement ruling, consultation would be required in the EBU. I am not consulting players as to what the law means (not what a TD is supposed to do) but I am consulting them as to whether, in their judgement, hand A is stronger than hand B. As a TD I would, of course, inform the AC with whom I had consulted and what they had said. The AC is, of course, free to consult a different group of people or form their own judgement independently. When a player makes a judgement like this there is *always* a risk that the TD/AC will disagree with the judgement made and rule the opening evidence of an illegal agreement. As a player I am sufficiently confident in my own judgements to take that risk because I consider it minimal. > RoX is a horrible hand > evaluation tool, but the one chosen for regulation. RoX (for average honour spreads) is OKish. HCP on balanced hands are OK, LTC on fit (or assumed fit) hands is OK. But when it comes to any degree of precision T98s, honour combinations, short vs long suit honours etc all matter. I have no wish to prescribe how much they matter, and it would be deeply wrong to enforce any one method of judgement and so, as a TD, I consult to see if the actual judgement made is considered reasonable. > > that the RoX is anything like robust enough to measure that). > > However, the thing that really matters is that the EBU chose not to > > use the (judgement free) construction "compliant with" and instead > > chose to offer a comparative phrase based on the relative strength of > > the hands opened by agreement. Whatever their intent TDs/Players > > *must* assume their choice was deliberate *until* they change the > > words. > > There are other constructions they failed to use. They > failed to say "weaker than every RoX hand" or "weaker than a > minimum RoX hand". True, but we know there is no question about opening a minimum RoX compliant hand. I'd accept a clarification saying "Hands which do not comply with RoX will be judged by the TD/AC against an average RoX hand (e.g. xx,AJxxx,Kx,QTxx for Ro19). In fact the EBU have gone for "assessed by reference to RoX" (with no example given) so I'll be sticking with comparing to a minimum. I also accept that the EBU has a right to *change* the regulation to "complies with". What they do not have a right to do is murder the English language by saying the regulation "means complies with even though that isn't what we wrote last time". > > Language is important, the use of inexact/incorrect language changes > > the meaning. If a regulator writes "You may not open on less than > > 12HCP" we are absolutely guaranteed that HCP (whatever they may be) > > are not integers or they would/should have written "You may not open > > on fewer than 12HCPs". > > I understand your point, but that's a poor example. 'Less' > does not have an absolute association with things that > cannot be subdivided. Less than 50 people showed up. All > this for less than 50 cents a day. 50 words or less. All incorrect. Less may *only* be used for the quantitative. Once we are dealing with integral values only "fewer" is correct. > With bridge and language, you make negative inferences at > your own risk. It isn't an inference - or "it ain't no inference" as one who uses less instead of fewer might say :) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 16 13:51:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Nov 16 13:55:45 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage In-Reply-To: <002501c5ea95$1a28df00$bba987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Perhaps the regulation should say "where for > purposes of comparison these regulations quote a > method of hand valuation the comparison is to be > made in those same terms". The regulation *could* say that - were it the intent of the regulation. But why bother? If the intent of the regulation were to forbid hands of equal strength under a more refined evaluation method one could simply write a regulation using the term "compliant with". Both forms remove ambiguity but the latter is simpler. > Meanwhile I would think the minutes of a meeting > could happily incorporate this direction. Again, they *could*. But the proposed OB clarification is "assessed by reference to" - the words proposed clarify that judgement (or assessment) rather than strict measurement/compliance will be used. Nothing wrong that - it is certainly closer to the spirit of the law than mandating a single (and inferior) method of evaluation. If the EBU wishes to forbid judgement I can't stop them - but until they choose to write such a regulation (or minute an amendment to the existing one) I am not going to pretend that they have already done so. I could not, in July, prevent the L&EC from ruling that opening (by agreement) 1NT on 5431s hand with concentrated short-suit values as being "conventional" - that the ruling has no basis in the legal definition of a convention is neither here nor there. That such openings will not be considered conventional in the next OB is a bizarre quirk. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 16 13:57:40 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Nov 16 14:02:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Transfer non alerted In-Reply-To: <437AAD36.5060108@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511141604.jAEG4fJ1002421@cfa.harvard.edu> <437AAD36.5060108@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051116075003.033bb2e0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:53 PM 11/15/05, Steve wrote: >>From: "Laval Dubreuil" >>Auction: 2NT - P - 3H - P >> 3NT - P - 4S all P >>3H is a transfer to S, alertable, but the opener did not. >>Responder bid 4S with only 5 cards and 5 HCP (5-2-3-3). >>Opinion A: The non-alert is UI to the responder. > >This much is clear. > >> 4S may >> have been suggested by the non-alert. TD will >> allow an adjusted score if 4S is better than 3NT >> (Law 16C2). > >More likely, it seems to me, is that pass is suggested by the >non-alert. The 3NT bid itself must show a spade fit. Without a fit, >opener could not afford to bid above 3S, which might be the last >making contract (or the contract going down the least). Why couldn't >responder have six weak spades and nothing else? If opener has a >spade fit, though, such a hand will give game chances, and opener can >afford to break the transfer. This is just bridge logic, regardless >of agreement. Thus the non-alert suggests opener _lacks_ the spade >fit that the 3NT bid ought to show. While Steve's argument is correct (and leads me to agree with him that the result should stand), there's also another side to that coin. If opener's failure to alert suggests that he took 3H to be natural, then 3NT would presumably indicate a doubleton heart, making it far more likely that he holds at least three spades. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Nov 16 14:18:03 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Nov 16 14:20:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <001101c5eaaa$11c99290$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001101c5eaaa$11c99290$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <437B318B.7060602@hdw.be> Sven, Sven, Sven, are we living in the same world or are we not? Sven Pran wrote: > The general consensus appears to be that when L69B applies then the claim > starting the whole thing is no longer binding and relevant, this claim shall > be sustained if there is at least one normal line of play that will lead to > the claimed number of tricks regardless of whether this line of play is > consistent with the original claim statement. > > This consensus surprises me and I wonder if the possible consequences of > that attitude are well considered. > of course they are - we've been using these laws for 9 years now. > The following situation may easily occur (and I would be very surprised if > it has not already occurred in one way or another): > of course it has happened - often even. > A player concedes three tricks and claims the rest for a total of ten > tricks. The claim and concession is acquiesced to but this acquiescence is > later withdrawn on the ground that the claim must result in a loss of four > tricks (which is true!). > > At this time the claimer discovers a different line of play which absolutely > falls within the scope of "normal" plays (say that it was actually followed > at another table) under which he cannot lose more than one trick rather than > the three tricks he originally conceded! > in that case there is at least one line which results in at least 10 tricks, so the acquiescence must stand according to L69B. > The claimer now wants not only that his claim is sustained but that his > concession of three tricks is cancelled under Law 71C because with this new > line of play he cannot possibly lose more than one trick. So he requests > that the final result on the board be adjusted to twelve tricks made. > But L71C says that all normal lines must lead to 12 tricks in order for him to get those extra tricks. And we know of at least one normal line that leads to 9 tricks, so the concession of 3 tricks must stand. In fact, we may even come to see a case where there are normal lines that lead to 9,11,and 12 tricks, and none for 10, yet the concession/acquiescence must stand for the original 10 tricks. > IMO the result shall be adjusted to one down because the claimer is held to > his original claim. Why? The Laws explicitely state that the result which was obtained at the table must stand, regardless of the original claim, once the next board has stated. The laws give a few exceptions, but if these exceptions are not met, then the original agreed upon result must stand. Why do you insist on saying that In Your Opinion, the laws should be something else than what they are? > However if the understanding of Law 69B shall be that > the claimer is no longer bound by his claim and that any "normal" play in > the situation immediately prior to this claim shall be considered then I > need some very convincing reasoning why not also Law 71C is to be applied > (on the conceding part of the claim) and the result adjusted to twelve > tricks made. > Now please do me the favour of a) polishing up your language : the claimer is not bound to his claim; he might be bound to his claim "statement" b) polishing up your understanding of the claim laws: the claimer is not bound to his "claim statement". The claim will be judged by the TD, using the words of the claim statement as a guide to determine what the claimer knows about the situation. The claimer is, among other things, not "bound to the claim statement" if the cards that appear reveal to him that his claim statement has become utter rubbish. > Do I still hear the same consensus on the understanding of L69B? > Of course you do! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 16 15:20:44 2005 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Nov 16 15:24:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <001101c5eaaa$11c99290$6400a8c0@WINXP> <437B318B.7060602@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > Sven, Sven, Sven, are we living in the same world or are we not? > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > The general consensus appears to be that when L69B applies then the claim > > starting the whole thing is no longer binding and relevant, this claim shall > > be sustained if there is at least one normal line of play that will lead to > > the claimed number of tricks regardless of whether this line of play is > > consistent with the original claim statement. > > > > This consensus surprises me It should hardly be surprising that people read accurately; that so many read a passage of bridge law accurately........ > >and I wonder if the possible consequences of > > that attitude are well considered. I am well aware of the ramifications. > of course they are - we've been using these laws for 9 years now. But that does not speak to the appropriateness of the law. regards roger pewick > > Do I still hear the same consensus on the understanding of L69B? > Of course you do! > > > Sven > Herman DE WAEL From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 16 15:36:37 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Nov 16 15:40:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437B318B.7060602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001201c5eabb$26684a00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ........... > But L71C says that all normal lines must lead to 12 tricks in order > for him to get those extra tricks. And we know of at least one normal > line that leads to 9 tricks, so the concession of 3 tricks must stand. My error ............ > > IMO the result shall be adjusted to one down because the claimer > > is held to his original claim. > > > > Why? The Laws explicitely state that the result which was obtained at > the table must stand, regardless of the original claim, once the next > board has stated. The laws give a few exceptions, but if these > exceptions are not met, then the original agreed upon result must stand. > > Why do you insist on saying that In Your Opinion, the laws should be > something else than what they are? Because I do not insist that the laws should be something else that what they are, I express how (in my opinion) I understand the laws, knowing perfectly well that I can be wrong. > Now please do me the favour of > a) polishing up your language : the claimer is not bound to his claim; > he might be bound to his claim "statement" > b) polishing up your understanding of the claim laws: the claimer is > not bound to his "claim statement". The claim will be judged by the > TD, using the words of the claim statement as a guide to determine > what the claimer knows about the situation. The claimer is, among > other things, not "bound to the claim statement" if the cards that > appear reveal to him that his claim statement has become utter rubbish. Of course, I see absolutely no disagreement here; this is the procedures the TD will follow when the claim as such is contested. But we are not discussing contested claims, we are discussing withdrawn acquiescence. You state that the claimer is not bound by his claim/claim statement (I fail to see the importance of the difference in wording here). That is precisely where I cannot follow the logic. I have always understood this clause in L69B applying to plays by the acquiescing side as the claimer is bound to adhere to his claim statement. It has never occurred to me that this clause should open a door for the claimer to abandon his claim statement and introduce an entirely new line of play. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Nov 16 16:29:12 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Nov 16 16:31:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <001201c5eabb$26684a00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001201c5eabb$26684a00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <437B5048.3070703@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I have always understood this clause in L69B applying to plays by the > acquiescing side as the claimer is bound to adhere to his claim statement. > It has never occurred to me that this clause should open a door for the > claimer to abandon his claim statement and introduce an entirely new line of > play. > OK Sven, I see what you mean. However, consider this: At two tables, a same claim is made. At the first table, declarer just shows his cards, at the second one, declarer adds a statement. At both tables, opponents acquiesce and start the next board. At both tables, opponents then ask to withdraw acquiescence. A line is found which is successful, but it does not fall within the claim statement of the second declarer. If the "normal" plays that are to be considered in L69B would be only those plays that are included in the claim statement, such as you interpret L69B, then the second declarer will lose his contract while the first one will not. I doubt that you will find that interpretation satisfactory. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 16 17:19:41 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Nov 16 17:23:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437B5048.3070703@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001301c5eac9$8c6d0c10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > I have always understood this clause in L69B applying to plays > > by the acquiescing side as the claimer is bound to adhere to his > > claim statement. > > It has never occurred to me that this clause should open a door > > for the claimer to abandon his claim statement and introduce an > > entirely new line of play. > > > > OK Sven, I see what you mean. > However, consider this: > > At two tables, a same claim is made. At the first table, declarer just > shows his cards, at the second one, declarer adds a statement. > At both tables, opponents acquiesce and start the next board. > At both tables, opponents then ask to withdraw acquiescence. > A line is found which is successful, but it does not fall within the > claim statement of the second declarer. > > If the "normal" plays that are to be considered in L69B would be only > those plays that are included in the claim statement, such as you > interpret L69B, then the second declarer will lose his contract while > the first one will not. > I doubt that you will find that interpretation satisfactory. IMO (sic!) *both* claimers will lose their contract. The second because he has given a clarifying statement specifically indicating a line of play that afterwards is shown to fail, and the first because he has violated L68C by not giving any statement and therefore may not afterwards select any particular successful line of play that could (!) have been suggested from information he has received subsequent to his claim. I have no problem with this. Do you see any problem? Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 16 17:25:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Nov 16 17:30:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437B318B.7060602@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > in that case there is at least one line which results in at least 10 > tricks, so the acquiescence must stand according to L69B. Not so. Acquiescence is "when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession". The assent is *not* just to the number of tricks but to the claim (including any accompanying statement). When such assent is withdrawn it is the claim and statement which is re-examined for validity (not the number of tricks). The difference between an immediate challenge and a subsequent withdrawn acquiesence is the shift in "benefit of the doubt" to the claimer from the claimed against. Had the statement been "I can make the rest" we would rule against the claimer if an objection occurred immediately, but against the acquiescer if a withdrawal was attempted later. Note, however that I am not going to allow a withdrawal in the specific case *unless* the claiming side actually confirms the (hearsay) statement. Absent such confirmation I have "doubt" as to the accuracy of the quoted statement and thus include the dummy reversal amongst the normal lines considered. Thus, in practical terms, I doubt it will happen that I permit a withdrawal when others will not. In all of the above I'm going with supposition that withdrawal occurred within the correction period. Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Nov 16 17:36:25 2005 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed Nov 16 17:40:32 2005 Subject: [blml] hitching with a singleton Message-ID: <2da24b8e0511160836j3861937k80c7ceaae50df82d@mail.gmail.com> Quick question: I was under the impression that players are not allowed to deliberately vary their tempo in order to throw off the opposition. For example, I believe that I am not permitted to deliberately hitch with a singleton or tank about whether or not to cover a jack holding nothing but low cards. I would appreciate a reference that either supports or contradicts my view... -- Hail Ants From adam at irvine.com Wed Nov 16 17:59:13 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Nov 16 18:03:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:36:37 +0100." <001201c5eabb$26684a00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200511161659.IAA14660@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > You state that the claimer is not bound by his claim/claim statement (I fail > to see the importance of the difference in wording here). That is precisely > where I cannot follow the logic. > > I have always understood this clause in L69B applying to plays by the > acquiescing side as the claimer is bound to adhere to his claim statement. > It has never occurred to me that this clause should open a door for the > claimer to abandon his claim statement and introduce an entirely new line of > play. I think part of the problem with this is that if acquiescence occurs, say, eight boards after the claim occurred, it may not be possible to reconstruct the claimer's exact words. And in some cases, differences in wording could make a significant difference in determining what lines of play would be considered allowable under Law 69B. (I suspect that it's easier to reconstruct which cards were remaining.) I'm with the majority here who interprets Law 69B as being independent of the claimer's claim statement, and this may be the reason---that a claim statement can't be determined with enough certainty long after the fact. There are other ways to write the Laws to solve the problem, though. If, for example, a withdrawn acquiescence leads to a dispute about the exact wording of the claim statement, doubtful points would be resolved in favor of the claimer. This would probably be equitable enough, while closing the loophole that let declarer in Harald's case get away with one. Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with the existing Laws, as I interpret it. It does put a burden on non-claimers to study the hand before acquiescing to a claim, to make sure the claim is correct; I don't see anything wrong with that. The other side has put forth some hypothetical cases where it seems to them that this interpretation of the Laws leads to unfairness. However, all of those hypothetical cases appear to involve opponents who acquiesce to a claim without thinking about it much. I don't feel a pressing need for this behavior to be rewarded, although I don't like it when lousy claims are rewarded, either. If trusting claimers and acquiescing without thought has become part of the bridge culture, though, perhaps a Law change should be considered. (By the way, it doesn't come up very often, but Brian and I had a case just last week, at the Los Angeles regional, where a declarer made a faulty claim against us, probably one similar to the situation in Harald's case. Neither of us acquiesced.) -- Adam From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Wed Nov 16 18:10:08 2005 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed Nov 16 18:14:18 2005 Subject: [blml] hitching with a singleton Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520589AA0F@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard willey > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 17:36 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] hitching with a singleton > > Quick question: > > I was under the impression that players are not allowed to > deliberately vary their tempo in order to throw off the opposition. > For example, I believe that I am not permitted to deliberately hitch > with a singleton or tank about whether or not to cover a jack holding > nothing but low cards. > > I would appreciate a reference that either supports or > contradicts my view... That is correct. 72D2/72F2. And the story that the thinker was thinking about the signal we don't believe, of course. -- Martin Sinot From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 16 18:18:26 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Nov 16 18:22:33 2005 Subject: [blml] hitching with a singleton In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0511160836j3861937k80c7ceaae50df82d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001401c5ead1$c190e490$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard willey > Quick question: > > I was under the impression that players are not allowed to > deliberately vary their tempo in order to throw off the opposition. > For example, I believe that I am not permitted to deliberately hitch > with a singleton or tank about whether or not to cover a jack holding > nothing but low cards. > > I would appreciate a reference that either supports or contradicts my > view... Quick answer: Law 73D2 - your impression is correct. Regards Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Nov 16 18:18:47 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed Nov 16 18:22:59 2005 Subject: [blml] hitching with a singleton Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C869@hotel.npl.co.uk> Law 73 F 2 if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), -----Original Message----- From: richard willey [mailto:richard.willey@gmail.com] Sent: 16 November 2005 16:36 To: BLML Subject: [blml] hitching with a singleton Quick question: I was under the impression that players are not allowed to deliberately vary their tempo in order to throw off the opposition. For example, I believe that I am not permitted to deliberately hitch with a singleton or tank about whether or not to cover a jack holding nothing but low cards. I would appreciate a reference that either supports or contradicts my view... -- Hail Ants _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Nov 16 18:18:55 2005 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed Nov 16 18:25:37 2005 Subject: [blml] hitching with a singleton In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0511160836j3861937k80c7ceaae50df82d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200511161718.jAGHItcX007191@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard willey writes: > > Quick question: > > I was under the impression that players are not allowed to > deliberately vary their tempo in order to throw off the opposition. > For example, I believe that I am not permitted to deliberately hitch > with a singleton or tank about whether or not to cover a jack holding > nothing but low cards. > > I would appreciate a reference that either supports or contradicts my view... > I recall a Venice Cup match where a prominent player (Judy Radin? No longer recall) played a singleton in normal tempo (IE a normal pause for thought) and was ruled against. I *think* it was versus Great Britain but my memory may be playing tricks on me. Richard (or others) may recall the hand because there was a fair amount of discussion in the Bridge World report (among other places) Then there's the Brad Moss case from the Rosenblum. Playing with screens Moss felt his screen-mate acted too quickly in a tempo sensitive situation and held the tray back to normalize tempo. And held it back so long that the opponent on the other side of the screen felt his partner had broken tempo. Not exactly what you're talking about, but close. And there's a heck of a lot of worthwhile commentary on the issue of tempo in general and the specifics of screens and trays. See Appeal 22 at http://bridgehands.com/Tournaments/WBF/1998_World_Bridge_Championship/bul_12.pdf From mustikka at charter.net Wed Nov 16 19:13:09 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed Nov 16 19:17:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <001201c5eabb$26684a00$6400a8c0@WINXP> <437B5048.3070703@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001b01c5ead9$66f2fb10$1d690947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > Sven Pran wrote: > >> >> I have always understood this clause in L69B applying to plays by the >> acquiescing side as the claimer is bound to adhere to his claim >> statement. >> It has never occurred to me that this clause should open a door for the >> claimer to abandon his claim statement and introduce an entirely new line >> of >> play. > > OK Sven, I see what you mean. > However, consider this: > > At two tables, a same claim is made. At the first table, declarer just > shows his cards, at the second one, declarer adds a statement. > At both tables, opponents acquiesce and start the next board. > At both tables, opponents then ask to withdraw acquiescence. > A line is found which is successful, but it does not fall within the claim > statement of the second declarer. > > If the "normal" plays that are to be considered in L69B would be only > those plays that are included in the claim statement, such as you > interpret L69B, then the second declarer will lose his contract while the > first one will not. > I doubt that you will find that interpretation satisfactory. I am not a TD, but my logic finds this interpretation perfectly satisfactory except that, at first table, declarer needed to make a statement L68C. Is it indeed correct that claimer is not bound to his statement when it turns out his stated line does not work, and that he actually has the right to make a new and different statement later. Does not L69D say otherwise? Forgive me for citing law while not being a qualified to do so, but please help me understand it. Thank you in advance. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 17 00:18:13 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Nov 17 00:25:52 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <200511162024.jAGKORAW007860@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <003e01c5eb04$05648f00$0f9868d5@jeushtlj> >> [Ron Johnson] >>> No it hasn't. Despite the frequency of >>> your repeating this. There may have been >>> close matches won (and lost) where >>> the winning (or losing) side opened very >>> light in third hand, but opening light >>> wasn't what decided the match. (Or >>> even what generated the swing on the >>> decisive board) {Nige1] You imply that we're liars. [Ron] > Yeah but you're resulting after the hand. > I feel totally free to doubt your claim. > Still, post the hands. I'll be happy to > do a charge sheet. I've done enough charge > sheets to say with total confidence that > 3rd seat light openings (where light is any > scale you care to name, from Meckwell on > up) are literally a break even proposition. > (IOW, if you've played enough close > matches that a *lucky* light 3rd seat > opener decided a match, you've *won* the > same number when their light 3rd seat > opener gained you a swing) [Nigel] Ron's doubt is disappointing but less denigratory than his earlier flat denial! Agreed: we could have *won* matches because opponents opened "light" on hands that we did not. But what has that got to do with the price of fish? The matches were played last year, at private homes, without hand records, so details are hazy. Anyway, to appreciate our difficulties, Ron would also need our systems and styles. Suffice to say that competent contemporary analysts were sympathetic with our plight. ;( But as Frances says, we can expect none from BLML ); We don't need sympathy about the *past*. We want regulations clarified to minimise *future* unpleasantness! [Ron] > No opportunity to get in at any other > point? Look, Al Roth wouldn't have opened > those hands in question. Neither would Ira > Rubin or Ron Gerard or Matt Grannovetter > or ... (And I don't need to see the hands > to know this) > Would they have lost imps on the board? > Maybe. After all, good as they are, all > of them have lost imps from time to time > for their conservative stance. (As in > passed out hands where the opposition > bid and made a thin game. But then > sometimes the game goes down. And > sometimes the thin game gets foul breaks > and a penalty double. But just maybe > they'd have either beat the game or > gotten in. Let's face it, it's pretty rare > that you have a good save with only one > chance to get in. {Nige1] (A) Had we played with or against Al Roth, Ira Rubin, Ron Gerard and Matt Grannovetter, the margin might have been more than an imp or two :) (B) Assuming (just for the sake of argument) that rule of 17 openers *were* illegal, are we allowed to devise methods that take advantage of an opponent's suspected infraction? (C) The sad fact is that we do *not* bid as well as Al Roth, Ira Rubin and Co and we did *not* cope with them. (D) More to the point: most of our opponents don't bid as well as Al Roth, Ira Rubin and Co, so they're unlikely to have coped either, had we opened those hands too. (E) As Ron says, on those boards, it is conceivable that Al Roth, Ira Rubin and Co would not have coped anyway. It's been amusing to speculate on how players of the calibre of Al Roth, Ira Rubin and Co would have fared in low level EBU events; but, again, it seems to have little bearing on the argument :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Nov 17 00:45:42 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Nov 17 00:53:20 2005 Subject: [blml] TD advantage References: <001801c5eab1$7720b3b0$6501a8c0@ckt> Message-ID: <004a01c5eb07$dbfe4620$0f9868d5@jeushtlj> > [OB2006 10 B 1] >> "This is a method of hand valuation >> calculated by adding the HCP to the sum of >> the number of cards in the two longest >> suits. It is used for defining the agreed >> strength - normally the minimum strength - >> which is permitted for various bids, most >> commonly opening bids." > > [Todd M Zimnoch] >> I don't see a basis for using other >> systems to compare the strengths of hands > > [Nige1] > Suggestion: to avoid clumsiness and > circumlocution, let us define a new evolution > unit, the English (or European?) Bridge Unit as > ebu = points + lengths of 2 longest suits > > So that "Rule of 19" (say) is a synonym for > "19 ebu of more". > > Back to the argument: (Arguably) in defence > against seven spades, > S:T9876 H:32 D:432 C:432 > is a stronger hand than > S- H:AKQJT987 D:KQJT C:QJ > > [Dave Kent] > *** Nope, 14 card hands are always stronger than those with only 13. [Nige2] A solitary carp! Usually there are a swarm of piranha! Please mentally remove any card from the 2nd hand. [Nigel] A regulation that allowed for many possible evaluation methods would be practically meaningless. There are almost as many evaluation methods as authors of books on bidding. Different methods order hands differently. IMO, in the context of opening bids, the Orange Book clearly refers only to its ebu method. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 17 03:38:51 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Nov 17 03:42:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <200511161924.jAGJOf8i006350@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511161924.jAGJOf8i006350@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <437BED3B.7060505@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "raija" > at first table, declarer needed to make a statement L68C. Yes, failing to make a claim statement is an infraction but not one with an automatic penalty. (It will often compromise claimer's rights.) See the meaning of 'should' in the Preface. > Is it > indeed correct that claimer is not bound to his statement when it turns out > his stated line does not work, Until the opponents acquiesce and start the next board (L69A), the claim will be judged under L70. In general, claimer is bound to his stated line but not if the line becomes irrational on the basis of cards that will inevitably be played. For example, if claimer sees an unexpected small trump appear, he (usually) gets to overruff even if it wasn't part of the stated line. > and that he actually has the right to make a > new and different statement later. Only insofar as to explain why the original line becomes irrational. Once acquiescence occurs, claimer's stated line is irrelevant. > Does not L69D say otherwise? There is no 69D. Did you mean 70D? That one applies only until acquiescence has occurred. Here's another one for the group. Something like it actually happened to me two weeks ago. Declarer claims, stating a line of play. This line will indeed give him all the tricks despite there being a small trump out that declarer has forgotten. (In essence declarer has a high cross-ruff.) Somehow the defenders convince declarer he will lose a trick, which he concedes. A few rounds later (but well within the correction period) declarer wants his trick back. There existed a "normal" play of the remaining cards that would give the defender a trump trick. (Instead of cross-ruffing, declarer could try to discard one of his losers on a winner from dummy; this will get ruffed by LHO.) Does declarer get his trick or not? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 17 03:51:38 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Nov 17 03:55:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Transfer non alerted In-Reply-To: <200511161543.jAGFh4iV012580@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511161543.jAGFh4iV012580@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <437BF03A.4060802@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > If > opener's failure to alert suggests that he took 3H to be natural, then > 3NT would presumably indicate a doubleton heart, making it far more > likely that he holds at least three spades. Eeks! This is complicated. Eric is right, as usual. I think we need to see responder's exact hand. In some cases, pass could be suggested over 4S; in others 4S over pass; in yet others perhaps neither one. Even worse, on some hands slam tries may be LA's and both pass and 4S illegal. I think one approach is to imagine opener had explained the 3H transfer as natural and forcing, then bid 3NT. (That misunderstanding is almost surely the explanation for the failure to alert.) As Eric says, all this implies heart shortness or perhaps a flat hand with values in the other suits. What would a villain do then if holding responder's hand? Whatever the villain would like to do is "suggested" in the L16 sense. For example, if responder holds heart length or an honor, pass may be suggested. If responder is short in hearts, 4S may be. But it depends on the exact hand. What you cannot do is automatically rule that whatever responder chose is the action suggested. In order to adjust, you have to _demonstrate_ that the chosen call was suggested over another LA. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 17 08:14:01 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Nov 17 08:18:22 2005 Subject: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. References: <200511111622.jABGMRJV024341@cfa.harvard.edu> <437AA784.8060606@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c5eb46$a40adaa0$97e8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 3:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 12C3 in Estoril. >> From: "Grattan" >> +=+ No doubt there were a fair number of cases where >> the same score was awarded to both sides because only a >> single possible outcome was envisaged.. > > That was my question. Was "a fair number" a large > fraction or a small one? I understood the original message > to mean a small fraction, which surprised me. > +=+ When I discussed with him his experience at the end of the tournament, the CTD said that well over half of the judgemental rulings were weighted. He also said quite specifically that the WBF tournament directors do not now use 12C2. In his mind therefore all judgemental rulings were 12C3. As an afterthought he did add that perhaps the one ruling in which, because each was egregiously at fault, they gave the worst of it to both sides could be said to be a 12C2 ruling. In this I believe his point was that this was the one case where a single table score was not awarded. (but, of course, such an award is not precluded in itself by 12C3). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 16 18:00:40 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Nov 17 09:14:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <001101c5eaaa$11c99290$6400a8c0@WINXP> <437B318B.7060602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005701c5eb4e$00f24120$e0a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity. It is a part of nature." [Herbert Spencer] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > The general consensus appears to be that when L69B > > > applies then the claim starting the whole thing is no > > > longer binding and relevant, this claim shall be sustained > > > if there is at least one normal line of play that will lead > > > to the claimed number of tricks regardless of whether > > > this line of play is consistent with the original claim > > > statement. > > > > > > This consensus surprises me > > It should hardly be surprising that people read accurately; > that so many read a passage of bridge law accurately........ > +=+ Oh, I find it mildly surprising on blml, even though this is an instance where the language of the 1997 book is plain. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 17 09:06:41 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Nov 17 09:14:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <001201c5eabb$26684a00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005801c5eb4e$01d4b1e0$e0a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity. It is a part of nature." [Herbert Spencer] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:36 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn >I have always understood this clause in L69B >applying to plays by the acquiescing side as the >claimer is bound to adhere to his claim statement. >It has never occurred to me that this clause should >open a door for the claimer to abandon his claim >statement and introduce an entirely new line of >play. < +=+ This looks like the root of Sven's problem. When ruling under 69B the Director is in dialogue with the player seeking to withdraw acquiescence. He is no longer ruling on the claim but on whether the acquiescence may be withdrawn. Acquiescence is defined in this law as "acquiescence in the loss of a trick." 69B sets out the conditions under which the Director will transfer a trick to the acquiescing side. He does so only if that side has allowed a trick to claimer that it has in fact won, or if a trick has been conceded to claimer which claimer could not win by any normal play of the remaining cards. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Nov 16 18:17:14 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Nov 17 10:08:13 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <001301c5eac9$8c6d0c10$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001301c5eac9$8c6d0c10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <437B699A.3020707@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>I have always understood this clause in L69B applying to plays >>>by the acquiescing side as the claimer is bound to adhere to his >>>claim statement. >>>It has never occurred to me that this clause should open a door >>>for the claimer to abandon his claim statement and introduce an >>>entirely new line of play. >>> >> >>OK Sven, I see what you mean. >>However, consider this: >> >>At two tables, a same claim is made. At the first table, declarer just >>shows his cards, at the second one, declarer adds a statement. >>At both tables, opponents acquiesce and start the next board. >>At both tables, opponents then ask to withdraw acquiescence. >>A line is found which is successful, but it does not fall within the >>claim statement of the second declarer. >> >>If the "normal" plays that are to be considered in L69B would be only >>those plays that are included in the claim statement, such as you >>interpret L69B, then the second declarer will lose his contract while >>the first one will not. >>I doubt that you will find that interpretation satisfactory. > > > IMO (sic!) *both* claimers will lose their contract. > > The second because he has given a clarifying statement specifically > indicating a line of play that afterwards is shown to fail, and the first > because he has violated L68C by not giving any statement and therefore may > not afterwards select any particular successful line of play that could (!) > have been suggested from information he has received subsequent to his > claim. > > I have no problem with this. Do you see any problem? > Yes, I do. You are not applying L69B! Once the acquiescence has been given, there is no more recourse to L68C. The only recourse is to L69B. And even under your mistaken interpretation, you should allow the contract to stand, because there is a normal line that leads to success. Therefore the condition of L69B "could not be lost by any normal play" is not met, and the acquiescence must stand. Do you see any problem? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 17 10:09:51 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Nov 17 10:17:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <001101c5eaaa$11c99290$6400a8c0@WINXP> <437B318B.7060602@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002901c5eb56$da9a3060$a6aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > Sven, Sven, Sven, are we living in the same world > or are we not? > +=+ There is plain evidence, and not only here on blml, that we are not all living in the same (bridge) world. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Nov 17 10:20:19 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Nov 17 10:22:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437BED3B.7060505@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511161924.jAGJOf8i006350@cfa.harvard.edu> <437BED3B.7060505@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <437C4B53.5050007@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: > > Here's another one for the group. Something like it actually happened > to me two weeks ago. > > Declarer claims, stating a line of play. This line will indeed give him > all the tricks despite there being a small trump out that declarer has > forgotten. (In essence declarer has a high cross-ruff.) Somehow the > defenders convince declarer he will lose a trick, which he concedes. A > few rounds later (but well within the correction period) declarer wants > his trick back. There existed a "normal" play of the remaining cards > that would give the defender a trump trick. (Instead of cross-ruffing, > declarer could try to discard one of his losers on a winner from dummy; > this will get ruffed by LHO.) Does declarer get his trick or not? > Yes he does. He has claimed, and the claim has been contested, but the TD has not been called. A "ruling" has been accepted under which the opponents get a trick. That "ruling" is now challenged. I see no difference between this case and the one in which the TD is called, and he gives a wrong ruling. That ruling is later discovered to be wrong, and it will be corrected. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 17 10:27:10 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Nov 17 10:31:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <005801c5eb4e$01d4b1e0$e0a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c5eb59$16327770$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > From: "Sven Pran" > >I have always understood this clause in L69B > >applying to plays by the acquiescing side as the > >claimer is bound to adhere to his claim statement. > >It has never occurred to me that this clause should > >open a door for the claimer to abandon his claim > >statement and introduce an entirely new line of > >play. > < > +=+ This looks like the root of Sven's problem. > When ruling under 69B the Director is in dialogue > with the player seeking to withdraw acquiescence. > He is no longer ruling on the claim but on whether > the acquiescence may be withdrawn. Acquiescence > is defined in this law as "acquiescence in the loss of > a trick." 69B sets out the conditions under which > the Director will transfer a trick to the acquiescing > side. He does so only if that side has allowed a trick > to claimer that it has in fact won, or if a trick has > been conceded to claimer which claimer could not > win by any normal play of the remaining cards. Precisely! Doesn't Law 69B essentially tell us to judge the play of the remaining cards as if the claim had been contested (i.e. the play by the acquiescing side in response to the claimer's line of play) except that now all doubtful points shall be resolved in favour of the claimer? I have a problem seeing how (when acquiescence is withdrawn) Law 69B actually cancels the claim so that the claimer may introduce an entirely new line of play different from the line of play he indicated with his claim statement? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 17 10:35:02 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Nov 17 10:39:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437B699A.3020707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c5eb5a$2f679a30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Once the acquiescence has been given, there is no more recourse to L68C. > The only recourse is to L69B. > And even under your mistaken interpretation, you should allow the > contract to stand, because there is a normal line that leads to > success. Therefore the condition of L69B "could not be lost by any > normal play" is not met, and the acquiescence must stand. > > Do you see any problem? Yes, under what law is the claim itself cancelled when the acquiescence is withdrawn? Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Nov 17 11:41:36 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Nov 17 11:43:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <000001c5eb59$16327770$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5eb59$16327770$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <437C5E60.1070302@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Precisely! > > Doesn't Law 69B essentially tell us to judge the play of the remaining cards > as if the claim had been contested (i.e. the play by the acquiescing side in > response to the claimer's line of play) except that now all doubtful points > shall be resolved in favour of the claimer? > > I have a problem seeing how (when acquiescence is withdrawn) Law 69B > actually cancels the claim so that the claimer may introduce an entirely new > line of play different from the line of play he indicated with his claim > statement? > Because that is what it says! Read it again and try and find the words claim statement in L69B. They are not there. Just accept it, Sven! > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 17 12:38:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Nov 17 12:42:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <005801c5eb4e$01d4b1e0$e0a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > Acquiescence is defined in this law as "acquiescence in the loss of > a trick." Which law? In my version of the law book 69A says "Acquiescence occurs when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim". The claim statement, if any, forms part of a verbal contract between claimer and opponents and assent completes that contract. There are a large number of claims to which I acquiesce every year to which, in the absence of a statement, I would object. Am I supposed to withhold acquiescence because the statement isn't part of the claim? > 69B sets out the conditions under which > the Director will transfer a trick to the acquiescing > side. He does so only if that side has allowed a trick > to claimer that it has in fact won, or if a trick has > been conceded to claimer which claimer could not > win by any normal play of the remaining cards. Actually "could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." The judgement the director makes will depend on the facts. If the alleged statement can be established as fact then a line incompatible the TD is perfectly entitled to judge such a line as "abnormal". Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 17 12:51:56 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Nov 17 12:56:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437C5E60.1070302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c5eb6d$4f7afcf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > Precisely! > > > > Doesn't Law 69B essentially tell us to judge the play > > of the remaining cards as if the claim had been contested > > (i.e. the play by the acquiescing side in response to the > > claimer's line of play) except that now all doubtful points > > shall be resolved in favour of the claimer? > > > > I have a problem seeing how (when acquiescence is withdrawn) > > Law 69B actually cancels the claim so that the claimer may > > introduce an entirely new line of play different from the line > > of play he indicated with his claim statement? > > > > Because that is what it says! ??? > Read it again and try and find the words claim statement in L69B. > They are not there. Exactly, so where does Law 69B (or any other law) say that the claim as such is cancelled when acquiescence is withdrawn? Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Nov 17 14:08:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Nov 17 14:10:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <000201c5eb6d$4f7afcf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c5eb6d$4f7afcf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <437C80B5.6050906@hdw.be> Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > >>Read it again and try and find the words claim statement in L69B. >>They are not there. > > > Exactly, so where does Law 69B (or any other law) say that the claim as such > is cancelled when acquiescence is withdrawn? > Nowhere. What do you mean, the claim is cancelled? The claim as such is not cancelled of course. Play does not suddenly continue. Or are you talking about the claim statement again? Then no, that is not cancelled, but since it is not mentioned, it is not taken into account either. And time and again we have told you that in the determination of the list of "normal" lines, the claim statement plays no more part whatsoever. As to the result being different as the one that was claimed originally, this Law has the intent of changing the result (or not). So of course, the original "claim" is "cancelled". I really don't understand why you continue to have problems with this law. You had a misconception about it, and we have told you a number of times already that you were mistaken. Now read this law again and understand it under that new conception. You will see that it makes sense. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/168 - Release Date: 14/11/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 17 15:01:00 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Nov 17 15:13:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <000001c5eb59$16327770$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002e01c5eb80$2f6c5fe0$019187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas ('Let us examine the scriptures') These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:27 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Doesn't Law 69B essentially tell us to judge the play of the remaining cards as if the claim had been contested (i.e. the play by the acquiescing side in response to the claimer's line of play) except that now all doubtful points shall be resolved in favour of the claimer? +=+ No. It tells the Director on what conditions he may transfer a trick from claimer when a player who has acquiesced in the claim wishes to withdraw the acquiescence. It sets criteria specific to this situation.+=+ I have a problem seeing how (when acquiescence is withdrawn) Law 69B actually cancels the claim +=+ The claim was concluded when there was acquiescence under Law 69A. Law 69B deals with a situation subsequent to the claim and without referral outside of itself. It does not send the Director on to Law 70. The difficulty arises because you read into Law 69B something that is not present. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 17 15:06:21 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Nov 17 15:13:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: Message-ID: <002f01c5eb80$306df160$019187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas ('Let us examine the scriptures') These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > Grattan wrote: > > > Acquiescence is defined in this law as "acquiescence > > in the loss of a trick." > > Which law? > +=+ Law 69B. In this law the 69A 'acquiescence' generally in the claim is refined to 'acquiescence in the loss of a trick.+=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 17 15:26:37 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Nov 17 15:33:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <000201c5eb6d$4f7afcf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <437C80B5.6050906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005c01c5eb83$032ea980$019187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas ('Let us examine the scriptures') These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > I really don't understand why you continue to have > problems with this law. > +=+ I think, Herman, the problems arise because of a failure to realize that when the claim was accepted under Law 69A that was the end of the claim. At a later time there is a desire to withdraw the acquiescence, not in the claim as a general matter but in respect of the winning or losing of each trick. So now in Law 69B we are looking not at the claim generally but at tricks individually to see if any trick meets the much more stringent conditions in this law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Thu Nov 17 17:47:46 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Nov 17 17:51:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:08:05 +0100." <437C80B5.6050906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200511171647.IAA22446@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote [to Sven]: > I really don't understand why you continue to have problems with this > law. Sven appears to be reading something into the Law that isn't there. However, after participating on BLML as long as I have, I've accepted the fact that the Laws are often written sloppily enough so that sometimes one *has* to read something that isn't there in order for things to make sense. So I think in this case, Sven is wrong, but not silly. It appears to me that: (1) the Law needs a few more words to clarify what is meant; and (2) I think the objections of Sven and Marv are valid ones; i.e. that if the rest of us are interpreting the Law correctly, it means that claimers may get away with bad claims too much, and a change should be at least considered. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Laws as I believe they're currently written, but I can understand the other side. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Thu Nov 17 18:01:49 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Nov 17 18:05:57 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:20:19 +0100." <437C4B53.5050007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200511171701.JAA22532@mailhub.irvine.com> > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > Here's another one for the group. Something like it actually happened > > to me two weeks ago. > > > > Declarer claims, stating a line of play. This line will indeed give him > > all the tricks despite there being a small trump out that declarer has > > forgotten. (In essence declarer has a high cross-ruff.) Somehow the > > defenders convince declarer he will lose a trick, which he concedes. A > > few rounds later (but well within the correction period) declarer wants > > his trick back. There existed a "normal" play of the remaining cards > > that would give the defender a trump trick. In this case, you have to ask if there's a "legal" play of the remaining cards that would give the defender a trump trick. It's too late to apply 71C, so we have to use 71A. In this case, the two questions appear to give the same answer. > > (Instead of cross-ruffing, > > declarer could try to discard one of his losers on a winner from dummy; > > this will get ruffed by LHO.) Does declarer get his trick or not? > > > > Yes he does. He has claimed, and the claim has been contested, but the > TD has not been called. A "ruling" has been accepted under which the > opponents get a trick. That "ruling" is now challenged. > I see no difference between this case and the one in which the TD is > called, and he gives a wrong ruling. That ruling is later discovered > to be wrong, and it will be corrected. The problem, for me, is that this falls into an area that the Laws fail to cover. A claimer makes a claim, the defenders point out that there's a problem with the claim, and the claimer realizes his mistake and changes his claim, which the defenders accept. Happens all the time. But it isn't legal procedure. Law 68D says that if a claim is disputed, the Director must be summoned immediately. To me, this is a glaring deficiency in the Laws. If a claim is disputed, and one side realizes their mistake right away and the two sides reach a quick agreement on the correct claim, why does the Director need to get involved? It seems silly. When I've posted about this before, the responses I got (including one from David Stevenson) seemed to indicate that it's acceptable for two sides to resolve a claim without calling the Director, if they don't need the help. So we have a situation that isn't really permitted by the Laws but is IMHO generally considered to be acceptable. How do we treat it? Herman thinks we should treat it as a "ruling". Not me. I think the original claim is cancelled and a new claim/concession has taken place, and we assume the original claim never happened. Based on that, 71A applies, and the concession must stand since there is a legal play that gives the defenders the conceded trick. -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 17 19:33:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Nov 17 19:38:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437C80B5.6050906@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I really don't understand why you continue to have problems with this > law. You had a misconception about it, and we have told you a number > of times already that you were mistaken. Sadly the misconception is Herman's not Sven. Herman's argument is predicated on the fact that a claim statement is not part of the claim. Very well then, I suggest Herman try applying L70 (particularly L70b3) on this basis: "3. Hear Objections The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. Note "claim" not "claim and statement". Declarer claims, stating "cross-ruffing high". The opponents object to the "claim" because if declarer draws trumps he will go off. If we do not accept the stated line as a component of the claim we must rule the objection valid. While a claim *need not* incorporate a statement any statement made constitutes part of the claim. The only difference between contesting a claim and withdrawing acquiesence is that any doubt around the exact claim statement is now resolved against acquiescer not claimer. The passing of time means there will be doubt more often - but that doesn't change the principle. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 17 19:33:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Nov 17 19:38:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <002f01c5eb80$306df160$019187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > Acquiescence is defined in this law as "acquiescence > > > in the loss of a trick." > > > > Which law? > > > +=+ Law 69B. In this law the 69A 'acquiescence' generally > in the claim is refined to 'acquiescence in the loss of a trick.+=+ Sorry Grattan, but you have your referents screwed up. "Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side. " The only "acquiescence" which may be *withdrawn* is "acquiescence in an opponent's claim" (that's the claim as a whole, not individual tricks). If, within those parameters, he has "acquiesced in the loss of a trick which could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards" the conditions for withdrawing the acquiescence in the claim are met. It is law 69A which defines what acquiescence is - not law 69b. It is a bit confusing for you because the law uses the technical (defined) term "acquiescence" as well as the non-technical word "acquiesced". It might clarify the current law if "acquiesced" were replaced by conceded - or, of course, the WBF might wish to change the law to read as you currently wish to interpret it (or indeed write a minute somewhere saying that black is white). Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 17 20:41:21 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Nov 17 21:00:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <200511171647.IAA22446@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c5ebb1$232456d0$e0dd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > > It appears to me that: > > (1) the Law needs a few more words to clarify > what is meant; > +=+ Well, one might help - ""be lost by any normal play whatsoever of the remaining cards" but it is not really needed; the English of the actual law is unassailable. It requires that it be read as written and without contamination by extraneous thoughts. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 17 20:56:23 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Nov 17 21:00:46 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <200511171647.IAA22446@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000101c5ebb1$24235040$e0dd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <200511171901.jAHJ1F3r006809@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <437D3FD1.8070606@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> Somehow the defenders convince declarer he will lose a trick, ... SW> There existed a "normal" play of the remaining cards SW>that would give the defender a trump trick. > From: Adam Beneschan > In this case, you have to ask if there's a "legal" play of the > remaining cards that would give the defender a trump trick. The "normal" play I mentioned was indeed legal. > It's too late to apply 71C, so we have to use 71A. According to the WBFLC and the preface to L71, 71C applies until the end of the correction period. > Law 68D says that if a claim is > disputed, the Director must be summoned immediately. Indeed using "must," the strongest possible term. According to the Preface, "violation is regarded as serious indeed." > To me, this is a > glaring deficiency in the Laws. If a claim is disputed, and one side > realizes their mistake right away and the two sides reach a quick > agreement on the correct claim, why does the Director need to get > involved? It seems silly. When I've posted about this before, the > responses I got (including one from David Stevenson) seemed to > indicate that it's acceptable for two sides to resolve a claim without > calling the Director, if they don't need the help. In my experience, about 90% of claims that are questioned are settled without the Director being called. (About 80% just take a few seconds for the defenders to understand how the play will go.) > So we have a situation that isn't really permitted by the Laws but is > IMHO generally considered to be acceptable. How do we treat it? > Herman thinks we should treat it as a "ruling". Not me. I think the > original claim is cancelled and a new claim/concession has taken > place, and we assume the original claim never happened. Based on > that, 71A applies, and the concession must stand since there is a > legal play that gives the defenders the conceded trick. I have received a private reply to much the same the effect except that the standard is "normal play" rather than "legal play." As Adam notes, Herman disagrees. I remain uncertain. It seems wrong for defenders to befuddle declarer into giving up his perfectly valid claim (despite his having overlooked an outstanding trump), yet L73C seems compelling. From adam at irvine.com Fri Nov 18 03:57:34 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Nov 18 04:01:39 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:43:29 EST." <437D3FD1.8070606@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200511180257.SAA26056@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > In this case, you have to ask if there's a "legal" play of the > > remaining cards that would give the defender a trump trick. > > The "normal" play I mentioned was indeed legal. > > > It's too late to apply 71C, so we have to use 71A. > > According to the WBFLC and the preface to L71, 71C applies until the end > of the correction period. I'll take your word for it. (It makes no difference to your example anyway.) But do you (or anyone else) have the Internet location of the WBFLC minute that decided this? I've got several WBFLC documents in my files, but I apparently missed the one that covered this. -- Adam From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 18 10:24:11 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 18 10:26:14 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <437D9DBB.9080709@hdw.be> Hello Tim, I'm saddened to have to say that you are wrong on several counts. Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>I really don't understand why you continue to have problems with this >>law. You had a misconception about it, and we have told you a number >>of times already that you were mistaken. > > > Sadly the misconception is Herman's not Sven. Are you suggesting that the resolution that most of blml have reached a consensus upon, is wrong? Then you are very sadly mistaken. > Herman's argument is > predicated on the fact that a claim statement is not part of the claim. No it is not. My argument is that a claim and a claim statement are two different things. They accompany one another, neither is part of the other. > Very well then, I suggest Herman try applying L70 (particularly L70b3) on > this basis: > "3. Hear Objections > The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. > Yes indeed, on the claim. Many claims are issued without any statement at all (not that this is a good thing). The opponents muts object to the claim, the TD will use the claim statement to re&ach a decision. > Note "claim" not "claim and statement". > Of course not. You cannot object to a statement. It is there and it cannot be altered or objected to. > Declarer claims, stating "cross-ruffing high". The opponents object to > the "claim" because if declarer draws trumps he will go off. If we do not > accept the stated line as a component of the claim we must rule the > objection valid. While a claim *need not* incorporate a statement any > statement made constitutes part of the claim. > No, it explains the claim, it does not "form" or "is part of" the claim. > The only difference between contesting a claim and withdrawing acquiesence > is that any doubt around the exact claim statement is now resolved against > acquiescer not claimer. The passing of time means there will be doubt > more often - but that doesn't change the principle. > NO. NO. NO. As has been stated by many before: L69B does not refer to the claim statement and the ANY mentioned in it includes normal lines that were not part of the claim statement before. If that werer not the case then you would rule more harshly on a claimer who made a statement than on one who did not say anything at all. Surely that cannot be the outcome of a claim. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/174 - Release Date: 17/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 18 10:35:45 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 18 10:37:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <200511171701.JAA22532@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200511171701.JAA22532@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <437DA071.9070701@hdw.be> Adam Beneschan wrote: > > So we have a situation that isn't really permitted by the Laws but is > IMHO generally considered to be acceptable. How do we treat it? > Herman thinks we should treat it as a "ruling". Not me. I think the > original claim is cancelled and a new claim/concession has taken > place, and we assume the original claim never happened. Based on > that, 71A applies, and the concession must stand since there is a > legal play that gives the defenders the conceded trick. > The problems with that point of view are twofold: - if you consider the new outcome the result of a new claim, whose claim is it? Probably not the original claimer, since it is a counterclaim which becomes accepted. Do you really want to give the benefit of the doubt to original claimer now? - if you don't consider this a ruling because the TD has not been called, and you are ruling in favour of the non-claiming side afterwards, then you are giving a better situation to the non-claimers who did not call the TD, over those who do call the TD. You need to compare this with the similar case of the TD being called, and him (wrongly) agreeing with the opponents in ruling against the claim. If the claimer later points out the error in the TD's ruling, the TD has the power to change his ruling, without having to go through the process of withdrawn conceding or withdrawn acquiescence. That same procedure should be available if the TD has not been called, or we give the opponents a reason to not call the TD. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/174 - Release Date: 17/11/2005 From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 18 11:32:04 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Nov 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <200511180257.SAA26056@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000101c5ec2b$51b8c6a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan ............ > > According to the WBFLC and the preface to L71, 71C applies until the end > > of the correction period. > > I'll take your word for it. (It makes no difference to your example > anyway.) But do you (or anyone else) have the Internet location of > the WBFLC minute that decided this? I've got several WBFLC documents > in my files, but I apparently missed the one that covered this. > > -- Adam Look for the minutes from Hammamet, Tunisia October 19th 1997 #6 Begin quote: 6 The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He pointed to the confusion created by the wording as it had been published. Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by Mr. Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable difference of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. Mr. Endicott read out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he had indicated. The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that the sentence in 71C beginning "Until the conceding side..." does in fact make a provision that is incorporated within the wider provision existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes the time period ... from the start of the next board to the usual protest period.") End quote. (I shall challenge anybody so tempted to find and describe a situation where Law 71C applies but Law 71A does not. Remember that a "normal" play must necessarily also be legal but a legal play need not be "normal"!). Regards Sven From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Fri Nov 18 11:55:23 2005 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Fri Nov 18 11:59:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Asking unneeded explanation of bid during the bidding Message-ID: <437DB31B.70703@hotmail.com> This was the actual situation: MP's S/- Opps always pass. Pass-1S 2NT(1)-3D(2) 3H(3)-4S My partner opens 1S (kind of SAYC). I bid 2NT - alerted by my partner as Fit S and 10 or 11 pts, or 16+. My partner then bids 3D - alerted by me. My RHO asks what it is and I explain that he has an unknown singleton and 14-15 pts. In fact my partner did not have a singleton. 3C would show minimum and he thought that 3D showed 14-15 without shortness. In fact the correct bid for him was 3NT. I then bid 3H: asking the singleton. My partner bids 4S which ends the bidding. I explain the 4S: partner does not want to show his singleton and thinks 4S is the best end contract. Now my RHO - feeling that there is something wrong - puts the TD card on the table to preserve his rights (which is nonesense and not required in my opinion!?). My partner says that he did misbid and that he does not have a singleton. My RHO explains him that he should not bid 4S after being awakened by my explanation. RHO wants to call the TD, but we are already behind in time and the call for the next round will come anytime. My partner says then we can't play the board anymore..and some hot discussion starts. The board is played anyway and the TD is not called. My partner did have a flat hand with 14 pts. It would be very difficult to find a bidding that would not lead use to 4S after: P-1S 2NT-3D 3H... The result is 4S+1 as everybody else. -------------------------------------------------- Questions: 1. Am I right to say the TD-card is not at all required. If you didn't put it then you can still call the TD after the play. 2. RHO asks explanation of the 3D bid. He asks this out of interest and does not intend to bid anything. His only option is Pass. If an end contract of 4S would have been less clear (could have gone to 4S+1 or 6S-1 both 50% prob without being awakened by the explanation of 3D), will you then take into consideration that RHO could have waited to ask an explanation till the end of the bidding? How will you rule? 3. Same question as 2, but you have a feeling that asking was rather done to get a wrong explantion and to be able to get an adjustment based on that. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Nov 18 11:56:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Nov 18 12:00:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437D9DBB.9080709@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Hello Tim, > > I'm saddened to have to say that you are wrong on several counts. > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > > > >>I really don't understand why you continue to have problems with this > >>law. You had a misconception about it, and we have told you a number > >>of times already that you were mistaken. > > > > > > Sadly the misconception is Herman's not Sven. > > Are you suggesting that the resolution that most of blml have reached > a consensus upon, is wrong? Then you are very sadly mistaken. I'm not suggesting anything - I'm telling you, and I'm right. > > Herman's argument is > > predicated on the fact that a claim statement is not part of the > > claim. > > No it is not. My argument is that a claim and a claim statement are > two different things. They accompany one another, neither is part of > the other. > > > Very well then, I suggest Herman try applying L70 (particularly > > L70b3) on this basis: > "3. Hear Objections > > The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. > > > > Yes indeed, on the claim. Many claims are issued without any statement > at all (not that this is a good thing). The opponents muts object to > the claim, the TD will use the claim statement to re&ach a decision. Claims without statements are irrelevant to this thread. Many claims are valid *only* because of the statement. > > Note "claim" not "claim and statement". > > > > Of course not. You cannot object to a statement. It is there and it > cannot be altered or objected to. One is not objecting to the statement - one is objecting to (or accepting) the claim on the basis of the statement. > > Declarer claims, stating "cross-ruffing high". The opponents object > > to the "claim" because if declarer draws trumps he will go off. If > > we do not accept the stated line as a component of the claim we must > > rule the objection valid. While a claim *need not* incorporate a > > statement any statement made constitutes part of the claim. > > > > No, it explains the claim, it does not "form" or "is part of" the claim. If it is not part of the claim then we may legitimately contest any claim which depends on the statement - indeed we must do so because the claim itself is flawed if a failing line exists outwith the statement. In fact, in most cases the statement *is* the claim - "I will cash my side-suit winners and cross-ruff high, making the rest." is an example of a statement which *is* a claim. This is basic L68a stuff: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim..." Please don't tell me that the statement above is not a claim! > > The only difference between contesting a claim and withdrawing > > acquiesence is that any doubt around the exact claim statement is now > > resolved against acquiescer not claimer. The passing of time means > > there will be doubt more often - but that doesn't change the > > principle. > > > > NO. NO. NO. > As has been stated by many before: L69B does not refer to the claim > statement and the ANY mentioned in it includes normal lines that were > not part of the claim statement before. L69b refers to "the claim" which may, or may not, have taken take the form of (or included) a statement. > If that werer not the case then you would rule more harshly on a > claimer who made a statement than on one who did not say anything at > all. Surely that cannot be the outcome of a claim. If there are losing lines and no claim statement then whenever a claim is contested I rule against the claimer. That is hardly harsher than my rulings against claims which include statements. Post-acquiescence I do not rule "more harshly" against a player who made a statement. I adjust only when claimer agrees he made a flawed statement (because lacking such agreement I must include all normal lines) and that opps would have won an additional trick - strangely players don't consider this harsh! Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Nov 18 11:56:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Nov 18 12:00:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437D3FD1.8070606@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > > Law 68D says that if a claim is > > disputed, the Director must be summoned immediately. > > Indeed using "must," the strongest possible term. According to the > Preface, "violation is regarded as serious indeed." > > > To me, this is a > > glaring deficiency in the Laws. If a claim is disputed, Many players walk a fine line. We do not "dispute" a claim, we merely enquire as to (for example) whether our master trump might win a trick. This often (98%) has the effect of the claim being amended without dispute. Occasionally there is doubt as to how many tricks might be won, a dispute arises and *then* the TD is called immediately. TDs would be a lot busier were players not given to such a practical approach. Tim From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Nov 18 12:36:55 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Nov 18 12:41:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <000101c5ec2b$51b8c6a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000d01c5ec34$668146d0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Sven wrote: >(I shall challenge anybody so tempted to find and describe a situation where >Law 71C applies but Law 71A does not. Remember that a "normal" play must >necessarily also be legal but a legal play need not be "normal"!). This statement might need some clarification. No TD should ever read 71A, since applying 71A could lead to a wrong decision. Any case in which the TD should allow the claiming side an extra trick under 71A is also covered by 71C. Once more: law 71 is the worst written law in our law book. And according to David Burn, who should return to this group, law 3 the best written. ton From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 18 12:41:35 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 18 12:43:34 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <437DBDEF.4010801@hdw.be> Hello Tim, You do me the honour of replying, so I will do the same. Yet there seems no point. Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>Are you suggesting that the resolution that most of blml have reached >>a consensus upon, is wrong? Then you are very sadly mistaken. > > > I'm not suggesting anything - I'm telling you, and I'm right. > Well, since you're right, you must be right. > > One is not objecting to the statement - one is objecting to (or > accepting) the claim on the basis of the statement. > So as I said, one is objecting to the claim. >> >>No, it explains the claim, it does not "form" or "is part of" the claim. > > > If it is not part of the claim then we may legitimately contest any claim > which depends on the statement - indeed we must do so because the claim > itself is flawed if a failing line exists outwith the statement. > In fact, in most cases the statement *is* the claim - "I will cash my > side-suit winners and cross-ruff high, making the rest." is an example of > a statement which *is* a claim. This is basic L68a stuff: > "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number > of tricks is a claim..." > A claim is "something" that curtails play. A claim statement accompanies a claim. Making a claim statement is one (and only one) way of indicating that one is making a claim. "I make all tricks" is also a statement indicating that one makes a claim. But it is no claim. I don't even call it a claim statement, but that's mere semantics. Anyway, a claim is something "more" than just a claim statement. And a claim statement is not "part" of a claim, it accompanies a claim. All of which is totally irrelevant. As Grattan and others have said : for the purposes of L69B, the claim statement is irrelevant. > Please don't tell me that the statement above is not a claim! > Yes, I do tell you: that statement is not a claim. It indicates that claimer is claiming, but it is not a claim in itself. > >>>The only difference between contesting a claim and withdrawing >>>acquiesence is that any doubt around the exact claim statement is now >>>resolved against acquiescer not claimer. The passing of time means >>>there will be doubt more often - but that doesn't change the >>>principle. >>> >> >>NO. NO. NO. >>As has been stated by many before: L69B does not refer to the claim >>statement and the ANY mentioned in it includes normal lines that were >>not part of the claim statement before. > > > L69b refers to "the claim" which may, or may not, have taken take the form > of (or included) a statement. > Again, L69B does not refer to the claim statement. So the claim statement is irrelevant. You are trying to make the words fit your interpretation. > >>If that werer not the case then you would rule more harshly on a >>claimer who made a statement than on one who did not say anything at >>all. Surely that cannot be the outcome of a claim. > > > If there are losing lines and no claim statement then whenever a claim is > contested I rule against the claimer. That is hardly harsher than my > rulings against claims which include statements. Post-acquiescence I do > not rule "more harshly" against a player who made a statement. I adjust > only when claimer agrees he made a flawed statement (because lacking such > agreement I must include all normal lines) and that opps would have won an > additional trick - strangely players don't consider this harsh! > Which means that post-acquiescence, you would not rule against a claimer who had not made a statement, since he made no claim statement at all. If you rule against such a claimer, you would be going totally against L69B. Just tell yourself the original story again. Claimer shows his hand, and opponents acquiesce. Later they want to retract the acquiescence but claimer finds an obscure line that lets the contract make. Even though he admits he had not seen that line while claiming, can you read L69B so manifestly wrongly "any normal line that wins" that you rule this claim down? Sorry Tim, but you could not be wronger than this one. Tell him again, Grattan. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/174 - Release Date: 17/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 18 12:54:05 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 18 12:55:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Asking unneeded explanation of bid during the bidding In-Reply-To: <437DB31B.70703@hotmail.com> References: <437DB31B.70703@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <437DC0DD.8090309@hdw.be> Let me tackle question 2 first: koen wrote: > 2. RHO asks explanation of the 3D bid. He asks this out of interest and > does not intend to bid anything. His only option is Pass. If an end > contract of 4S would have been less clear (could have gone to 4S+1 or > 6S-1 both 50% prob without being awakened by the explanation of 3D), > will you then take into consideration that RHO could have waited to ask > an explanation till the end of the bidding? How will you rule? Sadly, this is not forbidden. Some people refrain from asking because this might help the bidding pair by the use of UI. Soe others specifically ask because they hope the bidders will give UI. The second tactic is the sounder one, and it is not forbidden. Anyway, regardless of this, your partner now has UI and he should not use it. However: see below. > This was the actual situation: > MP's > S/- > Opps always pass. > Pass-1S > 2NT(1)-3D(2) > 3H(3)-4S > My partner opens 1S (kind of SAYC). > I bid 2NT - alerted by my partner as Fit S and 10 or 11 pts, or 16+. > My partner then bids 3D - alerted by me. My RHO asks what it is and I > explain that he has an unknown singleton and 14-15 pts. > In fact my partner did not have a singleton. 3C would show minimum and > he thought that 3D showed 14-15 without shortness. In fact the correct > bid for him was 3NT. > I then bid 3H: asking the singleton. > My partner bids 4S which ends the bidding. I explain the 4S: partner > does not want to show his singleton and thinks 4S is the best end contract. > Now my RHO - feeling that there is something wrong - puts the TD card on > the table to preserve his rights (which is nonesense and not required in > my opinion!?). My partner says that he did misbid and that he does not > have a singleton. My RHO explains him that he should not bid 4S after > being awakened by my explanation. RHO wants to call the TD, but we are > already behind in time and the call for the next round will come > anytime. My partner says then we can't play the board anymore..and some > hot discussion starts. The board is played anyway and the TD is not called. > My partner did have a flat hand with 14 pts. It would be very difficult > to find a bidding that would not lead use to 4S after: > P-1S > 2NT-3D > 3H... totally irrelevant. The relevant facts are this: a) did your partner realize what your bid meant (presumably he did, since he explained it correctly). b) what did he think 3D meant (you tell us 14-15 without shortness) c) what would 3H mean after his meaning for 3D - it cannot be asking for the singleton since (in his opinion) he has already denied any shorts. So presumably it is either natural, or control. We would need to know your general system for that. d) depending on the answer to the previous, he should bid whatever comes naturally. Maybe this is 3S? e) what would 3S then mean in your system - you say you were asking for the singleton - what singleton does 3S show? f1) is it possible for you to pass 3S? in which case the correction might well be to 3S+2; or: f2) is it possible that after his response (not 4S) you are tempted to ask for aces and land in 6S? in which case the correction might well be to 6S-1! > The result is 4S+1 as everybody else. > -------------------------------------------------- > Questions: > 1. Am I right to say the TD-card is not at all required. If you didn't > put it then you can still call the TD after the play. you can, and you can. > 3. Same question as 2, but you have a feeling that asking was rather > done to get a wrong explantion and to be able to get an adjustment based > on that. > as we said, this is allowed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/174 - Release Date: 17/11/2005 From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 18 13:24:37 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Nov 18 13:28:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <000d01c5ec34$668146d0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000301c5ec3b$0a84fb40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sven wrote: > > >(I shall challenge anybody so tempted to find and describe a situation > where > >Law 71C applies but Law 71A does not. Remember that a "normal" play must > >necessarily also be legal but a legal play need not be "normal"!). > > > This statement might need some clarification. No TD should ever read 71A, > since applying 71A could lead to a wrong decision. > Any case in which the TD should allow the claiming side an extra trick > under > 71A is also covered by 71C. Ton is of course correct! When I wrote the above I had a strong feeling that something was wrong as I have always claimed the second part of L71A to be redundant, and now I just confused myself. So what I should have written is: I shall challenge anybody so tempted to find and describe a situation where the second part of Law 71A applies but Law 71C does not. Remember that a "normal" play must necessarily also be legal but a legal play need not be "normal"! Thanks Ton! Regards Sven > Once more: law 71 is the worst written law in our law book. And according > to > David Burn, who should return to this group, law 3 the best written. > > > ton From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 18 13:36:10 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Nov 18 13:40:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437DBDEF.4010801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c5ec3c$a7a18320$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > "I make all tricks" is also a statement indicating that one makes a > claim. But it is no claim. WHAT ? ! I don't even call it a claim statement, but > that's mere semantics. According to my book it is a statement that regardless of further ("normal") lines of play he will have the rest of the tricks, and if this is not a claim as defined in the first sentence of law 68A I don't know one when I see it. (L68A: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. ....") Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Nov 18 15:18:23 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Nov 18 15:20:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <000401c5ec3c$a7a18320$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c5ec3c$a7a18320$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <437DE2AF.5010002@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............... > >>"I make all tricks" is also a statement indicating that one makes a >>claim. But it is no claim. > > > WHAT ? ! > > I don't even call it a claim statement, but > >>that's mere semantics. > > > According to my book it is a statement that regardless of further ("normal") > lines of play he will have the rest of the tricks, and if this is not a > claim as defined in the first sentence of law 68A I don't know one when I > see it. > > (L68A: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific > number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. ....") > > Sven > You are, of course, right. But this is not what I mean. You must understand that there is a difference between a claim and a claim statement. A claim is the action of curtailing play. A claim statement is something which is uttered. But just as there can be statements that are not claims (they are not "claim statements"), there are claims that are not statements (such as merely showing your cards and writing down a bridge score. Why the lawmakers chose to write the verb "to be" in L68A is beyond my comprehension, but they surely did not intend that a bridge term "a claim" and an uttered sentence "I will make 10 tricks" are exactly the same sort of thing. Sven and Tim appear to be saying that because L68A says that a statement is a claim, the word claim in L69B must be equalled to a statement, and they deduce from that that the normal lines set out in L69B should be limited to those included in some uttered statement. If they would merely try and see what that interpretation does to a completely silent claim, they would see the error of their ways. As it is, not even a sentence from Grattan saying that the wording is clear is about to sway them. I say we should let them wallow in the error of their convictions. That is the last I have to say on this matter. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/174 - Release Date: 17/11/2005 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 18 15:56:47 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Nov 18 16:05:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <000301c5ec3b$0a84fb40$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002701c5ec50$9f6df710$eac287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas ('Let us examine the scriptures') These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 12:24 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > > > >(I shall challenge anybody so tempted to find > > >and describe a situation > > >where Law 71C applies but Law 71A does not. > > >Remember that a "normal" play must > > >necessarily also be legal but a legal play need > > >not be "normal"!). > > +=+ What I can attest to is that Edgar Kaplan did understand this, and when he wrote 71A for the 1987 book he fully intended that in the case of a concession it should be cancelled within the defined period if the trick could not have been lost by any legal play of the remaining cards, "however improbable" - looking back to the 1963 words. Maybe we were wrong to go along with him in the drafting committee, but he was not opposed nor did those who subsequently approved the 1987 laws offer a criticism of it. We saw it as using the same construction as Law 69B with a differentiation between 'legal' and 'normal'. It was explained so in Edgar's commentary at the time. Today, until it is changed, I think we should apply the law as written (to the best of our ability, pace David Burn) subject to the decision of the WBFLC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 18 17:06:54 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Nov 18 17:11:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <002701c5ec50$9f6df710$eac287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000e01c5ec5a$1815c9a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............... > +=+ What I can attest to is that Edgar Kaplan did > understand this, and when he wrote 71A for the > 1987 book he fully intended that in the case of a > concession it should be cancelled within the defined > period if the trick could not have been lost by any > legal play of the remaining cards, "however improbable" > - looking back to the 1963 words. > Maybe we were wrong to go along with him in > the drafting committee, but he was not opposed nor > did those who subsequently approved the 1987 laws > offer a criticism of it. We saw it as using the same > construction as Law 69B with a differentiation > between 'legal' and 'normal'. It was explained so in > Edgar's commentary at the time. Today, until it is > changed, I think we should apply the law as written > (to the best of our ability, pace David Burn) subject > to the decision of the WBFLC. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In the 1987 version of the laws there was no problem with Law 71: A concession should be cancelled if within a shorter period it was shown that there was no "normal" play where the conceded trick(s) could be lost. Alternatively the concession should also be cancelled if within a longer period it was shown that there was no *legal* play where the conceded trick(s) could be lost. Notice the difference: In order to have more lenience on the time limit you must consider all possible legal plays, not only those that can be characterized as "normal". (No play is "normal" without also being *legal*) This made, and still makes sense to me. When the minutes removed the tighter time limit for considering "normal" plays (the second part of Law 71C) and applied the same time limit to both "normal" and *legal* plays then of course the need for the alternative law specifying legal plays (the second part of Law 71A) actually disappeared. I think much of the confusion with Law 71 has been caused by not removing the second part of Law 71A together with the second part of Law 71C. Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Fri Nov 18 18:02:06 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Nov 18 18:06:16 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:56:00 GMT." Message-ID: <200511181702.JAA31218@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > Many players walk a fine line. We do not "dispute" a claim, we merely > enquire as to (for example) whether our master trump might win a trick. I hope your tongue is partially in your cheek while you're saying this. From what you're saying, it sounds as though if declarer claims the rest and a defender says, "I still have the high trump", it would be a dispute; but if the defender says the same thing but phrased in such a way that it ends in a question mark, it would become an inquiry and thus not a dispute? And the Laws would treat the two cases differently? Sorry, that seems silly to me. Telling declarer that his claim is wrong is a dispute; cleverly constructing your sentence that tells him he's wrong in a way that makes it sound like a question doesn't make it any less of a dispute. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Fri Nov 18 19:53:08 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Nov 18 19:57:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:36:55 +0100." <000d01c5ec34$668146d0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <200511181853.KAA31904@mailhub.irvine.com> Ton wrote: > Once more: law 71 is the worst written law in our law book. And according to > David Burn, who should return to this group, law 3 the best written. Law 3?? Law 3 has a blatant ambiguity in it. It says "Four players play at each table". But what becomes of this once the opening lead has been faced on a hand? Law 41B says "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy"; and Law 43A1(c) makes it clear that dummy must not participate in the play. The obvious conclusion is, at that point, dummy is not playing, and therefore only three players are playing at that table. How, then, are we to satisfy Law 3 at that point? -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 18 22:15:56 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Nov 18 22:19:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <200511181702.JAA31218@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200511181702.JAA31218@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051118160600.02a2be80@pop.starpower.net> At 12:02 PM 11/18/05, Adam wrote: >Tim wrote: > > > Many players walk a fine line. We do not "dispute" a claim, we merely > > enquire as to (for example) whether our master trump might win a > trick. > >I hope your tongue is partially in your cheek while you're saying >this. From what you're saying, it sounds as though if declarer claims >the rest and a defender says, "I still have the high trump", it would >be a dispute; but if the defender says the same thing but phrased in >such a way that it ends in a question mark, it would become an inquiry >and thus not a dispute? And the Laws would treat the two cases >differently? > >Sorry, that seems silly to me. Telling declarer that his claim is >wrong is a dispute; cleverly constructing your sentence that tells him >he's wrong in a way that makes it sound like a question doesn't make >it any less of a dispute. "Dispute (n.): 1. A verbal controversy; an argument; a debate. 2. A quarrel." [AHD] Not every verbal exchange is a "dispute". If you tell a player that his claim is faulty and why, and he agrees, there is no controversy, argument, debate or quarrel. "If the claim... is disputed by any player... the Director must be summoned immediately" [L68D]. But the claim can be discussed and resolved without there being any disagreement, in which case calling the director is neither productive nor required, as Tim suggests. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Fri Nov 18 22:19:36 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Nov 18 22:23:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:15:56 EST." <6.1.1.1.0.20051118160600.02a2be80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200511182119.NAA32731@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > >Sorry, that seems silly to me. Telling declarer that his claim is > >wrong is a dispute; cleverly constructing your sentence that tells him > >he's wrong in a way that makes it sound like a question doesn't make > >it any less of a dispute. > > "Dispute (n.): 1. A verbal controversy; an argument; a debate. 2. A > quarrel." [AHD] > > Not every verbal exchange is a "dispute". If you tell a player that > his claim is faulty and why, and he agrees, there is no controversy, > argument, debate or quarrel. "If the claim... is disputed by any > player... the Director must be summoned immediately" [L68D]. If you want to find out what the meaning if "disputed" is in this Law, you need to look up "Dispute (v.)", not "Dispute (n.)". -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Nov 18 22:51:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Nov 18 22:56:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <437DE2AF.5010002@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > You must understand that there is a difference between a claim and a > claim statement. > > A claim is the action of curtailing play. Rather, any action which suggests the curtailment of play (except those which are demonstrably not claims). > A claim statement is something which is uttered. A statement is something which is uttered. Whether a statement is a claim is a matter of content. > But just as there can be statements that are not claims (they are not > "claim statements"), there are claims that are not statements (such as > merely showing your cards and writing down a bridge score. > > Why the lawmakers chose to write the verb "to be" in L68A is beyond my > comprehension, but they surely did not intend that a bridge term "a > claim" and an uttered sentence "I will make 10 tricks" are exactly the > same sort of thing. I, for one, care absolutely nothing for their intent. What they have *written* is that several things are "claims" and that one these things is a statement which specifies tricks to be won. > If they would merely try and see what that interpretation does to a > completely silent claim, they would see the error of their ways. I have no problems with silent claims. Just because *some* claims are silent does not mean that other claims cannot come in the form of a statement. Facing the cards and saying nothing is a claim. Stating a line of play and not facing the cards is a claim. Why do you have a problem with the concept that not all claims are the same? If claim is silent I consider (whether contested or acquiesced+withdrawn) all possible lines of play. If a claim is in the form of a statement I consider all possible lines/plays within the context of the claim. > As it is, not even a sentence from Grattan saying that the wording is > clear is about to sway them. A sentence from Grattan saying the world is flat wouldn't convince me either. (Indeed, on current form, a sentence from Grattan stating that the world was approximately spherical might cause me to doubt the veracity of my atlas). Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 21 02:20:56 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Nov 21 02:29:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: Message-ID: <009701c5ee39$f3842f00$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> Grattan and Herman are probably right about the meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co have shown that ... As usual, the wording of the law should be tightened up. The official interpretation has unfortunate consequences. You claim "Cash DA and ruff out diamonds". Opponents concede but realise later that cashing DA doomed the contract. Luckily, you are able to point out that there is a normal line to make, provided that you don't start with DA. Is that really fair? What is any normal play? Does it depend on the calibre of declarer. For example, what if the obvious normal winning play is a guard squeeze? BTW, suppose that, as soon as you face DA, you realise that you've made a terrible bloomer and that, now, your best chance is to claim. Is that legal? It doesn't seem ethical. Once again, enlightened BLMLers have already pointed out the surprisingly simple and elegant solution. Change the law so that Declarer "claims" by facing his cards. Declarer may indicate what he will play to the next few tricks. Play continues, normally, until defenders acquiesce. Such concessions are binding. Until defenders acquiesce, they keep their hands concealed. Roughly, these are the rules specified by wise on-line bridge providers. Most on-line claims are conceded immediately, greatly speeding up the game. Rarely, declarer is asked to play on for a trick or two; but usually this, too, saves time. Some BLML wag suggested that an expert would get more tells from defenders after such a claim. It might happen but I've not seen it on BLML. Anyway, I doubt that even Meckstroth and Rodwell would win a club duplicate if they had to declare with their hands face up. From john at asimere.com Mon Nov 21 03:26:25 2005 From: john at asimere.com (john@asimere.com) Date: Mon Nov 21 09:17:28 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200511210226.jAL2QPsO019215@mozart.asimere.com> DATA Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 02:25:17 +0000 To: blml@rtflb.org From: John Probst Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: <002701c5ec50$9f6df710$eac287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000e01c5ec5a$1815c9a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> In-Reply-To: <000e01c5ec5a$1815c9a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.05-S () In message <000e01c5ec5a$1815c9a0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott >............... >> +=+ What I can attest to is that Edgar Kaplan did >> understand this, and when he wrote 71A for the >> 1987 book he fully intended that in the case of a >> concession it should be cancelled within the defined >> period if the trick could not have been lost by any >> legal play of the remaining cards, "however improbable" >> - looking back to the 1963 words. >> Maybe we were wrong to go along with him in >> the drafting committee, but he was not opposed nor >> did those who subsequently approved the 1987 laws >> offer a criticism of it. We saw it as using the same >> construction as Law 69B with a differentiation >> between 'legal' and 'normal'. It was explained so in >> Edgar's commentary at the time. Today, until it is >> changed, I think we should apply the law as written >> (to the best of our ability, pace David Burn) subject >> to the decision of the WBFLC. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >In the 1987 version of the laws there was no problem with Law 71: > >A concession should be cancelled if within a shorter period it was shown >that there was no "normal" play where the conceded trick(s) could be lost. > >Alternatively the concession should also be cancelled if within a longer >period it was shown that there was no *legal* play where the conceded >trick(s) could be lost. > >Notice the difference: In order to have more lenience on the time limit you >must consider all possible legal plays, not only those that can be >characterized as "normal". (No play is "normal" without also being *legal*) > >This made, and still makes sense to me. > >When the minutes removed the tighter time limit for considering "normal" >plays (the second part of Law 71C) and applied the same time limit to both >"normal" and *legal* plays then of course the need for the alternative law >specifying legal plays (the second part of Law 71A) actually disappeared. I >think much of the confusion with Law 71 has been caused by not removing the >second part of Law 71A together with the second part of Law 71C. > I think only the 2nd part of 71c should be removed. ebu TDs are instructed to cross it out in their Law books. >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 21 09:28:43 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Nov 21 09:32:54 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <009701c5ee39$f3842f00$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > Grattan and Herman are probably right about the > meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co > have shown that ... "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That is what the laws do say!) So whenever acquiescence in a claim is withdrawn the claimer would do wise investing in Deep Finesse or something similar and use such a computer program to find a winning play if there is one. It doesn't matter if the resulting line of play is way above that player's capabilities, according to most issues on blml he will save his claim. Is this really the intention of Law 69B? Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Nov 21 10:10:32 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Nov 21 10:12:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43818F08.60507@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Guthrie >>Grattan and Herman are probably right about the >>meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co >>have shown that ... > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That is > what the laws do say!) > > So whenever acquiescence in a claim is withdrawn the claimer would do wise > investing in Deep Finesse or something similar and use such a computer > program to find a winning play if there is one. > > It doesn't matter if the resulting line of play is way above that player's > capabilities, according to most issues on blml he will save his claim. > > Is this really the intention of Law 69B? > Yes it is. Don't forget that apparently the flaw in the original claim was too subtle for opponents to notice, since they acquiesced to the claim! Do you really want to give something back to opponents who are too blind to see the defensive line that beats a contract? Remember the two Rotterdam claims. The defensive lines were hard to spot, and the counterdefenses rather simple - simple enough to satisfy the appeal committee in situ, even if not the majority on blml. Suppose the opponents don't spot the defense straight away, but do so within the correction period. It has now become even more difficult for declarer to prove that he would have found the counter-defense at the table (regardless of what standard you apply to this). Is it not understandable therefore that the lawmakers have changed the criterion from one losing line to one winning one? And yes, this includes the case where the winning line was in no way the line that claimer would have started upon. Maybe that case ought to be changed. But I then throw the challenge: change the wording such that you get what you want in this regard, without changing the laws in such a way that a possible Rotterdam acquiescence would be changed. And do it in such a way that the claimer who says less does not get more. But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how the laws are. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/2005 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 21 11:57:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Nov 21 12:02:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That > is what the laws do say!) Not quite so. The laws say that normal "includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational". The laws quite clearly do not say "normal includes the abnormal, the wholly bizarre and the inconceivable." It would be wholly abnormal for Emily* to play a criss-cross squeeze instead of taking a finesse. This applies whether the claim is contested because the criss-cross fails while the finesse works OR in granting a withdrawal of acquiescence because only the (abnormal) criss-cross succeeds. *Emily is a reasonable club player - she might stumble on a simple squeeze by accident but the chances of executing an accidental criss-cross are too small to be worthy of doubt (for anybody outside fiction). Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 21 13:18:44 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Nov 21 13:22:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c5ee95$b75d4cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That > > is what the laws do say!) > > Not quite so. The laws say that normal "includes play that would be > careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not > irrational". > > The laws quite clearly do not say "normal includes the abnormal, the > wholly bizarre and the inconceivable." > > It would be wholly abnormal for Emily* to play a criss-cross squeeze > instead of taking a finesse. This applies whether the claim is contested > because the criss-cross fails while the finesse works OR in granting a > withdrawal of acquiescence because only the (abnormal) criss-cross > succeeds. > > *Emily is a reasonable club player - she might stumble on a simple squeeze > by accident but the chances of executing an accidental criss-cross are too > small to be worthy of doubt (for anybody outside fiction). This argument just doesn't hold water. I agree that it would not be normal for "Emily" to execute a criss-cross squeeze for the first time in her life, but the laws make absolutely no exception from "normal" on the ground that the player is not capable of executing a particular line of play, only on the ground that the particular line of play is "irrational" (in a negative manner). The actual clause is "careless or inferior but not irrational". In the same way that a play might be careless or inferior we must also accept that "normal" play includes play that might be exceptionally successful. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 21 13:35:11 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Nov 21 13:39:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <43818F08.60507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c5ee98$03d8d9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Guthrie > >>Grattan and Herman are probably right about the > >>meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co > >>have shown that ... > > > > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" > > play. (That is what the laws do say!) > > > > So whenever acquiescence in a claim is withdrawn the claimer > > would do wise investing in Deep Finesse or something similar > > and use such a computer program to find a winning play if > > there is one. > > > > It doesn't matter if the resulting line of play is way above > > that player's capabilities, according to most issues on blml > > he will save his claim. > > > > Is this really the intention of Law 69B? > > > > Yes it is. > Don't forget that apparently the flaw in the original claim was too > subtle for opponents to notice, since they acquiesced to the claim! > > Do you really want to give something back to opponents who are too > blind to see the defensive line that beats a contract? > > Remember the two Rotterdam claims. The defensive lines were hard to > spot, and the counterdefenses rather simple - simple enough to satisfy > the appeal committee in situ, even if not the majority on blml. > > Suppose the opponents don't spot the defense straight away, but do so > within the correction period. It has now become even more difficult > for declarer to prove that he would have found the counter-defense at > the table (regardless of what standard you apply to this). Is it not > understandable therefore that the lawmakers have changed the criterion > from one losing line to one winning one? > > And yes, this includes the case where the winning line was in no way > the line that claimer would have started upon. Maybe that case ought > to be changed. But I then throw the challenge: change the wording such > that you get what you want in this regard, without changing the laws > in such a way that a possible Rotterdam acquiescence would be changed. > And do it in such a way that the claimer who says less does not get more. > > But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is > not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align > yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how > the laws are. Agreed on the technicality that law 69 is not up for review. In the meantime the consequence is that Law 69B should probably be applied as if it had been written: ....., or in the loss of a trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards excluding irrational plays made by the acquiescing side. ..... Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Nov 21 13:42:58 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Nov 21 13:44:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000301c5ee95$b75d4cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c5ee95$b75d4cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4381C0D2.7010108@hdw.be> I'm almost dreading to get into this sub-thread, because I'll be defending a position somewhat contrary to mine so-far. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >>Sven wrote: >> >> >>>"Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That >>>is what the laws do say!) >> >>Not quite so. The laws say that normal "includes play that would be >>careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not >>irrational". >> >>The laws quite clearly do not say "normal includes the abnormal, the >>wholly bizarre and the inconceivable." >> >>It would be wholly abnormal for Emily* to play a criss-cross squeeze >>instead of taking a finesse. This applies whether the claim is contested >>because the criss-cross fails while the finesse works OR in granting a >>withdrawal of acquiescence because only the (abnormal) criss-cross >>succeeds. >> >>*Emily is a reasonable club player - she might stumble on a simple squeeze >>by accident but the chances of executing an accidental criss-cross are too >>small to be worthy of doubt (for anybody outside fiction). > > > This argument just doesn't hold water. I agree that it would not be normal > for "Emily" to execute a criss-cross squeeze for the first time in her life, > but the laws make absolutely no exception from "normal" on the ground that > the player is not capable of executing a particular line of play, only on > the ground that the particular line of play is "irrational" (in a negative > manner). The actual clause is "careless or inferior but not irrational". > Indeed, Sven is more right here than Tim. Emily must be allowed to execute the only line that works, even if she would never think of doing so. > In the same way that a play might be careless or inferior we must also > accept that "normal" play includes play that might be exceptionally > successful. > But Tim is right in one sense that Sven overlooks. If the succesful line includes a few plays which would seem irrational to common players, then that line is not normal. What I mean is this: if the (only) successful line includes leaving a few trumps out, ruffing a winner and dropping one's king under dummy's ace, then that line is irrational and not normal, even if it wins. All this being important only if Emily has succeeded in claiming, and doing so in such a manner that opponents cannot see that the claim is wrong at first glance. I wouldn't worry about it, would you? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/2005 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Nov 21 14:00:53 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon Nov 21 14:12:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43818F08.60507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006401c5ee9c$a95d9ac0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > > Is this really the intention of Law 69B? Herman: > But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is > not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align > yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how > the laws are. Have you become a member of the drafting committee, or even the chairman? ton From schoderb at msn.com Mon Nov 21 14:13:34 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Nov 21 14:17:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <000401c5ee98$03d8d9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: And where, pray tell, does the comment about which Laws are "not up for Review in 2006" generate from? I would find it hard to believe that any member(s) of the Drafting Committee might perhaps be seeking support on BLML, or presupposing what the procedure of that committee will produce when it gets to Law 69B. Therefore it must only be wild guessing, and a presumptive thinly veiled insulting conclusion by poorly informed individuals. (Gee, while typing the above my computer told me there was a message from Ton re this subject. I went there, and lo and behold, I'm not the only one disturbed by the silly - nah I'll say it - STUPID remarks about what the Drafting Committee is doing.) And while we're at it, under what authority does the ebu(sic) do the following? "I think only the 2nd part of 71c should be removed. ebu TDs are instructed to cross it out in their Law books." I couldn't find the Law reference in the l997 Laws for Sponsor option on this -- even if it's the right thing to do. Did someone get a WBFLC interpretation I'm not aware of? Or could it be that flights-of-fancy are not unique to any Zone or NBO? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:35 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Guthrie > >>Grattan and Herman are probably right about the > >>meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co > >>have shown that ... > > > > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" > > play. (That is what the laws do say!) > > > > So whenever acquiescence in a claim is withdrawn the claimer > > would do wise investing in Deep Finesse or something similar > > and use such a computer program to find a winning play if > > there is one. > > > > It doesn't matter if the resulting line of play is way above > > that player's capabilities, according to most issues on blml > > he will save his claim. > > > > Is this really the intention of Law 69B? > > > > Yes it is. > Don't forget that apparently the flaw in the original claim was too > subtle for opponents to notice, since they acquiesced to the claim! > > Do you really want to give something back to opponents who are too > blind to see the defensive line that beats a contract? > > Remember the two Rotterdam claims. The defensive lines were hard to > spot, and the counterdefenses rather simple - simple enough to satisfy > the appeal committee in situ, even if not the majority on blml. > > Suppose the opponents don't spot the defense straight away, but do so > within the correction period. It has now become even more difficult > for declarer to prove that he would have found the counter-defense at > the table (regardless of what standard you apply to this). Is it not > understandable therefore that the lawmakers have changed the criterion > from one losing line to one winning one? > > And yes, this includes the case where the winning line was in no way > the line that claimer would have started upon. Maybe that case ought > to be changed. But I then throw the challenge: change the wording such > that you get what you want in this regard, without changing the laws > in such a way that a possible Rotterdam acquiescence would be changed. > And do it in such a way that the claimer who says less does not get more. > > But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is > not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align > yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how > the laws are. Agreed on the technicality that law 69 is not up for review. In the meantime the consequence is that Law 69B should probably be applied as if it had been written: ...., or in the loss of a trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards excluding irrational plays made by the acquiescing side. ..... Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Nov 21 14:31:56 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Nov 21 14:33:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <006401c5ee9c$a95d9ac0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43818F08.60507@hdw.be> <006401c5ee9c$a95d9ac0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <4381CC4C.2060403@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > >>>Is this really the intention of Law 69B? > > > Herman: > > >>But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is >>not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align >>yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how >>the laws are. > > > > > Have you become a member of the drafting committee, or even the chairman? > No Ton, I have not. But I have seen as much as has been shown, and I have not heard that this law was under review. Also, I think that laws not currently in the pipeline will not be added just because some people on blml think there is something that need changing. However, I will gladly be corrected on my statement, and then we can continue the course Sven was on and discuss how to change L69. So please Ton, answer me in either of four ways: - No indeed, L69B is not under review, and will not be changed; - No, L69B is not under review, but it is not yet late enough to add it to the list; - Yes, L69B is under review; or - Sorry guys, but it is a closely held secret which laws are under review and the drafting committee is not divulging anything. In addition, I apologize to the WBF for not adding some sort of "AFAIK" to my statement regarding the changing of L69B. > ton > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/2005 From j.vickers at hotmail.co.uk Mon Nov 21 14:31:06 2005 From: j.vickers at hotmail.co.uk (James Vickers) Date: Mon Nov 21 14:35:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <200511181853.KAA31904@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > > Once more: law 71 is the worst written law in our law book. And >according to > > David Burn, who should return to this group, law 3 the best written. > >Law 3?? Law 3 has a blatant ambiguity in it. It says "Four players >play at each table". But what becomes of this once the opening lead >has been faced on a hand? Law 41B says "Declarer plays both his hand >and that of dummy"; and Law 43A1(c) makes it clear that dummy must not >participate in the play. The obvious conclusion is, at that point, >dummy is not playing, and therefore only three players are playing at >that table. How, then, are we to satisfy Law 3 at that point? What's more, when declarer revokes from hand on a trick which was won in dummy, we are expected to apply L64A2 as if the revoker had NOT won the revoke trick, despite the fact that L41D tells us that: "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy", so that revoker (declarer) has clearly won the revoke trick with one of the 26 cards at his disposal. I'm not complaining at the law, just the wording which is at best ambiguous and at worst misleading. It causes understandable confusion among the uninitiated who have not been told how to interpret this particular law. A simple rewording would solve this problem (not to mention a few others), but I'll bet it won't be forthcoming in the next law book, nor the one after. So I have a lot of sympathy for Sven, Tim and co. when they are told (soberly by Grattan, or more hysterically by Herman) to apply L69B literally. James _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here. http://messenger.msn.co.uk From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 21 14:41:58 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Nov 21 14:46:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <009701c5ee39$f3842f00$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051121083110.02ac4740@pop.starpower.net> At 03:28 AM 11/21/05, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Guthrie > > Grattan and Herman are probably right about the > > meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co > > have shown that ... > >"Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That is >what the laws do say!) > >So whenever acquiescence in a claim is withdrawn the claimer would do wise >investing in Deep Finesse or something similar and use such a computer >program to find a winning play if there is one. > >It doesn't matter if the resulting line of play is way above that player's >capabilities, according to most issues on blml he will save his claim. > >Is this really the intention of Law 69B? Why wouldn't it be? His opponents' acquiescence creates a presumption that *they* (a) saw the winning line, and (b) judged the claimer capable of finding it. So why would the law provide for the TD/AC overruling their judgment? Are we supposed to "protect" opponents who accept a claim when they are unable to figure out how the claim might succeed? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 21 14:51:33 2005 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Nov 21 14:55:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20051121084624.02ad80f0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:57 AM 11/21/05, twm wrote: >Sven wrote: > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That > > is what the laws do say!) > >Not quite so. The laws say that normal "includes play that would be >careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not >irrational". Let us not forget that that is *not* what the Fabulous Law Book says, notwithstanding rumors of a WBFLC minute to the contrary sequestered somewhere beyond that "Beward of the Leopard" sign, nor the likelihood that those rumors will be substantiated when the new lawbook comes out. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 21 14:52:57 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Nov 21 14:57:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <4381C0D2.7010108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c5eea2$e1124230$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > Indeed, Sven is more right here than Tim. Emily must be allowed to > execute the only line that works, even if she would never think of > doing so. > > > In the same way that a play might be careless or inferior we must also > > accept that "normal" play includes play that might be exceptionally > > successful. > > > > But Tim is right in one sense that Sven overlooks. If the succesful > line includes a few plays which would seem irrational to common > players, then that line is not normal. No, I didn't overlook that, see below. > What I mean is this: if the (only) successful line includes leaving a > few trumps out, ruffing a winner and dropping one's king under dummy's > ace, then that line is irrational and not normal, even if it wins. Would you also deny a claimer such successful play as being "irrational" by the claimer who didn't originally specify it in detail with his statement but where this alleged "irrational" play certainly is embraced in his original clarification statement? Note that wherever the word "normal" is used with reference to the footnote on including "careless or inferior, but not irrational" it is in contexts where the question is what lines of play a player can be forced to select to his disadvantage, not what lines he may select to his advantage. > All this being important only if Emily has succeeded in claiming, and > doing so in such a manner that opponents cannot see that the claim is > wrong at first glance. > > I wouldn't worry about it, would you? Neither do I, but I am worried about the related consequences. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 21 15:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Nov 21 15:05:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000301c5ee95$b75d4cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > manner). The actual clause is "careless or inferior but not irrational". There are several clauses but let's take D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. We are limited to considering only "normal" lines. Then we have "``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational". Nowhere does it tell us that "normal" includes "wholly abnormal". The clarification tells us that some things which *might* be considered abnormal be included in "normal". The law explicitly excludes anything which is clearly "abnormal". OK it's judgement decision so one consults but trust me on this one - Emily playing a criss-cross is so far outside normal that it would make an alien invasion of Earth positively pedestrian by comparison. Normally (oops) excluding "abnormal" lines (such as accidentally, and thus not irrationally, playing a K under an ace) is something we do easily and automatically. It's something I've done at the table, almost everybody else has had similar accidents purely through carelessness (not irrationality) and yet we exclude it automatically as "abnormal". Normal is a perfectly good English word which limits, to an extent, the cases under consideration regardless of the clarification. The clarification suggests a broad interpretation of normal but does NOT cancel the word entirely. Note that there is no need for the lawmakers to have "normal" in L70D were this not their intent. They could have have put the asterisk on "alternative" and had the footnote read "Alternative lines includes plays that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational". And, Herman, I'm not particularly worried about this one I grant. The chances of our typical opps (or TD) spotting a failing criss-cross are pretty small. Indeed the chances of me spotting it are well under 100% - and I'm not obliged to say anything even if I do notice. Tim. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 21 15:01:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Nov 21 15:05:20 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000401c5ee98$03d8d9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Agreed on the technicality that law 69 is not up for review. In the > meantime the consequence is that Law 69B should probably be applied as > if it had been written: Laws must be applied as they are written - not on some imaginary hypothesis. For as long as the laws state, without ambiguity, that a statement can be a claim we must rule on basis that where this occurs it is the statement as claim that is the subject of challenge/acquiesence/withdrawal or whatever. NB - it isn't Law69 that defines a claim - it is L68 (both in the introduction and in L68a). Tim From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Mon Nov 21 15:44:39 2005 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon Nov 21 15:49:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Fines se ! Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C86F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Kojak asks: > And while we're at it, under what authority does the ebu(sic) > do the following? > > "I think only the 2nd part of 71c should be removed. > ebu TDs are instructed to cross it out in their Law books." The authority comes from the WBF LC minutes of 1997: 6 The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He pointed to the confusion created by the wording as it had been published. Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by Mr. Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable difference of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. Mr. Endicott read out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he had indicated. The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that the sentence in 71C beginning "Until the conceding side..." does in fact make a provision that is incorporated within the wider provision existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes the time period ... from the start of the next board to the usual protest period.") Robin -----Original Message----- From: WILLIAM SCHODER To: blml; Sven Pran Sent: 21/11/05 13:13 Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! And where, pray tell, does the comment about which Laws are "not up for Review in 2006" generate from? I would find it hard to believe that any member(s) of the Drafting Committee might perhaps be seeking support on BLML, or presupposing what the procedure of that committee will produce when it gets to Law 69B. Therefore it must only be wild guessing, and a presumptive thinly veiled insulting conclusion by poorly informed individuals. (Gee, while typing the above my computer told me there was a message from Ton re this subject. I went there, and lo and behold, I'm not the only one disturbed by the silly - nah I'll say it - STUPID remarks about what the Drafting Committee is doing.) And while we're at it, under what authority does the ebu(sic) do the following? "I think only the 2nd part of 71c should be removed. ebu TDs are instructed to cross it out in their Law books." I couldn't find the Law reference in the l997 Laws for Sponsor option on this -- even if it's the right thing to do. Did someone get a WBFLC interpretation I'm not aware of? Or could it be that flights-of-fancy are not unique to any Zone or NBO? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:35 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Guthrie > >>Grattan and Herman are probably right about the > >>meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co > >>have shown that ... > > > > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" > > play. (That is what the laws do say!) > > > > So whenever acquiescence in a claim is withdrawn the claimer > > would do wise investing in Deep Finesse or something similar > > and use such a computer program to find a winning play if > > there is one. > > > > It doesn't matter if the resulting line of play is way above > > that player's capabilities, according to most issues on blml > > he will save his claim. > > > > Is this really the intention of Law 69B? > > > > Yes it is. > Don't forget that apparently the flaw in the original claim was too > subtle for opponents to notice, since they acquiesced to the claim! > > Do you really want to give something back to opponents who are too > blind to see the defensive line that beats a contract? > > Remember the two Rotterdam claims. The defensive lines were hard to > spot, and the counterdefenses rather simple - simple enough to satisfy > the appeal committee in situ, even if not the majority on blml. > > Suppose the opponents don't spot the defense straight away, but do so > within the correction period. It has now become even more difficult > for declarer to prove that he would have found the counter-defense at > the table (regardless of what standard you apply to this). Is it not > understandable therefore that the lawmakers have changed the criterion > from one losing line to one winning one? > > And yes, this includes the case where the winning line was in no way > the line that claimer would have started upon. Maybe that case ought > to be changed. But I then throw the challenge: change the wording such > that you get what you want in this regard, without changing the laws > in such a way that a possible Rotterdam acquiescence would be changed. > And do it in such a way that the claimer who says less does not get more. > > But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is > not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align > yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how > the laws are. Agreed on the technicality that law 69 is not up for review. In the meantime the consequence is that Law 69B should probably be applied as if it had been written: ...., or in the loss of a trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards excluding irrational plays made by the acquiescing side. ..... Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From schoderb at msn.com Mon Nov 21 15:57:12 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Nov 21 16:01:21 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Fines se ! References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C86F@hotel.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: Thank you Robin, I missed that. I blame it on the aging process, but that's a lame excuse. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "'WILLIAM SCHODER '" Cc: "'blml '" Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:44 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Fines se ! > Kojak asks: > > And while we're at it, under what authority does the ebu(sic) > > do the following? > > > > "I think only the 2nd part of 71c should be removed. > > ebu TDs are instructed to cross it out in their Law books." > > The authority comes from the WBF LC minutes of 1997: > > 6 The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He pointed to > the confusion created by the wording as it had been published. Mr. > Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by Mr. Kaplan were given > effect there would be a notable difference of treatment as between Law 71 > and Law 69. Mr. Endicott read out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan > and the aim he had indicated. > > The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that the > sentence in 71C beginning "Until the conceding side..." does in fact make > a provision that is incorporated within the wider provision existing in > the immediately preceding words of the law. The Director is to cancel an > implausible concession as defined in Law 71C at any time within the > correction period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr Kaplan > this "changes the time period ... from the start of the next board to the > usual protest period.") > > Robin > -----Original Message----- > From: WILLIAM SCHODER > To: blml; Sven Pran > Sent: 21/11/05 13:13 > Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep > Finesse ! > > And where, pray tell, does the comment about which Laws are "not up for > Review in 2006" generate from? I would find it hard to believe that any > member(s) of the Drafting Committee might perhaps be seeking support on > BLML, or presupposing what the procedure of that committee will produce > when > it gets to Law 69B. Therefore it must only be wild guessing, and a > presumptive thinly veiled insulting conclusion by poorly informed > individuals. > > (Gee, while typing the above my computer told me there was a message > from > Ton re this subject. I went there, and lo and behold, I'm not the only > one > disturbed by the silly - nah I'll say it - STUPID remarks about what > the > Drafting Committee is doing.) > > And while we're at it, under what authority does the ebu(sic) do the > following? > > "I think only the 2nd part of 71c should be removed. ebu TDs are > instructed to cross it out in their Law books." > > I couldn't find the Law reference in the l997 Laws for Sponsor option on > this -- even if it's the right thing to do. Did someone get a WBFLC > interpretation I'm not aware of? Or could it be that flights-of-fancy > are > not unique to any Zone or NBO? > > Kojak > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:35 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep > Finesse > ! > > > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >>On Behalf Of Guthrie > > >>Grattan and Herman are probably right about the > > >>meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co > > >>have shown that ... > > > > > > > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" > > > play. (That is what the laws do say!) > > > > > > So whenever acquiescence in a claim is withdrawn the claimer > > > would do wise investing in Deep Finesse or something similar > > > and use such a computer program to find a winning play if > > > there is one. > > > > > > It doesn't matter if the resulting line of play is way above > > > that player's capabilities, according to most issues on blml > > > he will save his claim. > > > > > > Is this really the intention of Law 69B? > > > > > > > Yes it is. > > Don't forget that apparently the flaw in the original claim was too > > subtle for opponents to notice, since they acquiesced to the claim! > > > > Do you really want to give something back to opponents who are too > > blind to see the defensive line that beats a contract? > > > > Remember the two Rotterdam claims. The defensive lines were hard to > > spot, and the counterdefenses rather simple - simple enough to satisfy > > the appeal committee in situ, even if not the majority on blml. > > > > Suppose the opponents don't spot the defense straight away, but do so > > within the correction period. It has now become even more difficult > > for declarer to prove that he would have found the counter-defense at > > the table (regardless of what standard you apply to this). Is it not > > understandable therefore that the lawmakers have changed the criterion > > from one losing line to one winning one? > > > > And yes, this includes the case where the winning line was in no way > > the line that claimer would have started upon. Maybe that case ought > > to be changed. But I then throw the challenge: change the wording such > > that you get what you want in this regard, without changing the laws > > in such a way that a possible Rotterdam acquiescence would be changed. > > And do it in such a way that the claimer who says less does not get > more. > > > > But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is > > not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align > > yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how > > the laws are. > > Agreed on the technicality that law 69 is not up for review. In the > meantime > the consequence is that Law 69B should probably be applied as if it had > been > written: > > ...., or in the loss of a trick that could not, in the Director's > judgement, be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards excluding > irrational plays made by the acquiescing side. ..... > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 21 16:02:40 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Nov 21 16:11:44 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: Message-ID: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> I don't think "claimer's ability" is relevant to the the law about "withdrawing acquiescence" Hence, IMO, "Normal" should mean "Normal Bridge Play", which includes normal expert play: so Tim's "cross-ruff squeeze" and my "guard squeeze" would probably be OK. IMO, in this context, "Normal" should simply exclude plays that are "grossly inferior" or "irrational", in the sense that they are manifestly well against the odds. For example dropping a singleton King offside instead of finessing with 4+ cards missing and no adequate inference or justification. Surely such a play should not be accepted, even of it is successful? Although it would come as no great surprise to battle-hardened BLMLers if it were! So whether "Deep Finesse" can make it is an inappropriate criterion. However much players protest, I fear that laws like this are with us forever, because most directors love to exercise their judgement; Especially where almost any ruling is defensible, so the director has almost carte-blanche to exercise his prejudices. I guess that players would prefer more objective laws, but, unfortunately our views are never directly solicited and such views seem to be filtered out by the directors and administrators who are consulted. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 21 17:33:06 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Nov 21 17:37:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Guthrie wrote: > However much players protest, I fear that laws > like this are with us forever, because most > directors love to exercise their judgement; > > Especially where almost any ruling is defensible, > so the director has almost carte-blanche to > exercise his prejudices. It seems what you really mean here is "most directors love to exercise their prejudices". I think that's a bit over the top. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 21 17:31:35 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Nov 21 17:39:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Simplicity Message-ID: <004601c5eeb9$0aae9060$229468d5@jeushtlj> To many players, Bridge Laws are unnecessarily subjective and unclear. Furthermore, the effect of "equity rulings" is to reward (or at least to turn a blind eye to) infractions. Plainly, these aren't faults, in the eyes of most administrators and law-makers. Directors also love to exercise "judgement" and to revel in the resulting power and job-interest. Simplicity, however, is another matter. You would expect most directors to hanker after simpler laws. TFLB is over-sophisticated. Obscure interpretations and minutes add to this complexity. When directors keep contradicting each other by quoting arcane references (see BLML topics, ad nauseam) it is bad for their collective image. Surely the laws could be centralised and made simpler while retaining the ambiguity and subjectivity so beloved by enforcers. Law-makers could continue to use Rorschach as a paradigm :) If more spice were needed, then local regulations should suffice. Local xenophobes could still concoct a bizarre brew of incongruous local mores, complete with daft taboos and fetishes :) From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 21 17:41:13 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Nov 21 17:45:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20051121084624.02ad80f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c5eeba$627771d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >Sven wrote: > > > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That > > > is what the laws do say!) > > > >Not quite so. The laws say that normal "includes play that would be > >careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not > >irrational". > > Let us not forget that that is *not* what the Fabulous Law Book says, > notwithstanding rumors of a WBFLC minute to the contrary sequestered > somewhere beyond that "Beward of the Leopard" sign, nor the likelihood > that those rumors will be substantiated when the new lawbook comes out. I didn't forget this and in fact agree with the understanding that "irrational" should be independent of the class of player. I intentionally didn't stress this because I suspect that would start another discussion. But this in fact just strengthens my point: No successful play, however far beyond the capability of a player should ever be ruled "irrational" because there might always be some player clever enough to perform it. So my point was, and still is that what most people seem to claim on the use of L69B the claimer should be recommended to try out the board with Deep Finesse (or similar) in order to find a successful line of play if his claim statement was flawed. Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Nov 21 17:48:15 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Nov 21 17:56:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005401c5eebb$5f561820$229468d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > It seems what you really mean here is > "most directors love to exercise their > prejudices". I think that's a bit over the > top. [Nige1] It's not what I said but I admit that I do suspect that almost everybody loves to exercise prejudices. The criticism is directed at Bridge Law rather than directors. The question is whether such behaviour by directors should continue to be actively encouraged. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 21 17:53:42 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Nov 21 17:57:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000001c5eeba$627771d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5eeba$627771d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <660C412D-0566-4F0B-A3E4-4218DBDAB20D@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 21, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > So my point was, and still is that what most people seem to claim > on the use > of L69B the claimer should be recommended to try out the board with > Deep > Finesse (or similar) in order to find a successful line of play if > his claim > statement was flawed Not at the table. "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." (Footnote to Law 40E2). "irrational" means "not governed by reason". I have a partner who says (he's probably right) that sometimes I panic at the table. What I do then is, perforce, irrational. Whether it works or not is irrelevant. From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 21 17:54:49 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Nov 21 17:59:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000101c5eebc$48f957d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > I don't think "claimer's ability" is relevant to > the the law about "withdrawing acquiescence" > > Hence, IMO, "Normal" should mean "Normal Bridge > Play", which includes normal expert play: so Tim's > "cross-ruff squeeze" and my "guard squeeze" would > probably be OK. > > IMO, in this context, "Normal" should simply > exclude plays that are "grossly inferior" or > "irrational", in the sense that they are > manifestly well against the odds. "Never argue with success"! > For example dropping a singleton King offside > instead of finessing with 4+ cards missing and no > adequate inference or justification. Surely such a > play should not be accepted, even of it is > successful? You cannot have it both ways. If you open the door for the claimer to select his play among all "normal" plays then you must allow dropping a singleton King offside along with cross-ruff squeezes and guard squeezes. The literature is full of reports where playing against the odds was correct, so stating that a play "manifestly against the odds" is "irrational" and should therefore be disregarded just does not make sense. The way the footnote is written "irrational" is almost synonymous with "idiotic" and definitely does not include "extraordinarily remarkable". Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 21 18:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Nov 21 18:34:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000401c5ee98$03d8d9b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Law 69B should probably be applied as if it had been > written: > ....., or in the loss of a trick that could not, in the Director's > judgement, be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards excluding > irrational plays made by the acquiescing side. ..... Sorry- last post sent prematurely - it is not the second half of L69b that causes the problem. The suggestion being made by Grattan/Herman inter alia is that we should be treating the *first* half of L69b as if it reads: "B. Acquiescence in loss of tricks withdrawn Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in the loss of tricks, but... While this is different to current law I don't have any problem with it as a change. Indeed it would take any pressure off the TD in trying to establish the form and nature of the claim itself (often a considerable time after the actual event) - since it is not acquiescence in the claim which is being withdrawn the claim itself is no longer relevant. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 21 18:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Nov 21 18:34:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Hence, IMO, "Normal" should mean "Normal Bridge > Play", which includes normal expert play: so Tim's > "cross-ruff squeeze" and my "guard squeeze" would > probably be OK. My view of what is normal *may* be heavily influenced by consulting the player. There are plenty of ethical players out there who don't want to gain tricks they don't think belong to them and if one tells me "Jeez Tim, I wouldn't have come close to finding that line in a million years" I'm happy ruling it "abnormal". From the other side of the coin a ruling along the lines of "I think I'm going to rule you one down because I reckon you are a good enough player to try the criss-cross when West shows out in Spades" has yet to generate an objection. Whether Nigel favours the TD consulting players on such matters I know not. Tim > IMO, in this context, "Normal" should simply > exclude plays that are "grossly inferior" or > "irrational", in the sense that they are > manifestly well against the odds. > > For example dropping a singleton King offside > instead of finessing with 4+ cards missing and no > adequate inference or justification. Surely such a > play should not be accepted, even of it is > successful? > > Although it would come as no great surprise to > battle-hardened BLMLers if it were! > > So whether "Deep Finesse" can make it is an > inappropriate criterion. > > However much players protest, I fear that laws > like this are with us forever, because most > directors love to exercise their judgement; > > Especially where almost any ruling is defensible, > so the director has almost carte-blanche to > exercise his prejudices. > > I guess that players would prefer more objective > laws, but, unfortunately our views are never > directly solicited and such views seem to be > filtered out by the directors and administrators > who are consulted. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 21 18:30:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Nov 21 18:34:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Simplicity In-Reply-To: <004601c5eeb9$0aae9060$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > To many players, Bridge Laws are unnecessarily > subjective and unclear. Furthermore, the effect of > "equity rulings" is to reward (or at least to turn > a blind eye to) infractions. > > Plainly, these aren't faults, in the eyes of most > administrators and law-makers. Directors also love > to exercise "judgement" and to revel in the > resulting power and job-interest. Nigel, your exposure to BLML is making you jaded. The vast majority of TDs (IME) find the laws difficult and tremble in fear at the thought of having to give a judgment ruling. In that they are no different from players. OTOH many players are just as dismayed by simple mechanical rulings "no trick for the trump Ace because you revoked" as by equity rulings. In reality bridge is a complex game and, though the laws could be much better, will never be satisfactory under simple laws. Personally I don't think most TDs are good enough players to be involved in judgement rulings at top events (and I include myself in this category) but what can one do? There is hardly a queue of top players banging on the door so the authorities must make do - and this won't change unless the players themselves are prepared to shell out for decent TD pay rates (note absence of breath-holding in this vicinity). Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 21 18:59:28 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Nov 21 19:03:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000101c5eebc$48f957d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c5eebc$48f957d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9EB2AE6E-7307-4829-BC9E-4DDB5493E912@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 21, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The literature is full of reports where playing against the odds was > correct, so stating that a play "manifestly against the odds" is > "irrational" and should therefore be disregarded just does not make > sense. A play is either rational ("with reason") or it's not. Whether it works or not is irrelevant. OTOH, if you have some *reason* to make an otherwise irrational play, that changes things. :-) Example: you have AQx in the dummy, xxx in your hand, and you need two tricks in the suit. The *odds* say that you should take the finesse. It would be irrational not to do so. But if you *know* (from counting the opponents' points, for example) that the finesse won't work, then taking the finesse is irrational, and you should play for the drop, unlikely though it may be. From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Mon Nov 21 22:12:27 2005 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Mon Nov 21 21:22:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43818F08.60507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c5eee0$4b4f4b60$7a711bac@mycomputer> hi risking to make a fool of myself I'll state what has been obvious once- emphasising- that I'm talking about club recreational bridge . At this level once the opponents object- the claim LOSES time . The law then protected the opp. from claimers using the claim intetionally or not- to make 'unmakable' games ,the claimer then had to make a complete statement ,was not allowed to change it and any doubt-was resolved in favour of the opp.---- Original Message ----- By the way I believe that this is how the law should be . If you are good enough to claim you SHOULD be good enough to state it clearly enough . Once Harold Franklin pointed out to me a pair that played in a two board pairs tournament the first board about 12 min. and thenFplayed the second board very quickly and usually claimed ,almost always a TOP best regards Israel. "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Guthrie > >>Grattan and Herman are probably right about the > >>meaning of the law; but Marvin, Tim, Sven and co > >>have shown that ... > > > > > > "Normal" play includes everything except pure "irrational" play. (That is > > what the laws do say!) > > > > So whenever acquiescence in a claim is withdrawn the claimer would do wise > > investing in Deep Finesse or something similar and use such a computer > > program to find a winning play if there is one. > > > > It doesn't matter if the resulting line of play is way above that player's > > capabilities, according to most issues on blml he will save his claim. > > > > Is this really the intention of Law 69B? > > > > Yes it is. > Don't forget that apparently the flaw in the original claim was too > subtle for opponents to notice, since they acquiesced to the claim! > > Do you really want to give something back to opponents who are too > blind to see the defensive line that beats a contract? > > Remember the two Rotterdam claims. The defensive lines were hard to > spot, and the counterdefenses rather simple - simple enough to satisfy > the appeal committee in situ, even if not the majority on blml. > > Suppose the opponents don't spot the defense straight away, but do so > within the correction period. It has now become even more difficult > for declarer to prove that he would have found the counter-defense at > the table (regardless of what standard you apply to this). Is it not > understandable therefore that the lawmakers have changed the criterion > from one losing line to one winning one? > > And yes, this includes the case where the winning line was in no way > the line that claimer would have started upon. Maybe that case ought > to be changed. But I then throw the challenge: change the wording such > that you get what you want in this regard, without changing the laws > in such a way that a possible Rotterdam acquiescence would be changed. > And do it in such a way that the claimer who says less does not get more. > > But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is > not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align > yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how > the laws are. > > > Regards Sven > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/176 - Release Date: 20/11/2005 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Mon Nov 21 21:33:24 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Nov 21 21:37:35 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Guthrie wrote: > However much players protest, I fear that laws > like this are with us forever, because most > directors love to exercise their judgement; > > Especially where almost any ruling is defensible, > so the director has almost carte-blanche to > exercise his prejudices. My, my, Mr.Guthrie! What vitriolic statements! I'm glad you address only the "his" and leave out the ladies. Seems fortuitous or you might have bitten off more than you can chew! As a player and director of over 50 years of experience, I sense that you're using your personal prejudices vis-?-vis "most directors". Perhaps you've been subjected to poor directing in the hinterlands. I seriously doubt that you are qualified to speak about "most directors". The amity and mutual respect between players and tournament directors that I find throughout the bridge world is in strong opposition to your jarring statements and puts the lie to attempts to foster discord. By far the greatest number of TD rulings require no judgement by the director or the players. From extensive contact with players throughout the world, I categorically state that they are for the most part thankful, and willing to accept rulings which, when judgement is involved, are the result of a process that usually includes their peers. I can't help but bring to your attention the lack of appeals in the major world events in Estoril. If you wish to use the spurious argument that the players didn't appeal because they would find it useless, go right ahead and thereby further put into question your grasp of the attitudes and attributes of bridge players. They are a lot less reticent than you might believe when they feel wronged. But, you might as well insult them along with directors. Yet, I must agree that you are entitled not only to your opinions but even to espouse them wherever you find an audience, thereby exposing them to valuation by those, like me, so addressed. I hope that others weigh your remarks carefully before allowing themselves to be convinced. I would also hope, perhaps despairingly, that you might find the introspection to question them yourself. Leaving the girls out of this was a master stroke! Best regards, Kojak From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Nov 22 00:23:44 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Nov 22 00:31:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43818F08.60507@hdw.be><006401c5ee9c$a95d9ac0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <4381CC4C.2060403@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002a01c5eef3$21eeaa00$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > > > > Herman: > > > > > >>But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is > >>not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align > >>yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how > >>the laws are. ton: > > Have you become a member of the drafting committee, or even the chairman? > > > Herman again: > No Ton, I have not. > > So please Ton, answer me in either of four ways: > I hope you allow me to answer in my own way: As far as I know there is no pipeline you can be aware of so your remarks are not based on any serious facts, which is a dead sin for a well educated TD. And as far as I am concerned there will be changes in the claim laws, possibly even in L69B. But we do not have reached the phase in which we go public, which is not the same as saying that we do it all secretly. And it is not impossible, though not very likely either, that we will adopt ideas expressed in this forum. ton From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Nov 22 00:28:42 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue Nov 22 00:32:55 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:33:24 -0500, Kojak wrote: > >Yet, I must agree that you are entitled not only to your opinions but even >to espouse them wherever you find an audience, thereby exposing them to >valuation by those, like me, >so addressed. I hope that others weigh your remarks carefully before >allowing themselves to be convinced. I would also hope, perhaps >despairingly, that you might find the introspection to question them >yourself. > I'm trying not to take sides in this, as I can't comment on Nigel's experiences, but as one of the audience so addressed, it does occur to me to wonder whether Kojak's citing the lack of appeals in Estoril, with presumably the best available TDs on duty, is necessarily the best way of refuting Nigel's views. For all I know, Kojak runs a humble club game on a weekly basis, and is well in touch with the grass roots level of the game - but I suspect that most club level players, certainly including myself, will have had the odd decision or three that really rankles, and of course one *really* bad one sticks in the memory far longer than a hundred good ones. The worst one that I remember, and it's stuck with me for around 20 years, is when I was playing in a pairs event, and ran up against a well-known (and now deceased) England international and his partner. Said England international would *not* stop talking while we were playing (that's probably enough to identify him to a lot of British players!), and was ruining my concentration to the extent that I called the TD and asked for quiet. The response, in its entirety, was "Do you know who you're playing against? Play on, please!" That TD is now high up in the E(nglish) BU's list of TDs. Hopefully he's learned something since then - but that "ruling" leads me to believe that Nigel's views have *some* validity, even if only at the lower levels of the game. Even the TDs in Estoril once had to learn how to direct, however many years of experience they may have had since then. The EBU runs courses for club TDs now. They didn't in the days when I did the job of a club TD, when the qualification for the position was basically a willingness to do the work plus the strength of character needed to deal with the more awkward club members when needed. You learned the rest of it as you went along, at least at the small clubs where I did the TD's job. I don't know how far back Nigel is going for the evidence to support his views, but hopefully things have improved with time. Brian. From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 22 00:30:30 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Nov 22 00:34:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <9EB2AE6E-7307-4829-BC9E-4DDB5493E912@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c5eef3$8ffca510$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > The literature is full of reports where playing against the odds was > > correct, so stating that a play "manifestly against the odds" is > > "irrational" and should therefore be disregarded just does not make > > sense. > > A play is either rational ("with reason") or it's not. Whether it > works or not is irrelevant. AFAIK wherever the word "normal" (with reference to the footnote in Law 69) is used in the laws it is in situations where the Director shall consider possible lines of plays that will result in some disadvantage to the player involved. A player shall in such situations never be considered to possibly commit "irrational" play (but "inferior" or careless" play shall be considered possible). This is consistent with using the word "irrational" to indicate a play so stupid that nobody will ever commit it and again consistent with the wording in the footnote. Once we give the player who has had acquiescence to his claim withdrawn full freedom to show any "normal" play that will give the result he claimed I simply do not understand why we shall or how we can decide that his line of play (if successful) is to extreme that it is "irrational" and therefore not relevant. That is why with this understanding of L69B I shall give the former claimer who now is NOS the freedom to select among all possible legal plays by him but disregard "irrational" plays by his opponents who now are OS. And BTW. Sure, a player is not allowed any aid to his memory during auction or play, but he cannot be forbidden the use of DF to his assistance when preparing for the hearing under Law 69B Sven From schoderb at msn.com Tue Nov 22 02:45:58 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Nov 22 02:50:06 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Dear Brian, much of what you say is relevant. The incident you had has been seriously unsettling for you, and I empathize. However, it probably stands out to you as a unique experience, and it certainly does not have a thing to do with "most directors love to make judgement rulings". It is a stupid resolution of your conduct complaint, and shows, if anything, that the director was more afraid and nervous in the presence of named stars, than he was in using the laws properly. Your comments on the progress made since then is greatly appreciated and true. Nothing in the Laws could or would have made a difference. I'm not looking for anyone to take sides, I've even proposed that Mr. Guthrie might benefit himself and the game of bridge by some introspection. I was not refuting an argument by him who, in my opinion, had no argument to start with. I'm concerned with the purpose of his postings, and cannot but help to feel the need to state that we have individuals, who through crafty use of the language, make arguments that are personal opinions which are made to appear to be of those of the body politic. The further back that Mr. Guthrie needs to go to support his arguments, the weaker they are in the present panorama. I no longer run a humble game having decided to limit to my largesse in putting in hours of work for minimal remuneration. I do run, worldwide, seminars for directors and players, without pay, and think I have a pretty good view of the problems in clubs (even in China), to world championships. I would happily compare my experiences in Central America, ACBL, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East with anyone. And I can assure you they are of greater importance and impact than the questionable reading of a Law that has worked for x years without a problem. As you may well know, Estoril was not a "first." In Bermuda, the 50th anniversary of the WBF, there were only 3 appeals in the Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup - the first time we used 12C3 by the TDs in a world championship coupled with consultation with players before making judgement rulings. These successes may rankle those who wallow in confrontation and argument, but they surely showed player acceptance of progress by the directing staffs. If it is clear that I resent the constant sniping, equivocation, posturing, and putting down of those who are willing to make our game of Duplicate Contract Bridge work, then I confess. But then, please note that my comments are clearly my own, and I don't embellish my ideas with "most" "many" "players" or other artifacts of language to make my personal views appear to be those of a non-existent sizeable group. All too often I read statements such as "...players are distressed..." "...most directors do not..." ( or do) "....it is clear that players..." etc., etc., etc. including the all encompassing "...the Law says..." which appear to put into cement the thoughts that follow, wrong as they may well be. I was taught that when you want to say something, stand up, give your name, and state what you think - Don't hide by using tricky language. Best Regards, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:33:24 -0500, Kojak wrote: > > > > > > > > >Yet, I must agree that you are entitled not only to your opinions but > >even > >to espouse them wherever you find an audience, thereby exposing them to > >valuation by those, like me, > >so addressed. I hope that others weigh your remarks carefully before > >allowing themselves to be convinced. I would also hope, perhaps > >despairingly, that you might find the introspection to question them > >yourself. > > > > I'm trying not to take sides in this, as I can't comment on > Nigel's experiences, but as one of the audience so addressed, it > does occur to me to wonder whether Kojak's citing the lack of > appeals in Estoril, with presumably the best available TDs on > duty, is necessarily the best way of refuting Nigel's views. > > For all I know, Kojak runs a humble club game on a weekly basis, > and is well in touch with the grass roots level of the game - but > I suspect that most club level players, certainly including > myself, will have had the odd decision or three that really > rankles, and of course one *really* bad one sticks in the memory > far longer than a hundred good ones. > > The worst one that I remember, and it's stuck with me for around > 20 years, is when I was playing in a pairs event, and ran up > against a well-known (and now deceased) England international and > his partner. Said England international would *not* stop talking > while we were playing (that's probably enough to identify him to > a lot of British players!), and was ruining my concentration to > the extent that I called the TD and asked for quiet. The > response, in its entirety, was "Do you know who you're playing > against? Play on, please!" > > That TD is now high up in the E(nglish) BU's list of TDs. > Hopefully he's learned something since then - but that "ruling" > leads me to believe that Nigel's views have *some* validity, even > if only at the lower levels of the game. Even the TDs in Estoril > once had to learn how to direct, however many years of experience > they may have had since then. > > The EBU runs courses for club TDs now. They didn't in the days > when I did the job of a club TD, when the qualification for the > position was basically a willingness to do the work plus the > strength of character needed to deal with the more awkward club > members when needed. You learned the rest of it as you went > along, at least at the small clubs where I did the TD's job. > > I don't know how far back Nigel is going for the evidence to > support his views, but hopefully things have improved with time. > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Nov 22 05:21:02 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Nov 22 05:29:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <004501c5ef1c$44a34280$079868d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > I seriously doubt that you are qualified > to speak about "most directors". The amity > and mutual respect between players and > tournament directors that I find > throughout the bridge world is in strong > opposition to your jarring statements and > puts the lie to attempts to foster discord. [Kojak in another post on this topic] > Please note that my comments are clearly my > own, and I don't embellish my ideas with > "most"' [Nigel] Not the overall impression of Kojak's posts :) [Kojak] > By far the greatest number of TD rulings > require no judgement by the director or > the players. [Nigel] IMO, most rulings involve director judgement. So I fear that Kojak is mistaken. (: Please note: I don't accuse Kojak of lying :) [Kojak] > From extensive contact with players > throughout the world, I categorically > state that they are for the most part > thankful, and willing to accept rulings > which, when judgement is involved, are the > result of a process that usually includes > their peers. [Nige1] Directors perform well in trying circumstances. Players are grateful. In my experience, players are unhappy with equity rulings (unless, of course, they the are the lucky offenders). Players don't complain to the director about unfair rulings that are valid applications of "equity" law. What would be the point? It's hardly the poor directors' fault! [Kojak] > I can't help but bring to your attention > the lack of appeals in the major world > events in Estoril. > If you wish to use the spurious argument > that the players didn't appeal because > they would find it useless, go right ahead > and thereby further put into question your > grasp of the attitudes and attributes of > bridge players. They are a lot less > reticent than you might believe when they > feel wronged. But, you might as well > insult them along with directors. [Nige1] I'm a bridge player. It is Kojak who insults our intelligence. And it certainly would be stupid to appeal most 12C3 rulings. However unfair the ruling, few are foolish (or altruistic) enough to waste time and money on an appeal when the committee is instructed to resist readjustment. You can hardly ask the committee to change the law. [Kojak] > I would also hope, perhaps despairingly, > that you might find the introspection to > question them yourself. [Nigel] Excellent advice that I follow and Kojak may care to try himself. [Kojak in another post on this topic] > I was not refuting an argument by him > who, in my opinion, had no argument to > start with. [Nigel] Kojak's attacks are almost all "ad hominem", so it's hardly surprising when he doesn't "refute" arguments. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 22 07:51:40 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Nov 22 07:57:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43818F08.60507@hdw.be><006401c5ee9c$a95d9ac0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <4381CC4C.2060403@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c5ef31$8edf6c10$30db403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! >> >>>But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. >>>This law is >>>not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. >>>Just align >>>yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt >>>massively with how >>>the laws are. >> >> Have you become a member of the drafting committee, or >>even the chairman? >> > > No Ton, I have not. > But I have seen as much as has been shown, and I have not > heard that this law was under review. < +=+ I have been 'off air' for a couple of days. My, what passion the laws arouse! It has led to some rather wild suppositions and quite a bit of posturing. The persons who have a glimpse of what most Directors feel are those who help conduct seminars, but for the most part* even they merely touch the skin of the question. Returning to earth, could we note that, by direction, the By-Laws of the WBF require us to review every law in the book. I have no sense that my colleagues are any less inclined than I to do exactly that, indeed it is exactly what has been the effort up to now and will be the effort over the next stage of our endeavours. If a law is left untouched it is by a positive decision to leave it so, not by any casual passing over of a law. The task calls for humility and an awe of the responsibility, or such is my opinion. ~ G ~ +=+. * I do wonder how many NBOs run regular courses for club TDs as the EBU does, giving one or two administrators regular insights to the roots of the game, albeit the directors in question are beneficiaries of a well-developed support system and are thus possibly atypical of the world at large. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Nov 22 09:24:43 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Nov 22 09:29:04 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001e01c5ef3e$36a32700$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Brian: > I suspect that most club level players, certainly including > myself, will have had the odd decision or three that really > rankles, and of course one *really* bad one sticks in the memory > far longer than a hundred good ones. How can someone write such a sentence to support somebody else who complains about the quality of TD decisions? Strange discussion, when we (Nigel-Kojak) even don't agree on the fact that judgement cases in TD-rulings form a small minority. May be that has to do with the definition of 'judgement cases'? But then, if you are not familiar with the normal bridge meaning of the words being used, shouldn't you be somewhat more modest in your opinion (Nigel) ? ton From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Nov 22 10:20:55 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Nov 22 10:22:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <002a01c5eef3$21eeaa00$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43818F08.60507@hdw.be><006401c5ee9c$a95d9ac0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <4381CC4C.2060403@hdw.be> <002a01c5eef3$21eeaa00$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <4382E2F7.8010909@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: >>>Herman: >>> >>> >>> >>>>But let's stop this question about how the laws should be. This law is >>>>not up for review in 2006, so we'll have to wait for 2016. Just align >>>>yourselves with the fold, Sven and Tim. We've dealt massively with how >>>>the laws are. > > > ton: > > > >>>Have you become a member of the drafting committee, or even the > > chairman? > > > > Herman again: > > >>No Ton, I have not. >> >>So please Ton, answer me in either of four ways: >> > > > > I hope you allow me to answer in my own way: > Of course. > As far as I know there is no pipeline you can be aware of so your remarks > are not based on any serious facts, > which is a dead sin for a well educated TD. > Ton, you are still telling us the version you are preparing will be numbered 2006, yet you do not yet have a list of the laws that are up for review? You are not yet at a stage where at least the members of the committee have a final list of proposals? I remember a bit of the actions around 1996, and it seems to me that at the end of 1995, a draft version of the new laws was already being circulated. I again apologize for my remarks, but I would have preferred it if you had replied "Sorry Herman, you're out of the loop, but here is our proposal for the re-write of L69B". Or indeed "Herman, you should not say things you know nothing of, even if in this instance you happen to be correct". > And as far as I am concerned there will be changes in the claim laws, > possibly even in L69B. But we do not have reached > the phase in which we go public, which is not the same as saying that we do > it all secretly. > And it is not impossible, though not very likely either, that we will adopt > ideas expressed in this forum. > > > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/177 - Release Date: 21/11/2005 From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Nov 22 11:51:57 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue Nov 22 11:56:11 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <001e01c5ef3e$36a32700$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> <001e01c5ef3e$36a32700$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:24:43 +0100, Ton Kooijman wrote: >Brian: > > >> I suspect that most club level players, certainly including >> myself, will have had the odd decision or three that really >> rankles, and of course one *really* bad one sticks in the memory >> far longer than a hundred good ones. > > > >How can someone write such a sentence to support somebody else who >complains about the quality of TD decisions? > Very easily. Firstly, as Kojak seemed to understand without much difficulty, it's because I'm not really supporting Nigel's position as such, I think he's far more wrong than right. What I was intending to point out, perhaps a little obliquely, is that I suspect Nigel and Kojak move in rather different worlds, and citing the lack of appeals at World Championship level in answer to someone who's basing his comments on county level play in the UK (sorry if I've misguessed your experience, Nigel) is really a case of comparing apples and oranges. I'm sorry if this didn't come across clearly enough for non-native English speakers. Brian. From emu at fwi.net.au Tue Nov 22 11:57:22 2005 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Tue Nov 22 12:01:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! In-Reply-To: <000101c5eebc$48f957d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c5ef53$84224690$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> >The way the footnote is written "irrational" is almost synonymous with "idiotic" and definitely does not include >"extraordinarily remarkable". I agree - irrational means putting the trump King under the trump Ace in the 2 cards in each hand ending to go one off. Or cross-ruffing cashing Aces in each hand; or with a 12 card fit missing the King, leading low. Or other such idiocies. IMO, it does not mean, failing to see the 'obvious' squeeze... [Obvious to whom, pray tell?] regards, Noel From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 12:05:47 2005 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue Nov 22 12:09:59 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty Message-ID: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> You finish the board and the director says move on please I will bring the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer has one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play and therefore revoked in the play. Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? Wayne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 22 12:23:37 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Nov 22 12:31:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <003c01c5eeac$c795dc40$229468d5@jeushtlj> <001e01c5ef3e$36a32700$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000f01c5ef57$4b3fc1f0$f19287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas ('Let us examine the scriptures') These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Brian Meadows" ; Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! > Strange discussion, when we (Nigel-Kojak) even don't > agree on the fact that judgement cases in TD-rulings form > a small minority. May be that has to do with the definition > of 'judgement cases'? But then, if you are not familiar with > the normal bridge meaning of the words being used, > shouldn't you be somewhat more modest in your opinion > (Nigel) ? > +=+ An equable dialogue certainly seems more likely to lead to understanding the nature of the argument. As to 'judgemental', do not rulings fall into two principal categpries? - are there not those where the ruling can be given by reading from the law book (and explaining what it says), and those calling for the Director to have an opinion (and thus input his judgement, or as we constantly advise the product of his consultation)? Mechanical rulings are usually only heard about when the ruling is disputed, judgemental rulings are more susceptible to discussion even when accepted. The notable feature of Estoril was the frequency with which the dog did not bark - ascribed by the CTD to the degree of players' acceptance of the Directors' approach to score adjustment under his leadership From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Nov 22 13:34:29 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Nov 22 13:36:33 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43831055.1020006@hdw.be> L8C tells us that the last round hasn't finished until the score has been entered. L8B tells us that an earlier round ends when the players have moved (if this is later than when the TD calls for the next round). Adding these two means, IMO, that the round (and therefore the board) hasn't ended if the TD instructs the players to move even without entering the score. A TD who rules that I have conceded the end of the round by moving before checking the score, when he himself has ordered me to move, is a bad TD. But the laws don't seem to deal with the case. Another one in which blml-lawyers will try to fly in the face of reason, perhaps? Wayne Burrows wrote: > You finish the board and the director says move on please I will bring > the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. > > The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer has > one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play and > therefore revoked in the play. > > Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. > > Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/177 - Release Date: 21/11/2005 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Nov 22 14:18:53 2005 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Nov 22 14:57:25 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn - recommend Deep Finesse ! References: <000001c5ee75$95734130$6400a8c0@WINXP><43818F08.60507@hdw.be><006401c5ee9c$a95d9ac0$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><4381CC4C.2060403@hdw.be><002a01c5eef3$21eeaa00$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <4382E2F7.8010909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004201c5ef6c$16351090$6501a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Herman: . > > I again apologize for my remarks, but I would have preferred it if you > had replied "Sorry Herman, you're out of the loop, but here is our > proposal for the re-write of L69B". Or indeed "Herman, you should not > say things you know nothing of, even if in this instance you happen to > be correct". The only choice you leave me is to say: "Herman, you should not say things you know nothing of" since the continuation is wrong. ton From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Nov 22 16:57:54 2005 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue Nov 22 17:00:37 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne writes: You finish the board and the director says move on please I will bring the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer has one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play and therefore revoked in the play. Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? ________________________________________________________________ I supposed you read Law 64B4... Laval From adam at irvine.com Tue Nov 22 17:16:24 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Nov 22 17:20:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:57:54 EST." Message-ID: <200511221616.IAA28168@mailhub.irvine.com> Laval wrote: > Wayne writes: > > You finish the board and the director says move on please I will bring > the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. > > The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer has > one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play and > therefore revoked in the play. > > Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. > > Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? > ________________________________________________________________ > > I supposed you read Law 64B4... Yes, but I think the question here is whether 64B5 applies. -- Adam From mustikka at charter.net Tue Nov 22 22:03:29 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue Nov 22 22:07:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty Message-ID: <000701c5efa8$3512dce0$1d690947@DFYXB361> Sorry, this went to Adam only, meant for blml. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Adam Beneschan" Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Beneschan" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:16 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty > > >> >> Laval wrote: >> >>> Wayne writes: >>> >>> You finish the board and the director says move on please I will bring >>> the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. >>> >>> The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer has >>> one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play and >>> therefore revoked in the play. >>> >>> Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. >>> >>> Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? >>> ________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> I supposed you read Law 64B4... >> >> Yes, but I think the question here is whether 64B5 applies. >> >> -- Adam > > Is scoring the boards of the current round part of the current round? Is > there a Law that addresses this question? > The players who moved when TD asked them to move, in essence just vacated > the seats for the new pair, then sat on different chairs to finish the > round = write the scores, just as if they had taken some empty kibitzer > chairs to do that? It is against proprieties not to follow director's > instructions; if TD tells a pair to move to the next table, the pair will > move without putting up arguments "but we haven't completed scoresheet > yet". No need to delay the other pair who wants to start the round on > time, so vacating the seats should not in itself mean that the round for > this pair is ended, IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > From adam at irvine.com Tue Nov 22 22:27:18 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Nov 22 22:31:31 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:03:29 PST." <000701c5efa8$3512dce0$1d690947@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <200511222127.NAA29992@mailhub.irvine.com> Raija wrote: >> Yes, but I think the question here is whether 64B5 applies. >> >> -- Adam > > Is scoring the boards of the current round part of the current round? Is > there a Law that addresses this question? > The players who moved when TD asked them to move, in essence just vacated > the seats for the new pair, then sat on different chairs to finish the > round = write the scores, just as if they had taken some empty kibitzer > chairs to do that? It is against proprieties not to follow director's > instructions; if TD tells a pair to move to the next table, the pair will > move without putting up arguments "but we haven't completed scoresheet > yet". No need to delay the other pair who wants to start the round on > time, so vacating the seats should not in itself mean that the round for > this pair is ended, IMHO. As Herman already pointed out, Law 8B addresses the question of when the round ends; it doesn't say anything about scoring (and neither does the definition of "round" in the Definitions in the Laws). I don't really buy Herman's argument that L8C applies here; L8C defines when the *last* round ends, and you can't "add" it to L8B to apply it to rounds other than the last one, as Herman tried to do. Nevertheless, your and Herman's objection is valid that if you move to the next table because the TD is hurrying you up, you shouldn't forfeit your rights because of that. In fact, it seems unfair enough that, as a TD (which I'm not), I'd probably rule that the round hasn't ended (and thus a penalty is still possible) even if the TD were hurrying you up and in your hurry you agreed on a score. Yes, I can't make this fit into the Laws easily. But my feeling is that when the Laws have an unintended consequence that is unjust and that I have excellent reason to believe the Laws' authors would also consider unjust, I don't have a problem with going a bit outside the boundaries of the Laws, and I wouldn't even feel the need to try to "interpret" (i.e. twist) the words of the Laws to make them come out the way I'd want them to. Yes, I know there will be people here who are absolutely horrified by my attitude; suffice it to say I remain stubborn in my belief that the Laws are our servant and not our master. Also, I would adopt an approach like this only in really exceptional cases, where it's pretty clear that there's an unintended consequence at work. Actually, I think Law 64B5 ought to be scrapped, or rewritten to make it apply only to the last round of a session. There's really no reason for it to apply to any other round. Law 64B4 will still apply if the non-offenders move for the next round and then make a call on the next board. In fact, maybe the time limit ought to be loosened even further. Revokes are a kind of offense that we can't put an undue burden on the non-offenders to catch. In a different thread, I expressed my belief that it's OK to put a time limit on withdrawing acquiescence to a claim, because, after all, the non-claimers should look at the exposed cards carefully to make sure the claim is valid, and if they acquiesce to a bad claim it's really their fault. Revokes are different, because the information the non-offenders need to catch the revoke is sometimes concealed. It's not always the case when a player fails to follow suit that a card of the suit he should have played will be visible to the non-offender later. Often it is, but when a claim or concession is involved, the card that the offender should have played may never be exposed. Because of this, I think the Laws may be misguided in putting a burden on non-offenders to catch a revoke quickly or forfeit the right to a penalty. I do realize that there are practical problems in determining whether a revoke really occurred and how the play went after that so that we can determine what the penalty should be, after a period of time has been elapsed. OK, enough rant for one day. Maybe. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 22 23:04:25 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Nov 22 23:08:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <200511221616.IAA28168@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c5efb0$b4792d10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > > You finish the board and the director says move on please I > > will bring the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. > > > > The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer > > has one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play > > and therefore revoked in the play. > > > > Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. > > > > Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? > > ________________________________________________________________ > > > > I supposed you read Law 64B4... > > Yes, but I think the question here is whether 64B5 applies. Exactly. But in any case Law 64C applies. And I feel that the Director is on thin ice when ordering a pair to move on before they have completed their duties at the current table. This means that Law 82C may be applicable as well. IMO applying Law 82C must result in scoring the board as if the revoke had been called correctly because the Director's error does not prevent the board from being scored normally. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 22 23:51:55 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Nov 22 23:59:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty References: <200511222127.NAA29992@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c5efb7$abe4a830$f3e0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty . > > As Herman already pointed out, Law 8B > addresses the question of when the round ends; > it doesn't say anything about scoring (and neither > does the definition of "round" in the Definitions > in the Laws). I don't really buy Herman's > argument that L8C applies here; L8C defines > when the *last* round ends, and you can't > "add" it to L8B to apply it > to rounds other than the last one, as Herman > tried to do. < +=+ 8C does not apply, except that the session will not end for that player until he has agreed and entered the score. However, I think there is an interesting question whether there can be said to have been a progression of players if they are still occupied in scoring a board of the round. ~ G ~ +=+ From mustikka at charter.net Wed Nov 23 00:17:27 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed Nov 23 00:21:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Department of Hair Splitting References: <000701c5efa8$3512dce0$1d690947@DFYXB361> <2a1c3a560511221355h497909f8m@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002601c5efba$e7ba50f0$1d690947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "raija" Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty On 23/11/05, raija wrote: > Sorry, this went to Adam only, meant for blml. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "raija" > To: "Adam Beneschan" > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:14 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > To: > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:16 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty > > > > > >> > >> Laval wrote: > >> > >>> Wayne writes: > >>> > >>> You finish the board and the director says move on please I will bring > >>> the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. > >>> > >>> The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer has > >>> one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play and > >>> therefore revoked in the play. > >>> > >>> Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. > >>> > >>> Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? > >>> ________________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>> I supposed you read Law 64B4... > >> > >> Yes, but I think the question here is whether 64B5 applies. > >> > >> -- Adam > > > > Is scoring the boards of the current round part of the current round? > > Is > > there a Law that addresses this question? > > The players who moved when TD asked them to move, in essence just > > vacated > > the seats for the new pair, then sat on different chairs to finish the > > round = write the scores, just as if they had taken some empty kibitzer > > chairs to do that? It is against proprieties not to follow director's > > instructions; if TD tells a pair to move to the next table, the pair > > will > > move without putting up arguments "but we haven't completed scoresheet > > yet". No need to delay the other pair who wants to start the round on > > time, so vacating the seats should not in itself mean that the round for > > this pair is ended, IMHO. > > What if having moved on you have made a call on the next deal before the director gets to you with the scoresheet. Are you rights diminished now? Wayne I don't know. I am only a player and this is my player opinion. The fundamental question remains: Is scoresheet completion part of a round or not? The Laws don't seem to address this but my logic (flawed or not, you be the judge) says it must be part of a round. If it *is* part of a round, then the pair is in fact playing in two rounds simultaneously as soon as they sit at the next table, whether they have made a call there or not, because the Law says (does it?) that the next round starts for a pair when the pair has moved to the next table. If it *is not* part of a round, then the pair should have refused to follow TD instructions until they had seen the unseen cards, thereby procuring themselves a possible PP for refusal to follow TD instructions, in addition to losing the chance to have appropriate revoke penalty applied to the revokers. This cannot be right. The whole situation requires the expertise of the Department of Hair Splitting..... Since such entity does not exist, common sense and common justice should prevail, allowing the pair to call attention to the revoke at their first opportunity while sitting at the next table, whether auction has started or not. Raija From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 23 03:47:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Nov 23 03:51:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20051118160600.02a2be80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Adam/Eric wrote: > > >Tim wrote: > > > > > Many players walk a fine line. We do not "dispute" a claim, we > > > merely > > > enquire as to (for example) whether our master trump might win a > > trick. > > > >I hope your tongue is partially in your cheek while you're saying > >this. From what you're saying, it sounds as though if declarer claims > >the rest and a defender says, "I still have the high trump", it would > >be a dispute; but if the defender says the same thing but phrased in > >such a way that it ends in a question mark, it would become an inquiry > >and thus not a dispute? And the Laws would treat the two cases > >differently? > > > >Sorry, that seems silly to me. Telling declarer that his claim is > >wrong is a dispute; cleverly constructing your sentence that tells him > >he's wrong in a way that makes it sound like a question doesn't make > >it any less of a dispute. > > "Dispute (n.): 1. A verbal controversy; an argument; a debate. 2. A > quarrel." [AHD] > > Not every verbal exchange is a "dispute". If you tell a player that > his claim is faulty and why, and he agrees, there is no controversy, > argument, debate or quarrel. "If the claim... is disputed by any > player... the Director must be summoned immediately" [L68D]. But the > claim can be discussed and resolved without there being any > disagreement, in which case calling the director is neither productive > nor required, as Tim suggests. OK, my tongue was partially in cheek. I believe that if one, in a non- argumentative and non-disputational manner, points out a flaw in the claim and declarer agrees and amends the claim has not been "disputed". I also believe that the best way of achieving this is by posing the flaw as a question/joke and allowing the declarer (if the TD happens by) to say, with a clear conscience, that no dispute has occurred. As said above it's not productive to call the TD in these circumstances, it won't affect the result, and there is no automatic penalty for a failure to call the TD. So yes, the approach is partially window dressing - but it harms nobody. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 23 03:47:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Nov 23 03:52:00 2005 Subject: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <200511222127.NAA29992@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > In fact, it seems unfair enough > that, as a TD (which I'm not), I'd probably rule that the round hasn't > ended (and thus a penalty is still possible) Reasonable - even if not easily justified by the words. As Grattan said it depends what one considers agreeing the score as a necessary part of "progression". > even if the TD were > hurrying you up and in your hurry you agreed on a score. Yes, I can't > make this fit into the Laws easily. Try L8A1 A. Movement of Boards and Players 1. Director's Instructions The Director instructs the players as to the proper movement of boards and progression of contestants. Did he? Well no he didn't. Normally a mistake like this doesn't cause a problem but it did here and it's the TD's mistake not the players. If a TD makes a mistake he can surely rectify it under L82b/c as necessary. With a tiny bit of twisting one can get there via L64c alone. Tim From adam at irvine.com Wed Nov 23 04:05:06 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Nov 23 04:09:17 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:47:00 GMT." Message-ID: <200511230305.TAA31874@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > > "Dispute (n.): 1. A verbal controversy; an argument; a debate. 2. A > > quarrel." [AHD] > > OK, my tongue was partially in cheek. I believe that if one, in a non- > argumentative and non-disputational manner, points out a flaw in the claim > and declarer agrees and amends the claim has not been "disputed". The above dictionary definition of "dispute" is not the correct one. If you look up "dispute" as a transitive verb, which is the sense in which it's used in the Laws (although in past participle form), one of the meanings in Merriam-Webster Online is "to call into question"; an older dictionary I have in my office has "to doubt" as one of the meanings. So "dispute" in this form doesn't necessarily mean there has to be an argument or a quarrel. So I think you're wrong: any time a defender says anything to the effect that declarer's claim is incorrect, the claim is disputed. From the Laws' standpoint, it doesn't matter whether a dispute [noun] has occurred. -- Adam From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Nov 23 09:45:41 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Nov 23 09:47:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43842C35.30006@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>Not every verbal exchange is a "dispute". If you tell a player that >>his claim is faulty and why, and he agrees, there is no controversy, >>argument, debate or quarrel. "If the claim... is disputed by any >>player... the Director must be summoned immediately" [L68D]. But the >>claim can be discussed and resolved without there being any >>disagreement, in which case calling the director is neither productive >>nor required, as Tim suggests. > > > OK, my tongue was partially in cheek. I believe that if one, in a non- > argumentative and non-disputational manner, points out a flaw in the claim > and declarer agrees and amends the claim has not been "disputed". I also > believe that the best way of achieving this is by posing the flaw as a > question/joke and allowing the declarer (if the TD happens by) to say, > with a clear conscience, that no dispute has occurred. As said above it's > not productive to call the TD in these circumstances, it won't affect the > result, and there is no automatic penalty for a failure to call the TD. > So yes, the approach is partially window dressing - but it harms nobody. > So the question remains. After a dialogue of this sort, what do we have: - a claim which has been disputed and ruled upon; - a new claim by original claimer, acquiesced to; or - a counter-claim by original opponend, acquiesced to by original claimer. In case of later dispute, it is quite important to know which one it is! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/177 - Release Date: 21/11/2005 From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Nov 23 10:29:43 2005 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Nov 23 10:33:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560511230129y60069693o@mail.gmail.com> On 23/11/05, Wayne Burrows wrote: > You finish the board and the director says move on please I will bring > the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. > > The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer has > one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play and > therefore revoked in the play. > > Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. > > Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? > > Wayne > Thanks for all of the replies. The actual situation that prompted this occured at the club last night. It was complicated as my opponent was my wife. She is in contention in a six night event and I am not. The hand was a comedy of errors. Her partner was declarer in 1H after my partner had opened 1NT. Yes this is correct. The bidding had gone ... 1NT X XX 1H P P P XX was for rescue but not alerted (another error) 1H was because he thought the opening bid (written bidding) was 1D. Declarer showed out on the second round of spades. I am 100% certain of this as I mentally noted that partner must have opened 1NT with a five-card spade suit. I was surprised at this since I have not seen him do that previously and I checked that I did in fact still have a third spade in my hand. When I saw the score sheet I noticed that partner had only four spades and declarer had two spades. I informed the director of the revoke. He checked with declarer who insisted that he did not revoke but instructed him and me to talk through the play at the end of the session. At the end of the session he left without discussing it. Therefore I asked the director to award the penalty in our favour and let the other side appeal. He was reluctant to do this and claimed that because I had moved to the next table that I had no right to a penalty. I said that if he was going to interpret the rules like that then I would never ever move again until I had completed scoring the board. Eventually he relented and awarded us a 1 trick penalty which earned us a bit over 1% on the session score. Now I in the bad books with the director and my wife ;-) Wayne From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Nov 23 10:37:08 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Nov 23 10:39:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560511230129y60069693o@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560511230129y60069693o@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43843844.8020106@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Now I in the bad books with the director and my wife ;-) > That first should be worrying, the second only par for the course, surely! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/178 - Release Date: 22/11/2005 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 23 10:37:11 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Nov 23 10:45:17 2005 Subject: [blml] BOWEL References: <200511222133.jAMLX3Ye012852@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <00a801c5f011$7b3f8d80$099868d5@jeushtlj> I'm not going to reply to Ron's latest comments on rule of 19 openings in detail. I do understand his arguments and I agree that he makes good points; but I fear that I am unconvinced; and I'm afraid that I have nothing new to say ... except this ... We did not ask for a ruling at the time because be did not notice until too late. Anyway, it would have been pointless as it was our own failure to open light that damaged us. We cannot really blame opponents in the current confused climate, especially as very few at our level read the Orange Book. As usual, Ron, it's been fun arguing with you. I've just sent off my letter to Nick Doe, asking that the EBU clarify, simplify, and publicise their regulations, especially on this issue. I like Ron's idea of case books of simple practical examples; but the paradigms should be part of the rule-book. Perhaps an appendix. Another improvement would be if local jurisdictions published the law book and local regulations in *ONE VOLUME*, as I think that would entail less duplication and ensure a wider audience. Perhaps the EBU should consider bundling the OB & TFLB into a BOWEL B ook of O fficial W orld and E nglish L aws With illustrative rulings (as Ron recommends) in an appendix, this would be quite a bundle; but as long it was in HTML rather than cumbersome and illegible pdf, there is a good chance that players would consult it. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 23 10:48:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Nov 23 10:52:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <200511230305.TAA31874@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > > The above dictionary definition of "dispute" is not the correct one. > If you look up "dispute" as a transitive verb, which is the sense in > which it's used in the Laws (although in past participle form), one of > the meanings in Merriam-Webster Online is "to call into question"; an > older dictionary I have in my office has "to doubt" as one of the > meanings. Does not your dictionary contain alternative meanings such as "formally challenge", or "argue, particularly in an official sense"? (OK MW doesn't, albeit other online dictionaries do, but it does have similar alternative meanings around "argue irritably", "contend" or "oppose". > So "dispute" in this form doesn't necessarily mean there > has to be an argument or a quarrel. So I think you're wrong: any time > a defender says anything to the effect that declarer's claim is > incorrect, the claim is disputed. That surely depends on which of the multiple meanings of "dispute" the reader of the laws uses. Unless instructed otherwise I will as a player/TD interpret the usage as the MWOvt2 (or vi) type meaning rather than the vt1 meaning. I interpret this way because I find it hugely more convenient so to do. You may wish to use the vt1 interpretation and call the TD every time. There has, to the best of my knowledge, been no official word on this so both interpretations are legal. > From the Laws' standpoint, it doesn't matter whether a dispute [noun] > has occurred. My grammar is struggling but isn't a possible intransitive meaning of "if it is disputed by" "if a dispute is entered into by" - thus the rendering the definition of the noun relevant? My mind has now wandered to a (sadly) obsolete meaning of the noun and I am considering the efficacy of settling claims using trial by combat. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 23 11:00:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Nov 23 11:04:19 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <43842C35.30006@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> > >>Not every verbal exchange is a "dispute". If you tell a player that > >>his claim is faulty and why, and he agrees, there is no controversy, > >>argument, debate or quarrel. "If the claim... is disputed by any > >>player... the Director must be summoned immediately" [L68D]. But the > >>claim can be discussed and resolved without there being any > >>disagreement, in which case calling the director is neither > productive >>nor required, as Tim suggests. > > > > > > OK, my tongue was partially in cheek. I believe that if one, in a > > non- > > argumentative and non-disputational manner, points out a flaw in the > > claim and declarer agrees and amends the claim has not been > > "disputed". I also believe that the best way of achieving this is by > > posing the flaw as a question/joke and allowing the declarer (if the > > TD happens by) to say, with a clear conscience, that no dispute has > > occurred. As said above it's not productive to call the TD in these > > circumstances, it won't affect the result, and there is no automatic > > penalty for a failure to call the TD. > > So yes, the approach is partially window dressing - but it harms > > nobody. > > > > So the question remains. After a dialogue of this sort, what do we have: > - a claim which has been disputed and ruled upon; There has been no ruling. If a dispute arises the TD deals with the original claim as a disputed claim (ok as a "Contested Claim", because the law-book makes no provision for handling "disputed claims"). Not dissimilar is the situation where a claim is not fully understood and an opponent seeks clarification before (or instead of) calling the TD. Nobody loses rights by asking. Tim From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Nov 23 11:41:57 2005 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed Nov 23 11:46:11 2005 Subject: [blml] BOWEL In-Reply-To: <00a801c5f011$7b3f8d80$099868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200511222133.jAMLX3Ye012852@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <00a801c5f011$7b3f8d80$099868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:37:11 -0000, Nigel wrote: >With illustrative rulings (as Ron recommends) in >an appendix, this would be quite a bundle; but as >long it was in HTML rather than cumbersome and >illegible pdf, there is a good chance that players >would consult it. > It's a total mystery to me why you consider PDFs to be "cumbersome and illegible". OK, they may be larger in terms of disk space than the equivalent HTML, that I will grant you, but illegible?? When I can use the features of Adobe Reader to magnify bits that escape my failing eyesight, for example? Sorry, Nigel, but I think you're totally out to lunch on this one. PDFs are a great *improvement* on readability. If someone knows what they're doing in writing HTML, then certainly you can produce a legible document, but comparing HTML to PDF in terms of legibility *for all readers* is like comparing snap to bridge. If any who are responsible for producing on-line documentation are reading, *please* continue to produce a PDF version! Actually, in this day and age, it's generally as simple as just creating another output file. I use WordPerfect for such documentation as I've had to write, and can produce HTML (albeit a little bulkier than hand-crafted) or PDFs with a few seconds work from the same source document. Brian. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Nov 23 12:48:22 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Nov 23 12:57:10 2005 Subject: [blml] BOWEL References: <200511222133.jAMLX3Ye012852@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><00a801c5f011$7b3f8d80$099868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001501c5f023$ced1ba60$269868d5@jeushtlj> [Brian Meadows] > It's a total mystery to me why you consider > PDFs to be "cumbersome and illegible". OK, > they may be larger in terms of disk space > than the equivalent HTML, that I will grant > you, [Nigel] Larger, slower to load, slower to display - and needing an Adobe reader. [Brian] > but illegible?? When I can use the features > of Adobe Reader to magnify bits that escape > my failing eyesight, for example? [Nige1] On most browsers, CTRL+ rapidly blows up HTML pages -- and correctly word-wraps the resulting text! Also, clickable hyperlinks make cross referencing easy. [Brian] > Sorry, Nigel, but I think you're totally out > to lunch on this one. PDFs are a great > *improvement* on readability. If someone > knows what they're doing in writing HTML, then > certainly you can produce a legible document, > but comparing HTML to PDF in terms of > legibility *for all readers* is like comparing > snap to bridge. [Nigel] Not *all readers*! I referred to those on old computers with slow connections. For us, pdfs are irritatingly slow to load and display. Your analogy is apt: Snap is an enjoyable fast game of pure skill with simple easy-to-learn rules :) [Brian] > If any who are responsible for producing > on-line documentation are reading, *please* > continue to produce a PDF version! > Actually, in this day and age, it's generally > as simple as just creating another output file. > I use WordPerfect for such documentation as > I've had to write, and can produce HTML > (albeit a little bulkier than hand-crafted) > or PDFs with a few seconds work from the same > source document. [nige1] I don't grudge masochists with T1 connections and gigaherz computers their pdf. I just hope that there will be also be HTML for all of us lazy primitives :) From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Wed Nov 23 15:15:45 2005 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Wed Nov 23 16:12:58 2005 Subject: [blml] BOWEL In-Reply-To: <001501c5f023$ced1ba60$269868d5@jeushtlj> References: <200511222133.jAMLX3Ye012852@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <00a801c5f011$7b3f8d80$099868d5@jeushtlj> <001501c5f023$ced1ba60$269868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: In message <001501c5f023$ced1ba60$269868d5@jeushtlj>, Guthrie writes >[Brian Meadows] >> It's a total mystery to me why you consider >> PDFs to be "cumbersome and illegible". OK, >> they may be larger in terms of disk space >> than the equivalent HTML, that I will grant >> you, >[Nigel] >Larger, slower to load, slower to display - and >needing an Adobe reader. > When faced with a ruling at a table, do you have access to an online copy? Most clubs I direct at don't even have a computer on site. Those that do are not connected to the Internet. It is much easier to have it as a single PDF which we can download and either print on paper or put a copy on my "off-line" laptop. Downloading a html version that is multiple pages is a nightmare, especially if preserving links between pages. As for cross-referencing, PDFs have indexes and bookmarks. They are searchable for key words. How easy is it to do that with multiple webpages? Documentation that is expected to be used off-line should be published in a format that can be easily printed and easily searched off-line. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Wed Nov 23 15:54:23 2005 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Wed Nov 23 16:13:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Department of Hair Splitting In-Reply-To: <002601c5efba$e7ba50f0$1d690947@DFYXB361> References: <000701c5efa8$3512dce0$1d690947@DFYXB361> <2a1c3a560511221355h497909f8m@mail.gmail.com> <002601c5efba$e7ba50f0$1d690947@DFYXB361> Message-ID: In message <002601c5efba$e7ba50f0$1d690947@DFYXB361>, raija writes > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" > >To: "raija" >Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:55 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty > > >On 23/11/05, raija wrote: >> Sorry, this went to Adam only, meant for blml. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "raija" >> To: "Adam Beneschan" >> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:14 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty >> >> >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Adam Beneschan" >> > To: >> > Cc: >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:16 AM >> > Subject: Re: [blml] Too late for a revoke penalty >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Laval wrote: >> >> >> >>> Wayne writes: >> >>> >> >>> You finish the board and the director says move on please I will bring >> >>> the scoresheet to you. So you dutifully move on. >> >>> >> >>> The director brings the scoresheet and you notice that declarer has >> >>> one more card in a suit than he showed up with in the play and >> >>> therefore revoked in the play. >> >>> >> >>> Neither you nor your partner have called on the new deal. >> >>> >> >>> Is it too late to extract a penalty for this revoke? >> >>> ________________________________________________________________ >> >>> >> >>> I supposed you read Law 64B4... >> >> >> >> Yes, but I think the question here is whether 64B5 applies. >> >> >> >> -- Adam >> > >> > Is scoring the boards of the current round part of the current >> >round? Is >> > there a Law that addresses this question? >> > The players who moved when TD asked them to move, in essence just >> >vacated >> > the seats for the new pair, then sat on different chairs to finish the >> > round = write the scores, just as if they had taken some empty kibitzer >> > chairs to do that? It is against proprieties not to follow director's >> > instructions; if TD tells a pair to move to the next table, the >> >pair will >> > move without putting up arguments "but we haven't completed scoresheet >> > yet". No need to delay the other pair who wants to start the round on >> > time, so vacating the seats should not in itself mean that the round for >> > this pair is ended, IMHO. >> > > >What if having moved on you have made a call on the next deal before >the director gets to you with the scoresheet. Are you rights >diminished now? > >Wayne > > >I don't know. I am only a player and this is my player opinion. The >fundamental question remains: Is scoresheet completion part of a round >or not? The Laws don't seem to address this but my logic (flawed or >not, you be the judge) says it must be part of a round. > >If it *is* part of a round, then the pair is in fact playing in two >rounds simultaneously as soon as they sit at the next table, whether >they have made a call there or not, because the Law says (does it?) >that the next round starts for a pair when the pair has moved to the >next table. > >If it *is not* part of a round, then the pair should have refused to >follow TD instructions until they had seen the unseen cards, thereby >procuring themselves a possible PP for refusal to follow TD >instructions, in addition to losing the chance to have appropriate >revoke penalty applied to the revokers. This cannot be right. > >The whole situation requires the expertise of the Department of Hair >Splitting..... Since such entity does not exist, common sense and >common justice should prevail, allowing the pair to call attention to >the revoke at their first opportunity while sitting at the next table, >whether auction has started or not. > >Raija Life would be a lot simpler if the rules defined: "A board starts when one member of the partnership removes their cards from the board until the all scores have been entered on the proper scoring forms without objection and the cards returned to the board" ...and... "A round starts when play starts for a board scheduled to be played in that round and finishes when all scheduled boards for that round have been completed" This leads to a simple definition of the end of session as; "A session ends for a player when all scheduled boards have been completed". The way the L8 is currently written, if a table is slow on say the first round and the TD gives permission to leave the last board to played after the final round, this board is being played after the session has ended. Common sense says that is not the case. But the way it is written a bridge-lawyer could argue otherwise. Obviously, if a TD gives an averages for boards not played due to late arrival or slow play, etc. then those boards are "removed from the schedule" As a humble Club player I would have no objection if the revoke rules were changed to no automatic penalty once I've agreed the scores and returned my cards to the board. There's always L64C available to make sure the opponents can't get away with an advantage if I notice later. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From adam at irvine.com Wed Nov 23 17:11:49 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Nov 23 17:16:05 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:48:00 GMT." Message-ID: <200511231611.IAA03800@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > > The above dictionary definition of "dispute" is not the correct one. > > If you look up "dispute" as a transitive verb, which is the sense in > > which it's used in the Laws (although in past participle form), one of > > the meanings in Merriam-Webster Online is "to call into question"; an > > older dictionary I have in my office has "to doubt" as one of the > > meanings. > > Does not your dictionary contain alternative meanings such as "formally > challenge", or "argue, particularly in an official sense"? (OK MW doesn't, > albeit other online dictionaries do, but it does have similar alternative > meanings around "argue irritably", "contend" or "oppose". Yeah, it does, and I did try to indicate that that was just "one of" the meanings. As for which one applies: my tendency is to try to read the mind of whoever wrote it and figure out what they were trying to say, rather than to pick the meaning which would make things most convenient. But on reflection, I could be wrong about what the authors here were trying to say. Actually, nine years of marriage should have disabused me of the notion that I can read anyone's mind about anything, but I'm stubborn. You may be right that the intent of the authors was not to require a TD call if the two sides can come to an agreement after an initial disagreement. > > From the Laws' standpoint, it doesn't matter whether a dispute [noun] > > has occurred. > > My grammar is struggling but isn't a possible intransitive meaning of "if > it is disputed by" "if a dispute is entered into by" - thus the rendering > the definition of the noun relevant? On the point of grammar, if talking about "a claim being disputed by ...", then this is a transitive verb because it has an object (i.e. the claim)---intransitive verbs don't have objects. > My mind has now wandered to a (sadly) obsolete meaning of the noun > and I am considering the efficacy of settling claims using trial by > combat. That might be an improvement over the current claim laws. I also notice that in M-W online, one of the meanings of the verb "dispute" is "to contend over", and the example given is "both sides disputed the bridgehead". Maybe they anticipated that this definition would cause a dispute by Bridge Heads over the meaning of the Bridge Laws, but I don't know. -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 23 18:42:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Nov 23 18:46:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <200511231611.IAA03800@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > As for which one applies: my tendency is to try to read > the mind of whoever wrote it and figure out what they were trying to > say, rather than to pick the meaning which would make things most > convenient. But on reflection, I could be wrong about what the > authors here were trying to say. Ah well, perhaps I should have shared my opinion that the authors may not have been of a single intent when they agreed the words so that particular step didn't help me. I too could be wrong about what was intended - but neither my selection of interpretation nor yours is "wrong" until the WBF says so (and we have conquered the associated tiger). Convenience (and the reality of what people actually do) incline me in a particular direction. I'd guess at a 30-fold increase in contested claim ruling requests were the alternate interpretation actually enforced. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 24 08:25:01 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Nov 24 08:29:24 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Too late for a revoke penalty References: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560511230129y60069693o@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c5f0c8$56104740$2aa2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:29 AM Subject: [blml] Re: Too late for a revoke penalty Declarer showed out on the second round of spades. I am 100% certain of this as I mentally noted that partner must have opened 1NT with a five-card spade suit. I was surprised at this since I have not seen him do that previously and I checked that I did in fact still have a third spade in my hand. When I saw the score sheet I noticed that partner had only four spades and declarer had two spades. I informed the director of the revoke. He checked with declarer who insisted that he did not revoke but instructed him and me to talk through the play at the end of the session. At the end of the session he left without discussing it. Therefore I asked the director to award the penalty in our favour and let the other side appeal. He was reluctant to do this and claimed that because I had moved to the next table that I had no right to a penalty. Eventually he relented and awarded us a 1 trick penalty which earned us a bit over 1% on the session score. +=+ The score was not entered without objection. You were entitled to ask for a ruling which either side could immediately appeal. I am surprised your wife did not raise an objection to the ruling and, of course, you or the Director could equally have occasioned an appeal. But perhaps you feel you did: " I said that if he was going to interpret the rules like that then I would never ever move again until I had completed scoring the board", in a bizarre and unorthodox manner. Or perhaps declarer's appeal of the ruling, when he heard it, has still to be dealt with? ["He checked with declarer who insisted that he did not revoke but instructed him and me to talk through the play at the end of the session. At the end of the session he left without discussing it."]. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Nov 24 10:05:48 2005 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Nov 24 10:10:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Too late for a revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <000001c5f0c8$56104740$2aa2403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560511220305u4ba3f965r@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560511230129y60069693o@mail.gmail.com> <000001c5f0c8$56104740$2aa2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560511240105g41b7da41s@mail.gmail.com> On 24/11/05, Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "O joy! That in our embers > Is something that doth live, > That nature yet remembers > What was so fugitive!" > [William Wordsworth] > > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:29 AM > Subject: [blml] Re: Too late for a revoke penalty > > > > > Declarer showed out on the second round of spades. I am 100% certain > of this as I mentally noted that partner must have opened 1NT with a > five-card spade suit. I was surprised at this since I have not seen > him do that previously and I checked that I did in fact still have a > third spade in my hand. > > When I saw the score sheet I noticed that partner had only four spades > and declarer had two spades. I informed the director of the revoke. > > He checked with declarer who insisted that he did not revoke but > instructed him and me to talk through the play at the end of the > session. At the end of the session he left without discussing it. > > Therefore I asked the director to award the penalty in our favour and > let the other side appeal. He was reluctant to do this and claimed > that because I had moved to the next table that I had no right to a > penalty. > Eventually he relented and awarded us a 1 trick penalty which earned > us a bit over 1% on the session score. > > +=+ The score was not entered without objection. You were > entitled to ask for a ruling which either side could immediately > appeal. I am surprised your wife did not raise an objection to > the ruling and, of course, you or the Director could equally > have occasioned an appeal. > But perhaps you feel you did: " I said that if he was going to > interpret the rules like that then I would never ever move > again until I had completed scoring the board", in a bizarre > and unorthodox manner. I don't follow what you are saying now. I asked for a ruling when I saw the scoresheet. When the director came back to me he had not made a ruling he asked me to talk with the other player at the end of play to try and establish whether we could agree about the revoke. When I found the other player had left I asked the director whether he had also been given instructions to talk to me about the revoke. The director said he had. Given the other player left I asked the director to rule in my favour. The director then raised the objection that because I had moved (on his instructions) he thought I had lost my right to a revoke penalty. I questioned this interpretation. He sought advice from other senior players and eventually ruled one trick to my side. There was no appeal. > Or perhaps declarer's appeal of the ruling, when he heard > it, has still to be dealt with? ["He checked with declarer who > insisted that he did not revoke but instructed him and me to talk > through the play at the end of the session. At the end of the > session he left without discussing it."]. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Wayne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 24 10:24:07 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Nov 24 10:31:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: Message-ID: <001d01c5f0d8$f03a9360$8a9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas ('Let us examine the scriptures') These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > Adam wrote: > > > As for which one applies: my tendency is to try to read > > the mind of whoever wrote it and figure out what they were trying to > > say, rather than to pick the meaning which would make things most > > convenient. But on reflection, I could be wrong about what the > > authors here were trying to say. > > Ah well, perhaps I should have shared my opinion that the authors may not > have been of a single intent when they agreed the words so that > particular step didn't help me. I too could be wrong about what was > intended - but neither my selection of interpretation nor yours is "wrong" > until the WBF says so (and we have conquered the associated tiger). > Convenience (and the reality of what people actually do) incline me in a > particular direction. I'd guess at a 30-fold increase in contested claim > ruling requests were the alternate interpretation actually enforced. > > Tim > +=+ It is inaccurate to say that 'neither my selection of interpretation nor yours is "wrong" until the WBF says so'. The WBFLC has minuted an authority for affiliated organizations to make interim interpretations until a matter is brought to it. Either the EBU or the EBL could thus instruct Tim as to the correct interpretation within its domain. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 24 14:07:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Nov 24 14:11:51 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <001d01c5f0d8$f03a9360$8a9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ It is inaccurate to say that 'neither my selection of interpretation > nor yours is "wrong" until the WBF says so'. The WBFLC has minuted > an authority for affiliated organizations to make interim > interpretations until a matter is brought to it. Either the EBU or the > EBL could thus instruct Tim as to the correct interpretation within its > domain. Sure they can Grattan and the instruction holds good for the hour between them so informing me and the official dispatch of an EMail bringing the matter to the attention of the WBFLC. It seems unlikely that the issue will arise at the table during that hour - notwithstanding yet another "beware of the tiger" minute. Even during that hour both interpretations would remain "correct" were the game played under the laws rather than in an EBU affiliated competition. BTW when being told "it is minuted" it is useful to get a reference to when/where it is so minuted - working through every WBF document is an extremely tiresome process. Adding other affiliated organisations as possible interpreters of law just makes it that much harder for TDs to know what they are supposed to be doing. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 24 18:25:30 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Nov 24 18:33:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: Message-ID: <004701c5f11c$2c91d420$dd9387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas ('Let us examine the scriptures') These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > Sure they can Grattan and the instruction holds > good for the hour between them so informing me > and the official dispatch of an EMail bringing the > matter to the attention of the WBFLC. < +=+ Actually it holds good, per the minutes of 24 August 1998, until the WBFLC in a meeting finds it appropriate to resolve a conflict of interpretation. For clarity let me add that the EBL devolves the power to its member NBOs for their respective tournaments. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 24 20:07:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Nov 24 20:11:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <004701c5f11c$2c91d420$dd9387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > Sure they can Grattan and the instruction holds > > good for the hour between them so informing me > > and the official dispatch of an EMail bringing the > > matter to the attention of the WBFLC. > < > +=+ Actually it holds good, per the minutes of > 24 August 1998, until the WBFLC in a meeting > finds it appropriate to resolve a conflict of > interpretation. For clarity let me add that the EBL > devolves the power to its member NBOs for their > respective tournaments. Sorry Grattan, all I can find in the minutes is "The Committee made observation that interim interpretations of Law are made by Zonal Organisations. Where significant conflicts are identified the Committee will consider its view at its next Meeting." Nothing in the above makes interpretations or instructions issued by the EBL (or delegated to the EBU) binding on TDs. The EBU L&EC lacks both the technical competence and legal status to make binding interpretations. They may believe they are right, they may even discover (when the WBF finally considers the issue) that they are right but n cases of conflict the decision as to who *is* right rests solely with the WBF (and until considered remains unresolved). Of course the EBU can tell TDs how it intends to interpret any given law, can advise TDs on how it thinks laws should be interpreted, can overrule a TD in an appeal to the NA (obviously subject to subsequent review by the WBF) and, indeed, can select only obedient sheep to direct in EBU competitions - but such is life. Whether ovinity (which should be a word even if it isn't) is a quality to be sought after amongst TDs is a question for another day. BTW it would, IMO, be a bad idea to allow all the various affiliated bodies to make binding interpretations of law. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Nov 25 05:29:08 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Nov 25 05:37:16 2005 Subject: [blml] BOWEL References: <200511222133.jAMLX3Ye012852@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><00a801c5f011$7b3f8d80$099868d5@jeushtlj><001501c5f023$ced1ba60$269868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002f01c5f178$c7a6e3e0$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> [Steve Wright] > When faced with a ruling at a table, > do you have access to an online copy? [Nige1] I rarely direct. Our club has both hardcopy and an internet connection for online access. [Steve] > Most clubs I direct at don't even have a > computer on site. Those that do are not > connected to the Internet. It is much > easier to have it as a single PDF which > we can download and either print on paper > or put a copy on my "off-line" laptop. > Downloading a html version that is > multiple pages is a nightmare, especially > if preserving links between pages. > As for cross-referencing, PDFs have > indexes and bookmarks. They are searchable > for key words. How easy is it to do that > with multiple webpages? Documentation that > is expected to be used off-line should be > published in a format that can be easily > printed and easily searched off-line. [nige1] I agree that pdf is OK for printing off-line copies. If you are right that most clubs have no on-line access, then hardcopy is essential for directors. If off-line access is the only important concern then you could also have a single HTML document -- but that is another red-herring. As explained, my concern was to simplify and improve *players* access to the laws and regulations. Of course, players too, can read hardcopy but we appreciate the current alternative of on-line access to learn the rules piece-meal and check up on particular rules. Multiple HTML documents are quicker to load and navigate than single pdf documents, especially on old machines. As Brian Meadows points out, surely the answer is to have both pdf and HTML (as now): Both are easy to generate and the latter takes up so little room. Then both directors and players will have easy one-volume access to laws and regulations --without having to remember to print out several hundred pages, every time there is a minor change. Directors can have their cake and players can eat it :) It may be my own fault, but my major suggestions usually get completely side-tracked. My suggestion is that local jurisdictions integrate their regulations with the law-book, to provide a *single volume* containing all local "bridge rules", with less fragmentation, redundancy, and inconsistency, From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 25 08:02:39 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Nov 26 08:39:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn References: Message-ID: <000001c5f18e$5c3e1630$9ad6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > > Sorry Grattan, all I can find in the minutes is "The Committee > made observation that interim interpretations of Law are made > by Zonal Organisations. Where significant conflicts are identified > the Committee will consider its view at its next Meeting." > > Nothing in the above makes interpretations or instructions issued > by the EBL (or delegated to the EBU) binding on TDs. > +=+ However, they are recognized by the WBFLC. +=+ < > The EBU L&EC lacks both the technical competence and legal > status to make binding interpretations. < +=+ Unlike Tim West-Meads, of course. +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Nov 27 17:17:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Nov 27 17:22:23 2005 Subject: [blml] Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn In-Reply-To: <000001c5f18e$5c3e1630$9ad6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > > Nothing in the above makes interpretations or instructions issued > > by the EBL (or delegated to the EBU) binding on TDs. > > > +=+ However, they are recognized by the WBFLC. +=+ Such interpretations are recognised by WBFLC as interim interpretations subject to confirmation or denial. Where conflict arises the WBFLC will, eventually, say which side is right and which wrong. One hopes that WBFLC would do so free from any bias towards a particular ZO/NA or individual. > > The EBU L&EC lacks both the technical competence and legal > > status to make binding interpretations. > < > +=+ Unlike Tim West-Meads, of course. +=+ Who makes no claim that his interpretations are binding on anyone - however correct and obvious they may be - unlike the EBU's attempt to require players to abide by EBU regulations even when such regulations are in direct conflict with the laws. Tim From adam at tameware.com Sun Nov 27 19:28:25 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Nov 27 19:32:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta commentary posted In-Reply-To: References: <200510130100.SAA16373@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: I've posted my commentary on cases N-01 through N-11 from Atlanta: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 As always, comments, suggestions, and criticism are welcome. I hope to post additional comments within a day or two. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From mikedodson at yahoo.com Mon Nov 28 00:18:03 2005 From: mikedodson at yahoo.com (mike dodson) Date: Mon Nov 28 00:22:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Atlanta N-02 Message-ID: <20051127231803.51048.qmail@web31713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> CASE N-02 Subject: MI Event: Grand National Teams, first session DIC: Steve Bates Brd: 14 Michael Shuster Vul: None ? Q Dlr: East ? K 10 6 5 2 ? K Q 8 5 3 ? K 9 Billy Miller Fred Gitelman ? J 9 8 2 ? 10 6 5 4 3 ? 8 ? A 9 7 ? 976 ? 10 4 ? 8 6 5 3 2 ? A 10 7 Jeffrey Goldsmith ? A K 7 ? Q J 4 3 ? A J 2 ? Q J 4 West North East South Pass 1? Pass 1? Pass 3? Pass 4? Pass 4? Pass 4NT Pass 5? Pass 6? All Pass The Facts: The contract was 6? making six for NS +980 after a spade lead. At the end of the auction, South explained that 4NT was a spade cue bid by agreement and that 4? would have been ace asking. East led a spade and the contract made at the table. The Ruling: The NS pair provided to the director a set of system notes (the director had not requested them) at the end of the round. The director ruled that the NS pair did not have the agreement as stated. As a result of the misinformation, the director adjusted the result to 6? , down one, +50 to EW. The Appeal: North explained that he forgot that by agreement 4NT was a spade cue bid but did not correct South's explanation since it was correct. The Decision: The committee could not agree on whether there was misinformation. It did, however, determine that if there was misinformation, East was not injured - he should lead one of his aces and not relinquish the lead. Accordingly, the committee allowed the table result to stand: NS +980. The Committee: Bill Cole, chair, Kit Woolsey and Ken Kranyak |Adam's comment: N-02 I agree with the committee?s decision, but the way that they arrived at it was not 100% correct. The AC is not and ought not be in the business of deciding what an innocent opponent ought to have done. The proper way to arrive at the decision is to note that even if there was misinformation, East was not damaged through the misinformation. Had the TD ruled the other way I?d be astonished to see EW appeal. My take: If system notes are not enough to establish partnership agreement than what is? Is any system forget proof of "no agreement"? Or perhaps the director did not request notes so there would be no evidence for mis-explaination and volunteered notes are discounted to zero as self-serving. I've always considered a coherent explaination of system and partnership history "evidence" to satisfy the L75 footnote, anyway that's the best one can hope for at a club level game. What standard of evidence is in use for a national championship? Mike Dodson __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From adam at tameware.com Tue Nov 29 06:59:19 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue Nov 29 07:03:40 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Atlanta commentary posted Message-ID: I wrote: >I've posted my commentary on cases N-01 through N-11 from Atlanta: > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 > >As always, comments, suggestions, and criticism are welcome. > >I hope to post additional comments within a day or two. I've posted my comments on cases N-11 through N-22. I also reformatted the first batch of comments -- they should be easier to read now. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Nov 30 11:56:11 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Nov 30 11:59:41 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: VB: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Cross imps In-Reply-To: <438d8368.671d.0@iol.ie> References: <438d8368.671d.0@iol.ie> Message-ID: <438D854B.3040805@hdw.be> Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > Thanks Herman, > I like your example of the other match in the semi-final. I have no strong > feelings on the subject. I can live with either method. I just find it > strange to be claiming only 6 imps for bidding a vulnerable game. well, look at it this way: you are playing a team match and you make a vulnerable game, that loses at the other table. Do you claim to have won the 12 imps? always? or do you sometimes acknowledge that your opponents could have done better? If your partners have done what they should, they deserve some of the credit. So you take credit for some of the 12 imps, and they take credit for the remainder. If we have other tables, we can estimate how much it is by comparing to those other tables. If we have no other tables, then +6 to both is what it has to be! > See you around, > Fearghal. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/188 - Release Date: 29/11/2005 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Nov 30 12:10:57 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Nov 30 12:13:07 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: VB: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Cross imps In-Reply-To: <438D854B.3040805@hdw.be> References: <438d8368.671d.0@iol.ie> <438D854B.3040805@hdw.be> Message-ID: <438D88C1.4090804@hdw.be> Ooops - this was a reply to Fearghal on a private discussion. Not that you would not be interested. The question was how to calculate cross-imps, I was defending my pov of dividing by the number of results, not the number of comparisons. Feel free to disregard this post. Herman De Wael wrote: > Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >> Thanks Herman, >> I like your example of the other match in the semi-final. I have no >> strong >> feelings on the subject. I can live with either method. I just find it >> strange to be claiming only 6 imps for bidding a vulnerable game. > > > well, look at it this way: you are playing a team match and you make a > vulnerable game, that loses at the other table. Do you claim to have won > the 12 imps? always? or do you sometimes acknowledge that your opponents > could have done better? If your partners have done what they should, > they deserve some of the credit. So you take credit for some of the 12 > imps, and they take credit for the remainder. If we have other tables, > we can estimate how much it is by comparing to those other tables. If we > have no other tables, then +6 to both is what it has to be! > >> See you around, >> Fearghal. >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/188 - Release Date: 29/11/2005 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 30 19:01:59 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Dec 2 09:04:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James> Message-ID: <005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> This is in my draft folder, sorry if I have sent it before. Some items are new, however. Additions, anyone? > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ There are various attitudes to the subject. > My belief is that it is not desirable merely to > produce a patched up version of the 1997 > laws. If this were the outcome I would consider > the exercise a failure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [Nige] > Heaven forfend! The new edition should be complete, > integrated, and stand on its own. It should incorporate, in > place, anything worth preserving from superseded editions, > commentaries, minutes or interpretations. > Very good, Nigel. And how about simple, clear language that uses Anglo-Saxon words when they are good enough? Ask, not request Call, not summon After, not subsequent to First, not initial See, not observe Before, not previously Wrong, not erroneous Later, not subsequently Take back, not retract Told, not informed End, not expiration And while we're on this subject, get rid of unnecessary passive mood and weasel words: Change all "is considered to be" to "is." Change "is required by law to" to "must." From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 30 21:02:31 2005 From: john at asimere.com (john@asimere.com) Date: Fri Dec 2 09:04:04 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <200511302002.jAUK2VXL005438@mozart.asimere.com> DATA Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:01:10 +0000 To: blml@rtflb.org From: John Probst Subject: Re: [blml] Re: VB: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Cross imps References: <438d8368.671d.0@iol.ie> <438D854B.3040805@hdw.be> <438D88C1.4090804@hdw.be> In-Reply-To: <438D88C1.4090804@hdw.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.05-S () In message <438D88C1.4090804@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Ooops - this was a reply to Fearghal on a private discussion. >Not that you would not be interested. >The question was how to calculate cross-imps, I was defending my pov of >dividing by the number of results, not the number of comparisons. >Feel free to disregard this post. > >Herman De Wael wrote: Max and I have concluded that it is correct to divide by Sqrt(No.Comparisons x No.Results). What is interesting is that if you do this then you only need one VP scale regardless of the size of the field, dependent only on the Sqrt(no.Boards) - Max and I call them "normalised imps" and it leads to the conclusion that one claims score/(2xSQRT(2)) imps when playing head to head, as the head to head scores should be divided by root 2 to be properly normalised, if you want to maintain comparison with teams-of-X and cross imping. http://www.asimere.com/~john/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm is my discussion of this, and has Max's complete support. Cheers John > >> Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> >>> Thanks Herman, >>> I like your example of the other match in the semi-final. I have no >>>strong >>> feelings on the subject. I can live with either method. I just find it >>> strange to be claiming only 6 imps for bidding a vulnerable game. >> well, look at it this way: you are playing a team match and you >>make a vulnerable game, that loses at the other table. Do you claim >>to have won the 12 imps? always? or do you sometimes acknowledge that >>your opponents could have done better? If your partners have done >>what they should, they deserve some of the credit. So you take credit >>for some of the 12 imps, and they take credit for the remainder. If >>we have other tables, we can estimate how much it is by comparing to >>those other tables. If we have no other tables, then +6 to both is >>what it has to be! >> >>> See you around, >>> Fearghal. >>> >> > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > -- 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