From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 1 04:40:44 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Dec 1 04:44:58 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: VB: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Cross imps In-Reply-To: <200511301535.jAUFZubI007317@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200511301535.jAUFZubI007317@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <438E70BC.5030504@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > 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. Of course the difference only matters if some boards are played a different number of times than others, and there is no clear answer. If you believe in Neuberg (or Aschermann) for the analogous situation at pairs, then divide by the number of results. If you believe in factoring at pairs, divide by the number of comparisons. The arguments are exactly the same. (And no, John, do not divide by sqrt[results*comparisons]. That is sort of a semi-Neuberg, but it isn't analogous to anything that is ever used at pairs.) From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Dec 2 09:24:11 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Dec 2 09:26:19 2005 Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <200511302002.jAUK2VXL005438@mozart.asimere.com> References: <200511302002.jAUK2VXL005438@mozart.asimere.com> Message-ID: <439004AB.6090500@hdw.be> john@asimere.com wrote: > > > Max and I have concluded that it is correct to divide by > Sqrt(No.Comparisons x No.Results). > This seems to me like a consensus result from a committee meeting: we can't decide what's best, so let's go for something down the middle. > 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. > We are not discussing VP scales, but rather the IMP score one should award to the pairs in a team contest with duplicated boards (style European Championship or Bermuda Bowl). > 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 >> >> >> > > -- 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: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 30/11/2005 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Dec 2 11:21:38 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Dec 2 11:30:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James> <005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001501c5f72a$2f51bc20$279868d5@jeushtlj> >>> [Grattan Endicott] >>> +=+ There are various attitudes to the >>> subject. My belief is that it is not >>> desirable merely to produce a patched >>> up version of the 1997 laws. If this >>> were the outcome I would consider >>> the exercise a failure. >>> >> [Nige1] >> Heaven forfend! The new edition should be >> complete, integrated, and stand on its own. >> It should incorporate, in place, anything >> worth preserving from superseded editions, >> commentaries, minutes or interpretations. >> > {Marvin French] > Very good, Nigel. And how about simple, clear > language that uses Anglo-Saxon words when > they are good enough? > Ask, not request > Call, not summon > After, not subsequent to > First, not initial > See, not observe > Before, not previously > Wrong, not erroneous > Later, not subsequently > Take back, not retract > Told, not informed > End, not expiration > > And while we're on this subject, get > rid of unnecessary passive mood and > weasel words: > Change all "is considered to be" to "is." > Change "is required by law to" to "must." > [Nige2] I agree as would most players (This is so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't incur Kojak's wrath). I am sure that the WBFLC are striving towards Marvin's goals. The laws would be even clearer were they also simpler and less objective but I fear that the Kojak and Grattan may put a stop to that. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Dec 2 11:39:24 2005 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Dec 2 11:47:53 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <001501c5f72a$2f51bc20$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005b01c5f72c$a9f2a3c0$279868d5@jeushtlj> ... just correcting a typo ... >>> [Grattan Endicott] >>> +=+ There are various attitudes to the >>> subject. My belief is that it is not >>> desirable merely to produce a patched >>> up version of the 1997 laws. If this >>> were the outcome I would consider >>> the exercise a failure. >>> >> [Nige1] >> Heaven forfend! The new edition should be >> complete, integrated, and stand on its own. >> It should incorporate, in place, anything >> worth preserving from superseded editions, >> commentaries, minutes or interpretations. >> > {Marvin French] > Very good, Nigel. And how about simple, clear > language that uses Anglo-Saxon words when > they are good enough? > Ask, not request > Call, not summon > After, not subsequent to > First, not initial > See, not observe > Before, not previously > Wrong, not erroneous > Later, not subsequently > Take back, not retract > Told, not informed > End, not expiration > > And while we're on this subject, get > rid of unnecessary passive mood and > weasel words: > Change all "is considered to be" to "is." > Change "is required by law to" to "must." > [Nige2] I agree as would most players (This is so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't incur Kojak's wrath). I am sure that the WBFLC are striving towards Marvin's goals. The laws would be even clearer were they also simpler and more objective but I fear that Kojak and Grattan may put a stop to that. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 2 17:58:42 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Dec 2 18:08:38 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><001501c5f72a$2f51bc20$279868d5@jeushtlj> <005b01c5f72c$a9f2a3c0$279868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003601c5f762$086acd80$29a187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* Scrutanimus scripturas ('Let us examine the scriptures') These two words have undone the world. ~ John Selden ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Language in the Laws > > The laws would be even clearer were they > also simpler and more objective but I fear > that Kojak and Grattan may put a stop > to that. > +=+ Gratuitous. Considering the efforts we are each making to produce laws that do not require further interpretation in Northern, Southern, Western, or Eastern Hemispheres, I doubt this slur is yet justified. Save the brickbats and belaying pins until you have had the opportunity to offer constructive comment on a provisional product. ~ G ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sat Dec 3 00:28:58 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Dec 3 00:33:12 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><001501c5f72a$2f51bc20$279868d5@jeushtlj><005b01c5f72c$a9f2a3c0$279868d5@jeushtlj> <003601c5f762$086acd80$29a187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Thank you Grattan, that almost says it all. Just let me add that lumping us together as opposed to clarity of language, syntax, localisms, vernacular (all words that probably need looking up by Mr. Guthrie) makes his comment clearly ignorant, and your hope for future comments of value from him a pipe dream. God bless the delete key. Kojak. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Language in the Laws > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > Scrutanimus scripturas > ('Let us examine the scriptures') > > These two words have undone > the world. > ~ John Selden > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 10:39 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Language in the Laws > > > > > > The laws would be even clearer were they > > also simpler and more objective but I fear > > that Kojak and Grattan may put a stop > > to that. > > > +=+ Gratuitous. Considering the efforts we > are each making to produce laws that do not > require further interpretation in Northern, > Southern, Western, or Eastern Hemispheres, > I doubt this slur is yet justified. Save the > brickbats and belaying pins until you have had > the opportunity to offer constructive comment > on a provisional product. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 3 09:15:33 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Dec 3 09:20:10 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><001501c5f72a$2f51bc20$279868d5@jeushtlj><005b01c5f72c$a9f2a3c0$279868d5@jeushtlj><003601c5f762$086acd80$29a187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c5f7e1$e565bf40$c8e7403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" ; "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Language in the Laws > Thank you Grattan, that almost says it all. Just let me > add that lumping us together as opposed to clarity of > language, syntax, localisms, vernacular (all words that > probably need looking up by Mr. Guthrie) makes his > comment clearly ignorant, and your hope for future > comments of value from him a pipe dream. God bless > the delete key. > > Kojak. > +=+ Oh, I don't know, Kojak. Nigel strikes me as an honest journeyman worker on blml, simply using his right to freedom of speech. He does not know what goes on in the drafting subcommittee and is unwise to jump to conclusions with scant knowledge, but we should not blind ourselves to the possibility that anyone who writes here may say something that will stop us falling into a hole, and my belief in life is that I should try to display the humility that is willing to hear and sometimes learn - even in my eighty-second year when it might be thought that I had 'been there, done that'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sat Dec 3 13:57:15 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Dec 3 14:01:27 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><001501c5f72a$2f51bc20$279868d5@jeushtlj><005b01c5f72c$a9f2a3c0$279868d5@jeushtlj><003601c5f762$086acd80$29a187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000201c5f7e1$e565bf40$c8e7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Perhaps you are right, Grattan. I shall search through Mr. Guthrie's posting for the kernels of his intended constructive criticism and help to those of us who are struggling with a hard task. I should, and always will, respect his right to freedom of speech, and only relegate to the trash heap those thoughts that add diddely-squat (old Southern American jargon which will not appear in the new Laws), can only be meant as other than constructive, and suffer (.....)(you pick the word). I will diligently do so. After all, in my seventy-third year I'm really just a puppy when it comes to this kind of work, having also 'been there, done that' many times over. I guess. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Language in the Laws > > 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: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "BLML" ; > "Grattan Endicott" > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 11:28 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Language in the Laws > > > > Thank you Grattan, that almost says it all. Just let me > > add that lumping us together as opposed to clarity of > > language, syntax, localisms, vernacular (all words that > > probably need looking up by Mr. Guthrie) makes his > > comment clearly ignorant, and your hope for future > > comments of value from him a pipe dream. God bless > > the delete key. > > > > Kojak. > > > +=+ Oh, I don't know, Kojak. Nigel strikes me as > an honest journeyman worker on blml, simply using > his right to freedom of speech. He does not know what > goes on in the drafting subcommittee and is unwise to > jump to conclusions with scant knowledge, but we > should not blind ourselves to the possibility that anyone > who writes here may say something that will stop us > falling into a hole, and my belief in life is that I should > try to display the humility that is willing to hear and > sometimes learn - even in my eighty-second year when > it might be thought that I had 'been there, done that'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Dec 3 18:01:07 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Dec 3 18:07:01 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C1 Message-ID: <001d01c5f82b$28adfb20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> >From the Montreal WBFLC minutes August 2002: The Chief Director drew it to attention that Law 12C1 only applies when no result has been obtained on the board. ###### Not quite right. L12C1 applies only when no result *can* be obtained, which includes score adjustments made in accordance with L12C2 or L12C3. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Dec 3 21:06:33 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Dec 3 21:11:02 2005 Subject: [blml] Cross imps In-Reply-To: <200512021512.jB2FChKb009834@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200512021512.jB2FChKb009834@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4391FAC9.6030307@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: john@asimere.com > Max and I have concluded that it is correct to divide by > Sqrt(No.Comparisons x No.Results). Why is this "correct?" (I don't believe that term is warranted for any method. One can make plausible arguments for more than one.) Do you agree that dividing by results is equivalent to Neuberg? Do you agree that dividing by comparisons is equivalent to factoring? > http://www.asimere.com/~john/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm You have overlooked the Bethe VP scale, now used for US trials. (I can't find it in a brief web search, but it may have been posted to BLML some time ago.) Also, your standard deviation of 6.5 IMPs seems a trifle high. Jeff Goldsmith http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/bridge/study found 5.4, which seems more plausible. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Dec 3 21:48:24 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Dec 3 21:54:18 2005 Subject: [blml] Cross imps References: <200512021512.jB2FChKb009834@cfa.harvard.edu> <4391FAC9.6030307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004401c5f84a$e8f0f120$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > From: john@asimere.com > > Max and I have concluded that it is correct to divide by > > Sqrt(No.Comparisons x No.Results). > > Why is this "correct?" (I don't believe that term is warranted for any > method. One can make plausible arguments for more than one.) > > Do you agree that dividing by results is equivalent to Neuberg? > > Do you agree that dividing by comparisons is equivalent to factoring? > I have not seen any "plausible" arguments for straight factoring. Neuberg is an accepted method for dealing with fields of different size (e.g., in the case of fouled boards), and I don't see why it should not be applied to Cross-imp scoring. Consider two fields, one of 13 tables and another of 26 tables, deals duplicated. Then imagine that the spread of scores is the same in both fields. Dividing scores by the number of comparisons instead of the number of results produces different net scores in each field for the same result. That can't be right. ACBLScore should be modified to use a results divisor instead of a comparisons divisor when producing more "meaningful" scores that can be fairly compared to fields of a different size. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From schoderb at msn.com Sat Dec 3 22:28:55 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Dec 3 22:33:08 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C1 References: <001d01c5f82b$28adfb20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: I can't agree with Marvin on this. The entire wording of Law 12C including the rest of C1 and C 2 and 3 makes no coherent sense if we are to assume that what they provide for "when no result can be obtained" is by reading "result" out of context. Adjustments are not results which players have obtained. Adjustments take the place of such results, and paragraph C addresses the various methods and authority to produce adjustments, not results. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 12:01 PM Subject: [blml] L12C1 > >From the Montreal WBFLC minutes August 2002: > > The Chief Director drew it to attention that Law 12C1 only applies > when no result has been obtained on the board. > > ###### > > Not quite right. L12C1 applies only when no result *can* be > obtained, which includes score adjustments made in accordance with > L12C2 or L12C3. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 4 00:39:44 2005 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Dec 4 00:52:46 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C1 References: <001d01c5f82b$28adfb20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c5f864$310f46f0$dace403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Marvin French" Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1 >I can't agree with Marvin on this. < +=+ I don't think I quite understand what the point is that Marv is making. As I see it either a result has been obtained on the board or it has not. Depending which of these is the case we are directed to 12C2 or 12C1 respectively. The choice comes after we know which of these conditions applies. ~ G ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Dec 4 16:33:17 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun Dec 4 16:37:37 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C1 In-Reply-To: <001d01c5f82b$28adfb20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <001d01c5f82b$28adfb20$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051204101914.036c9cf8@mail.comcast.net> At 12:01 PM 12/3/2005, Marvin French wrote: > >From the Montreal WBFLC minutes August 2002: > >The Chief Director drew it to attention that Law 12C1 only applies >when no result has been obtained on the board. > >###### > >Not quite right. L12C1 applies only when no result *can* be >obtained, which includes score adjustments made in accordance with >L12C2 or L12C3. Here's an example which explains the problem Marvin's clarification is trying to solve, but the wording of L12C2 seems to forbid this solution. South bids to 4S, doubled by West. West makes an opening lead, North puts down the dummy, and East walks out of the room, either out of frustration or because he is an on-call doctor and has a medical emergency. There is no substitute available, so the board cannot be played, but the TD can see that 4S is cold and that N-S were headed for either +790, a 90% board, or +990, a top. Under L12C1, the TD could not give N-S more than average-plus, and L12C3 doesn't give even the AC the power to vary that score. Under L12C2, the TD could give N-S +990 if that was likely; under L12C3, an AC could give N-S 25% of +990 and 75% of +790. The wording of L12C2 says that it can only apply "in place of a result actually obtained," so it appears that the TD must give N-S average-plus, despite the failure of average-plus to achieve equity for N-S. (If East left out of frustration, E-W could be given equity under any of the laws, with the appropriate score, a one-board procedural penalty, and a long suspension for East.) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Dec 6 00:20:45 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Dec 6 00:26:43 2005 Subject: [blml] Rubber Bridg Laws 2003 Revision Message-ID: <003201c5f9f2$864fb660$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> While at the Denver NABC, I was surprised to see that the ACBL Product Store was selling a new "Authorized Version" of the rubber bridge laws, dated 2003, effective 1 January 2003. The Product Store manager told me that there was only one change to the 1993 Laws, which was to add an asterisked footnote to the scores shown in L80. The items asterisked were the 300 points for the only game in an unfinished rubber and 100 points for the only partscore in an unfinished game. I could find no other changes, at least not in a quick comparison. The footnote: *When there is more than one table in play for a session, both sides may (should) receive the bonus for a partscore or game in an unfinished rubber. I disagree with this. Evidently they want to add, say, two 300 bonuses to each pair's score when reporting the table result. But rubber bridge scores are net, not gross. A game for each side in an unfinished rubber is a net zero, so the two-way bonus should not be added to the net score that is reported for each pair. Perhaps I misunderstand. Or maybe not. A popular practice in party bridge is to report gross scores for each pair, not net scores. "We won the points, we want the points" is the mantra. Using that illegal (or extra-legal) scoring system, I guess the revision makes sense. The front of the book has the usual "Promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by American Contract Bridge League," with "The International Code" at the top of that page. The "Acknowledgments" and "Promulgating Bodies" remain unchanged from the 1993 edition, no update except to asterisk those who have died since then. Edgar Kaplan is still named as Chairman of the WBFLC (with no asterisk). I don't remember seeing anything about this new version on BLML or in the minutes of either the WBFLC or the ACBLLC. Did I miss something?? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 6 04:41:32 2005 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Dec 6 04:45:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Cross imps In-Reply-To: <200512051548.jB5FmWUO022454@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200512051548.jB5FmWUO022454@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4395086C.1060908@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin French" > I have not seen any "plausible" arguments for straight factoring. Heh! Factoring is the only method that has a clear mathematical argument for it. Specifically, it preserves the expected matchpoint (or IMP) value of the result achieved at the table. See http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt for a detailed explanation. The problem, of course, is that preserving the expected value creates too much variance, and there is no method that will preserve both. As you write: > Neuberg is an accepted method for dealing with fields of different > size (e.g., in the case of fouled boards), and I don't see why it > should not be applied to Cross-imp scoring. While I agree with this, I don't believe Neuberg has any correct mathematical justification. (The usual justification is wrong, as DdJ demonstrates in the link above.) To my mind, Neuberg is a reasonable approach that moves extreme scores towards the middle, thus approximating both the desired expectation and variance but getting neither one exactly right. Other people (Henry Bethe for example) have argued for other methods, but all of them come pretty close to giving the same answers. > From: "John Probst" > The math was done by Mike Pomfrey, and it's the only formula which just > seems to go on working. As opposed to Neuberg, for example? > (Me being an engineer, I don't give a damn about the math, I just need > smoething that works :) ) > The point being if we use SQRT(C x R) instead of eith C or R then we get > consistent results for any > field size, cross imps and even Butler, in any other formula we get odd end > effects with small fields. If you think dividing by comparisons gives inconsistent results, maybe you shouldn't be using Neuberg for matchpoints. Personally I don't believe your assertion that dividing by either R or C gives inconsistent results. For practical cases, the difference is going to be too small to say any one is better than others. However, if you like Neuberg for matchpoints, then to be consistent you should divide by R at IMPs. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Dec 6 12:19:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Dec 6 12:23:58 2005 Subject: [blml] L12C1 In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051204101914.036c9cf8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: David Grabiner wrote: > South bids to 4S, doubled by West. West makes an opening lead, > North puts down the dummy, and East walks out of the room, either > out of frustration or because he is an on-call doctor and has a > medical emergency. There is no substitute available, Yes there is. He is currently lolling about in the North seat doing nothing. At money bridge having dummy sit in for a player suddenly called away is standard practice - I see no reason not to let dummy substitute at duplicate. Technically it probably wouldn't get that far because East has conceded all the tricks and West was probably far too surprised/shocked to raise an immediate objection. Whether one would enforce the technicality of the concession in a genuine emergency departure is probably a matter for TD discretion. If a similar problem occurs during the auction one can, if necessary, find a substitute to complete the auction by telephone and use dummy as a substitute for the play of the hand. Unlikely to be a common problem. The main thrust of the CTD's observation was, I believe, to emphasise that L12c1 cannot be applied once a result has been obtained. I would also question whether Law12C1 prevents awarding a score of 85/15 (or somesuch). It specifies (together with L86/88) the minimum/maximum which can be awarded to NOS/OS but does not appear to wholly rule out awarding a higher/lower assignment where the TD considers it justified. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 7 00:13:07 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Dec 7 00:17:40 2005 Subject: [blml] L16B [was: L12C1] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > The main thrust of the CTD's observation was, I believe, to > emphasise that > L12c1 cannot be applied once a result has been obtained. This brings up an interesting point. I was reading the ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" yesterday, which suggests that when one or more players has seen the traveller for a board not yet played, a score adjustment will "almost always" be required, but that the TD should nevertheless allow the bidding and play to start, reserving the right to assign an artificial adjusted score as required by Law 16B. In light of Tim's assertion above (with which I agree) this guidance seems ill-advised, at best. Comments? From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Dec 7 01:41:08 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed Dec 7 01:45:39 2005 Subject: [blml] L16B [was: L12C1] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051206193242.03d10728@mail.comcast.net> At 06:13 PM 12/6/2005, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Dec 6, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>The main thrust of the CTD's observation was, I believe, to >>emphasise that >>L12c1 cannot be applied once a result has been obtained. > >This brings up an interesting point. I was reading the ACBL's >"Duplicate Decisions" yesterday, which suggests that when one or more >players has seen the traveller for a board not yet played, a score >adjustment will "almost always" be required, but that the TD should >nevertheless allow the bidding and play to start, reserving the right >to assign an artificial adjusted score as required by Law 16B. In >light of Tim's assertion above (with which I agree) this guidance >seems ill-advised, at best. Comments? The play doesn't need to go all the way to obtaining a result. As soon as the player with the UI has a decision which could be affected by the UI, the TD can halt play and assign a score. For example, I sat down as West at a table to play Board 25, and South was still discussing the last board, saying "3NT is no better; everyone is 4-4-4-1." East didn't sit down until after the discussion finished, so he had no UI. When board 24 came up and I was 4-1-4-4, I called the TD under L16B, and he told us to try to play the board. I passed throughout the auction and wound up on opening lead against 3NT. The TD then said, "The board is unplayable because West overheard a discussion at another table; average-plus to both sides." If I had had no problems in the bidding and wound up as dummy, the TD could let us play the board. From dkent at sujja.com Wed Dec 7 02:39:18 2005 From: dkent at sujja.com (David Kent) Date: Wed Dec 7 02:43:40 2005 Subject: [blml] L16B [was: L12C1] In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051206193242.03d10728@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <003b01c5facf$0a4e6010$6502a8c0@ckt> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of David J. Grabiner For example, I sat down as West at a table to play Board 25, and South was still discussing the last board, saying "3NT is no better; everyone is 4-4-4-1." East didn't sit down until after the discussion finished, so he had no UI. When board 24 came up and I was 4-1-4-4, I called the TD under L16B, and he told us to try to play the board. I passed throughout the auction and wound up on opening lead against 3NT. The TD then said, "The board is unplayable because West overheard a discussion at another table; average-plus to both sides." If I had had no problems in the bidding and wound up as dummy, the TD could let us play the board. *** I had a very similar situation about 15-20 years ago in the final of a 1-day regional pair event (some may remember when the ACBL had an afternoon qualifier and an evening final). I heard from the table behind me that "slam is cold if you play for the drop". I called the director since I knew the boards were coming to my table for the next round and he told my partner and me to try to bid and play the board legitimately. We bid only to 5D - there was no reasonable way for us to get to slam (missing 2 key cards). When I was playing the board (we were in a 6-5 fit), I called the director back and told him that there was no way I was going to finesse. He gave both pairs AV+ and I hope had words with the guy behind me. ...Dave Kent From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Dec 7 11:22:00 2005 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Dec 7 11:26:57 2005 Subject: [blml] L16B [was: L12C1] In-Reply-To: <003b01c5facf$0a4e6010$6502a8c0@ckt> Message-ID: If the TD instructs the players to play the hand it should be "Play it out and call me back at the end if you think the UI may have affected the result." If the UI was deemed to have had an affect then we have a case of TD error (he should have used one of the options in L16b1-3). An AssAS using L12c2/3 should be given treating both sides as non- offending. This will very seldom be less than 60/60. As a general guideline the better the players at the table the more reluctant a TD should be to allow any play. In DG's case the TD was, IMO, crazy to allow play. In DK's example a quick check of all the hands would have told the TD that DK was not going to be dummy. As a matter of personal choice the difference between the summed table scores and 100% will represent the procedural penalty I impose on the loudmouth. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Dec 7 12:52:03 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Dec 7 12:54:09 2005 Subject: [blml] L16B [was: L12C1] In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051206193242.03d10728@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051206193242.03d10728@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <4396CCE3.9090902@hdw.be> David J. Grabiner wrote: > > For example, I sat down as West at a table to play Board 25, and South > was still > discussing the last board, saying "3NT is no better; everyone is > 4-4-4-1." East > didn't sit down until after the discussion finished, so he had no UI. > > When board 24 came up and I was 4-1-4-4, I called the TD under L16B, and > he told > us to try to play the board. I passed throughout the auction and wound > up on opening > lead against 3NT. The TD then said, "The board is unplayable because > West overheard > a discussion at another table; average-plus to both sides." If I had > had no problems > in the bidding and wound up as dummy, the TD could let us play the board. > Much as though I admire this ruling (and in fact I would have done the same), let's not forget that it's against L16B3 "forthwith". I do urge the WBFLC to change this law in future so as to make the above ruling not only sensible but also legal. -- 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: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 5/12/2005 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Dec 9 03:07:51 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri Dec 9 03:12:22 2005 Subject: [blml] L16B [was: L12C1] In-Reply-To: <4396CCE3.9090902@hdw.be> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051206193242.03d10728@mail.comcast.net> <4396CCE3.9090902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051208210223.036b2ec0@mail.comcast.net> At 06:52 AM 12/7/2005, Herman De Wael wrote: >David J. Grabiner wrote: >>For example, I sat down as West at a table to play Board 25, and >>South was still >>discussing the last board, saying "3NT is no better; everyone is >>4-4-4-1." East >>didn't sit down until after the discussion finished, so he had no UI. >>When board 24 came up and I was 4-1-4-4, I called the TD under >>L16B, and he told >>us to try to play the board. I passed throughout the auction and >>wound up on opening >>lead against 3NT. The TD then said, "The board is unplayable >>because West overheard >>a discussion at another table; average-plus to both sides." If I >>had had no problems >>in the bidding and wound up as dummy, the TD could let us play the board. > >Much as though I admire this ruling (and in fact I would have done >the same), let's not forget that it's against L16B3 "forthwith". >I do urge the WBFLC to change this law in future so as to make the >above ruling not only sensible but also legal. I would say that the ruling is legal, because of the preamble to L16B: "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may:" The TD could not determine whether the UI could interfere with normal play until he saw how the normal play progressed. I had no choices to make in the auction, but when I was on lead, the UI interfered with play by giving me a full count on the hand. On this specific hand, he could have checked the hand records and concluded that on any normal line I would end up on defense with a count on the hand, and applied L16B immediately. From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Dec 9 09:00:19 2005 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Dec 9 09:02:29 2005 Subject: [blml] L16B [was: L12C1] In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051208210223.036b2ec0@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051206193242.03d10728@mail.comcast.net> <4396CCE3.9090902@hdw.be> <6.2.3.4.0.20051208210223.036b2ec0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <43993993.3040301@hdw.be> David J. Grabiner wrote: > At 06:52 AM 12/7/2005, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> David J. Grabiner wrote: >> >> >> Much as though I admire this ruling (and in fact I would have done the >> same), let's not forget that it's against L16B3 "forthwith". >> I do urge the WBFLC to change this law in future so as to make the >> above ruling not only sensible but also legal. > > > I would say that the ruling is legal, because of the preamble to L16B: > "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with > normal play, he may:" > That would be a correct interpretation if the word "If" were changed into "When". As it stands, the sentence is a straight yes or no question. The word "forthwith" later on indicates that the TD has to make up his mind when he is called, not later. > The TD could not determine whether the UI could interfere with normal > play until he saw how the normal play progressed. I had no choices to > make in the auction, but when I was on lead, the UI interfered with play > by giving me a full count on the hand. > > On this specific hand, he could have checked the hand records and > concluded that on any normal line I would end up on defense with a count > on the hand, and applied L16B immediately. > Yes, I realize that in some cases, it is easier for the TD to let play continue, and convince himself later that he ends up with the same decision as he would have reached by checking all 4 hands at the original time. But is some cases also, it is totally unclear (at the time he is called) how the auction is going to progress. As you say, the person having the UI could end up dummy. In those cases, we are not talking of a delayed decision, but rather of a later one. And that is not what the laws say at the moment (however much I would like them to do so). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 7/12/2005 From adam at tameware.com Sun Dec 11 19:57:45 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Dec 11 20:34:42 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Atlanta commentary posted Message-ID: I wrote: >I've posted my commentary on cases N-01 through N-22 from Atlanta: > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 > >As always, comments, suggestions, and criticism are welcome. I've just posted my comments on cases R-01 through R-12. They're overdue so I'll be sending them to the ACBL tomorrow (Monday). Comments on my comments are welcome any time, before or after I send them off. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From nancy at dressing.org Mon Dec 12 00:10:04 2005 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon Dec 12 00:12:36 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Message-ID: <001701c5fea8$057b1380$0201a8c0@main> The bidding is: 1C - P 1S-1NT (Alerted and explained as Sandwich NT) P - 2H - P - 2NT (director!) How do you rule??? Does one need to look at any of the hands to make a ruling? Does what happened with this hand at other tables have any relevance in the ruling? Nancy T Dressing From bbickford at charter.net Mon Dec 12 00:13:05 2005 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Mon Dec 12 00:20:57 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 References: <001701c5fea8$057b1380$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <00b901c5fea8$74b7ca90$c1a20c47@D2GX7R11> Probably my stupidity, but I see no problem. The 1NT bidder and partner have announced their agreement and there seems no reason to doubt it. Cheers............................................/Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:10 PM Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 > The bidding is: > 1C - P 1S-1NT (Alerted and explained as Sandwich NT) > P - 2H - P - 2NT (director!) > How do you rule??? > Does one need to look at any of the hands to make a ruling? > Does what happened with this hand at other tables have any relevance in > the > ruling? > > Nancy T Dressing > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nancy at dressing.org Mon Dec 12 00:28:47 2005 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon Dec 12 00:31:16 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Message-ID: <001801c5feaa$a2b5dc50$0201a8c0@main> The bidding is: 1C - P - D - P Director!! 2nd scenario 1C - P -- D - 1S Director!!!\\ Nancy T Dressing From nancy at dressing.org Mon Dec 12 00:30:28 2005 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon Dec 12 00:32:59 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 Message-ID: <001901c5feaa$df1b4950$0201a8c0@main> _____ The bidding is: 1C - P - D - P Director!! 2nd scenario 1C - P -- D - 1S Director!!!\\ Nancy T Dressing From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Dec 12 00:33:28 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon Dec 12 00:37:57 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 In-Reply-To: <001901c5feaa$df1b4950$0201a8c0@main> References: <001901c5feaa$df1b4950$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051211183021.0369fdc8@mail.comcast.net> At 06:30 PM 12/11/2005, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > _____ > >The bidding is: >1C - P - D - P Director!! >2nd scenario >1C - P -- D - 1S Director!!! For both of these, L35A applies. Fourth hand made a call before a penalty was assessed for third hand's inadmissible double. The double and the subsequent call are cancelled, there is no lead penalty for either side, and the auction reverts to third hand, who can do something other than double his partner's bid. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 12 00:47:03 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Dec 12 00:51:38 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 In-Reply-To: <001801c5feaa$a2b5dc50$0201a8c0@main> References: <001801c5feaa$a2b5dc50$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <80456120-732F-4D2F-B1E6-4179B7D432D8@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 11, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > The bidding is: > 1C - P - D - P Director!! > 2nd scenario > 1C - P -- D - 1S Director!!!\\ These doubles are not permitted by Law 19. In both cases, the double and the subsequent call are cancelled, the auction reverts to the doubler, who may select any legal call, and there is no penalty for the illegal double (see Law 35). The auction proceeds normally from that point. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Dec 12 00:48:55 2005 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon Dec 12 00:53:20 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 In-Reply-To: <001701c5fea8$057b1380$0201a8c0@main> References: <001701c5fea8$057b1380$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051211183341.036e6360@mail.comcast.net> At 06:10 PM 12/11/2005, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >The bidding is: >1C - P 1S-1NT (Alerted and explained as Sandwich NT) >P - 2H - P - 2NT (director!) >How do you rule??? >Does one need to look at any of the hands to make a ruling? Yes, you need to look at the 2NT bidder's hand, and therefore you need to wait until after the hand has been played out to make a ruling. The 2NT bid may have been based on unauthorized information from the alert of 1NT, or it may be a natural bid made by a player who wants to invite game in NT after showing a two-suiter, with something like AQ Axxxx KQJTx A. How else do you get to 3NT if the 1C opener was a psyche and partner doesn't fit hearts? And if 1C wasn't a psyche, partner will bid 3D or 3H with his Yarborough. When the hand has been completed, you determine whether the 2NT bid could have been suggested by the unauthorized information. If it could, you determine what the logical alternatives were (such as pass and 3H), and assign an adjusted score based on L12C2. >Does what happened with this hand at other tables have any relevance in the >ruling? No. The only use you could make of the results at other tables would be to determine what the normal result would have been, and even that is generally considered improper. From mustikka at charter.net Mon Dec 12 02:43:29 2005 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon Dec 12 02:54:06 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 References: <001801c5feaa$a2b5dc50$0201a8c0@main> <80456120-732F-4D2F-B1E6-4179B7D432D8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005e01c5febd$74011830$1d690947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 > On Dec 11, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >> The bidding is: >> 1C - P - D - P Director!! >> 2nd scenario >> 1C - P -- D - 1S Director!!!\\ > > These doubles are not permitted by Law 19. In both cases, the double and > the subsequent call are cancelled, the auction reverts to the doubler, > who may select any legal call, and there is no penalty for the illegal > double (see Law 35). The auction proceeds normally from that point. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml But was there UI that the "illegal double" hand likely showed an opening hand, thinking it was opponent who opened 1C and then he/she made a takeout dbl? Will that be addressed? If, how? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 12 03:30:53 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Dec 12 03:35:28 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 In-Reply-To: <005e01c5febd$74011830$1d690947@DFYXB361> References: <001801c5feaa$a2b5dc50$0201a8c0@main> <80456120-732F-4D2F-B1E6-4179B7D432D8@rochester.rr.com> <005e01c5febd$74011830$1d690947@DFYXB361> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2005, at 8:43 PM, raija wrote: > But was there UI that the "illegal double" hand likely showed an > opening hand, thinking it was opponent who opened 1C and then he/ > she made a takeout dbl? Will that be addressed? If, how? At this point in the auction, only the doubler knows for sure why he doubled. I don't want to open that can of worms while the hand is still in play. Law 16 starts "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." I would read that to the players, and caution doubler's partner that if he thinks he got such information, he is not permitted to use it. And I would leave it at that until the hand is over (informing NOS to call me back after the hand if they believe there was such use, and they were damaged thereby). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 12 03:31:58 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Dec 12 03:36:38 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 In-Reply-To: <001901c5feaa$df1b4950$0201a8c0@main> References: <001901c5feaa$df1b4950$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <0FBD4134-D95B-4BDF-B03E-8325F39F4BC4@rochester.rr.com> Oops. Meant to send this to this list. Sorry, Nancy. Answered in the other thread.:-) From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 12 11:01:56 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Dec 12 11:10:45 2005 Subject: [blml] Rubber Bridge Laws 2003 Revision References: <003201c5f9f2$864fb660$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001a01c5ff03$43201d10$a7a087d9@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: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 11:20 PM Subject: [blml] Rubber Bridg Laws 2003 Revision > > While at the Denver NABC, I was surprised to see that the ACBL > Product Store was selling a new "Authorized Version" of the rubber > bridge laws, dated 2003, effective 1 January 2003. The Product Store > manager told me that there was only one change to the 1993 Laws, > which was to add an asterisked footnote to the scores shown in L80. > The items asterisked were the 300 points for the only game in an > unfinished rubber and 100 points for the only partscore in an > unfinished game. I could find no other changes, at least not in a > quick comparison. > > The footnote: > > *When there is more than one table in play for a session, both sides > may (should) receive the bonus for a partscore or game in an > unfinished rubber. > > I disagree with this. Evidently they want to add, say, two 300 > bonuses to each pair's score when reporting the table result. But > rubber bridge scores are net, not gross. A game for each side in an > unfinished rubber is a net zero, so the two-way bonus should not be > added to the net score that is reported for each pair. Perhaps I > misunderstand. > +=+ I asked the Portland Club what information they have This is part of the reply: <> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nancy at dressing.org Mon Dec 12 14:17:37 2005 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon Dec 12 14:20:09 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051211183021.0369fdc8@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <001301c5ff1e$6cf75f20$0201a8c0@main> Doesn't Law 36 apply in this situation? Nancy -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of David J. Grabiner Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:33 PM To: Nancy T Dressing; Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 At 06:30 PM 12/11/2005, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > _____ > >The bidding is: >1C - P - D - P Director!! >2nd scenario >1C - P -- D - 1S Director!!! For both of these, L35A applies. Fourth hand made a call before a penalty was assessed for third hand's inadmissible double. The double and the subsequent call are cancelled, there is no lead penalty for either side, and the auction reverts to third hand, who can do something other than double his partner's bid. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 12 14:33:36 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Dec 12 14:38:10 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 In-Reply-To: <001301c5ff1e$6cf75f20$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <000001c5ff20$a84074c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nancy T Dressing > Doesn't Law 36 apply in this situation? > Nancy No, Law 35A takes precedence because of the subsequent call by LHO. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of David J. Grabiner > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:33 PM > To: Nancy T Dressing; Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 > > At 06:30 PM 12/11/2005, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > > > > _____ > > > >The bidding is: > >1C - P - D - P Director!! > >2nd scenario > >1C - P -- D - 1S Director!!! > > For both of these, L35A applies. Fourth hand made a call before a penalty > was assessed for third hand's inadmissible double. The double and the > subsequent call are cancelled, there is no lead penalty for either side, > and > the auction reverts to third hand, who can do something other than double > his partner's bid. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nancy at dressing.org Mon Dec 12 14:37:45 2005 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon Dec 12 14:40:16 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 In-Reply-To: <31EEDE5E-218D-4573-BF33-489BA3ADC86B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001401c5ff21$3bf765c0$0201a8c0@main> According to the convention card, their agreement is Sandwich NT which the 1NT bidder had forgotten!!! Is he now allowed to "wake up" after his partner alerts and explains their agreement as Sandwich NT? The hands were: Brd 14 N S K8 H KJ D AKT5 C JT975 S S J63 H A87 D QJ82 C 643 East opened with 1C.......Makes 4NT for a top on the board. Nancy -----Original Message----- From: Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:17 PM To: Nancy T Dressing Subject: Re: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 On Dec 11, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > The bidding is: > 1C - P 1S-1NT (Alerted and explained as Sandwich NT) > P - 2H - P - 2NT (director!) > How do you rule??? Carefully. :-) There are two possibilities: misexplanation, and misbid. I examine the CC, and probably ask fourth seat what their agreement is about the 1NT bid. If It turns out there was a misexplanation, 3rd seat is entitled to change his last call *if* it was made based on the misinformation. If he has some other reason to want to change it, he can't. If he does change it, 4th seat can change his 2NT call without penalty, subject to possible adjustment for damage to the other side from information from the withdrawn call. See Law 21. In this case, the player who committed the irregularity was 2nd seat, who misexplained their agreement (Law 75). After any proper changes of call, the auction and play are to continue, and the NOS should be told to call the TD back after the hand if they believe they were damaged. If 1NT was a misbid, then the alert and explanation are UI to the 1NT bidder. In this case, the 2NT bid may have been based on the UI, in which case if the NOS are damaged, they get redress in the form of an adjustment (Law 16). But that can't be determined until after the hand is played, so again "play on, and call me back after the hand if you believe you were damaged". In this case,t he irregularity, if it turns out their was one, was committed by 4th seat. It might be interesting to know whether 2NT had a meaning in their system, whatever 1NT meant, but you can't ask that question until the hand is over (see below). If you can't be sure whether it was a misbid or misexplanation, then handle it as a misexplanation (Law 75). In any case, as this is a judgement ruling, the players should be informed of their right to appeal (Law 83). Any score adjustment would be made in accordance with Law 12C2 (not 12C1 - a result was obtained, so an artificial adjusted score is at best inappropriate, and probably illegal). > Does one need to look at any of the hands to make a ruling? No. It would be a bad idea to do so before the hand is over, since doing so might convey information about the lie of the cards. Same for asking what 2NT meant. > Does what happened with this hand at other tables have any relevance > in the ruling? No. From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Mon Dec 12 16:07:00 2005 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon Dec 12 16:12:21 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 In-Reply-To: <000001c5ff20$a84074c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c5ff20$a84074c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1ElpGg-1sAKyu0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Hi, "Sven Pran" schrieb: > > On Behalf Of Nancy T Dressing > > Doesn't Law 36 apply in this situation? > > Nancy > > No, Law 35A takes precedence because of the subsequent call by LHO. ... alternativly you can say ... Yes, Law 36 applies !! ... but the last sentence of L36 brings us directly to L35A. ;-) Peter > > Regards Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > > On Behalf Of David J. Grabiner > > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:33 PM > > To: Nancy T Dressing; Bridge Laws > > Subject: Re: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 > > > > At 06:30 PM 12/11/2005, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > >The bidding is: > > >1C - P - D - P Director!! > > >2nd scenario > > >1C - P -- D - 1S Director!!! > > > > For both of these, L35A applies. Fourth hand made a call before a penalty > > was assessed for third hand's inadmissible double. The double and the > > subsequent call are cancelled, there is no lead penalty for either side, > > and > > the auction reverts to third hand, who can do something other than double > > his partner's bid. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 12 17:42:46 2005 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Dec 12 17:47:19 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 Oops, #2 In-Reply-To: <1ElpGg-1sAKyu0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001c5ff3b$15061280$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > Hi, > > > Doesn't Law 36 apply in this situation? > > No, Law 35A takes precedence because of the subsequent call by LHO. > > ... alternativly you can say ... Yes, Law 36 applies !! > > ... but the last sentence of L36 brings us directly to L35A. Sure, but it is important then to realize that the penalties specified in L36 do NOT apply. In other words the last sentence in L36 brings us directly to L35A WITHOUT first applying any of the other provisions in L36. Regards Sven From adam at tameware.com Mon Dec 12 20:53:43 2005 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Dec 12 20:58:32 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Atlanta commentary posted Message-ID: >I wrote: > >>I've posted my commentary on cases N-01 through N-22 from Atlanta: >> >> http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/atlanta2005 >> >>As always, comments, suggestions, and criticism are welcome. > >I've just posted my comments on cases R-01 through R-12. I've posted my comments on cases R-13 through R-24. I've also revised some of my comments on cases R-01 through R-12, based in part on suggestions from David Grabiner. Thanks, David! -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Dec 12 21:21:45 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Dec 12 21:28:01 2005 Subject: [blml] Rubber Bridge Laws 2003 Revision References: <003201c5f9f2$864fb660$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <001a01c5ff03$43201d10$a7a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004b01c5ff59$ae88cba0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" +=+ I asked the Portland Club what information they have This is part of the reply: < > As the footnote can only apply to gross scoring, it does not make sense as > the only change to the 1993 Laws, which provide only for net. It is hard >to believe the ACBL would be guilty of such an error, and I suspect that, > despite what the store manager said, there are further changes in their >"new authorized version" making provision for gross scoring as an option. No, net scoring is still mandated, no change: Law 74: "...and the difference between the two totals represents the margin of victory computed in points." This new edition looks like the work of a single person in high enough authority to get new Laws published without LC knowledge, some kitchen-bridge player who doesn't know up from down. > > Whatever the changes, the Portland Club has not been consulted or informed > about them. Of course, any group can play what methods they like, > selecting from the Laws as they wish (Chicago, for instance, is not provided > for in the 1993 Laws), but surely the Laws themselves should only be altered by > agreement between the various promulgating bodies.>> Chicago is provided for in the 1993 Laws. The game is entitled "Four-Deal Bridge," but the first paragraphs says "the game is also called Club Bridge or Chicago (the city in which the game originated." The Laws do not mention two popular changes to the rules of Chicago: (1) Dealer not vulnerable instead of vulnerable on deals two and three, and (2) scoring partscores as in matchpoint duplicate (140, 130, etc.) with no carryover to the next deal. (1) is popular because it makes for a livelier game, with more preempting by the dealer. It should be suggested in the Laws. (2) is an abomination that has no place in rubber bridge, eliminating as it does the fierce partscore battles that are an important feature of the game. Just because people no longer know how to bid with or against partscores is no reason to spoil the game. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 12 21:29:37 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Dec 12 21:34:16 2005 Subject: [blml] It happened at the local club #1 In-Reply-To: <001401c5ff21$3bf765c0$0201a8c0@main> References: <001401c5ff21$3bf765c0$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <513BCE30-9109-431F-94ED-688E504F735F@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > According to the convention card, their agreement is Sandwich NT > which the > 1NT bidder had forgotten!!! Is he now allowed to "wake up" after > his partner > alerts and explains their agreement as Sandwich NT? No. He is required to treat his partner's 2H bid as whatever it would mean given he has bid a natural 1NT. I would think that would be to play - consider that, on the bidding so far as south sees it (without the UI), both sides have about half the deck, which means north can't have much in HCP, and neither side has found a fit. So pass would seem to be a logical alternative, and 2NT is suggested by the UI. So I would look at what might happen if south passes 2H. If it's passed out (likely, I think), then I would adjust to 2H making however many tricks I figure it'll make (I haven't looked). Note that Law 12C2 gives different criteria for adjusting for the NOS and the OS, so it might be possible that the sides would get different scores - they don't have to balance. BTW, it is in figuring out whether and to what to adjust (which can only occur after the hand is played out) that we look at the hands. As I said earlier, looking at them earlier would be a mistake. :-) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 14 18:11:14 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Dec 14 18:17:30 2005 Subject: [blml] Re: Results of quick poll References: Message-ID: <003801c600d1$64e175a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > This poll resulted from an appeal in a side game in Atlanta. The > panel that heard the appeal took a poll, but I didn't have confidence > in it and decided to try polling a larger population. Here's the case > write-up followed by my comments which include the poll results. But Adam, you did not poll players typical of those in this very weak one-session stratified pair event, which would accord with the current LC guidelines for determining LAs, as this poll does not.. > > =========================== > > CASE R-13 > > Subject: Tempo > Side Pairs Tuesday Aft Jul. 26, 2005 > > Bd: 4 > Dlr: West > Vul: Both > > North > S A > H 9 6 4 > D Q J 5 3 2 > C J 7 5 3 > West East > S J 9 4 3 2 S K Q 10 8 6 5 > H J 10 7 5 H Q 8 3 2 > D K 6 D 10 > C A 2 C Q 8 > South > S 7 > H A K > D A 9 8 7 4 > C K 10 9 6 4 > > West North East South > Pass Pass 2S 3D > 4S Pass (1) Pass 5C > Pass 5D All Pass > > (1) 15-20 sec. Break in Tempo > > The Facts: The contract was 5D by South, making five, after the > opening lead of the S3. The director was called after South bid 5C. > North and South agreed to a "considerable" hesitation by North over > 4S. > > The Ruling: The UI from North's BIT demonstrably suggestion action > over inaction. Pass by South was deemed an LA. South's 5C bid was a > violation of Laws 16.A and 73.F.1. The contract was adjusted to 4S by > East, down 1, +100 NS, per Law 12.C.2. > > The Appeal: NS appealed the ruling. All players attended the hearing. > North has 800 masterpoints, South 2100, East 1240, and West 153. > > During the review, South decided his partner did not break tempo, > given the skip bid. After reenacting the auction, South thought his > partner took eight seconds, North thought 15 and East and West about > 21-22 seconds. West said she used the stop card and North said he > always pauses for a skip bid anyway. South said the opponents did not > have values for a game because West was a passed hand and East had > less than an opening for his 3rd seat weak two, so North was marked > with some values. > > East thought South had shown his 14 HCP with his vulnerable 3D overcall. > > The Decision: The panel decided there was an unmistakable hesitation > by North, which demonstrably suggested action over inaction by South. > The Panel had to decide if pass was a logical alternative to 5C. Five > players with 800 - 1500 MPs were polled. Three of them bid 5C > without a second's thought. Two doubled after some consideration. > None gave pass more than a very brief consideration. Since both > double and 5C would lead to a 5D contract, the panel ruled that pass > was not a logical alternative and restored the table result of NS > +600, since South's 5C bid was not a violation of Law 16.A. > > Players consulted: Five players with 800-1500 masterpoints. > > =========================== > > North broke tempo before passing with that hand and then South bid on? > Outrageous! But was it illegal? I might have been prepared to accept > the panel's poll results but for the NS testimony. South claims North > did not break tempo while North admits to a 15 second hesitation. > North's hand tells me he had a problem -- it must have taken him a > while to convince himself to pass with five card support for a > three-level overcall. Then South asserts that the reason he bid was > that EW did not have enough values for game. That doesn't mean that NS > do have such values -- there's no rule that says game must make on > every deal! In fact passing will often be the only way to go plus. > Bidding will often be right only if NS have a ten card fit. A club fit > is possible but unlikely a priori, while a diamond fit is vanishingly > unlikely since partner, who after all is marked with values, passed > over 4S. > > I polled mostly experts, but I have no reason to believe the results > would be much different if I asked players with around 2100 MPs. An unwarranted assumption, and besides the average MP holding of players in a one-session side event is nowhere near 2100. I play in these side events sometimes after a day of sightseeing, and know that the typical "class of player" is extremely weak. > > Here are the results of my poll: > > Pass: 12 > Double: 15 > 5C: 11 > Close between passing and acting: 4 > Close between double and 5C: 3 > > % of passers: 27 > % close between passing and acting: 9 > > More than one player in three either passed or seriously considered > it. Pass must be logical. The panel ought to have polled more players, > and perhaps polled players more likely to be South's peers. I prefer > the TD's ruling to the panel's. Of course pass is logical, but the LC has decided that logicality depends on the class of player involved (even though L16A doesn't mention class of player). The TD panel did exactly what it had to do according to the instructions they are given, and should not be criticized. Not allowed to use their own judgment, which would be preferable, they are required to poll representative players as to what is an LA. Now, they can't go around polling people until they find someone who agrees with a TD ruling, that would neither be right nor feasible. These are very busy people. Despite the low relevance of a mere five samples, they are not allowed to ignore them and render a contrary decision. Logicality is an objective concept, not a subjective one. It's not illogical to pass with this hand, since acting could be disastrous. The LC has rejected that line of thinking, espoused by Edgar Kaplan, and have redefined LA in a way that gives the less experienced players *carte blanche* to take advantage of UI. The message that should be given in cases of this sort is that passing is indeed logical, and you can't act with this hand opposite a hesitating partner. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Dec 15 02:23:29 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Dec 15 02:29:47 2005 Subject: [blml] Edgar's 180 Message-ID: <008801c60116$293b53a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Looking at Edgar Kaplan's landmark booklets on the appeals process, compiled from articles in The Bridge World from 1981 to 1983, I was surprised to see how his attitude toward LAs (or perhaps more accurately, the ACBLLC's attitude) changed over the years. In one booklet he gave an example hand of S-Q108753 H-3 D-6 C-AK1075, vulnerability unfavorable, with LHO opening 4H, partner hesitating at length but passing, and RHO passing. Can the player legally bid 4S with this five-loser hand? The answer was yes, definitely. At least 75% of players would do so in a vacuum, so pass is not an LA. This is the origin of the well-known "75% rule." Fast forward to 1995, when the LC decided the 75% rule was too lenient and changed the guideline for an LA to "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum." EK now gives an example hand of S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82, also a five-loser hand, and says that under the same conditions as above, the player cannot be allowed to bid 4S because some number of peers would seriously consider passing. Given the danger of bidding 4S, he wrote, passing is not "obviously foolish, an egregious error, absurd--a pass could be right quite often." This turned out to be too strict, evidently, so the LC relaxed the guideline a bit by adding that the LA had not only to be seriously considered by some peers, but a significant number of them would actually take the action. Since hardly anyone would pass with the second hand, passing is no longer an LA (even though it is not illogical!!). And that's where we stand today in ACBL-land. I prefer the 1995 guideline, much easier to adjudicate and defining "logical" in a more objective way. As Edgar wrote, "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo next time." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john at asimere.com Thu Dec 15 18:54:11 2005 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Dec 15 18:58:50 2005 Subject: [blml] Edgar's 180 References: <008801c60116$293b53a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <006b01c601a0$8e033d90$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:23 AM Subject: [SPAM] [blml] Edgar's 180 > Looking at Edgar Kaplan's landmark booklets on the appeals process, > compiled > from articles in The Bridge World from 1981 to 1983, I was surprised to > see > how his attitude toward LAs (or perhaps more accurately, the ACBLLC's > attitude) changed over the years. > > In one booklet he gave an example hand of S-Q108753 H-3 D-6 C-AK1075, > vulnerability unfavorable, with LHO opening 4H, partner hesitating at > length > but passing, and RHO passing. Can the player legally bid 4S with this > five-loser hand? The answer was yes, definitely. At least 75% of players > would do so in a vacuum, so pass is not an LA. This is the origin of the > well-known "75% rule." but I do think Edgar's first example is a much clearer 4S bid than the 2nd. In a sense, with the first you "know" partner has the values for a tank far more than in the 2nd. > > Fast forward to 1995, when the LC decided the 75% rule was too lenient and > changed the guideline for an LA to "an action that some number of your > peers > would seriously consider in a vacuum." EK now gives an example hand of > S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82, also a five-loser hand, and says that under the > same conditions as above, the player cannot be allowed to bid 4S because > some number of peers would seriously consider passing. Given the danger of > bidding 4S, he wrote, passing is not "obviously foolish, an egregious > error, > absurd--a pass could be right quite often." > > This turned out to be too strict, evidently, so the LC relaxed the > guideline > a bit by adding that the LA had not only to be seriously considered by > some > peers, but a significant number of them would actually take the action. > Since hardly anyone would pass with the second hand, passing is no longer > an > LA (even though it is not illogical!!). > > And that's where we stand today in ACBL-land. I prefer the 1995 guideline, > much easier to adjudicate and defining "logical" in a more objective way. > As > Edgar wrote, "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, > huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame > partner. Let him act in tempo next time." > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Wed Dec 14 19:44:58 2005 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu Dec 15 22:07:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws In-Reply-To: <005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James> <005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In message <005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French writes >This is in my draft folder, sorry if I have sent it before. Some >items are new, however. Additions, anyone? > [ Snip ] >Very good, Nigel. And how about simple, clear language that uses >Anglo-Saxon words when they are good enough? > >Ask, not request >Call, not summon >After, not subsequent to >First, not initial >See, not observe >Before, not previously >Wrong, not erroneous >Later, not subsequently >Take back, not retract >Told, not informed >End, not expiration > >And while we're on this subject, get rid of unnecessary passive mood >and weasel words: > >Change all "is considered to be" to "is." >Change "is required by law to" to "must." Whilst we're at it Out of turn, not out of rotation Even the abbreviations used on BLML use POOT and BOOT for "Pass out of turn" and "Bid out of turn". -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 15 23:12:05 2005 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Dec 15 23:16:48 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws In-Reply-To: References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James> <005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <599B4635-4794-40E6-8317-DE934099BD7A@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 14, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > Even the abbreviations used on BLML use POOT and BOOT for "Pass out > of turn" and "Bid out of turn". COOT. :-) Or POOR, BOOR, COOR :)) From schoderb at msn.com Fri Dec 16 01:24:28 2005 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Dec 16 01:29:03 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Would you be kind enough to send this message directly to Grattan Endicott, since he is grappling with the wording for the future Laws. Bravo!!!! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Language in the Laws > In message <005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com>, Marvin French > writes > >This is in my draft folder, sorry if I have sent it before. Some > >items are new, however. Additions, anyone? > > > [ Snip ] > >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." > > Whilst we're at it > > Out of turn, not out of rotation > > Even the abbreviations used on BLML use POOT and BOOT for "Pass out of > turn" and "Bid out of turn". > -- > Steve Wright > Leicester, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Dec 18 23:53:29 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Dec 18 23:59:56 2005 Subject: [blml] Edgar's 180 References: <008801c60116$293b53a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <006b01c601a0$8e033d90$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <002601c60425$e068bf60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> >From John Probst: > From: "Marvin French" > > Looking at Edgar Kaplan's landmark booklets on the appeals process, > > compiled from articles in The Bridge World from 1981 to 1983, I was > > surprised to see how his attitude toward LAs (or perhaps more > > accurately, the ACBLLC's attitude) changed over the years. > > > > In one booklet he gave an example hand of S-Q108753 H-3 D-6 C-AK1075, > > vulnerability unfavorable, with LHO opening 4H, partner hesitating at > > length but passing, and RHO passing. Can the player legally bid 4S with > > this five-loser hand? The answer was yes, definitely. At least 75% of > > players would do so in a vacuum, so pass is not an LA. This is the origin > > of the well-known "75% rule." > > > > Fast forward to 1995, when the LC decided the 75% rule was too lenient > > and changed the guideline for an LA to "an action that some number of > > your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum." EK now gives an > > example hand of S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJ82, also a five-loser hand, > > and says that under the same conditions as above, the player cannot be > > allowed to bid 4S because some number of peers would seriously > > consider passing. Given the danger of bidding 4S, he wrote, passing > > is not "obviously foolish, an egregious error, absurd--a pass could be > > right quite often." > > > but I do think Edgar's first example is a much clearer 4S bid than the 2nd. > In a sense, with the first you "know" partner has the values for a tank far > more than in the 2nd. > Based on assigning HCP 50-50 to RHO and partner, I suppose. I disagree, mildly, based on suit quality, but this doesn't address the main point, which is that the criterion for what is an LA has changed greatly. -- In the early 80s an action was not an LA if more than 75% of players would not take the action. -- In 1995 (reversing the thrust of the rule while making it much more restrictive) an action was an LA if some number of the player's peers would seriously consider taking it. -- Currently, an action is an LA if a significant number of those considering the LA would actually take it. A giant step forward, then a small step backward, which I deplore. The trouble with the current slightly more-lenient policy, which in TD Panel work relies on polling "peers," is that the peers of weaker contestants are responding to the poll "in a vacuum." In reality these players do not bid in a vacuum, but rely heavily on UI from partner. They don't realize this is cheating, it's just something they haven't learned to avoid. The 100% who say they would make a bid might well include some who would not make it opposite a fast pass by partner. Nailing the fast passers is very difficult, so the slow passers should be made to bear the burden. If an alternative is not illogical, not stupid, the player with UI suggesting something should be assigned that alternative even if no peer polled (and it's always a very small sample) would take it. The principle should apply to AC work also. They are rarely catching the fast actors, so partners of the slow actors must not be given benefit of doubt. The best solution is to enforce the Laws, which say players should use even tempo. If everyone in an NABC tournament would do this we would have very few UI-related appeals in the casebooks.. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ljtrent at adelphia.net Tue Dec 20 07:25:36 2005 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Tue Dec 20 07:30:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ec01c6052e$30e50df0$6601a8c0@XOTIC> I'm sorry -- I couldn't help it but when I saw the name Steve Wright as the note writer I started giggling -- We have Steven Wright who is a famous comedian -- we should perhaps put him on the proofreading committee -- Some of his classics: Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand. The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met. OK, so what's the speed of dark? How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink? If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something. Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have. When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy. Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now. Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film. Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark. Many people quit looking for work when they find a job. I intend to live forever - so far, so good. Join the Army, meet interesting people, kill them. If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire. When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded. Boycott shampoo! Demand the REAL poo! Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk? What happens if you get scared half to death twice? I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out. I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder. Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? If at first you don't succeed, destroy From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 16 13:33:15 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Dec 20 08:03:09 2005 Subject: [blml] Nigel Guthrie's question. Message-ID: <004301c6023d$06ff8ef0$1c9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "More and more of our imports are coming from overseas." ~ George Bush the Younger. ------------------------------------------------ +=+ The following is extracted from the minutes of the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee meeting of 30th November, 2005. The first paragraph deals with the regulation as it is (and currently in the draft 2006 Orange Book). There is to be further research (see the second paragraph) to see whether a formula can be found for incorporating some additional tolerance in the regulation.+=+ <<< The L&E considered correspondence highlighting the difficulty of regulating by the use of a valuation method such as Opening Points (i.e. Rule of X), which is absolute, when players wished to use judgment of matters such as playing strength in deciding whether a particular hand was worth an opening bid. Players whose methods included light opening bids might find that they wished to (and might well have an implicit agreement to) open certain hands which did not comply with the Rule of (say) 19, but which were considered stronger than other hands which did comply with the Rule of 19 but would not routinely be opened. The L&E noted that it was possible to reinforce the use of Opening Points by including a provision in the Orange Book that "weaker than this" meant "weaker, by reference to Opening Points."*, but this did not really solve the problem. *[Secretary's Note - indeed, such a provision has already been agreed - see Appendix B, item 2.1.2] The L&E did not reach a conclusion, but noted that it had considered the matter some years ago, and the recollection of some L&E members was that it had minuted that some flexibility was appropriate. Mr Doe was asked to locate the old minute, in case it could be adapted to form the basis of a clarifying provision. It was likely to be possible to devise a provision allowing for the possibility of adjusting the valuation of a hand to take account of matters such as playing strength (intermediates, honour structure etc.), provided that the result was considered to be a reasonable bridge judgment. However, to regulate by reference to a concept of reasonableness might lead to an undesirable lack of consistency. >>> The Appendix B item reads: "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. However, the possibility of introducing a provision to allow judgement of such things as playing strength (intermediates, honour structure etc.) to depart from the strict requirements, will be investigated. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20051216/75b3d4ff/attachment.htm From ljtrent at adelphia.net Tue Dec 20 08:01:40 2005 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Tue Dec 20 08:06:22 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <00ec01c6052e$30e50df0$6601a8c0@XOTIC> Message-ID: <001a01c60533$3a998b50$6601a8c0@XOTIC> Oh, i forgot to say In case you've never seen him, Steven Wright is a stand up comedian who delivers all his jokes as a series of absolutely dead pan no expression statements. So imagine these statements being made in a quiet, almost monotone delivery ... he never smiles. Here's a few more to lighten up your day --- he is my hero Happy Holidays all :-) Linda For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier...I put them in the same room and let them fight it out... I had to stop driving my car for a while...the tires got dizzy... I recently moved into a new apartment, and there was this switch on the wall that didn't do anything...so anytime I had nothing to do, I'd just flick that switch up and down...up and down...up and down....Then one day I got a letter from a woman in Germany...it just said, "Cut it out." I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time. I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone. "Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time." "I saw a man with a wooden leg, and a real foot." "I was in a job interview and I opened a book and started reading. Then I said to the guy 'Let me ask you a question. If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?' He said 'I don't know'. I said 'I don't want your job'." "When I woke up this morning my girlfriend asked me 'Did you sleep good?' I said 'No, I made a few mistakes.' "I lost a button hole today." "I collect rare photographs... I have two... One of Houdini locking his keys in his car... the other is a rare picture of Norman Rockwell beating up a child." "I met her at Macy's. She was shopping... I was putting Slinky's on the escalator." "Winny and I lived in a house that ran on static electricity... If you wanted to run the blender, you had to rub balloons on your head." "Winny would spend all of his time practicing limbo... He got pretty good... He could go under a rug..." "All of the people in my building are insane. The guy above me designs synthetic hairballs for ceramic cats. The lady across the hall tried to rob a department store... with a pricing gun... She said, "Give me all of the money in the vault, or I'm marking down everything in the store..." "He was a multi-millionaire... Wanna know how he made all of his money? ... He designed the little diagrams that tell which way to put batteries in..." "I bought some batteries... but they weren't included... so I had to buy them again..." "I have a map of the united states .... it's original size ... it says one mile equals one mile." "Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?" "I'm moving to Mars next week, so if you have any boxes..." Don't you hate when your hand falls asleep and you know it will be up all night. I was walking down the street and all of a sudden the prescription for my eye-glasses ran out .... I bought a house, on a one-way dead-end road; I don't know how I got there. I installed a skylight in my apartment.... The people who live above me are furious! Power outage at a department store yesterday, Twenty people were trapped on the escalators. What's another word for thesaurus? I went to this restaurant last night that was set-up like a big buffet in the shape of a ouigi board. You'd think about what kind of food you want and the table would move across the floor to it. I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time". So I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance. Today I met with a subliminal advertising executive for just a second. I used to work at a factory where they made hydrants; but you couldn't park anywhere near the place. I was once walking through the forest alone. A tree fell right in front of me -- and I didn't hear it. I just bought a microwave fireplace... You can spend an evening in front of it in only eight minutes... I've got some powdered water, but I don't know what to add. I bought some used paint. It was in the shape of a house. I replaced the headlights in my car with strobe lights. Now it looks like I'm the only one moving. I was pulled over for speeding today. The officer said, "Don't you know the speed limit is 55 miles an hour?" I replied, "Yes, but I wasn't going to be out that long. I like to torture my plants by watering them with ice cubes. I'm so tired...I was up all night trying to round off infinity. I watched the Indy 500, and I was thinking that if they left earlier, they wouldn't have to go so fast. I went to a general store, but they wouldn't let me buy anything specific. I used to live in a house by the freeway. When I went anywhere, I had to be going 65 MPH by the end of my driveway. I turned my air conditioner the other way around, and it got cold out. The weatherman said, "I don't understand it. It was supposed to be 80 degrees today," and I said "Oops." Last night I fell asleep in a satellite dish. My dreams were broadcast all over the world. The other day, I was walking my dog around my building--on the ledge....Some people are afraid of heights. Not me. I'm afraid of widths. I went fishing with a dotted line...I caught every other fish. I used to be a bartender at the Betty Ford Clinic. In my house, on the ceilings I have paintings of the rooms above...so I never have to go upstairs. I have a friend who's a billionaire. He invented Cliff notes. When I asked him how he got such a great idea, he said, "Well first I.....I just....to make a long story short..." I was born by Caesarean section, but you really can't tell...except that when I leave my house, I always go out the window... It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it... You can't have everything...Where would you put it? Do you think that when they asked George Washington for ID that he just whipped out a quarter? A friend of mine is into Voodoo Acupuncture. You don't have to go. You'll just be walking down the street, and...........ooooohhhhhh, that's much better... Right now I'm having vu ja de--deja vu and amnesia at the same time. You know how it is when you're walking up the stairs, and you get to the top, and you think there's one more step? I'm like that all the time. I have a hobby...I have the world's largest collection of sea shells. I keep it scattered on beaches all over the world. Maybe you've seen some of it... I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get seven years of bad luck, but my lawyer thinks he can get me five. I like to skate on the other side of the ice ... I like to reminisce with people I don't know ... I like to fill my tub up with water, then turn the shower on and act like I'm in a submarine that's been hit ... And when I get real, real bored, I like to drive downtown and get a great parking spot, then sit in my car and count how many people ask me if I'm leaving. I got a new shadow. I had to get rid of the other one -- it wasn't doing what I was doing. The other day when I was walking through the woods, I saw a rabbit standing in front of a candle making shadows of people on a tree. My house is made out of balsa wood. When no one is home across the street, except the little kids, I out and lift my house up over my head. I tell them to stay out of my yard or I'll throw it at them. The other day I was playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died. Sometimes I...No, I don't. There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like an idiot. I used to be an airline pilot. I got fired because I kept locking the keys in the plane. They caught me on an 80 foot stepladder with a coathanger. I used to work at a health food store. I got fired for drinking straight Bosco on the job. Ever notice how irons have a setting for PERMANENT press? I don't get it... From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 20 12:57:39 2005 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Dec 20 13:05:36 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James><005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001b01c6055c$96c26450$8e9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "To regulate by reference to a concept of reasonableness might lead to an undesirable lack of consistency." ~ EBU Laws & Ethics Committee. ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Language in the Laws > > > [ Snip ] > >Very good, Nigel. And how about simple, clear > >language that uses Anglo-Saxon words when they > >are good enough? > > +=+ Whilst making no claim of its perfection, I believe those TDs who now have a copy of the draft 2006 laws evolved from my proposals are in a position to compare them with the diffuse language of the 1997 book (the latter largely preferred by certain of my colleagues and the draft consequently abandoned in Estoril). Although dead, the draft is technically a published document and exists for browsing, for development of its style, and for the record. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Tue Dec 20 18:08:41 2005 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Dec 20 18:13:26 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:01:40 PST." <001a01c60533$3a998b50$6601a8c0@XOTIC> Message-ID: <200512201708.JAA18251@mailhub.irvine.com> Linda wrote: > Oh, i forgot to say In case you've never seen him, Steven Wright is a stand > up comedian who delivers all his jokes as a series of absolutely dead pan no > expression statements. So imagine these statements being made in a quiet, > almost monotone delivery ... he never smiles. > Here's a few more to lighten up your day --- he is my hero You left out one of my favorites: A friend of mine once sent me a post card with a picture of the entire planet Earth taken from space. On the back it said, "Wish you were here." Merry Christmas, -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Dec 20 18:12:25 2005 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Dec 20 18:18:52 2005 Subject: [blml] Language in the Laws References: <00ed01c57fde$ea484800$589868d5@James> <005a01c5f5d8$2a6db0e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <001b01c6055c$96c26450$8e9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003c01c60588$8dd25220$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > +=+ Whilst making no claim of its perfection, I believe > those TDs who now have a copy of the draft 2006 laws > evolved from my proposals are in a position to compare > them with the diffuse language of the 1997 book (the latter > largely preferred by certain of my colleagues and the draft > consequently abandoned in Estoril). > Although dead, the draft is technically a published > document and exists for browsing, for development of > its style, and for the record. > How do we get to see this document? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California