From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 3 09:44:36 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jan 3 09:55:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Nigel Guthrie's question. References: <004301c6023d$06ff8ef0$1c9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003501c61041$f00f6fe0$019868d5@jeushtlj> > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ 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. " [Nigel] Thank you Nick, Grattan and the Committee! I am sad to hear that the committee could not agree --- but is it possible to answer specific questions? [1] In an EBU event, at level three, playing normal responding conventions, in certain contexts, may you agree to open 1S on, say... S:AT9876 H:KT987 D:T9 C- [2] May you agree to open 1S on such hands provided that you, yourself, avoid using conventions for the duration of this particular board (leaving you free to use conventions when you open "stronger" hands)? FWIW, IMO... [A] The committee should scrap most bidding restrictions, except perhaps, for "No fear" events. [B] If the committee must impose restrictions, however, then they should express them in simple terms (as now with "rule of x"). More complex criteria will be unenforceable with consistency. [C] The committee should clarify, publicise and enforce such rules. [D] While such rules remain unclear to some directors, the few players who do abide by their literal meaning will continue to suffer under a handicap. [E] Perhaps the committee should consider introducing Wolff-like convention-disruption laws for "forgetting" conventions like Ghestem. Best wishes to all for a H*A*P*P*Y N*E*W Y*E*A*R ! From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jan 4 12:14:47 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jan 4 12:24:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Nigel Guthrie's question. References: <004301c6023d$06ff8ef0$1c9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003501c61041$f00f6fe0$019868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <005501c61120$4afb59d0$049187d9@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: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Cc: "Nick Doe" Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Nigel Guthrie's question. > Thank you Nick, Grattan and the Committee! > > I am sad to hear that the committee could not > agree --- but is it possible to answer specific > questions? > +=+ I cannot answer for the committee. I leave this to Nick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jan 5 16:04:23 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Jan 5 16:09:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Fw: please do me a favor Message-ID: THE ATTACHED IS FORWARDED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ACTION, PLEASE. As an aside, I have not received any BLML messages in the recent past - may be the holidays in my case. SCHODERB@MSN.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "JOAN GERARD" To: "kojac" Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:56 AM Subject: please do me a favor > Hi, > > I just realized that I am no longer getting e-mails from the Bridge Laws > Mailnig List.... It must be my AT&T again. > > Could you please contact whomever you have to at Bridge Laws Mailing List > and tell them to e-mail: > abuse_rbl@abuse/att.net and telll them that their e-mails have been > blocked > and to please open the block. > > Thanks. Luv, Joan > > > From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 5 18:27:51 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jan 5 18:32:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Quiet blml - was: Fw: please do me a favor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6121d$5afba2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> For what it is worth: No blml mail reached me between December 20th and January 3rd, nor are there any messages in blml archive from during this interval. I guess most blml'ers have had a reasonably quiet holiday? And by the way: A happy New Year to all of you >From Sven ........... > As an aside, I have not received any BLML messages in the recent past - > may be the holidays in my case. ........... > > I just realized that I am no longer getting e-mails from the Bridge Laws > > Mailnig List.... It must be my AT&T again. From henk at amsterdamned.org Fri Jan 6 08:54:16 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri Jan 6 08:54:47 2006 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at ripe.net Fri Jan 6 08:54:09 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri Jan 6 08:59:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Quiet blml - was: Fw: please do me a favor In-Reply-To: <000001c6121d$5afba2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6121d$5afba2b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060106085302.02cf04a8@localhost> At 18:27 05/01/2006, Sven Pran wrote: >For what it is worth: No blml mail reached me between December 20th and >January 3rd, nor are there any messages in blml archive from during this >interval. > >I guess most blml'ers have had a reasonably quiet holiday? I guess so, I did get the output of the spam filters so the system was doing something. >And by the way: A happy New Year to all of you Same to you, Henk > >From Sven > >........... > > As an aside, I have not received any BLML messages in the recent past - > > may be the holidays in my case. >........... > > > I just realized that I am no longer getting e-mails from the Bridge Laws > > > Mailnig List.... It must be my AT&T again. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400. Watch this space... From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 9 06:08:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jan 9 06:14:19 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION ADAM?S MARK, DENVER, CO NOVEMBER 19, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chip Martel, Co-Chairman Ralph Cohen, Co-Chairman Jim Kirkham Eric Rodwell Dan Morse Matt Smith Beth Palmer John Solodar Jeff Polisner Adam Wildavsky Ray Raskin ALSO PRESENT: Gary Blaiss Marvin French Joan Gerard Peggy Sutherlin The meeting was called to order at 10:05 A.M. Chip Martel chaired the meeting. The minutes of the Atlanta meeting were approved unanimously. Co-Chairman Cohen reported on progress of the meetings of the WBF Drafting Committee in Estoril: Cohen reported that the suggestion of the ACBL Laws Commission to make incremental changes was adopted. After that agreement the committee proceeded to start afresh and made it through the current Law 16. An ad hoc committee went through Law 25. Further, the intent to have a new version available in 2006 for implementation in 2007 has been abandoned. The drafting committee was not happy with the current Law 16; however, it could not arrive at an improvement. The intention remains to incorporate the present Law 73 into Law 16. Ralph Cohen asked that Management distribute the existing proposed definitions to the entire Laws Commission. Law 27, insufficient bid, was discussed briefly to the extent of whether a consensus existed to change the law such that a correction of a conventional call to the same conventional call one level higher could be made without penalty if the information communicated was essentially the same. There was no consensus. Jeff Polisner asked if there was any consensus on leaving a law number blank if it was combined with an earlier law (e.g. if Law 73 is combined with Law 16, should Law 73 appear but be blank). There was no strong feeling but there was some thought to do whatever makes life easier for the tournament directors. The claim laws were discussed. A consensus was reached on the following: 1. The director may take into account any play that took place after the claim and before his or her arrival to the table. 2. Address a declarer's claim and a defender's claim separately. There seemed to be no consensus on whether the defenders could require play to continue after a claim has been made and if the defenders did have that right whether only in the presence of the tournament director. Ralph Cohen asked that Management distribute to the Commission the section on claims in the Laws of Contract Bridge (rubber bridge). There was a consensus to keep the present law on revokes as is. The meeting was adjourned at noon. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6264 2226 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 9 22:16:07 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jan 9 22:20:33 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL LC minutes: [snip] >Jeff Polisner asked if there was any consensus on leaving a law >number blank if it was combined with an earlier law (e.g. if >Law 73 is combined with Law 16, should Law 73 appear but be >blank). There was no strong feeling but there was some thought >to do whatever makes life easier for the tournament directors. [snip] RJH comments: (a) As well as the mooted merger of Law 16 and Law 73, I also suggest the merger of Law 40 and Law 75. (b) I do not believe that a minor renumbering of the Laws will make life difficult for directors. Indeed, such a minor renumbering occurred when the 1975 Lawbook was replaced by the 1987 Lawbook, when the Proprieties were made enforceable Laws so consequently given Law numbers. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6264 2226 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 9 22:52:20 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jan 9 22:56:35 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL LC minutes: [snip] >The claim laws were discussed. A consensus was reached on the >following: 1. The director may take into account any play >that took place after the claim and before his or her arrival >to the table. 2. Address a declarer's claim and a defender's >claim separately. There seemed to be no consensus on whether >the defenders could require play to continue after a claim >has been made and if the defenders did have that right >whether only in the presence of the tournament director. >Ralph Cohen asked that Management distribute to the >Commission the section on claims in the Laws of Contract >Bridge (rubber bridge). [snip] Laws of Contract Bridge (rubber bridge): 69. Procedure Following Declarer's Claim or Concession When declarer has made a claim or concession, play is temporarily suspended and declarer must place and leave his hand face up on the table and forthwith make a comprehensive statement as to his proposed plan of play, including the order in which he will play the remaining cards. Declarer's claim or concession is allowed, and the deal is scored accordingly, if both defenders agree to it. The claim or concession must be allowed if either defender has permitted any of his remaining cards to be mixed with another player's cards; otherwise, if either defender disputes declarer's claim or concession, it is not allowed. Then, play continues. When his claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face up on the table. At any time, either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner, and declarer may not impose a penalty for any irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced. The objective of subsequent play is to achieve a result as equitable as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point must be resolved in favour of the defenders. Declarer may not make any play inconsistent with the statement he may have made at the time of his claim or concession. And if he failed to make an appropriate statement at that time, his choice of plays is restricted thereby: (a) If declarer made no relevant statement, he may not finesse* in any suit unless an opponent failed to follow in that suit before the claim or concession, or would subsequently fail to follow in that suit on any conceivable sequence of plays. (b) If declarer may have been unaware, at the time of his claim or concession, that a trump remained in a defender's hand, either defender may require him to draw or not to draw the outstanding trump. (c) If declarer did not, in his statement, mention an unusual plan of play, he may adopt only a routine line of play. If declarer attempts to make a play prohibited under this law, either defender may accept the play or, provided neither defender has subsequently played, require declarer to withdraw the card so played and substitute another that conforms to his obligations. * For these purposes, a finesse is a play the success of which depends on finding one defender rather than the other with or without a particular card, Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6264 2226 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 10 09:56:47 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 10 10:06:12 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003901c615c3$e2b9ef00$44ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "To regulate by reference to a concept of reasonableness might lead to an undesirable lack of consistency." ~ EBU Laws & Ethics Committee. ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] : > > (a) As well as the mooted merger of Law 16 and > Law 73, I also suggest the merger of Law 40 and Law 75. > > (b) I do not believe that a minor renumbering of the Laws will > make life difficult for directors. Indeed, such a minor > renumbering occurred when the 1975 Lawbook was replaced by > the 1987 Lawbook, when the Proprieties were made enforceable > Laws so consequently given Law numbers. > +=+ The general principle under examination by the drafting subcommittee is to merge anything applicable to one situation into one substantive law dealing with it. This particularly affects matters in laws 72 to 75, and possibly in Laws 82 through 89. There are earlier situations to be resolved. My personal opinion of the idea of leaving gaps in the arithmetic sequence of law numbers is that it is comical. TDs are intelligent beings who can easily cope with changes in the numbering, so - probably - are most players and administrators. In the early days proper indexing will assist. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 10 12:46:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 10 12:51:28 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws In-Reply-To: <003901c615c3$e2b9ef00$44ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > My personal opinion of the idea of leaving gaps in the > arithmetic sequence of law numbers is that it is comical. I agree. However, given the vast array of commentaries, NBO documents, WBF minutes etc which reference existing laws (many of which may be unchanged) I can see a case for having e.g. the entirety of Law 40 as "See Law 75". Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Jan 10 13:35:35 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Jan 10 13:38:15 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901c615c3$e2b9ef00$44ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <003901c615c3$e2b9ef00$44ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43C3AA17.2000303@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > My personal opinion of the idea of leaving gaps in the > arithmetic sequence of law numbers is that it is comical. TDs > are intelligent beings who can easily cope with changes in > the numbering, so - probably - are most players and > administrators. In the early days proper indexing will assist. I find the use of the word "comical" quite correct. It does not harm, but it really does no help either. Do change the numbers if you feel the need to drop or insert a few laws -- 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: 267.14.16/225 - Release Date: 9/01/2006 From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 10 13:43:26 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jan 10 13:48:35 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c615e3$74f01b50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Grattan wrote: > > > My personal opinion of the idea of leaving gaps in the > > arithmetic sequence of law numbers is that it is comical. > > I agree. However, given the vast array of commentaries, NBO documents, > WBF minutes etc which reference existing laws (many of which may be > unchanged) I can see a case for having e.g. the entirety of Law 40 as "See > Law 75". Or vice versa ! ? IMO such references should in case generally be from the higher numbered to the lower numbered Law, essentially "compressing" the Laws towards the lower numbers. Regards Sven From toddz at att.net Tue Jan 10 13:45:41 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Jan 10 13:50:48 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43C3AC75.4050605@att.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Grattan wrote: >> My personal opinion of the idea of leaving gaps in the >>arithmetic sequence of law numbers is that it is comical. > > I agree. However, given the vast array of commentaries, NBO documents, > WBF minutes etc which reference existing laws (many of which may be > unchanged) I can see a case for having e.g. the entirety of Law 40 as "See > Law 75". If the laws change any in substance as well as numbering, people reading older commentaries should use older versions of the laws. The 1997 edition is freely available on the web at several sites and I donn't expect that to change when the next edition is available. -Todd From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 11 01:45:58 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jan 11 01:51:44 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43C3AC75.4050605@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >>>However, given the vast array of commentaries, NBO documents, >>>WBF minutes etc which reference existing laws (many of which >>>may be unchanged) I can see a case for having e.g. the >>>entirety of Law 40 as "See Law 75". Todd M. Zimnoch: >>If the laws change any in substance as well as numbering, >>people reading older commentaries should use older versions >>of the laws. The 1997 edition is freely available on the >>web at several sites and I don't expect that to change when >>the next edition is available. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Todd and Tim are proposing second-best solutions. Any useful concepts and examples which currently appear in commentaries such as the WBF Code of Practice should be incorporated into the new Lawbook. What the vast majority of TDs need is a "one-stop shop", since when the vast majority of TDs give rulings the Lawbook is their only guide. In the current situation, even the CTD of England has difficulty in interpreting Law 16C, and even the EBU Law and Ethics Committee has some difficulty in interpreting a clarifying minute from the WBF Laws Committee. How likely, then, is it for the vast majority of TDs to correctly interpret Law 16C? EBU Appeals Casebook 2004, appeal number 12: [snip] >Director in charge's comments: >While there is little doubt that the intention of the law-makers >is clear, namely that a pass out of turn should be unauthorised, >the wording of the Law does not support this. Law 16C refers to a >call being withdrawn and another substituted, but no other call >was substituted. [snip] >EBU Laws & Ethics Committee further comments: >The L&E considered a minute of the WBF Laws Committee which sought >to clarify whether information from a withdrawn call is unauthorised >for the offending side notwithstanding that no call is substituted >for the withdrawn call (as in the case of a call out of rotation >which is not accepted). The L&E did not find the wording of the >WBFLC minute clear, but noted Mr Bavin's explanation and accepted >the WBFLC's conclusion that the information is unauthorised. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6264 2226 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 11 03:22:48 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jan 11 03:29:37 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002c01c61655$eb660200$049468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard Hills] > Any useful concepts and examples which > currently appear in commentaries such as > the WBF Code of Practice should be > incorporated into the new Lawbook. What > the vast majority of TDs need is a "one- > stop shop", since when the vast majority of > TDs give rulings the Lawbook is their only > guide. [Nige1] Richard's suggestion of a "one stop shop" seems to be in the interests of most directors and all players. Bridge is hard enough for players without the unnecessary fragmentation and concealment of legal information that they need. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 11 04:25:35 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jan 11 04:31:03 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BFBA52E-0609-42C0-A753-80079558CC09@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 10, 2006, at 7:45 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > when the vast majority of TDs give rulings the Lawbook is their > only guide. I dunno. First, "vast majority" is usually an overbid. Second, around here, the vast majority seem to have memory as their only guide when they give rulings. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 11 12:02:09 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jan 11 12:07:15 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8BFBA52E-0609-42C0-A753-80079558CC09@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c6169e$780f24a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: 11. januar 2006 04:26 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws > Commission[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > On Jan 10, 2006, at 7:45 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > when the vast majority of TDs give rulings the Lawbook is their > > only guide. > > I dunno. First, "vast majority" is usually an overbid. Second, around > here, the vast majority seem to have memory as their only guide Neither do I, but for a different reason: Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen did a marvelous job preparing the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" which essentially was an "all in one volume" law book including the necessary comments and examples to fully understand and apply these laws. It ran to more than 400 printed A4-sized pages and thus just isn't something you carry around in the room with you when directing. IMO one of the major targets for coming laws revisions must be simplification of the language in many of the laws. Regards Sven From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jan 11 12:58:12 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed Jan 11 13:03:19 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL LawsCommission[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c6169e$780f24a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000701c616a6$4ce8b860$9810b618@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:02 AM Subject: RE: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL LawsCommission[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (snip) IMO one of the major targets for coming laws revisions must be simplification of the language in many of the laws. Regards Sven YES!!! From emu at fwi.net.au Wed Jan 11 14:58:23 2006 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Wed Jan 11 15:03:32 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <003901c615c3$e2b9ef00$44ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000701c616b7$16c67950$6401a8c0@noeltsui0kso1i> > > (b) I do not believe that a minor renumbering of the Laws will > make life difficult for directors. Indeed, such a minor > renumbering occurred when the 1975 Lawbook was replaced by the 1987 > Lawbook, when the Proprieties were made enforceable Laws so > consequently given Law numbers. > +=+ The general principle under examination by the drafting subcommittee is to merge anything applicable to one situation into one substantive law dealing with it. This particularly affects matters in laws 72 to 75, and possibly in Laws 82 through 89. There are earlier situations to be resolved. My personal opinion of the idea of leaving gaps in the arithmetic sequence of law numbers is that it is comical. TDs are intelligent beings who can easily cope with changes in the numbering, so - probably - are most players and administrators. In the early days proper indexing will assist. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ For information, legislators (real ones that is) "don't" do it all the time. They usually leave a repealed law blank so you might go 31, 32, 34, 35, 40 etc. [It can be very confusing of course if over the course of years a number gets reused for something different!] As a practical example, we are just about to do a major compilation of the Workplace Relations Act in Aus which has just been essentially rewritten by the Parliament. The amendments completely renumber the Act rather than amend it in place which is what is usually done. It is a complete pain to have do it this way - inserting the 768 pages of amendments into a 900 page Act was easy - that has already been finished and in less than 3 weeks. However, the renumbering will take about two more months and put every authority and printed guide to the Act immediately out of date. Any old Court judgements will also be hard to fathom without extensive research as you can well imagine. [We are including a renumbering guide table to help everyone as much as possible.] An extreme example of course, but relevant perhaps. regards, Noel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 11 15:25:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jan 11 15:30:17 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > In my opinion, Todd and Tim are proposing second-best solutions. > Any useful concepts and examples which currently appear in > commentaries such as the WBF Code of Practice should be > incorporated into the new Lawbook. Which is fine as far as it goes, but there will be many non-WBF documents which it would be impossible/inappropriate to include. For example the EBU Orange and White books. Obviously these will need reviewing in the light of changes to the laws but there may be many references to unchanged laws. Imposing the burden of updating all such references to new law numbers will increase the effort required by each SO, give opportunity for errors to occur and may well delay the adoption of the new laws while such activity takes place. I don't see this as a compelling argument for keeping the old numbers, but it is, IMO, a point worth considering rather than a "comical" suggestion. In the UK, at least, TDs cannot hope for a "one-stop shop" for rulings. Alerting and system regulations surely aren't going to be part of the WBF laws and I suspect things like bidding box regs, tie-breaking, definition of LAs and several other things will remain within the purview of SOs rather than conform to a global standard. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 11 17:11:04 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jan 11 17:16:12 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: Thank you Tim, for what is sometimes informally called "thinking beyond and outside the box." -- would that more had that capability. It requires the facility to foresee effects, have a full grasp of the subject at hand, and select the best alternatives. Your points are more than "worth considering" -- they are ad rem. To remain politically correct, IN MY OPINION: The effect of renumbering upon documents which are referenced to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge can be a huge and unnecessary imposition. When, and if, laws are combined the only reference necessary in the no longer used number is "see Law XXX" (or "moved to Law XXX"). To expect the entire bridge community to rewrite voluminous supplementary documents is bureaucratic nonsense. The inclusion of all the Rules, Regulations, Code of Practice, Conditions of Contest, etc., in the Laws so as to provide a single source is not possible. Just including the General and Supplementary Conditions of Contest of the WBF -- changing as needed each time an event is held -- would make no good sense. Let the Laws set out the structure, methods, precepts, and immutable decisions of the game, and let the Regulating Authorities "regulate." (Reminds me of Easley Blackwood's advice to the ACBL Board of Directors on micromanagement from above upon his retirement -- "Let the Administrators administer.") TD's are intelligent people (and I include the players and administrators - no insulting "probably" for me) who are expected to fulfill their roles with reference to more than the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, XXX. Those unable or unwilling to do the job completely should seek other employment. To only opine from within the "box" is, to me, what is truly "comical." END OF MY OPINION. Happy New Year to all. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > Richard wrote: > > > > In my opinion, Todd and Tim are proposing second-best solutions. > > Any useful concepts and examples which currently appear in > > commentaries such as the WBF Code of Practice should be > > incorporated into the new Lawbook. > > Which is fine as far as it goes, but there will be many non-WBF documents > which it would be impossible/inappropriate to include. For example the > EBU Orange and White books. Obviously these will need reviewing in the > light of changes to the laws but there may be many references to unchanged > laws. Imposing the burden of updating all such references to new law > numbers will increase the effort required by each SO, give opportunity for > errors to occur and may well delay the adoption of the new laws while such > activity takes place. I don't see this as a compelling argument for > keeping the old numbers, but it is, IMO, a point worth considering rather > than a "comical" suggestion. > > In the UK, at least, TDs cannot hope for a "one-stop shop" for rulings. > Alerting and system regulations surely aren't going to be part of the WBF > laws and I suspect things like bidding box regs, tie-breaking, definition > of LAs and several other things will remain within the purview of SOs > rather than conform to a global standard. > > Tim > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz at att.net Thu Jan 12 08:53:06 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Jan 12 08:58:17 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43C60AE2.4040604@att.net> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > The effect of renumbering upon documents which are referenced to the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge can be a huge and unnecessary imposition. When, and if, > laws are combined the only reference necessary in the no longer used number > is "see Law XXX" (or "moved to Law XXX"). To expect the entire bridge > community to rewrite voluminous supplementary documents is bureaucratic > nonsense. Largely because I am short-sighted about such matters, could you tell me what documents would remain relevant without other revision except for a laws renumbering? CoCs first came to mind, but at least in the ACBL they were carefully constructed to reference "the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" without numbers and left finding relevant laws as an exercise to the reader. CoCs might still need revision under new laws. The GCC doesn't even use the word law anywhere in it, but I suspect they'll be revised to take advantage of an assumed-to-arriving greater flexibility in regulating bidding systems. Documents such as TD training materials will need revision even if law numbers aren't changed. I can't find an instance of this problem, but I'm probably not thinking broadly enough. -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 12 13:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jan 12 13:19:10 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <43C60AE2.4040604@att.net> Message-ID: Todd wrote: > Largely because I am short-sighted about such matters, > could you tell me what documents would remain relevant > without other revision except for a laws renumbering? Todd, have a look at the EBU White Book (pdf can be found via www.ebu.co.uk). The book will need revising if some laws change but the scale of the re-writing task would be vastly increased if a low numbered law were to disappear. In addition the nature of the task would be changed from being primarily an intellectual comparison of new and old laws to being a nit-picking exercise in reference checking. I don't know how many other NBOs have similar documents so perhaps this is merely an EBU problem. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 12 16:41:58 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jan 12 16:51:44 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: <001101c6178e$dc3c44d0$edc387d9@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: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission > Todd, have a look at the EBU White Book > (pdf can be found via www.ebu.co.uk). The > book will need revising if some laws change < +=+ The EBU is geared to the task. I was at a meeting of its Laws & Ethics committee yesterday. The Orange Book 2006 is all but done. David Stevenson has final instructions on editorial matters and a production meeting will take place shortly between him, the committee chairman, and the chairman of the EBU publications committee. It is well understood that in about 18 to 24 months time revisions of this and the White Book will be needed. There is no sense of dismay about that. Since it is not beyond me to undertake the work of revising and re-indexing publications, I am not so arrogant as to suggest that the ability does not exist in the world at large amongst bridge players generally and NBOs in particular. A comical proposal generates feeble arguments in its defence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 12 22:35:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jan 12 22:40:15 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills suggestion: >>>Any useful concepts and examples which currently appear in >>>commentaries such as the WBF Code of Practice should be >>>incorporated into the new Lawbook. Kojak: >>The inclusion of all the Rules, Regulations, Code of >>Practice, Conditions of Contest, etc., in the Laws so as to >>provide a single source is not possible. Just including the >>General and Supplementary Conditions of Contest of the WBF >>-- changing as needed each time an event is held -- would >>make no good sense. Let the Laws set out the structure, >>methods, precepts, and immutable decisions of the game, and >>let the Regulating Authorities "regulate." Richard Hills clarification: Any useful _and universally applicable_ concepts and examples which currently appear in commentaries such as the WBF Code of Practice should be incorporated into the new Lawbook. A case in point is WBF LC minute item 7, 30th August 2000, which provides a definition of "inadvertent". The forthcoming edition of the Lawbook should include item 7 in the Chapter 1 Definitions, so that knowledge of the official meaning of "inadvertent" is more easily and widely known by TDs. Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: >"You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to >them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything." > >"But the plans were on display..." > >"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find >them." > >"That's the display department." > >"With a torch." > >"Ah, well the lights had probably gone." > >"So had the stairs." > >"But look you found the notice didn't you?" > >"Yes", said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom >of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a >sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6264 2226 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 13 01:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 13 01:14:50 2006 Subject: [blml] November 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <001101c6178e$dc3c44d0$edc387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The Orange Book 2006 is all but done. Indeed, and if the law references change many parts of it will have to be re-done. > Since it is not beyond me to undertake the > work of revising and re-indexing publications, I > am not so arrogant as to suggest that the ability > does not exist in the world at large amongst > bridge players generally and NBOs in particular. That the ability to re-index exists is surely not in doubt. That someone would enjoy the task enough to do it for free surprises me. It's certainly not a task I'd want to waste money paying people to do unless absolutely necessary. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 13 05:30:08 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jan 13 05:35:59 2006 Subject: [blml] New claim laws (was November 2005) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL LC: >There seemed to be no consensus on whether the defenders >could require play to continue after a claim has been >made and if the defenders did have that right whether >only in the presence of the tournament director. Richard Hills: Ultimately, the purpose behind the Laws permitting a player to claim is to avoid prolonging play unnecessarily (Law 74B4). Under current Law, sometimes I misjudge the calibre of the opponents. I make an early valid claim which they cannot understand. They request me to continue play. Usually a continuation of play would resolve the issue quicker than the required summoning of the director would resolve the issue. But current Law leave me no option; I must prolong play by summoning the director (Law 68D). Therefore, *if* the new claim Laws give the defenders the right to force declarer to continue play after declarer's claim, *then* it seems to me that making this right conditional upon the presence of the director would undermine the usefulness of any such change to the claim Laws. Perhaps a useful compromise solution would be to amend Law 68D to read thusly: "If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), then: (a) If a defender's claim is disputed by declarer or dummy, the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. (b) If declarer's claim is disputed by the defending side, then declarer or either defender may summon the director to apply Law 70 or Law 71. If none of those three players wishes to summon the director, play continues with declarer's cards remaining exposed." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From adam at tameware.com Sun Jan 15 08:00:02 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Jan 15 08:05:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? Message-ID: Since I've suggested an incremental approach to changing the Laws I'd like to facilitate some constructive contributions in that regard and I think BLML members can help. I'm used to thinking about applying the existing Laws, not improving them. I know some of you have given more thought to this matter than I have. I'd like to know which Laws you think are most in need of improvement, along with specific proposals for improvement. I expect many Laws could stand some improvement, but for this, my first such attempt, I'll pick just a handful. I'll present those proposals I like best to the ACBL Laws Commission and try to persuade the commission to pass them on to the WBF drafting committee. Of course, other Zonal organizations may do likewise, and for that matter the drafting committee may pick up any proposals it likes directly from BLML. Indeed, it seems likely that some suggestions from BLML have already made it into the current draft. An ideal proposal will include references to cases that were poorly decided under the existing Laws and would likely have produced a more just outcome were the proposed change in place. Indeed, without such examples I expect I'll have a difficult time convincing my fellow ACBL LC members that a change is warranted. Which Laws do you think are most ambiguous, overcomplicated, inconsistent, subject to misinterpretation, or just plain bad, and how can they be improved? -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Jan 15 09:39:20 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Jan 15 09:41:55 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking about revoke? Message-ID: <43CA0A38.9070206@hdw.be> Yesterday, the following happened while I was directing the semi-finals of the Belgian Teams championships: One tabel was running behind with the boards (16 boards being shared by 4 tables) so I was sitting at that table, also as time monitor. So I am a first-hand witness to what happened. North had bid 1Sp over his partner's 1Di, but East is playing 1NT. After a few tricks, North is on lead and he plays the SpQ, which holds the trick. Next he switches to diamonds. South wins and returns a spade. North plays the 5 of hearts to this trick. I see that he has revoked, but of course I don't tell. But South screams in amazement, more at the successful apparent psyche than as a warning about a revoke. But of course this must be considered an illegal (ACBL members can stop reading now) inquiry about a possible revoke. South notices his revoke, substitutes a spade, and leaves the H5 as a penalty card open on the table. Which doesn't really matter, since East now claims (losing some further tricks, so the revoke can have consequences). I stay at the table and wait for three bids on the next board (a third to make certain the two have crossed the screen) before speaking out. I tell East that he should of called me (I'm not "there" I say) or at least have asked by a wink for my opinion and that it is now too late to change anything. Forgetting for just one moment the hornet's nest that a "TD should rule on anything that he learns of in any manner" (I'm not even thinking about doing this) then we have a second problem. It is indeed (both sides having bid on the next board) too late to penalize an established revoke. But this is a non-established revoke, which should be penalized in the same way as an established one. Where does it say that it's also too late to penalize this one? I might have a suggestion. The lawbook should define a "scoring period" which ends, among other possibilities, when both sides have bid on the next board. Then many laws could refer to this "scoring period" to tell us that they apply, and we would be clearer that they don't apply later (or that they apply in some other form during the "correction period"). -- 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: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 12/01/2006 From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 15 11:18:23 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jan 15 11:23:38 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking about revoke? In-Reply-To: <43CA0A38.9070206@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c619bd$0463a3b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Yesterday, the following happened while I was directing the > semi-finals of the Belgian Teams championships: > > One tabel was running behind with the boards (16 boards being shared > by 4 tables) so I was sitting at that table, also as time monitor. > > So I am a first-hand witness to what happened. > > North had bid 1Sp over his partner's 1Di, but East is playing 1NT. > After a few tricks, North is on lead and he plays the SpQ, which holds > the trick. Next he switches to diamonds. South wins and returns a > spade. North plays the 5 of hearts to this trick. I see that he has > revoked, but of course I don't tell. But South screams in amazement, > more at the successful apparent psyche than as a warning about a revoke. This is of course irregularities number 1 (North revoking) and 2 (South showing a reaction alerting his partner of the possible revoke) > But of course this must be considered an illegal (ACBL members can > stop reading now) inquiry about a possible revoke. > > North notices his revoke, substitutes a spade, and leaves the H5 as a > penalty card open on the table. Which doesn't really matter, since > East now claims (losing some further tricks, so the revoke can have > consequences). This is irregularity number 3 (North correcting his unestablished revoke) and 4 (All four players ignoring their duty to summon the Director). > > I stay at the table and wait for three bids on the next board (a third > to make certain the two have crossed the screen) before speaking out. > I tell East that he should of called me (I'm not "there" I say) or at > least have asked by a wink for my opinion and that it is now too late > to change anything. I shouldn't have said anything at all to the players at this time (in the middle of a subsequent board or even in the middle of the round) as such interruption by the TD could mentally disrupt the players' concentration. If I were to say anything (after the round had ended or when I was eventually summoned, possibly for some other cause) was to give both sides a mild warning and a reminder to observe law 9B. > > Forgetting for just one moment the hornet's nest that a "TD should > rule on anything that he learns of in any manner" (I'm not even > thinking about doing this) then we have a second problem. As the actions taken by the players were "correct" (except for their failure to summon the Director) I don't see any reason here to rule that damage has been caused to either side. > It is indeed (both sides having bid on the next board) too late to > penalize an established revoke. But this is a non-established revoke, > which should be penalized in the same way as an established one. > Where does it say that it's also too late to penalize this one? Your reasoning fails. Law 63B states: "When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." (Notice the last seven words!) So there is no difference in how a violation of Law 61B is penalized from how an ordinarily established revoke is penalized (including *not* penalized). > I might have a suggestion. The lawbook should define a "scoring > period" which ends, among other possibilities, when both sides have > bid on the next board. Then many laws could refer to this "scoring > period" to tell us that they apply, and we would be clearer that they > don't apply later (or that they apply in some other form during the > "correction period"). Do we really need still another "period"? I don't think so. What we do need is simplification, not more complications. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 15 12:50:11 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Jan 15 12:57:12 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking about revoke? References: <000001c619bd$0463a3b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c619c9$d8271a40$1f9868d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] This is irregularity number 3 (North correcting his unestablished revoke) and 4 (All four players ignoring their duty to summon the Director). [Nige1] The director was already at the table, in an official capacity, so could never be "summoned". According to any sensible reading of the law, he should have intervened anyway. IMO, the law should be enforced so that the director is aware of his duty to deal with any irregularity brought to his attention by any means; IMO. the law should be extended so that the director should try to prevent irregularities that he can see are about to happen. The view by legal sophists on this topic seems immoral and bizarre to some players. Not only are directors encouraged to flout the law themselves by "seeing no evil". But also, to take a logically extreme example, a pair may cheat blatantly, with impunity, in full view of the director. The usual "excuse" given for current practice is that all tables cannot simultaneously benefit from the director's vigilance; but the real reason may be that directors prefer a quiet life. In this case, when the director later reported his observations to the table, if you were one of the injured parties, wouldn't you judge that the director colluded in the infraction? From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 15 13:38:07 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jan 15 13:43:21 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking about revoke? In-Reply-To: <000f01c619c9$d8271a40$1f9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000d01c619d0$8a5201c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > This is irregularity number 3 (North correcting > his unestablished revoke) > and 4 (All four players ignoring their duty to > summon the Director). > > [Nige1] > The director was already at the table, in an > official capacity, so could never be "summoned". > According to any sensible reading of the law, he > should have intervened anyway. > > IMO, the law should be enforced so that the > director is aware of his duty to deal with any > irregularity brought to his attention by any > means; > > IMO. the law should be extended so that the > director should try to prevent irregularities that > he can see are about to happen. > > The view by legal sophists on this topic seems > immoral and bizarre to some players. Not only are > directors encouraged to flout the law themselves > by "seeing no evil". But also, to take a logically > extreme example, a pair may cheat blatantly, with > impunity, in full view of the director. > > The usual "excuse" given for current practice is > that all tables cannot simultaneously benefit from > the director's vigilance; but the real reason may > be that directors prefer a quiet life. > > In this case, when the director later reported his > observations to the table, if you were one of the > injured parties, wouldn't you judge that the > director colluded in the infraction? Guthrie raises a very valid point here, but the current laws do not permit or encourage the Director to intervene in order to prevent irregularities except in the case where he already supervises the activities at a table in consequence of some irregularity to see that the case is handled correctly. Even then TD activities are limited to assisting in correct procedures related to that irregularity, not in preventing new and unrelated irregularities from being committed. If TD intervention in order to prevent irregularities is established in the laws we shall need some major considerations taken into account, like: Shall the TD intervention jeopardize the non-offending side's right to accept certain irregularities like call or lead out of turn or insufficient bid? How are the cases to be handled where TD intervenes because he honestly believes an irregularity is about to be committed but there was no irregularity to prevent? I feel sure many more questions than these two can be raised, and personally I favour the principle that the board shall be played by the four players, not by the Director. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 16 01:16:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jan 16 01:24:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >Which Laws do you think are most ambiguous, overcomplicated, >inconsistent, subject to misinterpretation, or just plain bad, and >how can they be improved? Richard Hills: A number of smaller bridge clubs have playing directors, who have limited time to resolve irregularities. The overcomplicated 1997 revoke laws often waste time for a playing director, since a playing director is often required to stay at the table until the end of the deal to ensure that the correct penalty is paid. Law 64A2 (second phrase) -> "also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side." As a sometime playing director, I suggest that the second phrase of Law 64A2 be abolished, given that the equity provisions of Law 64C are available as a backstop to prevent non-offending sides from being disadvantaged by such abolition. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 16 02:38:47 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jan 16 02:45:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? References: Message-ID: <004c01c61a3d$9887c640$1c9868d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavsky] > Since I've suggested an incremental approach > to changing the Laws I'd like to facilitate > some constructive contributions in that regard > and I think BLML members can help. I'm used to > thinking about applying the existing Laws, not > improving them. I know some of you have given > more thought to this matter than I have. I'd > like to know which Laws you think are most in > need of improvement, along with specific > proposals for improvement. [Nige1] In almost all my posts, I've proposed an "improvent" or endorsed somebody else's suggested "improvement". [A] The laws should be comprehensive (including alert procedures, bidding boxes, and so on). Players should have access to relevant information with simple illustrative examples. Key interpretations should not be hidden in locked leopard's loos. [B] I agree with Adam that the law should be icrementally improved with an up-to-date web-edition, accessible to all. [C] The alert procedure should be drastically simplified removing most of the opportunities for unauthorised information (I have posted detailed recommendations). [D] Claims should be like on-line claims. Declarer states how many tricks he will make and exposes his hand. If necessary, declarer plays on until defenders are satisfied. This is still courtesy to opponents and speeds up play, but the suggestion removes most claim controversies. [E] The law that spectators are not allowed to report infractions to the director should be reversed to "spectators must report observed suspected infractions to the director". Had the current daft law been enforced, Truscott and Co would not have been allowed to report their suspicious observations about Reese and Shapiro. Also, the law that directors must normally remedy irregularities no matter how they find out about them should be enforced. Many directors seem to be self-righteous sloths as far as this law is concerned. [F] The "rule of coincidence" requires reinstatement. It shoudl be made clear to directors that the decision criterion is "clear balance of probability" raher than "beyond reasonable doubt". [G] Ruling should be clear and simple. For example Richar Hills is right that the revoke law is far to complex. [F] Play rules need tightening. e.g when has declarer played a card? May you lead to the next trick while other players still have faced cards belonging to the previous trick? A player should have no automatic right to recover from a mechanical error; but, at their discretion, opponents may allow the offender to rectify his mistake, without calling the director. (continued p 94...) From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jan 16 09:24:48 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jan 16 09:27:33 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking about revoke? In-Reply-To: <000001c619bd$0463a3b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c619bd$0463a3b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43CB5850.2090409@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: [quite sensible comments snipped] > >>I might have a suggestion. The lawbook should define a "scoring >>period" which ends, among other possibilities, when both sides have >>bid on the next board. Then many laws could refer to this "scoring >>period" to tell us that they apply, and we would be clearer that they >>don't apply later (or that they apply in some other form during the >>"correction period"). > > > Do we really need still another "period"? I don't think so. What we do need > is simplification, not more complications. > I happen to believe this is a simplification. We have this period already, twice. In 69A, the end of the round is mentioned as a secondary possibility; In 64B4, only the possibility of bidding on the next board is mentioned. Neither sentence says when the period ends for the last board of the last round. It would be a simplification if both these laws were to refer to a "scoring period". > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 12/01/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 16 16:17:10 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jan 16 16:19:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060116095443.02d40b80@pop.starpower.net> At 02:00 AM 1/15/06, Adam wrote: >Since I've suggested an incremental approach to changing the Laws I'd >like to facilitate some constructive contributions in that regard and >I think BLML members can help. I'm used to thinking about applying the >existing Laws, not improving them. I know some of you have given more >thought to this matter than I have. I'd like to know which Laws you >think are most in need of improvement, along with specific proposals >for improvement. > >I expect many Laws could stand some improvement, but for this, my >first such attempt, I'll pick just a handful. >I'll present those proposals I like best to the ACBL Laws Commission >and try to persuade the commission to pass them on to the WBF drafting >committee. Of course, other Zonal organizations may do likewise, and >for that matter the drafting committee may pick up any proposals it >likes directly from BLML. Indeed, it seems likely that some >suggestions from BLML have already made it into the current draft. > >An ideal proposal will include references to cases that were poorly >decided under the existing Laws and would likely have produced a more >just outcome were the proposed change in place. Indeed, without such >examples I expect I'll have a difficult time convincing my fellow ACBL >LC members that a change is warranted. > >Which Laws do you think are most ambiguous, overcomplicated, >inconsistent, subject to misinterpretation, or just plain bad, and how >can they be improved? My views on this subject are well-known to BLML readers. I believe that we should excise from TFLB any wording that suggests or allows for different rulings to be given to different players under otherwise identical circumstances based on the perceived "expertise" of the player involved. My concern comes under the heading of "keeping our customers happy"; this is the one area in which the Law hamstrings us ("us" being TDs who work at other than the top levels), and must be changed if the problem is to be dealt with. Those who support differential treatment depending on the offender's repuation as a player argue that the problem is simply one of "educating" the masses, but we've seen numerous attempts to do so, all of them either misguided or simply unsuccessful. For an example, one need look no further than the infamous "oh shit" ruling, which has generated widespread dissatisfaction due to the near-universal perception that such an outcome would not have been considered for an instant had the player involved been anything other than a well-known "expert". "Class of player" rulings are, whether we like it or not, viewed by the everyday player below the top expert levels as little more than an excuse to give rulings that consistently favor the "in crowd". Folks who regularly serve on ACs are talked about behind their backs in a manner usually associated with figure-skating judges. It is vitally important to the bridge community as a whole that the laws be perceived as "fair", even at the sacrifice of their being perceived by the few who worry about such things as achieving some theoretical notion of "equity". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 16 17:02:22 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jan 16 17:07:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 64A2 - undersired interpretation? Message-ID: <000001c61ab6$3cb89e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Just by accident I have discovered what could be used for an interpretation of law 64A2 that I am quite convinced never has been the intention of this law: "... and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side." I know, and I believe most directors know that in the clause "also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player" the word "subsequently" means subsequently to the revoke trick, not subsequently to the first trick won by the offending side after the revoke as referred to in the immediately preceding clause. But how long will it take before somebody comes forward with a claim that the revoke penalty is only one trick if the offender did not win the revoke trick but thereafter won a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick and finally he or his partner won another trick? (I am sorry to having given some "lawyer" the idea!) Would my application of Law 64A be a better written Law 64A? The automatic revoke penalty is two tricks if the offending side won at least two tricks after the revoke (including the revoke trick itself) and one of these tricks was either the revoke trick won by the offender or a later trick won by the offender with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick. In all other cases where the offending side won at least one trick after the revoke (including the revoke trick itself) the automatic revoke penalty is one trick. (To me this is much easier to remember and apply than the present Law 64A.) Regards Sven From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jan 16 17:29:22 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Jan 16 17:37:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200601161629.k0GGTMfR022708@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Adam Wildavsky writes: > > Since I've suggested an incremental approach to changing the Laws I'd > like to facilitate some constructive contributions in that regard and > I think BLML members can help. I'm used to thinking about applying > the existing Laws, not improving them. I know some of you have given > more thought to this matter than I have. I'd like to know which Laws > you think are most in need of improvement, along with specific > proposals for improvement. I think you have at hand a tremendous resource. Look through your commentaries on the various rulings and see if there are consistent problematic areas. In particular look for areas where people argue in good faith and with full knowledge of the rules for different rulings. Then figure out whether you want the emphasis placed on equity or simplicity of administration. IMO there's no way to place a strong emphasis on equity without a strong dose of subjecitity. I personally don't have any problem with subjectivity in the abstract, but I do see a big problem when the same players and same facts will get a different ruling from different directors and/or different ACs. One comment on several of the proposals in the area of claims. Again, think carefully about changes. You have several important issues. Claims in themselves are very good for the game. Disputed claims are very bad for the game. What I'd like to see happen is the Laws give greater incentive for both a proper statement of claim *and* no incentive for the opposition disrupting the statement of claim. Meaning that if a claim is disrupted it will be treated as *complete*. As to class of player issues, the more leeway you offer claimers (in the interests of equity) the more you encourage *sloppy* claims. I know nobody's really interested in offering up gifts on technicalities. Perhaps there could be a procedural penalty attached to claims that "work" but were incomplete. (Personally I could live with a Burnian approach to claims, but at least in the short term this would vastly cut back on the number of claims. Not a good thing) I'd like to see some claim statements right in the Laws -- perhaps in an appendix. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 17 02:48:55 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jan 17 02:55:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060116095443.02d40b80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005701c61b08$2d73f420$019868d5@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > I believe that we should excise from TFLB any > wording that suggests or allows for different > rulings to be given to different players under > otherwise identical circumstances based on the > perceived "expertise" of the player involved. [Nige1] I agree with Eric although his proposal causes some problems. For example, it seems hard to judge a beginner's call by reference to the alternatives that an expert considers logical. Nevertheless, IMO, even the beginner would recognise that criterion to be simpler, fairer (and much less patronising). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 17 04:53:21 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jan 17 05:38:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >Which Laws do you think are most ambiguous, overcomplicated, >inconsistent, subject to misinterpretation, or just plain bad, >and how can they be improved? Richard Hills: In the "just plain bad" category I would place Law 72B3 -> "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side....." The philosophy of Law 72B3 is contrary to the general philosophy of the rest of the Proprieties, and is specifically contrary to the philosophy of Law 75D1 -> "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director....." I would prefer Law 75D1 and Law 72B3 to be amalgamated, with the new combined Law 72B3/75D1 to read -> "If a player subsequently realises that they have committed an inadvertent irregularity (such as a revoke, or an erroneous or incomplete explanation), that player must immediately call the Director." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From schuster at eduhi.at Tue Jan 17 12:28:09 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue Jan 17 12:33:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? In-Reply-To: <005701c61b08$2d73f420$019868d5@jeushtlj> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060116095443.02d40b80@pop.starpower.net> <005701c61b08$2d73f420$019868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:48:55 +0100, Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] >> I believe that we should excise from TFLB any >> wording that suggests or allows for different >> rulings to be given to different players under >> otherwise identical circumstances based on the >> perceived "expertise" of the player involved. > > [Nige1] > I agree with Eric although his proposal causes > some problems. For example, it seems hard to judge > a beginner's call by reference to the alternatives > that an expert considers logical. Nevertheless, > IMO, even the beginner would recognise that > criterion to be simpler, fairer (and much less > patronising). > Quite so, with the added difficulty of judging the ability of a player you have not seen before. OTOH, treating everyone as a beginner/intermediate player/expert will also lead to rulings considered unfair. May I therefore suggest that, instead of the "class of player", the "class of event" be used as a criterion for judgement rulings. This seems a fairly objective and comprehensible standard. Regards, etrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Tue Jan 17 13:28:39 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue Jan 17 14:07:17 2006 Subject: [blml] revke penalty Message-ID: <004e01c61b61$8bf98100$69a2ec51@admin> To Sven To make things easy is to say that the revoke penalty is one trick, period. This means one trick if the offending side won a trick from the revoke trick and on. If that is not enough for the non-offending side you just go to law 64 C. From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Jan 17 14:18:22 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue Jan 17 14:21:20 2006 Subject: TR: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: Law 64A2 (second phrase) -> "also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side." As a sometime playing director, I suggest that the second phrase of Law 64A2 be abolished, given that the equity provisions of Law 64C are available as a backstop to prevent non-offending sides from being disadvantaged by such abolition. __________________________________________________________________ Law 64A2 is right but badly written. In October 2002, I sent this message to BLML: IMHO Law 64A is quite simple and easy applicable: Could be something like (but in plain and good English...): 1) When OS won 0 trick from the revoke to the end = 0 trick transferred 2) When OS won 1 trick = 1 trick transferred 3) When OS won 2 or more tricks from the revoke to the end: a)If offender (not OS) won the revoke trick or If the offender won a subsequent trick with a card that could have legally been played to the revoke trick = 2 tricks transferred. b)If not, transfer only 1 trick. Look at my flow chart on David's WEB. http://blakjak.com/lwx_dub0.htm What is the aim of this exercise Richard ? I thought that the work has already been done and that the new version of Laws will appear in a near future. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 17 14:21:24 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jan 17 14:29:35 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking aboutrevoke? Message-ID: <008501c61b68$ead95c20$109468d5@jeushtlj> [John Probst] > You really do talk the most unadulterated > crap Nigel. [Nige1] MadDog and Kojak agree on at least one thing and argue in the same way using a similar vocabulary. Can anybody produce a coherent reason as to why directors habitually flout 81c6 -- on the face of it, among the most sensible and moral laws in TFLB? From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 17 14:39:28 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jan 17 14:44:45 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking aboutrevoke? References: <008501c61b68$ead95c20$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Gee, thanks Nigel. Nice to be recognized by such a savant as you feel yourself to be. All I can surmise is that you must play bridge in the far hinterlands from your comments about tournament directors, or they have come down heavy on your idea of the game of bridge. Where I live and play and direct 86C6 is alive and well and used when appropriate. Perhaps you should travel a bit and broaden your horizons. For MadDog -- stop using the word "crap" -- you're offending tender sensibilities and giving me a bad reputation, although I get a warm, fuzzy feeling being grouped with you. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking aboutrevoke? > [John Probst] > > You really do talk the most unadulterated > > crap Nigel. > > [Nige1] > MadDog and Kojak agree on at least one thing and > argue in the same way using a similar vocabulary. > > Can anybody produce a coherent reason as to why > directors habitually flout 81c6 -- on the face of > it, among the most sensible and moral laws in > TFLB? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 17 15:17:12 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jan 17 15:22:59 2006 Subject: TR: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > I thought that the work has already been done and that the new > version of Laws will appear in a near > future. My understanding is that the ACBL threw a hissy fit, so we're back to square one, or close to it. From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Jan 17 15:37:59 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Jan 17 15:40:49 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking aboutrevoke? In-Reply-To: <008501c61b68$ead95c20$109468d5@jeushtlj> References: <008501c61b68$ead95c20$109468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <43CD0147.2010000@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > > > Can anybody produce a coherent reason as to why > directors habitually flout 81c6 -- on the face of > it, among the most sensible and moral laws in > TFLB? > > Well, let me give one possible reason: When the Director is sitting at a table, he is sometimes a kibitzer and sometimes a time monitor, and sometimes something else altogether. He is not there as a Director, and it is still up to the players to "call" him when they think they need him. If the Director interferes when not asked, he is taking away from the table the possibility of not calling for minor infractions, because the players believe such infractions are better unpunished at their table. It's like the player who said, on lead against my 6NT, "it's being-nice-to-Herman-week", passed and cashed AK of diamonds. If players want to be friendly to their opponents, who are we TD's to stop them? And if I interfere once too often, the players will no longer allow me to sit at their table. Not that they can prevent it, but they might wish to. -- 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: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006 From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 17 16:08:53 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jan 17 16:14:08 2006 Subject: TR: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: The only thing I can tell you is that you were mislead to believe that "we had already done that". A draft for distribution and comment by the Zones and NBOs has not yet been finished. Kojak > On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > > > I thought that the work has already been done and that the new > > version of Laws will appear in a near > > future. > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 17 16:12:31 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jan 17 16:15:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060116095443.02d40b80@pop.starpower.net> <005701c61b08$2d73f420$019868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060117100159.02a52100@pop.starpower.net> At 06:28 AM 1/17/06, Petrus wrote: >On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:48:55 +0100, Guthrie wrote: > >>[Eric Landau] >>>I believe that we should excise from TFLB any >>>wording that suggests or allows for different >>>rulings to be given to different players under >>>otherwise identical circumstances based on the >>>perceived "expertise" of the player involved. >> >>[Nige1] >>I agree with Eric although his proposal causes >>some problems. For example, it seems hard to judge >>a beginner's call by reference to the alternatives >>that an expert considers logical. Nevertheless, >>IMO, even the beginner would recognise that >>criterion to be simpler, fairer (and much less >>patronising). >Quite so, with the added difficulty of judging the ability of a player >you >have not seen before. >OTOH, treating everyone as a beginner/intermediate player/expert will >also >lead to rulings considered unfair. >May I therefore suggest that, instead of the "class of player", the >"class >of event" be used as a criterion for judgement rulings. This seems a >fairly objective and comprehensible standard. I do not see Petrus' proposal as conflicting with my fundamental position in any way, and would happily support it. I readily accept that if the same situation arises in a low-level game and in a high-level one, they have not occurred "under otherwise identical circumstances". I have no problem with rulings that are dependent on judging the level of expertise of the average or modal player in a given event. It is only when we must judge the level of expertise of the specific individual standing before us that we cannot avoid at least the appearance, even if not the reality, of having made a purely subjective judgment. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jan 17 16:38:55 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Jan 17 16:50:16 2006 Subject: [blml] revke penalty References: <004e01c61b61$8bf98100$69a2ec51@admin> Message-ID: <008a01c61b7c$fdd335d0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Subject: [blml] revke penalty To Sven To make things easy is to say that the revoke penalty is one trick, period. This means one trick if the offending side won a trick from the revoke trick and on. If that is not enough for the non-offending side you just go to law 64 C. ************ Hi Hans-Olof You are right that is easy indeed. The question which remains is whether ease is the only thing to strive for. ton ********** _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Tue Jan 17 17:09:09 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Jan 17 17:14:26 2006 Subject: [blml] revke penalty In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:28:39 +0100." <004e01c61b61$8bf98100$69a2ec51@admin> Message-ID: <200601171609.IAA01777@mailhub.irvine.com> Hans-Olof wrote: > To Sven > > To make things easy is to say that the revoke penalty is one > trick, period. This means one trick if the offending side won a > trick from the revoke trick and on. If that is not enough for the > non-offending side you just go to law 64 C. I haven't been following this discussion. However, I suspect that this would greatly increase the number of cases where the revoke penalty does not do justice to the non-offending side, and thus increase the TD's burden by requiring him to apply L64C and go through all the adjusted score rigmarole. The above suggestion makes things "simple", but that's not the same as making things easy. Even simpler would be to just forget the revoke penalty and let the TD use 64C all the time. But that would be a lot harder for TD's, especially since (from what they tell us) revokes come up a lot more often than infractions for which they have to compute an adjusted score. -- Adam From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jan 17 18:32:32 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Jan 17 18:37:35 2006 Subject: [blml] revke penalty Message-ID: <43CD2A30.4090100@cfa.harvard.edu> Sven: > To make things easy is to say that the revoke penalty is one trick, period. Ton: > You are right that is easy indeed. The question which remains is whether > ease is the only thing to strive for. Or make the penalty two tricks, as it was prior to 1987(?). Still easy and with an adequate level of deterrence. From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 17 18:54:46 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jan 17 19:00:02 2006 Subject: [blml] revke penalty References: <43CD2A30.4090100@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Or leave it the way it is right now, which takes a modicum of understanding and intelligence to apply -- found in all directors (I hope). Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] revke penalty > Sven: > > To make things easy is to say that the revoke penalty is one trick, > > period. > > Ton: > > You are right that is easy indeed. The question which remains is whether > > ease is the only thing to strive for. > > Or make the penalty two tricks, as it was prior to 1987(?). Still easy > and with an adequate level of deterrence. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Jan 17 20:04:12 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue Jan 17 20:09:25 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? Message-ID: <43cd3fac.f2d.0@esatclear.ie> You are south. bidding proceeds S W N E 1H P 1NT* P P ?? West now asks the range of the 1NT. You tell him 6-10 or bad 11, NF. He enquires do you play 5CM. You say yes. 2C 4H all pass Pd has a 13-14 hand and didnt see your opener (you play weak NT). The opps call the td and say N was woken up by the alert + questions and should not be allowed to bid 4H's. Should he ? Karel *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR15 per month! Enjoy always-on internet for less! Check it out at http://www.btireland.ie From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 17 23:34:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 17 23:40:06 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: <43cd3fac.f2d.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > S W N E > 1H P 1NT* P > P ?? > > West now asks the range of the 1NT. You tell him 6-10 or bad 11, NF. > He enquires do you play 5CM. You say yes. > > 2C 4H all pass > > Pd has a 13-14 hand and didnt see your opener (you play weak NT). The > opps call the td and say N was woken up by the alert + questions and > should not be allowed to bid 4H's. Should he ? The 1H bid is AI, North's hand is AI, his own bid of 1N is AI and opps questions are AI. The alert and answers to those questions are UI. Within that context there *may* be LAs to 4H (3C for example) hard to say without seeing the hand. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 17 23:34:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 17 23:40:07 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking aboutrevoke? In-Reply-To: <43CD0147.2010000@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > When the Director is sitting at a table, he is sometimes a kibitzer > and sometimes a time monitor, and sometimes something else altogether. ..but always, and throughout, the director. The players need not be concerned as to what else the TD thinks he is doing - it is sufficient that he is there and they *know* he will act should L81c6 require it. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 18 01:09:37 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jan 18 01:17:19 2006 Subject: [blml] revke penalty References: <43CD2A30.4090100@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001b01c61bc3$7940cb60$099868d5@jeushtlj> [Steve Willner] > Or make the penalty two tricks, as it was prior > to 1987(?). Still easy and with an adequate > level of deterrence. [Nigel] Simple. Fair. Justice done and seen to be done in a way that is comprehensible to the average player. A retrograde step in more ways than one :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 18 02:25:33 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jan 18 02:33:23 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking aboutrevoke? References: Message-ID: <004101c61bce$14959c80$099868d5@jeushtlj> [Herman de Wael] >> When the Director is sitting at a table, he is >> sometimes a kibitzer and sometimes a time >> monitor, and sometimes something else altogether. [Tim West-Meads] >> ..but always, and throughout, the director. >> The players need not be concerned as to what >> else the TD thinks he is doing - it is sufficient >> that he is there and they *know* he will act >> should L81c6 require it. [Nige1] In practice, Herman seems to disagree with Tim. [Herman de Wael] If the Director interferes when not asked, he is taking away from the table the possibility of not calling for minor infractions, because the players believe such infractions are better unpunished at their table. [Nige1] IMO Herman's argument is no reason for flouting 81c6. Surely, non-offenders have the right to ask the director to waive a penalty and I've never known a director refuse. If a director is watching, it is understandable that players relax their vigilance, secure in the knowledge that a law-abiding director will not collude with infractions by opponents. I was expecting the usual argument about how unfair it is to interfere with an observed infraction when similar infractions may go unpunished at other tables. In other contexts, this kind of "field protection" argument is derided by directors and legislators alike. Strange really because many player believe that, normally, the director *should* protect the field; but obviously not in this context, when that would mean condoning law-breaking. Tim is right that Herman cannot remove his "director" hat while employed in that capacity. If he could do it would entail horrendous anomalies. For example, suppose while Herman is wearing his "kibitzer" hat, he gathers evidence of systematic blatant cheating. As a kibitzer, Herman must not report what he sees to other directors, or even himself :) If indeed, I'm right and directors are breaking the law and rationalising their reasons for so-doing, then it casts light on two other legal controversies. [A] I've been accused of cynicism in claiming that many players rationalise law-breaking, especially breaking those laws that are virtually unenforceable. But if directors would admit to themselves that some of them break the law themselves when convenient, then, perhaps, they will be more ready to recognise the extent of such practices among players. [B] When legislators start to appreciate how good people are at rationalisation, they will better understand the objection that some players have to over-subjective laws. It is hard for directors and committees to be objective when dealing with nationals and foreigners, friends and enemies; and easy for them to rationalise strange subjective decisions; but were directors imbued with the wisdom of Solomon, different directors would still reach different subjective conclusions on identical agreed facts. So even if justice were done (in some "Equity" connotation of the word), justice is not *seen to be done*. Anyway, thank you Herman and Tim, I enjoy arguing with you; I prefer any argument to insolence. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 18 02:43:01 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jan 18 02:48:49 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: <43cd3fac.f2d.0@esatclear.ie> References: <43cd3fac.f2d.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <51D90C33-2762-4375-91C0-4845FA2BFFF1@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 17, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Karel wrote: > The opps call the td and say N was woken up by the alert + > questions and should not be > allowed to bid 4H's. Should he ? First, EW shouldn't be telling the TD how to make his ruling. The *facts* in evidence do not include that "N was woken up by the alert and questions" nor that he "should not be allowed to bid 4H". That's for the TD to determine. I would tell EW to stick to the facts and quit trying to do *my* job. As for the second assertion, N cannot be *prevented* from bidding 4H. He already did so. Everybody passed. The contract is 4H by S. They must play it out. If the TD decides he should not have done so (taking advantage of UI being an infraction of law) he can adjust the score - assuming EW were damaged, another "fact" not in evidence. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 18 03:06:17 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jan 18 03:12:04 2006 Subject: [blml] too late to penalize unauthorized asking aboutrevoke? In-Reply-To: <004101c61bce$14959c80$099868d5@jeushtlj> References: <004101c61bce$14959c80$099868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:25 PM, Guthrie wrote: > If the Director interferes when not asked, he is taking away from > the table the possibility of not calling for minor infractions, > because the players believe such infractions are better unpunished > at their table. It is not a matter of punishment, it is a matter of redress for damage, and of education. Players *will* *not* learn what the laws require of them if no one ever calls the TD. Sometimes, though, it really isn't worth the effort. Today, for example, on the second and last board of our next-to-last round, my partner is in 4S. Opening lead is the HA (his partner's bid suit) and declarer plays the dummy's singleton. Next lead is a low club, low from dummy, 3rd hand produces the nine, moves it close to the table, in a position where I certainly saw it, and where her partner certainly could have seen it. Then she puts it back in her hand, produces the CA, declarer follows, and out comes another club, ruffed by the opening leader. I didn't say anything at the time, of course, because I was dummy, Partner missed the whole thing. In the end, she went down one. Had the CA not been played, she'd have made 4S. I didn't call the TD at the end of the hand either, because (a) we were already well in the money, and even if down one was a near bottom - it wasn't, it was close to average - it wasn't going to hurt us, and (b) this pair, a married couple who've been playing bridge together as long as I've been alive (and I'm nearly 60) don't know their elbow from the six of hearts, and never will. Calling the director would not help them learn anything, and would likely spoil their enjoyment (well, hers, anyway). So... redress for damage wouldn't have meant much in the scheme of things (btw, it was a club game) and education wasn't gonna happen anyway. OTOH, had it been a player who should have known better, or one who I thought would benefit from the TD's guidance, I'd have called the TD in a heartbeat (at the end of play, as is proper). And if the director had happened to see the whole thing, and made a ruling on it, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least. From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jan 18 09:13:00 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jan 18 09:15:45 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43CDF88C.4070306@hdw.be> Tim makes a wrong analysis: Tim West-Meads wrote: > Karel wrote: > > >>S W N E >>1H P 1NT* P >>P ?? >> >>West now asks the range of the 1NT. You tell him 6-10 or bad 11, NF. >>He enquires do you play 5CM. You say yes. >> >> 2C 4H all pass >> >>Pd has a 13-14 hand and didnt see your opener (you play weak NT). The >>opps call the td and say N was woken up by the alert + questions and >>should not be allowed to bid 4H's. Should he ? > > > The 1H bid is AI, This one is debatable, and is the core issue. > North's hand is AI, his own bid of 1N is AI and opps > questions are AI. These ones are clear. > The alert and answers to those questions are UI. This one is also true - but this does not matter, because we have no reason to suspect that the content of the information is not also known to North. By his own admission, he did not see the first bid, but that does not imply in any way that he has now forgotten his own system. So the answers are just as much AI as if they had been about real bids, correctly bid and explained. > Within that context there *may* be LAs to 4H (3C for example) hard to say > without seeing the hand. > No, not at all hard. There is no UI, so there need be no further ruling. IF of course you accept that the 1H bid is AI. In my opinion, once a bidding sequence has progressed far enough and strangely enough, a player cannot fail to inquire about the bidding that has gone on (or, in the case of bidding cards, look at the table) and therefor discover the previously unnoticed bid. I rule that this is AI. In easier bidding sequences I might rule that a player does not need a second glance at the bidding, but here it is impossible for North not to ask again. > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 18 11:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jan 18 11:48:28 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: <43CDF88C.4070306@hdw.be> Message-ID: > > The 1H bid is AI, > > This one is debatable, and is the core issue. Ok, a very short debate: L16: Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. 1H is a legal call. It is AI. It is AI even if partner screams "You moron didn't you see my call." We can penalise the partner if he does something illegal to draw attention but we can never rule that a legal call is, of itself, UI. End of debate. > So the answers are just as much AI as if they had been about real > bids, correctly bid and explained. Not so. It is possible, for instance, that North thought they were playing a forcing NT. My inclination is to take at face value North's statement about not seeing the bid, my responsibility is to investigate fully rather than go with my inclination. > > Within that context there *may* be LAs to 4H (3C for example) hard to > > say without seeing the hand. > > > > No, not at all hard. > There is no UI, so there need be no further ruling. Answers to questions are never AI. In this instance the answers are (almost certainly) UI that doesn't suggest/countersuggest any particular call - that is not quite the same thing. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jan 18 12:03:17 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Jan 18 12:06:00 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43CE2075.5000506@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: >>>The 1H bid is AI, >> >>This one is debatable, and is the core issue. > > > Ok, a very short debate: > > L16: Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information > from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. > > 1H is a legal call. It is AI. It is AI even if partner screams "You moron > didn't you see my call." We can penalise the partner if he does something > illegal to draw attention but we can never rule that a legal call is, of > itself, UI. > The call is AI, true. But the scream by partner is UI. So the 4H call is based on UI and AI. And this is not allowed. We have accepted that if a player has both AI and UI, which tell him the same thing, then he is not restricted by L16. So in order to counteract the scream, there has to be some piece of AI that draws attention to the first call. Do it with spoken bidding: if partner does not hear the opening, then we should accept him to wake up if the bidding goes so strangely that he cannot fail to ask "what was the bidding again?", but we should not accept it if he has no reason to do so. In this case it is close, because a bidding of 1NT pass pass 2Cl is not very strange and there is no reason to ask what the bidding was since a 1NT opener need not do any more thinking. > End of debate. > not really. > >>So the answers are just as much AI as if they had been about real >>bids, correctly bid and explained. > > > Not so. It is possible, for instance, that North thought they were > playing a forcing NT. My inclination is to take at face value North's > statement about not seeing the bid, my responsibility is to investigate > fully rather than go with my inclination. > Not so. It is not possible that North thought they were playing a forcing NT, because his hand (15-17) does not correspond to a forcing 1NT rebid. Or rather, this is of course possible, but totally irrelevant. We have no reason to assume that North did not know his system. At least, if we accept his statement that he did not see the opening bid. Which is very likely, we agree on that. > >>>Within that context there *may* be LAs to 4H (3C for example) hard to >>>say without seeing the hand. >>> >> >>No, not at all hard. >>There is no UI, so there need be no further ruling. > > > Answers to questions are never AI. In this instance the answers are > (almost certainly) UI that doesn't suggest/countersuggest any particular > call - that is not quite the same thing. > Not quite, but so nearly so that we very often say it like that. Don't forget that we need an interpretation that says AI+UI=AI, because we cannot rely on L16 to rule in favour of the "infractor" since there are usually LA's. If we don't have an interpretation that destroys the UI, then the UI remains and the player is not free to do what he wants. Nor is it possible to go along the line of "the UI does not suggest a call", because the information that partner has an opening bid clearly suggests that a game contract is a good choice. Therefor, if you rule that this is UI, the player is not allowed to bid 4H. You MUST rule that the info which was UI has been turned into AI, if you wish to allow the contract of 4He. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 18 13:48:16 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jan 18 13:53:32 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: <43CE2075.5000506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c61c2d$739a83d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > > L16: Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on > > information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of > > opponents. > > 1H is a legal call. It is AI. It is AI even if partner > > screams "You moron didn't you see my call." We can penalise > > the partner if he does something illegal to draw attention > > but we can never rule that a legal call is, of itself, UI. > > The call is AI, true. > But the scream by partner is UI. ........... The scream is obviously UI to North but the 1H bid is AI regardless of this scream. Any remark etc. by North to the effect that "I didn't see the 1H opening bid" is obviously UI to South. So where does this lead us? South who opened 1H may not select his further actions based on the unauthorized information that North hadn't noticed this opening bid when he "answered" 1NT. North is, during the auction, free to "discover" (regardless of any "scream") that South actually had opened the auction with 1H, and he is free to select his actions on this discovery as well as on the rest of the auction, but he should during the auction refrain from giving any indication that he had originally overlooked the opening bid. I do not see any way (based upon Law 16) that a ban against North to "discover" the 1H opening bid can be enforced. We do not accept that a player who has forgotten his agreements is awoken by his partner's explanation of the call, but that is a different matter. (Incidentally we do accept it if he is awoken by an "impossible" development in the auction!) Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 18 14:17:47 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jan 18 14:29:52 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? References: <43cd3fac.f2d.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <004001c61c31$da8eba80$159868d5@jeushtlj> [Karel] > You are south. bidding proceeds > S W N E > 1H P 1NT* P > P ?? > West now asks the range of the 1NT. You > tell him 6-10 or bad 11, NF. He enquires > do you play 5CM. You say yes. > 2C 4H all pass > Pd has a 13-14 hand and didnt see your opener > (you play weak NT). The opps call the td and > say N was woken up by the alert + questions > and should not be allowed to bid 4H's. > Should he ? [Nige1] The opponent's allegation that "North was woken up" seems plausible, assuming that the facts are as stated. North might have woken up without the UI from the alert + questions. It is also remotely possible that he realised his mistake in the instant after his bid but before the alert. Furthermore, North's bid may be justifiable if he has a near perfect maximum, for example, S:Ax H:Kxx D:xx C:Axxxxx Some will erroneously claim that E-W should call the director immediately after N's 4H bid; but E-W may not have suspected anything before they saw dummy. Normally, however, the director should rule for E-W; and consider a procedural penalty for North. E-W should be warned not to state allegations as facts; but their outburst is understandable. In the old days, the director established the facts and determined how and whether damage resulted. Nowadays, a few of the new breed of "kibitzer" directors expect legally ignorant players to explain how they were damaged before considering a ruling against expert friends. Is this another example of directors shirking their responsibilities? :) From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Wed Jan 18 15:13:39 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed Jan 18 15:52:21 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty Message-ID: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> A one trick penalty does not cause a ruling from 64 C very often, not much more often than it does now. Other reasons for a one trick penalty are that the players believe if to be more fair (many players say that the penalty is too harsh and did not influence the play) and it seems to give non offenders a not too big advantage over the field in a pairs tournament. And my opinion is also that a sure trump trick should not be lost (eg highest trump or king, queen in the same hand). In different hands you can play like Chagas, who did not lose a trump trick with opponents having Q opposite K x x x. He made the long trump hand trump low three times! This happened in 1983 and I saw it with my own eyes. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 18 15:52:54 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jan 18 16:03:44 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? References: <000001c61c2d$739a83d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <008c01c61c3e$dd80e580$159868d5@jeushtlj> {Sven Pran] I do not see any way (based upon Law 16) that a ban against North to "discover" the 1H opening bid can be enforced. [Nige1] Sven is usually right. So please, Sven, tell me what is wrong with the argument... [A] The probability is that unauthorised information from the alert/explanation made North *initially* aware of South's bid. (Please assume that the director makes this judgement on the facts). [B] There is a real possibility that, without the unauthorised information, North might *subsequently* have become aware of that information by authorised means; but surely that is purely hypothetical. [C] This information (that South opened) suggested the 4H bid to North, over other less successful logical alternatives. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 18 17:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jan 18 17:18:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? In-Reply-To: <004c01c61a3d$9887c640$1c9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [E] The law that spectators are not allowed to > report infractions to the director should be > reversed to "spectators must report observed > suspected infractions to the director". Had the > current daft law been enforced, Truscott and Co > would not have been allowed to report their > suspicious observations about Reese and Shapiro. Absolute rubbish (and I mean that in a non-abusive way). If a spectator approaches the TD and says "I have concerns that a pair may be communicating illegally." He has *not*, as yet, 'drawn attention to an irregularity'. The TD will, obviously, ask for further details - at which point the spectator will be providing information 'by request of the Director' - All legal and above board. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 18 17:23:09 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jan 18 17:28:27 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: <008c01c61c3e$dd80e580$159868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c61c4b$78e423a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > {Sven Pran] > I do not see any way (based upon Law 16) that a > ban against North to "discover" the 1H opening bid > can be enforced. > > [Nige1] > Sven is usually right. Thank you! 8-) So please, Sven, tell me > what is wrong with the argument... There is no way the knowledge of the 1H opening bid can be made UI to North, it was a fully legal bid. The "fact" that North in this case became aware of the bid by the "scream" from South doesn't alter this, the 1H bid is still AI to North. (The "scream" as such is of course UI, but that is not the point.) An analogue situation would be if North (dealer) after Pass - Pass - 1C - Pass puts his cards back to the board believing that there was a passout. It doesn't matter which player now notifies him of the 1C opening bid by South, the auction continues as if no irregularity had taken place! (Anything else would simply be insane.) I believe that covers my position on all three alternatives below? Regards Sven > [A] The probability is that unauthorised > information from the alert/explanation made North > *initially* aware of South's bid. (Please assume > that the director makes this judgement on the > facts). > > [B] There is a real possibility that, without the > unauthorised information, North might > *subsequently* have become aware of that > information by authorised means; but surely that > is purely hypothetical. > > [C] This information (that South opened) suggested > the 4H bid to North, over other less successful > logical alternatives. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 18 17:48:39 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jan 18 17:53:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? References: Message-ID: Thank you Tim, for reading not only the words of the Law but understanding their meaning. To include suspicions about cheating in 'any irregularity or mistake' is like saying he can't tell the TD that North's fly is open. The words of the law are obviously there is reference to irregularities and mistakes in bidding or play of the hand while at the table. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? > Nigel wrote: > > > [E] The law that spectators are not allowed to > > report infractions to the director should be > > reversed to "spectators must report observed > > suspected infractions to the director". Had the > > current daft law been enforced, Truscott and Co > > would not have been allowed to report their > > suspicious observations about Reese and Shapiro. > > Absolute rubbish (and I mean that in a non-abusive way). > If a spectator approaches the TD and says "I have concerns that a pair may > be communicating illegally." He has *not*, as yet, 'drawn attention to an > irregularity'. The TD will, obviously, ask for further details - at which > point the spectator will be providing information 'by request of the > Director' - All legal and above board. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 19 03:14:54 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jan 19 03:20:46 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario Message-ID: <07AEB2D6-E58E-443B-9E66-776D0DCD450F@rochester.rr.com> The "what should one do" thread brought to mind something that happened yesterday. The scenario is this: I have been called to fill in during the last few rounds of the club game, because one of the players had to leave early. I have not played with my partner before. We have a brief discussion, in which we agree to play 2/1, nothing fancy. Partner, dealer, opens 1S. Then in rapid succession, the following happens: 1. My RHO bids 1H. (Bidding boxes are in use). 2. Partner points out that 1H is insufficient. 3. RHO corrects 1H to 2H. 4. I say "wait a minute, I think I have some options here" and call the TD. TD rules I can accept 1H if I wish. I decide that I do wish. I then bid 2H. LHO bids 3H. Partner goes briefly into the tank, and then passes. RHO bids 4H, I bid 4S, all pass. The information conveyed to me by partner's tank after LHO bid 3H was that she was trying to figure out what the Hell I was doing. :-) My intent was to define my hand a little more tightly. I had enough (barely) for a limit raise, but I didn't like it much. I could have let RHO bid 2H, and then bid 3H, but I didn't want her to overvalue my hand. So I figured that if I did what I did, she'd figure out that I had a minimum or slightly subminimum limit raise. Which she did. I don't to talk about the merits of my madness, nor those (if any) of my subsequent 4S bid. What I want to ask the list is "does the fact that I invoked my right to accept RHO's call convey UI to partner, and if so, what UI, and what does it demonstrably suggest?" Note: systemically, the cue bid of opponents' suit shows a limit raise or better. Hope I've covered all the bases. :-) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 19 03:16:39 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jan 19 03:24:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? References: Message-ID: <001401c61c9e$629b6740$199868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > Absolute rubbish (and I mean that in a non- > abusive way). If a spectator approaches the > TD and says "I have concerns that a pair may > be communicating illegally." He has *not*, > as yet, 'drawn attention to an irregularity'. [Nige1] If Tim and Kojak seriously contend that illegal communication isn't an irregularity, then further argument with them is pointless. From a contradiction, you prove anything :) From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jan 19 04:28:39 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Jan 19 04:33:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? References: <001401c61c9e$629b6740$199868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Mr. Guthrie's inability to read Law 76 as applying to AT THE TABLE actions by a spectator is obvious. I guess he believes that when an individual sits down to watch a table in play he then remains a spectator for the rest of his life. God forbid that he should ever even talk to a TD about anything he has seen once the game is over. Further argument is indeed pointless when faced with his wiggle about illegal communication being an 'irregularity'. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? > [Tim West-Meads] > > Absolute rubbish (and I mean that in a non- > > abusive way). If a spectator approaches the > > TD and says "I have concerns that a pair may > > be communicating illegally." He has *not*, > > as yet, 'drawn attention to an irregularity'. > > [Nige1] > If Tim and Kojak seriously contend that illegal > communication isn't an irregularity, then further > argument with them is pointless. From a > contradiction, you prove anything :) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz at att.net Thu Jan 19 05:19:08 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Jan 19 05:24:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? In-Reply-To: References: <001401c61c9e$629b6740$199868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <43CF133C.5050402@att.net> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Mr. Guthrie's inability to read Law 76 as applying to AT THE TABLE actions > by a spectator is obvious. I guess he believes that when an individual sits > down to watch a table in play he then remains a spectator for the rest of > his life. God forbid that he should ever even talk to a TD about anything he > has seen once the game is over. Further argument is indeed pointless when > faced with his wiggle about illegal communication being an 'irregularity'. Not that I agree with Nigel, but this arguement implies the spectator's involvement cannot apply to the current session. If I witness a pair cheating, I want them caught now, not next week. When an irregularity is "a deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws," I have no difficulties convincing myself that "the gravest possible offense" is something different entirely, even if it's undefined by the Laws. -Todd From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jan 19 05:55:35 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu Jan 19 06:00:53 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <07AEB2D6-E58E-443B-9E66-776D0DCD450F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006301c61cb4$96b604c0$6600a8c0@rota> From: "Ed Reppert" > 1. My RHO bids 1H. (Bidding boxes are in use). > 2. Partner points out that 1H is insufficient. > 3. RHO corrects 1H to 2H. > 4. I say "wait a minute, I think I have some options here" and call the > TD. >What I want to ask the list is "does the fact that I invoked my right to >accept RHO's call convey UI to partner, and if so, what UI, and what does >it demonstrably suggest?" Your choice of a legal action cannot be unauthorized information for your partner. The SO may restrict your conventional agreements (and the ACBL does this), but it cannot prevent your partner from using bridge logic to determine what you intended, given that you didn't do anything extraneous. As an example of a use of bridge logic, one of my bridge books says that a penalty double of an insufficient bid may not be taken out. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 19 09:14:30 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jan 19 09:19:44 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <07AEB2D6-E58E-443B-9E66-776D0DCD450F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c61cd0$5fb6ab20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > The "what should one do" thread brought to mind something that > happened yesterday. > > The scenario is this: I have been called to fill in during the last > few rounds of the club game, because one of the players had to leave > early. I have not played with my partner before. We have a brief > discussion, in which we agree to play 2/1, nothing fancy. > > Partner, dealer, opens 1S. Then in rapid succession, the following > happens: > > 1. My RHO bids 1H. (Bidding boxes are in use). > 2. Partner points out that 1H is insufficient. > 3. RHO corrects 1H to 2H. > 4. I say "wait a minute, I think I have some options here" and call > the TD. > > TD rules I can accept 1H if I wish. I decide that I do wish. I then > bid 2H. LHO bids 3H. Partner goes briefly into the tank, and then > passes. RHO bids 4H, I bid 4S, all pass. > > The information conveyed to me by partner's tank after LHO bid 3H was > that she was trying to figure out what the Hell I was doing. :-) > > My intent was to define my hand a little more tightly. I had enough > (barely) for a limit raise, but I didn't like it much. I could have > let RHO bid 2H, and then bid 3H, but I didn't want her to overvalue > my hand. So I figured that if I did what I did, she'd figure out that > I had a minimum or slightly subminimum limit raise. Which she did. I > don't to talk about the merits of my madness, nor those (if any) of > my subsequent 4S bid. What I want to ask the list is "does the fact > that I invoked my right to accept RHO's call convey UI to partner, > and if so, what UI, and what does it demonstrably suggest?" > > Note: systemically, the cue bid of opponents' suit shows a limit > raise or better. Hope I've covered all the bases. :-) I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you cannot have "agreements" covering the situation after an opponent has made an illegal call although you can of course have "partnership experience" related to such situations. Consequently your choice among legal alternatives mainly leaves it to your partner's general knowledge and intelligence to figure out what information you try to convey. And as you were the NOS none of your legally alternative actions in this situation will convey UI to your partner. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 19 10:36:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jan 19 10:41:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? In-Reply-To: <001401c61c9e$629b6740$199868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: > [Tim West-Meads] > > Absolute rubbish (and I mean that in a non- > > abusive way). If a spectator approaches the > > TD and says "I have concerns that a pair may > > be communicating illegally." He has *not*, > > as yet, 'drawn attention to an irregularity'. > > [Nige1] > If Tim and Kojak seriously contend that illegal > communication isn't an irregularity, then further > argument with them is pointless. I don't contend that illegal communication isn't an irregularity. I contend that the statement "I have concerns that a pair may be communicating illegally." contains insufficient information to draw attention to any specific irregularity. There's not enough for a TD to be under a L81c6 obligation, there's not enough for any adjustment in relation to any hand. Kojak contends that the "draw attention" in this law refers to "drawing the attention of the players at the time". I think he is probably correct - I have seen cases where a spectator at an event discussing hands with players in the bar later identifies draws attention to a revoke when the play is described. It's too late for any revoke penalty and the spectator (who wasn't even at that table) has, IMO, done nothing illegal. Direct accusations of cheating are a breach of etiquette, one must phrase any approach to the TD in indirect terms and air the detail of such concerns only in response to his questions. Todd, we all *want* cheats to be caught immediately but, in any but the most blatant cases, one needs time to gather evidence, analyse multiple hands, and prepare a case that will result in a clear conviction. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 19 10:42:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jan 19 10:47:40 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: <008c01c61c3e$dd80e580$159868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [A] The probability is that unauthorised > information from the alert/explanation made North > *initially* aware of South's bid. (Please assume > that the director makes this judgement on the > facts). Indeed so, but it doesn't matter. The opening 1H bid was a legal call and, therefore, 100% AI to North in any circumstances howsoever he became aware of it. If North becomes aware due to an illegal action by South we may penalise that action. If North becomes aware by a legal action of South which also contains UI we adjust (or not) based on the UI content but allowing knowledge of all legal calls. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 19 11:00:56 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jan 19 11:08:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? References: <001401c61c9e$629b6740$199868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002901c61cdf$3e93dbc0$029468d5@jeushtlj> [Time West-Meads] >>> If a spectator approaches the TD and says >>> "I have concerns that a pair may be >>> communicating illegally." He has *not*, as >>> yet, 'drawn attention to an irregularity'. [Nige1] >> If Tim and Kojak seriously contend that illegal >> communication isn't an irregularity, then >> further argument with them is pointless. From >> a contradiction, you prove anything :) [Ed Reppert] > Neither Tim nor Kojak made this assertion. > You're creating a straw man. [Nige1] If Ed regards them as straw-men (in the legal sense) my only comments are that I did not make them so; and I don't think I'm misrepresenting their views. For example, Ed deliberately snipped what Tim wrote (reinstated above); and Kojak wrote (inter ail) "To include suspicions about cheating in 'any irregularity or mistake' is like saying he can't tell the TD that North's fly is open". 76B says "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director." Kojak "knows what this means". Others can only interpret what it says which is (rough paraphrase) "you may not advise the director on law or tell the director what you saw at the table unless he asks you. Of course, I accept that a spectator can subsequently talk to a director about anything he likes as long as he does not draw attention to any irregularity that he witnessed. I'm not defending this law. On the contrary, I keep saying that it should scrapped. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 19 11:26:33 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jan 19 11:36:13 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> Message-ID: <00ce01c61ce2$e95cd680$c7a387d9@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: "Hans-Olof Hall?n" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:13 PM Subject: [blml] revoke penalty A one trick penalty does not cause a ruling from 64 C very often, not much more often than it does now. Other reasons for a one trick penalty are that the players believe if to be more fair (many players say that the penalty is too harsh and did not influence the play) and it seems to give non offenders a not too big advantage over the field in a pairs tournament. And my opinion is also that a sure trump trick should not be lost (eg highest trump or king, queen in the same hand). In different hands you can play like Chagas, who did not lose a trump trick with opponents having Q opposite K x x x. He made the long trump hand trump low three times! This happened in 1983 and I saw it with my own eyes. < +=+ Although I am aware of this thread started by Mr Wildavsky I have not wanted to be drawn into it because I experience robust criticism if I enter into such unofficial discussions on the Laws Drafting exercise that is part way through. However, I will read with interest any comment upon one suggestion coming from a well placed source - viz. that the penalty for a revoke should be one trick except when the revoke trick is taken with a trump (in which case two tricks) - with reserve powers as in 64C of course. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel at esatclear.ie Thu Jan 19 16:10:15 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu Jan 19 16:15:29 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? Message-ID: <43cfabd7.5fd0.0@esatclear.ie> >If North becomes aware due to an illegal action by South we may penalise >that action. If North becomes aware by a legal action of South which also >contains UI we adjust (or not) based on the UI content but allowing >knowledge of all legal calls. +++ North did become aware of the 1H bid by South alerting his 1NT as 6-9 which is incorrect. If I was Tding this I would rule as follows. (a) No alerts or questions and 4H's stands as N must have woken up, to now bid 4H's. (b) Alerts + questions now make it likely I would argue 100% definite that these actions woke up North. The alert of N's 1NT is incorrect (this is UI), the questions directed N's attention to the 1H opener which he now notices (this is UI. The 1H bid is AI but his attention being drawn to the 1H bid is UI). The 1H opener is off course AI to N ... but surely that is not the issue. The issue is N's mental state, tiredness, fatique, whatever it is that is causing him to miss a fairly glaring 1H bid under normal circumstances. I can't see any reason to give N the benefit of the doubt that he wouldnt have continued in his "dozy" state had the bidding proceeded quietly 2C's back to him. So I disallow the 4H bid. I might have allowed a 2H or 3H bid but not 4H's which is clearly making up lost ground. TBH not sure this is covered under the laws. The questions and alerts themselves are all AI for N. The EFFECT of those authorized alerts and questions giving unathorised information and how this should be dealt with would seem to be vague. Then again what do I know - which is why I lobbed it into this forum and it seems have found no concensus. Karel *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR15 per month! Enjoy always-on internet for less! Check it out at http://www.btireland.ie From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 19 17:04:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jan 19 17:10:09 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000201c61cd0$5fb6ab20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you cannot have > "agreements" covering the situation after an opponent has made an > illegal call I believe you are wrong. One may have whatever agreements one wishes with regards to natural bids. Conventional calls are subject to SO regulations. The EBU does not allow any conventions for sole use in such situations but does give blanket allowances (eg. any meaning for a cue-bid in a suit shown by opponents) which permit a different conventional meaning for 1S-(1H)-3H than for 1S-(1H corrected to 2H)-3H and different again for 1S-(1H substituted by pass)-3H. Such agreements may be specific or implicitly derived from bridge logic and other systemic arrangements. One useful (generic) agreement is that doubles of insufficient calls are negative while doubles of calls one has permitted to be made good are penalty (or vice versa, if you prefer). Having agreements (natural or conventional) to cover such situations seems fully in keeping with L72A4: 4. Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jan 19 17:23:04 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Jan 19 17:25:49 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> Message-ID: <43CFBCE8.8090104@hdw.be> Hans-Olof Hall?n wrote: > A one trick penalty does not cause a ruling from 64 C very often, not much more often than it does now. A one-trick penalty in a current one-trick situation does not cause 64C very often. And a two-trick penalty in a current two-trick situation does not cause 64C very often. But a one-trick penalty in a two-trick situation would cause lots of 64C's, or at least investigations. By a current two-trick situation, the offender has gained one trick, so if we take away two of them, then he is damaged. If we take only one, then any damage has already gone, and it remains to be seen if he hasn't gained more. > Other reasons for a one trick penalty are that the players believe if to be more fair (many players say that the penalty is too harsh and did not influence the play) and it seems to give non offenders a not too big advantage over the field in a pairs tournament. No, players believe that a one trick penalty is fair in a current one-trick situation. They believ a two-trick penalty is fair in a current two-trick situation. We cannot assume that they believe a one trick penalty is fair in a current two-trick situation. > And my opinion is also that a sure trump trick should not be lost (eg highest trump or king, queen in the same hand). In different hands you can play like Chagas, who did not lose a trump trick with opponents having Q opposite K x x x. He made the long trump hand trump low three times! This happened in 1983 and I saw it with my own eyes. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jan 19 17:28:40 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Jan 19 17:31:25 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <00ce01c61ce2$e95cd680$c7a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> <00ce01c61ce2$e95cd680$c7a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43CFBE38.6070008@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > 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: "Hans-Olof Hall?n" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:13 PM > Subject: [blml] revoke penalty > > > A one trick penalty does not cause a ruling from 64 C > very often, not much more often than it does now. > Other reasons for a one trick penalty are that the players > believe if to be more fair (many players say that the penalty > is too harsh and did not influence the play) and it seems to > give non offenders a not too big advantage over the field > in a pairs tournament. And my opinion is also that a sure > trump trick should not be lost (eg highest trump or king, > queen in the same hand). In different hands you can play > like Chagas, who did not lose a trump trick with opponents > having Q opposite K x x x. He made the long trump hand > trump low three times! This happened in 1983 and I saw > it with my own eyes. > < > +=+ Although I am aware of this thread started by > Mr Wildavsky I have not wanted to be drawn into > it because I experience robust criticism if I enter > into such unofficial discussions on the Laws Drafting > exercise that is part way through. However, I will > read with interest any comment upon one suggestion > coming from a well placed source - viz. that the penalty > for a revoke should be one trick except when the > revoke trick is taken with a trump (in which case > two tricks) - with reserve powers as in 64C of course. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ any fairly competent director knows that the current rule equates to "if you ruff when you could follow (and you don't get overruffed) it's two tricks". the actual wording is a bit more complicated than that, and deals with a very obscure case that may well get thrown away, so to change this part of the law in the sense stated above, has my blessing (fwiw). I would also keep the second possibility, but I can see that the law is more difficult in these circumstances and L64C is very clearly well able to deal with these cases. So yes, such a change might be for the good. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 19 18:31:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jan 19 18:36:31 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: <43cfabd7.5fd0.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > > +++ North did become aware of the 1H bid by South alerting his 1NT as > 6-9 which is incorrect. If I was Tding this I would rule as follows. Perhaps I have misunderstood but you seem to be suggesting that South deliberately alerted a non-alertable bid because he knew/suspected that North hadn't noticed the 1H. If so I'll happily penalise South a full top, but it doesn't change the fact that 1H is AI and North (in full legal knowledge that he has severely underbid) has no LA to 4H. It is completely irrelevant what North might have done if unaware of the 1H, or with what probability (certainty) he might have remained in ignorance. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jan 19 19:51:26 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Jan 19 19:56:43 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing agreements of what to do over illegal calls or plays. Please see the first two sentences of Law 16. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Sven wrote: > > > I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you cannot have > > "agreements" covering the situation after an opponent has made an > > illegal call > > I believe you are wrong. One may have whatever agreements one wishes with > regards to natural bids. Conventional calls are subject to SO > regulations. The EBU does not allow any conventions for sole use in such > situations but does give blanket allowances (eg. any meaning for a cue-bid > in a suit shown by opponents) which permit a different conventional > meaning for 1S-(1H)-3H than for 1S-(1H corrected to 2H)-3H and different > again for 1S-(1H substituted by pass)-3H. > Such agreements may be specific or implicitly derived from bridge logic > and other systemic arrangements. One useful (generic) agreement is that > doubles of insufficient calls are negative while doubles of calls one has > permitted to be made good are penalty (or vice versa, if you prefer). > > Having agreements (natural or conventional) to cover such situations seems > fully in keeping with L72A4: > 4. Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options > When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an > irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that > action most advantageous. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 19 21:19:16 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jan 19 21:24:29 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing > agreements of what to do over illegal calls or plays. > Please see the first two sentences of Law 16. > > Kojak Very good point! Thanks, Sven > > Sven wrote: > > > > > I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you > > > cannot have "agreements" covering the situation after > > > an opponent has made an illegal call From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Jan 19 21:39:29 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Jan 19 21:44:11 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c61d38$71fb5a70$0307a8c0@david> >> On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER >> There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing >> agreements of what to do over illegal calls or plays. >> Please see the first two sentences of Law 16. >> >> Kojak > > Very good point! > Thanks, Sven The preamble to L16 states that to base a call on information arising from other than legal calls MAY be an offence - Not is an offence. L16C goes on to say that information from OPPONENTS' withdrawn calls is authorised. How do we get to not allowing agreements over opponents' illegal calls? This is not a logical conclusion. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** >> > Sven wrote: >> > >> > > I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you >> > > cannot have "agreements" covering the situation after >> > > an opponent has made an illegal call > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: > 18/01/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 19 21:41:53 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Jan 19 21:47:09 2006 Subject: [blml] revke penalty References: <43CD2A30.4090100@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c61d38$f1c5bd40$5fdc403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] revke penalty > > Or make the penalty two tricks, as it was > prior to 1987(?). Still easy and with an > adequate level of deterrence. > +=+ 1963: Two tricks transferred if there are two available won after the revoke. One if there is only one such available. The revoke trick occurs 'after the revoke'. 1975: One trick if the side that revoked won a trick subsequent to the trick on which the revoke occurred, plus the revoke trick itself if that was won by the offending side. Not quite the same thing, of course, as in 1963, although at first hearing it sounds the same. In both codes provision exists for circumstances in which there is no penalty. And of course reserve powers when the non -offending side is insufficiently compensated. ~ G ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jan 19 21:55:10 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Jan 19 22:00:27 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000301c61d38$71fb5a70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: Try reading it again. The first sentence of the Law authorizes the basis for calls and plays. Notice it says nothing about whose calls or plays but identifies them as Legal calls and or plays. Period. The second sentence is to cover such things of OTHER extraneous information as follows in A, which does not include illegal calls or plays in any manner or form. Nice segue to try to back up the second sentence to modify the first one. To call illegal calls and or plays extraneous information is a logical adventure, but it won't wash when these are defined in A. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > > >> On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > >> There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing > >> agreements of what to do over illegal calls or plays. > >> Please see the first two sentences of Law 16. > >> > >> Kojak > > > > Very good point! > > Thanks, Sven > > The preamble to L16 states that to base a call on information > arising from other than legal calls MAY be an offence - Not > is an offence. > > L16C goes on to say that information from OPPONENTS' > withdrawn calls is authorised. > > How do we get to not allowing agreements over opponents' > illegal calls? > This is not a logical conclusion. > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton@lineone.net > ***************************************** > > > > > > > > > > >> > Sven wrote: > >> > > >> > > I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you > >> > > cannot have "agreements" covering the situation after > >> > > an opponent has made an illegal call > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: > > 18/01/2006 > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: > 18/01/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Thu Jan 19 19:53:05 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu Jan 19 22:26:22 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <00ce01c61ce2$e95cd680$c7a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> <00ce01c61ce2$e95cd680$c7a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In message <00ce01c61ce2$e95cd680$c7a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0>, Grattan Endicott writes > >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: "Hans-Olof Hall?n" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:13 PM >Subject: [blml] revoke penalty > > >A one trick penalty does not cause a ruling from 64 C > very often, not much more often than it does now. >Other reasons for a one trick penalty are that the players >believe if to be more fair (many players say that the penalty >is too harsh and did not influence the play) and it seems to >give non offenders a not too big advantage over the field >in a pairs tournament. And my opinion is also that a sure >trump trick should not be lost (eg highest trump or king, >queen in the same hand). In different hands you can play >like Chagas, who did not lose a trump trick with opponents >having Q opposite K x x x. He made the long trump hand >trump low three times! This happened in 1983 and I saw >it with my own eyes. >< >+=+ Although I am aware of this thread started by >Mr Wildavsky I have not wanted to be drawn into >it because I experience robust criticism if I enter >into such unofficial discussions on the Laws Drafting >exercise that is part way through. However, I will >read with interest any comment upon one suggestion >coming from a well placed source - viz. that the penalty >for a revoke should be one trick except when the >revoke trick is taken with a trump (in which case >two tricks) - with reserve powers as in 64C of course. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I direct mostly at Club level, with about half a dozen County events each year. Revokes are one of the most common rulings Club TDs have to deal with. Considering the level of expertise for most Club TDs, this needs to remain as simple as possible. L64C should be a once a year event not a weekly event. As a Club TD, I don't go looking for L64C rulings. If the players don't think two tricks is sufficient then *they* always tell me. Many low-level club players still believe a revoke is an automatic two-trick penalty. I don't have a problem explaining that, "If you win a trick with the card you actually played to the revoke or should have played to the revoke then you lose it. If you win second trick you also lose that. Any tricks you won before the revoke are yours to keep." I think that the current rules are fine. You could probably reword it so it made more sense the average player (or even the average Club TD :-) ) A one trick penalty wouldn't cause that many more L64C rulings, but it would slow the game down as there would be a L64C investigation by the NOS before accepting the ruling. In a Club, that table has already lost time with waiting for the playing TD to arrive and then more time whilst it is ruled on. Time, on a Club night, is usually very precious, especially if you have to vacate the building by a certain time, or get to the pub before last orders. I would have no problem the revoke rules reverting back to a two trick penalty, provided the tricks before the revoke are protected. That would help in a club environment where this ruling could be applied by the players without the need of the TD (like major penalty cards are). As for the argument about "winning 13 tricks missing the trump ace" I can easily live with that as a quirk of the Laws. It makes for a good story in the pub afterwards. (Incidentally, in a League match one of our players as a defender failed to make the Ace and King of trumps. He revoked by ruffing with the King and only other subsequent trick he made was the Ace. The player has no complaints about the Law, just another story to add to his repertoire). -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Jan 19 22:23:53 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Jan 19 22:28:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000301c61d38$71fb5a70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000901c61d3e$a5fcbde0$0307a8c0@david> I am not identifying the illegal calls as other extraneous information. I am identifying it as authorised information in accordance with L16C1. If I am understanding you (and I presume I am not), it seems to follow that illegal withdrawn calls are authorised information, but you cannot base your bid on this information. I am confused. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Try reading it again. The first sentence of the Law authorizes the basis > for calls and plays. Notice it says nothing about whose calls or plays but > identifies them as Legal calls and or plays. Period. The second sentence > is to cover such things of OTHER extraneous information as follows in A, > which does not include illegal calls or plays in any manner or form. Nice > segue to try to back up the second sentence to modify the first one. To > call illegal calls and or plays extraneous information is a logical > adventure, but it won't wash when these are defined in A. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Barton" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:39 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER >> >> There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing >> >> agreements of what to do over illegal calls or plays. >> >> Please see the first two sentences of Law 16. >> >> >> >> Kojak >> > >> > Very good point! >> > Thanks, Sven >> >> The preamble to L16 states that to base a call on information >> arising from other than legal calls MAY be an offence - Not >> is an offence. >> >> L16C goes on to say that information from OPPONENTS' >> withdrawn calls is authorised. >> >> How do we get to not allowing agreements over opponents' >> illegal calls? >> This is not a logical conclusion. >> >> ***************************************** >> david.j.barton@lineone.net >> ***************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sven wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you >> >> > > cannot have "agreements" covering the situation after >> >> > > an opponent has made an illegal call >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > blml mailing list >> > blml@amsterdamned.org >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: >> > 18/01/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: >> 18/01/2006 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: > 18/01/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jan 19 22:28:02 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Jan 19 22:33:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000301c61d38$71fb5a70$0307a8c0@david> <000901c61d3e$a5fcbde0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: Yes you are confused. Law 16C tells us about who may use the information conveyed by withdrawn actions. It does not authorize us to base our calls and or plays on that information. The first sentence of Law 16 stands alone in doing that. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > I am not identifying the illegal calls as other extraneous information. > I am identifying it as authorised information in accordance with L16C1. > > If I am understanding you (and I presume I am not), it seems to follow > that > illegal withdrawn calls are authorised information, but you cannot base > your > bid on this > information. > > I am confused. > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton@lineone.net > ***************************************** > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Try reading it again. The first sentence of the Law authorizes the > > basis > > for calls and plays. Notice it says nothing about whose calls or plays > > but > > identifies them as Legal calls and or plays. Period. The second > > sentence > > is to cover such things of OTHER extraneous information as follows in A, > > which does not include illegal calls or plays in any manner or form. > > Nice > > segue to try to back up the second sentence to modify the first one. To > > call illegal calls and or plays extraneous information is a logical > > adventure, but it won't wash when these are defined in A. > > > > Kojak > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Barton" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:39 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > >> >> There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing > >> >> agreements of what to do over illegal calls or plays. > >> >> Please see the first two sentences of Law 16. > >> >> > >> >> Kojak > >> > > >> > Very good point! > >> > Thanks, Sven > >> > >> The preamble to L16 states that to base a call on information > >> arising from other than legal calls MAY be an offence - Not > >> is an offence. > >> > >> L16C goes on to say that information from OPPONENTS' > >> withdrawn calls is authorised. > >> > >> How do we get to not allowing agreements over opponents' > >> illegal calls? > >> This is not a logical conclusion. > >> > >> ***************************************** > >> david.j.barton@lineone.net > >> ***************************************** > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > Sven wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you > >> >> > > cannot have "agreements" covering the situation after > >> >> > > an opponent has made an illegal call > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > blml mailing list > >> > blml@amsterdamned.org > >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > No virus found in this incoming message. > >> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: > >> > 18/01/2006 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this outgoing message. > >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: > >> 18/01/2006 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blml mailing list > >> blml@amsterdamned.org > >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: > > 18/01/2006 > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: > 18/01/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 19 22:33:51 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jan 19 22:36:16 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <43CFBCE8.8090104@hdw.be> References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> <43CFBCE8.8090104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060119162528.02d2d0d0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:23 AM 1/19/06, Herman wrote: >No, players believe that a one trick penalty is fair in a current >one-trick situation. Indeed they do. >They believ a two-trick penalty is fair in a current two-trick situation. Yes, that too. >We cannot assume that they believe a one trick penalty is fair in a >current two-trick situation. In general, IME, they do not. But, IME, they do largely believe that a two-trick penalty is fair in a current one-trick situation. I'm quite convinced that if you polled the question, "If the revoke laws were changed to eliminate the distinction between one-trick-penalty revokes and two-trick-penalty revokes, should the new law specify a one- or two-trick penalty?" the polity would vote overwhelmingly for the two-trick penalty. Now they might be oppositely inclined if the standard penalty prior to the introduction of the distinction had been one trick rather than two, but it wasn't, and they aren't. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From toddz at att.net Thu Jan 19 22:42:20 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Jan 19 22:47:39 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000301c61d38$71fb5a70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <43D007BC.3020308@att.net> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Try reading it again. The first sentence of the Law authorizes the basis > for calls and plays. Notice it says nothing about whose calls or plays but > identifies them as Legal calls and or plays. Period. The second sentence > is to cover such things of OTHER extraneous information as follows in A, > which does not include illegal calls or plays in any manner or form. Nice > segue to try to back up the second sentence to modify the first one. To > call illegal calls and or plays extraneous information is a logical > adventure, but it won't wash when these are defined in A. The laws would fail in too many ways if L16A were exhaustive. The auction 1S - 1H insufficient and corrected to something else is authorized for 1S partnership, unauthorized for 1H partnership (L16C). Accepted insufficient bids are legal calls (L27A) and authorized for everyone (L16). Some illegal auctions include: a) bid of 8-of-a-suit. b) bid after 3 passes. c) double of partner's bid. L26 handles just the lead restrictions for these auctions. Do you say UI does not exist in these auctions? This issue is getting clouded by the abstract nature of the discussion, at least for me. Could we get some specific examples where the determination of AI/UI is unclear? -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 19 23:00:12 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jan 19 23:02:34 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060119164922.02d2cd20@pop.starpower.net> At 01:51 PM 1/19/06, WILLIAM wrote: >There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing >agreements of >what to do over illegal calls or plays. Please see the first two >sentences >of Law 16. L16 is hardly definitive on the subject, unless we read "may be" as synonymous with "is". But we don't. If an opponent revokes but corrects it immediately, and we subsequently choose to play the revoke suit, with no other guidance, on the assumption that the revoker is more likely to be short in the suit than his partner, Kojak's reading would suggest that we are acting illegally. Does anyone want to defend that conclusion? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mikedodson at yahoo.com Thu Jan 19 23:49:38 2006 From: mikedodson at yahoo.com (mike dodson) Date: Thu Jan 19 23:54:56 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario Message-ID: <20060119224938.83073.qmail@web31703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: ; "David Barton" Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario | Try reading it again. The first sentence of the Law authorizes the basis | for calls and plays. Notice it says nothing about whose calls or plays but | identifies them as Legal calls and or plays. Period. The second sentence | is to cover such things of OTHER extraneous information as follows in A, | which does not include illegal calls or plays in any manner or form. Nice | segue to try to back up the second sentence to modify the first one. To | call illegal calls and or plays extraneous information is a logical | adventure, but it won't wash when these are defined in A. | | Kojak The first sentence merely allows, it doesn't disallow anything except in the sense that anything not permitted is prohibited. In fact, anything not permitted falls in the extraneous class, to be allowed if specified later. L16c does so specify. Could it be you find four classes of information: 1)legal calls and plays, 2)opponent mannerisms, 3)illegal calls and plays, and 4)finally extraneous information. I see no basis in the text for not treating 3 as a subset of 4. Does L16c say that a withdrawn call is AI but L16 says you may not base a call or play on it if it was illegal? If there really is a legal limbo between UI and AI then where is the procedure for dealing with it as either a player or director? The SO's ability to regulate conventions allows them to prohibit agreements over irregularities but I don't see that L16 requires it. As a separete issue, I don't see the reason for such a prohibition. Mike Dodson | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "David Barton" | To: | Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:39 PM | Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario | | | > | > | > | > | > >> On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER | > >> There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing | > >> agreements of what to do over illegal calls or plays. | > >> Please see the first two sentences of Law 16. | > >> | > >> Kojak | > > | > > Very good point! | > > Thanks, Sven | > | > The preamble to L16 states that to base a call on information | > arising from other than legal calls MAY be an offence - Not | > is an offence. | > | > L16C goes on to say that information from OPPONENTS' | > withdrawn calls is authorised. | > | > How do we get to not allowing agreements over opponents' | > illegal calls? | > This is not a logical conclusion. | > | > ***************************************** | > david.j.barton@lineone.net | > ***************************************** | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > >> > Sven wrote: | > >> > | > >> > > I believe there is a fundamental consensus that you | > >> > > cannot have "agreements" covering the situation after | > >> > > an opponent has made an illegal call | > > | > > | > > | > > _______________________________________________ | > > blml mailing list | > > blml@amsterdamned.org | > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml | > > | > > | > > -- | > > No virus found in this incoming message. | > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. | > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: | > > 18/01/2006 | > > | > > | > | > | > | > -- | > No virus found in this outgoing message. | > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. | > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: | > 18/01/2006 | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > 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 | __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Jan 20 00:49:25 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Jan 20 00:54:11 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000301c61d38$71fb5a70$0307a8c0@david><000901c61d3e$a5fcbde0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000501c61d52$fa78c3a0$0307a8c0@david> I wonder if our differences are a consequence of our understanding of the terms "are authorised to base their calls and plays" and "all information ..... is authorised". To me the terms are effectively the same as there is no point in having the information authorised if I cannot then base any decisions I make on that information. Perhaps you could comment on the following scenarios. (1) The bidding goes 4H* 1S P 3H and continues to 6S * The 4H was out of turn and not accepted. 3H was bid as a splinter agreeing spades. There was no prior discussion and 3H would normally have been a natural game force. (2)Two boards later the bidding again goes as above but now the previous board has created an (explicit) understanding. (3)The bidding goes 1H* 1S P 4S all pass * The 1H was out of turn and not accepted. Declarer bases his play upon the 1H bidder having an opening bid with hearts. Thank you ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** > To: ; "David Barton" Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Yes you are confused. Law 16C tells us about who may use the information > conveyed by withdrawn actions. It does not authorize us to base our calls > and or plays on that information. The first sentence of Law 16 stands > alone in doing that. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Barton" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:23 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > >> I am not identifying the illegal calls as other extraneous information. >> I am identifying it as authorised information in accordance with L16C1. >> >> If I am understanding you (and I presume I am not), it seems to follow >> that >> illegal withdrawn calls are authorised information, but you cannot base >> your >> bid on this >> information. >> >> I am confused. >> >> ***************************************** >> david.j.barton@lineone.net >> ***************************************** >> >> -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 20 00:51:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 20 00:57:00 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing agreements > of what to do over illegal calls or plays. Please see the first two > sentences of Law 16. See also: L27A. Insufficient Bid Accepted Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. If, as offender's LHO, I accept the bid (treat it as legal) I'm allowed to base my calls/plays on it. If, as LHO, I do not accept the bid it is withdrawn and corrected by a sufficient bid or a pass. L16c1 applies (as David Barton pointed out) and again the information is authorised and again I may base my calls/plays upon it. [at a more basic level I think "mannerisms of opponents" covers anything opps do/say] I concur with Kojak that one may not have agreements relating to illegal calls/plays made by one's own side. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 20 00:51:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 20 00:57:01 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <43CFBCE8.8090104@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > But a one-trick penalty in a two-trick situation would cause lots of > 64C's, or at least investigations. Every single revoke (at least if I am the TD at the table) causes a "L64c investigation". It may (and usually does) take only a few seconds but since the TD (and only the TD) is responsible for equity restoration it's *always* part of his job to check. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 20 00:54:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 20 00:59:44 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Yes you are confused. Law 16C tells us about who may use the > information conveyed by withdrawn actions. It does not authorize us to > base our calls and or plays on that information. How exactly does one use the information without basing a call/play upon it? Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 20 02:13:41 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Jan 20 02:18:37 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000301c61d38$71fb5a70$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000201c61d5e$e845aed0$8de0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > The preamble to L16 states that to base a call on > information arising from other than legal calls MAY > be an offence - Not is an offence. > > L16C goes on to say that information from > OPPONENTS' withdrawn calls is authorised. > > How do we get to not allowing agreements over > opponents' illegal calls? This is not a logical conclusion. > +=+ I was happily binning, topic by topic, whole acres of my blml folder when this one caught my eye and pulled me up short. Superficially it seemed that Kojak was simply giving standard advice on the use of information, authorized or unauthorized. But then a response from someone led me to think that maybe, somewhere up front, a contributor had raised the question of having two potential meanings for a given call at the same point in the auction and basing their choice among those meanings on the existence or otherwise of an irregularity in the auction. It appeared Kojak was explaining that calls and plays may only be based upon information from legal calls, legal plays,or the mannerisms of opponents. So it seemed that perhaps someone was suggesting that they would change their agreement when an irregularity occurred. Now disclosure of a partnership's methods is a matter of regulation, partly under Law 40B but also under Law 40E. The 40E regulations sometimes allow of a change of agreement but I do not recall having seen any that permit it in the middle of an auction or that allow of the existence of two different potential meanings and a choice among them at that point on the basis of an occurrence that is extraneous to the legal auction. Information from that occurrence may be authorized to the non-offending side and it may use the information, but there is nothing in Law 16 to authorize it as the basis for a change of agreement in the legal auction, and nothing I can recall having seen in any regulations to allow of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 20 02:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 20 02:32:40 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Yes you are confused. Law 16C tells us about who may use the > information conveyed by withdrawn actions. It does not authorize us to > base our calls and or plays on that information. The first sentence of > Law 16 stands alone in doing that. Not entirely alone - one may also base calls/plays on: One's own (properly disclosed) partnership agreements The system opps are know to be playing (even if they have yet to bid) One's estimation of opponents' abilities One's knowledge of fundamental percentages The contents of one's hand The state of the match and probably a fair few other things besides. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 20 02:49:18 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Jan 20 02:53:18 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin><00ce01c61ce2$e95cd680$c7a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000601c61d63$bd7a8950$cc02e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke penalty -----------\x/------------- I would have no problem the revoke rules reverting back to a two trick penalty, provided the tricks before the revoke are protected. That would help in a club environment where this ruling could be applied by the players without the need of the TD (like major penalty cards are). < +=+ I offer no advocacy of any particular solution. I think the present law is complex, not to mention poorly phrased. If I were obliged to choose I might well revert to the law as it was in the 1975 code: " After play ceases one trick is transferred to the non-offending side if the side that revoked won a trick subsequent to the trick on which the revoke occurred; in addition the trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non- offending side if it was won by the side that revoked." (With the traditional exceptions and protection against insufficient compensation.) Geoffrey Butler's use of language is plainer than Kaplan's - and I judge his penalty to be so also. But, of course, Geoffrey was English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Fri Jan 20 03:09:46 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Jan 20 03:15:02 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000301c61d35$9f5e56f0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000301c61d38$71fb5a70$0307a8c0@david> <000201c61d5e$e845aed0$8de0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Thank you Grattan for explaining what I was trying to say but never quite got across. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "I am the world's worst salesman; > therefore, I must make it easy for > people to buy." > [ ~ Frank Winfield Woolworth.] > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Barton" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > The preamble to L16 states that to base a call on > > information arising from other than legal calls MAY > > be an offence - Not is an offence. > > > > L16C goes on to say that information from > > OPPONENTS' withdrawn calls is authorised. > > > > How do we get to not allowing agreements over > > opponents' illegal calls? This is not a logical conclusion. > > > +=+ I was happily binning, topic by topic, whole acres > of my blml folder when this one caught my eye and > pulled me up short. Superficially it seemed that Kojak > was simply giving standard advice on the use of > information, authorized or unauthorized. But then a > response from someone led me to think that maybe, > somewhere up front, a contributor had raised the > question of having two potential meanings for a given > call at the same point in the auction and basing their > choice among those meanings on the existence or > otherwise of an irregularity in the auction. It appeared > Kojak was explaining that calls and plays may only be > based upon information from legal calls, legal plays,or > the mannerisms of opponents. > So it seemed that perhaps someone was > suggesting that they would change their agreement > when an irregularity occurred. Now disclosure of a > partnership's methods is a matter of regulation, partly > under Law 40B but also under Law 40E. The 40E > regulations sometimes allow of a change of agreement > but I do not recall having seen any that permit it in the > middle of an auction or that allow of the existence of > two different potential meanings and a choice among > them at that point on the basis of an occurrence that is > extraneous to the legal auction. Information from that > occurrence may be authorized to the non-offending > side and it may use the information, but there is > nothing in Law 16 to authorize it as the basis for a > change of agreement in the legal auction, and nothing > I can recall having seen in any regulations to allow of > it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at irvine.com Fri Jan 20 03:18:20 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jan 20 03:23:33 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:13:41 GMT." <000201c61d5e$e845aed0$8de0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200601200218.SAA26442@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > So it seemed that perhaps someone was > suggesting that they would change their agreement > when an irregularity occurred. Now disclosure of a > partnership's methods is a matter of regulation, partly > under Law 40B but also under Law 40E. The 40E > regulations sometimes allow of a change of agreement > but I do not recall having seen any that permit it in the > middle of an auction or that allow of the existence of > two different potential meanings and a choice among > them at that point on the basis of an occurrence that is > extraneous to the legal auction. Information from that > occurrence may be authorized to the non-offending > side and it may use the information, but there is > nothing in Law 16 to authorize it as the basis for a > change of agreement in the legal auction, and nothing > I can recall having seen in any regulations to allow of > it. The problem is that if you can ban agreements based on "extraneous" information such as an irregularity on the grounds that changing the meaning of one's bid would result in a "change of agreement" that could then be banned by the SO, then you can ban agreements based on vulnerability by the exact same logic. In other words, an SO can make a regulation saying that you cannot have two different meanings for the same call depending on the vulnerability, even if both meanings are non-conventional. Do SO's actually have this right? -- Adam From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Jan 20 03:36:40 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Jan 20 03:41:59 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <200601192214.k0JME9w5029588@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200601192214.k0JME9w5029588@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43D04CB8.3050606@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > Law 16C tells us about who may use the information > conveyed by withdrawn actions. It does not authorize us to base our calls > and or plays on that information. A couple of questions, if you please: 1) If we may use the information, what may we use it for if not to choose calls or plays? 2) Suppose my partner and I have discussed what various actions might mean over an opponent's insufficient bid. What are our responsibilities now? From adam at tameware.com Fri Jan 20 04:33:15 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Jan 20 04:38:40 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <000601c61d63$bd7a8950$cc02e150@Mildred> References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin><00ce01c61ce2$e95cd680$c7a387d9@your tkrv58tbs0> <000601c61d63$bd7a8950$cc02e150@Mildred> Message-ID: At 1:49 AM +0000 1/20/06, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I offer no advocacy of any particular solution. I think the >present law is complex, not to mention poorly phrased. If I were >obliged to choose I might well revert to the law as it was in the >1975 code: > "After play ceases one trick is transferred to the >non-offending side if the side that revoked won a trick subsequent >to the trick on which the revoke occurred; in addition the trick on >which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non-offending side >if it was won by the side that revoked." (With the traditional >exceptions and protection against insufficient compensation.) > Geoffrey Butler's use of language is plainer than Kaplan's - >and I judge his penalty to be so also. But, of course, Geoffrey was >English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ At the ACBL LC meeting in Denver I suggested that the 1975 version was superior to the current version on account of its clarity and simplicity. Alas I could not convince the rest of the LC to suggest the change to drafting committee. I didn't know that the penalty had been a straight two tricks in the 1963 code -- that would be fine with me too. Make a note -- Grattan and I agree on something. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 20 04:45:04 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jan 20 04:50:57 2006 Subject: Fwd: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <9BB354DA-079A-44ED-83AA-7CA28D751884@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Bah. Missent this to Kojak alone. Sorry Kojak. :-) Begin forwarded message: > From: Ed Reppert > Date: January 19, 2006 10:44:17 PM EST > To: WILLIAM SCHODER > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 4:28 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > >> Yes you are confused. Law 16C tells us about who may use the >> information >> conveyed by withdrawn actions. It does not authorize us to base >> our calls >> and or plays on that information. The first sentence of Law 16 >> stands alone >> in doing that. > > If I understand this line of thought (and like David I may not) > then it would seem that an SO regulation that a pair may not have > agreements as to the meaning of calls over an opponent's illegal > call is itself illegal. Or is it? If not, why not? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 20 04:49:46 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jan 20 04:55:39 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72564E20-0BDB-417E-A59C-53BD0FB8D1BA@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 19, 2006, at 6:51 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > I concur with Kojak that one may not have agreements relating to > illegal > calls/plays made by one's own side. So I reiterate (rephrasing a bit) my question in reply to Kojak: What law makes it illegal? (If it is, or can be, illegal by SO regulation, then under what law is such regulation legally made?) From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 20 05:01:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 20 05:06:24 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000201c61d5e$e845aed0$8de0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > So it seemed that perhaps someone was > suggesting that they would change their agreement > when an irregularity occurred. I don't think one can change one's an agreement "when an irregularity occurs" - that would require communication. One might, if properly prepared, have an agreement as to what 2S-(2H)-2S shows compared with 2S- (2H)-3S and 2S-(2H corrected)-3S. One might have an agreement such as "Negative Xs up to 2S" such that one can take the opportunity, when presented, of making a negative X of an insufficient 2H. > Now disclosure of a partnership's methods is a matter of regulation, > partly under Law 40B but also under Law 40E. Such agreements would, IMO, be alertable (under EBU or WBF regs due to being unexpected) but opponents (who committed the irregularity) *cannot* have be damaged by a lack of prior disclosure since they are forbidden from having agreements relating to their own commission of an irregularity. > The 40E > regulations sometimes allow of a change of agreement > but I do not recall having seen any that permit it in the > middle of an auction or that allow of the existence of > two different potential meanings and a choice among > them at that point on the basis of an occurrence that is > extraneous to the legal auction. When a player exercises his option for an auction to be "treated as legal" the information is no longer "extraneous" to the legal auction. When a player declines the opportunity to make a legal call (such as 2S over an insufficient 2H) his partner is fully aware that a hand suitable for such a call (whatever it may be agreed to mean) is excluded from the possible hands he can hold. > Information from that > occurrence may be authorized to the non-offending > side and it may use the information, but there is > nothing in Law 16 to authorize it as the basis for a > change of agreement in the legal auction, One's agreement may be no more than a basic adherence to the "principle of fast arrival". 2S-(2H)-3S is "faster" than 2S-(2H)(correction)-3S. One need not have discussed the detail to know that the second sequence shows a slightly stronger hand (albeit not as strong as 2S-(2H)-3H). Agreements may be based on prior experience, generally agreed principles, BLML arguments or detailed partnership discussion (some of which are unavoidable). Playing with Probst I'd expect him to know (purely from our generically agreed principles) what nuances most of these sequences show. > and nothing I can recall having seen in any regulations to allow of > it. Nothing is needed in the regulations if the bids are not conventional - they will automatically be outwith SO regulation. Where one has conventional agreements they are subject to SO regulation, but many regulations take the form of "any meaning may be played for X" with no requirement that opponent's last bid be sufficient. Tim From adam at tameware.com Fri Jan 20 05:25:11 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Jan 20 05:30:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? Message-ID: I wrote: >I'd like to know which Laws you think are most in need of >improvement, along with specific proposals for improvement. First, I ought to have mentioned that as far as I know everyone involved realizes that Law 25 is flawed and is committed to improving it. I wouldn't worry too much about that one. Second, I will favor suggestions that do not require a change in the philosophy of the laws. This is a practical matter. My powers are limited. I have a reasonable chance of getting suggestions through that are strict improvements. I see no consensus for a change in philosophy. Third, here's an example of the kind of proposal I'm hoping for. It's not an ideal example, though, because it doesn't cite a case where the change in wording would result in a change of ruling. =================== The first sentence of Law 12C2 is ambiguous. It reads: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." Much time has been spent, by the WBF LC and others, arguing whether the phrase "had the irregularity not occurred" is implicit in the second clause. The following change removes the ambiguity and in practice should do no harm to the incentives provided by the Law: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred." -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jan 20 09:12:54 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jan 20 09:15:32 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43D09B86.3000108@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Karel wrote: > > >>>+++ North did become aware of the 1H bid by South alerting his 1NT as >> >>6-9 which is incorrect. If I was Tding this I would rule as follows. > > > Perhaps I have misunderstood but you seem to be suggesting that South > deliberately alerted a non-alertable bid because he knew/suspected that > North hadn't noticed the 1H. If so I'll happily penalise South a full > top, but it doesn't change the fact that 1H is AI and North (in full legal > knowledge that he has severely underbid) has no LA to 4H. It is > completely irrelevant what North might have done if unaware of the 1H, or > with what probability (certainty) he might have remained in ignorance. > I'm surprised that no-one has yet commented on the UI from North to South. As I recall, North said something like "Oops, I didn't see that 1H". Or even if this wasn't mentioned in the write-up, I would be surprised if he didn't. That is UI to South, who should now consider what the meaning of the bidding 1H p 1NT p / p 2C 4H p / can mean. I don't believe he can draw any worse conclusions than the one he has from the UI (15-17) so his pass is probably OK (in fact the non-suggested alternative) but it still needs to be investigated. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jan 20 09:20:14 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jan 20 09:23:02 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060119162528.02d2d0d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> <43CFBCE8.8090104@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060119162528.02d2d0d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <43D09D3E.4040907@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:23 AM 1/19/06, Herman wrote: > >> No, players believe that a one trick penalty is fair in a current >> one-trick situation. > > > Indeed they do. > >> They believ a two-trick penalty is fair in a current two-trick situation. > > > Yes, that too. > >> We cannot assume that they believe a one trick penalty is fair in a >> current two-trick situation. > > > In general, IME, they do not. > > But, IME, they do largely believe that a two-trick penalty is fair in a > current one-trick situation. > > I'm quite convinced that if you polled the question, "If the revoke laws > were changed to eliminate the distinction between one-trick-penalty > revokes and two-trick-penalty revokes, should the new law specify a one- > or two-trick penalty?" the polity would vote overwhelmingly for the > two-trick penalty. > I'm not certain about that. Many revokers are very miffed when they have revoked and it "absolutely made no difference" and they still lose one trick. Penalize them two tricks and this miff becomes a howl for "stupid WBF". You know the case: declarer runs clubs from the table and throws a diamond on the first one but a club on the second. No blockages or anything, and no gain whatsoever - but still a lost trick. Make that two tricks and this is no longer fair. > Now they might be oppositely inclined if the standard penalty prior to > the introduction of the distinction had been one trick rather than two, > but it wasn't, and they aren't. > But the standard penalty nowadays IS one trick. Not one or two. It is one trick if you haven't gained anything and two tricks if you have gained something. So the net result is very often one trick less than after normal play. Change that and the balance of fairness is shifted away from a standard which worked fine. No, there are no better (fairer) claim laws than the ones we currently have. There might be simpler ones, but that comes at a price. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Fri Jan 20 08:47:31 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri Jan 20 09:26:22 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty Message-ID: <006601c61d95$c6147580$69a2ec51@admin> Opposite to Eric I believe that the vote would go in favor of one trick penalty, at least in my country. Most players think two tricks is too harsh, especially as "it did not influence the play". From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jan 20 09:27:16 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jan 20 09:29:57 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43D09EE4.1060509@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>But a one-trick penalty in a two-trick situation would cause lots of >>64C's, or at least investigations. > > > Every single revoke (at least if I am the TD at the table) causes a "L64c > investigation". It may (and usually does) take only a few seconds but > since the TD (and only the TD) is responsible for equity restoration it's > *always* part of his job to check. > Yes Tim, he should. And I always do. But only by telling the players "if you think you could make even more tricks if he hadn't revoked, call me back". Under current laws, you have always given non-offenders a trick more than they would have if the revoke hadn't occured, barring special circumstances. So it needs very special circumstances for L64C to make its entrance. Under the proposed new law, in some circumstances the penalty merely restores to the "normal" result. So merely special (as opposed to very special) circumstances are needed for the L64C investigation to start in earnest. A player ruffs a club, and later happens to have one more club. You give one trick back. You are now only on equal ground. The opponents tell you "if I had known my partner had one less club, he should have one more spade and I would not have played the way I did". Back to you. No certainly no change in this case please! This was two tricks from way back and it should not change. My views are not as strong when it concerns the "won a trick with a card that he could have played on the revoke trick". That quite often does not gain a trick, and if it does, L64C is there to remedy. Still I would keep that one too unless the WBF feel that TD training over the world is at such a low level that even ordinary club TD's cannot get this one right. I think a clearer wording is all that is needed. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 From karel at esatclear.ie Fri Jan 20 11:10:14 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri Jan 20 11:15:30 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? Message-ID: <43d0b706.3af1.0@esatclear.ie> ++ ok. So just so I get this straight - the questions by e/w AND the answers supplied by south (inaccurate as they were) are irrelevant because the 1H bid (or presumably in other situations the valid AI available) is information that N can use and so bid as he choose. This would seem to put E/W in an unenviable position. - If W suspected that N/S were having a bidding misunderstanding then W should pass promptly, as any questions will now clarify the situation for N/S and a subsequent bid from E will allow N/S another bite at the cake. -Alternatively W asks no questions, bids and hopes N doesnt wake up, again a somewhat risky action as S may bid again and N may wake up still. -If W feels the bidding is "real", then he should bid and take the consequences. This would seem to put west in a damned if you do, damned if you dont position. Just for arguments sake - lets say N/S are playing a forcing 1NT, I take it this is completely different now as W has been given MI and may have acted differently with the correct information ?? Karel >Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Karel wrote: >> >> >>>>+++ North did become aware of the 1H bid by South alerting his 1NT as >>> >>>6-9 which is incorrect. If I was Tding this I would rule as follows. >> >> >> Perhaps I have misunderstood but you seem to be suggesting that South >> deliberately alerted a non-alertable bid because he knew/suspected that >> North hadn't noticed the 1H. If so I'll happily penalise South a full >> top, but it doesn't change the fact that 1H is AI and North (in full legal >> knowledge that he has severely underbid) has no LA to 4H. It is >> completely irrelevant what North might have done if unaware of the 1H, or >> with what probability (certainty) he might have remained in ignorance. >> > >I'm surprised that no-one has yet commented on the UI from North to >South. As I recall, North said something like "Oops, I didn't see that >1H". Or even if this wasn't mentioned in the write-up, I would be >surprised if he didn't. That is UI to South, who should now consider >what the meaning of the bidding 1H p 1NT p / p 2C 4H p / can mean. >I don't believe he can draw any worse conclusions than the one he has >from the UI (15-17) so his pass is probably OK (in fact the >non-suggested alternative) but it still needs to be investigated. > > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.hdw.be > > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR15 per month! Enjoy always-on internet for less! Check it out at http://www.btireland.ie From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 20 11:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 20 11:15:52 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <72564E20-0BDB-417E-A59C-53BD0FB8D1BA@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > > I concur with Kojak that one may not have agreements relating to > > illegal calls/plays made by one's own side. > > So I reiterate (rephrasing a bit) my question in reply to Kojak: What > law makes it illegal? (If it is, or can be, illegal by SO regulation, > then under what law is such regulation legally made?) Basically Ed I'm (as TD) not going to accept that an insufficient bid is accidental if the pair actually has agreements as to what sequences involving IBs show. Thus illegal under: Law72b2: Intentional A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay. Depending on context I might instead use: L16c2: For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information. My rulings are entirely law-based and independent of any SO regulations (but unlike Kojak/Grattan I'm not trying to restrict the agreements of the NON-offending side). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 20 13:20:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 20 13:26:06 2006 Subject: [blml] What should one do ? In-Reply-To: <43d0b706.3af1.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > This would seem to put west in a damned if you do, damned if you dont > position. Hardly - North has made a mistake (not noticing the opening bid). West has an opportunity to capitalise on the mistake (if he chooses to back his table presence). He is certainly no worse off than if North had seen the opening bid and shown his hand. There is no *entitlement* to benefit from an error by opponents. > Just for arguments sake - lets say N/S are playing a forcing 1NT, I > take it this is completely different now as W has been given MI and may > have acted differently with the correct information ? Of course. However West may not (or may) persuade me that he would have passed a forcing NT. West is the NOS so I'll give every benefit of the doubt - but not to the extent of ruling he would pass a clear-cut 2C call when having no reason to suspect a bidding misunderstanding. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 20 15:55:07 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jan 20 15:57:34 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: <43D09D3E.4040907@hdw.be> References: <004d01c61c39$614a2300$69a2ec51@admin> <43CFBCE8.8090104@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060119162528.02d2d0d0@pop.starpower.net> <43D09D3E.4040907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060120094853.02a2aeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:20 AM 1/20/06, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 11:23 AM 1/19/06, Herman wrote: >> >>>No, players believe that a one trick penalty is fair in a current >>>one-trick situation. >> >>Indeed they do. >> >>>They believ a two-trick penalty is fair in a current two-trick >>>situation. >> >>Yes, that too. >> >>>We cannot assume that they believe a one trick penalty is fair in a >>>current two-trick situation. >> >>In general, IME, they do not. >>But, IME, they do largely believe that a two-trick penalty is fair in >>a current one-trick situation. >>I'm quite convinced that if you polled the question, "If the revoke >>laws were changed to eliminate the distinction between >>one-trick-penalty revokes and two-trick-penalty revokes, should the >>new law specify a one- or two-trick penalty?" the polity would vote >>overwhelmingly for the two-trick penalty. > >I'm not certain about that. Many revokers are very miffed when they >have revoked and it "absolutely made no difference" and they still >lose one trick. Penalize them two tricks and this miff becomes a howl >for "stupid WBF". >You know the case: declarer runs clubs from the table and throws a >diamond on the first one but a club on the second. No blockages or >anything, and no gain whatsoever - but still a lost trick. Make that >two tricks and this is no longer fair. > >>Now they might be oppositely inclined if the standard penalty prior >>to the introduction of the distinction had been one trick rather than >>two, but it wasn't, and they aren't. > >But the standard penalty nowadays IS one trick. Not one or two. It is >one trick if you haven't gained anything and two tricks if you have >gained something. So the net result is very often one trick less than >after normal play. Change that and the balance of fairness is shifted >away from a standard which worked fine. > >No, there are no better (fairer) claim laws than the ones we currently >have. There might be simpler ones, but that comes at a price. Lest my previous remarks be misconstrued, let me say that I agree with Herman and do not favor a change to the current revoke law that would eliminate the one- vs two-trick bifurcation of the standard penalty. I merely make the point that *if* TPTB decided to do so in the interest of simplification, eliminating the one-trick penalty and making the standard two tricks would prove a lot more acceptable to players at large than the opposite. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jan 20 14:41:08 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jan 20 16:51:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? References: Message-ID: <003a01c61dd8$0f097fa0$219287d9@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: "Adam Wildavsky" To: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? > > Third, here's an example of the kind of proposal > I'm hoping for. It's not an ideal example, though, > because it doesn't cite a case where the change > in wording would result in a change of ruling. > > =================== > > The first sentence of Law 12C2 is ambiguous. > It reads: > > "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted > score in place of a result actually obtained after > an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending > side, the most favorable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending > side, the most unfavorable result that was at all > probable." > +=+ There is no doubt that Law 12 will be the subject of further discussion in depth. However, before arriving at the above question there are more fundamental issues to consider. It is arguable that a WBF Law should match to WBF practice. In WBF Championships and tournaments the Directors no longer entertain any thoughts of "the most favourable result that was likely" or "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". They proceed directly to determination of a score or scores that will "do equity". I have this personally from the WBF CTD. (In order not to confuse, such score(s) are not necessarily weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results - misunderstandings exist that all 12C3 adjustments are weighted, which is not the case.) If the laws were to encapsulate that procedure any desire on the part of a sponsoring organisation to retain the concepts in 12C2 would then become a matter for regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Fri Jan 20 16:59:24 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jan 20 17:04:41 2006 Subject: [blml] revoke penalty In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:20:14 +0100." <43D09D3E.4040907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200601201559.HAA32450@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > I'm not certain about that. Many revokers are very miffed when they > have revoked and it "absolutely made no difference" and they still > lose one trick. Penalize them two tricks and this miff becomes a howl > for "stupid WBF". My feeling about this is, WHO CARES????? When someone revokes against me they mess up the game, even if I get a score bonus from it. I came to play bridge, and one of my favorite parts is the puzzle of figuring out how to make a contract, and when someone fails to follow suit they screw everything up. So my feeling is, if someone is not willing to pay enough attention to make sure they follow suit, they should GET WITH THE PROGRAM OR ELSE PLEASE LEAVE THE GAME AND GO TAKE UP CHECKERS OR SOMETHING SO THAT THE REST OF US CAN PLAY BRIDGE. ..... Ahem... OK, I've had some coffee and am a little calmer now. But sorry, I still can't seem to work up any sympathy for those who make a serious mistake like this and then whine about the penalty being unfair. Trust me, I make serious mistakes that cost a whole lot more than that---like bidding ridiculous slams off the top two tricks, which costs a lot more to my score than the extra overtrick someone gives up because of a revoke penalty costs to their score. And I don't whine about the penalty for my mistakes being unfair. -- Adam From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jan 20 17:09:01 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jan 20 17:18:53 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "To regulate by reference to a concept of reasonableness might lead to an undesirable lack of consistency." ~ EBU Laws & Ethics Committee. ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > One's agreement may be no more than a basic > adherence to the "principle of fast arrival". > 2S-(2H)-3S is "faster" than 2S-(2H)(correction)-3S. > One need not have discussed the detail to know > that the second sequence shows a slightly stronger > hand (albeit not as strong as 2S-(2H)-3H). > Agreements may be based on prior experience, > generally agreed principles, BLML arguments or > detailed partnership discussion (some of which are > unavoidable). Playing with Probst I'd expect him > to know (purely from our generically agreed > principles) what nuances most of these sequences > show. > +=+ Tim persists in quoting a case where the position in the legal auction has altered and therefore he can have separate agreements dealing with each situation. But let us take a simple auction in which East opens 1NT. What I say of this is that if East has disclosed his 1NT agreement as 15-17 in that position he cannot change his agreement to 12-14 if North precedes him with a POOT. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From toddz at att.net Fri Jan 20 18:27:57 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Jan 20 18:33:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43D11D9D.1060003@att.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > But let us take a simple auction in which > East opens 1NT. > What I say of this is that if East has disclosed > his 1NT agreement as 15-17 in that position he > cannot change his agreement to 12-14 if North > precedes him with a POOT. Why can't I have an agreement to open 15-17 in 1st seat and 12-14 in 2nd? Why can't I take advantage of an OPOOT to decide whether I'm opening in 2nd or some other seat? Did you mean to say instead that "P - 1NT" and "OPOOT - 1NT" must be treated as the same auction? I can't think of any compelling bridge reasons to want different agreements in these auctions, so I'm lost as to what bridge reasons there are to forbid it. Could someone with a more devious mind show me the exploit? -Todd From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 20 20:39:51 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jan 20 20:45:48 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6A637A01-56C9-44EF-9A4D-DA61AEC5DC31@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 20, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > But let us take a simple auction in which East opens 1NT. > What I say of this is that if East has disclosed his 1NT > agreement as 15-17 in that position he cannot change his agreement > to 12-14 if North precedes him with a POOT. EW have agreed to open 1NT with 15-17 in first seat, 12-14 in second seat. Absent an irregularity, E in first seat opens 1NT. He has 16 HCP. No problem. If I understand you correctly, though, if N passes out of turn before east calls, East cannot now accept the pass, thus putting himself in 2nd seat, and open 1NT with 12 points *in accordance with their prior agreement to open 1NT with 12-14*. If that's your position, I disagree. He's in second seat; his agreement as to the range in second seat applies. How can it not? If you're going to argue that in spite of the fact there's been a legal call on his right, he's still in first seat, well, you're gonna have to show me how that works. I can make no sense of it. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 20 22:08:19 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Jan 20 22:15:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? References: <003a01c61dd8$0f097fa0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004901c61e05$a5ff9ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" < > From: "Adam Wildavsky" <> > > > > > The first sentence of Law 12C2 is ambiguous. > > It reads: > > > > "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted > > score in place of a result actually obtained after > > an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending > > side, the most favorable result that was likely had > > the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending > > side, the most unfavorable result that was at all > > probable." It is not ambiguous to me, nor to the WBFLC. "Ambiguity" means that something can be read in two ways, as this cannot be. It is unclear to many, however, and to clarify the last part "subsequent to the irregularity" should be added. > > > +=+ There is no doubt that Law 12 will be the > subject of further discussion in depth. However, > before arriving at the above question there are > more fundamental issues to consider. It is arguable > that a WBF Law should match to WBF practice. Very arguable, and I argue against the idea that the WBF CTD should have the power to determine what the Laws should be. > In WBF Championships and tournaments the > Directors no longer entertain any thoughts of > "the most favourable result that was likely" or > "the most unfavourable result that was at all > probable". They proceed directly to determination > of a score or scores that will "do equity". I have > this personally from the WBF CTD. (In order > not to confuse, such score(s) are not necessarily > weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number > of potential results - misunderstandings exist that > all 12C3 adjustments are weighted, which is not > the case.) Looks like weighting to me, when I read the examples. If there is to be no weighting then L12C2 suffices. Does everyone see that the "equity" enthusiasts can't stand the thought that non-offenders might benefit from an opposing irregularity? Let's call them the Levellers. Take a poll of players. Do they want "equity" for a revoke or a simple rule that provides justice and deterrence? They want the latter, and the same goes for the rest of the Laws. We want simple justice provided by simple rules that any TD can administer, not complicated equity provided by arcane rules that only geniuses can administer. Unlike the Levellers, we want non-offenders to get much benefit of doubt, and offenders very little. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 21 00:41:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jan 21 00:46:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Which Laws would you change, and why? In-Reply-To: <004901c61e05$a5ff9ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000901c61e1b$0a7f8f40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French ........... > > From: "Adam Wildavsky" <> > > > > > > > The first sentence of Law 12C2 is ambiguous. > > > It reads: > > > > > > "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted > > > score in place of a result actually obtained after > > > an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending > > > side, the most favorable result that was likely had > > > the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending > > > side, the most unfavorable result that was at all > > > probable." > > It is not ambiguous to me, nor to the WBFLC. "Ambiguity" means that > something can be read in two ways, as this cannot be. It is unclear > to many, however, and to clarify the last part "subsequent to the > irregularity" should be added. I seriously doubt that you really meant what you have written here (adding to Law 12C2)? The consequence of such an addition to Law 12C2 is that when the offending side with every probability would gain from the irregularity the unfavorable result to which we would want to adjust is no longer at all probable *after* the irregularity and the Director would therefore no longer be permitted to adjust to this unfavorable result! What Law 12C2 instructs us to do is for the offending side to determine the most unfavorable result that is at all probable either with or without the irregularity, and then adjust to this result. Regards Sven From adam at tameware.com Sat Jan 21 04:57:22 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat Jan 21 05:03:14 2006 Subject: [blml] 12C2 Ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <004901c61e05$a5ff9ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003a01c61dd8$0f097fa0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004901c61e05$a5ff9ca0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: The subject of my post was not intended to be 12C2, but rather the kinds of laws proposals I am hoping for. Since we're now discussing 12C2 itself I've started a new thread. At 1:08 PM -0800 1/20/06, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > > The first sentence of Law 12C2 is ambiguous. > >It is not ambiguous to me, nor to the WBFLC. "Ambiguity" means that >>something can be read in two ways, as this cannot be. I beg to differ. At 5:56 PM -0800 11/30/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >Small correction, Adam. "Had the irregularity not occurred" applies >to the NOS adjustment only. I used to argue that the phrase was >included in the OS adjustment's words "as understood," but I got >shot down on that. And consistently: At 10:54 AM -0700 5/27/05, Marvin French wrote: >Some believe (as I once did) that "had the irregularity not >occurred" is to be understood in the latter part of the sentence >referring to the OS. If one individual at one time believed it had one meaning and now believes that it has another this must be prima facie evidence that the wording is ambiguous. As for my reasoning as to what the meaning ought to be, see my comments here: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2005-May/023732.html -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jan 21 12:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jan 21 12:13:57 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Tim persists in quoting a case where the > position in the legal auction has altered and > therefore he can have separate agreements > dealing with each situation. > But let us take a simple auction in which > East opens 1NT. > What I say of this is that if East has disclosed > his 1NT agreement as 15-17 in that position he > cannot change his agreement to 12-14 if North > precedes him with a POOT. I'm not suggesting changing agreements mid-auction. I'm simply telling you that if I have a prior agreement to play 1N=15-17 (12-14 if condoning a POOT) there's nothing the the Revenoo can do to stop it. The bids aren't conventional, both auctions are treated as legal. Obviously partner must disclose but I see no need for every detail to be on the CC (opps are in no position to claim damage from lack of prior disclosure). As it happens I do have (with John) an agreement that 1N is 15-17 in 3rd/4th and 11-13 in 1st/2nd. Should a POOT occur in a position where acceptance/rejection changes my seat from 1/2 to 3/4 (or vice versa) it seems obvious that the 1N will show different values depending on my choice. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 21 22:09:08 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Jan 21 22:24:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <200601200218.SAA26442@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000201c61ed0$80849040$f3c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > The problem is that if you can ban agreements > based on "extraneous" information such as an > irregularity on the grounds that changing the > meaning of one's bid would result in a "change > of agreement" that could then be banned by > the SO, then you can ban agreements based > on vulnerability by the exact same logic. In > other words, an SO can make a regulation > saying that you cannot have two different > meanings for the same call depending on the > vulnerability, even if both meanings > are non-conventional. > +=+ No. The vulnerability is among the facts of the legal auction for which you agree a meaning for the call you make; information as to the vulnerability is not extraneous information. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jan 22 02:32:27 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun Jan 22 02:38:01 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6A637A01-56C9-44EF-9A4D-DA61AEC5DC31@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007901c61ef3$b591b830$6600a8c0@rota> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> But let us take a simple auction in which East opens 1NT. >> What I say of this is that if East has disclosed his 1NT >> agreement as 15-17 in that position he cannot change his agreement to >> 12-14 if North precedes him with a POOT. > > EW have agreed to open 1NT with 15-17 in first seat, 12-14 in second > seat. Absent an irregularity, E in first seat opens 1NT. He has 16 HCP. > No problem. If I understand you correctly, though, if N passes out of > turn before east calls, East cannot now accept the pass, thus putting > himself in 2nd seat, and open 1NT with 12 points *in accordance with > their prior agreement to open 1NT with 12-14*. If that's your position, I > disagree. He's in second seat; his agreement as to the range in second > seat applies. How can it not? There are two different cases here. If East already has an agreement to open different ranges in first and second seat, that he can certainly follow that agreement, no matter how he managed to get into second seat. It isn't as clear that East should be able to have a different agreement in second seat depending on who the dealer was. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jan 22 14:14:41 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jan 22 14:25:08 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6A637A01-56C9-44EF-9A4D-DA61AEC5DC31@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c61f55$fc027ae0$fcab87d9@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: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > EW have agreed to open 1NT with 15-17 in first > seat, 12-14 in second seat. Absent an irregularity, > E in first seat opens 1NT. He has 16 HCP. No > problem. If I understand you correctly, though, if > N passes out of turn before east calls, East cannot > now accept the pass, thus putting himself in 2nd seat, > and open 1NT with 12 points *in accordance with > their prior agreement to open 1NT with 12-14*. If > that's your position, I disagree. He's in second seat; > his agreement as to the range in second seat applies. > How can it not? If you're going to argue that in spite > of the fact there's been a legal call on his right, he's > still in first seat, well, you're gonna have to show > me how that works. I can make no sense of it. > +=+ I am not blind, Ed, to the inadequate binding together of Laws 29 and 30 and the failure in particular to meld the effects of 29A, the parenthetical statement at the start of 30, and the authority to "base their calls and plays on" at the start of Law 16. As far as I recall, the interpretation of the law in these regards has not been raised in the WBFLC. My personal position on it is that there has not been a legal call on his right. There has been an illegal call and the player has forefeited his entitlement to penalize it. Although the player has 'accepted' the call I do not see anything in the law to say that it has ceased to be an illegal call. That leaves swinging the question how to construe in the opening words of Law 16 the statement that "players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and and or plays". But I suggest that regulations under Law 40E may prescribe what is to be listed on the CC and may set forth regulations controlling the listing of agreements and the circumstances in which these may be changed. If you say these laws should be better expressed you may encounter opposition from some quarters, but not from me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 22 15:28:24 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Jan 22 15:38:06 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6A637A01-56C9-44EF-9A4D-DA61AEC5DC31@rochester.rr.com> <000b01c61f55$fc027ae0$fcab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > 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: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:39 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > > > EW have agreed to open 1NT with 15-17 in first > > seat, 12-14 in second seat. Absent an irregularity, > > E in first seat opens 1NT. He has 16 HCP. No > > problem. If I understand you correctly, though, if > > N passes out of turn before east calls, East cannot > > now accept the pass, thus putting himself in 2nd seat, > > and open 1NT with 12 points *in accordance with > > their prior agreement to open 1NT with 12-14*. If > > that's your position, I disagree. He's in second seat; > > his agreement as to the range in second seat applies. > > How can it not? If you're going to argue that in spite > > of the fact there's been a legal call on his right, he's > > still in first seat, well, you're gonna have to show > > me how that works. I can make no sense of it. > > > +=+ I am not blind, Ed, to the inadequate binding > together of Laws 29 and 30 and the failure in particular > to meld the effects of 29A, the parenthetical statement > at the start of 30, and the authority to "base their calls > and plays on" at the start of Law 16. > As far as I recall, the interpretation of the law in > these regards has not been raised in the WBFLC. > My personal position on it is that there has not been > a legal call on his right. There has been an illegal call > and the player has forefeited his entitlement to penalize > it. Although the player has 'accepted' the call I do not > see anything in the law to say that it has ceased to be > an illegal call. To me such a view is disingenuous and an unfortunate consequence of the words chosen. It manufactures problems for players. For instance, is it really accurate to say that the condoning is not penalizing? It very well could be that the hasty bidder has made a mistake and he may suffer most by condoning, and that certainly has the effect of penalizing. But the real point of philosophy is the effect of maintaining that a condoned illegal call to remain illegal. The consequence is that the auction remains illegal thereby forfeiting the players' right to use information from the auction in forming judgments as to what to do. And contrary to the view is found in L27A [treated as legal]. regards roger pewick > That leaves swinging the question how to construe > in the opening words of Law 16 the statement that > "players are authorized to base their calls and plays on > information from legal calls and and or plays". But > I suggest that regulations under Law 40E may prescribe > what is to be listed on the CC and may set forth > regulations controlling the listing of agreements and > the circumstances in which these may be changed. If > you say these laws should be better expressed you may > encounter opposition from some quarters, but not > from me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jan 22 17:52:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jan 22 17:58:23 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000b01c61f55$fc027ae0$fcab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > There has been an illegal call > and the player has forefeited his entitlement to penalize > it. Although the player has 'accepted' the call I do not > see anything in the law to say that it has ceased to be > an illegal call. While there is nothing directly in L29 (as there is in L27) there is no reason to assume that when one chooses to "accept the call" one is accepting it as legal. Certainly I have never seen it argues that one may not base subsequent calls/plays on the COOT (one can even make a X/XX as appropriate). Indeed where an opening POOT is accepted I have never seen anyone argue that POOTer's partner shouldn't treat further bids by that player as passed hand bidding. Even if we don't accept it as a legal call we can treat it as a "mannerism of opponents" (ie something they did/said that wasn't a call) and still base our own choices upon it. > That leaves swinging the question how to construe > in the opening words of Law 16 the statement that > "players are authorized to base their calls and plays on > information from legal calls and and or plays". But > I suggest that regulations under Law 40E may prescribe > what is to be listed on the CC and may set forth > regulations controlling the listing of agreements and > the circumstances in which these may be changed. They may, but such regulations are nothing to do with what may be agreed, only how it may/must be disclosed. Forbidding prior disclosure of particular types of agreement does not make such agreements illegal, it merely prevents opponents from claiming damage due to lack of prior disclosure. Regulations on what agreements may be *played* are made under the auspices of L40D and, in current law, may not restrict non- conventional calls (except the obvious). > If you say these laws should be better expressed you may > encounter opposition from some quarters, but not > from me. Being better expressed wouldn't hurt, being better upheld would be more useful. Currently it is nigh on impossible for a player to get WBF protection when his NBO chooses to flout the laws. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jan 22 19:20:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jan 22 19:25:41 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim miswrote: > While there is nothing directly in L29 (as there is in L27) there is no > reason to assume that when one chooses to "accept the call" one is > accepting it as legal. should read ..one is doing anything other than accepting... Sorry. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 23 08:31:44 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jan 23 08:37:48 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000b01c61f55$fc027ae0$fcab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6A637A01-56C9-44EF-9A4D-DA61AEC5DC31@rochester.rr.com> <000b01c61f55$fc027ae0$fcab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <3C6DD92B-8104-455E-B85D-435EC637BAD1@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 22, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > That leaves swinging the question how to construe > in the opening words of Law 16 the statement that > "players are authorized to base their calls and plays on > information from legal calls and and or plays". But > I suggest that regulations under Law 40E may prescribe > what is to be listed on the CC and may set forth > regulations controlling the listing of agreements and > the circumstances in which these may be changed. If > you say these laws should be better expressed you may > encounter opposition from some quarters, but not > from me. Fair enough. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 08:30:16 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon Jan 23 09:21:59 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/01/06, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > There is more than a 'fundamental consensus' to not allowing agreements of > what to do over illegal calls or plays. Please see the first two > sentences > of Law 16. > > Kojak Huh? If the bidding go 2S - (2H) - 2S, the last call is a legal call. It accepts the insufficient 2H, which hereafter is treated as legal. There's no UI present and no calls that are illegal after the 2S-bidder accepted 2H. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060120/ffaff6e9/attachment.htm From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jan 23 09:19:55 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jan 23 09:22:53 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43D491AB.3000703@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > >> There has been an illegal call >>and the player has forefeited his entitlement to penalize >>it. Although the player has 'accepted' the call I do not >>see anything in the law to say that it has ceased to be >>an illegal call. > > > While there is nothing directly in L29 (as there is in L27) there is no > reason to assume that when one chooses to "accept the call" one is > accepting it as legal. Certainly I have never seen it argues that one may > not base subsequent calls/plays on the COOT (one can even make a X/XX as > appropriate). Indeed where an opening POOT is accepted I have never seen > anyone argue that POOTer's partner shouldn't treat further bids by that > player as passed hand bidding. Even if we don't accept it as a legal call > we can treat it as a "mannerism of opponents" (ie something they did/said > that wasn't a call) and still base our own choices upon it. > Look fellas, If there is an interpretation of the start of L16 that means that accepted, previously illegal calls are UI, then that interpretation renders bridge impossible, as many examples in this thread have shown. So this interpretation simply has to be wrong and the first sentence of L16 has to be interpreted the way it has been in the past 80 years, despite how it is written. And the WBF should clean up the language. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 20/01/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 23 09:26:25 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jan 23 09:32:30 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <3C6DD92B-8104-455E-B85D-435EC637BAD1@rochester.rr.com> References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6A637A01-56C9-44EF-9A4D-DA61AEC5DC31@rochester.rr.com> <000b01c61f55$fc027ae0$fcab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <3C6DD92B-8104-455E-B85D-435EC637BAD1@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <05A82483-8307-49D0-9F1C-58CF19CD19F1@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 23, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> That leaves swinging the question how to construe >> in the opening words of Law 16 the statement that >> "players are authorized to base their calls and plays on >> information from legal calls and and or plays". But >> I suggest that regulations under Law 40E may prescribe >> what is to be listed on the CC and may set forth >> regulations controlling the listing of agreements and >> the circumstances in which these may be changed. If >> you say these laws should be better expressed you may >> encounter opposition from some quarters, but not >> from me. > > Fair enough. I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw my "fair enough". Law 16 starts with *two* sentences: "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." The second sentence says that to base a call or play on something other than a legal call or play, or mannerisms of opponents may *or may not* be an infraction of law. Laws 16C and 16C1, further down, say "A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, either by a non- offending side after an opponent's infraction or by an offending side to rectify an infraction. For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'." Law 29A allows me to call after RHO's pass out of rotation. You're right that it does not say the pass is now treated as legal, but rather that I forfeit the right to penalize it. So, first question. What would the penalty be? Law 30 tell us "The offender must pass when next it is his turn to call". So if I call, this penalty no longer applies. *However*, second question: is there anything in this law, or any other, that makes illegal my partnership's treatment of the meaning of 1NT as now *different*, in accordance with our agreements disclosed IAW SO regulations? I don't see how. The auction on the table is (P)-1NT. My partner knows that a second seat 1NT is weaker than a 1st seat 1NT. That is our agreement. How can he interpret it otherwise? If the SO has a regulation that says "you may not have different agreements over legal and illegal bids," then I can see an argument that the position above violates the *regulation*. But the counter argument is that the regulation itself is illegal. Under what law is it made? Further note regarding withdrawn calls. If I do not accept the POOT, it is withdrawn, and now my 1NT, IAW our agreements, must be strong. But the fact that RHO passed "in first seat" (as he thought) and inferences from that fact are authorized information to my partnership. I do not see how, if I do not accept the POOT, the fact that it was made and inferences from that fact are authorized, but if I do accept it, the fact may be authorized, but the inferences are not. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 23 10:23:25 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jan 23 10:33:30 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6A637A01-56C9-44EF-9A4D-DA61AEC5DC31@rochester.rr.com><000b01c61f55$fc027ae0$fcab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002901c61ffe$ca4a2990$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Comments interwoven ****************** 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: "Roger Pewick" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > To me such a view is disingenuous and an > unfortunate consequence of the words chosen. > It manufactures problems for players. > +=+ 'disingenuous', not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. ? I am not sure how I should take that. The word could be construed as derogatory. If there are problems for the players they arise from the wording of the laws in question, or in some instances, perhaps, from a desire to find a way round the apparent effect of the law. +=+ < > For instance, is it really accurate to say that > the condoning is not penalizing? It very well > could be that the hasty bidder has made a mistake > and he may suffer most by condoning, and that > certainly has the effect of penalizing. < +=+ 'penalizing' has its meaning within the context of the laws. It is not the same as disadvantaging. +=+ < > But the real > point of philosophy is the effect of maintaining > that a condoned illegal call to remain illegal. The > consequence is that the auction remains illegal > thereby forfeiting the players' right to use > information from the auction in forming judgments > as to what to do. > +=+ This touches upon the underlying question. One should perhaps say 'in part illegal'. The laws could with advantage say more. However, we do have a WBFLC minute: "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the Laws define correct procedure etc.............."(24th August 1998) +=+. < > And contrary to the view found in L27A > [treated as legal]. > +=+ Law 27 deals with insufficient bids. There is no link from it to the subject of calls out of rotation and there is no inference to be drawn from it in relation to the latter, no compelling reason that the same treatment should apply. ~ G ~ +=+ < > regards > roger pewick > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 23 12:04:28 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jan 23 12:33:22 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <006101c6200f$888677f0$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan wrote: > > > There has been an illegal call > > and the player has forefeited his entitlement to penalize > > it. Although the player has 'accepted' the call I do not > > see anything in the law to say that it has ceased to be > > an illegal call. > > While there is nothing directly in L29 (as there is in L27) > there is no reason to assume that when one chooses to > "accept the call" one is doing anything other than > accepting it as legal. Certainly I have never seen it > argues that one may not base subsequent calls/plays on > the COOT (one can even make a X/XX as appropriate). > Indeed where an opening POOT is accepted I have never > seen anyone argue that POOTer's partner shouldn't treat > further bids by that player as passed hand bidding. Even > if we don't accept it as a legal call we can treat it as a > "mannerism of opponents" (ie something they did/said > that wasn't a call) and still base our own choices upon it. > +=+ Players do not have the power to make something legal if it is illegal. Even in Law 29, where an authority is given, the authority is only to 'treat it' as legal - it remains an illegal call. Introduction of the idea of taking it as a 'mannerism' is far-fetched. As for 'basing our choices upon it', basing our judgement as to the call we will make is a different thing from choosing which of alternative pre-announced meanings will apply to the call we make. The latter raises the question of System Policy and I do not agree with your suggestion that in Law 40E "establish regulations for its use" is restricted to questions of how and what to disclose. The wording is open ended, as was evidenced in the practice of some authorities in disallowing use of calls that could not be adequately described in the space available on the convention card, thereby using the design of the convention card as a means to limit the scope and diversity of the methods employed. (It was a practice suggested by Edgar Kaplan at one time in the preparation of rules and regulations for tournaments.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 23 13:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jan 23 13:14:56 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002901c61ffe$ca4a2990$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Law 27 deals with insufficient bids. There > is no link from it to the subject of calls out of > rotation and there is no inference to be drawn > from it in relation to the latter, no compelling > reason that the same treatment should apply. There is no direct link, but we must decide the status of the COOT. If an accepted COOT does not have the status of a "legal" call does a double become inadmissible? Is there any reason why the principle of acceptance in L27 should not apply to L29? Might we gain insight were we to consult a better written (1993) version of L29? After a call out of rotation, offender's LHO * may either: (a) make any legal call; if he chooses to do so, the call out of rotation stands as if it were legal (but if it is an inadmissible call, see Law 35), and the auction proceeds without penalty Might we consider how on earth the game is supposed to be played if a condoned COOT is UI to all players? And, finally, why do we have a problem if one has agreements that allow one to benefit from a COOT/IB *by opponents*. The philosophy (in L72a4. Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options): "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous." would seem to encourage extracting the maximum benefit (even to the extent of following the old boy-scout maxim of "be prepared"). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 23 13:46:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jan 23 13:52:03 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <006101c6200f$888677f0$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > "Here the great art lies, to discern > in what the law is to be to distraint > and punishment, and in what things > persuasion only is to work." > (John Milton) > > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:52 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > There has been an illegal call > > > and the player has forefeited his entitlement to penalize > > > it. Although the player has 'accepted' the call I do not > > > see anything in the law to say that it has ceased to be > > > an illegal call. > > > > While there is nothing directly in L29 (as there is in L27) > > there is no reason to assume that when one chooses to > > "accept the call" one is doing anything other than > > accepting it as legal. Certainly I have never seen it > > argues that one may not base subsequent calls/plays on > > the COOT (one can even make a X/XX as appropriate). > > Indeed where an opening POOT is accepted I have never > > seen anyone argue that POOTer's partner shouldn't treat > > further bids by that player as passed hand bidding. Even > > if we don't accept it as a legal call we can treat it as a > > "mannerism of opponents" (ie something they did/said > > that wasn't a call) and still base our own choices upon it. > > > +=+ Players do not have the power to make something > legal if it is illegal. Even in Law 29, where an authority is > given, the authority is only to 'treat it' as legal - it remains > an illegal call. Introduction of the idea of taking it as a > 'mannerism' is far-fetched. As for 'basing our choices upon > it', basing our judgement as to the call we will make is > a different thing from choosing which of alternative > pre-announced meanings will apply to the call we make. There is a difference, but only one of preparedness. If one has defined agreements those will affect one's decisions, absent such preparation one hopes partner will be on the same wavelength. > The latter raises the question of System Policy and I do > not agree with your suggestion that in Law 40E "establish > regulations for its use" is restricted to questions of how and > what to disclose. The wording is open ended, as was > evidenced in the practice of some authorities in disallowing > use of calls that could not be adequately described in the > space available on the convention card, thereby using the > design of the convention card as a means to limit the scope > and diversity of the methods employed. (It was a practice > suggested by Edgar Kaplan at one time in the preparation > of rules and regulations for tournaments.) The wording is not open-ended. Any use of the CC to limit methods must be restricted to limiting conventions (apart from the requirement for both players to use the same method) or it would undermine the restrictions on SOs established under L40D. That certain SOs bridle under such restrictions (despite being unable to get the restrictions changed) is a sad reflection of immaturity/disrespect for the laws on their part. That certain members of the WBF might wish to condone such attitudes is a matter for disappointment but, sadly, not surprise. Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 23 13:48:26 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Jan 23 13:53:44 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <005401c61ddb$f07105a0$219287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6A637A01-56C9-44EF-9A4D-DA61AEC5DC31@rochester.rr.com><000b01c61f55$fc027ae0$fcab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002901c61ffe$ca4a2990$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Comments interwoven > ****************** > 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: "Roger Pewick" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:28 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > > > To me such a view is disingenuous and an > > unfortunate consequence of the words chosen. > > It manufactures problems for players. > > > +=+ 'disingenuous', not candid or sincere, > typically by pretending that one knows less > about something than one really does. > ? I am not sure how I should take that. The > word could be construed as derogatory. If > there are problems for the players they arise > from the wording of the laws in question, or > in some instances, perhaps, from a desire to > find a way round the apparent effect of the > law. +=+ Grattan, you perhaps are concerned that what I said was to reflect upon you. You merely carried an unretouched picture into light. I was saying that the Law is disingenuous. Law that perpetuates a wrong is contrary to law that is meant to remedy a wrong- as written in the Scope "The laws are designed to .....provide an adequate remedy........". By the law's own words it perpetuates a wrong. regards roger pewick > > For instance, is it really accurate to say that > > the condoning is not penalizing? It very well > > could be that the hasty bidder has made a mistake > > and he may suffer most by condoning, and that > > certainly has the effect of penalizing. > < > +=+ 'penalizing' has its meaning within the context > of the laws. It is not the same as disadvantaging. +=+ > < > > But the real > > point of philosophy is the effect of maintaining > > that a condoned illegal call to remain illegal. The > > consequence is that the auction remains illegal > > thereby forfeiting the players' right to use > > information from the auction in forming judgments > > as to what to do. > > > +=+ This touches upon the underlying question. > One should perhaps say 'in part illegal'. The laws > could with advantage say more. However, we > do have a WBFLC minute: "The Secretary > drew attention to those who argued that where > an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) > to be authorized, other actions if not expressly > forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee > ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws > states that the Laws define correct procedure > etc.............."(24th August 1998) +=+. > < > > And contrary to the view found in L27A > > [treated as legal]. > > > +=+ Law 27 deals with insufficient bids. There > is no link from it to the subject of calls out of > rotation and there is no inference to be drawn > from it in relation to the latter, no compelling > reason that the same treatment should apply. > ~ G ~ +=+ The common thread between 27 and 29 is that an IB at the time it is made is illegal and a BOOT at the time it is made is illegal. an IB condoned is treated as legal which the common vernacular suggests that whatever the IB prior to condoning was, it thereafter is legal. The comparison was made between an illegal IB being made legal by the action of an opponent [in accordance with the remedy of law] and the lack thereof where a BOOT is condoned. > > regards > > roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 23 14:09:40 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jan 23 14:14:58 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c6201e$4545ae20$6400a8c0@WINXP> This discussion is taking a curious direction: I see no way we can live with "as if it were legal" not applying "for all purposes in these laws"? Consider the following scenarios where my partner's irregularity is accepted by my RHO in all cases: 1: My partner passes out of turn and my RHO makes some call. 2: My partner opens out of turn and my RHO makes some call. Nowhere in the laws can we find any distinction between these two cases as far as I (offender's partner) am concerned so if I am to select my call without taking my partner's pass into consideration (case 1) then I must obviously be under the same restriction when partner made an opening bid (case 2). How am I going to select my call after partner bid say 1H? May I bid 2H with an ordinary raise and 6-9 or shall that be taken as an opening bid in 2H by me? Shall my bid of 1NT in this position show 15-17 or 6-9? And so on ... 3: My partner leads a card out of turn and my RHO follows suit. Am I allowed to select my play on the information I have from the card my partner led *and* the card subsequently played by declarer or dummy? Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies that for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" after it has been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the case might be? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: 23. januar 2006 13:09 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Law 27 deals with insufficient bids. There > > is no link from it to the subject of calls out of > > rotation and there is no inference to be drawn > > from it in relation to the latter, no compelling > > reason that the same treatment should apply. > > There is no direct link, but we must decide the status of the COOT. > > If an accepted COOT does not have the status of a "legal" call does a > double become inadmissible? > > Is there any reason why the principle of acceptance in L27 should not > apply to L29? > > Might we gain insight were we to consult a better written (1993) version > of L29? > > After a call out of rotation, offender's LHO * may either: (a) make any > legal call; if he chooses to do so, the call out of rotation stands as if > it were legal (but if it is an inadmissible call, see Law 35), and the > auction proceeds without penalty > > Might we consider how on earth the game is supposed to be played if a > condoned COOT is UI to all players? > > And, finally, why do we have a problem if one has agreements that allow > one to benefit from a COOT/IB *by opponents*. The philosophy (in L72a4. > Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options): "When these Laws provide the > innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an > opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous." > would seem to encourage extracting the maximum benefit (even to the extent > of following the old boy-scout maxim of "be prepared"). > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jan 23 15:01:14 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Jan 23 15:07:45 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000e01c6201e$4545ae20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: No. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:09 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario This discussion is taking a curious direction: I see no way we can live with "as if it were legal" not applying "for all purposes in these laws"? Consider the following scenarios where my partner's irregularity is accepted by my RHO in all cases: 1: My partner passes out of turn and my RHO makes some call. 2: My partner opens out of turn and my RHO makes some call. Nowhere in the laws can we find any distinction between these two cases as far as I (offender's partner) am concerned so if I am to select my call without taking my partner's pass into consideration (case 1) then I must obviously be under the same restriction when partner made an opening bid (case 2). How am I going to select my call after partner bid say 1H? May I bid 2H with an ordinary raise and 6-9 or shall that be taken as an opening bid in 2H by me? Shall my bid of 1NT in this position show 15-17 or 6-9? And so on ... 3: My partner leads a card out of turn and my RHO follows suit. Am I allowed to select my play on the information I have from the card my partner led *and* the card subsequently played by declarer or dummy? Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies that for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" after it has been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the case might be? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: 23. januar 2006 13:09 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Law 27 deals with insufficient bids. There > > is no link from it to the subject of calls out of > > rotation and there is no inference to be drawn > > from it in relation to the latter, no compelling > > reason that the same treatment should apply. > > There is no direct link, but we must decide the status of the COOT. > > If an accepted COOT does not have the status of a "legal" call does a > double become inadmissible? > > Is there any reason why the principle of acceptance in L27 should not > apply to L29? > > Might we gain insight were we to consult a better written (1993) version > of L29? > > After a call out of rotation, offender's LHO * may either: (a) make any > legal call; if he chooses to do so, the call out of rotation stands as if > it were legal (but if it is an inadmissible call, see Law 35), and the > auction proceeds without penalty > > Might we consider how on earth the game is supposed to be played if a > condoned COOT is UI to all players? > > And, finally, why do we have a problem if one has agreements that allow > one to benefit from a COOT/IB *by opponents*. The philosophy (in L72a4. > Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options): "When these Laws provide the > innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an > opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous." > would seem to encourage extracting the maximum benefit (even to the extent > of following the old boy-scout maxim of "be prepared"). > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 23 15:12:14 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jan 23 15:46:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000e01c6201e$4545ae20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c6202a$7c5972f0$6d9f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:09 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario This discussion is taking a curious direction: I see no way we can live with "as if it were legal" not applying "for all purposes in these laws"? < +=+ What is happening is that anomalousness is exposed when we lift the cover of what the laws are commonly assumed to say. We are not entitled to take words that apply in one law and transfer them to other laws where they are absent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 23 15:35:12 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jan 23 15:46:22 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <000501c6202a$7d5fbf60$6d9f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > > The latter raises the question of System Policy and I do > > not agree with your suggestion that in Law 40E "establish > > regulations for its use" is restricted to questions of how and > > what to disclose. The wording is open ended, as was > > evidenced in the practice of some authorities in disallowing > > use of calls that could not be adequately described in the > > space available on the convention card, thereby using the > > design of the convention card as a means to limit the scope > > and diversity of the methods employed. (It was a practice > > suggested by Edgar Kaplan at one time in the preparation > > of rules and regulations for tournaments.) > > The wording is not open-ended. Any use of the CC to limit > methods must be restricted to limiting conventions (apart from > the requirement for both players to use the same method) or > it would undermine the restrictions on SOs established under > L40D. That certain SOs bridle under such restrictions (despite > being unable to get the restrictions changed) is a sad reflection > of immaturity/disrespect for the laws on their part. That certain > members of the WBF might wish to condone such attitudes is > a matter for disappointment but, sadly, not surprise. > > Tim > +=+ L40E refers to 'conventions and other agreements'. The regulations for the CC's use may *include* a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same methods (with the proviso in parenthesis) but it is left open as to what else they may include. You make an assertion about 'restrictions on SOs in 40D'; this law does not in fact restrict - what it does is to authorize the exercise of certain powers. Law 40E also authorizes the exercise of (other) powers. The powers under the one are exercisable independently of the powers under the other. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 23 15:50:38 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jan 23 15:58:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000e01c6201e$4545ae20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001f01c6202c$60c4d500$3b9868d5@jeushtlj> Current Rules condemn bridge players to be mushrooms. The law always seem clear to Kojak, but rules seem ambiguous to most BLML commentators, so far; if experienced directors don't agree on their meaning how can players cope. Like most rules of Bridge, these would benefit from simplification and clarification. For example, IMO, it would simple and sensible to drop legislation (if it exists) that bans a pair from using different methods depending on whether or not they condone an illegal call or play by an opponent. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 23 16:03:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jan 23 16:08:51 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000e01c6201e$4545ae20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies > that for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" > after it has been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the case > might be? Mostly, at least during the bidding and play of the hand I think "treating as legal" must mean in all ways. In certain esoteric circumstances (such as an insufficient psych) I will, as TD, reserve the right to penalise the psycher if I suspect the insufficiency of being deliberate. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 23 16:38:42 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jan 23 16:44:02 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c62033$17048170$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > No. > Kojak I take it this means that you want partner's incorrect but accepted action to remain "illegal"? The please tell me under what circumstances am I allowed to select my call based upon partner's opening bid out of turn together with my own cards when this OBOOT was accepted by my RHO? Specifically what shall be the meaning of my bid of 1NT respectively 2H after partner's accepted opening bid of 1H out of turn and pass by my RHO. Also please tell me precisely what information is authorized to me when partner leads say 8C out of turn and my RHO plays to the trick? Nothing (only the identity of the card played by my RHO)? The denomination (clubs) but not the rank? The rank but not the denomination? Everything? And if I am not entitled to know anything about the card played by my partner and my RHO did not follow suit because he was void in the suit led, maybe I then am entitled after all to know at least the denomination of the card led (don't overlook law 44C!). Before flatly stating that an incorrect but accepted action is still to be considered "illegal" for some purpose I think we need to know that all consequences of that principle must be carefully considered. Note that before 1997 this was as far as I can see no problem at all, the idea of a problem - if there is any - arose from the alteration in law 16C2. Sven > From: "Sven Pran" > This discussion is taking a curious direction: > > I see no way we can live with "as if it were legal" not applying "for all > purposes in these laws"? > > Consider the following scenarios where my partner's irregularity is > accepted > by my RHO in all cases: > > 1: My partner passes out of turn and my RHO makes some call. > 2: My partner opens out of turn and my RHO makes some call. > > Nowhere in the laws can we find any distinction between these two cases as > far as I (offender's partner) am concerned so if I am to select my call > without taking my partner's pass into consideration (case 1) then I must > obviously be under the same restriction when partner made an opening bid > (case 2). > > How am I going to select my call after partner bid say 1H? May I bid 2H > with > an ordinary raise and 6-9 or shall that be taken as an opening bid in 2H > by > me? Shall my bid of 1NT in this position show 15-17 or 6-9? And so on ... > > 3: My partner leads a card out of turn and my RHO follows suit. > > Am I allowed to select my play on the information I have from the card my > partner led *and* the card subsequently played by declarer or dummy? > > Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies that > for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" after it > has > been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the case might be? > > Regards Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces@amsterdamned.org] > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Sent: 23. januar 2006 13:09 > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ Law 27 deals with insufficient bids. There > > > is no link from it to the subject of calls out of > > > rotation and there is no inference to be drawn > > > from it in relation to the latter, no compelling > > > reason that the same treatment should apply. > > > > There is no direct link, but we must decide the status of the COOT. > > > > If an accepted COOT does not have the status of a "legal" call does a > > double become inadmissible? > > > > Is there any reason why the principle of acceptance in L27 should not > > apply to L29? > > > > Might we gain insight were we to consult a better written (1993) version > > of L29? > > > > After a call out of rotation, offender's LHO * may either: (a) make any > > legal call; if he chooses to do so, the call out of rotation stands as > if > > it were legal (but if it is an inadmissible call, see Law 35), and the > > auction proceeds without penalty > > > > Might we consider how on earth the game is supposed to be played if a > > condoned COOT is UI to all players? > > > > And, finally, why do we have a problem if one has agreements that allow > > one to benefit from a COOT/IB *by opponents*. The philosophy (in L72a4. > > Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options): "When these Laws provide the > > innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an > > opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous." > > would seem to encourage extracting the maximum benefit (even to the > extent > > of following the old boy-scout maxim of "be prepared"). > > > > Tim > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 23 16:48:49 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jan 23 16:51:15 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000201c61ed0$80849040$f3c9403e@Mildred> References: <200601200218.SAA26442@mailhub.irvine.com> <000201c61ed0$80849040$f3c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060123101101.033a9100@pop.starpower.net> At 04:09 PM 1/21/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" >> >>The problem is that if you can ban agreements based on "extraneous" >>information such as an irregularity on the grounds that changing the >>meaning of one's bid would result in a "change of agreement" that >>could then be banned by the SO, then you can ban agreements based on >>vulnerability by the exact same logic. In other words, an SO can >>make a regulation saying that you cannot have two different meanings >>for the same call depending on the vulnerability, even if both meanings >>are non-conventional. >+=+ No. The vulnerability is among the facts >of the legal auction for which you agree a >meaning for the call you make; information as to the vulnerability is >not extraneous information. Does this not contradict Grattan's original argument, which was that the illegality of having agreements regarding actions over opponents' infractions derives from the first two sentences of L16? Obviously, knowledge of the vulnerability is derived from neither "legal calls and or plays" nor "mannerisms of the opponents". Unless L16 is read to state that information from legal calls or plays or from mannerisms of the opponents are "authorized" *despite being extraneous* -- in complete contradiction to the consensually accepted usage of "extraneous" everywhere else -- the second sentence cannot totally preclude the use of "extraneous" information, else Adam's logic is inassailable. L16 says only that basing agreements on either the vulnerability or on the occurence of an opponent's infraction "may be an infraction of law", which tells us nothing other than that we must look elsewhere in the laws to make a determination with regard to any specific variety of "extraneous information". And, AFAICT, the particular varieties of EI in question are not specifically addressed anywhere in TFLB. L16 does *not* tell us whether either agreements based on vulnerability or agreements based on the existence of an opponent's infraction are allowed, are prohibited, or may be prohibited at SO option, but it *does* tell us that, absent specific mention of one or the other elsewhere in TFLB, the answer must be the same for both classes of agreements. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 23 16:55:52 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jan 23 17:01:11 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c62035$7cfb5740$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies > > that for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" > > after it has been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the case > > might be? > > Mostly, at least during the bidding and play of the hand I think > "treating as legal" must mean in all ways. In certain esoteric > circumstances (such as an insufficient psych) I will, as TD, reserve the > right to penalise the psycher if I suspect the insufficiency of being > deliberate. Thanks, I read that as a complete agreement! And as for deliberate or "could have known" infractions we always have Law 72B. Regards Sven From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jan 23 18:13:51 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Jan 23 18:19:08 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62033$17048170$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Yes. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:38 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > No. > Kojak I take it this means that you want partner's incorrect but accepted action to remain "illegal"? The please tell me under what circumstances am I allowed to select my call based upon partner's opening bid out of turn together with my own cards when this OBOOT was accepted by my RHO? Specifically what shall be the meaning of my bid of 1NT respectively 2H after partner's accepted opening bid of 1H out of turn and pass by my RHO. Also please tell me precisely what information is authorized to me when partner leads say 8C out of turn and my RHO plays to the trick? Nothing (only the identity of the card played by my RHO)? The denomination (clubs) but not the rank? The rank but not the denomination? Everything? And if I am not entitled to know anything about the card played by my partner and my RHO did not follow suit because he was void in the suit led, maybe I then am entitled after all to know at least the denomination of the card led (don't overlook law 44C!). Before flatly stating that an incorrect but accepted action is still to be considered "illegal" for some purpose I think we need to know that all consequences of that principle must be carefully considered. Note that before 1997 this was as far as I can see no problem at all, the idea of a problem - if there is any - arose from the alteration in law 16C2. Sven > From: "Sven Pran" > This discussion is taking a curious direction: > > I see no way we can live with "as if it were legal" not applying "for all > purposes in these laws"? > > Consider the following scenarios where my partner's irregularity is > accepted > by my RHO in all cases: > > 1: My partner passes out of turn and my RHO makes some call. > 2: My partner opens out of turn and my RHO makes some call. > > Nowhere in the laws can we find any distinction between these two cases as > far as I (offender's partner) am concerned so if I am to select my call > without taking my partner's pass into consideration (case 1) then I must > obviously be under the same restriction when partner made an opening bid > (case 2). > > How am I going to select my call after partner bid say 1H? May I bid 2H > with > an ordinary raise and 6-9 or shall that be taken as an opening bid in 2H > by > me? Shall my bid of 1NT in this position show 15-17 or 6-9? And so on ... > > 3: My partner leads a card out of turn and my RHO follows suit. > > Am I allowed to select my play on the information I have from the card my > partner led *and* the card subsequently played by declarer or dummy? > > Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies that > for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" after it > has > been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the case might be? > > Regards Sven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces@amsterdamned.org] > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Sent: 23. januar 2006 13:09 > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ Law 27 deals with insufficient bids. There > > > is no link from it to the subject of calls out of > > > rotation and there is no inference to be drawn > > > from it in relation to the latter, no compelling > > > reason that the same treatment should apply. > > > > There is no direct link, but we must decide the status of the COOT. > > > > If an accepted COOT does not have the status of a "legal" call does a > > double become inadmissible? > > > > Is there any reason why the principle of acceptance in L27 should not > > apply to L29? > > > > Might we gain insight were we to consult a better written (1993) version > > of L29? > > > > After a call out of rotation, offender's LHO * may either: (a) make any > > legal call; if he chooses to do so, the call out of rotation stands as > if > > it were legal (but if it is an inadmissible call, see Law 35), and the > > auction proceeds without penalty > > > > Might we consider how on earth the game is supposed to be played if a > > condoned COOT is UI to all players? > > > > And, finally, why do we have a problem if one has agreements that allow > > one to benefit from a COOT/IB *by opponents*. The philosophy (in L72a4. > > Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options): "When these Laws provide the > > innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an > > opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous." > > would seem to encourage extracting the maximum benefit (even to the > extent > > of following the old boy-scout maxim of "be prepared"). > > > > Tim > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Jan 22 15:47:11 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon Jan 23 18:58:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose Message-ID: <2da24b8e0601220647u111de61fq5c595c0e4d0176ec@mail.gmail.com> As I noted in the past, Bridge Base Online recently introduced new functionality designed to automate announcements for electronic bridge. Full Disclosure (abbreviated as FD) allows players to map a text string onto a specific bidding sequence. This text string is automatically sent to the opponents whenever the appropriate bidding sequence occurs. As an example, suppose that the auction starts (P) ? P ? (1S) ? P (2C) The opponents would automatically receive the text string "Two way reverse Drury. Three card Spade support. 10-12 support points." At this point in time, volunteers have created a FD files documenting a number of systems ranging from "Goren KISS" to WJ2005. The convention cards are intended to serve as both mechanism for disclosing methods as well as a learning tool for players studying new systems. As always, I'm most interested in "where things go from here". Full Disclosure is a great enhancement to the game, however, it does suffer from a few drawbacks. Most notably, as the title to this thread suggests, I'm somewhat concerned that the volume of information presented will overwhelm end users. Players need some mechanism to to sort information and focus their attention on key bits of data. Using traditional bridge vocabulary, FD is a great "announcement" system to describe methods, however, it should be supplemented functionality similar to traditional "alerts". From my perspective, I can imagine two reasonable mechanisms that could be used to develop an alert system: Option 1: Alerts are based on deviations from a "standard" system. Create an FD file that documents standard bidding. Compare the FD file for a partnership with the "standard" file. Automatically generate an alert notification anytime that a deviation is detected. (One potential modification would eliminate the "standard" FD file and compare the NS card with the EW file. Alerts would only be generated if the pairs played different methods) Option 2: Alert all conventional bids. FD permits players to associate descriptive tags with different bids. For example, one such tag is the expression "artificial" (There was some discussion about changing this to "conventional" in a later release). This regime base alerts on the presence/absence of the "artificial" tag. Option 3: I'm sure someone can come up with another good system. (I've given some thought to color coding different bids: A natural 1H opening would be displayed in Green, a strong club or strong Diamond opening would be Blue, a Brown Sticker Convention would be Brown, etc) Here's the question for the peanut gallery: What should an optimal alert system be based on? Potentially, there is a more fundamental question: At what level should alert regimes be defined? Currently, alert systems are standardized by the Zonal authority. For example, the ACBL publishes an alert chart which is (in theory) used for all official ACBL events. Would there be value in an alternative regime in which the alert system was a user configurable option with multiple different systems being used in the same event. Players who preferred an alert system based on whether a bid was artificial could chose option 1. Players worried about departures from a defined standard could chose option two... yada, yada, yada -- "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" Ben Franklin From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 23 19:38:05 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jan 23 19:40:22 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <006101c6200f$888677f0$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <006101c6200f$888677f0$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060123132942.02a4bb20@pop.starpower.net> At 06:04 AM 1/23/06, Grattan wrote: > The latter raises the question of System Policy and I do >not agree with your suggestion that in Law 40E "establish >regulations for its use" is restricted to questions of how and >what to disclose. The wording is open ended, as was >evidenced in the practice of some authorities in disallowing >use of calls that could not be adequately described in the >space available on the convention card, thereby using the >design of the convention card as a means to limit the scope >and diversity of the methods employed. (It was a practice >suggested by Edgar Kaplan at one time in the preparation >of rules and regulations for tournaments.) That cannot be the intent of L40. L40D explicitly grants the authority to regulate certain specific understandings to ZOs or their designates. But if Grattan is correct, L40E provides the same power over any understandings whatsoever, whether or not they are mentioned in L40D. That would make L40D meaningless and unnecessary; we are surely entitled to assume that if it were *intended* to be meaningless and unnecessary it would not be there. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From toddz at att.net Mon Jan 23 20:20:37 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Jan 23 20:26:01 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <000001c62033$17048170$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43D52C85.5030100@att.net> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Yes. > > Kojak Thank you William, a ray of sunshine! -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 24 01:53:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 24 01:58:48 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000501c6202a$7d5fbf60$6d9f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > "Here the great art lies, to discern > in what the law is to be to distraint > and punishment, and in what things > persuasion only is to work." > (John Milton) > > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > > > > > > The latter raises the question of System Policy and I do > > > not agree with your suggestion that in Law 40E "establish > > > regulations for its use" is restricted to questions of how and > > > what to disclose. The wording is open ended, as was > > > evidenced in the practice of some authorities in disallowing > > > use of calls that could not be adequately described in the > > > space available on the convention card, thereby using the > > > design of the convention card as a means to limit the scope > > > and diversity of the methods employed. (It was a practice > > > suggested by Edgar Kaplan at one time in the preparation > > > of rules and regulations for tournaments.) > > > > The wording is not open-ended. Any use of the CC to limit > > methods must be restricted to limiting conventions (apart from > > the requirement for both players to use the same method) or > > it would undermine the restrictions on SOs established under > > L40D. That certain SOs bridle under such restrictions (despite > > being unable to get the restrictions changed) is a sad reflection > > of immaturity/disrespect for the laws on their part. That certain > > members of the WBF might wish to condone such attitudes is > > a matter for disappointment but, sadly, not surprise. > > > > Tim > > > +=+ L40E refers to 'conventions and other agreements'. The > regulations for the CC's use may *include* a requirement that > both members of a partnership employ the same methods > (with the proviso in parenthesis) but it is left open as to what > else they may include. Open, but within the boundaries established elsewhere (such as L40d). > You make an assertion about 'restrictions > on SOs in 40D'; this law does not in fact restrict - what it does > is to authorize the exercise of certain powers. Law 40d clarifies, quite lucidly, what SOs may regulate. In so doing it clearly differentiates from those area which they may not regulate. Indeed on notable occasions certain SOs have recognised this in the way the phrase laws under L40d. Such approaches would be unnecessary were L40d not limiting. > Law 40E also > authorizes the exercise of (other) powers. The powers under the > one are exercisable independently of the powers under the other. So one may have a L40e regulation establishing that H outrank S? I think not. The laws are not wholly independent of eachother (and nor should they be). L40d provides players with a measure of protection from the idiocies of their administrators - this is a good thing. Weasel words and twisted interpretations which seek to undermine this protection - particularly from those who should know better - are a bad thing. Tim From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 24 02:49:34 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue Jan 24 02:55:57 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62033$17048170$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00a501c62088$6cf870a0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Yes. > > Kojak Kojak, your sesquipedalian monosyllabamania is not assisting us :) John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:38 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > >> On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER >> No. >> Kojak > > I take it this means that you want partner's incorrect but accepted action > to remain "illegal"? > > The please tell me under what circumstances am I allowed to select my call > based upon partner's opening bid out of turn together with my own cards > when > this OBOOT was accepted by my RHO? > > Specifically what shall be the meaning of my bid of 1NT respectively 2H > after partner's accepted opening bid of 1H out of turn and pass by my RHO. > > Also please tell me precisely what information is authorized to me when > partner leads say 8C out of turn and my RHO plays to the trick? Nothing > (only the identity of the card played by my RHO)? The denomination (clubs) > but not the rank? The rank but not the denomination? Everything? > > And if I am not entitled to know anything about the card played by my > partner and my RHO did not follow suit because he was void in the suit > led, > maybe I then am entitled after all to know at least the denomination of > the > card led (don't overlook law 44C!). > > Before flatly stating that an incorrect but accepted action is still to be > considered "illegal" for some purpose I think we need to know that all > consequences of that principle must be carefully considered. > > Note that before 1997 this was as far as I can see no problem at all, the > idea of a problem - if there is any - arose from the alteration in law > 16C2. > > Sven > >> From: "Sven Pran" >> This discussion is taking a curious direction: >> >> I see no way we can live with "as if it were legal" not applying "for all >> purposes in these laws"? >> >> Consider the following scenarios where my partner's irregularity is >> accepted >> by my RHO in all cases: >> >> 1: My partner passes out of turn and my RHO makes some call. >> 2: My partner opens out of turn and my RHO makes some call. >> >> Nowhere in the laws can we find any distinction between these two cases >> as >> far as I (offender's partner) am concerned so if I am to select my call >> without taking my partner's pass into consideration (case 1) then I must >> obviously be under the same restriction when partner made an opening bid >> (case 2). >> >> How am I going to select my call after partner bid say 1H? May I bid 2H >> with >> an ordinary raise and 6-9 or shall that be taken as an opening bid in 2H >> by >> me? Shall my bid of 1NT in this position show 15-17 or 6-9? And so on ... >> >> 3: My partner leads a card out of turn and my RHO follows suit. >> >> Am I allowed to select my play on the information I have from the card my >> partner led *and* the card subsequently played by declarer or dummy? >> >> Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies that >> for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" after it >> has >> been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the case might be? >> >> Regards Sven >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces@amsterdamned.org] >> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >> > Sent: 23. januar 2006 13:09 >> > To: blml@rtflb.org >> > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario >> > >> > Grattan wrote: >> > >> > > +=+ Law 27 deals with insufficient bids. There >> > > is no link from it to the subject of calls out of >> > > rotation and there is no inference to be drawn >> > > from it in relation to the latter, no compelling >> > > reason that the same treatment should apply. >> > >> > There is no direct link, but we must decide the status of the COOT. >> > >> > If an accepted COOT does not have the status of a "legal" call does a >> > double become inadmissible? >> > >> > Is there any reason why the principle of acceptance in L27 should not >> > apply to L29? >> > >> > Might we gain insight were we to consult a better written (1993) >> > version >> > of L29? >> > >> > After a call out of rotation, offender's LHO * may either: (a) make any >> > legal call; if he chooses to do so, the call out of rotation stands as >> if >> > it were legal (but if it is an inadmissible call, see Law 35), and the >> > auction proceeds without penalty >> > >> > Might we consider how on earth the game is supposed to be played if a >> > condoned COOT is UI to all players? >> > >> > And, finally, why do we have a problem if one has agreements that allow >> > one to benefit from a COOT/IB *by opponents*. The philosophy (in >> > L72a4. >> > Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options): "When these Laws provide the >> > innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an >> > opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous." >> > would seem to encourage extracting the maximum benefit (even to the >> extent >> > of following the old boy-scout maxim of "be prepared"). >> > >> > Tim >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 24 06:33:52 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 24 06:46:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <006101c6200f$888677f0$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060123132942.02a4bb20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006701c620a8$35c49cb0$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > That cannot be the intent of L40. L40D explicitly > grants the authority to regulate certain specific > understandings to ZOs or their designates. But if > Grattan is correct, L40E provides the same power > over any understandings whatsoever, whether or > not they are mentioned in L40D. That would make > L40D meaningless and unnecessary; we are surely > entitled to assume that if it were *intended* to be > meaningless and unnecessary it would not be there. > +=+ First, this is a misunderstanding of the procedure in the 1994-97 review of the laws. 40D and 40E were not considered jointly and neither was there any attempt at correlation between them - I have the multitudinous correspondence, so I know. And in the course of this thread I have been concerned mostly to consider the effects of the anomalous result. NBOs and other regulators have considerable tolerance in their powers to regulate; the WBF and the ACBL are among the foremost of those who have taken advantage. Second, to say "we are surely entitled" begs the question "who are 'we'?" - to which the answer is with those who regulate. I do not think anything will change until we have new laws - and those new laws will be inclined to reflect the desires of the more powerful bridge organizations. In the EBL seminar for TDs (Jan 27 to Jan 31) space has been found for a 75 minutes discussion on "ideas about changes in the laws: participants' opinion and contribution". With 85 or so course members in a joint session (not split into groups as for the exercises) this may or may not be productive - perhaps the most useful outcome will be in the minds of Max Bavin, Ton Kooijman and myself as members of the drafting committee. I have not yet seen the papers for the seminar so I am not sure where the, er, light will be cast. I would think, however, that as with past experience the real product will come from the meal time discussions in which the staff spread themselves around tables with about nine or ten course members per table, giving group sizes allowing of convenient discussion. (The makeup of tables is not organized but changes from meal to meal.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 24 06:45:08 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 24 06:55:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose References: <2da24b8e0601220647u111de61fq5c595c0e4d0176ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008601c620a9$745d20e0$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:47 PM Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose > > Here's the question for the peanut gallery: What should an optimal > alert system be based on? Potentially, there is a more fundamental > question: At what level should alert regimes be defined? Currently, > alert systems are standardized by the Zonal authority. For example, > the ACBL publishes an alert chart which is (in theory) used for all > official ACBL events. < +=+ In Europe 40-odd NBOs establish each their own alerting regulations. Some adopt the EBL regulation which is devised for EBL events - i.e. supranational events.+=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 24 07:05:28 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 24 07:15:39 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <200601200218.SAA26442@mailhub.irvine.com><000201c61ed0$80849040$f3c9403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20060123101101.033a9100@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00a401c620ac$5028e940$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario . > > Does this not contradict Grattan's original argument, > which was that the illegality of having agreements > regarding actions over opponents' infractions derives > from the first two sentences of L16? Obviously, > knowledge of the vulnerability is derived from neither > "legal calls and or plays" nor "mannerisms of the > opponents". > +=+ Rewriting history? If you look back you will see that when I entered the thread late on it was Kojak who had pointed to the first two sentences of Law 16. My point has been towards the potential effect of regulation where the laws do not dovetail with precision. I think knowledge of the vulnerability derives most clearly from regulations under L40E. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 24 07:29:46 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 24 07:39:37 2006 Subject: [blml] 85 course members Message-ID: <00c801c620af$a95bd010$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ +=+ The participants in the EBL Seminar at the end of this week will include quite a number of readers of blml. From England I know that Probst, Amos, Barker, Stevenson are among seven nominees, and I expect among leading TDs from Europe those who contribute to blml will mostly be present. This far at least attendance at these biennial seminars is a condition of retaining EBL status. The staff will include Riccardi, Bavin, Di Sacco, Kooijman, myself and a couple more. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 24 07:46:27 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 24 07:56:38 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <00f001c620b2$099fc150$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Sven wrote: > > > Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies > > that for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" > > after it has been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the case > > might be? > > Mostly, at least during the bidding and play of the hand I think > "treating as legal" must mean in all ways. In certain esoteric > circumstances (such as an insufficient psych) I will, as TD, reserve the > right to penalise the psycher if I suspect the insufficiency of being > deliberate. > > Tim > +=+ Let us stay with the law book. 'treated as legal' appears in Law 27. It does not appear in Law 29 because it was not intended to apply in Law 29. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 24 08:32:39 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue Jan 24 08:37:41 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario >> > > > > >> You make an assertion about 'restrictions >> on SOs in 40D'; this law does not in fact restrict >>- what it does >> is to authorize the exercise of certain powers. > > Law 40d clarifies, quite lucidly, what SOs may > regulate. In so doing it clearly differentiates from > those area which they may not regulate. > Indeed on notable occasions certain SOs have > recognised this in the way the phrase laws under > L40d. Such approaches would be unnecessary > were L40d not limiting. > +=+ Law 40D authorises in certain areas. The power esxtends as far as it says. Law 40E authorises in other areas. Neither is subordinate to the other. The principle is established and recorded that powers to regulate granted in any law are separate from and not subordinate to any other law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 24 10:14:56 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jan 24 10:20:15 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <00f001c620b2$099fc150$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ........... > > Sven wrote: > > > > > Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it were legal" implies > > > that for all relevant purposes the incorrect action "is made legal" > > > after it has been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer as the > > > case might be? ............ > > > +=+ Let us stay with the law book. 'treated as legal' > appears in Law 27. It does not appear in Law 29 > because it was not intended to apply in Law 29. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ True. And exactly where does that leave me in the following situation? My partner opens out of turn with say 1H. My RHO elects to double (Law 29A) and it is my turn to call. Is my partner's opening bid of 1H AI or UI for me (and why)? Regards Sven From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Jan 24 10:23:47 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Jan 24 10:29:06 2006 Subject: [blml] 85 course members References: <00c801c620af$a95bd010$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000f01c620c7$e26f6610$53310952@AnnesComputer> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:29 AM Subject: [blml] 85 course members > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > "Here the great art lies, to discern > in what the law is to be to distraint > and punishment, and in what things > persuasion only is to work." > (John Milton) > > ------------------------------------------------ > > +=+ The participants in the EBL Seminar at the > end of this week will include quite a number of > readers of blml. From England I know that Probst, > Amos, Barker, Stevenson are among seven > nominees, and I expect among leading TDs from > Europe those who contribute to blml will mostly > be present. This far at least attendance at these > biennial seminars is a condition of retaining EBL > status. The staff will include Riccardi, Bavin, > Di Sacco, Kooijman, myself and a couple more. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 24 11:53:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 24 11:59:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Law 40D authorises in certain areas. The power > esxtends as far as it says. Law 40E authorises in > other areas. Neither is subordinate to the other. Subordinate to, or complementary to - it matters not to me. Each law contains inherent boundaries which logically limit other laws. > The principle is established and recorded that powers > to regulate granted in any law are separate from and > not subordinate to any other law. Established and recorded, perhaps. Enshrined in law - obviously not. Please don't tell me that L40E (or 40d, or 80e) are not subordinate to Law1. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 24 11:53:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 24 11:59:22 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <00f001c620b2$099fc150$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > > Mostly, at least during the bidding and play of the hand I think > > "treating as legal" must mean in all ways. In certain esoteric > > circumstances (such as an insufficient psych) I will, as TD, reserve > > the right to penalise the psycher if I suspect the insufficiency of > > being deliberate. > > > > Tim > > > +=+ Let us stay with the law book. 'treated as legal' > appears in Law 27. It does not appear in Law 29 And why would one be applying Law29 in the case of an insufficient Psych - surely that's a Law27 matter? > because it was not intended to apply in Law 29. So is the "intent" of law 29 that a) No player at the table may base a call on info from an accepted COOT b) Only opponents may base a call on info from an accepted COOT c) All players may base a call on info from an accepted COOT What is the status of a double of an accepted opening BOOT - presumably it's not inadmissible? I have to say that every player/TD I have ever met expects the auction to continue normally with the COOT forming part of the auction (Indeed according to the definitions it IS part of the auction). TDs have a problem when making decisions based on the "intent" of law- makers. We cannot know their intent and thus must deduce it in the context of the laws as written. Sometimes the written law renders the intent of the writers irrelevant (such as the demarcation between L40d/e) at others one must make assumptions based on general context. L29 does not address the issue of basing calls on an accepted COOT but custom, practice, the inherent playability of the game and related sources (L27, 1993L29) give us guidance on how best to proceed. Tim From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Jan 24 12:40:50 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Jan 24 12:46:09 2006 Subject: [blml] 85 course members References: <00c801c620af$a95bd010$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001901c620db$07e23630$53310952@AnnesComputer> Sadly I am not able to join you this year. Good luck all and I hope you benefit as much as I have in the past. Please give my love to all. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:29 AM Subject: [blml] 85 course members > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > "Here the great art lies, to discern > in what the law is to be to distraint > and punishment, and in what things > persuasion only is to work." > (John Milton) > > ------------------------------------------------ > > +=+ The participants in the EBL Seminar at the > end of this week will include quite a number of > readers of blml. From England I know that Probst, > Amos, Barker, Stevenson are among seven > nominees, and I expect among leading TDs from > Europe those who contribute to blml will mostly > be present. This far at least attendance at these > biennial seminars is a condition of retaining EBL > status. The staff will include Riccardi, Bavin, > Di Sacco, Kooijman, myself and a couple more. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 24 13:13:12 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jan 24 13:18:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c620df$8cd0d550$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............ > So is the "intent" of law 29 that > a) No player at the table may base a call on info from an accepted COOT > b) Only opponents may base a call on info from an accepted COOT > c) All players may base a call on info from an accepted COOT > > What is the status of a double of an accepted opening BOOT - presumably > it's not inadmissible? Sure it is admissible? There is no requirement in Law 19 that the doubled bid must be legal, only that it is a bid made by an opponent and that no call other than pass has intervened. I am still anxious to see an authoritative answer to my question on the position for the partner to a player who has made an opening bid out of turn when this bid is accepted and doubled by the offender's LHO. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 24 14:26:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 24 14:32:24 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000401c620df$8cd0d550$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............ > > So is the "intent" of law 29 that > > a) No player at the table may base a call on info from an accepted > > COOT > > b) Only opponents may base a call on info from an accepted COOT > > c) All players may base a call on info from an accepted COOT > > > > What is the status of a double of an accepted opening BOOT - > > presumably it's not inadmissible? > > Sure it is admissible? There is no requirement in Law 19 that the > doubled bid must be legal, only that it is a bid made by an opponent and > that no call other than pass has intervened. > I am still anxious to see an authoritative answer to my question on the > position for the partner to a player who has made an opening bid out of > turn when this bid is accepted and doubled by the offender's LHO. I'm equally anxious Sven - I think was just phrasing the same question in a different way. In my mind I think everybody at the table is allowed to know the level and denomination of the contract doubled (and base decisions on that knowledge) and, of course, on any systemic agreements which may apply. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 24 16:19:22 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jan 24 16:24:53 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred> References: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred> Message-ID: <69926E37-21AB-4C19-A6D7-D6E539D3F751@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 24, 2006, at 2:32 AM, Grattan wrote: > The principle is established and recorded that powers to regulate > granted in any law are separate from and not subordinate to any > other law. Including, apparently, Law 80F, which *reads* like a general law, and which prohibits SOs from making regulations in conflict with "these Laws". :-( In the context of another game, there existed a rule which was generating some controversy. The solution adopted by the game's (one man) equivalent of the WBFLC was simple - he deleted the rule. Will that happen to Law 80F, I wonder? From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 24 18:08:52 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 24 18:21:38 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:14 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > > > Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it >>>> were legal" implies that for all relevant purposes >>>> the incorrect action "is made legal" after it has >>>> been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer >>>> as the case might be? > ............ > > > > > +=+ Let us stay with the law book. 'treated as legal' > > appears in Law 27. It does not appear in Law 29 > > because it was not intended to apply in Law 29. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > True. And exactly where does that leave me in the > following situation? > > My partner opens out of turn with say 1H. My RHO > elects to double (Law 29A) and it is my turn to call. > > Is my partner's opening bid of 1H AI or UI for me > (and why)? > > Regards Sven > +=+ I do have the feeling that this is the point at which I entered the revolving door in support of statements Kojak was making.. What I believe is that you are free to make any bid you choose opposite your partner's illegal call because there can be no punishment of its consequences. (But, of course, there is no basis for making a call with a different meaning from the one announced on your CC.) The remainder of the thread has surrounded the proposition that opponents are entitled to agree to change the meaning of their call following an irregularity. In regard to this my position is that for the meaning of an opponent's call to change it requires the L40E regulations to permit of alternative meanings on their CCs - which, as I stated in my initial post, is something I do not recall having met. Tim West-Meads stance is that there is no power to regulate on the question, but he is trying to subordinate 40E to 40D and this is not the correct position in Law. True we have 40D and 40E written without regard one for the other, which is something to mop up in the current Review. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 24 18:58:04 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jan 24 19:00:23 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <006701c620a8$35c49cb0$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <006101c6200f$888677f0$5e9887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060123132942.02a4bb20@pop.starpower.net> <006701c620a8$35c49cb0$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060124122407.02e6d970@pop.starpower.net> At 12:33 AM 1/24/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > That cannot be the intent of L40. L40D explicitly > > grants the authority to regulate certain specific > > understandings to ZOs or their designates. But if > > Grattan is correct, L40E provides the same power > > over any understandings whatsoever, whether or > > not they are mentioned in L40D. That would make > > L40D meaningless and unnecessary; we are surely > > entitled to assume that if it were *intended* to be > > meaningless and unnecessary it would not be there. > >+=+ First, this is a misunderstanding of the procedure >in the 1994-97 review of the laws. 40D and 40E were >not considered jointly and neither was there any >attempt at correlation between them - I have the >multitudinous correspondence, so I know. And in >the course of this thread I have been concerned mostly >to consider the effects of the anomalous result. NBOs >and other regulators have considerable tolerance in >their powers to regulate; the WBF and the ACBL are >among the foremost of those who have taken advantage. >Second, to say "we are surely entitled" begs the question >"who are 'we'?" - to which the answer is with those who >regulate. I do not think anything will change until we have >new laws - and those new laws will be inclined to reflect >the desires of the more powerful bridge organizations. The "we" who are "surely entitled" to assume that the laws say what they mean was intended to encompass anyone who reads and attempts to understand the laws. If the intent of L40E, and its history prior to the 1997 revisions, are as Grattan suggests, it is unfortunate that its authors failed to realize that it obviated L40D and that the latter should have been expunged. Instead, readers of TFLB continue to read and insist on believing the words of L40D, which, as we see repeatedly on BLML, causes much dissention, dissatisfaction and debate. Its continued existence makes the WBF (or do I mean the WBFLC?) look like hypocrites, regulating limitations on the powers of ZOs, but continuing to allow them to do as they please even they appear to be doing so in direct contradiction to the regulators' own clear directives. I do not support the apparent view of the WBF that its ZOs should be allowed to make any regulations whatsoever they may choose to with regard to the regulation of methods, but I am but an egg, and will follow the laws as best I can. I ask only that the obvious hypocrisy be ended. If the WBF chooses to do so by elminating from TFLB any suggestion of any restriction on a ZO's powers to regulate methods, and writes a law that conveys their intent to allow ZOs to do whatever the h-ll they please, so be it. I will not be happy, but at least I will do what Grattan has been telling me to do for years, which is to write off any possibility of intervention by the WBF, and take my case, futile though my attempts may be, to TPTB of the ACBL, who will be totally unconstrained in their desire to return to the bad old days, when they mandated that everyone play the particular methods favored by the members of the ACBL's Board of Directors (do we remember when a weak two-bid with fewer than 5 or more than 12 HCP incurred an automatic penalty? when two psyches in the same session incurred an automatic penalty? when a 10-12 1NT opening on K10x/10x/J10x/AJ109x incurred an automatic penalty? do we really want to go back to that sh-t?), and our hopes of attracting new, eager, younger players who enjoy expermenting with their methods to the American game can die a natural death. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 24 19:13:30 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jan 24 19:15:46 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <00a401c620ac$5028e940$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200601200218.SAA26442@mailhub.irvine.com> <000201c61ed0$80849040$f3c9403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20060123101101.033a9100@pop.starpower.net> <00a401c620ac$5028e940$f2a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060124130009.02e711f0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:05 AM 1/24/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > Does this not contradict Grattan's original argument, > > which was that the illegality of having agreements > > regarding actions over opponents' infractions derives > > from the first two sentences of L16? Obviously, > > knowledge of the vulnerability is derived from neither > > "legal calls and or plays" nor "mannerisms of the > > opponents". > >+=+ Rewriting history? If you look back you will >see that when I entered the thread late on it was >Kojak who had pointed to the first two sentences >of Law 16. My point has been towards the potential >effect of regulation where the laws do not dovetail >with precision. I think knowledge of the vulnerability >derives most clearly from regulations under L40E. My apologies for misattributing Kojak's argument to Grattan. I do not understand Grattan's last sentence above. He appears to be telling me that I may vary my methods with the vulnerability only because my zonal authority has a regulation which permits me to. If so, he is wrong, as there is no such ACBL regulation. Or perhaps he is saying that I may use my knowledge of the vulnerability to vary my methods only in the absence of a ZO regulation to the contrary. I know -- to return to the starting point of this thread -- that I may not use my knowlege that my opponents have committed an infraction to vary my methods, but I have been under the impression that that is because the ACBL does have a regulation to that effect, not because I am barred from doing so by anything in TFLB. Would the WBF accept a ZO regulation barring me from varying my calls (*or plays*, per L40) based on the vulnerability? Would they be happy doing so? Would anyone else be happy to see them do so? Is this what we want? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Jan 24 19:12:59 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue Jan 24 19:18:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000a01c62111$cf048b60$0307a8c0@david> > +=+ I do have the feeling that this is the point at > which I entered the revolving door in support of > statements Kojak was making.. What I believe > is that you are free to make any bid you choose > opposite your partner's illegal call because there > can be no punishment of its consequences. I cannot believe Grattan is claiming that one is free to choose an illegal bid because the Law lays down no consequence for doing so. Also see L12A1 and L72B. But if responder's bid is not based upon partner's illegal bid then I obviously don't understand what "based upon" means. > (But, > of course, there is no basis for making a call with > a different meaning from the one announced on > your CC.) It would surely be a matter of commonsense that for example if partner accepted an opening BOOT of 4H and followed it with a double, this would be penalties notwithstanding that the documented system agreement for a double of 4H would be take out. > The remainder of the thread has surrounded the > proposition that opponents are entitled to agree > to change the meaning of their call following an > irregularity. In regard to this my position is that > for the meaning of an opponent's call to change > it requires the L40E regulations to permit of > alternative meanings on their CCs - which, as I > stated in my initial post, is something I do not > recall having met. Tim West-Meads stance > is that there is no power to regulate on the > question, but he is trying to subordinate 40E to > 40D and this is not the correct position in Law. > True we have 40D and 40E written without > regard one for the other, which is something > to mop up in the current Review. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I would also appreciate a comment upon 4H 1S P 3H 4H was a BOOT not accepted and the non offending side agreements are that a jump in a suit known to be held by opponents is a splinter. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/238 - Release Date: 23/01/2006 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 24 19:14:34 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 24 19:25:40 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred> <69926E37-21AB-4C19-A6D7-D6E539D3F751@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007c01c62112$4a1e8580$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > On Jan 24, 2006, at 2:32 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > The principle is established and recorded that powers > > to regulate granted in any law are separate from and > > not subordinate to any other law. > > Including, apparently, Law 80F, which *reads* like a > general law, and which prohibits SOs from making > regulations in conflict with "these Laws". :-( > +=+ I believe that is what its drafter intended. However, as is the way of the world, the 'Supreme Court' did not interpret it so. In an Appeal from a Director's ruling, on a question of regulation Edgar Kaplan tried to overturn a regulation (which he had written himself under one law) on grounds that it conflicted with another - 85F (which he had also written himself). The Appeal was heard by a joint meeting of the WBF Executive Council and its Rules and Regulations Committee which found, unanimously save for one abstention, that in Law 85F the restriction applies only to regulations made under L85F, and not to those made under powers granted in any other law (of which there are several - as 80E, 87, 79C, 78D, 40B, 40D, 40E). The principle is that each such law is self- sufficient and itself establishes any restrictions applying to the powers it grants in the areas to which it appertains. +=+ < > In the context of another game, there existed a rule > which was generating some controversy. The solution > adopted by the game's (one man) equivalent of the > WBFLC was simple - he deleted the rule. Will that > happen to Law 80F, I wonder? > +=+ Well, let's say that the drafting subcommittee is aware of the point. ~ G ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 24 19:23:32 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jan 24 19:34:07 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" ; "Sven Pran" Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > "Here the great art lies, to discern > in what the law is to be to distraint > and punishment, and in what things > persuasion only is to work." > (John Milton) > > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:14 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > > > > > Can we not once and for all agree that "as if it > >>>> were legal" implies that for all relevant purposes > >>>> the incorrect action "is made legal" after it has > >>>> been accepted by the offender's LHO or declarer > >>>> as the case might be? > > ............ > > > > > > > +=+ Let us stay with the law book. 'treated as legal' > > > appears in Law 27. It does not appear in Law 29 > > > because it was not intended to apply in Law 29. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > True. And exactly where does that leave me in the > > following situation? > > > > My partner opens out of turn with say 1H. My RHO > > elects to double (Law 29A) and it is my turn to call. > > > > Is my partner's opening bid of 1H AI or UI for me > > (and why)? > > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ I do have the feeling that this is the point at > which I entered the revolving door in support of > statements Kojak was making.. >What I believe > is that you are free to make any bid you choose > opposite your partner's illegal call because there > can be no punishment of its consequences. It is curious that Grattan has this notion. >(But, > of course, there is no basis for making a call with > a different meaning from the one announced on > your CC.) L16 specifies that a player may act on inferences from legal calls and plays and thereby that it is an infraction to act on inference from illegal calls and plays [of his side]. Partner's COOT being an illegal call that forever remains illegal compels the player's side to not act on inference from that call- whether or not the call is condoned. I, for one, have a problem with that state of being. regards, roger pewick > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 24 19:56:40 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jan 24 20:02:02 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: One more try. Please read the words in 40 E 1 ".....may establish regulations FOR ITS USE (CAPITALS MINE).....". "IT" refers to the convention card, not what is on it -- except for a requirement about same system which was put into here because previous reviews didn't know where to put it and needed to express it and it surfaced by partners showing up with differing convention cards. Keeping this in mind is it very difficult to understand that 40E was written to take care of convention cards? - it simply gives authority and form to the manner in which D may be performed. And no, Tim, Law 40 is no more subordinate to Law 1 as it is to Law 38, or any other one. If you follow a simple procedure the Laws are really not that hard to apply. For a particular event see if the Law has a specific one to take care of it. If so, then follow the recipe. If not, then go to the general law that applies for guidance on what to do. To me, the problem, so cleverly created so that we can pontificate, is that we move around within all the laws, moving words, changing their meaning, applying stretches of logic, so that we can show our great ability to confuse and be confused and read into it anything we wish to argue about. As to Grattan's rather clever segue in ducking out of what he wrote about Law 16 -- the first two sentences simply are there to state that you may not have agreements with your partner on what to do when an illegal call or play is made. Is that a good idea? Maybe, maybe not. I'm only trying to clarify what the law SAYS -- what it should say is for the drafting committee to propose and the Executive Committee to codify. I'm sure that "staff" of the EBL seminar will find out what TDs think and would like the laws to be -- some having apparently somehow been blind and deaf and silent to what has been in front of their noses during realtime tournaments since l997. I strongly doubt that there will be any NEW (there I go again) items that haven't been already discussed during the last 10 years. But is does give an opportunity to be important, doesn't it?, and it does no harm as long as we keep in mind that the Laws are for more than the EBL/WBF (or did I get that wrong - should it be WBF/EBL?) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Law 40D authorises in certain areas. The power > > esxtends as far as it says. Law 40E authorises in > > other areas. Neither is subordinate to the other. > > Subordinate to, or complementary to - it matters not to me. Each law > contains inherent boundaries which logically limit other laws. > > > The principle is established and recorded that powers > > to regulate granted in any law are separate from and > > not subordinate to any other law. > > Established and recorded, perhaps. Enshrined in law - obviously not. > Please don't tell me that L40E (or 40d, or 80e) are not subordinate to > Law1. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Jan 24 21:20:41 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue Jan 24 21:25:57 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <000701c62123$a5bbad30$0307a8c0@david> I find it difficult to be certain about this, but Grattan & Kojak appear to be interpreting the phrase "authorised to base their calls and plays ..." as meaning "may have agreements as to the meanings of calls and play". Hence they proceed to "may not have agreements" or "may not have different agreements" following an illegal call. However it appears to me that "to base a call" refers to the call actually selected, NOT to the agreement. This is more clearly brought out if you consider that "authorised to base ..." refers to (legal) calls AND (opponents') mannerisms. eg you may base your double on opponent's hesitant 5C, but may NOT base your decision on partner's hesitant double. If we can clarify this then we are at least debating the same issue. Apologies if I am misrepresenting anyone's view, as this is not my intention. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/238 - Release Date: 23/01/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 24 23:01:50 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jan 24 23:04:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <69926E37-21AB-4C19-A6D7-D6E539D3F751@rochester.rr.com> References: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred> <69926E37-21AB-4C19-A6D7-D6E539D3F751@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060124163140.02e6b7d0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:19 AM 1/24/06, Ed wrote: >On Jan 24, 2006, at 2:32 AM, Grattan wrote: > >>The principle is established and recorded that powers to regulate >>granted in any law are separate from and not subordinate to any >>other law. > >Including, apparently, Law 80F, which *reads* like a general law, and >which prohibits SOs from making regulations in conflict with "these >Laws". :-( Yup, Ed, that's what Grattan is telling us. All of the regulatory powers granted elsewhere are independent of and not subordinate to L80F, notwithstanding that that makes L80F, like L40D, empty words of no consequence that TPTB at the WBFLC simply neglected to delete from TFLB in 1997. Note that that includes the power "to establish special conditions for bidding and play" granted by L80E, which is independent of and not subordinate to, for example, L77, L1, or L19A1, which means that any ZO is free to mandate that odd tricks at diamonds are worth zero, that fours outrank nines, or that it's perfectly legal to double partner's last bid if LHO passes. That may sound like a bit of a stretch, but it really isn't, not when it has already been made quite clear in numerous WBF minutes that L40 gives "the sponsoring organization" the power to, for example, forbid any player from bidding notrump under any circumstances. At least, when the new laws come out, they'll be able to just do it; until then, those who haven't caught up with the current state of WBF jurisprudence might still think they would need to decree that while it is perfectly legal to bid notrump, anyone who does so may not use any conventional methods for the rest of their lives. At least we have something to be thankful for! If the WBF really believes that "all powers to regulate in any law are separate from and not subordinate to any other law", they have the unique opportunity to simplify the laws considerably. Indeed, there is no reason why the next edition of TFLB cannot read, in its entirety: "Law 1. A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these laws is free to hold any event it chooses under any rules whatsoever and call it Duplicate Contract Bridge." Gin rummy, anyone? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 25 02:50:44 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jan 25 02:56:06 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred><69926E37-21AB-4C19-A6D7-D6E539D3F751@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060124163140.02e6b7d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Now now, Mr. Landau, you are getting what someone would call "peevish" besides being inaccurate, are you not? Just because Law 80F reminds regulatory organizations not to make regulations in conflict with these laws doesn't justify your suggestion of having just Law 1. From my limited experience of over 40 years in directing, playing, and administering bridge throughout the world besides just the once a year WBF World Championships, I can assure you that the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are given rightful consideration, and that regulating authorities use their rights to supplement and/or change some provisions with care. If you will look at the 1999 Revised Authorized Edition of the Duplicate Laws as promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the ACBL you will find "Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors" in the back of the book which are very carefully tailored to their respective laws. You may think that bridge could be played all over the world in exactly the same form, but that would only prove a lack of experience and knowledge of the many aspects of our game that do not fit a worldwide mold. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > At 10:19 AM 1/24/06, Ed wrote: > > >On Jan 24, 2006, at 2:32 AM, Grattan wrote: > > > >>The principle is established and recorded that powers to regulate > >>granted in any law are separate from and not subordinate to any > >>other law. > > > >Including, apparently, Law 80F, which *reads* like a general law, and > >which prohibits SOs from making regulations in conflict with "these > >Laws". :-( > > Yup, Ed, that's what Grattan is telling us. All of the regulatory > powers granted elsewhere are independent of and not subordinate to > L80F, notwithstanding that that makes L80F, like L40D, empty words of > no consequence that TPTB at the WBFLC simply neglected to delete from > TFLB in 1997. Note that that includes the power "to establish special > conditions for bidding and play" granted by L80E, which is independent > of and not subordinate to, for example, L77, L1, or L19A1, which means > that any ZO is free to mandate that odd tricks at diamonds are worth > zero, that fours outrank nines, or that it's perfectly legal to double > partner's last bid if LHO passes. > > That may sound like a bit of a stretch, but it really isn't, not when > it has already been made quite clear in numerous WBF minutes that L40 > gives "the sponsoring organization" the power to, for example, forbid > any player from bidding notrump under any circumstances. At least, > when the new laws come out, they'll be able to just do it; until then, > those who haven't caught up with the current state of WBF jurisprudence > might still think they would need to decree that while it is perfectly > legal to bid notrump, anyone who does so may not use any conventional > methods for the rest of their lives. At least we have something to be > thankful for! > > If the WBF really believes that "all powers to regulate in any law are > separate from and not subordinate to any other law", they have the > unique opportunity to simplify the laws considerably. Indeed, there is > no reason why the next edition of TFLB cannot read, in its entirety: > > "Law 1. A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these laws > is free to hold any event it chooses under any rules whatsoever and > call it Duplicate Contract Bridge." > > Gin rummy, anyone? > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 25 12:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jan 25 12:46:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The remainder of the thread has surrounded the > proposition that opponents are entitled to agree > to change the meaning of their call following an > irregularity. In regard to this my position is that > for the meaning of an opponent's call to change > it requires the L40E regulations to permit of > alternative meanings on their CCs - which, as I Absolute twaddle. If one has such agreements they must be properly disclosed. Absent specific regulations one might put such disclosure on the CC or one might alert or otherwise explain when the situation arises. If opponents suffer damage due to a lack of timely disclosure they are entitled to redress. A regulation forbidding disclosure on the CC is not a regulation forbidding an agreement. No specific regulation is required in order to make a voluntary disclosure on the CC of an agreement of which opponents may be unaware. > stated in my initial post, is something I do not > recall having met. One thing *I* have met is a CC with lots of nice empty space and a heading "SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILS". One could use some of this space to, for example, give an explanation of when 1NT is 12-14 as opposed to the 15-17 one has agreed the rest of the time. > Tim West-Meads stance > is that there is no power to regulate on the > question, but he is trying to subordinate 40E to > 40D and this is not the correct position in Law. I'm not trying to subordinate L40D to Law 40E, or vice-versa. I merely recognise that, as currently written, they address separate issues. L40D restricts what agreements SOs may regulate, L40E empowers SOs to regulate how agreements should be disclosed on the CC (and how CCs should be used). Nor do I maintain there is no power to regulate what agreements one may have in these situations - I simply draw attention to the fact that such regulations would be limited to conventional agreements (and initial one-level actions...etc...). > True we have 40D and 40E written without > regard one for the other, which is something > to mop up in the current Review. Hearsay, or possibly malicious invention. Readers of the laws can see L40d and L40e alongside, and complementary to, each-other - it is, IMO, insulting to say that we should assume the original authors were so moronic as to not consider them in that light. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 25 12:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jan 25 12:46:17 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote, > Please read the words in 40 E 1 ".....may establish regulations FOR ITS > USE (CAPITALS MINE).....". "IT" refers to the convention card, not what > is on it -- except for a requirement about same system which was put > into here because previous reviews didn't know where to put it and > needed to express it and it surfaced by partners showing up with > differing convention cards. > > Keeping this in mind is it very difficult to understand that 40E was > written to take care of convention cards? - it simply gives authority > and form to the manner in which D may be performed. Which is fine Bill, but why attach this to one of my posts? I'm one of those who has been maintaining that Law40E does NOT give SOs rights to regulate beyond L40d. Grattan is the person who has been maintaining that it does. > As to Grattan's rather clever segue in ducking out of what he wrote > about Law 16 -- the first two sentences simply are there to state that > you may not have agreements with your partner on what to do when an > illegal call or play is made. L16C does not empower one to base a call on one's own system agreements (even if they don't relate to the infraction). Indeed L16 has nothing to do with system regulation whatsoever. The first paragraph of L16 helps create an understanding of what UI is. It doesn't try to itemise either all that is forbidden or all that is permitted - it uses the word "may" (with an implicit "or may not") to leave a certain amount open. Some of that is dealt with under L16a/b/c, in particular L16c1 clarifies that (when a call/play is withdrawn) *all* information is authorised to the NOS. Under normal definitions "all" would include any inferences arising from partner/opponents subsequent choice of actions. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 25 14:11:38 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jan 25 14:17:01 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: Tim, I apologize that I added my comments to one of your posts. It was simply the one on my screen at the time treating with this subject. I agree that what you are posting is what the Law attempts to provide. The most important words to understanding E are short. ".... regulations for IT's use....." refers to a convention card, and not what's on it. It was never meant to be an authorization for anything else. the sentence on 'systems' came about because some pairs were beginning to show up each with a different convention card and claiming their right to play a different system across the table (all of which were probably authorized conventions and treatments). Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Kojak wrote, > > > Please read the words in 40 E 1 ".....may establish regulations FOR ITS > > USE (CAPITALS MINE).....". "IT" refers to the convention card, not what > > is on it -- except for a requirement about same system which was put > > into here because previous reviews didn't know where to put it and > > needed to express it and it surfaced by partners showing up with > > differing convention cards. > > > > Keeping this in mind is it very difficult to understand that 40E was > > written to take care of convention cards? - it simply gives authority > > and form to the manner in which D may be performed. > > Which is fine Bill, but why attach this to one of my posts? I'm one of > those who has been maintaining that Law40E does NOT give SOs rights to > regulate beyond L40d. Grattan is the person who has been maintaining that > it does. > > > > As to Grattan's rather clever segue in ducking out of what he wrote > > about Law 16 -- the first two sentences simply are there to state that > > you may not have agreements with your partner on what to do when an > > illegal call or play is made. > > L16C does not empower one to base a call on one's own system agreements > (even if they don't relate to the infraction). Indeed L16 has nothing to > do with system regulation whatsoever. The first paragraph of L16 helps > create an understanding of what UI is. It doesn't try to itemise either > all that is forbidden or all that is permitted - it uses the word "may" > (with an implicit "or may not") to leave a certain amount open. > Some of that is dealt with under L16a/b/c, in particular L16c1 clarifies > that (when a call/play is withdrawn) *all* information is authorised to > the NOS. Under normal definitions "all" would include any inferences > arising from partner/opponents subsequent choice of actions. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 25 15:41:32 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jan 25 15:44:06 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060125093309.03008450@pop.starpower.net> At 12:08 PM 1/24/06, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I do have the feeling that this is the point at >which I entered the revolving door in support of >statements Kojak was making.. What I believe >is that you are free to make any bid you choose >opposite your partner's illegal call because there >can be no punishment of its consequences. (But, >of course, there is no basis for making a call with >a different meaning from the one announced on >your CC.) >The remainder of the thread has surrounded the >proposition that opponents are entitled to agree >to change the meaning of their call following an >irregularity. In regard to this my position is that >for the meaning of an opponent's call to change >it requires the L40E regulations to permit of >alternative meanings on their CCs - which, as I >stated in my initial post, is something I do not >recall having met. Tim West-Meads stance >is that there is no power to regulate on the >question, but he is trying to subordinate 40E to >40D and this is not the correct position in Law. >True we have 40D and 40E written without >regard one for the other, which is something >to mop up in the current Review. Surely "permit of alternative meanings on their CCs" cannot mean that it must be possible to *describe* that alternative meaning on their CCs, else 90%+ of the agreements commonly used (at least in games in which the ACBL convention card is used) would be illegal. Clearly, if one *can* disclose the agreement solely on the CC, it must be legal. Otherwise, since we know it can't be illegal prima facie, it can only be illegal if the SO has regulated to that effect. If we were to pass a law tomorrow which said that the only legal methods were those that could be fully and completely disclosed by means of the CC alone, the ACBL game as we know it would become totally unplayable. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jan 25 18:30:24 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jan 25 18:40:48 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <002701c621d5$2e3e18d0$649387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Kojak wrote, > > > > As to Grattan's rather clever segue in ducking > > out of what he wrote about Law 16 -- the first > > two sentences simply are there to state that you > > may not have agreements with your partner on > > what to do when an illegal call or play is made. > +=+ I am not conscious of any transition on my part. Tim has weaved all round the laws. Perhaps I have been unwise to allow him to lead the dance. The first two sentences of L16 are not there to stop anything. They are there to authorize certain things a player may do, and to establish the fail-safe mechanism that any action not specified in the laws (or in regulations made under the laws) to be authorized is extraneous. It may be deemed an infraction if information deriving from it is used in the auction or in the play (minute, WBFLC, 24 Aug 98). In Law 16 'information from' means information conveyed by. Tim seems to argue (if not invariably with politeness) that awareness of the occurrence is information *from* an illegal call. 'Of' or 'about' might mean that; 'from' does not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jan 25 17:54:14 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jan 25 18:40:50 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP><000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000a01c62111$cf048b60$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <002601c621d5$2d416950$649387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > +=+ I do have the feeling that this is the point at > > which I entered the revolving door in support of > > statements Kojak was making.. What I believe > > is that you are free to make any bid you choose > > opposite your partner's illegal call because there > > can be no punishment of its consequences. > > I cannot believe Grattan is claiming that one is free > to choose an illegal bid because the Law lays down > no consequence for doing so. Also see L12A1 and L72B. > > But if responder's bid is not based upon partner's illegal > bid then I obviously don't understand what "based upon" > means. > +=+ Sorry. Careless. Read that 'any legal call you choose'. And I agree it is 'based on' *information from* the illegal call. Use of that information from the illegal call is not penalised in the circumstances of Law 29A, which is the subject of discussion. I do not agree that the meaning of a call may be based on the fact that the illegal call has occurred; that is not use of information *from* (i.e. conveyed by) the illegal call.. ~ G ~ +=+ From toddz at att.net Wed Jan 25 18:58:21 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Jan 25 19:03:45 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002601c621d5$2d416950$649387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP><000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000a01c62111$cf048b60$0307a8c0@david> <002601c621d5$2d416950$649387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43D7BC3D.1070609@att.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Sorry. Careless. Read that 'any legal call you > choose'. And I agree it is 'based on' *information from* > the illegal call. Use of that information from the illegal > call is not penalised in the circumstances of Law 29A, > which is the subject of discussion. It should be covered under L16A when partner makes the illegal call. -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 25 19:30:24 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jan 25 19:32:39 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred> <69926E37-21AB-4C19-A6D7-D6E539D3F751@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060124163140.02e6b7d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060125131524.02ede940@pop.starpower.net> At 08:50 PM 1/24/06, WILLIAM wrote: >Now now, Mr. Landau, you are getting what someone would call "peevish" >besides being inaccurate, are you not? > >Just because Law 80F reminds regulatory organizations not to make >regulations in conflict with these laws doesn't justify your >suggestion of >having just Law 1. From my limited experience of over 40 years in >directing, >playing, and administering bridge throughout the world besides just >the once >a year WBF World Championships, I can assure you that the Laws of >Duplicate >Contract Bridge are given rightful consideration, and that regulating >authorities use their rights to supplement and/or change some provisions >with care. If you will look at the 1999 Revised Authorized Edition of the >Duplicate Laws as promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the ACBL >you will >find "Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors" in the back of the book >which are very carefully tailored to their respective laws. >You may think that bridge could be played all over the world in >exactly the >same form, but that would only prove a lack of experience and >knowledge of >the many aspects of our game that do not fit a worldwide mold. I'll cop to peevish, even perhaps overwrought, but I don't think my comments were inaccurate. I simply cannot accept Kojak's defense of the WBF's current interpretation of the laws. It reads far too much like the Bush administration's defense of the USA PATRIOT Act: "Yes, it is true that we have given ourselves powers that are not merely outrageous and insupportable but totally anathema to everything this country is supposed to stand for. But it's OK, because we're the good guys, and we promise to use these powers only when necessary to bring the terrorists to heel, and even then only with the utmost discretion. We can absolutely assure you that if you're a good, law-abiding citizen who believes in truth, justice and the American way you have absolutely nothing to worry about. We don't make mistakes and we would never lie. Trust us." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 25 22:40:16 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jan 25 22:45:39 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred><69926E37-21AB-4C19-A6D7-D6E539D3F751@rochester.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20060124163140.02e6b7d0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060125131524.02ede940@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: To which I can only respond with the highly descriptive word of what a bull deposits on the field after digestion and elimination of his feed. Your posting -- starting with the "" (Quotes you used -- who?, please tell - other than you) would give a good psychoanalyst a great deal of information about your mental state. Heck, it'd even give a poor one a nice adventure. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > At 08:50 PM 1/24/06, WILLIAM wrote: > > >Now now, Mr. Landau, you are getting what someone would call "peevish" > >besides being inaccurate, are you not? > > > >Just because Law 80F reminds regulatory organizations not to make > >regulations in conflict with these laws doesn't justify your > >suggestion of > >having just Law 1. From my limited experience of over 40 years in > >directing, > >playing, and administering bridge throughout the world besides just > >the once > >a year WBF World Championships, I can assure you that the Laws of > >Duplicate > >Contract Bridge are given rightful consideration, and that regulating > >authorities use their rights to supplement and/or change some provisions > >with care. If you will look at the 1999 Revised Authorized Edition of the > >Duplicate Laws as promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the ACBL > >you will > >find "Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors" in the back of the book > >which are very carefully tailored to their respective laws. > >You may think that bridge could be played all over the world in > >exactly the > >same form, but that would only prove a lack of experience and > >knowledge of > >the many aspects of our game that do not fit a worldwide mold. > > I'll cop to peevish, even perhaps overwrought, but I don't think my > comments were inaccurate. > > I simply cannot accept Kojak's defense of the WBF's current > interpretation of the laws. It reads far too much like the Bush > administration's defense of the USA PATRIOT Act: > > "Yes, it is true that we have given ourselves powers that are not > merely outrageous and insupportable but totally anathema to everything > this country is supposed to stand for. But it's OK, because we're the > good guys, and we promise to use these powers only when necessary to > bring the terrorists to heel, and even then only with the utmost > discretion. We can absolutely assure you that if you're a good, > law-abiding citizen who believes in truth, justice and the American way > you have absolutely nothing to worry about. We don't make mistakes and > we would never lie. Trust us." > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 25 22:42:28 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jan 25 22:47:51 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <002701c621d5$2e3e18d0$649387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Bravo, Grattan -- even in American English. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > "Here the great art lies, to discern > in what the law is to be to distraint > and punishment, and in what things > persuasion only is to work." > (John Milton) > > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:40 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Kojak wrote, > > > > > > > As to Grattan's rather clever segue in ducking > > > out of what he wrote about Law 16 -- the first > > > two sentences simply are there to state that you > > > may not have agreements with your partner on > > > what to do when an illegal call or play is made. > > > +=+ I am not conscious of any transition on my part. > Tim has weaved all round the laws. Perhaps I have > been unwise to allow him to lead the dance. The first > two sentences of L16 are not there to stop anything. > They are there to authorize certain things a player may > do, and to establish the fail-safe mechanism that any > action not specified in the laws (or in regulations made > under the laws) to be authorized is extraneous. It may > be deemed an infraction if information deriving from it > is used in the auction or in the play (minute, WBFLC, > 24 Aug 98). > In Law 16 'information from' means information > conveyed by. Tim seems to argue (if not invariably > with politeness) that awareness of the occurrence is > information *from* an illegal call. 'Of' or 'about' > might mean that; 'from' does not. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 25 22:44:29 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jan 25 22:49:51 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP><000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><000a01c62111$cf048b60$0307a8c0@david> <002601c621d5$2d416950$649387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Bravo again, but I wonder how deaf and stubborn minds are going to accept that the world is round too. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Barton" ; Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > "Here the great art lies, to discern > in what the law is to be to distraint > and punishment, and in what things > persuasion only is to work." > (John Milton) > > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Barton" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:12 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > > +=+ I do have the feeling that this is the point at > > > which I entered the revolving door in support of > > > statements Kojak was making.. What I believe > > > is that you are free to make any bid you choose > > > opposite your partner's illegal call because there > > > can be no punishment of its consequences. > > > > I cannot believe Grattan is claiming that one is free > > to choose an illegal bid because the Law lays down > > no consequence for doing so. Also see L12A1 and L72B. > > > > But if responder's bid is not based upon partner's illegal > > bid then I obviously don't understand what "based upon" > > means. > > > +=+ Sorry. Careless. Read that 'any legal call you > choose'. And I agree it is 'based on' *information from* > the illegal call. Use of that information from the illegal > call is not penalised in the circumstances of Law 29A, > which is the subject of discussion. I do not agree that > the meaning of a call may be based on the fact that the > illegal call has occurred; that is not use of information > *from* (i.e. conveyed by) the illegal call.. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 26 02:39:02 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Jan 26 02:44:49 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000201c620b8$854c01a0$6a0ee150@Mildred><69926E37-21AB-4C19-A6D7-D6E539D3F751@rochester.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20060124163140.02e6b7d0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060125131524.02ede940@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000701c62219$8c9b42b0$f702e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > I simply cannot accept Kojak's defense of the > WBF's current interpretation of the laws. It reads > far too much like the Bush administration's defense > of the USA PATRIOT Act: > +=+ I wouldn't wish to involve myself in debating Mr. Bush's approach to the conduct of affairs of state, even though I might wonder if his guise would cease to be good if the USA overstepped the limits of decency in its treatment of individuals. What.I can remark upon, however, is the presence of 'current' in the above. It is accurate enough unless it infers a change of interpretation in the last 20 years plus. A parallel interpretation was placed upon the then Law 89(e) by the WBFLC under the chairmanship of Ed Theus. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 26 10:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jan 26 10:54:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002701c621d5$2e3e18d0$649387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The first > two sentences of L16 are not there to stop anything. > They are there to authorize certain things a player may > do, and to establish the fail-safe mechanism that any > action not specified in the laws (or in regulations made > under the laws) to be authorized is extraneous. It may > be deemed an infraction if information deriving from it > is used in the auction or in the play (minute, WBFLC, > 24 Aug 98). We are not in disagreement that using extraneous information *may* be an infraction. Indeed if the SO has a regulation "No conventions may be used after an insufficient bid by opponents unless such a bid is corrected" then bidding 3H to show a sound raise to 3S in the auction 2S-(2H)-3H would definitely be an infraction (however, as far as I am aware, no SO has such a regulation). OTOH if my agreement is "Jump raises show distributional values but non-jump support promises sound HCP values for the level" there is no reason why the various condoning/non-condoning sequences should not show different hands. > In Law 16 'information from' means information > conveyed by. Tim seems to argue (if not invariably > with politeness) that awareness of the occurrence is > information *from* an illegal call. 'Of' or 'about' > might mean that; 'from' does not. I am aware that partner's choice of whether to accept (or not) an illegal call is information that arises from the illegal action but is not contained within the illegal action. I thus maintain that any inferences available from partner's decision not to accept are AI according to L16c1. As to politeness, I offer you the same respect as you offer the laws. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 26 14:16:23 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jan 26 14:26:19 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <005b01c6227a$c922e6a0$b49d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan wrote: > > > The first > > two sentences of L16 are not there to stop anything. > > They are there to authorize certain things a player may > > do, and to establish the fail-safe mechanism that any > > action not specified in the laws (or in regulations made > > under the laws) to be authorized is extraneous. It may > > be deemed an infraction if information deriving from it > > is used in the auction or in the play (minute, WBFLC, > > 24 Aug 98). > > We are not in disagreement that using extraneous > information *may* be an infraction. Indeed if the SO > has a regulation "No conventions may be used after an > insufficient bid by opponents unless such a bid is > corrected" .......etc. < +=+ Perusal of the full minute will help Tim to understand the position. The player needs positive authority from law or regulation for his action to be legitimate. The WBFLC in its interpretation of the law ruled that it is not the case that where an action is stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorized other actions if not expressly forbidden are also legitimate. Tim's argument is falsely based and misconceived. Use of extraneous information is only not an infraction if it is expressly authorized, absence of prohibition is not permission. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. I am just leaving to assist in conducting the seminar for EBL TDs. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 26 14:31:06 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jan 26 14:41:04 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c620c6$a52e3480$6400a8c0@WINXP><000f01c62109$586341c0$5aa087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000a01c62111$cf048b60$0307a8c0@david><002601c621d5$2d416950$649387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43D7BC3D.1070609@att.net> Message-ID: <008101c6227c$da46cd00$b49d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ Sorry. Careless. Read that 'any legal call you > > choose'. And I agree it is 'based on' *information from* > > the illegal call. Use of that information from the illegal > > call is not penalised in the circumstances of Law 29A, > > which is the subject of discussion. > > It should be covered under L16A when partner makes > the illegal call. > > -Todd > +=+ Efforts are being made currently to stop the gaps in the laws devised by former bodies. In Kaplan's era there was less tendency for players to search out apparent gaps or inadequate wording in the laws and take advantage of them. The problem was, in part - or perhaps mainly, Kaplan's sophisticated structuring of the text and the difficulty many non-immortals have in construing the language. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dpb3 at fastmail.fm Thu Jan 26 15:10:09 2006 From: dpb3 at fastmail.fm (David Babcock) Date: Thu Jan 26 15:15:32 2006 Subject: [blml] L17E, L41C Message-ID: <1138284609.22689.252816469@webmail.messagingengine.com> Hello all, Two questions: 1. Does an opening lead out of turn cause the "play period" to begin (the term appears in L41C?) 2. If the answer is "no": if the correct leader then leads, while the incorrect lead is still on the table and the director has not yet arrived, does *that* lead cause the play period to begin? The actual issue last night was that declarer did not see the second lead (as she looking for the director), which the leader picked back up when she saw partner's card on the table. (There is no issue of sharp practice here: the defenders were simply inexperienced). Your humble servant, partner of the player who won the contract, saw what happened, but said nothing at the time, per L42B3. But--was I actually dummy yet? The laws do refer to the "presumed declarer", so I get the feeling that the answer to #1 is "yes", but I'm not sure TIA. David Babcock Coral Gables, Florida From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Thu Jan 26 16:17:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu Jan 26 16:23:10 2006 Subject: [blml] L17E, L41C In-Reply-To: <1138284609.22689.252816469@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1138284609.22689.252816469@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1F28sU-05NYK80@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> Hello David, "David Babcock" wrote: > Two questions: > > 1. Does an opening lead out of turn cause the "play period" to begin > (the term appears in L41C?) yes, sure every opening lead - after 3 passes in a row - causes the play period to begin. > > 2. If the answer is "no": if the correct leader then leads, while the > incorrect lead is still on the table and the director has not yet > arrived, does *that* lead cause the play period to begin? irrelevant, cause the answer was "yes" > > The actual issue last night was that declarer did not see the second > lead (as she looking for the director), which the leader picked back up > when she saw partner's card on the table. (There is no issue of sharp > practice here: the defenders were simply inexperienced). Your humble > servant, partner of the player who won the contract, saw what happened, > but said nothing at the time, per L42B3. But--was I actually dummy yet? :) tricky I think, you were right - not to draw attention to the second lead at this time. Whilst you are "presumed dummy" your status at this point is dummy. Only if "presumed declarer" makes a decision according to Law 54A you become declarer and at that point you have the right to draw attention to the meanwhile vanished card. regards Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 26 16:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jan 26 17:05:08 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <005b01c6227a$c922e6a0$b49d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Perusal of the full minute will help Tim to understand > the position. The player needs positive authority from law > or regulation for his action to be legitimate. I choose Law75A as my authority to have special agreements: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." Note the lack of requirement for such calls to be "legal" (or even "treated as legal"). Elsewhere in the laws information arising from one's own partnership's illegal calls is specifically made illegal. That restriction does not apply to infractions by opponents. FWIW I don't generally expect agreements of this type to arise from deliberate planning (albeit they might) but I do expect casual post-game conversations like "If you had accepted the 2H bid and bid 3H I'd have taken you for better values" to lead to the creation of implicit (and disclosable) understandings. While I accept that, in this example (being a conventional bid) an SO could make such an agreement illegal I would consider such a regulation invidious. Why should the NOS be restricted simply because they have encountered a similar infraction before? Tim > p.s. I am just leaving to assist in conducting the > seminar for EBL TDs. p.s - gawd help 'em. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 26 18:28:02 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jan 26 18:29:09 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <005b01c6227a$c922e6a0$b49d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <005b01c6227a$c922e6a0$b49d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> At 08:16 AM 1/26/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-Meads" > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > The first > > > two sentences of L16 are not there to stop anything. > > > They are there to authorize certain things a player may > > > do, and to establish the fail-safe mechanism that any > > > action not specified in the laws (or in regulations made > > > under the laws) to be authorized is extraneous. It may > > > be deemed an infraction if information deriving from it > > > is used in the auction or in the play (minute, WBFLC, > > > 24 Aug 98). > > > > We are not in disagreement that using extraneous > > information *may* be an infraction. Indeed if the SO > > has a regulation "No conventions may be used after an > > insufficient bid by opponents unless such a bid is > > corrected" .......etc. >< >+=+ Perusal of the full minute will help Tim to understand >the position. The player needs positive authority from law >or regulation for his action to be legitimate. The WBFLC >in its interpretation of the law ruled that it is not the case >that where an action is stated in the laws (or regulations) to >be authorized other actions if not expressly forbidden are >also legitimate. Tim's argument is falsely based and >misconceived. Use of extraneous information is only >not an infraction if it is expressly authorized, absence of >prohibition is not permission. Which brings us back to the issue of vulnerability, which is neither a "legal call[] and or play[]" nor a "mannerism[] of opponents". I find no positive authority in either law or ACBL regulation that permits me to bid differently, or even to play a contract differently, depending on whether or not I am vulnerable. I am forced to confess, however, that I've been doing this since I learned how to play bridge. It would seem quite clear from Grattan's explication of the WBF's "full minute" that I have been acting illegally all this time. Is this truly the WBF's position? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 27 12:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jan 27 12:31:37 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > Which brings us back to the issue of vulnerability, which is neither a > "legal call[] and or play[]" nor a "mannerism[] of opponents". Eric, may I commend Law75a to your attention. "Conditions of the current deal" includes vulnerability/seat (it also includes such factors as "opps are known to weak", "We are currently behind in the match", "opps have committed an infraction". It includes legal and illegal/treated as legal calls [nb there may be explicit exclusions for the OS]. Of course any vagaries relating to the above MUST be disclosed (as per L75c and any relevant SO regulations). The scope of any agreements *may* be limited by regulations established by the SO under Law40D. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 27 16:43:26 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jan 27 16:44:33 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> At 06:27 AM 1/27/06, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > Which brings us back to the issue of vulnerability, which is neither a > > "legal call[] and or play[]" nor a "mannerism[] of opponents". > >Eric, may I commend Law75a to your attention. "Conditions of the current >deal" includes vulnerability/seat (it also includes such factors as "opps >are known to weak", "We are currently behind in the match", "opps have >committed an infraction". It includes legal and illegal/treated as legal >calls [nb there may be explicit exclusions for the OS]. Of course any >vagaries relating to the above MUST be disclosed (as per L75c and any >relevant SO regulations). The scope of any agreements *may* be >limited by >regulations established by the SO under Law40D. I didn't overlook L75A, but it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, for exactly the reason Tim gives: "conditions of the current deal" subsumes both the vulnerability and whether the opponents have or have not committed an infraction in equal measure. In an earlier post, I argued that varying one's bidding or play based on either the vulnerability or the commission of an infraction by an opponent may be legal, may be illegal, or may be legal absent SO regulation to the contrary, but, whichever is the case, there is nothing in TFLB (including L75A) which would justify different answers in the two cases. The post Tim cites was in response to Grattan, who seemed to be arguing for a fourth possibility, that both are illegal absent SO regulation to the contrary. My reply to Grattan pointed out that my SO (the ACBL) has no regulation permitting me to take the vulnerability into account in selecting my bids or plays, and asked whether I have been acting illegally by doing so. My personal opinion on the subject, FWIW, is: The laws should require that both be legal. The laws as currently written and generally interpreted are such that both are legal absent SO regulation to the contrary. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Fri Jan 27 19:47:04 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Jan 27 19:51:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Sure glad you used FWIW. Where do you get the idea that ",,,,generally interpreted...." is even remotely accurate? Kojak > My personal opinion on the subject, FWIW, is: > > The laws should require that both be legal. > > The laws as currently written and generally interpreted are such that > both are legal absent SO regulation to the contrary. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 29 02:50:10 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Jan 29 03:06:17 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c62478$364ab920$2ec9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > I didn't overlook L75A, but it is irrelevant to the point I was trying > to make, for exactly the reason Tim gives: "conditions of the current > deal" subsumes both the vulnerability and whether the opponents have or > have not committed an infraction in equal measure. > > In an earlier post, I argued that varying one's bidding or play based > on either the vulnerability or the commission of an infraction by an > opponent may be legal, may be illegal, or may be legal absent SO > regulation to the contrary, but, whichever is the case, there is > nothing in TFLB (including L75A) which would justify different answers > in the two cases. The post Tim cites was in response to Grattan, who > seemed to be arguing for a fourth possibility, that both are illegal > absent SO regulation to the contrary. My reply to Grattan pointed out > that my SO (the ACBL) has no regulation permitting me to take the > vulnerability into account in selecting my bids or plays, and asked > whether I have been acting illegally by doing so. > > My personal opinion on the subject, FWIW, is: > > The laws should require that both be legal. > > The laws as currently written and generally interpreted > are such that both are legal absent SO regulation to > the contrary. > +=+ If it appeared I was arguing that 'both are illegal' I am guilty of careless expression. My interpretation of relevant laws is that 'conditions of the current deal' means the information prescribed in Law 2 - board number, dealer, vulnerability. It does not include the fact that an irregularity has occurred; that is not a condition of the board and in respect of it the relevant law applies. I accept the power of the WBFLC to interpret the laws under the By-Laws of the WBF, and the WBFLC has insisted that only matters positively authorised in the laws or regulations may be used by a player and that matters on which these are silent are extraneous. Under Law 16 to base a call or play on extraneous information may be an infraction (which in extension depends on whether the laws or regulations speak to its use). Your view that the laws are currently written such that a condition of the board and the fact of an irregularity are 'both legal absent SO regulation to the contrary' is in error and 'generally interpreted' is not so where the interpretations of the WBFLC are applied. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jan 29 14:07:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jan 29 14:11:31 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c62478$364ab920$2ec9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ If it appeared I was arguing that 'both are illegal' > I am guilty of careless expression. My interpretation of > relevant laws is that 'conditions of the current deal' > means the information prescribed in Law 2 - board > number, dealer, vulnerability. Your interpretation is obviously incorrect. The form of scoring (MP, teams etc) is also a condition of the deal (and it's certainly something that affects the marginal hand-types that may be included in any given call). The player's seat at the table is also a "condition of the current deal" that is outwith the scope of Law2 (but again wholly legitimate information). Specific agreements, made to reflect the state of the game/match like "We just need 2 averages this round so don't do anything too off-centre" also arise from the conditions in which the deal is being played. Such agreements are disclosable, but legal. Not that that is relevant to your attempts to exclude basing agreements on "calls" - also included in L75a. In all the cases we have been discussing there has been a call by opponents (COOT or IB). If the COOT is accepted or the IB is "treated as legal" then the call stands and forms a legitimate basis for a disclosable partnership agreement. If an opponents call is "withdrawn" then "For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorised..". > I accept the power of the WBFLC to > interpret the laws under the By-Laws of the WBF, and > the WBFLC has insisted that only matters positively > authorised in the laws or regulations may be used by > a player and that matters on which these are silent are > extraneous. But where you go horribly wrong is in regarding the laws as "silent" on many issues where they are not. "..mannerisms.." in L16 includes the (extraneous) things opps say as well as the things they do. OK this isn't "explicit" within the laws but it is "implicit" within L73f2 that there is redress for "..false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent.." surely tells you that it is legal to draw inferences from such things (except where such info arises from an infraction by your partnership). "Calls" in L75a includes "treated as legal" and "accepted" calls as well as legal calls. The laws explicitly allow us to request an explanation of opps' auction (including calls available but not made) but do not explicitly permit us to base our decisions on the answers. The laws do not even explicitly say that we may (in a L16 situation) base our call on the cards we hold. I'll not argue with anyone who says that the laws don't make this immediately obvious. The potential to clarify the laws in this respect is huge. I'll even agree that, in rewriting the laws, the WBFLC may choose to change the very nature of what is there at the moment. I'll just point out that many regular partnerships, having encountered IB/COOT situations in the past, will have an implicit agreement as to continuations (through no fault of their own), or an explicit agreement having discussed "an interesting position" - OK having such a discussion is, I suppose, their fault - but it is not something I think we should penalise. Often such agreements will be no more than a crystallisation of the bridge logic a less regular partnership might choose to apply at the table - but they are no less disclosable for that. Tim From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 29 17:07:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jan 29 17:12:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Penalty card?( after Laws 46B4 and 45D) Message-ID: <000001c624ee$27937770$6400a8c0@WINXP> The following incident occurred at a medium level regional where I directed: At the time of the incident Dummy held QS (stiff) and some clubs headed by J or Q (I don't remember exactly which but definitely not of any higher rank). Dummy was at the lead and Declarer asked for "King of clubs", dummy assumed (correctly) that the intention was to play the QS (don't ask me why, anyway I cannot see that it matters much) and placed this card in the played position. RHO however, followed suit with his 6C, but before the trick was completed discovered that the card apparently led was a spade where he had the King (stiff). It is clear to me that whichever way we approach this case the QS will eventually be the card actually led to the trick and that RHO must play his KS. The question is however: Is the 6C a major penalty card or may RHO retract this card without penalty according to Law 45D? Regards Sven From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Sun Jan 29 17:25:38 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun Jan 29 17:27:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Penalty card?( after Laws 46B4 and 45D) In-Reply-To: <000001c624ee$27937770$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven writes: The following incident occurred at a medium level regional where I directed: At the time of the incident Dummy held QS (stiff) and some clubs headed by J or Q (I don't remember exactly which but definitely not of any higher rank). Dummy was at the lead and Declarer asked for "King of clubs", dummy assumed (correctly) that the intention was to play the QS (don't ask me why, anyway I cannot see that it matters much) and placed this card in the played position. RHO however, followed suit with his 6C, but before the trick was completed discovered that the card apparently led was a spade where he had the King (stiff). It is clear to me that whichever way we approach this case the QS will eventually be the card actually led to the trick and that RHO must play his KS. The question is however: Is the 6C a major penalty card or may RHO retract this card without penalty according to Law 45D? ___________________________________________________________________________ IMHO, the answer is Yes. As 45D says: "Dummy placed in the played position a card that declarer did not name" so "the card MUST be withdrawn" because " each side as not played to the next trick". "A defender may withdraw (WITHOUT PENALTY) a card played after the error but before attention..." I know, RHO "revoked" to the illegal play, but I think it is the same. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 29 17:25:18 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Jan 29 17:29:33 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8EAD5E32-5508-49F7-BEEB-5C93724C87B3@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > "..mannerisms.." in L16 includes the > (extraneous) things opps say as well as the things they do. Does it really? Merriam-Webster online, in its definition of "mannerism", makes no mention of speech at all. I think you're stretching the definition, at best. From toddz at att.net Sun Jan 29 17:31:02 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun Jan 29 17:35:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c62478$364ab920$2ec9403e@Mildred> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> <000001c62478$364ab920$2ec9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <43DCEDC6.4030205@att.net> Grattan wrote: > Your view that the laws are currently written > such that a condition of the board and the fact of an > irregularity are 'both legal absent SO regulation to the > contrary' is in error and 'generally interpreted' is not > so where the interpretations of the WBFLC are applied. FWIW, I have never once been instructed by a TD to be mindful of UI after an accepted COOT or insufficient bid. My experience is limited to the ACBL. I do remember hearing a phrase like, "continue the auction as normal." -Todd From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 29 17:47:08 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Jan 29 17:51:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Penalty card?( after Laws 46B4 and 45D) In-Reply-To: <000001c624ee$27937770$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c624ee$27937770$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <32067906-96F7-404E-B7E4-7B415CD0378B@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 29, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Is the 6C a major penalty card or may RHO retract this card without > penalty according to Law 45D? He may retract the card IAW 45D. As this is a normal application of law, Law 49 does not apply. Law 45D refers us to Law 16C2, by which RHO's possession of the C6 (and the SK, if that has been exposed) is UI to declarer. In the latter case, if leading a club is a logical alternative to the SQ, and declarer holds the ace, or the ace has been played, declarer cannot, IMO, legally lead the spade. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 29 17:57:00 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Jan 29 18:01:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Penalty card?( after Laws 46B4 and 45D) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C29BA21-BED3-4FFB-B0EE-9861FE118C34@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 29, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > IMHO, the answer is Yes. "Is it A or is it B?" "Yes," says Laval. Not a straight answer, even in French, I would have thought. :-) > As 45D says: "Dummy placed in the played position a card that > declarer did > not name" so "the card MUST be withdrawn" because " each side as > not played > to the next trick". "A defender may withdraw (WITHOUT PENALTY) a > card played > after the error but before attention..." Still unclear, but I suspect what Laval means to say is yes, the card may be withdrawn without penalty; it is not a major penalty card. > I know, RHO "revoked" to the illegal play, but I think it is the same. I considered this. I think it's unreasonable to consider the play of the C6 a revoke. If nothing else, it would be a revoke induced by an irregularity of the declaring side, and it seems rather draconian to expect to rule that an offense by one side requires a ruling of revoke against the other. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 29 17:59:18 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Jan 29 18:03:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <43DCEDC6.4030205@att.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> <000001c62478$364ab920$2ec9403e@Mildred> <43DCEDC6.4030205@att.net> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > FWIW, I have never once been instructed by a TD to be mindful of UI > after an accepted COOT or insufficient bid. My experience is > limited to the ACBL. I do remember hearing a phrase like, > "continue the auction as normal." It's easy to forget to mention it, particularly if, as is the practice of most ACBL directors, you do not read the ruling from the book. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jan 29 20:17:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jan 29 20:21:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <8EAD5E32-5508-49F7-BEEB-5C93724C87B3@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > "..mannerisms.." in L16 includes the > > (extraneous) things opps say as well as the things they do. > > Does it really? Merriam-Webster online, in its definition of > "mannerism", makes no mention of speech at all. I think you're > stretching the definition, at best. I don't disagree about the definition (albeit the official language of the laws is supposed to be English so Merriam Webster isn't an appropriate dictionary), "mannerisms" is probably the wrong word to have used in L16. A break in tempo is no more "A behavioral attribute that is distinctive and peculiar to an individual" than is a spoken comment. If you read my whole post you will see my reference to L73d2 where it speaks of "inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like" of an opponent. These are things one IS allowed to use. To say that they become UI if opponents also infract makes a mockery of the game. Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jan 29 22:58:35 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Jan 29 23:02:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose In-Reply-To: <200601231944.k0NJiMGR016872@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200601231944.k0NJiMGR016872@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43DD3A8B.9050200@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard willey > At what level should alert regimes be defined? Currently, > alert systems are standardized by the Zonal authority. For example, > the ACBL publishes an alert chart which is (in theory) used for all > official ACBL events. Alert regulations are established by SO's, not by ZO's or NCBO's. I've been to at least one club in the US that didn't use the ACBL alert regulations, though in practice most do. I think the SO is the correct level of authority for alerts. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jan 29 23:21:49 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Jan 29 23:25:54 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <200601241941.k0OJf1iJ003984@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200601241941.k0OJf1iJ003984@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43DD3FFD.8030508@cfa.harvard.edu> I am thoroughly confused about what Grattan's and Kojak's position is. Could one or both of them answer the following: Partner opens out of turn with 1H. RHO accepts the 1H bid and bids 1S. If I now bid 2H, am I supposed to be showing a) a single raise of partner's heart suit, or b) a two-level heart overcall of RHO's spades? Notice that we are the OS, and partner's BOOT is handled under L29A. I'm asking what the implications are supposed to be. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jan 30 00:24:42 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon Jan 30 00:28:51 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <200601241941.k0OJf1iJ003984@cfa.harvard.edu> <43DD3FFD.8030508@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002f01c6252b$31115a00$6500a8c0@rota> Steve Willner writes: > Partner opens out of turn with 1H. RHO accepts the 1H bid and bids 1S. If > I now bid 2H, am I supposed to be showing a) a single raise of partner's > heart suit, or b) a two-level heart overcall of RHO's spades? > > Notice that we are the OS, and partner's BOOT is handled under L29A. I'm > asking what the implications are supposed to be. Here's a reductio ad absurdum. Partner opens out of turn with 1H. RHO accepts this and passes. If I am not allowed to know about partner's illegal opening, then I am not allowed to know that 1D is an illegal call. I don't think an illegal call can ever be a logical alternative. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Jan 30 01:00:30 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Jan 30 01:03:45 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <200601241941.k0OJf1iJ003984@cfa.harvard.edu> <43DD3FFD.8030508@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000301c62530$2ed8b5d0$0307a8c0@david> From: "Steve Willner" >I am thoroughly confused about what Grattan's and Kojak's position is. > Could one or both of them answer the following: > > Partner opens out of turn with 1H. RHO accepts the 1H bid and bids 1S. > If I now bid 2H, am I supposed to be showing a) a single raise of > partner's heart suit, or b) a two-level heart overcall of RHO's spades? > > Notice that we are the OS, and partner's BOOT is handled under L29A. > I'm asking what the implications are supposed to be. > If I understand Grattan's position correctly, and I have the gravest of doubts that I do, then the information from the 1H bid can be used, but the fact that it was illegal may not. This applies to both non-offending and offending sides. Thus there should be few problems arising from this example. However, if you consider the case of 4H X P ? where 4H was an accepted BOOT, then it would be common sense to assume that the double was penalty even if systemically it was take out. This is using the information from the illegality of the 4H bid, and I believe it is Grattan's contention that this is not permitted. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 30 02:12:00 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jan 30 02:16:16 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36124BF6-B5EE-4723-878E-8E2624D578A5@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 29, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > I don't disagree about the definition (albeit the official language > of the laws is supposed to be English so Merriam Webster isn't an > appropriate dictionary), Pfui. :-) > "mannerisms" is probably the wrong word to have used in L16. Nonetheless it's the one that's there. > A break in tempo is no more "A behavioral attribute that is > distinctive and peculiar to an individual" than is a spoken comment. The quoted text is from some dictionary other than Merriam-Webster's? > If you read my whole post The fact that I didn't respond to everything you said is not evidence that I didn't read it. > you will see my reference to L73d2 where it speaks of "inference > from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like" of an opponent. These > are things one IS allowed to use. To say that they > become UI if opponents also infract makes a mockery of the game. We are apparently not working from the same law book. Mine has, as the second and last sentence of Law 73D1: "Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." 73D2 speaks to intentional variations. It is a short, albeit I'll grant you probably incorrect in this context, leap from "manner" to "mannerism". Still, someone apparently made that leap, and for the moment we're stuck with it. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 30 02:16:35 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jan 30 02:20:51 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002f01c6252b$31115a00$6500a8c0@rota> References: <200601241941.k0OJf1iJ003984@cfa.harvard.edu> <43DD3FFD.8030508@cfa.harvard.edu> <002f01c6252b$31115a00$6500a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <4AA27B0F-0FAE-45DC-BB43-81E3F0AAFA06@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:24 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Here's a reductio ad absurdum. Partner opens out of turn with 1H. > RHO accepts this and passes. If I am not allowed to know about > partner's illegal opening, then I am not allowed to know that 1D is > an illegal call. I don't think an illegal call can ever be a > logical alternative. I was with you right up to the last sentence. What's logical alternatives got to do with it? If I'm not allowed to know that 1D (or 1C) is an illegal bid, I might well make one of them. That's the absurdity, is it not. :-) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jan 30 03:21:37 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Jan 30 03:28:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose References: <200601231944.k0NJiMGR016872@cfa.harvard.edu> <43DD3A8B.9050200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003001c62543$e7b0d480$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > From: richard willey > > At what level should alert regimes be defined? Currently, > > alert systems are standardized by the Zonal authority. For example, > > the ACBL publishes an alert chart which is (in theory) used for all > > official ACBL events. > > Alert regulations are established by SO's, not by ZO's or NCBO's. I've > been to at least one club in the US that didn't use the ACBL alert > regulations, though in practice most do. > > I think the SO is the correct level of authority for alerts. > Maybe so, but the ACBL Alert Procedure is 100% mandatory for sectionally-rated tournaments and higher. That includes STAC (sectional tournament at clubs) and nationwide events, but excludes in-house club games (e.g., a charity game) that has sectional rating. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 30 03:36:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jan 30 03:40:50 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <36124BF6-B5EE-4723-878E-8E2624D578A5@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > We are apparently not working from the same law book. Mine has, as > the second and last sentence of Law 73D1: "Otherwise, inadvertently > to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not > in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from > such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at > his own risk." 73D2 speaks to intentional variations. It does indeed. But the key words are "if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent". From this we *know* that drawing inferences from remarks, manner, tempo or the like is legal (and not only legal but protected). Ok it's implicit but, by way of example, suppose an opponent whispers "I have the KQ sitting over you". Do you really think it is UI and that you may no longer try to endplay him (assume a double finesse is otherwise an LA)? I'm guessing the reason the laws don't actually address the issue directly is because it never occurred to the writers that such info would be considered UI. > It is a short, albeit I'll grant you probably incorrect in this > context, leap from "manner" to "mannerism". Still, someone apparently > made that leap, and for the moment we're stuck with it. OK, so there's an IB by opps, you draw attention. Opp does a quirky double-take and it is clear to you (somehow) that he thought the opening bid was one level lower (AI to the NOS). Instead he says "Oh I thought he opened 1S" (UI to the NOS?). What we are "stuck with" is a bunch of not completely integrated laws. What we have to do is resolve the internal conflicts in a manner that reflects the game. At some deep down level I *know* that info opps give (by what they say/do, the way they do it, their tone of voice and the way they look when they do it etc) is all mine to use - there's just enough in the laws to support this once one starts to rummage around. Another way to look at it is to consider law75c - which gives a pretty good idea of what is "unauthorised" info from partner. Again, at an implicit level, the same stuff is considered "authorised" if it comes from opponents. (The ability to glean the maximum value from such info is often referred as "Table Presence", still an admirable skill in my part of the world.) Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 30 04:53:00 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jan 30 04:57:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose In-Reply-To: <003001c62543$e7b0d480$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200601231944.k0NJiMGR016872@cfa.harvard.edu> <43DD3A8B.9050200@cfa.harvard.edu> <003001c62543$e7b0d480$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <9C659C6B-572D-497E-B82E-C5564BF2D45B@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Maybe so, but the ACBL Alert Procedure is 100% mandatory for > sectionally-rated tournaments and higher. That includes STAC > (sectional tournament at clubs) and nationwide events, but excludes > in-house club games (e.g., a charity game) that has sectional rating. If I'm not mistaken, the ACBL claims to be a Sponsoring Organization (perhaps in conjunction with other SOs) for any tournament (including club games) at which ACBL Masterpoints are awarded. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 30 05:04:50 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jan 30 05:09:05 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E492A27-18D7-48B2-B0A0-D080E09A5F32@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 29, 2006, at 9:36 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > It does indeed. But the key words are "if the Director determines > that an > innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, > tempo, > or the like, of an opponent". Ah. 73*F*2. Now I get it. :-) > ...by way of example, suppose an opponent whispers "I > have the KQ sitting over you". Do you really think it is UI and > that you > may no longer try to endplay him (assume a double finesse is > otherwise an > LA? No, I don't think it's UI. > I'm guessing the reason the laws don't actually address the issue > directly is because it never occurred to the writers that such info > would > be considered UI. Maybe. Such guesses are dangerous, though. >> It is a short, albeit I'll grant you probably incorrect in this >> context, leap from "manner" to "mannerism". Still, someone apparently >> made that leap, and for the moment we're stuck with it. > > What we are "stuck with" is a bunch of not completely integrated laws. > What we have to do is resolve the internal conflicts in a manner that > reflects the game. Fair enough. > At some deep down level I *know* that info opps give (by what > they say/do, > the way they do it, their tone of voice and the way they look when > they do it etc) > is all mine to use At some deep down level, I agree - with the caveat "at your own risk" of course. > - there's just enough in the laws to support this once one starts > to rummage around. > > Another way to look at it is to consider law75c - which gives a pretty > good idea of what is "unauthorised" info from partner. Again, at an > implicit level, the same stuff is considered "authorised" if it > comes from > opponents. (The ability to glean the maximum value from such info is > often referred as "Table Presence", still an admirable skill in my > part of > the world.) And here too. I'll be wanting to review Grattan's counter arguments again. More later, perhaps. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 30 11:17:15 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jan 30 11:46:52 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <36124BF6-B5EE-4723-878E-8E2624D578A5@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007401c62589$53f72190$1ba687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > On Jan 29, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > I don't disagree about the definition (albeit the official language > > of the laws is supposed to be English so Merriam Webster isn't an > > appropriate dictionary), > > Pfui. :-) > > > "mannerisms" is probably the wrong word to have used in L16. > > Nonetheless it's the one that's there. > +=+ It is the one that is there. Consulting an English dictionary I note that there are certain key features to the meaning of the word. 1. It is concerned with the behaviour of an individual. 2. It is idiosyncratic. 3. It is habitual. Thus if we are to believe the language of the law one may draw information from an action of an individual opponent which we recognise as something he does habitually and which is idiosyncratic - peculiar to him. I am not certain whether this covers entirely what the author(s) had in mind, but this is what the law says. On the wider issues in this thread I see no reason to comment further. There are a number who wish to interpret the law differently from the interpretation put upon it by the WBFLC; unsurprisingly I do not feel able to join them in that. I do recognize that there are some who seek to pass through perceived cracks in the laws, but I feel these are too narrow to allow of it even if it will be advantageous to seal them in future. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 30 12:20:29 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jan 30 12:29:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <0E492A27-18D7-48B2-B0A0-D080E09A5F32@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c6258f$44275fe0$6ca687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > ...by way of example, suppose an opponent whispers "I > > have the KQ sitting over you". Do you really think it is UI and > > that you > > may no longer try to endplay him (assume a double finesse is > > otherwise an > > LA? > > No, I don't think it's UI. > +=+ It might even be a claim? +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 30 16:00:03 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jan 30 16:05:25 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060130094209.02a82b10@pop.starpower.net> At 01:47 PM 1/27/06, WILLIAM wrote: >Sure glad you used FWIW. Where do you get the idea that ",,,,generally >interpreted...." is even remotely accurate? > > > My personal opinion on the subject, FWIW, is: > > > > The laws should require that both be legal. > > > > The laws as currently written and generally interpreted are such that > > both are legal absent SO regulation to the contrary. From my ZO, the ACBL, which has (a) enacted a regulation forbidding agreements based on the opponents' having committed an infraction, (b) remained officially silent on the issue of agreements based on vulnerability, (c) done nothing whatsoever, official or otherwise, to suggest that agreements based on vulnerability are anything but entirely legal, and (d) given no indication that the interpretation of law which prompted these decisions is anything other than generally accepted and unquestioned. If Kojak is chastising me for being overly parochial by making an otherwise unsupported leap from "universally accepted within the ACBL's jurisdiction" to "generally interpreted", I plead guilty. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jan 30 16:17:27 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Jan 30 16:22:31 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net><6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060130094209.02a82b10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Kojak is not chastising you for anything. I'm just trying to point out how some postings begin to take on value far beyond that of personal opinions through the clever use of words. As to ACBL's silence on vulnerability - I don't speak for ACBL but it seems clear to me that when a Law provides for something, and the Zone is in full agreement, there is no need to make a magilla about it simply to show that you've paid attention. Please read law 75A again, and then try to tell me that vulnerability is not a "....conditions of the current deal...." There is enough that has to be corrected and clarified in the present laws, and hopefully is being done in the present drafting committee, to obviate the need to look under the bed for arcane misinterpretations of common English words. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > At 01:47 PM 1/27/06, WILLIAM wrote: > > >Sure glad you used FWIW. Where do you get the idea that ",,,,generally > >interpreted...." is even remotely accurate? > > > > > My personal opinion on the subject, FWIW, is: > > > > > > The laws should require that both be legal. > > > > > > The laws as currently written and generally interpreted are such that > > > both are legal absent SO regulation to the contrary. > > From my ZO, the ACBL, which has (a) enacted a regulation forbidding > agreements based on the opponents' having committed an infraction, (b) > remained officially silent on the issue of agreements based on > vulnerability, (c) done nothing whatsoever, official or otherwise, to > suggest that agreements based on vulnerability are anything but > entirely legal, and (d) given no indication that the interpretation of > law which prompted these decisions is anything other than generally > accepted and unquestioned. > > If Kojak is chastising me for being overly parochial by making an > otherwise unsupported leap from "universally accepted within the ACBL's > jurisdiction" to "generally interpreted", I plead guilty. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 30 16:36:03 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jan 30 16:41:22 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c62478$364ab920$2ec9403e@Mildred> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> <000001c62478$364ab920$2ec9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060130100539.02d70e00@pop.starpower.net> At 08:50 PM 1/28/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 3:43 PM > >>I didn't overlook L75A, but it is irrelevant to the point I was >>trying to make, for exactly the reason Tim gives: "conditions of the >>current deal" subsumes both the vulnerability and whether the >>opponents have or have not committed an infraction in equal measure. >>In an earlier post, I argued that varying one's bidding or play based >>on either the vulnerability or the commission of an infraction by an >>opponent may be legal, may be illegal, or may be legal absent SO >>regulation to the contrary, but, whichever is the case, there is >>nothing in TFLB (including L75A) which would justify different >>answers in the two cases. The post Tim cites was in response to >>Grattan, who seemed to be arguing for a fourth possibility, that both >>are illegal absent SO regulation to the contrary. My reply to >>Grattan pointed out that my SO (the ACBL) has no regulation >>permitting me to take the vulnerability into account in selecting my >>bids or plays, and asked whether I have been acting illegally by doing so. >>My personal opinion on the subject, FWIW, is: >>The laws should require that both be legal. >>The laws as currently written and generally interpreted are such >>that both are legal absent SO regulation to the contrary. >+=+ If it appeared I was arguing that 'both are illegal' >I am guilty of careless expression. My interpretation of relevant laws >is that 'conditions of the current deal' >means the information prescribed in Law 2 - board number, dealer, >vulnerability. It does not include the fact that an irregularity has >occurred; that is not a >condition of the board and in respect of it the relevant law applies. >I accept the power of the WBFLC to interpret the laws under the >By-Laws of the WBF, and the WBFLC has insisted that only matters >positively authorised in the laws or regulations may be used by a >player and that matters on which these are silent are extraneous. >Under Law 16 to base a call or play on extraneous information may be >an infraction (which in extension depends on whether the laws or >regulations speak to its use). > Your view that the laws are currently written >such that a condition of the board and the fact of an >irregularity are 'both legal absent SO regulation to the >contrary' is in error and 'generally interpreted' is not >so where the interpretations of the WBFLC are applied. Thanks to Grattan for resolving this issue. If I'm reading him correctly, the WBFLC has decided (minuted?) that "conditions of the current deal" in L75A refers *only* to those conditions that are required (by L2) to be displayed on the face of the duplicate boards. I very much doubt that I'm alone in asserting that this is the first inkling I've ever had that such an interpretation (minute?) exists. Perhaps L75A should be clarified in future versions of TFLB by replacing "conditions of" with "dealer and vulnerability for"(*), lest others miss this rather subtle point (with the help of that infamous leopard). (*) I have deliberately neglected to suggest inclusion of "board number" in L75A despite its inclusion in L2. It seems odd and counter-intutitive for TFLB to require that partnerships be permitted to play entirely different methods on boards 1-16 and on boards 17-32, and would appear to make illegal (to the extent that the laws can make *any* SO regulation illegal) the extant ACBL regulation forbidding a partnership from varying their methods during the course of a session without a director's permission. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 30 17:04:43 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jan 30 17:13:27 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <8EAD5E32-5508-49F7-BEEB-5C93724C87B3@rochester.rr.com> References: <8EAD5E32-5508-49F7-BEEB-5C93724C87B3@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060130104333.02d88ce0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:25 AM 1/29/06, Ed wrote: >On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>"..mannerisms.." in L16 includes the >>(extraneous) things opps say as well as the things they do. > >Does it really? Merriam-Webster online, in its definition of >"mannerism", makes no mention of speech at all. I think you're >stretching the definition, at best. I think we must read "mannerisms" in L16 as a loose synonym for "actions" or "behaviors", since if we take it literally, it becomes nonsense in the context of L16. Strictly speaking, a "mannerism" is a repetitive or habitual behavior (RHUD: "Marked or excessive adherence to an unusual or particular manner, esp. if affected"; AHD: "A distinctive behavioral trait; idiosyncrasy"). L16 surely does not tell us that we may not take any inference from anything an opponent does or says unless their estabilished patterns of behavior are already known to us when we first sit down against them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 30 20:07:05 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jan 30 20:13:11 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060126121246.0302db10@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060127101205.02fc2d60@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060130094209.02a82b10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060130133547.02e73010@pop.starpower.net> At 10:17 AM 1/30/06, WILLIAM wrote: >Kojak is not chastising you for anything. I'm just trying to point >out how >some postings begin to take on value far beyond that of personal opinions >through the clever use of words. >As to ACBL's silence on vulnerability - I don't speak for ACBL but it >seems >clear to me that when a Law provides for something, and the Zone is in >full >agreement, there is no need to make a magilla about it simply to show >that >you've paid attention. Please read law 75A again, and then try to tell me >that vulnerability is not a "....conditions of the current deal...." > >There is enough that has to be corrected and clarified in the present >laws, >and hopefully is being done in the present drafting committee, to obviate >the need to look under the bed for arcane misinterpretations of common >English words. I do believe that the vulnerability is a "condition[] of the current deal", and have so maintained throughout this discussion. What I don't believe is Grattan's contention that "conditions of the current deal" in L75A refers only to those particular conditions mentioned in L2, viz. board number, dealer and vulnerability, nor that any other view constitutes an "arcane misinterpretation" (if it's a "misinterpretation" at all I'd argue that it's an obvious one!). I believe that it includes things like whether the deal will be scored at IMPs or matchpoints, how good I estimate my game to be at the time, whether I'm playing for qualification or final placement, etc. I do not believe that I am forbidden from having partnership agreements that depend on any (or any combination) of these factors. In this thread, I have maintained that whether or not the opponents have committed a particular infraction is a "condition of the current deal" as well, and that I am forbidden from having agreements dependent on it only because my ZO/SO has passed and disseminated a regulation to that effect. I also happen to believe, personally, that that particular regulation is misguided, but that's a debate for a different thread. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jan 30 20:09:43 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Jan 30 20:13:59 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <8EAD5E32-5508-49F7-BEEB-5C93724C87B3@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060130104333.02d88ce0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Gee, here was a nice, workable, evident, and acceptable meaning for the word, but no, we've got to go to dictionaries, and explore the universe so we can pontificate. And particularly if we find that some in the administration of bridge, and God forbid, tournament director(s) who have no trouble with this point of law, are in agreement. In fact, when we find those reprobate individuals in agreement, with variants of English being their native language, along with others of highly limited English, that must be immediate prima facie evidence of something we can FWIW chew over. Bah! Thanks Tim -- but since its simple, its gotta be wrong for the elite. Kojak > >On Jan 29, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > >>"..mannerisms.." in L16 includes the > >>(extraneous) things opps say as well as the things they do. > > From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 30 21:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jan 30 21:31:33 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > simply to show that you've paid attention. Please read law 75A again, > and then try to tell me that vulnerability is not a "....conditions of > the current deal...." Kojak, please read Law75A again and tell me that an IB/COOT is not a "call". Like Eric I believe that "..conditions of the current deal.." encompasses things beyond those itemised in Law2 (I add to Eric's list quality of opponents and my seat in relation to the dealer). Unlike (or perhaps like) Eric I believe that any restrictive regulation made by my SO (or his) as to having agreements after an infraction by opponents refers solely to conventional agreements (as per the restrictions on SOs in L40d). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 30 22:08:58 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jan 30 22:14:12 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <8EAD5E32-5508-49F7-BEEB-5C93724C87B3@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060130104333.02d88ce0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060130154003.02ee2e60@pop.starpower.net> At 02:09 PM 1/30/06, WILLIAM wrote: >Gee, here was a nice, workable, evident, and acceptable meaning for the >word, but no, we've got to go to dictionaries, and explore the >universe so >we can pontificate. >And particularly if we find that some in the administration of bridge, >and >God forbid, tournament director(s) who have no trouble with this point of >law, are in agreement. In fact, when we find those reprobate >individuals in >agreement, with variants of English being their native language, along >with >others of highly limited English, that must be immediate prima facie >evidence of something we can FWIW chew over. Bah! Well, we do find that some in the administration of bridge, and God forbid, tournament director(s) who (believe themselves to) have no trouble with this point of law are in agreement. Unfortunately, as this thread has made manifest, we also find that some in the administration of bridge, and God forbid, tournament director(s) who have no trouble with this point of law are not in agreement. And that the latter group even includes numerous native English speakers (and writers). I trust that Kojak is not arguing that clarifying the language of the laws so as to leave no room for such confusion is somehow a bad idea. In my previous post, I "[went] to dictionaries" merely to point out, in reply to Ed, that L16 uses the word "mannerisms" is something other than its literal "dictionary" meaning, notwithstanding that the current debate seems to me to be more concerned with the usage of the word "conditions" in L75A. Grattan and Kojak claim to know authoritatively exactly what these words are intended to mean in the contexts of L16 and L75A respectively, but I assert that if they do, then the ACBL patently does not, and I very much doubt that TPTB at the ACBL are alone in their "arcane misinterpretation". Grattan has told us that "conditions" in L75A means only "these conditions" referenced in L2. We might avoid future misunderstandings of Kojak's posts if he could tell us whether he agrees with Grattan on this point, or, if not, offer his own position. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 31 00:32:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 31 00:37:09 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > Gee, here was a nice, workable, evident, and acceptable meaning for the > word, but no, we've got to go to dictionaries, and explore the universe > so we can pontificate. I thought "things opps say and do" WAS the nice, workable, evident, and acceptable meaning in the context (since that pretty much covers AI from opps). I'm bloody sure that whoever wrote L16 didn't *intend* the intro to cover only "habitual and idiosyncratic affectations". Yes I checked a few on-line dictionaries when Ed challenged me on my interpretation of the word - but all that did was reinforce my opinion that the writer used the word in blissful ignorance of the common dictionary definition. By way of example I played against someone the other day who would, after deciding what card to play, hold it vertically over his played cards and twiddle it slightly from side to side for a minute or so while "checking" his decision - THAT is a "mannerism", it conveys no information (but was really annoying) and I remain damn sure that is not what L16's author intended. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 31 02:06:58 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jan 31 02:11:16 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: AND IT IS, IT IS, IT IS!!!!!!! I was supporting your posting. It is refreshing to find a poster in BLML that isn't trying to impress us with his/her brilliance, but rather stay with the subject in everyday life. Keep it up. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Kojak wrote: > > > Gee, here was a nice, workable, evident, and acceptable meaning for the > > word, but no, we've got to go to dictionaries, and explore the universe > > so we can pontificate. > > I thought "things opps say and do" WAS the nice, workable, evident, and > acceptable meaning in the context (since that pretty much covers AI from > opps). I'm bloody sure that whoever wrote L16 didn't *intend* the intro > to cover only "habitual and idiosyncratic affectations". Yes I checked a > few on-line dictionaries when Ed challenged me on my interpretation of the > word - but all that did was reinforce my opinion that the writer used the > word in blissful ignorance of the common dictionary definition. > > By way of example I played against someone the other day who would, after > deciding what card to play, hold it vertically over his played cards and > twiddle it slightly from side to side for a minute or so while "checking" > his decision - THAT is a "mannerism", it conveys no information (but was > really annoying) and I remain damn sure that is not what L16's author > intended. > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 31 02:19:57 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jan 31 02:24:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: This is getting much too convoluted for me. There is a law which treats with calls out of turn. Laws 28, 29 30, 31 and 32. We have been discussing the restrictions in Law 16 in the first sentences of that Law, which specify what may be used as basis for a call when the option to penalize it is not exercised. Why are we now directed to Law 75? Better yet, don't answer -- We've stated that you may not have an agreement with your partner as to having a meaning for a call out of rotation, which, if not penalized, may not differ from what your call would have meant had the call out of rotation been in legal rotation. W've barely scratched the point of whether or not that is a good idea, or should be changed. I quit on this thread. kOJAK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Kojak wrote: > > > simply to show that you've paid attention. Please read law 75A again, > > and then try to tell me that vulnerability is not a "....conditions of > > the current deal...." > > Kojak, please read Law75A again and tell me that an IB/COOT is not a > "call". > > Like Eric I believe that "..conditions of the current deal.." encompasses > things beyond those itemised in Law2 (I add to Eric's list quality of > opponents and my seat in relation to the dealer). Unlike (or perhaps > like) Eric I believe that any restrictive regulation made by my SO (or > his) as to having agreements after an infraction by opponents refers > solely to conventional agreements (as per the restrictions on SOs in > L40d). > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 31 02:23:01 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jan 31 02:27:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: I LEFT OUT A SOME WORDS. You may not have a meaning -- FOR YOUR CALL -- otherwise my posting makes as little sense as the rest of what I've been reading. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: ; "Tim West-Meads" Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > This is getting much too convoluted for me. There is a law which treats > with calls out of turn. Laws 28, 29 30, 31 and 32. We have been > discussing the restrictions in Law 16 in the first sentences of that Law, > which specify what may be used as basis for a call when the option to > penalize it is not exercised. Why are we now directed to Law 75? > Better yet, don't answer -- We've stated that you may not have an > agreement with your partner as to having a meaning for a call out of > rotation, which, if not penalized, may not differ from what your call > would have meant had the call out of rotation been in legal rotation. > W've barely scratched the point of whether or not that is a good idea, or > should be changed. > I quit on this thread. > > kOJAK > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:27 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Kojak wrote: > > > > > simply to show that you've paid attention. Please read law 75A again, > > > and then try to tell me that vulnerability is not a "....conditions of > > > the current deal...." > > > > Kojak, please read Law75A again and tell me that an IB/COOT is not a > > "call". > > > > Like Eric I believe that "..conditions of the current deal.." > > encompasses > > things beyond those itemised in Law2 (I add to Eric's list quality of > > opponents and my seat in relation to the dealer). Unlike (or perhaps > > like) Eric I believe that any restrictive regulation made by my SO (or > > his) as to having agreements after an infraction by opponents refers > > solely to conventional agreements (as per the restrictions on SOs in > > L40d). > > > > Tim > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 31 03:05:31 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jan 31 03:12:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose References: <200601231944.k0NJiMGR016872@cfa.harvard.edu> <43DD3A8B.9050200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007001c6260a$d0a5e7e0$069468d5@jeushtlj> [Steve Willner] Alert regulations are established by SO's, not by ZO's or NCBO's [SNIP]. I think the SO is the correct level of authority for alerts. [nige1] IMO TFLB should contain all sensible Bridge rules (including those on disclosure). The WBF can hardly prevent determined ZOs and SOs from making unnecessary changes and daft additions; but the WBF need not deliberately leave gaping holes that force subsidiary jurisdictions to fill the breach. There may be a plausible arguments for different jurisdictions having different ideas of *what to alert*; but surely it would be easy to have simple general rules about convention cards, alert/explain cards, how to draw attention to understandings and how to explain them, all at WBF level. This might slow down the sophistication and proliferation of local alert regulations. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 31 04:07:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 31 04:11:28 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > This is getting much too convoluted for me. There is a law which > treats with calls out of turn. Laws 28, 29 30, 31 and 32. We have been > discussing the restrictions in Law 16 in the first sentences of that > Law, which specify what may be used as basis for a call when the option > to penalize it is not exercised. Why are we now directed to Law 75? Have you not noticed that there are a few things L16 doesn't explicitly authorise as the basis for a call after an IB/COOT, amongst which are: Vulnerability, NOS's partnership agreements, Seat at table, The illegal call, A remark by the OS Grattan has argued that these are "extraneous" to L16 and that, absent an explicit reference in law, basing one's call on any of the above is an infraction. OK, so we quote L75, which explicitly clarifies that we may base our agreements on "calls" and "conditions of the current deal". That covers legal calls by all sides, treated as legal and accepted calls, vul, and seat. It is an explicit reference which allows for partnership agreements based on those things. > Better yet, don't answer -- We've stated that you may not have an > agreement with your partner as to having a meaning for a call out of > rotation JEEZ "you've stated". What "YOU" have stated doesn't affect a goddamn bit of anything. It's what the frigging laws state that matters. You can state that black is white until you are blue in the frigging face but the laws still state that "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." I really don't give a tuppenny f*** that you *want* the laws to say something other than they do. I just want you to read what is actually written instead of pontificating, side-stepping and belittling. > W've barely scratched the point of whether or not that is a good idea, > or should be changed. Had you bothered reading things properly you'd have learnt that trying to forbid partnership agreements in these situations is grossly unfair. > I quit on this thread. Of course you do. Your logic has failed, your attempted bullying has failed, and your total failure to use the written laws to back your prejudice has been exposed. Tim - and yes - I am irked. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 31 04:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 31 04:24:11 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > AND IT IS, IT IS, IT IS!!!!!!! I was supporting your posting. > > It is refreshing to find a poster in BLML that isn't trying to impress > us with his/her brilliance, but rather stay with the subject in > everyday life. Keep it up. Then thank you. Albeit I'm now left in a state of total and absolute confusion and owing you a huge apology for the tone of my previous post. I can't get my head round the "Yes what opps say/do is AI" and the "You may not have agreements based on the AI received from opps". Either I can use the information (for choosing calls, for agreements, for plays) or I make a special effort not to use the info. It's AI or it's UI plain and simple. Best wishes and further apologies, Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jan 31 12:09:39 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jan 31 12:25:41 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <008901c62657$e9d357f0$2aa787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario +=+ Great news for you, Tim. The following decision of the EBU L&E Committee will be presented at the EBU Council meeting on Feb 15th. It creates an enabling regulation: "The L&E noted that there was some doubt as to the present policy with regard to agreements which apply only after an opponent has committed an infraction. It agreed that in future such agreements would be allowed in principle. However, there are currently no specific provisions authorising such agreements. Accordingly, unless and until any application is made for a specific scheme, the only such agreements which will actually be authorised are those covered by blanket provisions." I am pleased to see that the EBU has moved to clarify a situation to allow of certain agreements after an opponent's infraction. However, if this is to be the final wording of the regulation I shall be fascinated to see how it is interpreted. In particular whether, as it appears, the partnership is permitted to apply the agreement when no attention has been drawn to the infraction. Also how disclosure regulations apply - if the call is unalertable without the infraction will it remain so after the infraction? And, as to announcements, is the position on these unchanged (and what risk is seen of UI in an announcement)? Third, how are 'blanket provisions' defined? (This last looks obvious, in a sense, but I am not sure that the EBU makes clear any more what is held to be a blanket provision.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 31 13:44:08 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jan 31 13:48:26 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: I'm sorry to have caused you confusion. My sometimes sardonic postings have obviously caused you and others to wonder if I really mean what I write. Hopefully the new laws will clarify and/or change the content of Law 16's first two sentences. Apology gladly accepted. Best wishes, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Kojak wrote: > > > AND IT IS, IT IS, IT IS!!!!!!! I was supporting your posting. > > > > It is refreshing to find a poster in BLML that isn't trying to impress > > us with his/her brilliance, but rather stay with the subject in > > everyday life. Keep it up. > > Then thank you. Albeit I'm now left in a state of total and absolute > confusion and owing you a huge apology for the tone of my previous post. > > I can't get my head round the "Yes what opps say/do is AI" and the "You > may not have agreements based on the AI received from opps". Either I can > use the information (for choosing calls, for agreements, for plays) or I > make a special effort not to use the info. It's AI or it's UI plain and > simple. > > Best wishes and further apologies, > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 31 13:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jan 31 13:53:16 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <008901c62657$e9d357f0$2aa787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Great news for you, Tim. The following > decision of the EBU L&E Committee will be > presented at the EBU Council meeting on > Feb 15th. It creates an enabling regulation: > > "The L&E noted that there was some doubt > as to the present policy with regard to > agreements which apply only after an opponent > has committed an infraction. It agreed that in > future such agreements would be allowed in > principle. However, there are currently no > specific provisions authorising such agreements. > Accordingly, unless and until any application is > made for a specific scheme, the only such > agreements which will actually be authorised > are those covered by blanket provisions." The clarification is helpful I agree. But it is a clarification of the current legal position rather than enabling something previously forbidden, albeit none the less welcome for that. In addition I commend the L&EC for not seeking to forbid such agreements. > I am pleased to see that the EBU has moved to > clarify a situation to allow of certain agreements > after an opponent's infraction. However, if this > is to be the final wording of the regulation I shall > be fascinated to see how it is interpreted. In > particular whether, as it appears, the partnership > is permitted to apply the agreement when no > attention has been drawn to the infraction. I think that will be a key matter for disclosure - particularly in cases where a player is unsure if partner has noticed the infraction. Indeed proper disclosure is, IMO, the big issue around this whole concept. > Also > how disclosure regulations apply - if the call is > unalertable without the infraction will it remain > so after the infraction? Personally I'd regard most possible agreements of this nature as alertable under the "meaning opps are unlikely to expect rule" (conventional agreements will still be alertable of course). > And, as to announcements, > is the position on these unchanged (and what risk > is seen of UI in an announcement)? I don't think the UI risk of announcements increases much in these circumstances, but with no experience in that arena I would have to wait and see. > Third, how > are 'blanket provisions' defined? (This last looks > obvious, in a sense, but I am not sure that the > EBU makes clear any more what is held to be a > blanket provision.) I'd interpret "blanket provisions" as those like "Any meaning may be played for...." of which there are a number of occurrences in EBU system Regs (obviously another blanket is that any "natural" meanings are permitted). I doubt there will be (m)any applications for specific conventions around this issue, it seems too rare to be worth the effort. Tim