From henk at amsterdamned.org Wed Feb 1 01:01:00 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Feb 1 01:01:02 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 1 11:12:18 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Feb 1 11:21:31 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@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) ------------------------------------------------ +=+ I have interwoven my further comments ~ G ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > 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." > Tim: > 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. > +=+ It is a clarification of the arrangements which the EBU L&E Committee considers should apply in English tournaments. The position in Law is determined by the WBFLC. The relevant interpretation is that of August 24th 1998, and the detail of its application by Zonal Authorities is relevant also. +=+ < Grattan: > > 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. > Tim: > 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. > +=+ I do not think it is the only big issue. I believe it should be a matter for regulation. I do not think the laws should expose players in the lower orders of the game to such methods. That should be a question for each SO. Obviously the law has not been stated explicitly enough to now and we will have to look at it carefully. In the regulation I think that 'following an infraction' should read 'when attention has been drawn to an opponent's infraction.' or, perhaps better, there should be a rider observing that no such agreement may apply until after attention has been called to an opponent's infraction. +=+ < Grattan: > > Also how disclosure regulations apply - if the > > call is unalertable without the infraction will it remain > > so after the infraction? > Tim: > 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). > +=+ The regulators will have to decide. I would expect alerts and announcements to be required. But an alert where the usual meaning of the call has altered is highly informative to partner as well as to opponents in the absence of screens. +=+ < Grattan: > > And, as to announcements, > > is the position on these unchanged (and what risk > > is seen of UI in an announcement)? > Tim: > 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. > < +=+ If 1NT becomes 12-14 where it would be 14-16 without the infraction an announcement increases the potential to wake partner up. I think the need to inform opponents is paramount, but the risk of UI problems needs to be considered. +=+ < Grattan: > > 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.) > Tim: > 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. > +=+ This suggestion comes from within the committee *We didn't discuss what a blanket provision is. In my view it would be any provision with a generic element, i.e. a provision along the lines of either "all continuations are allowed" or "any meaning may be played for X provided that...".* It is a matter for the L&E. If I am present at the forthcoming meeting of the EBU Council I will possibly ask one or two questions; I welcome the regulation but there are surely details to be clarified. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Feb 1 13:23:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Feb 1 13:27:30 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@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) > > ------------------------------------------------ > +=+ I have interwoven my further comments > ~ G ~ +=+ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:48 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > 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." > > > Tim: > > 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. > > > +=+ It is a clarification of the arrangements which the > EBU L&E Committee considers should apply in > English tournaments. The position in Law is determined > by the WBFLC. The relevant interpretation is that of > August 24th 1998, and the detail of its application > by Zonal Authorities is relevant also. +=+ All the Lille Interpretation says is: The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, 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 and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, ‘extraneous’ and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. Thus there are two "tests" inherent in the application. Firstly "is the info extraneous to the laws" and, in the case of "calls (legal or otherwise)" it is clear from L75 that they are not extraneous. Secondly even where info is deemed "extraneous" it still only "may" be an infraction to base a call upon it. Acknowledging that a "remark" by an opponent might be deemed extraneous (albeit I don't believe it is) I would, as a TD, rule that the remark was AI to the NOS. My ruling would not be in conflict with the minute. For example, the auction starts 2S:2H. Attention is drawn and 2H bidder says "Oops, I thought he opened 1S". No doubt he shouldn't have said it, no doubt it is UI to his partner. To me it is AI to his opps and I consider it wholly legitimate for the next player to choose whether to accept the 2H *and* his subsequent call (regardless of acceptance) based on that information. > Tim: > > 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. > > > +=+ I do not think it is the only big issue. I believe > it should be a matter for regulation. I do not think > the laws should expose players in the lower orders > of the game to such methods. Players in "the lower orders of the game" are exposed to all sorts of things some would rather be protected from - chances are that such players will never encounter these methods. > That should be a question for each SO. In that we are agreed. Where we differ is that you maintain that SOs require specific "enabling" regs but I maintain they would require specific "disabling" regs. We also differ as to whether SOs may regulate non-conventional agreements apart from those relating to very weak initial one level actions. > Obviously the law has not > been stated explicitly enough to now and we will > have to look at it carefully. Again, no problem. To me the biggest problem with changing the law to forbid "agreements" in these situations is that any regular partnership is likely (sometimes after 1 occurrence) to have an implicit agreement based on partnership experience. Sure the first time pard accepts an OOT 4H with a double it's just "common-sense" that it's penalty, but the next time it's an implicit (or possibly explicit if they talked about the hand later) agreement. NB, I'm not saying that every single time this happens an implicit understanding is created, just that single instances can create implicit agreements. > In the regulation I think > that 'following an infraction' should read 'when > attention has been drawn to an opponent's infraction.' > or, perhaps better, there should be a rider observing > that no such agreement may apply until after attention > has been called to an opponent's infraction. +=+ I wouldn't have a problem if the regulation stated that (I'd relate the exact words to disclosure). I don't consider the lack to be particularly important since I believe attention will be drawn in 90%+ of such cases anyway. > +=+ The regulators will have to decide. I would > expect alerts and announcements to be required. > But an alert where the usual meaning of the call has > altered is highly informative to partner as well as to > opponents in the absence of screens. +=+ It is, alerts/announcements always are. I expect players to be able to handle their UI obligations and a few rulings will bring those who choose not to into line. > < > Grattan: > > > And, as to announcements, > > > is the position on these unchanged (and what risk > > > is seen of UI in an announcement)? > > > Tim: > > 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. > > > < > +=+ If 1NT becomes 12-14 where it would be 14-16 > without the infraction an announcement increases the > potential to wake partner up. I think the need to > inform opponents is paramount, but the risk of UI > problems needs to be considered. +=+ This is not dissimilar to the possible UI problems of any pair playing a variable NT. I'm not a huge fan of announcing the 1N range but I'll have to give it a go if the EBU so require. I'd rather they stuck with a requirement to pre-disclose. > < > Grattan: > > > 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.) > > > Tim: > > 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. > > > +=+ This suggestion comes from within the committee > *We didn't discuss what a blanket provision is. In my > view it would be any provision with a generic element, > i.e. a provision along the lines of either "all continuations > are allowed" or "any meaning may be played for X > provided that...".* > It is a matter for the L&E. If I am present at the > forthcoming meeting of the EBU Council I will possibly > ask one or two questions; I welcome the regulation but > there are surely details to be clarified. Clarification never hurts, but I reckon almost all TDs would interpret the words along the lines above. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 1 15:44:41 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 1 15:49:58 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060201092735.02a2e3b0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:23 AM 2/1/06, twm wrote: >To me the biggest problem with changing the law to >forbid "agreements" in these situations is that any regular >partnership is >likely (sometimes after 1 occurrence) to have an implicit agreement based >on partnership experience. Sure the first time pard accepts an OOT 4H >with a double it's just "common-sense" that it's penalty, but the next >time it's an implicit (or possibly explicit if they talked about the hand >later) agreement. NB, I'm not saying that every single time this happens >an implicit understanding is created, just that single instances can >create implicit agreements. The following incident occurred some years ago: A regular partner and I were idly discussing bidding theory at my home. We got onto the subject of theoretical considerations as to what various calls should mean after an insufficient bid. We talked specifically about 2S-2H-2S vs 2S-2H-3S vs 2S-2H(corrected to 3H)-3S vs 2S-2H-P vs 2S-2H(3H)-P. If we were offending the Law by having what we thought was simply a conversation about bidding theory, we certainly didn't know it. About a week later, we were playing in a local tournament; we opened a weak two-bid, and the opponent made an insufficient overcall. Pard took some action (I don't remember exactly what), and I alerted. On being asked, I repeated the relevant portions of the discussion of the previous week. The opponents called the director, asserting that such an agreement was illegal. I argued that, look, we had had that conversation, and couldn't "un-have" it. My choices were to tell the opponents about it or not tell them about it, and I felt ethically obligated to disclose what my partner and I had discussed. What else was I supposed to do? The director allowed the score to stand as played, but suggested that our opponents appeal, which they did. I recounted the story to the committee, making the same argument I had to the director. The committee ruled for our opponents, awarding A+/A-, told us that we had acted illegally, and instructed us "never to do it again". I replied that I accepted their ruling, but could they please tell me just what it was that we were never supposed to do again? They replied that they had made their ruling, owed us no further explanation, and could we please leave the room now. I have yet to figure out the answer to my question. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Feb 1 16:10:36 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed Feb 1 17:08:36 2006 Subject: [blml] 85 course members Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C90F@hotel.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] Sent: 24 January 2006 06:30 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] 85 course members +=+ 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 ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Unfortunately snow in Milan forced some to cancel. There was less drinking to 2am than two years ago, partly because the bar ran out of beer on Sunday and Monday nights. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 1 18:33:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Feb 1 18:42:24 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060201092735.02a2e3b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01c62755$b2d2ca20$839d87d9@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: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > The director allowed the score to stand as played, but > suggested that our opponents appeal, which they did. > > I recounted the story to the committee, making the > same argument I had to the director. > > The committee ruled for our opponents, awarding A+/A-, > told us that we had acted illegally, and instructed us > "never to do it again". I replied that I accepted their > ruling, but could they please tell me just what it was that > we were never supposed to do again? They replied > that they had made their ruling, owed us no further > explanation, and could we please leave the room now. > +=+ The Director was uncertain of the law/regulation and invited you to appeal. The committee decided you had an illegal agreement and, given his uncertainty, the Director accepted the committee's view of the law/regulation. You did not choose to take it to the national authority, but now you wish you had - stirred perhaps by the apparitions raised by Tim West-Meads? The information is scant. You had an agreement - you both acted upon it in harmony - but we do not know what it was and we do not know what the national authority's regulation provided. Have you researched the regulation currently (both as to authorisation and as to disclosure)? ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 1 19:30:51 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Feb 1 19:35:11 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060201092735.02a2e3b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060201092735.02a2e3b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <66104E7A-A8EC-421E-954F-915133A61931@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 1, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I have yet to figure out the answer to my question. To my mind, this is a perfect case for appeal to the National Authority. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 1 22:59:53 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 1 23:05:06 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000b01c62755$b2d2ca20$839d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060201092735.02a2e3b0@pop.starpower.net> <000b01c62755$b2d2ca20$839d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060201160214.02f43eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:33 PM 2/1/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:44 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > The director allowed the score to stand as played, but > > suggested that our opponents appeal, which they did. > > > > I recounted the story to the committee, making the > > same argument I had to the director. > > > > The committee ruled for our opponents, awarding A+/A-, > > told us that we had acted illegally, and instructed us > > "never to do it again". I replied that I accepted their > > ruling, but could they please tell me just what it was that > > we were never supposed to do again? They replied > > that they had made their ruling, owed us no further > > explanation, and could we please leave the room now. > >+=+ The Director was uncertain of the law/regulation and >invited you to appeal. The committee decided you had an >illegal agreement and, given his uncertainty, the Director >accepted the committee's view of the law/regulation. You >did not choose to take it to the national authority, but now >you wish you had - stirred perhaps by the apparitions raised >by Tim West-Meads? > The information is scant. You had an agreement - you >both acted upon it in harmony - but we do not know what >it was and we do not know what the national authority's >regulation provided. Have you researched the regulation >currently (both as to authorisation and as to disclosure)? This occured roughly 30 years ago, when I knew practically nothing about the law (I know, some will say that that's still the case). We did have an agreement, but it was far from explicit; the thought that this might someday come up at the table was not a factor in the original discussion, the tone of which was purely theoretical. The subject was how generic theoretical principles would apply in such auctions (e.g. shouldn't "jumps are stronger than non-jumps" imply that 2S-2H-3S is stronger than 2S-(2H)3H-3S?); it's not like we invented a convention for the situation or anything along those lines. It was very much equivalent to the kind of implicit agreement a pair would be considered to have when each knows that the other has recently read the same article on bidding theory. But, as we know, laws and regulations regarding agreements apply equally to explicit and implicit ones. AFAIK, the NA's regulation was probably what it is today, making illegal any agreement whatsoever regarding methods over an opponent's infraction. It never occurred to me to appeal the AC ruling (I wouldn't have known at the time that such a thing was even possible). I took my adjustment like a good unintentional offender, and hoped to avoid similarly infracting in the future. Hence my question to the committee. The point of the story is that although the AC was certain that we had committed an infraction, they could not tell us what it was. To avoid such infractions in the future, I was informed, I would have to make sure I "never did it again". But never to do what? Hold discussions of bidding theory with my friends at my house? Allow the subject of opponents' insufficient bids to come up? I did it, 30 years later I remember doing it; I can't un-do it short of getting a lobotomy (I know, some will say that that might be a good idea). Play with that partner again? Are we now doomed forever, fated to have committed an infraction subject to a score adjustment any time an opponent makes an insufficient bid against us, no matter what we do? So... I'm not allowed to have an agreement of any kind. But I had the original discussion, and the fact that the subject came up created an implicit agreement. Does it make us "violators for life"? Are we barred from competition as a partnership *because* we have an illegal agreement? Can an opponent get an automatic A+ against us by making an insufficient bid? What do we do the next time we sit down at the table together and the opponent makes an insufficient bid? Is there anything we can do to avoid a director call and score adjustment? Of course, what we could do is just sit down and play, and, if an opponent makes an insufficient bid, just keep mum, accept or reject it, and keep bidding, without alerting or disclosing anything. We could have done that at the time, but wouldn't that have been cheating? ISTM we had "special knowledge" that the principle of full disclosure required us to reveal. That discussion is still part of our personal histories, and keeping it secret would still, I am convinced, be cheating. All we want to do is follow the rules. So what do we need to do to act legally and ethically the next time we face an insufficient bid by an opponent? The AC at the time couldn't tell us; neither has any authority been able to since. Can anyone in this forum? Grattan? Kojak? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 2 01:00:55 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 2 01:05:12 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060201160214.02f43eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c6278b$bda7dc70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Eric brings attention to a situation which is too important to just be dismissed without real consideration. It also brought back to my memory a case in the Norwegian masters' league many years ago when I was summoned to an insufficient bid situation. NOS were the (late) first class players Arild Torp and Helge Vinje (famous for his published works on distribution signals and precision defense in bridge): Arild had just made a jump to 4NT (Culbertson query!) and his LHO bid 4D. It is one of my really bright memories of Helge seeing the glittering in his eyes when I explained to him that he had the privilege of accepting the 4D bid as a legal bid and continue his auction from there on. I still suspect that he was unaware of this privilege; anyway he accepted this "gift" being presented to him. Helge and Arild, although they (of course) had never discussed how to treat opponents' IB (or other irregularities) to their best advantage, had more than sufficient expert understanding of system theory so that Helge on the fly could modify the responses and further bids after 4NT to fully utilize the extra 5 calls made available to him. And even more important he could trust that Arild would (intuitively) have the same understanding on precisely what information each call should convey in this new situation. Eric describes a situation where an accidental discussion between the partners made it possible for them to similarly utilize an opponent's IB to their advantage, and Eric was even ethical enough to alert his opponents of this implied understanding which of course could never have been disclosed on their CC. His ethical behavior resulted in a ruling against them. Does anybody seriously suggest that I should have instructed Helge not to make any use of their partnership expertise and experience when selecting his calls over the insufficient 4D bid? I have a strong feeling that Eric in his situation was subject to injustice. Regards Sven > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > The director allowed the score to stand as played, but > > > suggested that our opponents appeal, which they did. > > > > > > I recounted the story to the committee, making the > > > same argument I had to the director. > > > > > > The committee ruled for our opponents, awarding A+/A-, > > > told us that we had acted illegally, and instructed us > > > "never to do it again". I replied that I accepted their > > > ruling, but could they please tell me just what it was that > > > we were never supposed to do again? They replied > > > that they had made their ruling, owed us no further > > > explanation, and could we please leave the room now. > > > >+=+ The Director was uncertain of the law/regulation and > >invited you to appeal. The committee decided you had an > >illegal agreement and, given his uncertainty, the Director > >accepted the committee's view of the law/regulation. You > >did not choose to take it to the national authority, but now > >you wish you had - stirred perhaps by the apparitions raised > >by Tim West-Meads? > > The information is scant. You had an agreement - you > >both acted upon it in harmony - but we do not know what > >it was and we do not know what the national authority's > >regulation provided. Have you researched the regulation > >currently (both as to authorisation and as to disclosure)? > > This occured roughly 30 years ago, when I knew practically nothing > about the law (I know, some will say that that's still the case). We > did have an agreement, but it was far from explicit; the thought that > this might someday come up at the table was not a factor in the > original discussion, the tone of which was purely theoretical. The > subject was how generic theoretical principles would apply in such > auctions (e.g. shouldn't "jumps are stronger than non-jumps" imply that > 2S-2H-3S is stronger than 2S-(2H)3H-3S?); it's not like we invented a > convention for the situation or anything along those lines. It was > very much equivalent to the kind of implicit agreement a pair would be > considered to have when each knows that the other has recently read the > same article on bidding theory. But, as we know, laws and regulations > regarding agreements apply equally to explicit and implicit ones. > > AFAIK, the NA's regulation was probably what it is today, making > illegal any agreement whatsoever regarding methods over an opponent's > infraction. It never occurred to me to appeal the AC ruling (I > wouldn't have known at the time that such a thing was even > possible). I took my adjustment like a good unintentional offender, > and hoped to avoid similarly infracting in the future. Hence my > question to the committee. > > The point of the story is that although the AC was certain that we had > committed an infraction, they could not tell us what it was. To avoid > such infractions in the future, I was informed, I would have to make > sure I "never did it again". But never to do what? Hold discussions > of bidding theory with my friends at my house? Allow the subject of > opponents' insufficient bids to come up? I did it, 30 years later I > remember doing it; I can't un-do it short of getting a lobotomy (I > know, some will say that that might be a good idea). Play with that > partner again? Are we now doomed forever, fated to have committed an > infraction subject to a score adjustment any time an opponent makes an > insufficient bid against us, no matter what we do? > > So... I'm not allowed to have an agreement of any kind. But I had the > original discussion, and the fact that the subject came up created an > implicit agreement. Does it make us "violators for life"? Are we > barred from competition as a partnership *because* we have an illegal > agreement? Can an opponent get an automatic A+ against us by making an > insufficient bid? What do we do the next time we sit down at the table > together and the opponent makes an insufficient bid? Is there anything > we can do to avoid a director call and score adjustment? > > Of course, what we could do is just sit down and play, and, if an > opponent makes an insufficient bid, just keep mum, accept or reject it, > and keep bidding, without alerting or disclosing anything. We could > have done that at the time, but wouldn't that have been cheating? ISTM > we had "special knowledge" that the principle of full disclosure > required us to reveal. That discussion is still part of our personal > histories, and keeping it secret would still, I am convinced, be > cheating. All we want to do is follow the rules. So what do we need > to do to act legally and ethically the next time we face an > insufficient bid by an opponent? The AC at the time couldn't tell us; > neither has any authority been able to since. Can anyone in this > forum? Grattan? Kojak? > > > 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 Thu Feb 2 08:22:28 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Feb 2 08:25:31 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20060201092735.02a2e3b0@pop.starpower.net><000b01c62755$b2d2ca20$839d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060201160214.02f43eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000a01c627c9$76c639d0$a50ce150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > AFAIK, the NA's regulation was probably what it is today, making > illegal any agreement whatsoever regarding methods over an opponent's > infraction. > > So... I'm not allowed to have an agreement of any kind. But I had the > original discussion, and the fact that the subject came up created an > implicit agreement. Does it make us "violators for life"? Are we > barred from competition as a partnership *because* we have an illegal > agreement? Can an opponent get an automatic A+ against us by making an > insufficient bid? What do we do the next time we sit down at the table > together and the opponent makes an insufficient bid? Is there anything > we can do to avoid a director call and score adjustment? > > Of course, what we could do is just sit down and play, and, if an > opponent makes an insufficient bid, just keep mum, accept or reject it, > and keep bidding, without alerting or disclosing anything. We could > have done that at the time, but wouldn't that have been cheating? ISTM > we had "special knowledge" that the principle of full disclosure > required us to reveal. That discussion is still part of our personal > histories, and keeping it secret would still, I am convinced, be > cheating. All we want to do is follow the rules. So what do we need > to do to act legally and ethically the next time we face an > insufficient bid by an opponent? The AC at the time couldn't tell us; > neither has any authority been able to since. Can anyone in this > forum? Grattan? Kojak? > +=+ Kojak might well be able to give you a more specific answer inasmuch as he is likely to know the regulations. It seems to me, however, that you might ask yourself what action you would take should the identical situation occur again, and assuming the regulation is as you say. If you would act upon the same agreement then once again you could be under fire. However, having learnt that it is illegal to have an agreement instituting special meanings over an opponent's infraction you might just have a word with each other to annul any implicit agreement and agree you will follow the methods and understandings that apply when there is no infraction. I am a little surprised that the Director 30 years ago did not ensure you knew your rights of further appeal in a case like this. - i.e. where you were still seeking an explanation of the decision. But that's life. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 2 08:49:57 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Feb 2 08:54:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000201c6278b$bda7dc70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:00 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario Eric describes a situation where an accidental discussion between the partners made it possible for them to similarly utilize an opponent's IB to their advantage, and Eric was even ethical enough to alert his opponents of this implied understanding which of course could never have been disclosed on their CC. His ethical behavior resulted in a ruling against them. Does anybody seriously suggest that I should have instructed Helge not to make any use of their partnership expertise and experience when selecting his calls over the insufficient 4D bid? I have a strong feeling that Eric in his situation was subject to injustice. Regards Sven +=+ One of the difficulties in both cases is to determine whether there was a regulation giving clear guidance on what agreement was acceptable in the particular domain where the question arose. If players have a discussion on which they will base subsequent action then they have an agreement.and certainly it must be disclosed. That much is very proper. (Such an agreement can arise with no discussion, simply out of a practice common locally where they play but not expected by players from other backgrounds.) The question is whether it is an agreement they can lawfully adopt. Agreements that apply only after an infraction by opponent are not authorised in the laws but may be authorised by regulation. The WBFLC has said that actions must have positive authorisation, and that the absence of authorisation in the laws or in regulations is insufficient basis to make them lawful. That it should have been necessary for the WBFLC to publish such an interpretation points to the fact that the construction of the laws is imperfect. We have recently seen a lot of smoke and dust thrown up around the subject. There is no doubt that we must try to put the law in stark terms to avoid the quibbling of those who seek to offset the position adopted by the WBFLC. My personal opinion is that we should set a default situation in law and provide for variation by regulation. This is actually the case but the understanding of it depends on reading jointly more than one law plus the Scope and Interpretation in the preliminaries of the law book - an obscure process. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Feb 2 11:33:04 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Feb 2 11:34:53 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> References: <000201c6278b$bda7dc70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <43E1DFE0.4000908@hdw.be> Grattan wrote: > > +=+ One of the difficulties in both cases is to determine > whether there was a regulation giving clear guidance on > what agreement was acceptable in the particular domain > where the question arose. No Grattan, you have absolutely misunderstood the point these examples are trying to prove. The question is not whether such a regulation exists, or even whether it should exist. The ppoint they are trying to make is that IF such a regulation does exist, then playing bridge becomes totally impossible. Whenever I feel I am getting in a situation in which I may well be headed for a bad score, I simply make an insufficient call. Next I call the director, have him explain the options to my opponents and then ask those opponents if they have ever encountered an insufficient call before. if they tell me that they have, then I explain to the Director that I deem my opponents to have an implicit agreement regarding accepting insufficient calls, that such an agreement is illegal and that I therefor demand an Artificial score, in which of course I am not to blame since it is opponents who are making the board unplayable by their forbidden methods. I believe I can score 60% on each and every tournament I shall play from now on. The conclusion is: such a regulation should not and does not exist. -- 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: 267.15.0/248 - Release Date: 1/02/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 2 12:28:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 2 12:32:48 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The question is whether it is an agreement > they can lawfully adopt. Agreements that apply only after > an infraction by opponent are not authorised in the laws Agreements that apply only in the absence of an infraction are not authorised in law either - unless one relies on L75A to authorise on the basis that "Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." Both an IB and a COOT are "calls" so in using the specifics of L75A we must permit agreements in relation to such. Regardless of the above Eric's "agreement" was "Jumps are stronger than non-jumps" - an agreement not uniquely applicable after an infraction but equally applicable whether or not there was an infraction. Probst and I have a generic agreement that in a competitive auction "2N shows a sound raise to at least 3 of partner's suit" - this agreement is legal where we play (either EBU or WBF regulations). Should the auction happen to start 2S-(2H)-? there would be no doubt in our minds that a condoning 2N bid would both be legal and show a sound raise to 3S. > but may be authorised by regulation. The WBFLC has > said that actions must have positive authorisation, and that > the absence of authorisation in the laws or in regulations > is insufficient basis to make them lawful. But in the minute of 24th August 1998 they did not go so far as to say that anything not specifically authorised was unlawful. Nor did they say that explicit regulation would be required to make such things lawful. The minute merely says that such things "may" be unlawful. Even if one does not accept L75a as explicitly authorising partnership agreements based on opps calls the WBFLC minute doesn't make such partnership agreements illegal. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 2 12:36:01 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Feb 2 12:45:03 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] A somewhat different scenario Message-ID: <000f01c627ec$ee5e4b40$099d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> CORRECTION ------------------ 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: "Grattan" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:49 AM 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: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:00 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Eric describes a situation where an accidental discussion > between the partners made it possible for them to similarly > utilize an opponent's IB to their advantage, and Eric was > even ethical enough to alert his opponents of this implied > understanding which of course could never have been disclosed > on their CC. His ethical behavior resulted in a ruling against them. > > Does anybody seriously suggest that I should have instructed > Helge not to make any use of their partnership expertise and > experience when selecting his calls over the insufficient 4D bid? > > I have a strong feeling that Eric in his situation was subject to > injustice. > > Regards Sven > > +=+ One of the difficulties in both cases is to determine > whether there was a regulation giving clear guidance on > what agreement was acceptable in the particular domain > where the question arose. If players have a discussion > on which they will base subsequent action then they have > an agreement.and certainly it must be disclosed. That > much is very proper. (Such an agreement can arise with > no discussion, simply out of a practice common locally > where they play but not expected by players from other > backgrounds.) The question is whether it is an agreement > they can lawfully adopt. Agreements that apply only after > an infraction by opponent are not authorised in the laws > but may be authorised by regulation. The WBFLC has > said that actions must have positive authorisation, and that > the absence of *prohibition* in the laws or in regulations > is insufficient basis to make them lawful. > That it should have been necessary for the WBFLC > to publish such an interpretation points to the fact that the > construction of the laws is imperfect. We have recently > seen a lot of smoke and dust thrown up around the > subject. There is no doubt that we must try to put the > law in stark terms to avoid the quibbling of those who > seek to offset the position adopted by the WBFLC. > My personal opinion is that we should set a default > situation in law and provide for variation by regulation. > This is actually the case but the understanding of it depends > on reading jointly more than one law plus the Scope > and Interpretation in the preliminaries of the law book - > an obscure process. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 2 14:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 2 14:34:39 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <43E1DFE0.4000908@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +=+ One of the difficulties in both cases is to determine > > whether there was a regulation giving clear guidance on > > what agreement was acceptable in the particular domain > > where the question arose. > > No Grattan, you have absolutely misunderstood the point these examples > are trying to prove. The question is not whether such a regulation > exists, or even whether it should exist. > The ppoint they are trying to make is that IF such a regulation does > exist, then playing bridge becomes totally impossible. Whenever I feel > I am getting in a situation in which I may well be headed for a bad > score, I simply make an insufficient call. Next I call the director, > have him explain the options to my opponents and then ask those > opponents if they have ever encountered an insufficient call before. > if they tell me that they have, then I explain to the Director that I > deem my opponents to have an implicit agreement regarding accepting > insufficient calls, that such an agreement is illegal and that I > therefor demand an Artificial score, in which of course I am not to > blame since it is opponents who are making the board unplayable by > their forbidden methods. > I believe I can score 60% on each and every tournament I shall play > from now on. Herman, while the laws are silent on the process of "Deliberately infracting in order to impose a penalty on opponents" were I the TD I'd have no problem ruling such action both extraneous and illegal. (As it happens I think L72b2 covers the situation already). > The conclusion is: such a regulation should not and does not exist. Up to a point. I can, if you wish, construct sequences where an artificial bid with a given meaning after an infraction would be illegal in EBU tournaments. It would be illegal not because of a generic rule forbidding it but because of the lack of a specific rule permitting such a convention. I'm not unhappy with that, as either player or TD. As the EBU has recognised a general permission such as "Any meaning may be played for double, redouble, 2NT and a cue bid of an opponent's suit" admits of different meanings over different sequences (including those sequences involving IBs). Again I have no problems with that. Meta-agreements (such as a new suit at the 2 level is F1Round and a new suit at the 3-level is GF) acquire new possibilities after an IB, but that's surely OK, one may, as NOS, "select that action most advantageous" and I see no reason to prohibit so doing. Opps have made an error, we exploit it - no problem. I remain firmly of the belief that "natural" calls are outwith the powers of NOs/SOs to regulate so I would, if playing in the ACBL, challenge a regulation forbidding such agreements in *any* circumstances. (My understanding is that the ACBL did actually accept this premise when changing the restrictions on "natural" 2H openers). I would also point out that the state of "having no agreements" is like virginity - once lost it can never be regained (an agreement of "we will no longer play X" is still an agreement). And it is here that I tie back in with Herman's point about bridge being impossible if there is a blanket ban on agreements after an infraction. Obviously Torp/Vinje had no explicit agreement when the situation arose - but I'll wager a chunk that the situation was so uniquely memorable that even 20 years later they would still have a detailed (and fully disclosable) agreement (ameliorated to an extent by being dead!). It is precisely because implicit agreements often arise from being the NOS, and then come into play the next time one is NOS that the laws do not currently outlaw such agreements and NA/SOs should be discouraged from over-regulating against them. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 2 16:02:28 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Feb 2 16:07:42 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000a01c627c9$76c639d0$a50ce150@Mildred> References: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060201092735.02a2e3b0@pop.starpower.net> <000b01c62755$b2d2ca20$839d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060201160214.02f43eb0@pop.starpower.net> <000a01c627c9$76c639d0$a50ce150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060202092957.02ed5060@pop.starpower.net> At 02:22 AM 2/2/06, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Kojak might well be able to give you a more specific answer >inasmuch as he is likely to know the regulations. It seems to me, >however, that you might ask yourself what action you would take >should the identical situation occur again, and assuming the regulation >is as you say. If you would act upon the same agreement then once >again you could be under fire. However, having learnt that it is >illegal to have an agreement instituting special meanings over an >opponent's infraction you might just have a word with each other to >annul any implicit agreement and agree you will follow the methods >and understandings that apply when there is no infraction. If we were talking about an even vaguely explicit agreement, there would be no problem in abandoning it. But the "implicit agreement" in question isn't really an "agreement" in the usual sense of the word; it is simply the result of our thinking out loud about how our common understanding of bidding theory would play out in this particular situation. We developed no new understandings, and changed nothing in our agreed methods. And yet, the fact that we talked does, IMO, mean that we had "special information" not available to those opponents whose "general knowledge" of bidding theory may not have been as refined as ours. But in the situation we find ourselves, to "annul any implicit agreement" would require "annulling" our fundamental understanding of theoretical bidding principles. We are already doing nothing more than "follow[ing] the methods and understandings that apply when there is no infraction". But we have discussed to where following those methods and understandings would ultimately lead, and that, in the view of our NA, consitutes "implicit agreement". And it should, since the original discussion significantly increased the likelihood that, in attempting to apply those shared theoretical principles, we would find ourselves "on the same wavelength". Ultimately, the broader problem with banning an "implicit agreement" may be, as we see from this example, that for the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (or regulations made pursuant to those laws) to create requirements or constraints with regard to actions that take place entirely outside of the context of actually playing Duplicate Contract Bridge is inherently self-contradictory. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 2 17:40:20 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Feb 2 17:44:37 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <002101c62718$19a43c90$3b9587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20060201092735.02a2e3b0@pop.starpower.net><000b01c62755$b2d2ca20$839d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20060201160214.02f43eb0@pop.starpower.net><000a01c627c9$76c639d0$a50ce150@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20060202092957.02ed5060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > At 02:22 AM 2/2/06, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ Kojak might well be able to give you a more specific answer > >inasmuch as he is likely to know the regulations. It seems to me, > >however, that you might ask yourself what action you would take > >should the identical situation occur again, and assuming the regulation > >is as you say. If you would act upon the same agreement then once > >again you could be under fire. However, having learnt that it is > >illegal to have an agreement instituting special meanings over an > >opponent's infraction you might just have a word with each other to > >annul any implicit agreement and agree you will follow the methods > >and understandings that apply when there is no infraction. > > If we were talking about an even vaguely explicit agreement, there > would be no problem in abandoning it. But the "implicit agreement" in > question isn't really an "agreement" in the usual sense of the word; it > is simply the result of our thinking out loud about how our common > understanding of bidding theory would play out in this particular > situation. We developed no new understandings, and changed nothing in > our agreed methods. And yet, the fact that we talked does, IMO, mean > that we had "special information" not available to those opponents > whose "general knowledge" of bidding theory may not have been as > refined as ours. > > But in the situation we find ourselves, to "annul any implicit > agreement" would require "annulling" our fundamental understanding of > theoretical bidding principles. We are already doing nothing more than > "follow[ing] the methods and understandings that apply when there is no > infraction". But we have discussed to where following those methods > and understandings would ultimately lead, and that, in the view of our > NA, consitutes "implicit agreement". And it should, since the original > discussion significantly increased the likelihood that, in attempting > to apply those shared theoretical principles, we would find ourselves > "on the same wavelength". > > Ultimately, the broader problem with banning an "implicit agreement" > may be, as we see from this example, that for the Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge (or regulations made pursuant to those laws) to create > requirements or constraints with regard to actions that take place > entirely outside of the context of actually playing Duplicate Contract > Bridge is inherently self-contradictory. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 It does seem. No, there is no 'it does seem'; it is ill conceived law to the detriment of all that provides a remedy to a non offender for another's irregularity which can, and very well may, put him in a worse [let alone far worse] off position than just prior the remedy. regards roger pewick From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 2 17:38:49 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Feb 2 17:47:47 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000201c6278b$bda7dc70$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> <43E1DFE0.4000908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001801c62817$39f627b0$a19587d9@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: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > The question is not whether such a regulation exists, > or even whether it should exist. The point they are > trying to make is that IF such a regulation does exist, > then playing bridge becomes totally impossible. > Whenever I feel I am getting in a situation in which I > may well be headed for a bad score, I simply make > an insufficient call. Next I call the director, have him > explain the options to my opponents and then ask > those opponents if they have ever encountered an > insufficient call before. if they tell me that they have, > then I explain to the Director that I deem my opponents > to have an implicit agreement regarding accepting > insufficient calls, that such an agreement is illegal and > that I therefore demand an Artificial score, in which of > course I am not to blame since it is opponents who > are making the board unplayable by their forbidden > methods.I believe I can score 60% on each and > every tournament I shall play from now on. > > The conclusion is: such a regulation should not and > does not exist. > +=+ Thank you for your effort to clarify. Now let me explain for your benefit that the decision of the WBFLC is that since the laws "are designed to define correct procedure" (sic) only those actions which are authorised in the laws constitute correct procedure and actions not specified in the laws (or in regulations authorized by the laws) are not lawful. For clarification the committee expressly denied that an action could be regarded as lawful on the basis that it is not prohibited by the laws. I have not been discussing the desirability of any particular regulation or law. I have simply observed that in particular Law 16 states on what information calls and plays may be based and that information conveyed to partner must (Law 75A) arise from the calls, plays, and conditions* of the current deal. (*as set out in Law 2, which may be read in conjunction with Law 1). This leads inescapably to the fact that it is nowhere authorised in the laws to ascribe a meaning to a call or play which applies only when an opponent has committed an infraction. If there is to be an agreement of this kind it must be authorised by the regulations for the tournament. The EBU has now instituted such a regulation (with limitations).. Eric Landau believes/knows that the ACBL does not permit of such an agreement where its regulations apply and has published something to this effect. The subject is not about whether players may choose or not choose, as is advantageous to them, to exercise their right to accept certain illegal calls; the point is that only when regulations specifically authorise it may their agreements as to the meanings of calls and plays vary after an opponent's infraction from what they would otherwise be. I state again my personal view that the question is rightly one for positive regulation, with the default position, as now, disallowing such agreements. What order of players should be exposed to such methods is something for the regulating body to decide. I believe also that careful consideration should be given to the requirements of disclosure - in particular alerts and announcements (including the potentials of UI). Whilst I understand you may advocate that the methods should be freely available to partnerships, the fact is they are not; furthermore, I am bemused by your assertion that such a regulation 'does not exist'. Have you explored the regulations worldwide to establish as much? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Feb 2 18:08:55 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Feb 2 18:10:31 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <001801c62817$39f627b0$a19587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000201c6278b$bda7dc70$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> <43E1DFE0.4000908@hdw.be> <001801c62817$39f627b0$a19587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43E23CA7.2070603@hdw.be> Hello Grattan, and sorry not to have met you in Torino. Grattan Endicott wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" >> >>The conclusion is: such a regulation should not and >>does not exist. >> > > +=+ Thank you for your effort to clarify. Now let me > explain for your benefit that the decision of the WBFLC > is that since the laws "are designed to define correct > procedure" (sic) only those actions which are authorised > in the laws constitute correct procedure and actions > not specified in the laws (or in regulations authorized by > the laws) are not lawful. I accept this as given. > For clarification the committee > expressly denied that an action could be regarded as > lawful on the basis that it is not prohibited by the laws. OK. > I have not been discussing the desirability of any > particular regulation or law. I have simply observed > that in particular Law 16 states on what information > calls and plays may be based and that information > conveyed to partner must (Law 75A) arise from > the calls, plays, and conditions* of the current deal. > (*as set out in Law 2, which may be read in conjunction > with Law 1). It is a pity that L16 does not include the same list as L75. This greatly reduces the argument that anything not mentioned is unauthorized. Since the conditions of the current deal are not mentioned in L16, L16 must be deemed inadequate and anytime one tries to prove something by using L16 this is doomed to fail. Also let me point out that L75 includes only the words "calls and plays" and not "legal calls and plays". So using L75 to prove your points seems equally unwise. > This leads inescapably to the fact that it is nowhere > authorised in the laws to ascribe a meaning to a call > or play which applies only when an opponent has > committed an infraction. For the reasons stated above I fail to see how this can be conclusively proven. > If there is to be an agreement > of this kind it must be authorised by the regulations for > the tournament. The EBU has now instituted such a > regulation (with limitations).. Eric Landau believes/knows > that the ACBL does not permit of such an agreement > where its regulations apply and has published something > to this effect. Since I am a member of neither the EBU, nor the ACBL, this paragraph is of little importance to me. > The subject is not about whether players > may choose or not choose, as is advantageous to them, > to exercise their right to accept certain illegal calls; the > point is that only when regulations specifically authorise > it may their agreements as to the meanings of calls and > plays vary after an opponent's infraction from what > they would otherwise be. That is indeed the subject. > I state again my personal view that the question > is rightly one for positive regulation, with the default > position, as now, disallowing such agreements. What > order of players should be exposed to such methods is > something for the regulating body to decide. I believe > also that careful consideration should be given to the > requirements of disclosure - in particular alerts and > announcements (including the potentials of UI). Whilst > I understand you may advocate that the methods should > be freely available to partnerships, the fact is they are not; > furthermore, I am bemused by your assertion that such > a regulation 'does not exist'. Have you explored the > regulations worldwide to establish as much? Surely you understood my point. The regulation "does" not exist because I believe it "can" not exist. You cannot write, enforce, or even imagine, such a regulation, and still be playing a game that will be playable. Tim's example is a very good one: he has been told "not to do it again", but no-one can tell him what it is he shall not do again. Whenever a player makes an insufficient call against him, he is bound to "do it again", since nothing he can do can be wholly uninfluenced by the conversation he had 30 years ago. Nothing you say Grattan, in any way, changes the simple fact that it is impossible to have no agreements over something. We have defined agreements so completely that even a joke from 30 years ago is included in it. Once I have told that joke it is impossible to untell it and if I am not allowed to laugh at it again, then I cannot play anymore. Try not thinking about a pink elephant for the next 24 hours. You cannot. And a regulation which bans me from thinking abnout pink elephants is a regulation which cannot be upheld, therefor cannot exist. -- 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: 267.15.0/248 - Release Date: 1/02/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 2 22:53:22 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Feb 2 23:02:29 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <43E23CA7.2070603@hdw.be> References: <000201c6278b$bda7dc70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> <43E1DFE0.4000908@hdw.be> <001801c62817$39f627b0$a19587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43E23CA7.2070603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060202162151.02e010c0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:08 PM 2/2/06, Herman wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> I state again my personal view that the question >>is rightly one for positive regulation, with the default position, as >>now, disallowing such agreements. What order of players should be >>exposed to such methods is something for the regulating body to >>decide. I believe also that careful consideration should be given to >>the requirements of disclosure - in particular alerts and >>announcements (including the potentials of UI). Whilst I understand >>you may advocate that the methods should be freely available to >>partnerships, the fact is they are not; furthermore, I am bemused by >>your assertion that such a regulation 'does not exist'. Have you >>explored the regulations worldwide to establish as much? > >Surely you understood my point. The regulation "does" not exist >because I believe it "can" not exist. You cannot write, enforce, or >even imagine, such a regulation, and still be playing a game that will >be playable. Tim's example is a very good one: he has been told "not >to do it again", but no-one can tell him what it is he shall not do >again. Whenever a player makes an insufficient call against him, he is >bound to "do it again", since nothing he can do can be wholly >uninfluenced by the conversation he had 30 years ago. > >Nothing you say Grattan, in any way, changes the simple fact that it >is impossible to have no agreements over something. We have defined >agreements so completely that even a joke from 30 years ago is >included in it. Once I have told that joke it is impossible to untell >it and if I am not allowed to laugh at it again, then I cannot play >anymore. > >Try not thinking about a pink elephant for the next 24 hours. You cannot. >And a regulation which bans me from thinking abnout pink elephants is >a regulation which cannot be upheld, therefor cannot exist. Herman understands completely what I was originally trying to get at with my anecdote, and has explained it better than I have. The bridge-law concept of "implicit agreement" originally arose in the context of a desire to deal with less-than-entirely-ethical partnerships who knew damn well, for example, exactly when 4NT was or wasn't ace-asking, or exactly when a particular call was or wasn't forcing, but, because they had never actually described their mutual knowledge to one another in specific terms, hid their understanding behind a literally true but disingenuous, "We've never discussed it." But to deal with this without pure "mind reading" requires a concept of implicit agreement that goes far beyond the problem it exists to solve. The Law and its interpreters today recognize that "implicit agreements" may be formed by thirty-year-old conversations, someone telling a story or a joke in the bar, the fact that two people have both played as partners of a third, knowledge of one's partner's taste in bridge literature, or simply the fact of being from roughly the same geographical area. "Implicit agreement" is so broadly defined that it is quite possible to have an implicit agreement with someone you've never before met or spoken to! You can "annul" an explicit agreement by mutual consent, like voiding a contract. But you can't annul an agreement in the sense we use the word, because *the memory of the fact that you once had an explicit agreement can, by itself, create an implicit agreement*. You can annul an implicit agreement only by selectively erasing the contents of people's brains. A rule that says "you may not have any implicit agreement whatsoever about..." might make sense in the imaginary worlds of Phil Dick or Charlie Kaufman, but not in ours. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 2 22:46:09 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Feb 2 23:14:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060202092957.02ed5060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >However, having learnt that it is illegal to have an agreement >instituting special meanings over an opponent's infraction you >might just have a word with each other to annul any implicit >agreement and agree you will follow the methods and >understandings that apply when there is no infraction. Richard Hills: In my regular partnership, a 1NT opening bid promises 11-14 hcp balanced and denies a five-card major. Therefore, in this auction -> Me LHO Pard RHO 1NT Pass Pass 2H ? we have an agreement that I must not rebid 2S. However, a few years ago this auction occurred -> Me LHO Pard RHO 1NT Pass Pass 1H(1) 1S (1) Insufficient, condoned by me Since the ABF (unlike the EBU) has not bothered creating a regulation specifically authorising special meanings over an opponent's infraction, was my 1S rebid illegal? Another example -> Me LHO Pard RHO --- --- 2D(1) Pass 3H(2) Pass Pass(3) 3D(4) 3H Pass 4H(5) Pass Pass Pass (1) Multi; weak two in a major or 21-22 balanced (2) Pass or correct (3) Weak two in hearts (4) Insufficient, condoned by me (5) An undiscussed sequence, but partner knew my idiosyncratic style, so correctly deduced that my second 3H was a mild invitation. Holding a maximum, partner used our implicit agreement to raise to 4H and we scored +420. Was my second 3H illegal? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 2 23:35:12 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 2 23:39:34 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <001801c62817$39f627b0$a19587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000201c6278b$bda7dc70$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> <43E1DFE0.4000908@hdw.be> <001801c62817$39f627b0$a19587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Thank you for your effort to clarify. Now let me > explain for your benefit that the decision of the WBFLC > is that since the laws "are designed to define correct > procedure" (sic) only those actions which are authorised > in the laws constitute correct procedure and actions > not specified in the laws (or in regulations authorized by > the laws) are not lawful. For clarification the committee > expressly denied that an action could be regarded as > lawful on the basis that it is not prohibited by the laws. "That which is not expressly permitted is forbidden" makes for a lousy society - but it is not unreasonable in the rules of a game. But if you're going to do that, you *must* IMO make sure that the laws (and regulations) that govern your game are absolutely clear. No loopholes, no ambiguities. And if you discover such, it should be corrected *immediately*, not at the next ten year review, and it is incumbent on the the governing bodies (again, my opinion) to ensure that everyone involved in the game - every TD, every club manager, every appeals committee member, every subordinate governing body, every player down to the LOL in the club *knows* of the change, and what it means to them, and (particularly in the case of TDs, appeals committees, Zonal Authorities and NBOs) will comply with it. That does not happen now. > I have not been discussing the desirability of any > particular regulation or law. I have simply observed > that in particular Law 16 states on what information > calls and plays may be based and that information > conveyed to partner must (Law 75A) arise from > the calls, plays, and conditions* of the current deal. > (*as set out in Law 2, which may be read in conjunction > with Law 1). I would think that all of Laws 1 through 5 are "conditions of the current deal". > This leads inescapably to the fact that it is nowhere > authorised in the laws to ascribe a meaning to a call > or play which applies only when an opponent has > committed an infraction. If there is to be an agreement > of this kind it must be authorised by the regulations for > the tournament. The EBU has now instituted such a > regulation (with limitations).. Eric Landau believes/knows > that the ACBL does not permit of such an agreement > where its regulations apply and has published something > to this effect. The subject is not about whether players > may choose or not choose, as is advantageous to them, > to exercise their right to accept certain illegal calls; the > point is that only when regulations specifically authorise > it may their agreements as to the meanings of calls and > plays vary after an opponent's infraction from what > they would otherwise be. The problem with a regulation prohibiting such an agreement is that it creates a logical paradox when, as in the case of Eric's Dilemma (if I may so characterize it), a pair discusses a theoretical point. This leads willy-nilly, as I understand the current state of the laws, to an implicit agreement. If a pair are not permitted to have the agreement, and the only way to avoid it is to avoid the discussion, then they are not permitted to have the discussion. That makes absolutely no sense to me, on any level, but how else do we resolve the paradox? After all, it *must* be resolved - see my first paragraph above. IMO, a "partnership agreement" is a positive thing - both members of the partnership must explicitly agree it. A "partnership understanding", aka "implicit partnership agreement", can arise *only* from partnership experience at the table. And the latter overrides the former. For example, if a pair agrees to play transfers in the majors in response to 1NT, they have a "partnership agreement". if one player consistently forgets, and bids naturally, then eventually they will have a "partnership understanding" that replaces the explicit agreement. I think it would be beneficial for the laws to clarify this point explicitly. If the drafting committee wants to use my words here, feel free. :-) > I state again my personal view that the question > is rightly one for positive regulation, with the default > position, as now, disallowing such agreements. Which raises another point - a regulation which prohibits something which is already prohibited by default is redundant. We have enough problems without creating more useless waste of paper. > What order of players should be exposed to such methods is > something for the regulating body to decide. OTOH, a regulation which *permits* something which is prohibited by default, but only in certain cases (high level tournament, whatever) would seem to be a sensible way forward. > I believe also that careful consideration should be given to the > requirements of disclosure - in particular alerts and > announcements (including the potentials of UI). Indeed. From the ACBL Code of Active Ethics: "A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents." Assuming this code has the status of regulation in the ACBL, and positing for the sake of argument that it was in force at the time of Eric's Dilemma, he was correct to disclose his partnership's discussion. I think though that in view of the prohibition against differing agreements in the given situation it was incumbent on his partnership to explicitly reaffirm that their agreement is that the meaning *doesn't* change, in spite of the theoretical merits of changing. Then, if nothing else, they can inform the opponents of that, too. Alert regulations might address the question as well - currently, if a discussion happened, it must be disclosed, but regulators might decide that in some cases, like this one, such disclosure is unnecessary. Of course, that way may lead to acrimony, when it comes out after partner misbids that the discussion occurred. Ah, well, I suppose that's a question for the legislature - but it should be addressed. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Feb 3 00:58:55 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Feb 3 01:06:21 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario Message-ID: <003501c62854$a06e87c0$489868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Thank you for your effort to clarify. > Now let me explain for your benefit that > the decision of the WBFLC is that since the > laws "are designed to define correct > procedure" (sic) only those actions which > are authorised in the laws constitute > correct procedure and actions not specified > in the laws (or in regulations authorized > by the laws) are not lawful. > For clarification the committee expressly > denied that an action could be regarded as > lawful on the basis that it is not > prohibited by the laws. [nige1] Grattan, does this interpretation apply retrospectively? In particular, would it apply to "leading to the next trick before the current trick is finished"? No law expressly permits this (and, arguably, some laws seem to forbid it). But Italy lost a Bermuda Bowl as the result of trick at which such an "infraction" occurred. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 3 03:55:49 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Feb 3 05:31:47 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c627cd$7b42eb80$feef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asserted: [snip] >Agreements that apply only after an infraction by opponent >are not authorised in the laws [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, "not authorised in the laws" is erroneous in the specific case of an accepted insufficient bid. Law 16 states -> "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from **legal** calls..." Law 27A states -> "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as **legal**) at the option of offender's LHO..." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 3 13:15:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 3 13:19:52 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <001801c62817$39f627b0$a19587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Thank you for your effort to clarify. Now let me > explain for your benefit that the decision of the WBFLC > is that since the laws "are designed to define correct > procedure" (sic) only those actions which are authorised > in the laws constitute correct procedure and actions > not specified in the laws (or in regulations authorized by > the laws) are not lawful. The actual minute says: "the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, ‘extraneous’ and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." Note, if you will, the distinction between the committee's use of "..extraneous.." and "..may be deemed an infraction.." and Grattan's assertion of "..not lawful.". There also remains the issue that certain things are implicit in the laws rather than directly specified. We know that "information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation" is unauthorised. We know that if one is misled by "false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent" one is entitled to redress. Thus, while it is not directly specified that [information from an opponent, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation] is AI it is implicit in the laws that that is the case (and that's always been the way I've seen bridge played). I can cite other examples where permission to do certain things is implicit rather than specifically authorised but is that really necessary? As Ed said the current laws are simply inadequate for "That which is not expressly permitted is forbidden" to work - a fact recognised by the WBFLC in their minute by the use of the word "may". Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Feb 3 11:46:47 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Feb 3 15:24:11 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000801c628cc$529f5150$239787d9@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: To: Cc: Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott asserted: > > [snip] > > >Agreements that apply only after an infraction by opponent > >are not authorised in the laws > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > In my opinion, "not authorised in the laws" is erroneous in > the specific case of an accepted insufficient bid. > > Law 16 states -> > > "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on > information from **legal** calls..." > > Law 27A states -> > > "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as **legal**) > at the option of offender's LHO..." < +=+ Thank you for the specific point, which I will bear in mind when presenting drafts of new laws to my colleagues. For the rest, the discussion is exhausted and at least readers who have never encountered players seeking to use such methods are made aware of the questions to be answered. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 3 16:42:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 3 16:47:17 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c628cc$529f5150$239787d9@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: > To: > Cc: > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > Grattan Endicott asserted: > > > > [snip] > > > > >Agreements that apply only after an infraction by opponent > > >are not authorised in the laws > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > > > In my opinion, "not authorised in the laws" is erroneous in > > the specific case of an accepted insufficient bid. > > > > Law 16 states -> > > > > "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on > > information from **legal** calls..." > > > > Law 27A states -> > > > > "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as **legal**) > > at the option of offender's LHO..." > < > +=+ Thank you for the specific point, which I will bear > in mind when presenting drafts of new laws to my colleagues. After all, that point (and all the related ones) have never been made before on this thread!!! > For the rest, the discussion is exhausted and at least readers > who have never encountered players seeking to use such > methods are made aware of the questions to be answered. Thus demonstrating that you completely miss the point. The number of players "seeking" to use such methods is probably a tiny fraction of 1%. The issue is the numberless players, in regular partnerships, who, through being the NOS on a prior occasion have implicit agreements arising from partnership experience. They have the experience (not their fault), they disclose it (as required by law), they are again non-offenders (not their fault) and you want them to be penalised for it? There are plenty of people on this list, with whom I have never played, and yet with whom I have an implicit agreement that a condoning double of an OOT pre-empt should be taken as penalties (apologies, but I forget exactly who it was that pointed out this simple piece of "common sense"). Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 4 01:44:05 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Feb 4 01:48:15 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <000001c62924$45d471f0$e005e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario The actual minute says: "the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." Note, if you will, the distinction between the committee's use of "..extraneous.." and "..may be deemed an infraction.." and Grattan's assertion of "..not lawful.". +=+ And note that, lacking the superior wisdom of a West-Meads, the committee expectation is that it "will be deemed an infraction unless it is authorised by regulation". I did of course write the minute and we thought it sufficient for TDs to do what they had to do. Tim has assumed to himself the task of educating the drafting committee. ~ G ~ +=+ From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Feb 4 03:19:09 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Feb 4 03:23:25 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <200602021945.k12JjSaL002503@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602021945.k12JjSaL002503@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E40F1D.3000106@cfa.harvard.edu> I am still puzzled by this whole thread. Could Grattan and/or Kojak please answer my question from last week, which I repeat below? > 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? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Feb 4 03:34:09 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Feb 4 03:38:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose In-Reply-To: <200601301612.k0UGCSZx011788@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200601301612.k0UGCSZx011788@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E412A1.3060403@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > 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. This isn't quite correct or perhaps is just unclear. ACBL is indeed the SO for _tournaments_ (Sectional, Regional, NABC) under its jurisdiction. This includes "Sectional Tournaments at Clubs" and some other special games played at club sites. When the ACBL is SO, the ACBL alerting and convention regulations apply. However, for ordinary club games, the club is the SO and can do whatever it wants as regards conventions and alerting. I know at least one club that takes advantage of this by allowing far more conventions than the ACBL does. (If Richard wants to play his relay system there I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure it's allowed.) I've heard rumors that other clubs don't require the 1NT range to be announced, but I don't personally know of any. Clubs would be within their rights to do so or even to forbid alerts or announcements altogether. Likewise, clubs can prescribe their own convention cards. The online services do so even when awarding ACBL masterpoints. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Feb 4 04:13:04 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat Feb 4 04:17:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Drinking from a Firehose References: <200601301612.k0UGCSZx011788@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E412A1.3060403@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002f01c62938$eace3dd0$6500a8c0@rota> Steve Willner writes: > I've heard rumors that other clubs don't require the 1NT range to be > announced, but I don't personally know of any. The Washington Bridge Center (now closed) used the old ACBL rule that 15-18 point 1NT openings do not require announcements. From schoderb at msn.com Sat Feb 4 13:31:23 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Feb 4 13:35:44 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <200602021945.k12JjSaL002503@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E40F1D.3000106@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: To me the present Law 16 says that my call must have the same meaning that it would have had had there been no bid out of turn. According to the present Law you should have the same meaning for your bid had partner been in dealer's chair and made a legal call, notwithstanding RHO's decision to either penalize or not penalize the illegal call. Is this a good idea? As Edgar used to say "I'll argue either side of the question." Is this what is happening in the real world? I doubt it. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > I am still puzzled by this whole thread. Could Grattan and/or Kojak > please answer my question from last week, which I repeat below? > > > 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? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 4 12:56:48 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Sat Feb 4 13:54:52 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060202092957.02ed5060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In message , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Grattan Endicott: > >[snip] > >>However, having learnt that it is illegal to have an agreement >>instituting special meanings over an opponent's infraction you >>might just have a word with each other to annul any implicit >>agreement and agree you will follow the methods and >>understandings that apply when there is no infraction. > >Richard Hills: > In the auction: Me Part 1H (P) 2H (3D) ?? I have he following agreement: 3H = Competitive Dbl= Game invite (if there was room then a new suit would be a game invite and double would be penalties) However if the auction goes: 1H (P) 2H (2D) I now have the following options; 1) Accept and pass 2) Accept and bid 2H 3) Accept and bid 3H 4) Accept and bid 3D 5) Accept and double 6) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and bid 3H 7) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and double All seven calls are legal options. But my question is (considering the previous discussions) how is my partner allowed to interpret the various options? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 4 15:22:49 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Feb 4 15:27:08 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c62996$7a63c570$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Wright ............... > In the auction: > > Me Part > 1H (P) 2H (3D) > ?? > > I have he following agreement: > 3H = Competitive > Dbl= Game invite (if there was room then a new suit would be a game > invite and double would be penalties) > > However if the auction goes: > > 1H (P) 2H (2D) > > I now have the following options; > > 1) Accept and pass > 2) Accept and bid 2H > 3) Accept and bid 3H > 4) Accept and bid 3D > 5) Accept and double > 6) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and bid 3H > 7) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and double > > All seven calls are legal options. But my question is (considering the > previous discussions) how is my partner allowed to interpret the various > options? 6) and 7) are not options of *your* choice. The choice left available to you (after options 1 through 5) is just to reject the IB. Once you reject the IB the offender is free to make whatever legal call he wishes except that he may not double (or redouble). For all that you know he can pass (in which case you may not double!), or he can bid for instance 5D or any other sufficient bid. As for your question: My opinion is that the options you have and the one you selected together with the call you subsequently made are all AI to your partner without any restriction. (Law 16C1: "action" must include the selection of an alternative among several available) Any attempt to enforce a regulation or law to the effect that it shall be illegal for NOS to apply an implied partnership understanding related to an irregularity committed by an opponent is untenable the way I see it. I am even seriously in doubt about the legality of forbidding explicit partnership agreements on such situations. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 4 18:34:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Feb 4 18:38:42 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c62924$45d471f0$e005e150@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The actual minute says: "the Scope of the Laws > states that the laws define correct procedure and > anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, > 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction > of law if information deriving from it is used in the > auction or the play." > > Note, if you will, the distinction between the > committee's use of "..extraneous.." and "..may be > deemed an infraction.." and Grattan's assertion of > "..not lawful.". > > +=+ And note that, lacking the superior wisdom > of a West-Meads, the committee expectation is > that it "will be deemed an infraction unless it is > authorised by regulation". I did of course write > the minute and we thought it sufficient for TDs > to do what they had to do. Grattan, your abilities in drafting the minute are not my concern. I attribute to those responsible for approving it the intelligence to know what it says and means. If the committee's expectation differs from that which is written and promulgated that is a sad reflection on their competence but is not enough to give the minute a different meaning. I ask again, which law makes a remark by an opponent AI? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 4 18:34:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Feb 4 18:38:44 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > To me the present Law 16 says that my call must have the same meaning > that it would have had had there been no bid out of turn. But why do you think that? Law16 doesn't touch on system regulation at all. Indeed Law16 doesn't "authorise" an NOS to base a call on their own system agreements. System regulations are handled by laws40/75 and it is to those laws (and regulations made under those laws) that we look to determine whether any given "agreement" (implicit or explicit) is legal, and how it should be disclosed. Suppose there is a 4H OBOOT, the director arrives and starts on Law31, the 4H bid is accepted by NOS. Why would anyone (TD included) feel it necessary to even consider L16 in this context. L16 isn't even a particularly good law for deciding what information from opponents is "authorised". Either TD's take a "stretch" interpretation of the word "mannerism" or we get a (fairly common) situation where the offender says something like "Sorry, I thought he opened 1S." OK, he shouldn't have said it, it's UI to his partner but what is the status of that remark to the NOS? Is it "EI from other sources" - such that L16b is invoked? (not IMO). It certainly isn't UI from partner. I am firmly of the belief that it is AI to the NOS - despite not being explicitly authorised in law. Obviously I'm not going to rule it an offence if the NOS subsequently makes use of an inference from the statement. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Sat Feb 4 21:46:11 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Feb 4 21:50:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: Like I said before, but violated in answer to Steve's question, I'm finished with this thread. If you don't like my answer to him -- so be it. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Kojak wrote: > > > To me the present Law 16 says that my call must have the same meaning > > that it would have had had there been no bid out of turn. > > But why do you think that? Law16 doesn't touch on system regulation at > all. Indeed Law16 doesn't "authorise" an NOS to base a call on their own > system agreements. System regulations are handled by laws40/75 and it is > to those laws (and regulations made under those laws) that we look to > determine whether any given "agreement" (implicit or explicit) is legal, > and how it should be disclosed. > > Suppose there is a 4H OBOOT, the director arrives and starts on Law31, the > 4H bid is accepted by NOS. Why would anyone (TD included) feel it > necessary to even consider L16 in this context. > > L16 isn't even a particularly good law for deciding what information from > opponents is "authorised". Either TD's take a "stretch" interpretation of > the word "mannerism" or we get a (fairly common) situation where the > offender says something like "Sorry, I thought he opened 1S." OK, he > shouldn't have said it, it's UI to his partner but what is the status of > that remark to the NOS? Is it "EI from other sources" - such that L16b is > invoked? (not IMO). It certainly isn't UI from partner. I am firmly of > the belief that it is AI to the NOS - despite not being explicitly > authorised in law. Obviously I'm not going to rule it an offence if the > NOS subsequently makes use of an inference from the statement. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Feb 4 23:20:00 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Feb 4 23:24:15 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <200602041742.k14Hgj2F026106@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602041742.k14Hgj2F026106@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E52890.5040003@cfa.harvard.edu> [1H(out of turn, accepted)-1S-2H-] > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To me the present Law 16 says that my call must have the same meaning that > it would have had had there been no bid out of turn. According to the > present Law you should have the same meaning for your bid had partner been > in dealer's chair and made a legal call, notwithstanding RHO's decision to > either penalize or not penalize the illegal call. I appreciate the answer, but I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Your first sentence seems to be saying that 2H is to be treated as an overcall ("no bid out of turn"), but the second says it's a raise of partner's hearts ("had partner been in dealer's chair"). Could you just spare one more word, either 'overcall' or 'raise'? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Feb 4 23:38:23 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Feb 4 23:42:37 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario Message-ID: <43E52CDF.2090604@cfa.harvard.edu> Just for amusement, here is the old ACBL rule on agreements after an opponent's infraction. It was very likely the one in effect when Eric's story took place. Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. This was, of course, plain silly. Not all agreements are conventional, and anyway none of the convention charts I've ever seen has any restrictions based on whether there has been a prior infraction. This is even before we get to Eric's Dilemma of having an implicit agreement. Despite that, and despite the regulation apparently having been repealed around 1998 or so, the above was still on the ACBL's web site in 2000 August. It wouldn't astonish me if it's still there. In 1998 December, I had some correspondence on this subject with Gary Blaiss, then ACBL CTD, who wrote: From: Gary Blaiss The present policy with regard to agreements concerning an opponent's infraction is: A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are otherwise permitted. This is a slight change or clarification of our past policy which seemed to prohibit any agreement (although it just disallowed conventional agreements - there being none permitted by the convention charts). While I don't understand exactly what this means, the new rule at least appears to be legal. I sought clarification at the time but never got an answer I could understand. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 5 03:51:44 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Feb 5 03:59:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <43E52CDF.2090604@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c629ff$1a488f40$0d9468d5@jeushtlj> You sympathise with the WBFLC, when you wade through interminable disputes like this about the "Rules of Bridge" (= Laws + Regulations + etc + etc) It's hard to draft sophisticated subjective rules that replace old-fashioned "deterrence and redress" with complex ideas like "equity". You can't expect much progress in a mere decade of revision. In the mean time, players witness different rulings on the same evidence by different legal factions and those who are ruled against feel hurt and frustrated, -- especially as they can't hope to understand the reasoning without extensive study of commentaries and minutes -- and probably not even then. Other players handicap themselves by complying with obscure rules that are ignored by most players, difficult to police and almost never enforced. It is stressful if those who seem to break such rules deliberately are themselves tournament directors. Surely the WBF must learn to crawl before it tries to run? It would be hard enough to phrase complete clear rules that are as simple and objective as possible. Although, it might be feasible to refine such rules, edition by edition, month by month. In the case under discussion, the simple rule would be to allow the NOS to agree conventions that take advantage of insufficient bids and bids out of turn. In these and similar cases, it would also be simpler to authorise the information to BOTH sides but adjust the penalties accordingly. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 5 21:57:51 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Feb 5 22:05:28 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <43E52CDF.2090604@cfa.harvard.edu> <000f01c629ff$1a488f40$0d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002101c62a97$7c242650$9edf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 2:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > It would be hard enough to phrase complete clear > rules that are as simple and objective as > possible. Although, it might be feasible to refine > such rules, edition by edition, month by month. > > In the case under discussion, the simple rule > would be to allow the NOS to agree conventions > that take advantage of insufficient bids and bids > out of turn. In these and similar cases, it would > also be simpler to authorise the information to > BOTH sides but adjust the penalties accordingly. > +=+ If you accept that there has to be a default situation because many smaller SOs and NBOs may omit to make regulations if you place the onus entirely on them, that is the position established by the current laws in relation to this subject. In default of an enabling regulation the 1997 laws do not allow of agreements that trigger changes of meanings when an opponent commits an irregularity. It could be said more explicitly and I trust that the future laws will be unmistakably expressed, whatever the content is to be. Sven Pran asked: > " 1H (P) 2H (2D) > > I now have the following options; > > 1) Accept and pass > 2) Accept and bid 2H > 3) Accept and bid 3H > 4) Accept and bid 3D > 5) Accept and double > 6) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and bid 3H > 7) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and double > > All seven calls are legal options. But my question > is how is my partner allowed to interpret the various > options?" < I take it his question assumes no regulation. I think there is no doubt that to 6 & 7 the answer is 'exactly what the bid would mean had opponent bid 3D no irregularity having occurred'. But though I can speak with some assurance as to law I cannot speak as to the variety of ways in which NBOs might apply that law in situations 1 through 5. It would depend on what they considered to be his normal understandings for those bids without regard to an irregularity having occurred. < The difficulty of this subject is reflected in the EBU's decision to allow "only such agreements (as are) covered by blanket provisions". In a Level 3 event (many Association events and many club events would fall into this category) a One of a Suit opening is allowed (inter alia) to be 'Rule of 19 or 11HCP; except that you may open 1 of a suit that may be weaker than this if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter'. This looks very like a blanket statement. So it seems that the regulation will now allow a partnership to agree, for example, to play Rule of 19 etc with the proviso that after an opponent's infraction they will forego all conventional continuations and play natural one-of-a-suit openers free of any specification as to strength. This I find interesting. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 6 10:56:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 6 11:01:02 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > Like I said before, but violated in answer to Steve's question, I'm > finished with this thread. If you don't like my answer to him -- so be > it. It's not a matter of liking/disliking your answer. I don't understand either how or why you are invoking L16 in relation to what systems/agreements/conventions are legal. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 6 10:56:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 6 11:01:03 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002101c62a97$7c242650$9edf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > In default > of an enabling regulation the 1997 laws do not allow > of agreements that trigger changes of meanings when > an opponent commits an irregularity. Grattan, I do wish you would desist from publishing such drivel. The laws allow for the regulation of conventions by the relevant authority. Agreements which are not conventional are subject to regulation only if they are initial actions at the one level and a king or more below average strength. No "enabling" regulation is needed to permit whatever non- conventional agreements a partnership wishes to employ. Convention regulations vary. Obviously some SOs may have worded their core regulations in such a way as to forbid conventional agreements after an opponent's infraction but in many cases they will say something like "Any meaning may be played for a double." - obviously there is no problem about having different conventional meanings in different sequences where such a regulation applies. For example in the EBU I might have an agreement to play negative doubles through 2S. I might also have an agreement to play penalty doubles after partner opens 2S. Most of the time there is no confusion, but supposing there is an intervening 2H call? Obviously I can't apply both meanings to the double but there is nothing in the EBU system regulations which forbids the partnership from agreeing their preferred usage. > > Sven Pran asked: > " 1H (P) 2H (2D) > > > > I now have the following options; > > > > 1) Accept and pass > > 2) Accept and bid 2H > > 3) Accept and bid 3H > > 4) Accept and bid 3D > > 5) Accept and double > > 6) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and bid 3H > > 7) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and double > > > > All seven calls are legal options. But my question > > is how is my partner allowed to interpret the various > > options?" > < > I take it his question assumes no regulation. I think > there is no doubt that to 6 & 7 the answer is 'exactly > what the bid would mean had opponent bid 3D no > irregularity having occurred'. How can that be? In 6&7 it is clearly AI that partner has chosen not to accept the insufficient bid. Thus any hands on which one knows partner would have accepted the bid are no longer possible holdings in a non- acceptance sequence. Whether by explicit agreement or implicit experience the narrower range for these calls is not only known but fully disclosable to opponents. > But though I can speak with some assurance as to law Would that you would demonstrate the ability to speak not only with assurance but also with knowledge, understanding and some marginal evidence of having read what is written. > variety of ways in which NBOs might apply that law > in situations 1 through 5. It would depend on what > they considered to be his normal understandings for > those bids without regard to an irregularity having > occurred. How can there be a "normal" understanding for those bids without regard to the irregularity? The sequences don't exist if there is no irregularity. > The difficulty of this subject is reflected in the EBU's > decision to allow "only such agreements (as are) > covered by blanket provisions". It wasn't a "decision to allow", it was a clarification that such agreements are legal. > In a Level 3 event > (many Association events and many club events would > fall into this category) a One of a Suit opening is allowed > (inter alia) to be 'Rule of 19 or 11HCP; except that you > may open 1 of a suit that may be weaker than this if you > do not play any conventional calls thereafter'. This looks > very like a blanket statement. So it seems that the regulation > will now allow a partnership to agree, for example, to play > Rule of 19 etc with the proviso that after an opponent's > infraction they will forego all conventional continuations and > play natural one-of-a-suit openers free of any specification > as to strength. This I find interesting. The EBU's recent clarification has had no impact at all on the legality of the above approach. The EBU does not directly regulate light opening bids. It is still legal to play a third seat in relation to dealer 1 of a suit opener (if partner has not yet called) as 4-8 pts, 4+ suit - no conventions thereafter. Surely even you Grattan are not going to deny the NOS player the knowledge that dealer has not yet bid when his LHO opens OOT. FWIW I'd consider such an agreement "bad bridge" since if one holds 4-8 pts and an opp has POOTed the chances are that partner has a pretty decent hand but I don't want "bad bridge" legislated against (my opponents should be allowed to play as badly as they wish). Consider instead the agreement "Overcalls by dealer deny the values for a normal opening bid." Absent any infraction this seems entirely logical - and certainly legal. After 1 of a suit OOT by dealer's RHO a common sense approach is to decline acceptance and open as normal with full values but to accept by making an overcall with say 7-10pts and a decent 5 card suit. But common sense doesn't matter where relevant experience exists - such experience will (often) have created an implicit agreement. Disclosable, 100% legal, but giving the overcall a different range to that which would apply had the 1H opener been dealer. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 6 12:00:15 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Feb 6 12:09:25 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <009501c62b0c$995c6910$2ca987d9@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, February 06, 2006 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Kojak wrote: > > > Like I said before, but violated in answer to > > Steve's question, I'm finished with this thread. > > If you don't like my answer to him -- so be > > it. > > It's not a matter of liking/disliking your answer. > I don't understand either how or why you are > invoking L16 in relation to what systems/ > agreements/conventions are legal. > > Tim > +=+ Kojak recognizes that the current laws deal with the subject of the lawful basis for actions, the regulation of agreements made on that basis, and of special agreements, in a plurality of places - see Laws 16, 40, 75 in particular. My view is that we need to consolidate these subjects in a single law, and I believe Kojak is not opposed to this. Your version, Tim, of what the laws say currently provides us with a cogent argument for a single, detailed and explicit, law leaving as little scope as possible for the barrack room lawyer to misrepresent it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 6 12:11:15 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Feb 6 12:20:47 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <43E52CDF.2090604@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00b901c62b0e$2ffec4c0$2ca987d9@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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Just for amusement, here is the old ACBL rule on agreements after an > opponent's infraction. It was very likely the one in effect when Eric's > story took place. > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the > fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out > of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. > Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of > rotation has been approved. > > This was, of course, plain silly. Not all agreements are conventional, < +=+ But law 30C would apply to the pass cited? +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 6 12:41:13 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Feb 6 12:45:37 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002101c62a97$7c242650$9edf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601c62b12$3d117dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> ............ > Sven Pran asked: > " 1H (P) 2H (2D) I certainly did, but the following comments were not mine. On the contrary I contested the list as being incorrect in items 6 and 7! > > > > I now have the following options; > > > > 1) Accept and pass > > 2) Accept and bid 2H > > 3) Accept and bid 3H > > 4) Accept and bid 3D > > 5) Accept and double > > 6) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and bid 3H > > 7) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and double > > > > All seven calls are legal options. But my question > > is how is my partner allowed to interpret the various > > options?" Alternatives 6 and 7 are only one alternative: Reject the IB. What happens next is not an option to NOS. The offender may select to pass or he may select to make any bid at the level 2S or higher. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 6 15:46:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 6 15:51:03 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <009501c62b0c$995c6910$2ca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Kojak recognizes that the current laws deal > with the subject of the lawful basis for actions, the > regulation of agreements made on that basis, and of > special agreements, in a plurality of places - see > Laws 16, 40, 75 in particular. Law 16 doesn't touch on systems agreements. Law 75 doesn't attempt to determine what information is authorised/unauthorised. > My view is that we > need to consolidate these subjects in a single law, > and I believe Kojak is not opposed to this. Your > version, Tim, of what the laws say currently provides > us with a cogent argument for a single, detailed and > explicit, law leaving as little scope as possible for the > barrack room lawyer to misrepresent it. Grattan, if you were to stop acting as a barrack room lawyer I'd be delighted - but past experience (disclosable) has taught me not to hold my breath. Personally I find it a complete PITA having to explain to someone who really should know better what the current laws say. But since you don't bother to read them, analyse them or cite them in context I'm going to carry on doing so. The explanations I give are not "my version" of the laws - *I* cannot in any way be held responsible for what is written. I cite Law75 which authorises partnership agreements based on "calls ...of the current deal". If you want to refute the idea that this includes "condoned IBs and accepted COOTs" then why not simply quote a law that both addresses partnership agreements and excludes legal calls. Of course the reason you manufacture misleading diktats is that there is no such law. Hopefully the reason there is no such law is because it would be a bloody stupid and unfair one (frequently putting a blameless NOS in the position of wrongdoers), and not (as you assert) because the WBFLC members are too incompetent to have a clue what they are doing. That is not to say that I wouldn't like to see a better defined laws. To avoid argument it would be best if such laws stated the obvious. Thus L16: Authorised, Unauthorised, and Extraneous Information. a) Authorised information: The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being played by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of your own system agreements (but see L16b where agreements have been forgotten). The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any other way by an opponent*. Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences available from all of the above. Authorised information (and any inferences derived from it) may be used freely but at the players own risk. (Reference the law on deception.) * Exception: any such information conveyed as a result of an irregularity by your partnership. b) (based on current L16a/73c) would define UI (normally from partner but also info arising from OS infractions/withdrawn actions) and the restrictions thus incurred. c) would define EI (e.g information from non-table sources) and the duties of players in receipt of such. I'd tighten up the existing Law16b (ie change the emphasis away from allowing play to continue and clarifying how to deal with situations where a TD does allow play and the EI turns out to matter) but that's an issue which has been discussed here before. OK, my suggested L16a is just a first stab and there may be a few things I've forgotten but I don't think there is anything in my list that an EBU TD would currently rule as UI (or even as EI it would be an infraction to use) despite the lack of explicit permission to use about half the stuff there. As with the current law16 I make no attempt to address either system regulation or disclosure - there would (of course) be other laws for those issues (as now). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 6 15:46:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 6 15:51:05 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000601c62b12$3d117dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > ............ > > Sven Pran asked: > " 1H (P) 2H (2D) > > I certainly did, but the following comments were not mine. On the > contrary I > contested the list as being incorrect in items 6 and 7! > > > > > > > I now have the following options; > > > > > > 1) Accept and pass > > > 2) Accept and bid 2H > > > 3) Accept and bid 3H > > > 4) Accept and bid 3D > > > 5) Accept and double > > > 6) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and bid 3H > > > 7) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and double > > > > > > All seven calls are legal options. But my question > > > is how is my partner allowed to interpret the various > > > options?" > > Alternatives 6 and 7 are only one alternative: Reject the IB. > > What happens next is not an option to NOS. The offender may select to > pass or he may select to make any bid at the level 2S or higher. True. But if one reads 6/7) "Reject the IB, and if it is corrected to 3D then bid 3H/double." one has a quite likely (and legal) scenario. One cannot control what opp corrects to but one does know it's likely to be either 3D or pass (and often the former in an attempt to avoid penalty provisions). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 6 15:46:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 6 15:51:05 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <00b901c62b0e$2ffec4c0$2ca987d9@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: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Just for amusement, here is the old ACBL rule on agreements after an > > opponent's infraction. It was very likely the one in effect when > > Eric's story took place. > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of > > the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's > > call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is > > conventional. > > Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out > > of rotation has been approved. > > This was, of course, plain silly. Not all agreements are > > conventional, < > +=+ But law 30C would apply to the pass cited? +=+ I believe you have misread the regulation. The conventional pass would be "in rotation" since it accepts the COOT by opponents. Nevertheless that particular convention is not (AIUI) legal in most (all?) ACBL competitions and thus would not suddenly become legal over the infraction. The subtext seems to be "..and chummy, don't even bother trying to get approval for such a convention.." but I don't have a problem with that. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 6 16:35:26 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Feb 6 16:40:37 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000601c62b12$3d117dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <002101c62a97$7c242650$9edf403e@Mildred> <000601c62b12$3d117dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060206101246.0340d4c0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:41 AM 2/6/06, Sven wrote: > > > I now have the following options; > > > > > > 1) Accept and pass > > > 2) Accept and bid 2H > > > 3) Accept and bid 3H > > > 4) Accept and bid 3D > > > 5) Accept and double > > > 6) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and bid 3H > > > 7) Reject; Allow correction to 3D and double > > > > > > All seven calls are legal options. But my question > > > is how is my partner allowed to interpret the various > > > options?" > >Alternatives 6 and 7 are only one alternative: Reject the IB. > >What happens next is not an option to NOS. The offender may select to pass >or he may select to make any bid at the level 2S or higher. That's the law. But the reality on the ground is quite different, at least in the games I normally play in. When the auction goes 1S-1H and the 1H bid is not accepted, overcaller will correct to 2H 99.9% of the time. Now I play that 1S-2H-X shows 4-4 or better in the minors with fewer than three spades. But my agreement to play negative doubles through 3S means that 1S-1H-X would show exactly the same thing, and would avoid the very slight chance that if I reject 1H, I might not get to double 2H. So ISTM that common sense and bridge logic dictate that when I do reject 1H and the auction goes 1S-1H/2H-X, it cannot mean the same thing as 1S-2H-X, because with that hand I would have doubled 1H. If I have confidence in my partner's common sense and bridge logic, I will expect partner to know that when the auction goes 1S-1H/2H-X I must be making a penalty double. So, having written the paragraph above, do I have an illegal implicit agreement with everyone who has read it? Do they all have illegal implicit agreements with one another? If you believe that that is the case, what do you expect us to do about it now? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 6 16:34:35 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Feb 6 16:43:37 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <003e01c62b32$e7e3c120$f9a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan wrote: > > > In default > > of an enabling regulation the 1997 laws do not allow > > of agreements that trigger changes of meanings when > > an opponent commits an irregularity. > > Grattan, I do wish you would desist from publishing > such drivel. < +=+ Whilst I am consistently rather more polite than Tim the misunderstanding is Tim's. It has been set out by both Kojak and myself that the laws do not authorise differences of meaning solely as the consequence of, and triggered by, an opponent's infraction. Tim is too much above the law to accept that, and we must leave him to his conceits and incomprehension. It is not a question of forbidding it by regulation. The regulation is needed to authorise it. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 6 17:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 6 18:02:31 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <003e01c62b32$e7e3c120$f9a287d9@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, February 06, 2006 9:56 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > In default > > > of an enabling regulation the 1997 laws do not allow > > > of agreements that trigger changes of meanings when > > > an opponent commits an irregularity. > > > > Grattan, I do wish you would desist from publishing > > such drivel. > < > +=+ Whilst I am consistently rather more polite than Tim No you aren't. You patronise, you mock and you refuse to answer direct questions with anything other than baseless assertions. Worst of all you make absolutely Zero effort to follow the logic of positions you disagree with, you call on obscure minutes to back your position - and then, when even those minutes turn out not to say what you want them to you claim that the actual wording is irrelevant. Your attitude is poisonous and despicable. You receive from me entirely the respect your pathetic attitude merits. > It has been set out by both > Kojak and myself that the laws do not authorise differences > of meaning solely as the consequence of, and triggered by, > an opponent's infraction. Neither of you has "set it out". You have merely asserted it to be true without giving a single justification. > Tim is too much above the law > to accept that, and we must leave him to his conceits and > incomprehension. Unlike (apparently) Grattan I am not "above the law" - I am as a player or TD *bound* by the law. If I am to rule that a given systemic agreement is "illegal" I am required to cite a relevant law (or an SO regulation together with the law under which it is properly made). L16 neither authorises, nor forbids systemic agreements (after an infraction or without one). Simple question: Are players allowed to base their calls on their systemic agreements (subject, of course, to appropriate disclosure)? And the simple answer is "Yes" - despite the fact that L16 doesn't explicitly permit it one finds that every day millions of bridge players around the world, with the acquiescence of thousands of TDs just go right ahead and base calls on their agreements. If I rule "L16 forbids players from basing calls on their systemic agreements." The players will, quite rightly, call for the men in white jackets. Fine, that's Law16 dealt with for these purposes - it's simply not relevant to what systemic agreements are permitted. Simple question: Which law(s) permit partnerships to have agreements? Simple answer: None (at least explicitly). Implicitly? L40B can be (and normally is) read as "A player may make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding providing an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." Likewise L75 "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." Again agreements are implicitly permitted. There is nothing, in either law, which requires the agreements to be based solely on legal calls by opponents, and indeed L75 refers to "calls" (and IBs and COOTS are certainly that). How about L40D - A law which exempts all but a narrow subset of "natural" calls from SO regulation (and, again implicitly, permits of all "natural" agreements not so regulated). No grounds there for ruling a penalty double illegal. That leaves us with conventional agreements, a subject of multifarious SO regulations. Here we have an arena in which special agreements can be, and are, regulated. Here, I freely acknowledge, some SOs may have worded their regulations to restrict conventional calls after opponent's infractions. I have no problems with their right to do so. What I would have a problem with, as a TD, is trying to tell a player that the specific EBU regulation "Any meaning may be played for a double" doesn't admit different meanings in different sequences or different positions at the table. > It is not a question of forbidding it by > regulation. The regulation is needed to authorise it. No matter how many times you say that it doesn't become true. Indeed were it true it would, IMO, be a flaw in the law likely to disadvantage the NOS (as several contributors to this thread have pointed out). Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 18:25:45 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon Feb 6 18:30:07 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <003e01c62b32$e7e3c120$f9a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@mail.gmail.com> I'm a little confused about some of the discussions taking place in this thread... I was hoping that I could post a hypothetical and (hopefully) get some clarification: Assume for the moment that I'm in the middle of a highly artificial bidding sequence. The simplest example would be a game forcing relay sequence. (Almost) every relay partnership has detailed agreements regarding how to deal with intervention. However, these agreements are typically very conventional in nature. In many cases, the partnership does not have natural bids available to them. Rather, all their agreements are based on the displacement from the "normal" bidding regime... Furthermore, this rule set could be deemed to be a meta agreement which would (obviously) apply over an insufficient bid: Lets assume that RHO decides to intervene with an insufficient bid: How (specifically) should I - as an ethical player - conform with the proprieties of the game: From my perspective, there are three logical alternatives: 1. Relays are not broken. I should ignore the insufficient bid. All "bids" retain the same meanings that they held in the absence of the insufficient bid 2. Relays are not broken. Given that our agreements are based completely on "steps", all steps retain the same meaning that they held in the absence of the insufficient bid 3. Relays are broken. We are forced into natural auctions Lets make life a bit more complicated: Lets assume that my partner is reading this mailing list and is able to read the response that someone just provided? How does this change ou options. Recall, that we may be banned from having any AGREEMENTS over insufficient bids. Am I now forced to randomly choose between options 1, 2, and 3? -- "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" Ben Franklin From toddz at att.net Mon Feb 6 21:16:41 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Feb 6 21:21:07 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <003e01c62b32$e7e3c120$f9a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <003e01c62b32$e7e3c120$f9a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43E7AEA9.3000507@att.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > It is not a question of forbidding it by > regulation. The regulation is needed to authorise it. I invite everyone to try the following mental exercise -- imagine an SO with no regulations concerning the use of conventions. Must all players use natural systems? What if the SO forbids the use of a convention card? -Todd From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 6 23:51:27 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon Feb 6 23:54:25 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <003e01c62b32$e7e3c120$f9a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43E7AEA9.3000507@att.net> Message-ID: <000401c62b6f$e2ea2dc0$cca1403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan Endicott wrote: >> It is not a question of forbidding it by >> regulation. The regulation is needed to authorise it. > > I invite everyone to try the following mental exercise -- > imagine an SO with no regulations concerning the use of > conventions. Must all players use natural systems? What if > the SO forbids the use of a convention card? > > -Todd > +=+ Selective misrepresentation. +=+ From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Feb 7 00:54:29 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue Feb 7 00:58:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision Message-ID: <000a01c62b78$ab1fdda0$0307a8c0@david> A little light relief from recent discussions. Vul - Love all Dealer - West Scoring - Swiss Teams, imps converted to VPs AKQJ65 Q J65 1094 87 109 AK6432 J9 AK83 10942 K 87652 432 10875 Q7 AQJ3 W N E S 1H 1S(1) P 2S(2) X 3S(2) P P 4H P(3) P X P P P (1) 2S would have been a weak jump overcall (2) preemptive (3) slow - later confirmed as thinking of "saving" in 4S Result E-W made 8 tricks N-S +300 The director was called at the end of the hand and adjusted the contract to 4H undoubled for N-S +100 N-S appealed and the committee restored the table result of N-S +300 In case it matters - English Bridge Union regulations. This has been the subject of private email discussion in which strong views ranging from "the director got it right", through "South should be free to pass or double" and up to "double is the ONLY ethical bid as both 4S and pass have been suggested by the slow pass". Comments please. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 06/02/2006 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 7 01:33:49 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 7 01:38:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Willey: [snip] >(Almost) every relay partnership has detailed agreements regarding how >to deal with intervention. However, these agreements are typically >very conventional in nature. In many cases, the partnership does not >have natural bids available to them. Rather, all their agreements are >based on the displacement from the "normal" bidding regime... >Furthermore, this rule set could be deemed to be a meta agreement >which would (obviously) apply over an insufficient bid: > >Let us assume that RHO decides to intervene with an insufficient bid: > >How (specifically) should I - as an ethical player - conform with the >proprieties of the game: From my perspective, there are three logical >alternatives: > >1. Relays are not broken. I should ignore the insufficient bid. All >"bids" retain the same meanings that they held in the absence of the >insufficient bid > >2. Relays are not broken. Given that our agreements are based >completely on "steps", all steps retain the same meaning that they >held in the absence of the insufficient bid > >3. Relays are broken. We are forced into natural auctions > >Let us make life a bit more complicated: Let us assume that my partner >is reading this mailing list and is able to read the response that >someone just provided? How does this change our options? Recall, that >we may be banned from having any AGREEMENTS over insufficient bids. > >Am I now forced to randomly choose between options 1, 2, and 3? Richard Hills: We are not banned from having **any** agreements over insufficient bids; rather Grattan is arguing that agreements over insufficient bids **which differ from our default agreements** must be specifically authorised by a specific SO regulation. So, there is an Option 4. I have a default agreement in my relay partnership that following an overcall by the RHO of the relayer (assuming that the overcall does not remove too much bidding space), a pass continues the relay (with step responses), and a double is penalties. A cheap overcall may assist our side by giving us an extra step of bidding space (compare Example 1 with Example 3). Example 1: Me LHO Pard RHO 1C (15+) Pass 3D (8+, 3154) Pass 3H (relay) Pass 3NT (3 controls) Example 2: Me LHO Pard RHO 1C (15+) Pass 3D (8+, 3154) 3H Double (penalties) Example 3: Me LHO Pard RHO 1C (15+) Pass 3D (8+, 3154) 3H Pass (relay) Pass 3S (3 controls) And the very cheap overcall of an insufficient bid may assist our side with huge numbers of extra steps of bidding space. Example 4: Me LHO Pard RHO 1C (15+) Pass 3D (8+, 3154) 2H (condoned by me) Pass (relay) Pass 2S (3 controls) In my opinion, *if* a relay system in general, and Example 3 in particular, is a legal system under the regulations of the SO, *then* Example 4 is also legal as a normal extension of default agreements, *unless* the SO regulates to specifically prohibit use of default conventions after an insufficient bid. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 7 01:50:19 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Feb 7 02:08:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision References: <000a01c62b78$ab1fdda0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 17:54 PM Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision > A little light relief from recent discussions. > > Vul - Love all > Dealer - West > Scoring - Swiss Teams, imps converted to VPs > > > AKQJ65 > Q > J65 > 1094 > > 87 109 > AK6432 J9 > AK83 10942 > K 87652 > > > > 432 > 10875 > Q7 > AQJ3 > > W N E S > 1H 1S(1) P 2S(2) > X 3S(2) P P > 4H P(3) P X > P P P > > (1) 2S would have been a weak jump overcall > (2) preemptive > (3) slow - later confirmed as thinking of "saving" in 4S > > Result E-W made 8 tricks N-S +300 > The director was called at the end of the hand and adjusted the contract > to 4H undoubled for N-S +100 > > N-S appealed and the committee restored the table result of N-S +300 > In case it matters - English Bridge Union regulations. > > This has been the subject of private email discussion in which strong > views ranging from "the director got it right", through "South should > be free to pass or double" and up to "double is the ONLY ethical bid > as both 4S and pass have been suggested by the slow pass". > > Comments please. > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton@lineone.net > ***************************************** Once w bids 4H his expected score [from W's view he has losers of 2S, 1H, 2D, 1C] of W is between -300 and -590 as follows: Systemically N has suggested sound values (not preemptive) [1S] that are distributional [3S]. S systemically has suggested preemptive values. S in fact has limit raise values which opposite what N promised should beat 4H so it is normal and expected to double. As such, because the outcome was -300, and if it is assumed an infraction to bid 4H [presumably that was the issue of the ruling], there was no damage to adjust for. regards roger pewick From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 7 03:33:59 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Feb 7 03:38:23 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: Gee, I'm sort of glad that this time Grattan was the object of Mr. Tim's wrath -- I'd be totally destroyed, have an ego crisis, and wet my pants laughing if he said those things to me! (or at least highly pissed). Mr. Tim -- all your intricate and involved postings aside, -- and they are of value -- you seem to find it hard to accept that someone can tell you what a present specific law means. Law 16 has precious little to do with authorizing what goes into, is allowed, may be agreed, etc., in conventions, calls, systems, agreements, or understandings. It does, however say that when you enter into areas that do treat with those items, You are "AUTHORIZED TO BASE THEIR CALLS AND OR PLAYS ON INFORMATION FROM LEGAL CALLS AND OR PLAYS ....ETC. and then goes on to say what is extraneous, and what to do when a violation occurs. It's title is "UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION." - which should give you a clue right there! So, while you're building your house-of-cards via 40 or 75, or any where else you wish to look for guidance you operate under the restriction of Law 16's first two sentences. End of argument. And yes, Grattan, I agree that Laws 40 and 75 could be better presented by a single law, with maybe the part of 16 under discussion added along. The rest of 16 can stand by itself. And in further danger of incurring Tim's wrath, your opinions on what the laws say is exactly what you don't like to read -- "my version" --. True, you cannot be held accountable for what is written, but you can be held accountable for your ability to understand written English words. As to your opinion of the competence of the WBFLC members -- at least they know what they are doing even when they do things later found to be wrong. That you don't understand all this seems to me to be a personal problem. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Kojak recognizes that the current laws deal > > with the subject of the lawful basis for actions, the > > regulation of agreements made on that basis, and of > > special agreements, in a plurality of places - see > > Laws 16, 40, 75 in particular. > > Law 16 doesn't touch on systems agreements. Law 75 doesn't attempt to > determine what information is authorised/unauthorised. > > > My view is that we > > need to consolidate these subjects in a single law, > > and I believe Kojak is not opposed to this. Your > > version, Tim, of what the laws say currently provides > > us with a cogent argument for a single, detailed and > > explicit, law leaving as little scope as possible for the > > barrack room lawyer to misrepresent it. > > Grattan, if you were to stop acting as a barrack room lawyer I'd be > delighted - but past experience (disclosable) has taught me not to hold my > breath. Personally I find it a complete PITA having to explain to someone > who really should know better what the current laws say. But since you > don't bother to read them, analyse them or cite them in context I'm going > to carry on doing so. The explanations I give are not "my version" of the > laws - *I* cannot in any way be held responsible for what is written. > > I cite Law75 which authorises partnership agreements based on "calls > ...of the current deal". If you want to refute the idea that this > includes "condoned IBs and accepted COOTs" then why not simply quote a law > that both addresses partnership agreements and excludes legal calls. Of > course the reason you manufacture misleading diktats is that there is no > such law. Hopefully the reason there is no such law is because it would > be a bloody stupid and unfair one (frequently putting a blameless NOS in > the position of wrongdoers), and not (as you assert) because the WBFLC > members are too incompetent to have a clue what they are doing. > > That is not to say that I wouldn't like to see a better defined laws. > To avoid argument it would be best if such laws stated the obvious. > > Thus L16: Authorised, Unauthorised, and Extraneous Information. > > a) Authorised information: > > The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being played > by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of your > own system agreements (but see L16b where agreements have been forgotten). > The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your > knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any > information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any other > way by an opponent*. Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience > or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. > Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any > withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences > available from all of the above. > > Authorised information (and any inferences derived from it) may be used > freely but at the players own risk. (Reference the law on deception.) > > * Exception: any such information conveyed as a result of an irregularity > by your partnership. > > > b) (based on current L16a/73c) would define UI (normally from partner but > also info arising from OS infractions/withdrawn actions) and the > restrictions thus incurred. > c) would define EI (e.g information from non-table sources) and the duties > of players in receipt of such. I'd tighten up the existing Law16b (ie > change the emphasis away from allowing play to continue and clarifying how > to deal with situations where a TD does allow play and the EI turns out to > matter) but that's an issue which has been discussed here before. > > OK, my suggested L16a is just a first stab and there may be a few things > I've forgotten but I don't think there is anything in my list that an EBU > TD would currently rule as UI (or even as EI it would be an infraction to > use) despite the lack of explicit permission to use about half the stuff > there. As with the current law16 I make no attempt to address either > system regulation or disclosure - there would (of course) be other laws > for those issues (as now). > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 7 04:00:11 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue Feb 7 04:04:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision References: <000a01c62b78$ab1fdda0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <005901c62b92$9dac6b60$6500a8c0@rota> David Barton writes: >A little light relief from recent discussions. > > Vul - Love all > Dealer - West > Scoring - Swiss Teams, imps converted to VPs > > > AKQJ65 > Q > J65 > 1094 > > 87 109 AK6432 > J9 > AK83 10942 > K 87652 > > > > 432 > 10875 > Q7 > AQJ3 > > W N E S > 1H 1S(1) P 2S(2) > X 3S(2) P P > 4H P(3) P X > P P P > > (1) 2S would have been a weak jump overcall > (2) preemptive > (3) slow - later confirmed as thinking of "saving" in 4S > > Result E-W made 8 tricks N-S +300 > The director was called at the end of the hand and adjusted the contract > to 4H undoubled for N-S +100 > > N-S appealed and the committee restored the table result of N-S +300 > In case it matters - English Bridge Union regulations. > > This has been the subject of private email discussion in which strong > views ranging from "the director got it right", through "South should > be free to pass or double" and up to "double is the ONLY ethical bid > as both 4S and pass have been suggested by the slow pass". > What action did North's slow pass suggest? He could either be considering a sacrifice or a penalty double. If he is considering a sacrifice, that suggests 4S over either double or pass. It suggests pass over double, because North will pass a double by South rather than correcting to 4S, and North considering a sacrifice makes it more likely that 4H will make. If North is considering a penalty double, that suggests double over pass, and pass over 4S. Given the South hand, it is more likely that North is considering a sacrifice rather than a penalty double. Thus I would rule that 4S is suggested over pass, and pass is suggested over double. Since South chose an alternative which was clearly not suggested by unauthorized information, the table result should stand and we do not need to worry about logical alternatives. From toddz at att.net Tue Feb 7 04:10:47 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Feb 7 04:15:13 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000401c62b6f$e2ea2dc0$cca1403e@Mildred> References: <003e01c62b32$e7e3c120$f9a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43E7AEA9.3000507@att.net> <000401c62b6f$e2ea2dc0$cca1403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <43E80FB7.4060408@att.net> Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> It is not a question of forbidding it by regulation. The regulation >>> is needed to authorise it. >> >> I invite everyone to try the following mental exercise -- imagine an >> SO with no regulations concerning the use of conventions. Must all >> players use natural systems? What if the SO forbids the use of a >> convention card? >> >> -Todd >> > +=+ Selective misrepresentation. +=+ I have represented nothing, allowing others to draw their own conclusions. Further, what if the following were the only regulations? Now must all players use only natural systems? OB 2006 10 A 1 "It is each player?s duty to ensure that the agreements used are permitted. It would be normal to consider disqualification for a pair that used agreements that are not permitted throughout an event." OB 2006 10 E 1 "In general the Laws only permit the regulation of conventional bids." -Todd From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 7 04:28:31 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Feb 7 04:32:50 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <200602061615.k16GFKZF005465@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602061615.k16GFKZF005465@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E813DF.8000905@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > Now I play that 1S-2H-X shows 4-4 or better in the minors with fewer > than three spades. But my agreement to play negative doubles through > 3S means that 1S-1H-X would show exactly the same thing, and would > avoid the very slight chance that if I reject 1H, I might not get to > double 2H. So ISTM that common sense and bridge logic dictate that > when I do reject 1H and the auction goes 1S-1H/2H-X, it cannot mean the > same thing as 1S-2H-X, because with that hand I would have doubled > 1H. If I have confidence in my partner's common sense and bridge > logic, I will expect partner to know that when the auction goes > 1S-1H/2H-X I must be making a penalty double. As I've mentioned, I don't understand the ACBL's new rules, but I _think_ what is intended is that if you play 1S-2H-X as negative, you must play the double the same way even if the 2H was the correction of an insufficient bid. This also comports with my version of bridge logic, though I respect your contrary opinion. (Personally I'd play accept 1H and double if wishing to play for penalties; my opponents rarely bid 2H in such circumstances.) In practice, I have no idea what would happen in an ACBL event. It wouldn't surprise me if you got a ruling under the obsolete regulation. The current ACBL regulation seems to be made under L40D. I don't see that they have any authority to regulate agreements that are not conventional (except the light initial actions at the one level). From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 7 04:35:40 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Feb 7 04:39:54 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <200602061557.k16FvOB5000904@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602061557.k16FvOB5000904@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E8158C.5030900@cfa.harvard.edu> Old ACBL regulation: >> Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's >> infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the >> fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out >> of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. >> Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of >> rotation has been approved. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ But law 30C would apply to the pass cited? +=+ Oh, indeed so. It's only the first, second, and last sentences that are plain silly. The third one is merely carelessly worded. (Pass is only a convention if the "agreed-on point range" is other than a continuous range starting at zero. Pass is also a convention if it "artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named," but apparently the ACBL saw no reason to mention that.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 7 04:42:28 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Feb 7 04:46:42 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <200602062040.k16Keb81006677@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602062040.k16Keb81006677@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E81724.7060405@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" > I invite everyone to try the following mental exercise -- > imagine an SO with no regulations concerning the use of > conventions. Must all players use natural systems? Indeed a useful exercise. Clearly the Laws contemplate that pairs will have understandings and agreements -- see all the disclosure rules -- but I don't see anything specifically allowing agreements to be used in choosing calls or plays. Am I overlooking something? > What if the SO forbids the use of a convention card? I don't see why that would make any difference, but those who "assume the converse" will disagree. Even under that view, if absence of a convention card prohibits agreements, I don't see anything that makes a distinction as to whether the agreements are conventional or not. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 7 04:42:30 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 7 04:46:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c62b78$ab1fdda0$0307a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Barton: >A little light relief from recent discussions. > >Vul - Love all >Dealer - West >Scoring - Swiss Teams, imps converted to VPs > > > AKQJ65 > Q > J65 > T94 >87 T9 >AK6432 J9 >AK83 T942 >K 87652 > 432 > T875 > Q7 > AQJ3 > >W N E S >1H 1S(1) P 2S(2) >X 3S(2) P P >4H P(3) P X >P P P > >(1) 2S would have been a weak jump overcall >(2) preemptive >(3) slow - later confirmed as thinking of "saving" in 4S > >Result E-W made 8 tricks N-S +300 >The director was called at the end of the hand and adjusted the contract >to 4H undoubled for N-S +100 > >N-S appealed and the committee restored the table result of N-S +300 >In case it matters - English Bridge Union regulations. > >This has been the subject of private email discussion in which strong >views ranging from "the director got it right", through "South should >be free to pass or double" and up to "double is the ONLY ethical bid >as both 4S and pass have been suggested by the slow pass". > >Comments please. Richard Hills: The Law 16 question is what "could demonstrably have been suggested" by North's hesitation. Looking at North's cards, it seems obvious that North was regretting not choosing a weak jump overcall initially, since North now realises that they have endplayed themself in the auction because of their initial misbid. But North's _actual_ thinking is not relevant to a Law 16 decision; it is what South demonstrably _deduces_ from the hesitation which is relevant. >From South's point of view, since South does not know that North's strength-showing 1S was a misbid, bridge logic demonstrably suggests that North could only be thinking about doubling 4H. Therefore, double is the demonstrably suggested logical alternative. However, since South holds maximum defensive values for their previous bidding, in my opinion the double of 4H is the _only_ logical alternative for South. The committee was right; no infraction, no adjustment to the table result. "If it hesitates, shoot it," is _not_ an EBU regulation. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From toddz at att.net Tue Feb 7 05:36:13 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Feb 7 05:40:39 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <43E81724.7060405@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602062040.k16Keb81006677@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E81724.7060405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E823BD.9000107@att.net> Steve Willner wrote: > but I don't see anything specifically allowing agreements to be used in > choosing calls or plays. Am I overlooking something? I'm not sure. I'd think that if you're allowed to have agreements about the meanings of calls, L73A1 implies you're allowed to receive the information and L16 says you're allowed to use it. I'm just trying to answer, in the absence of any regulations, are conventions prohibited or allowed? -Todd From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 7 06:53:56 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 7 06:58:21 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43E81724.7060405@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Clearly the Laws contemplate that pairs will have understandings and >agreements -- see all the disclosure rules -- but I don't see anything >specifically allowing agreements to be used in choosing calls or plays. >Am I overlooking something? Richard Hills: The second sentence of Law 75A gives conditional permission for a player to _use_ their partnership agreements -> "Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." But the footnote to Law 40E2 states that a player is usually not entitled to any external assistance in _remembering_ their partnership agreements -> "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organisations may designate unusual methods and allow written defences against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 7 07:07:38 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 7 07:12:04 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43E823BD.9000107@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch asked: >in the absence of any regulations, are conventions >prohibited or allowed? Richard Hills fence sits: Yes and no. Which conventions? It seems to me, in the absence of any regulations, that the first phrase of Law 40B would be relevant -> "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning..." In the absence of any regulations, I would argue that reasonably understood conventions would be legal, but reasonably misunderstood conventions would be illegal. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Tue Feb 7 08:09:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue Feb 7 08:14:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c62b78$ab1fdda0$0307a8c0@david> Message-ID: <1F6Myr-0VX7jM0@fwd33.sul.t-online.de> Hi, "Roger Pewick" wrote: ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > As such, because the outcome was -300, and if it is assumed an infraction to ??? > bid 4H [presumably that was the issue of the ruling], there was no damage to ??? > adjust for. ??? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Looking at South' hand, double is clearly not suggested. I can see no logical alternative for South other than double. So, no infraction, score stands. Regards Peter Eidt From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 7 12:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Feb 7 12:13:56 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > Gee, I'm sort of glad that this time Grattan was the object of Mr. Tim's > wrath -- I'd be totally destroyed, have an ego crisis, and wet my pants > laughing if he said those things to me! (or at least highly pissed). Of course Bill, but then you aren't a jumped up little tosspot. > Mr. Tim -- all your intricate and involved postings aside, -- and they > are of value -- you seem to find it hard to accept that someone can > tell you what a present specific law means. No, I have a problem when people tell me a specific law means something which fundamentally contradicts the nature of the game. > Law 16 has precious little to do with authorizing what goes > into, is allowed, > may be agreed, etc., in conventions, calls, systems, agreements, or > understandings. It does, however say that when you enter into areas > that do treat with those items, You are "AUTHORIZED TO BASE THEIR CALLS > AND OR PLAYS ON INFORMATION FROM LEGAL CALLS AND OR PLAYS ....ETC. After an insufficient bid a player may choose to "treat the IB as legal". If he does *not* so choose the call is withdrawn and (specifically according to L16C1 is any information arising is authorised). A TD cannot tell a player that his decision to treat a call as legal nevertheless doesn't allow him to treat it as legal with regard to the introduction to L16 any more than a TD can tell him the information from a withdrawn call is unauthorised to the NOS. However, this is a sideshow. > and then goes on to say what is extraneous, And here's the main event. If we interpret the current Law 16 as making extraneous anything not listed in the first two sentences then a partnership's own system agreements are, by definition, extraneous. This causes a slight problem when trying to play bridge! > and what to do when a violation occurs. It's title is > "UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION." - which should give you a clue right there! It should give you a clue as well. > So, while you're building your house-of-cards via 40 or 75, or any > where else you wish to look for guidance you operate under the > restriction of Law 16's first two sentences. So Kojak, I ask again - in all seriousness, and I beg a considered answer, which of the things in the following list should I, as a TD, rule to be "unauthorised information". The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being played by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of your own system agreements (except where agreements have been forgotten). The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any other way by an opponent (except that conveyed as a result of one's own infraction). Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences available from all of the above. I genuinely, and passionately, believe that all of those are authorised (despite many of them not being present in L16) and that a player is entitled to base a call or play on any or all of the above (and I offer the list in a genuine attempt to clarify L16 so if there are things I have missed I apologise). I believe a member of the NOS remains entitled to base calls or plays on any or all of the above following an infraction by opponents (partially because I don't believe for a second that the intro to law 16 was intended to restrict the rights of the NOS). Am I totally in the wilderness here people? Are TDs around the world ruling the things I have listed as UI (or even EI that it would be an offence to use)? Do the players know this? Earlier in the thread Grattan indicated that (despite the lack of authorisation in L16) one could base agreements on the vulnerability because it was a "condition of the current deal" as per L75. I don't actually have a problem with that - but L75 also references "calls" *in the same sentence*. How can I, as a TD, rule that basing an agreement on vulnerability is OK but basing it on an opponent's call (which need not be a legal call) is not? Were I wrong about some of those things being AI I'd be on solid ground if ruling a system agreement or call based on such illegal. But if I'm right to treat all that stuff as AI I cannot use L16 to support a ruling that a call so based is illegal. Obviously I can still rule a call illegal if breaches some other law or a relevant SO regulation. It is because I know (OK believe) the first two sentences of L16 to be an incomplete list of what is authorised that I look to other laws (such as 40, 73, 75) in order to identify what else is authorised. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 7 13:15:54 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 7 13:25:33 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: <001b01c62be0$6586f590$e7a087d9@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: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Tim West-Meads" Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Gee, I'm sort of glad that this time Grattan was the object of Mr. Tim's > wrath -- I'd be totally destroyed, have an ego crisis, and wet my pants > laughing if he said those things to me! (or at least highly pissed). > > Mr. Tim -- all your intricate and involved postings aside, -- and they are > of value -- you seem to find it hard to accept that someone can tell you > what a present specific law > means. Law 16 has precious little to do with authorizing what goes into, > is allowed, may be agreed, etc., in conventions, calls, systems, > agreements, or understandings. It does, however say that when you > enter into areas that do treat with those items, You are "AUTHORIZED > TO BASE THEIR CALLS AND OR PLAYS ON INFORMATION > FROM LEGAL CALLS AND OR PLAYS ....ETC. and then goes on > to say what is extraneous, and what to do when a violation occurs. It's > title is "UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION." - which should give you > a clue right there! So, while you're building your house-of-cards via 40 > or 75, or any where else you wish to look for guidance you operate > under the restriction of Law 16's first two sentences. End of argument. > > And yes, Grattan, I agree that Laws 40 and 75 could be better presented > by a single law, with maybe the part of 16 under discussion added along. > The rest of 16 can stand by itself. > > And in further danger of incurring Tim's wrath, your opinions on what the > laws say is exactly what you don't like to read -- "my version" --. True, > you cannot be held accountable for what is written, but you can be held > accountable for your ability to understand written English words. As to > your opinion of the competence of the WBFLC members -- at least they > know what they are doing even when they do things later found to be > wrong. That you don't understand all this seems to me to be a personal > problem. > > Kojak > +=+ Exactly, Kojak. And Zimnoch quotes an extract above a query that has nothing to do with the subject of my post. The law is not perfectly sealed as we intended it to be, Richard Hills has pointed out a crack in the gunge. But we can deal with that when revisiting the laws and also, by devising explicit words, derive value from the things Tim feels able to argue about, . It was misjudged to leave it to the beginning of Law 16 and the overriding principle that what is not said to be authorized is not authorized. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Feb 7 14:05:12 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Feb 7 14:06:56 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E89B08.8020607@hdw.be> I would like to say, with all respect to Grattan and Kojak, than I am 100% behind Tim on these matters. I cannot express any better the opinions voiced by Tim, and I cannot in the least understand the points of view of Grattan and Kojak. It's not just that I disagree with them (nothing new in that), I simply cannot understand their point of view which seems to me to boil down to: "it's like this because we say so". I don't want to be involved in any discussion, since I cannot see how any arguments can be made against what Tim is saying in his previous message, which I repeat for the benefit of those that have put Tim in their kill-file, but not me - not that there shuld be many of those. Tim West-Meads wrote: > Kojak wrote: > > >>Gee, I'm sort of glad that this time Grattan was the object of Mr. Tim's >>wrath -- I'd be totally destroyed, have an ego crisis, and wet my pants >>laughing if he said those things to me! (or at least highly pissed). > > > Of course Bill, but then you aren't a jumped up little tosspot. > [I'm sad to say that over the time of a few messages, Tim's tone has degraded a bit - but I can understand his emotion, Grattan's points are IMO poorly considered] > >>Mr. Tim -- all your intricate and involved postings aside, -- and they >>are of value -- you seem to find it hard to accept that someone can >>tell you what a present specific law means. > > > No, I have a problem when people tell me a specific law means something > which fundamentally contradicts the nature of the game. > > >>Law 16 has precious little to do with authorizing what goes >>into, is allowed, >>may be agreed, etc., in conventions, calls, systems, agreements, or >>understandings. It does, however say that when you enter into areas >>that do treat with those items, You are "AUTHORIZED TO BASE THEIR CALLS >>AND OR PLAYS ON INFORMATION FROM LEGAL CALLS AND OR PLAYS ....ETC. > > > After an insufficient bid a player may choose to "treat the IB as legal". > If he does *not* so choose the call is withdrawn and (specifically > according to L16C1 is any information arising is authorised). > A TD cannot tell a player that his decision to treat a call as legal > nevertheless doesn't allow him to treat it as legal with regard to the > introduction to L16 any more than a TD can tell him the information from a > withdrawn call is unauthorised to the NOS. However, this is a sideshow. > > >>and then goes on to say what is extraneous, > > > And here's the main event. If we interpret the current Law 16 as making > extraneous anything not listed in the first two sentences then a > partnership's own system agreements are, by definition, extraneous. > This causes a slight problem when trying to play bridge! > > >>and what to do when a violation occurs. It's title is >>"UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION." - which should give you a clue right there! > > > It should give you a clue as well. > > >>So, while you're building your house-of-cards via 40 or 75, or any >>where else you wish to look for guidance you operate under the >>restriction of Law 16's first two sentences. > > > So Kojak, I ask again - in all seriousness, and I beg a considered answer, > which of the things in the following list should I, as a TD, rule to be > "unauthorised information". > > The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being played > by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of your > own system agreements (except where agreements have been forgotten). > The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your > knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any > information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any other > way by an opponent (except that conveyed as a result of one's own > infraction). Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience > or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. > Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any > withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences > available from all of the above. > > I genuinely, and passionately, believe that all of those are authorised > (despite many of them not being present in L16) and that a player is > entitled to base a call or play on any or all of the above (and I offer > the list in a genuine attempt to clarify L16 so if there are things I have > missed I apologise). I believe a member of the NOS remains entitled to > base calls or plays on any or all of the above following an infraction by > opponents (partially because I don't believe for a second that the intro > to law 16 was intended to restrict the rights of the NOS). Am I totally > in the wilderness here people? Are TDs around the world ruling the things > I have listed as UI (or even EI that it would be an offence to use)? Do > the players know this? > > Earlier in the thread Grattan indicated that (despite the lack of > authorisation in L16) one could base agreements on the vulnerability > because it was a "condition of the current deal" as per L75. I don't > actually have a problem with that - but L75 also references "calls" *in > the same sentence*. How can I, as a TD, rule that basing an agreement on > vulnerability is OK but basing it on an opponent's call (which need not be > a legal call) is not? > > Were I wrong about some of those things being AI I'd be on solid ground if > ruling a system agreement or call based on such illegal. But if I'm right > to treat all that stuff as AI I cannot use L16 to support a ruling that a > call so based is illegal. Obviously I can still rule a call illegal if > breaches some other law or a relevant SO regulation. It is because I know > (OK believe) the first two sentences of L16 to be an incomplete list > of what is authorised that I look to other laws (such as 40, 73, 75) in > order to identify what else is authorised. > > 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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 6/02/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 7 14:55:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Feb 7 15:00:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <001b01c62be0$6586f590$e7a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > It was misjudged to leave it to the beginning of Law 16 and the > overriding principle that what is not said to be authorized is not > authorized. In which case Grattan I invite you, politely this time, to apply the introduction to Law16 (and the overriding principle making unauthorised anything unstated by Law16) to the same list I gave Kojak. The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being played by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of your own system agreements (except where agreements have been forgotten). The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any other way by an opponent (except that conveyed as a result of one's own infraction). Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences available from all of the above. Please bear in mind that if one is allowed to cite references to other laws one can say things like: Cards held - implicitly authorised by L7b1 Opp's system - implicitly authorised by L20f, 40E, 75a/c Vul/dealer/position in relation to dealer - Implicit in L75a [Note though that if using 75a one must authorise IBs/COOTs because *that* law refers to "calls" not just "legal calls"] But stuff on which players routinely base decisions ["I'm not going to risk 3H because that Probst person on my left is an aggressive MP doubler"] or ["I'll not risk a big penalty because we were 14IMPs up going into the final set and a 5 IMP loss here will be survivable"] are trickier. I *think* using such info is OK based on the implicit freedoms in Law40a/Law40b (subject to proper disclosure if discussed with partner before the round/set). I'm also sorry if Grattan/Kojak think I'm trying to play "mind games" when, as a TD, I have to decide what is unauthorised. It's just that the total list of things that players (day in and day out) use to inform their bidding/play decisions is *so* much wider than that little L16 intro. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 7 16:12:00 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Feb 7 16:17:12 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net> At 07:33 PM 2/6/06, richard.hills wrote: >We are not banned from having **any** agreements over insufficient bids; >rather Grattan is arguing that agreements over insufficient bids **which >differ from our default agreements** must be specifically authorised by >a specific SO regulation. > >So, there is an Option 4. I have a default agreement in my relay >partnership that following an overcall by the RHO of the relayer >(assuming that the overcall does not remove too much bidding space), a >pass continues the relay (with step responses), and a double is >penalties. > >A cheap overcall may assist our side by giving us an extra step of >bidding space (compare Example 1 with Example 3). > >Example 1: > >Me LHO Pard RHO >1C (15+) Pass 3D (8+, 3154) Pass >3H (relay) Pass 3NT (3 controls) > >Example 2: > >Me LHO Pard RHO >1C (15+) Pass 3D (8+, 3154) 3H >Double (penalties) > >Example 3: > >Me LHO Pard RHO >1C (15+) Pass 3D (8+, 3154) 3H >Pass (relay) Pass 3S (3 controls) > >And the very cheap overcall of an insufficient bid may assist our side >with huge numbers of extra steps of bidding space. > >Example 4: > >Me LHO Pard RHO >1C (15+) Pass 3D (8+, 3154) 2H (condoned by me) >Pass (relay) Pass 2S (3 controls) > >In my opinion, *if* a relay system in general, and Example 3 in >particular, is a legal system under the regulations of the SO, *then* >Example 4 is also legal as a normal extension of default agreements, >*unless* the SO regulates to specifically prohibit use of default >conventions after an insufficient bid. I don't think there's a problem so far. But let's move on. In "example 5" RHO bids 2H, rejected and corrected to 3H; now you pass. Common sense and bridge logic suggest that this can't be equivalent to example 3, as if you had wished to relay you would have bid as in example 4, for the reasons Richard gives. I don't play Richard's methods, but I'd bet that Richard could tell us what he would expect a pass to mean in example 5, drawing on inferences from the principles on which his system is based. If this were to occur at the table, the consequences of those inferences would then be implicitly agreed upon by Richard and his partner of the moment. The problem here is, what is the legal status of this agreement? And, if it is in fact an illegal agreement, as Grattan and Kojak keep telling us, what are Richard and his partner expected to do about it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 7 16:38:33 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Feb 7 16:43:42 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <43E813DF.8000905@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602061615.k16GFKZF005465@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E813DF.8000905@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060207103026.03f29010@pop.starpower.net> At 10:28 PM 2/6/06, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >>Now I play that 1S-2H-X shows 4-4 or better in the minors with fewer >>than three spades. But my agreement to play negative doubles through >>3S means that 1S-1H-X would show exactly the same thing, and would >>avoid the very slight chance that if I reject 1H, I might not get to >>double 2H. So ISTM that common sense and bridge logic dictate that >>when I do reject 1H and the auction goes 1S-1H/2H-X, it cannot mean >>the same thing as 1S-2H-X, because with that hand I would have >>doubled 1H. If I have confidence in my partner's common sense and >>bridge logic, I will expect partner to know that when the auction >>goes 1S-1H/2H-X I must be making a penalty double. > >As I've mentioned, I don't understand the ACBL's new rules, but I >_think_ what is intended is that if you play 1S-2H-X as negative, you >must play the double the same way even if the 2H was the correction of >an insufficient bid. This also comports with my version of bridge >logic, though I respect your contrary opinion. (Personally I'd play >accept 1H and double if wishing to play for penalties; my opponents >rarely bid 2H in such circumstances.) And I respect Steve's contrary logic as well. So I ask again: If either of us were to send an e-mail that said to the other, "You have convinced me; from now on I will follow your logic in choosing my calls in such situations," would the implicit agreement thus made be illegal? And, if so, and we were to play as partners at some time in the future, what would we be expected to do about it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 7 17:24:28 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Feb 7 17:28:53 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <43E89B08.8020607@hdw.be> Message-ID: Wow. Total vindication! Proof! Complete disagreement with Herman! What more can I ask for? I'm sure that Tim must feel greatly validated and relieved now that Herman has told the world that he agrees with him. Now that I'm sure that I can read correctly, and understand what the law says, I can approach my task in the review with an open mind, secure in the feeling that what changes I would propose are based in what and where I might find the present law lacking or needing change. Herman, properly reserve the quote signs for quotes and not for your pedantic and misleading postings. I did not say or write "Its like this because we say so" and I take great offense at being misquoted. Whatever you wish to encapsulate my postings into, obviously without understanding the gist or substance thereof, at least do it in a proper and grammatically correct manner -- if you can. Your attitude toward us is clear wannabe. What Grattan and I have said is what LAW 16 says. You'll also, again if you can, find that I have not anywhere said that it is good, proper, needed, etc. I find in Tim's postings some good meat for future laws. My objection is that apparently in order to do what he proposes he bends the PRESENT words and laws to fit his desires in the nonce. But then he thankfully departs from that into changes he would like to see so that he doesn't have to do the former, and which has a much greater value than teaching me how to read. And Tim, I suggest you compose your messages, vent your spleen, type what you want, and then edit them before sending them out. That way you can delete the antisocial, the profane, and the personal insults which greatly detract from any value incidental to your postings. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > I would like to say, with all respect to Grattan and Kojak, than I am > 100% behind Tim on these matters. I cannot express any better the > opinions voiced by Tim, and I cannot in the least understand the > points of view of Grattan and Kojak. It's not just that I disagree > with them (nothing new in that), I simply cannot understand their > point of view which seems to me to boil down to: "it's like this > because we say so". > I don't want to be involved in any discussion, since I cannot see how > any arguments can be made against what Tim is saying in his previous > message, which I repeat for the benefit of those that have put Tim in > their kill-file, but not me - not that there shuld be many of those. > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Kojak wrote: > > > > > >>Gee, I'm sort of glad that this time Grattan was the object of Mr. Tim's > >>wrath -- I'd be totally destroyed, have an ego crisis, and wet my pants > >>laughing if he said those things to me! (or at least highly pissed). > > > > > > Of course Bill, but then you aren't a jumped up little tosspot. > > > > [I'm sad to say that over the time of a few messages, Tim's tone has > degraded a bit - but I can understand his emotion, Grattan's points > are IMO poorly considered] > > > > >>Mr. Tim -- all your intricate and involved postings aside, -- and they > >>are of value -- you seem to find it hard to accept that someone can > >>tell you what a present specific law means. > > > > > > No, I have a problem when people tell me a specific law means something > > which fundamentally contradicts the nature of the game. > > > > > >>Law 16 has precious little to do with authorizing what goes > >>into, is allowed, > >>may be agreed, etc., in conventions, calls, systems, agreements, or > >>understandings. It does, however say that when you enter into areas > >>that do treat with those items, You are "AUTHORIZED TO BASE THEIR CALLS > >>AND OR PLAYS ON INFORMATION FROM LEGAL CALLS AND OR PLAYS ....ETC. > > > > > > After an insufficient bid a player may choose to "treat the IB as > > legal". > > If he does *not* so choose the call is withdrawn and (specifically > > according to L16C1 is any information arising is authorised). > > A TD cannot tell a player that his decision to treat a call as legal > > nevertheless doesn't allow him to treat it as legal with regard to the > > introduction to L16 any more than a TD can tell him the information from > > a > > withdrawn call is unauthorised to the NOS. However, this is a sideshow. > > > > > >>and then goes on to say what is extraneous, > > > > > > And here's the main event. If we interpret the current Law 16 as making > > extraneous anything not listed in the first two sentences then a > > partnership's own system agreements are, by definition, extraneous. > > This causes a slight problem when trying to play bridge! > > > > > >>and what to do when a violation occurs. It's title is > >>"UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION." - which should give you a clue right there! > > > > > > It should give you a clue as well. > > > > > >>So, while you're building your house-of-cards via 40 or 75, or any > >>where else you wish to look for guidance you operate under the > >>restriction of Law 16's first two sentences. > > > > > > So Kojak, I ask again - in all seriousness, and I beg a considered > > answer, > > which of the things in the following list should I, as a TD, rule to be > > "unauthorised information". > > > > The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being > > played > > by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of > > your > > own system agreements (except where agreements have been forgotten). > > The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your > > knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any > > information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any > > other > > way by an opponent (except that conveyed as a result of one's own > > infraction). Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience > > or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. > > Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any > > withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences > > available from all of the above. > > > > I genuinely, and passionately, believe that all of those are authorised > > (despite many of them not being present in L16) and that a player is > > entitled to base a call or play on any or all of the above (and I offer > > the list in a genuine attempt to clarify L16 so if there are things I > > have > > missed I apologise). I believe a member of the NOS remains entitled to > > base calls or plays on any or all of the above following an infraction > > by > > opponents (partially because I don't believe for a second that the intro > > to law 16 was intended to restrict the rights of the NOS). Am I totally > > in the wilderness here people? Are TDs around the world ruling the > > things > > I have listed as UI (or even EI that it would be an offence to use)? Do > > the players know this? > > > > Earlier in the thread Grattan indicated that (despite the lack of > > authorisation in L16) one could base agreements on the vulnerability > > because it was a "condition of the current deal" as per L75. I don't > > actually have a problem with that - but L75 also references "calls" *in > > the same sentence*. How can I, as a TD, rule that basing an agreement > > on > > vulnerability is OK but basing it on an opponent's call (which need not > > be > > a legal call) is not? > > > > Were I wrong about some of those things being AI I'd be on solid ground > > if > > ruling a system agreement or call based on such illegal. But if I'm > > right > > to treat all that stuff as AI I cannot use L16 to support a ruling that > > a > > call so based is illegal. Obviously I can still rule a call illegal if > > breaches some other law or a relevant SO regulation. It is because I > > know > > (OK believe) the first two sentences of L16 to be an incomplete list > > of what is authorised that I look to other laws (such as 40, 73, 75) in > > order to identify what else is authorised. > > > > 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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 6/02/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 7 17:23:24 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 7 17:32:34 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <43E89B08.8020607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004201c62c02$e7050360$a2af87d9@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: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan's points are IMO poorly considered] > +=+ Could we perhaps remind ourselves that they are not originally my points. I entered the discussion to support Kojak's position. Since then Joan Gerard has applauded our statement. Like Kojak, Joan is also on the WBFLC. The problem with the discussion is that subscribers are having difficulty separating out the position as to agreements based on the occurrence of an opponent's infraction - disallowed by law where the occurrence is not part of the legal auction - from agreements made more generally as the laws allow. Believe or not as you will, we say it not as 'our sayso' but as reflecting a decision of the WBFLC. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 7 18:50:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Feb 7 18:55:27 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I see that both Grattan and Kojak have found time to formulate replies without answering the key question. I repeat, for convenience, Which of the following should a TD rule (under current law) to be AI? The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being played by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of your own system agreements (except where agreements have been forgotten). The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any other way by an opponent (except that conveyed as a result of one's own infraction). Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences available from all of the above. The question is fairly simple, most of the stuff listed *isn't* authorised in Law16 but I encounter players basing calls on it every time I play bridge. If any of that stuff isn't AI we need to educate players and prevent them using it. BTW Kojak, I'm not actually saying that I would like the law changed to make this stuff "authorised" - I believe it's *already* authorised (implicitly, and occasionally explicitly, by a whole range of other laws with no "bending") and want L16 *clarified* to reflect that. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 7 19:12:01 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 7 19:23:06 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > The problem here is, what is the legal status of > this agreement? And, if it is in fact an illegal agreement, > as Grattan and Kojak keep telling us, what are > Richard and his partner expected to do about it? > +=+ How about putting the question to their NBO? That might produce either a regulation (or a consent tantamount to a regulation), or no consent. If asked, my own concern would be that the method should not be allowed against the lower orders of players, and should be in the hands of the SO for each tournament (to decide where the line is to be drawn). It is probable that there ought to be a limit of some kind on the kinds of changes it is permissible to introduce. I believe that a need exists also to examine with care the requirements for disclosure. ~ G ~ +=+ From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Feb 7 19:41:42 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue Feb 7 19:45:44 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <43E89B08.8020607@hdw.be> <004201c62c02$e7050360$a2af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000701c62c16$23d25f50$4101a8c0@david> > >> Grattan's points are IMO poorly considered] >> > +=+ Could we perhaps remind ourselves that > they are not originally my points. I entered the > discussion to support Kojak's position. Since > then Joan Gerard has applauded our statement. > Like Kojak, Joan is also on the WBFLC. The > problem with the discussion is that subscribers > are having difficulty separating out the position > as to agreements based on the occurrence of an > opponent's infraction - disallowed by law where > the occurrence is not part of the legal auction - > from agreements made more generally as the > laws allow. Believe or not as you will, we say > it not as 'our sayso' but as reflecting a decision > of the WBFLC. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Well if difficulties still exist I can see four possible reasons:- (a) posters to blml are stupid (b) posters are being deliberately obtuse (c) Grattan/Kojak are failing to communicate in clear unambiguous English (d) their views are not actually supported by current law/regulation. I will leave others to decide which, if any, are applicable. In an effort to help resolve this muddle I issue the following challenge to both Grattan and Kojak. Imagine you are the floor director and are called back to a table at the end of play of a hand. The auction has been 4H X all pass. The 4H was out of turn and accepted after the director (you) had explained the options. Four Hearts went 4 off for an 1100 penalty. The convention card clearly identifies such doubles as take out. The doubler holds 5 hearts and the passer 1 heart. Before the initial lead is faced, in response to declarer's question, defender identifies his partner's double as penalty. Please give an appropriate ruling quoting the applicable laws and regulations and explaining how these support your conclusion, so that the players involved and subsequent appeals committee have no doubt that the law has been correctly applied. (That means in PLAIN English please Grattan). This could I believe lead to a much clearer understanding of the issues involved. Thank you. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 06/02/2006 From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Tue Feb 7 20:19:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue Feb 7 20:25:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision In-Reply-To: <002401c62c10$fc5278c0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000a01c62b78$ab1fdda0$0307a8c0@david> <1F6Myr-0VX7jM0@fwd33.sul.t-online.de> <002401c62c10$fc5278c0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <1F6YNf-1wOfdg0@fwd30.sul.t-online.de> Hi Marv, "Marvin French" wrote: > From: "Peter Eidt" > >Looking at South' hand, double is clearly not suggested. > I can see no logical alternative for South other than double. > So, no infraction, score stands. > > It is not necessary that UI suggest a specific action, where does this > idea come from? perhaps it is the same Law 16 the other thread is struggling with ... ? Law 16A reads: "[...] the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." Also the definition of a logical alternative in the CoP, which reads: "A ?logical alternative? is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it." points IMHO to the same conclusion: 'do something' is not an action according to this law. An action here is a specific action and 'non-pass' is not an specific action. There is certainly a big difference between sacrifying and doubling and both is 'doing something'. Best regards Peter > If it suggests a desire to do *something*, anything, > then if the partner does *something*, anything, when passing is an LA, > that violates L16A. > > However, I agree that there is no LA to doubling with South's hand > when playing weak jump overcalls. > From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 7 20:24:08 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Feb 7 20:28:30 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net> <001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0602071124u10d4d2e2n63537c58f708b7bd@mail.gmail.com> > > The problem here is, what is the legal status of > > this agreement? And, if it is in fact an illegal agreement, > > as Grattan and Kojak keep telling us, what are > > Richard and his partner expected to do about it? > > > +=+ How about putting the question to their NBO? > That might produce either a regulation (or a consent > tantamount to a regulation), or no consent. > If asked, my own concern would be that the > method should not be allowed against the lower > orders of players, and should be in the hands of > the SO for each tournament (to decide where the > line is to be drawn). It is probable that there > ought to be a limit of some kind on the kinds of > changes it is permissible to introduce. I believe > that a need exists also to examine with care the > requirements for disclosure. I'm somewhat confused by this answer which seem to focus on the question of convention regulations rather than the whether certain types of agreements are sanctioned by the Laws. In particular, the comments regarding "lower orders of player" seem particularly strange. Many players in the bridge world have problems with legal rulings where (for example) the decision depends on the "order" of the players making a claim. Here, we have a situation where legal decisions depend on the calibre of the opposition (or, worse yet a players subjective perception of the calibre of the decision). I have some sympathy for the position that the level of expertise of a player may need to factor in to a very limited number of decisions. However, questions regarding the legality of different classes of agreements would seem generic enough that they sould not depend on the order of players. In a similar fashion, this doesn't seem like the type of issue that should devolved down to the level of the Zonal authority. In many ways, this feels like an attempt to sidestep the issue rather than grappling with a potential amiguity under the existing laws. -- "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" Ben Franklin From adam at irvine.com Tue Feb 7 20:46:00 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Feb 7 20:49:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:42:30 +1100." Message-ID: <200602071944.LAA09757@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > David Barton: > > >A little light relief from recent discussions. > > > >Vul - Love all > >Dealer - West > >Scoring - Swiss Teams, imps converted to VPs > > > > > > AKQJ65 > > Q > > J65 > > T94 > >87 T9 > >AK6432 J9 > >AK83 T942 > >K 87652 > > 432 > > T875 > > Q7 > > AQJ3 > > > >W N E S > >1H 1S(1) P 2S(2) > >X 3S(2) P P > >4H P(3) P X > >P P P > > > >(1) 2S would have been a weak jump overcall > >(2) preemptive > >(3) slow - later confirmed as thinking of "saving" in 4S > Richard Hills: > > The Law 16 question is what "could demonstrably have been suggested" by > North's hesitation. > > Looking at North's cards, it seems obvious that North was regretting not > choosing a weak jump overcall initially, since North now realises that > they have endplayed themself in the auction because of their initial > misbid. But North's _actual_ thinking is not relevant to a Law 16 > decision; it is what South demonstrably _deduces_ from the hesitation > which is relevant. > > >From South's point of view, since South does not know that North's > strength-showing 1S was a misbid, bridge logic demonstrably suggests that > North could only be thinking about doubling 4H. Therefore, double is the > demonstrably suggested logical alternative. I beg to differ. Given that North has already made a preemptive bid (the reraise to 3S) rather than a game try, and is likely to be short in hearts looking at South's holding and the auction, I think double is the *least* suggested alternative. Yes, I realize that someone who has already made a preempt isn't supposed to bid again (and that if he were thinking of bidding 4S now, he should have bid it last time). But players do that sort of thing all the time. I could be wrong. This is a judgment call and I think it's rather close, although probably not as close as judging whether Roethlisberger got the ball over ... ah, never mind. -- Adam From toddz at att.net Tue Feb 7 20:53:35 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Feb 7 20:57:58 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <001b01c62be0$6586f590$e7a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001b01c62be0$6586f590$e7a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43E8FABF.8050809@att.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Exactly, Kojak. And Zimnoch quotes an extract above > a query that has nothing to do with the subject of my post. The So you believe. Please do the mental exercise and follow it up, in a regulationless SO, with what agreements are allowed over insufficient bids. I think the ACBL had the right end of this, having a regulation forbidding special agreements over infractions. On a side note, related to the thread as a whole, I feel the world's gone topsy-turvy with you playing the role of devil's advocate, not your usual modus operandi. I don't know how things are in the EBL/EBU/WBL, but in the ACBL, accepted insufficient bids really do seem to be AI. Not just at the club level, where I'm told to "continue the auction as normal." I offer the following story from the Spring 2000 NABC. -Todd === http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2000spring/db5.pdf Tchamitch was dealer. He passed. Treadwell, next to call, bid 1H, which drew a reaction from the rest of the table.... 'What?' said Treadwell. The other players advised him to look again at the bidding cards. It turned out that Green, Treadwell's LHO, had passed out of turn, condoned by Adamas with a bid of 1NT. 1H, obviously, was an insufficient bid. The director was summoned and Green, an (sic) relatively inexperienced player, was given her options, including accepting the 1H bid. In such cases, it is usually best not to accept the insufficient bid, but that was Green's choice, and she passed. Adams bid 2H, which Treadwell knew was a pretty good raise, thanks to the 1NT opener, so Treadwell bid the heart game.... From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 7 22:25:10 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Feb 7 22:30:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <004201c62c02$e7050360$a2af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <43E89B08.8020607@hdw.be> <004201c62c02$e7050360$a2af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060207161707.02b180a0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:23 AM 2/7/06, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Could we perhaps remind ourselves that >they are not originally my points. I entered the >discussion to support Kojak's position. Since >then Joan Gerard has applauded our statement. Good. So can Ms. Gerard, having (one assumes) read this thread (surely she didn't applaud a statement in isolation without knowing its context), answer my question, which neither Kojak nor Grattan have yet to do, viz. What do my partner and I do about those illegal implicit agreements that we couldn't avoid making in a live situation at the table and, because they resulted from nothing more than our shared understanding of bridge theory, can't be "unmade" short of brain surgery? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 7 22:41:45 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Feb 7 22:46:47 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net> <001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060207162911.02aefc80@pop.starpower.net> At 01:12 PM 2/7/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > The problem here is, what is the legal status of > > this agreement? And, if it is in fact an illegal agreement, > > as Grattan and Kojak keep telling us, what are > > Richard and his partner expected to do about it? > >+=+ How about putting the question to their NBO? >That might produce either a regulation (or a consent >tantamount to a regulation), or no consent. > If asked, my own concern would be that the >method should not be allowed against the lower >orders of players, and should be in the hands of >the SO for each tournament (to decide where the >line is to be drawn). It is probable that there >ought to be a limit of some kind on the kinds of >changes it is permissible to introduce. I believe >that a need exists also to examine with care the >requirements for disclosure. How about answering the question for the case in which one's NBO has no pertinent regulation? Or is Grattan conceding that the laws themselves, as he continues to tell us that the WBF has interpreted them, gives an impossible, contradictory result which cannot be applied in practice absent the production of a local regulation? IOW, what is "no consent" supposed to mean? I asked, "What are Richard and his partner expected to do?" "We disagree" is not an answer. It is no different from the AC's response in my original anecdote: "We have spoken. You may leave now." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 7 22:55:30 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Feb 7 23:00:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000701c62c16$23d25f50$4101a8c0@david> References: <43E89B08.8020607@hdw.be> <004201c62c02$e7050360$a2af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000701c62c16$23d25f50$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060207164235.02b24eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:41 PM 2/7/06, David wrote: >Well if difficulties still exist I can see four possible reasons:- >(a) posters to blml are stupid >(b) posters are being deliberately obtuse >(c) Grattan/Kojak are failing to communicate in clear unambiguous > English >(d) their views are not actually supported by current law/regulation. I see a fifth: (e) their views accurately reflect the state of current law/regulation, but current law/regulation is itself self-contradictory or illogical, hence cannot be sensibly interpreted or applied, even by those as knowledgeable and experienced as Grattan or Kojak. I do not believe myself to be stupid, and I know I'm not being deliberately obtuse, so I reject David's (a) and (b). And I have too much respect for Grattan and Kojak to consider (c) or (d) as particularly likely. From everything that's been said in this rather long thread, I have become convinced that the answer must be (e). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 7 23:05:28 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Feb 7 23:10:29 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <43E8FABF.8050809@att.net> References: <001b01c62be0$6586f590$e7a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43E8FABF.8050809@att.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060207165907.02f983e0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:53 PM 2/7/06, Todd wrote: > So you believe. Please do the mental exercise and follow it > up, in a regulationless SO, with what agreements are allowed over > insufficient bids. I think the ACBL had the right end of this, > having a regulation forbidding special agreements over infractions. Perhaps they would have if they actually had a regulation forbidding "special" agreements over infractions. But according to what I have been told, and what has been written in the "Ruling the Game" column of The Bridge Bulletin, the regulation forbids *any agreements whatsoever*, and it is only agreements which are *not* demonstrably "special" that are causing us problems. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 8 00:01:11 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Feb 8 00:05:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeal Decision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200602071944.LAA09757@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>bridge logic demonstrably suggests that North could only be >>thinking about doubling 4H. Therefore, double is the >>demonstrably suggested logical alternative. Adam Beneschan: >I beg to differ. Given that North has already made a >preemptive bid (the reraise to 3S) rather than a game try, >and is likely to be short in hearts looking at South's >holding and the auction, I think double is the *least* >suggested alternative. Yes, I realize that someone who has >already made a preempt isn't supposed to bid again (and that >if he were thinking of bidding 4S now, he should have bid it >last time). > >But players do that sort of thing all the time. Richard Hills: Yes, players ignore bridge logic all the time. A typical case is the tendency of many mediocre players to choose illogical sacrifices. E/W vul First auction -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 4H 4S Pass Pass Pass Second auction -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 4H 4S Dble Pass 5H South holds: --- KQJxxxx xxx xxx South's decisions in the two auctions lack bridge logic; once pard passes 4S then 5H is very unlikely to be a phantom sacrifice; once pard doubles 4S then 5H is much more likely to be a phantom sacrifice. Suppose the auction is: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1H Pass 4H 4S Dble(1) Pass 5H Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo, Result: 5Hx is -300 but 4Sx would have been +790. A problem for TDs is judging logical alternatives. If South was an expert, as TD I would rule that passing the double was a logical alternative. If South was an illogical mediocre player, I would rule that 5H was the only logical alternative for that illogical player. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 8 01:09:40 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Feb 8 01:16:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net><001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207162911.02aefc80@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > How about answering the question for the case in which one's NBO > has no pertinent regulation? > > Or is Grattan conceding that the laws themselves, as he continues > to tell us that the WBF has interpreted them, gives an impossible, > contradictory result which cannot be applied in practice absent the > production of a local regulation? IOW, what is "no consent" > supposed to mean? I asked, "What are Richard and his partner > expected to do?" "We disagree" is not an answer. It is no > different from the AC's response in my original anecdote: "We > have spoken. You may leave now." > +=+ We have reported the meaning of the laws. The application of that meaning is in the domain of the national authority, beyond which there is no further appeal. It would be inappropriate were we to intrude in the area of competence of the national authority. Because different NAs could well arrive in different positions when the question is put, it would be clumsy to fall into the trap of a general statement. If the SO has no pertinent regulation it has to resolve its problem or take it to the NA. It is not Richard who has the problem, it is the CTD of the tournament in which he is playing for the time being. If it is of any interest I can add a personal opinion, untried until an example comes to appeal, that in EBL Championships such an agreement could fall within requirement 2 of the EBL Systems Policy, Annex 4. I believe this is worded identically with the corresponding Annex to the Systems Policy applying in WBF tournaments. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 01:34:02 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed Feb 8 01:38:25 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net> <001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207162911.02aefc80@pop.starpower.net> <000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0602071634m37bc729bmf26a3f977792ca92@mail.gmail.com> > It is not Richard who has the problem, it is the CTD of the tournament in which > he is playing for the time being. I have the somewhat naive expectation that player's have a vested interest in a consistent regulatory regime. By punting the decision making process downstream, you randomize the process. How am I, as a player, expected to understand the proprieties if they're being invented on the fly? Believe me when I say that if I don't happen to guess correctly, the Director and the opponents are going to make this my problem... > If it is of any interest I can add a personal opinion, untried > until an example comes to appeal, that in EBL Championships > such an agreement could fall within requirement 2 of the EBL > Systems Policy, Annex 4. I just downloaded and read this document from http://eurobridge.org/competitions/04Malmo/SystemsRegMalmo2004.pdf Annex 4 of the EBL systems policy deals with disclosure requirements of a specific set of agreements. This would appear to somewhat premature. The key issue does not revolve arround disclosing specific agreements, but rather, which agreements we are legally permitted to have. -- "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" Ben Franklin From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 8 01:45:44 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Feb 8 01:49:53 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <001b01c62be0$6586f590$e7a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><43E8FABF.8050809@att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207165907.02f983e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c62c49$2ef12c30$bce1403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > Perhaps they would have if they actually had a > regulation forbidding "special" agreements over > infractions. But according to what I have been told, > and what has been written in the "Ruling the Game" > column of The Bridge Bulletin, the regulation forbids > *any agreements whatsoever*, and it is only > agreements which are *not* demonstrably "special" > that are causing us problems. > +=+ I don't understand. Are you saying that you play in the ACBL and that you have been asking me to answer a question that lies with the ACBL to answer? If so, my circumspection - in limiting myself to analysis of the law and not entering into any question of its local application - is vindicated. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 8 02:32:56 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Feb 8 02:36:35 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net> <001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207162911.02aefc80@pop.starpower.net> <000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> <2da24b8e0602071634m37bc729bmf26a3f977792ca92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c62c4f$b6a82830$6203e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > It is not Richard who has the problem, it is the > CTD of the tournament in which he is playing for > the time being. I have the somewhat naive expectation that player's have a vested interest in a consistent regulatory regime. By punting the decision making process downstream, you randomize the process. How am I, as a player, expected to understand the proprieties if they're being invented on the fly? Believe me when I say that if I don't happen to guess correctly, the Director and the opponents are going to make this my problem... < +=+ Condolences. Somewhere recently I mooted the possibility of adding another step in Law 93 beyond 93C (in limited circumstances consideration by the standing Appeals Committee of the WBF). My audience was unimpressed and it ain't gonna happen. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 8 04:44:09 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Feb 8 04:45:31 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0602071634m37bc729bmf26a3f977792ca92@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>If it is of any interest I can add a personal opinion, untried >>until an example comes to appeal, that in EBL Championships >>such an agreement could fall within requirement 2 of the EBL >>Systems Policy, Annex 4. EBL systems policy, annex 4, requirement 2: >Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross >violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the >nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be >disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be >explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership >experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to >opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the >conventions that may call for special defence and the >supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in >which these violations may occur and of the relevant >partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory >disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category >of event. Richard Hills: What are "gross violations of the normal meanings of calls"? The first sentence of annex 4 states that is about "Psychic Calls and similar actions based upon partnership understandings". Therefore, I disagree with Grattan's personal opinion that requirement 2 is relevant to the case of a revealed default agreement which is both applicable after RHO's overcall and likewise applicable after RHO's Law 27A condoned undercall. Such a universally applicable agreement could not be defined as a "Psychic Call or similar action" without a rubber-band stretching of the Lawbook's definition of Psychic Call as a "gross misstatement". Anyway, in my particular case the EBU requirement 2 is a moot regulation. Since I am an Aussie, the ABF system regulation is the applicable regulation. ABF system regulation, clauses 3.6 and 3.7: >3.6 More Comprehensive Descriptions of Systems >In the interests of full disclosure and for a pair's own benefit >in case of disputes, any pair may submit one copy of a more >comprehensive description of their system to the Tournament >Convenor before the first session of any event. In decisions >taken by Tournament Directors and by the Appeals Committee, >pairs who have submitted their full system will be given the >benefit of any support this provides for an explanation given at >the table. > >3.7 Playing the same System >Both members of a partnership must play the same system, >including bidding and card play agreements. Where, as a matter >of style, members frequently adopt different approaches from >each other, that difference (or those differences) must be >disclosed on the system card. Richard Hills: It seems to me that clause 3.7 _requires_ ABF players to have a mutual systemic agreement about the meaning of their bids following the application of Law 27A to an opponent. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Feb 8 04:48:19 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Feb 8 04:52:35 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200602071548.k17Fmd8f001591@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602071548.k17Fmd8f001591@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E96A03.2010604@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The second sentence of Law 75A gives conditional permission for a player > to _use_ their partnership agreements -> > > "Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from > the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." I don't think so. What L75A does on its face is _restrict_ partnership agreements. While that connotes an expectation that at least some partnerships will _have_ agreements, it doesn't directly grant permission to have or use them. We can find an analogy in L27B2, which contemplates that some partnerships will use conventions, but I don't think anyone will say L27B2 _authorizes_ conventions. From: "Grattan Endicott" > subscribers > are having difficulty separating out the position > as to agreements based on the occurrence of an > opponent's infraction I'm having difficulty understanding what your position is. (I am tempted to insert a reference to Alan Greenspan, our just-retired central banker, who is quoted as having said, "If I made myself clear, I have misspoken." *) > - disallowed by law where > the occurrence is not part of the legal auction - > from agreements made more generally as the > laws allow. Believe or not as you will, we say > it not as 'our sayso' but as reflecting a decision > of the WBFLC. Could you cite the Law or minute, please? If you mean the minute from Lille, why does it apply only to agreements subsequent to infractions and not other partnership agreements? In any case, no one has answered Eric's question. What is a partnership to do about the experience they will inevitably acquire about how they act after an opponent's infraction? Is there some reason this experience should not be regarded as creating implicit agreements? From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" > Please do the mental exercise and follow > it up, in a regulationless SO, with what agreements are > allowed over insufficient bids. Indeed. May I extend the question? What agreements, if any, are allowed generally? And what difference does an infraction make? > I think the ACBL had the > right end of this, having a regulation forbidding special > agreements over infractions. Do you know the current ACBL regulation, which I was unable to discover, or are you referring to the former one? Why do you think that restrictions are a good idea? Do you have an answer for Eric? ----- *Other sources give the Greenspan quotation as, "If I have made myself clear, you must have misunderstood me." From toddz at att.net Wed Feb 8 05:09:16 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Feb 8 05:13:47 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43E96A03.2010604@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602071548.k17Fmd8f001591@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E96A03.2010604@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43E96EEC.8000402@att.net> Steve Willner wrote: > Do you know the current ACBL regulation, which I was unable to discover, > or are you referring to the former one? The former one. > Why do you think that restrictions are a good idea? Do you have an > answer for Eric? My apologies. I recognize my ambiguousness here. I don't believe the restriction is a good one. I meant to say that the ACBL was right to have a regulation restricting agreements over infractions rather than saying such are prohibited by law with no regulation required. The regulation could have been redundant, merely stating what is already the force of law, but I don't believe that's so. -Todd From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Feb 8 08:40:05 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Feb 8 08:41:48 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: References: <43E89B08.8020607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <43E9A055.6020800@hdw.be> Kojak, I was not going to reply to your posts ever again, but this is really too much. WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Wow. Total vindication! Proof! Complete disagreement with Herman! What > more can > I ask for? I'm sure that Tim must feel greatly validated and relieved now > that Herman has told the world that he agrees with him. > This is really uncalled for. The joke is sometimes funny, but not when you use it as an argument. "It must be so because Kojak says so" might still be an argument in some quarters, but "It must be so because Herman says different" is wearing a bit thin. > Now that I'm sure that I can read correctly, and understand what the law > says, I can approach my task in the review with an open mind, secure in the > feeling that what changes I would propose are based in what and where I > might find > the present law lacking or needing change. > Pfff. > Herman, properly reserve the quote signs for quotes and not for your > pedantic and misleading postings. I did not say or write "Its like this > because we say so" and I take great offense at being misquoted. Whatever > you wish to encapsulate my postings into, obviously without understanding > the gist or substance thereof, at least do it in a proper and grammatically > correct manner -- if you can. Your attitude toward us is clear wannabe. > I am still trying to engage is serious discussion. You are merely repeating what you have said before (once again up here). You seem to believe that your views must be the right ones, but you don't reply to any of the very serious points that Tim raises. > What Grattan and I have said is what LAW 16 says. You'll also, again if > you can, find that I have not anywhere said that it is good, proper, needed, > etc. > Tim has said in extenso that "what Law 16 says" cannot be the full extent of the Law. Law 16 lists a number of things as being AI. If your argument is such that anything not listed in L16 is UI, then you are forgetting a great number of things which are currently being ruled, by every director on the planet, as AI. Tim has made a list of such things. Neither you nor Grattan have deemed it necessary to go through that list and tell us why these things, not listed in L16, should be UI or AI. Therefor, I conclude with Tim that L16 is not exhaustive. Therefor, I conclude that your argument is FALSE. Things that are not mentioned in the heading of L16 are NOT automatically UI. You tell us many times that you know what L16 means, but when you don't reply to Tim's arguments, your statement boils down to "it's like this because we say so". Please come with arguments the next time, maybe then we'll listen to you. > I find in Tim's postings some good meat for future laws. My objection is > that apparently in order to do what he proposes he bends the PRESENT words > and laws to fit his desires in the nonce. But then he thankfully departs > from that > into changes he would like to see so that he doesn't have to do the former, > and which has a much greater value than teaching me how to read. > Again a paragraph which brings nothing to the discussion. Permit me to not respond to it. > And Tim, I suggest you compose your messages, vent your spleen, type what > you want, and then edit them before sending them out. That way you can > delete the antisocial, the profane, and the personal insults which greatly > detract from any value incidental to your postings. > I second that suggestion. But I can understand that he loses his temper. > Kojak > -- 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: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 6/02/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Feb 8 08:42:36 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Feb 8 08:44:19 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <004201c62c02$e7050360$a2af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <43E89B08.8020607@hdw.be> <004201c62c02$e7050360$a2af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43E9A0EC.9010008@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > 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: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:05 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > >>Grattan's points are IMO poorly considered] >> > > +=+ Could we perhaps remind ourselves that > they are not originally my points. I entered the > discussion to support Kojak's position. Since > then Joan Gerard has applauded our statement. So now the argument has become "the laws are like this because we three say so"? Please Joan, detach yourself from this duo and gives us arguments that are real, not this senseless "we know better". > Like Kojak, Joan is also on the WBFLC. The > problem with the discussion is that subscribers > are having difficulty separating out the position > as to agreements based on the occurrence of an > opponent's infraction - disallowed by law where > the occurrence is not part of the legal auction - > from agreements made more generally as the > laws allow. Believe or not as you will, we say > it not as 'our sayso' but as reflecting a decision > of the WBFLC. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Then please quote that decision, Grattan. You have not done so so far. -- 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: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 6/02/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Feb 8 09:01:16 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Feb 8 09:02:52 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net><001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207162911.02aefc80@pop.starpower.net> <000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <43E9A54C.9040300@hdw.be> Grattan wrote: > >> >> Or is Grattan conceding that the laws themselves, as he continues to >> tell us that the WBF has interpreted them, gives an impossible, >> contradictory result which cannot be applied in practice absent the >> production of a local regulation? IOW, what is "no consent" supposed >> to mean? I asked, "What are Richard and his partner expected to do?" >> "We disagree" is not an answer. It is no different from the AC's >> response in my original anecdote: "We have spoken. You may leave now." >> > +=+ We have reported the meaning of the laws. The application of that > meaning is in the domain of the national authority, beyond which there > is no further appeal. Grattan, please! On this list there are a number of people who in their respective countries are members of the highest appeal authority (If you call Flanders a country, I am in that position - and the Dutch language version of the laws explicitely point to my committee for the northern part of Belgium). These people are baffled. First you tell them that you know how the laws are, and then you tell them that it's up to them to interpret those same laws. Don't shed your responsibility and tell us the WBF position. Apart from the ACBL and probably the EBU, we don't have regulations covering this particular piece of Law. The WBF has no regulation either. So tell us what the rule is when Tim and Eric will play in Verona together later this year? > It would be inappropriate were we to intrude in > the area of competence of the national authority. Because different NAs > could well arrive in different positions > when the question is put, it would be clumsy to fall into the trap of a > general statement. If the SO has no pertinent regulation it has to > resolve its problem or take it to the NA. It is not Richard > who has the problem, it is the CTD of the tournament in which he is > playing for the time being. If it is of any interest I can add > a personal opinion, untried > until an example comes to appeal, that in EBL Championships > such an agreement could fall within requirement 2 of the EBL Systems > Policy, Annex 4. I believe this is worded identically with the > corresponding Annex to the Systems Policy applying > in WBF tournaments. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Let's read that one then: I'm reading the systems policy from the EBL web-site. It is a document which states "published by the WBF systems committee - August 2002". (that's OK, the EBL has explicitely stated it wishes to make no difference between EBL and WBF events) It contains 7 chapters and 4 appendices. "annex 4" might refer to appendix 4, the "Psychic Bidding Guidelines". This document contains indeed a requirement 2, which I shall quote here: Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. OK Grattan, it is untried in appeals, but let's go through it. It applies to gross violations, but let's apply it to the acceptence or not of insufficient bids. It says that these should be disclosed. Precisely Tim's point. It also says these are permissible. So what are you trying to prove then? -- 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: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 6/02/2006 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Feb 8 09:48:11 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed Feb 8 09:52:07 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net><001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207162911.02aefc80@pop.starpower.net><000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> <43E9A54C.9040300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001001c62c8c$6489e4c0$4101a8c0@david> Simple question. With North the dealer the auction goes:- West 4H North X East Pass South ? Now the information conveyed arising from the conditions of the current deal is that West has made an OBOOT and that this has been accepted by North. Now Grattan's position is, IF I understand correctly, is that you are not allowed to base a call on the illegality of a previous call unless specific permission to do so is given elsewhere (in law or regulation). But does L75A not now give the specific permission required to have a different agreement (for the double in this case) than would be the case if West was the dealer? (Subject to appropriate disclosure) ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 07/02/2006 From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 8 11:20:39 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Feb 8 11:25:01 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <001001c62c8c$6489e4c0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > Simple question. > > With North the dealer the auction goes:- > West 4H > North X > East Pass > South ? > > Now the information conveyed arising from the conditions > of the current deal is that West has made an OBOOT and > that this has been accepted by North. > > Now Grattan's position is, IF I understand correctly, is that > you are not allowed to base a call on the illegality of a > previous call unless specific permission to do so is given > elsewhere (in law or regulation). > > But does L75A not now give the specific permission required > to have a different agreement (for the double in this case) > than would be the case if West was the dealer? > (Subject to appropriate disclosure) To me this is indeed a very simple situation: Sitting South I have the AI that West made an opening bid out of turn and that my partner chose to accept this bid apparently in order to double. My general bridge knowledge tells me that this must have been because he expects it to be to our advantage. What inference can I draw from this? The answer is that his double must be for penalty (regardless of what agreements we might have on such doubles when there is no irregularity). I can hardly imagine any other reason for partner to accept the OBOOT instead of rejecting it and then proceed with a normal auction given the restrictions this would impose on our opponents. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 8 11:47:53 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Feb 8 11:57:34 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200602071548.k17Fmd8f001591@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E96A03.2010604@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007d01c62c9d$38fcb150$89ac87d9@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: "Steve Willner" > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > I'm having difficulty understanding what your position is. > (I am tempted to insert a reference to Alan Greenspan, > our just-retired central banker, who is quoted as having > said, "If I made myself clear, I have misspoken." *) > +=+ If the comparison is complete I will be content with the frequency with which Greenspan turned out to be right! I hope this new bloke is as good. +=+ < +=+ I wonder Steve if, without falling over my own moccasins, I can repeat the information in a popular version: 1. At the commencement of Law 16 it is stated that players are 'authorized to base their calls and or plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents.' 2. This authorization omits to authorize calls or plays based on the occurrence of an opponent's infraction. 3. Later laws in the 1997 Code permit forming agreements but these are subject to a requirement that actions based on them must conform to that statement in Law 16. 4. The Lille interpretation of the law denies authorization to any action not authorized in the laws. Since there is no express prohibition of calls or plays as in 2 it is open to regulating bodies to authorize them by regulation; in default of such regulation they are not authorized. 5. Subscribers to blml have raised questions about other 'normal' agreements in the legal auction based on information presented in the laws or on boards. The WBFLC considers such agreements to be authorized in the laws, subject to the respective Systems Policies extant in the various tournaments. 6. Various subscribers have presented situations in which, absent a pertinent regulation, they believe they are placed in an impossible position. I have responded that, since there is no appeal beyond the national authority, these situations can only be resolved by the sponsoring organization - referring if in difficulty to the national authority. Obviously a member of an NBO can seek clarification from his national authority in connection with his desired agreement if he has such a problem. It is a question of application of the law and, as such, it falls within the remit of the national authority to determine it. The decision may not be everywhere the same. 7. Assertions that certain implicit agreements are impossible to dismiss from the mind, and that the requirement of the law cannot be met when this is the case, have little merit in my opinion. A parallel requirement exists in Law 16A and there is compliance. < ........ or unpopular, as the case may be. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 8 12:15:51 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Feb 8 12:25:10 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@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: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > > > Now the information conveyed arising from the conditions > > of the current deal is that West has made an OBOOT and > > that this has been accepted by North. > > +=+ No. That is not a condition of the deal. It is a circumstance that has arisen during the auction and it was not present at the deal.+=+ > > I can hardly imagine any other reason for partner to accept > the OBOOT instead of rejecting it and then proceed with > a normal auction given the restrictions this would impose on > our opponents. > +=+You are seeking to rely on information from the occurrence of the infraction and partner's treatment of it. Absent a regulation it is not lawful to do so. Without regulation your partner's call means just whatever it would mean in a simple legal auction where he has doubled a 4H opener. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 8 13:32:44 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Feb 8 13:37:07 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000301c62cab$c32e9ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: Grattan Endicott [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ............ > > > Now the information conveyed arising from the conditions > > > of the current deal is that West has made an OBOOT and > > > that this has been accepted by North. > > > > +=+ No. That is not a condition of the deal. It is a circumstance > that has arisen during the auction and it was not present at the > deal.+=+ > > > > I can hardly imagine any other reason for partner to accept > > the OBOOT instead of rejecting it and then proceed with > > a normal auction given the restrictions this would impose on > > our opponents. > > > +=+You are seeking to rely on information from the > occurrence of the infraction and partner's treatment of it. > Absent a regulation it is not lawful to do so. Without > regulation your partner's call means just whatever it would > mean in a simple legal auction where he has doubled a 4H > opener. Don't you agree that it is highly improper to cut away an essential two thirds of a statement and then comment on only the last part which thus has been torn away from its context? I wrote: Sitting South I have the AI that West made an opening bid out of turn and that my partner chose to accept this bid apparently in order to double. My general bridge knowledge tells me that this must have been because he expects it to be to our advantage. What inference can I draw from this? The answer is that his double must be for penalty (regardless of what agreements we might have on such doubles when there is no irregularity). I can hardly imagine any other reason for partner to accept the OBOOT instead of rejecting it and then proceed with a normal auction given the restrictions this would impose on our opponents. Now I must beg you to give straight "yes" or "no" answers to five individual questions (and with a law reference in case any of your answers is "no"): 1: Is the information that West made an OBOOT AI to me? 2: Is the information that my partner selected to accept this bid AI to me? 3: Is the information that partner then selected to double AI to me? 4: Am I permitted to select my call(s) after partner's double based on "my general bridge knowledge" (in an unforeseen situation) drawing inferences on what may have caused my partner to select the actions he did? And finally: 5: Do you consider a player being permitted to select his call based on an assumption that partner has deviated from partnership agreements when that player's general bridge knowledge makes him seriously believe that his partner indeed somehow must have made such deviation? (Please note that there is no assumption of any irregularity with this question!) Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Feb 8 13:44:20 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Feb 8 13:46:09 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007d01c62c9d$38fcb150$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200602071548.k17Fmd8f001591@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E96A03.2010604@cfa.harvard.edu> <007d01c62c9d$38fcb150$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43E9E7A4.1060302@hdw.be> Hello Grattan, an interesting reply from you, which merits a careful read: Grattan Endicott wrote: > < > +=+ I wonder Steve if, without falling over my own > moccasins, I can repeat the information in a popular > version: > 1. At the commencement of Law 16 it is stated that > players are 'authorized to base their calls and or plays > on information from legal calls and or plays, and from > mannerisms of opponents.' We have often stated that this list cannot be exhaustive, and cannot therefor be used to label certain forms of information as unauthorized. But let's proceed: > 2. This authorization omits to authorize calls or plays > based on the occurrence of an opponent's infraction. Indeed it does; but since it omits other things, some of which are considered authorized, not a lot of weight should be given to this argument, but let's proceed: > 3. Later laws in the 1997 Code permit forming > agreements but these are subject to a requirement > that actions based on them must conform to that > statement in Law 16. Do they? L40A and B come to mind, and they explain that agreements must be disclosed (never a consideration within this thread), but I do not see that the agreements must be based on AI. L75 specifically tells players that the information conveyed must arise from a limited set of things, but that set is larger than the one set out in L16 and does not refer to that law either by number or by name. > 4. The Lille interpretation of the law denies authorization > to any action not authorized in the laws. Since there is no > express prohibition of calls or plays as in 2 it is open to > regulating bodies to authorize them by regulation; in > default of such regulation they are not authorized. There are a number of things not specifically authorized in the laws which are nevertheless allowed. Common practice is cited as reason for this allowance. Isn't there common practice in this case as well? > 5. Subscribers to blml have raised questions about other > 'normal' agreements in the legal auction based on > information presented in the laws or on boards. The > WBFLC considers such agreements to be authorized > in the laws, subject to the respective Systems Policies > extant in the various tournaments. No-one has ever suggested that the ACBL is not allowed to issue a regulation forbidding such agreements. Some of us are concerned with other SO's, others are questioning how far the ACBL regulation goes. As for those regions where no regulation exists: do we really need to write a regulation which allows something that seems obvious to everyone? Isn't the case of the ACBL a proof in point: there too do we have a SO which believes that it needs to forbid things. Presumably even the ACBL believes that without such a regulation, agreements of this kind would be allowed. Why else write a regulation forbidding them? > 6. Various subscribers have presented situations in > which, absent a pertinent regulation, they believe they > are placed in an impossible position. I have responded > that, since there is no appeal beyond the national > authority, these situations can only be resolved by the > sponsoring organization - referring if in difficulty to the > national authority. Obviously a member of an NBO > can seek clarification from his national authority in > connection with his desired agreement if he has such > a problem. It is a question of application of the law > and, as such, it falls within the remit of the national > authority to determine it. The decision may not be > everywhere the same. The subscribers that have questioned this are usually not in such a situation, because except for Kojak and your gracious self, no-one seriously believes that agreements of this kind are forbidden (when no regulation exists). In fact, the only real occurence of such a problem stems from the ACBL, where a specific regulation does seem to exist, and it is proven to cause problems. > 7. Assertions that certain implicit agreements are > impossible to dismiss from the mind, and that the > requirement of the law cannot be met when this > is the case, have little merit in my opinion. A parallel > requirement exists in Law 16A and there is > compliance. > < You are right in some sense, Grattan. But in L16A it is the use of a particular knowledge which is forbidden. The problem here is the existence of an agreement. If I agree with partner that an acceptance shall be done with a particular hand, and you tell me that agreement is illegal, what do I do next time I have to decide to accept or not? If I decide according to the agreement then I have used an illegal method. But if I do the opposite, my partner may well conclude that I have the opposite hand. Again we have acted upon an agreement. It is impossible not to attribute a meaning to a particular action. And that attribution is always the result of some form of agreement, and if such an agreement is forbidden, play becomes impossible. To say that such a paradox is not within the scope of WBFLC discussion is to put your head in the sand like an ostrich. > ........ or unpopular, as the case may be. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > not just unpopular, intenable. > -- 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: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 7/02/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 8 15:53:21 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 8 15:58:31 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net> <001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207162911.02aefc80@pop.starpower.net> <000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060208091909.0300aeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:09 PM 2/7/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" > >>How about answering the question for the case in which one's NBO has >>no pertinent regulation? >>Or is Grattan conceding that the laws themselves, as he continues to >>tell us that the WBF has interpreted them, gives an impossible, >>contradictory result which cannot be applied in practice absent the >>production of a local regulation? IOW, what is "no consent" supposed >>to mean? I asked, "What are Richard and his partner expected to >>do?" "We disagree" is not an answer. It is no different from >>the AC's response in my original anecdote: "We have spoken. You >>may leave now." >+=+ We have reported the meaning of the laws. The application of that >meaning is in the domain of the national authority, beyond which there >is no further appeal. It would be inappropriate were we to intrude in >the area of competence of the national authority. Because different >NAs could well arrive in different positions >when the question is put, it would be clumsy to fall into the trap of >a general statement. If the SO has no pertinent regulation it has to >resolve its problem or take it to the NA. It is not Richard >who has the problem, it is the CTD of the tournament in which he is >playing for the time being. > If it is of any interest I can add a personal opinion, untried >until an example comes to appeal, that in EBL Championships >such an agreement could fall within requirement 2 of the EBL Systems >Policy, Annex 4. I believe this is worded identically with the >corresponding Annex to the Systems Policy applying >in WBF tournaments. I am prepared to accept that Grattan has accurately reported "the meaning of the laws". From what follows, however, we can only deduce that the law itself is sufficiently devoid of meaning or logic as to make it impossible of application absent definitive local regulation. The words of TFLB cannot be understood as written, and must be further elaborated in order to be useful. The authors of the laws in question "intended" it to have a "meaning" that is every bit as ambiguous and needful of further interpretation as the original law as written. IOW, their "interpretation" adds nothing whatsoever to the guidance provided by TFLB, such as it is; its semantic value is nil. TFLB specifies specific areas of the laws in which subordinate bodies may elect alternative meanings, or regulate as they see fit. Although I see nothing to suggest so in TFLB, it seems that this is an area of the laws in which they *must* do so if the laws are to be rendered usable. If that is indeed the case, I respectfully suggest that future versions of the laws make this implicit requirement on the ZOs/NCBOs/whatever explicit, as they currently do with respect to the laws on, for example, convention cards and other forms of disclosure. So, in my original anecdote, what the AC should have said was, "We're sorry, but there is no answer. We shall apply to the ACBLLC for one. In the meantime, we have no basis on which to rule. We will reconvene in six months, assuming that by then the LC will have met to make a determination, and deliver our ruling at that time." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 8 16:55:38 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Feb 8 17:00:05 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP> <00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <7DB7B92D-F326-42C8-ACEE-8B94F177F0FB@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ No. That is not a condition of the deal. It is a circumstance > that has arisen during the auction and it was not present at the > deal.+=+ Hm. All along, I thought we were using "deal" in "conditions of the deal" to mean the entire sequence of events from the dealing of the cards (which likely occurred many rounds ago, and did not involve my partnership) all the way through the scoring after the hand is played. Now all of a sudden it means something else. What's up with that? >> I can hardly imagine any other reason for partner to accept >> the OBOOT instead of rejecting it and then proceed with >> a normal auction given the restrictions this would impose on >> our opponents. >> > +=+You are seeking to rely on information from the > occurrence of the infraction and partner's treatment of it. > Absent a regulation it is not lawful to do so. Without > regulation your partner's call means just whatever it would > mean in a simple legal auction where he has doubled a 4H > opener. So I must assume my partner is an idiot. Nice. Grattan, your position may reflect the literal wording of the law. It may reflect the WBFLC's interpretation of the law. On both those questions I am not yet convinced either way. But I *am* convinced that the position makes no sense whatsoever. It says that one may not use one's general bridge knowledge when there is an irregularity. It says in many cases, as I said above, that one must assume one's partner is an idiot. I don't buy it. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 8 17:11:36 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Feb 8 17:20:58 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2da24b8e0602060925l6e1dc699t337114564104204c@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.20060207095531.03f8b960@pop.starpower.net><001501c62c12$55d20ae0$119987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><6.1.1.1.0.20060207162911.02aefc80@pop.starpower.net><000401c62c44$7bbf7120$23e9403e@Mildred> <6.1.1.1.0.20060208091909.0300aeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005601c62cca$7067bae0$329587d9@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: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario >> > > So, in my original anecdote, what the AC should > have said was, "We're sorry, but there is no answer. > We shall apply to the ACBLLC for one. In the > meantime, we have no basis on which to rule. We > will reconvene in six months, assuming that by then > the LC will have met to make a determination, and > deliver our ruling at that time." > +=+ This could have been what was needed. In the interim there would be continuance of a Law 85B ruling. Or it may be that the AC was ignorant of a relevant regulation. Like Kojak I have avoided defence of the law on grounds of adequacy. I think it will be upgraded in future. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 8 16:42:18 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Feb 8 17:24:57 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007d01c62c9d$38fcb150$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200602071548.k17Fmd8f001591@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E96A03.2010604@cfa.harvard.edu> <007d01c62c9d$38fcb150$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <57B7E24D-A0DA-4737-A70D-575BBD9C5123@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 8, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Assertions that certain implicit agreements are > impossible to dismiss from the mind, and that the > requirement of the law cannot be met when this > is the case, have little merit in my opinion. A parallel > requirement exists in Law 16A and there is > compliance. I do not understand this. What does the last sentence mean, particularly the second clause? Aside from that, how do you reconcile your position in item 3, that regulations regarding agreements, made under "later laws" must nevertheless comply with Law 16, with the WBFLC's stated position that the right to make a regulation under law 40D is untrammeled, which as I understand is to be taken to mean that it may be made whether or not it contravenes any other law. (If my understanding of the latter is flawed, please correct it). From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Feb 8 17:33:19 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed Feb 8 17:37:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP> <00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001901c62ccd$5ea07650$4101a8c0@david> > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >> > Now the information conveyed arising from the conditions >> > of the current deal is that West has made an OBOOT and >> > that this has been accepted by North. >> > > +=+ No. That is not a condition of the deal. It is a circumstance > that has arisen during the auction and it was not present at the > deal.+=+ >> If I tell you that North is the dealer and the auction has gone West 4H North X (all pass) Then it is KNOWN that 4H was a BOOT. If that information has not been conveyed (in this instance) by the condition of the deal how has it been conveyed? I will quite accept that in the overwhelming majority of cases it will have been conveyed by other means AS WELL, but the incontrovertible fact is that it has also been conveyed by a condition of the deal. Note that what may be used is "information conveyed by" the condition, not the condition itself. There is of course NO information conveyed by a condition of the board taken in isolation. Information is only ever conveyed by taking the condition in conjuction with calls or plays made. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 07/02/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 8 22:23:55 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 8 22:28:58 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c62c49$2ef12c30$bce1403e@Mildred> References: <001b01c62be0$6586f590$e7a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <43E8FABF.8050809@att.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060207165907.02f983e0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c62c49$2ef12c30$bce1403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060208160507.02f893c0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:45 PM 2/7/06, Grattan wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > >>Perhaps they would have if they actually had a regulation >>forbidding "special" agreements over infractions. But according to >>what I have been told, and what has been written in the "Ruling the >>Game" column of The Bridge Bulletin, the regulation forbids *any >>agreements whatsoever*, and it is only agreements which are *not* >>demonstrably "special" that are causing us problems. >+=+ I don't understand. Are you saying that you play >in the ACBL and that you have been asking me to answer a question that >lies with the ACBL to answer? >If so, my circumspection - in limiting myself to analysis >of the law and not entering into any question of its >local application - is vindicated. Come on, now, Grattan, that just won't wash. Of course I play in the ACBL -- you know that -- and I have said numerous times in this thread that the ACBL has regulated on the subject. But the question on the table is what the Law, as interpreted by the WBF, says, and how we apply it in the absense of any clarifying regulation by an appropriate subordinate body. We are a world-wide forum, and members from many jurisdictions are interested. We want to know what the WBF says the laws say. That *I* play in the ACBL, and that *my* NCBO has a regulation, is no excuse for failing to provide answers to questions about the published "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". As it happens, the ACBL's regulation is, IMO, nonsense, and cannot be applied in real-life situations. But that's another issue, and I have gone out of my way to keep it out of the primary discussion, notwithstanding my having made the remark Grattan cites, entirely aside, in reply to a post of Todd's. I do understand that my quarrel with the ACBL regulation is between me and the ACBL, and it is not, and it has not been, a subject which I have raised in this forum. But I cannot sensibly make any case to the ACBL in regard to their regulation until I find out what the rules would be in the absense of such a regulation. I am greatly disappointed that with all the august authority represented by highly placed members of this forum, Grattan included, nobody has yet been able to tell me, nor to provide any guidance on the subject whatsoever, beyond "ask your NCBO". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 8 22:40:13 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 8 22:45:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001001c62c8c$6489e4c0$4101a8c0@david> <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060208163148.02f9f290@pop.starpower.net> At 05:20 AM 2/8/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of David Barton > > Simple question. > > > > With North the dealer the auction goes:- > > West 4H > > North X > > East Pass > > South ? > > > > Now the information conveyed arising from the conditions > > of the current deal is that West has made an OBOOT and > > that this has been accepted by North. > > > > Now Grattan's position is, IF I understand correctly, is that > > you are not allowed to base a call on the illegality of a > > previous call unless specific permission to do so is given > > elsewhere (in law or regulation). > > > > But does L75A not now give the specific permission required > > to have a different agreement (for the double in this case) > > than would be the case if West was the dealer? > > (Subject to appropriate disclosure) > >To me this is indeed a very simple situation: > >Sitting South I have the AI that West made an opening bid out of turn and >that my partner chose to accept this bid apparently in order to double. My >general bridge knowledge tells me that this must have been because he >expects it to be to our advantage. What inference can I draw from this? > >The answer is that his double must be for penalty (regardless of what >agreements we might have on such doubles when there is no irregularity). > >I can hardly imagine any other reason for partner to accept the OBOOT >instead of rejecting it and then proceed with a normal auction given the >restrictions this would impose on our opponents. Oh dear! Sven gives us a piece of ordinary common sense, and uses simple "bridge logic" to point out what this particular double must mean to anyone who has played the game since last year. But because he has shared his thoughts with us, now everyone who has read his post has yet another *illegal* (or so Kojak and Grattan keep telling us) implicit agreement with regard to their actions over insufficient bids. Soon none of us will be permitted at the bridge table ever again unless we can absolutely guarantee that no opponent will make an insufficient bid against us. Where will it end? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 8 22:59:27 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 8 23:05:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP> <00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060208164850.02f9b190@pop.starpower.net> At 06:15 AM 2/8/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" > > > I can hardly imagine any other reason for partner to accept > > the OBOOT instead of rejecting it and then proceed with > > a normal auction given the restrictions this would impose on > > our opponents. > > >+=+You are seeking to rely on information from the >occurrence of the infraction and partner's treatment of it. >Absent a regulation it is not lawful to do so. Without >regulation your partner's call means just whatever it would >mean in a simple legal auction where he has doubled a 4H >opener. Sven's remark was a point of simple bridge logic. He has made no suggestion that he comes by his conclusion based on any agreement with, discussion with, or knowledge of any particular partner; he speaks purely hypothetically. Absent any agreement, explicit or implicit, he has used his not inconsiderable brain power to determine what his hypothetical partner's double must mean. It's called "thinking". But Grattan, now, tells us that the laws regulating disclosure must be read to *prohibit* him from doing nothing more than using his own mental ability. And here I thought that that's what playing bridge was supposed to be all about. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 8 23:07:43 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Feb 8 23:12:13 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Barton: >>With North the dealer the auction goes:- >> >>West North East South >>4H X Pass ? Sven Pran: >To me this is indeed a very simple situation: > >Sitting South I have the AI that West made an opening >bid out of turn and that my partner chose to accept >this bid apparently in order to double. My general >bridge knowledge tells me that this must have been >because he expects it to be to our advantage. What >inference can I draw from this? > >The answer is that his double must be for penalty >(regardless of what agreements we might have on such >doubles when there is no irregularity). > >I can hardly imagine any other reason for partner to >accept the OBOOT instead of rejecting it and then >proceed with a normal auction given the restrictions >this would impose on our opponents. Richard Hills: Insufficient imagination. In many bidding systems, a 4-1-4-4 hand with 17 hcp is difficult to describe in an uncontested auction. But if RHO opens 4H, a takeout double describes your hand in one call. So, despite arguments to the contrary, the Grattan / Kojak position of unchanged partnership agreements does not create an anomaly if the issue is an accepted opening bid out of turn, since such an auction with North accepting West's OBOOT can have a one-to-one correspondence with an entirely normal auction in which West was dealer. If, however, the issue is a Law 27A accepted insufficient bid, then the Grattan / Kojak position of special agreements not permitted does create an anomaly, since a one-to-one correspondence with an entirely normal auction does not occur. Example: West North East South 1NT(1) Pass Pass 1H(2) 1S (1) denies a five-card major (2) insufficient, accepted by West But serendipitously, it is the Law 27A phrase "treated as legal" which caused Grattan to admit: >>>The law is not perfectly sealed as we intended it >>>to be, Richard Hills has pointed out a crack in the >>>gunge. Therefore, the only outstanding question is, "Should the Lawbook be interpreted as it is written, or should the Lawbook be interpreted as its drafters intended it to be written?" :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 8 23:24:35 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Feb 8 23:28:57 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060208164850.02f9b190@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c62cfe$71092d60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .............. > Sven's remark was a point of simple bridge logic. He has made no > suggestion that he comes by his conclusion based on any agreement with, > discussion with, or knowledge of any particular partner; he speaks > purely hypothetically. Not entirely hypothetically, mind you. I have in fact met this precise situation as the Director in the Norwegian premier league some twenty years ago (except that "partner's call over the accepted IB was a bid and not a double; remember my story on Arild Torp and Helge Vinje?) > Absent any agreement, explicit or implicit, he > has used his not inconsiderable brain power to determine what his > hypothetical partner's double must mean. It's called "thinking". > > But Grattan, now, tells us that the laws regulating disclosure must be > read to *prohibit* him from doing nothing more than using his own > mental ability. And here I thought that that's what playing bridge was > supposed to be all about. And I am still anxiously awaiting Grattan's "yes" or "no" answers to my five distinct questions on such matters. Regards Sven From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Feb 8 23:25:15 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed Feb 8 23:33:22 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200602082225.k18MPFxG014922@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > Therefore, the only outstanding question is, "Should > the Lawbook be interpreted as it is written, or should > the Lawbook be interpreted as its drafters intended it > to be written?" Of course in a perfect world this question never arises. Climbing back on a favorite hobby horse, I discovered the following in the introduction section of Major League Baseball's rule book: IMPORTANT NOTE The Official Playing Rules Committee at its December 1977 meeting, voted to incorporate the Notes Case Book Comments section directly into the Official Playing Rules at the appropriate places. Basically, the Case Book interprets or elaborates on the basic rules and in essence have the same effect as rules when applied to particular sections for which they are intended. If you look at http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp You'll see several instances of approved rulings. Turned things that had been controversies into plays that every umpire will call in a consistent manner. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 8 23:34:04 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Feb 8 23:37:23 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP><00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <7DB7B92D-F326-42C8-ACEE-8B94F177F0FB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c62cff$d23b6bb0$c4dc403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ No. That is not a condition of the deal. It is a circumstance >> that has arisen during the auction and it was not present at the >> deal.+=+ > > Hm. All along, I thought we were using "deal" in "conditions of the > deal" to mean the entire sequence of events from the dealing of the > cards (which likely occurred many rounds ago, and did not involve my > partnership) all the way through the scoring after the hand is > played. Now all of a sudden it means something else. What's up with > that? > +=+ Arguable, Ed, and I do not have a WBFLC interpretation of 'conditions' to turn to. In my mind the 'conditions' are the preset things - vulnerability, dealer, the things which are constant and not matters that develop through the auction and play. The key, I believe, is what we are to understand of 'conditions'; it is not 'deal' that is the problem. But yes, arguable, and we will need to clear it up. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 9 00:30:43 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Feb 9 00:32:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c62cab$c32e9ec0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >with a law reference in case any of your answers is "no"): >2: Is the information that my partner selected to accept >this bid AI to me? Richard Hills: No. This information that partner deliberately chose to accept an OBOOT, which negates the alternative possibility that partner might have accidentally assumed that the OBOOTer was dealer, is *not* authorised information. Law 16A. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From toddz at att.net Thu Feb 9 00:32:00 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Feb 9 00:36:24 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000201c62cff$d23b6bb0$c4dc403e@Mildred> References: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP><00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <7DB7B92D-F326-42C8-ACEE-8B94F177F0FB@rochester.rr.com> <000201c62cff$d23b6bb0$c4dc403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <43EA7F70.8090103@att.net> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Arguable, Ed, and I do not have a WBFLC interpretation of > 'conditions' to turn to. In my mind the 'conditions' are the preset > things - vulnerability, dealer, the things which are constant and not > matters that develop through the auction and play. The key, I believe, > is what we are to understand of 'conditions'; it is not 'deal' that is > the problem. But yes, arguable, and we will need to clear it up. ~ G You don't need to. L75A says "the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal," and hence includes matters that develop through the auction and play. Arguably it may be better to do away with L75A entirely, incorporating it into a more robust L16. -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 9 00:32:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 9 00:37:00 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+You are seeking to rely on information from the > occurrence of the infraction and partner's treatment of it. > Absent a regulation it is not lawful to do so. Without > regulation your partner's call means just whatever it would > mean in a simple legal auction where he has doubled a 4H > opener. It might. However, I have partnership agreement that if partner is dealer and his first legal call is "double" it is always for penalties. While there may be some debate as to the status of whatever it was he is doubling there can be doubt as to the legality of the double. Mind you, I suppose L16 doesn't authorise me to know that pard is dealer :( Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 9 00:32:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 9 00:37:02 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060208163148.02f9f290@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > Soon none of us will be permitted at the bridge table ever again > unless we can absolutely guarantee that no opponent will make an > insufficient bid against us. Where will it end? We could play exclusively on-line I suppose :) Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 9 00:32:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 9 00:37:04 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007d01c62c9d$38fcb150$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > 1. At the commencement of Law 16 it is stated that > players are 'authorized to base their calls and or plays > on information from legal calls and or plays, and from > mannerisms of opponents.' > 2. This authorization omits to authorize calls or plays > based on the occurrence of an opponent's infraction. The authorisation also omits to authorise most of the following, and please, for the third time of begging, which of the following should a TD rule to be UI? The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being played by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of your own system agreements (except where agreements have been forgotten). The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any other way by an opponent (except that conveyed as a result of one's own infraction). Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences available from all of the above. Please GRATTAN and KOJAK (not that I discourage answers/opinions from others) tell me which of the above I must educate my players to stop using as a basis for their choice of calls/plays. Alternatively (and if the detail is too time-consuming) a simple acknowledgement that the intro to Law16 is not all-encompassing, and that authorisation to use other stuff (even if not all of it) may be implicit/explicit in other laws, would suffice. Tim From toddz at att.net Thu Feb 9 00:47:46 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Feb 9 00:52:09 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007d01c62c9d$38fcb150$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200602071548.k17Fmd8f001591@cfa.harvard.edu> <43E96A03.2010604@cfa.harvard.edu> <007d01c62c9d$38fcb150$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43EA8322.6000901@att.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > 1. At the commencement of Law 16 it is stated that > players are 'authorized to base their calls and or plays > on information from legal calls and or plays, and from > mannerisms of opponents.' > 2. This authorization omits to authorize calls or plays > based on the occurrence of an opponent's infraction. I'd say any infraction, not just opponent's. A crux comes here when these statements do not meet practice. From the ACBL story I posted: P 1NT P 1H P 2H P 4H AP This auction does not exist without an infraction. What authorizes 1NT bidder to know his partner has five hearts? Why can he raise hearts instead of completing the transfer? -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 9 02:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 9 02:23:28 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Sven Pran asked: > > >with a law reference in case any of your answers is "no"): > > >2: Is the information that my partner selected to accept > >this bid AI to me? > > Richard Hills: > > No. This information that partner deliberately chose to > accept an OBOOT, which negates the alternative possibility > that partner might have accidentally assumed that the > OBOOTer was dealer, is *not* authorised information. > > Law 16A. So let me get this straight. My LHO made an OBOOT, I noticed the infraction and called the TD, he gave a ruling and informed pard of his rights but it is UI to me that I called the TD and his ruling is also UI? Presumably the ruling is also UI to partner and he may not base his choice of call on the options the TD just gave him? [Ignore the bit in L72a4 about "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." please - that's not part of L16] Golly it's complicated having everything not included in L16 treated as UI! Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 9 03:59:31 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Feb 9 04:00:37 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43EA8322.6000901@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch: >From the ACBL story I posted: > >P 1NT P 1H >P 2H P 4H >AP > >This auction does not exist without an infraction. What >authorizes 1NT bidder to know his partner has five hearts? >Why can he raise hearts instead of completing the transfer? Richard Hills: In my methods, a 3H response to 1NT is a natural slam try, a 2H response to 1NT is a transfer to spades, and a 1H response to 1NT is non-systemic. Therefore, in the absence of UI, I am entitled to make my best guess when rebidding in response to an insufficient but condoned 1H by partner. According to the original report, the 1H bidder said, "What?" when attention was drawn to their irregularity. That remark by itself does not demonstrably suggest that 1H was intended to show a 5-card heart suit, therefore the 1NT bidder is not restricted by Law 16 merely because of that remark. The tricky part is whether it remains AI or becomes UI to the 1NT bidder that their LHO was the original dealer once the 1NT bidder has condoned the opening pass out of turn by their RHO. It is that AI/UI which has demonstrably suggested to the 1NT bidder that their partner had intended 1H as an opening bid. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 9 04:47:05 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Feb 9 04:48:11 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >So let me get this straight. My LHO made an OBOOT, I noticed the >infraction and called the TD, he gave a ruling and informed pard of his >rights but it is UI to me that I called the TD and his ruling is also UI? >Presumably the ruling is also UI to partner and he may not base his choice >of call on the options the TD just gave him? [Ignore the bit in L72a4 >about "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." please - that's not part of L16] Richard Hills: Law 72A4 entitles pard to select an option that pard thinks is most advantageous, but pard's intentions are UI to you. Communicating by such selection of an option (and/or communicating by drawing or declining to draw attention to an irregularity) is beyond the scope of Law 73A1 -> "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 9 07:22:15 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 9 07:26:30 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, I'll throw my 2 cents in. :-) On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > which of the following should a TD rule to be UI? > > The cards you hold. Not UI. > The auction and play so far. Not. > The system being played by opponents (including any explanations > thereof). Not. > Your knowledge of your own system agreements (except where > agreements have been forgotten). Not. > The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Not. Note that "dealer" is not synonymous with "opening bidder" - Law 17C merely specifies that correct procedure is that dealer make the first call. > Your knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Not. > Any information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or > in any other way by an opponent (except that conveyed as a result > of one's own infraction). Not. Use at your own risk, of course. > Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience or repute). Not. > Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. Not. > Rulings given by the TD at the table. Not. > Information arising from any withdrawn action where the partnership > is the NOS. Not. > Any inferences available from all of the above. Not. Okay, now what? :-) From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 9 09:20:21 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 9 09:24:43 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c62d51$ab47fb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asked: > > >with a law reference in case any of your answers is "no"): > > >2: Is the information that my partner selected to accept > >this bid AI to me? > > Richard Hills: > > No. This information that partner deliberately chose to > accept an OBOOT, which negates the alternative possibility > that partner might have accidentally assumed that the > OBOOTer was dealer, is *not* authorised information. > > Law 16A. May I remind you of Law 16C1: For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. According to your position: If partner chooses to accept the OBOOT then all the information I can infer from the irregularity of the situation is UI to me (in spite of being NOS)? But if partner uses his right to reject the OBOOT so that it is withdrawn, then according to L16C absolutely every piece of information that I can infer from the situation (including the fact that partner had a choice and the choice he selected) is AI to me! This leads us to a very curious anomaly: If the irregularity is accepted then we have an auction where the irregularity is evident to everybody, for instance whenever the auction is reviewed (L20B). However none of the information arising from this irregularity is AI to any player. If the irregularity is _not_ accepted then the irregular action is withdrawn so it is no longer evident, but now all information arising from the irregularity is AI to NOS. Don't try to convince me that this anomaly has been intended. If it had been I am completely convinced that it would have been expressed more explicitly in the laws. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 9 11:14:52 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Feb 9 11:49:13 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62c99$4f37e740$6400a8c0@WINXP><00a101c62ca1$1e015b40$89ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <7DB7B92D-F326-42C8-ACEE-8B94F177F0FB@rochester.rr.com><000201c62cff$d23b6bb0$c4dc403e@Mildred> <43EA7F70.8090103@att.net> Message-ID: <006e01c62d65$41739b00$f0b987d9@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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ Arguable, Ed, and I do not have a WBFLC interpretation of > > 'conditions' to turn to. In my mind the 'conditions' are the preset > > things - vulnerability, dealer, the things which are constant and not > > matters that develop through the auction and play. The key, I believe, > > is what we are to understand of 'conditions'; it is not 'deal' that is > > the problem. But yes, arguable, and we will need to clear it up. ~ G > > You don't need to. L75A says "the calls, plays and > conditions of the current deal," and hence includes matters > that develop through the auction and play. > > Arguably it may be better to do away with L75A entirely, > incorporating it into a more robust L16. > +=+ I think there will be consolidation. But you are wrong about Law 75A. It is there that the word 'conditions' is used. It is not defined there or elsewhere. From my involvement with the preparation of the 1987 and 1997 Codes I understand that what we intend by 'conditions' are those things appertaining to the deal which remain constant throughout and excluding matters that are added or developed during the auction and play. It is to have confirmation from the WBFLC of this that I will seek an interpretation in the face of the unexpected extension of the meaning that I have encountered here. The Law in question refers to "calls, plays and conditions" and we may infer that calls and plays are not subsumed within 'conditions'. The citation of 'calls' and 'plays' would be a loose one were it not for the statement in Law 16. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 9 11:58:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 9 12:03:08 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads: > > >So let me get this straight. My LHO made an OBOOT, I noticed the > >infraction and called the TD, he gave a ruling and informed pard of his > >rights but it is UI to me that I called the TD and his ruling is also > UI? > > >Presumably the ruling is also UI to partner and he may not base his > choice > > >of call on the options the TD just gave him? [Ignore the bit in L72a4 > >about "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." please - that's not part of L16] > > Richard Hills: > > Law 72A4 entitles pard to select an option that pard thinks is most > advantageous, And how does he do that if the TD's ruling is UI? > but pard's intentions are UI to you. Communicating by > such selection of an option He is not communicating "by selecting an option" except to the extent that the information in any call communicates that partner has eschewed other choices. Obviously if the TD's ruling is not AI one must then report to the TD that one has EI and he will, presumably, apply L16B. > (and/or communicating by drawing or declining to > draw attention to an irregularity) is beyond the scope of Law 73A1 Indeed it is, but then drawing attention to an irregularity is specifically legal according to L9a1 "Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call." I'm fully aware that L16 doesn't explicitly make TD rulings AI, but to counterbalance that I have never seen a TD tell a player that, for example, he may not base his play on the knowledge that a penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity. I believe there are enough implications in various laws to say that TD rulings are AI (but if one is worried one could always ask the TD "Is your ruling AI to me and my partner?" before proceeding). Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 9 12:48:35 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 9 12:52:57 2006 Subject: [blml] accepted irregularities Message-ID: <000301c62d6e$c2624370$6400a8c0@WINXP> There are three different types of irregularities that can be accepted by the non-offending side: Insufficient bid (L27A) Call out of turn (L29A, but see also the preambles to L30, L31 and l32) Lead out of turn (L53A) In all these cases L16C1 specifically makes all information arising from the irregularity authorized for NOS when NOS does not accept the irregular call or play (as applicable) and the irregular action therefore is withdrawn. Is it at all possible that the lawmakers have intended such information to be unauthorized for NOS when they accept the irregular action and authorized only when they force the irregular action to be withdrawn? We have discussed to a length cases of IB and OBOOT, now let me add a the third case: Declarer leads to a trick from the wrong hand and my partner (in rotation) accepts that lead. Shall I not be allowed to consider the possibilities why partner accepted the lead and draw my inferences accordingly? If partner had rejected the lead I would certainly have been entitled to draw all the inferences I cared both from the fact that declarer led from the wrong hand and also from the fact that partner rejected that lead. The only way Law 16C1 makes sense to me in being limited to apply on withdrawn actions is that the lawmakers simply considered accepted (non-withdrawn) irregular actions to be legal for all relevant purposes in the laws. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 9 11:56:00 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Feb 9 13:00:43 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62d51$ab47fb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001301c62d6f$3f6289c0$61a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:20 AM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario < If the irregularity is accepted then we have an auction where the irregularity is evident to everybody, for instance whenever the auction is reviewed (L20B). However none of the information arising from this irregularity is AI to any player. If the irregularity is _not_ accepted then the irregular action is withdrawn so it is no longer evident, but now all information arising from the irregularity is AI to NOS. Don't try to convince me that this anomaly has been intended. If it had been I am completely convinced that it would have been expressed more explicitly in the laws. < +=+ Sven, I think you need to make a distinction between (a) those things on which you may base your agreements and (b) the information that you are authorized to use when applying those agreements in the course of the auction and play. The fact that an piece of information is AI to you during the auction/play does not signify that you may then base fresh agreements on it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 9 14:03:19 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Feb 9 14:07:51 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62d51$ab47fb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001301c62d6f$3f6289c0$61a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: In my eyes this thread has accomplished something. This thread is evidence that the creation of the principle of two masters in conflict is an unwise principle; that implementing it was [and is] stupid; and permitting it to exist for more than a day is unforgivable. regards roger pewick From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 9 14:41:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 9 14:45:48 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <006e01c62d65$41739b00$f0b987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The Law in question refers to "calls, plays and conditions" > and we may infer that calls and plays are not subsumed > within 'conditions'. The citation of 'calls' and 'plays' would be > a loose one were it not for the statement in Law 16. The citation of "calls and plays" makes no reference to L16, and nor should it. In the auction (1H, OOT)- 1S - (P) - 2H the agreement as to the meaning of 2H may well# be exactly the same as in (1H)-1S-(P)-2H. It is *highly unlikely* to the same as in the auction (P)-1S-(P)-2H. Obviously the use of "calls" (rather than "legal calls") in Law75 is there for perfectly good reasons. [BTW, are you abandoning your principle (stated in a different thread) that Laws are not subordinate to eachother unless explicitly stated?] # I say "may well", but if I understand correctly some of your earlier arguments you would "is legally required to be". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 9 14:41:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 9 14:45:50 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <001301c62d6f$3f6289c0$61a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ Sven, > I think you need to make a distinction between > (a) those things on which you may base your agreements > and > (b) the information that you are authorized to use when > applying those agreements in the course of the auction and play. > > The fact that an piece of information is AI to you during the > auction/play does not signify that you may then base fresh > agreements on it. Grattan, I think you are drawing an artificial distinction between AI (on which one may base calls, plays, agreements or whatever) and "restricted AI" an extra-legal concept of "information which may be used for as a basis for bidding/play decisions in some ways but not in others". Note that talk of basing "fresh agreements on it" is particularly careless - nobody is suggesting that NOS be permitted to discuss new agreements during the hand. Either the partnership has a prior agreement (often implicit) as to the meaning of calls in relation to the AI *or* they have no such agreement but are choosing calls in the hope that partner will apply similar bridge logic based on the same AI. Most of the time the difference between an implicit agreement and applying bridge logic will simply be a matter of the NOS having prior experience of an analogous situation (unless they are BLML readers where the implicit agreement is more likely to have arisen from reading eachother's postings). Tim From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Feb 9 14:44:39 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu Feb 9 14:49:05 2006 Subject: [blml] accepted irregularities Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C91D@hotel.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] Sent: 09 February 2006 11:49 To: blml Subject: [blml] accepted irregularities There are three different types of irregularities that can be accepted by the non-offending side: Insufficient bid (L27A) Call out of turn (L29A, but see also the preambles to L30, L31 and l32) Lead out of turn (L53A) [snip] _______________________________________________ To continue Sven's example. Declarer leads from the wrong hand, partner accepts (verbally) and I am next to play. If the card lead is UI must I revoke because following suit is suggested by knowledge of (the suit of) the card lead? Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Feb 9 14:55:12 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Feb 9 15:02:59 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62d51$ab47fb20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001301c62d6f$3f6289c0$61a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001701c62d80$737eee40$1b9468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan] > The fact that an piece of information is AI > to you during the auction/play does not > signify that you may then base fresh > agreements on it. [nige1] When partner accepts and doubles his RHO's 4H bid out of turn, partner's intentions are clear even if you are playing with a stranger for the first time, with no agreement. Two conclusions emerge from BLML arguments... [A] Bridge rules are in need of completion, simplification and clarification. Even if Kojak and Grattan are right and the law is unambiguous, it is obvious that few other legal experts who contribute to BLML can approach the intelligence and erudition needed to decipher them. This certainly implies that the average player cannot understand these laws; hence they are almost useless. (i) Urgent radical revisions must wait for the new edition of TFLB but... (ii) There are also ambiguities and anomalies (like those under discussion in this thread) that could be addressed in immediate interim editions of laws and regulations. [B] In particular, it would be simpler, clearer and much more realistic to authorize information from this kind of infraction to *all* players; and allow players to modify methods in the light of manifest facts; but adjust penalties to allow adequate compensation for non-offenders. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Feb 9 17:03:10 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu Feb 9 17:06:54 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C91D@hotel.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <001201c62d92$532a3cf0$4101a8c0@david> It strikes me there is a whole host of concepts here that are so hopelessly intertwined that unless and until they and their interactions are clearly understood, noone is going to get to grips with this sorry mess. Probably a non-comptehensive list, but we have (1)the basis for making a call (2)the basis for making an agreement (3)the infamous minute making unauthorised anything not specifically authorised (4)the authorising of agreements by a SO for conventional and non conventional calls. (5)Following an infraction, the use that may be made in relation to (1) and (2) of (a) the fact that an infraction has occurred (b) the fact that a call has/has not been accepted (c) the accepted call itself (d) any withdrawn call (e) the penalty a side is under (eg must pass at next turn) (f)any penalty that could have been chosen but wasn't Until then I, and it appears a goodly proportion of the rest of the world, will remain totally confused. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 08/02/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 9 17:29:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 9 17:34:23 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > Okay, now what? :-) Well, initially I hope it leads to a universal consensus that the introduction to the current L16 is *absolutely not* all-encompassing and that there are many other things on which players may legitimately base calls and plays. That recognition alone would be a step forward for some, but at least would allow that other laws may (implicitly or explicitly) make unlisted (in L16) information AI. To an extent TDs (and some of the more experienced players) already have a feel for this (even if many would have problems referencing specific laws). In future, I feel it would be beneficial to have (in a single Law) a *robust* definition of AI. It may be slightly longer than the list I gave, it may, despite being a robust "best effort", have to include the possibility that something nobody thought of might be ruled AI by a TD on the day. I'd be against a complication like "Some stuff is AI for certain purposes but not for others" - albeit I recognise the WBF would have the power to introduce such a complication. Unlike Grattan I don't have any particular concerns about how "lower order" players would react to these situations. IME players (of any level) already expect to suffer if they IB/COOT/etc - after all they know it was their mistake. A modicum of increased suffering might teach them not to do it again but wouldn't, IMO, lead them to cry "foul" (particularly if the laws were clearer). Clarity would also avoid some potentially awkward judgement calls, I offer a Molloesque "The Toucan opened a SAT 4C with the obvious alacrity and enthusiasm of a man who could not be bothered to wait for his own turn to bid before trying a new gadget." OK - this one comes under "tempo or manner in which a call or play is made" and so "..inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent.." (L73d1) but precisely how much "alacrity and enthusiasm" is needed before an opponent may draw an inference? Better by far, IMO, to just say "That 4C was an OBOOT is AI to his opponents." Just to finish the story, Papa (aware that RR was munching an almond biscuit) passes smoothly holding Qxxx,-,A8765,AQ9x. RR (knowing papa was opener) passes with AT9x,-,432,KJT8xx and Karapet passes it out resignedly with J,KQTxxx,KQJT9,-. Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 9 20:59:12 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 9 21:03:34 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <001301c62d6f$3f6289c0$61a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c62db3$4c3deb00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: 9. februar 2006 11:56 > To: blml > 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: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:20 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > < > If the irregularity is accepted then we have an auction where the > irregularity is evident to everybody, for instance whenever the auction is > reviewed (L20B). However none of the information arising from this > irregularity is AI to any player. > > If the irregularity is _not_ accepted then the irregular action is > withdrawn > so it is no longer evident, but now all information arising from the > irregularity is AI to NOS. > > Don't try to convince me that this anomaly has been intended. If it had > been > I am completely convinced that it would have been expressed more > explicitly > in the laws. > < > +=+ Sven, > I think you need to make a distinction between > (a) those things on which you may base your agreements > and > (b) the information that you are authorized to use when > applying those agreements in the course of the auction and play. > > The fact that an piece of information is AI to you during the > auction/play does not signify that you may then base fresh > agreements on it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > HUH ? ? ? ? ? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 9 23:02:12 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Feb 9 23:03:31 2006 Subject: [blml] accepted irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c62d6e$c2624370$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >The only way Law 16C1 makes sense to me in being limited to apply on >withdrawn actions is that the lawmakers simply considered accepted >(non-withdrawn) irregular actions to be legal for all relevant purposes in >the laws. Richard Hills: In my opinion, "legal for all relevant purposes" is an overly sweeping statement. A non-withdrawn irregular action is not necessarily an accepted irregular action. Consider Law 24 (Card exposed or led during the auction). Suppose that partner exposes the ace of diamonds during the auction. The ace of diamonds is not withdrawn, and Law 24B requires me to pass for one round. However, if subsequent to my enforced pass I get another chance to call, Law 16C2 would not apply. Therefore, would it be legal for me to be entitled to use the information from the ace of diamonds to choose amongst logical alternatives a successful sacrifice in diamonds? I don't think so under the philosophy of the current 1997 Lawbook. Another example is Law 30A (Pass out of rotation before any player has bid), where the penalty for a non-accepted irregular pass is not withdrawal of the irregular pass, but rather repetition of the irregular pass. The WBF LC has specifically ruled that information from this non-withdrawn irregular pass is nevertheless unauthorised to the offending side. I think that part of the problem is that when the 1987 Lawbook was amended in 1997 by the insertion of Law 16C, Edgar Kaplan gave insufficient thought to some necessary consequential changes required in some other Laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 9 21:07:49 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Feb 9 23:14:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62d51$ab47fb20$6400a8c0@WINXP><001301c62d6f$3f6289c0$61a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001701c62d80$737eee40$1b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000401c62dc5$bfb18fd0$4dcc403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > [A] Bridge rules are in need of completion, > simplification and clarification. > +=+ Although I believe there is much need of this there are many who cry "if it ain't broke don't mend it", clinging to much of the past wording with which they are familiar, and which if you understand it is admittedly for the most part adequate. +=+ < > Even if Kojak and Grattan are right and the law is > unambiguous, it is obvious that few other legal > experts who contribute to BLML can approach the > intelligence and erudition needed to decipher > them. > > This certainly implies that the average player > cannot understand these laws; hence they are > almost useless. > > (i) Urgent radical revisions must wait for the > new edition of TFLB but... > (ii) There are also ambiguities and anomalies > (like those under discussion in this thread) that > could be addressed in immediate interim editions > of laws and regulations. > +=+ There will shortly be a regulation in England based on the minute 3.4 of its Laws & Ethics Committee, 25th January 2006. I am hoping that some questions I have put down for the Council Meeting on 15th February will bring about resolution of some items of detail. Elsewhere if no regulation exists it is in the hands of players and directors to ask, if they wish, for local clarification by their own NBO. +=+ < > [B] In particular, it would be simpler, clearer > and much more realistic to authorize information > from this kind of infraction to *all* players; and > allow players to modify methods in the light of > manifest facts; but adjust penalties to allow > adequate compensation for non-offenders. > +=+ My opinion is that NBOs, SOs should want to regulate the matter - in particular to decide in what levels of competition such agreements are acceptable. and that they will not be comfortable with a law authorizing such agreements for adoption at all levels in all duplicate bridge sessions. There are, too, some matters of detail in applying an authorization that I will explore in a separate email. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 9 23:44:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Feb 9 23:46:01 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>(and/or communicating by drawing or declining to draw >>attention to an irregularity) is beyond the scope of Law 73A1 Tim West-Meads: >Indeed it is, but then drawing attention to an irregularity is >specifically legal Richard Hills: So what? Merely because an action is specifically legal does not necessarily mean that information from that legal act must be authorised information. Under Law 20F, it is specifically legal for partner to ask a question about opponents' calls, but Law 73B and Law 73C state that any questions asked or not asked by partner are UI to you. Likewise, because the Scope of the Laws specifically states that drawing attention to an irregularity is optional, inferences from a decision to exercise or not exercise such an option are beyond the scope of Law 73A1, so therefore it is UI to you whether partner deliberately or inadvertently accepted an OBOOT. Tim West-Meads: [snip] >I have never seen a TD tell a player that, for example, he may >not base his play on the knowledge that a penalty card must be >played at the first legal opportunity. WBF LC minute 24th August 1998: >>>When a player has a penalty card then it is authorised >>>information that he must play that card when the suit is led, >>>but not that he possesses that card. >>> >>>Suppose a player has the heart ace as a penalty card, then >>>his partner, if leading from KQJx, may lead the small card >>>since it is authorised information that the ace will be >>>played. >>> >>>However, he may not act as though he knows partner has that >>>card. If a king was led out of turn and the king is now a >>>penalty card, then partner must act as though he does not >>>know about the king, nor about the queen, a normal deduction >>>when partner leads a king. He may not choose to lead the suit >>>if the suit is suggested by the king and play of a different >>>suit is a logical alternative. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Feb 10 00:12:44 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Feb 10 00:16:24 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62db3$4c3deb00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c62dce$55a64230$4101a8c0@david> > If the irregularity is accepted then we have an auction where the > irregularity is evident to everybody, for instance whenever the auction is > reviewed (L20B). However none of the information arising from this > irregularity is AI to any player. > > If the irregularity is _not_ accepted then the irregular action is > withdrawn > so it is no longer evident, but now all information arising from the > irregularity is AI to NOS. > > Don't try to convince me that this anomaly has been intended. If it had > been > I am completely convinced that it would have been expressed more > explicitly > in the laws. > < > +=+ Sven, > I think you need to make a distinction between > (a) those things on which you may base your agreements > and > (b) the information that you are authorized to use when > applying those agreements in the course of the auction and play. > > The fact that an piece of information is AI to you during the > auction/play does not signify that you may then base fresh > agreements on it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > HUH ? ? ? ? ? Sven Let us suppose that West opens 1H with dealer being North. North declines to accept this bid and then bids 1H himself. Among the North-South agreements is that a bid in a suit known to be held by opponents is a Michaels cue bid showing 5-5 in spades and a minor (in the case of hearts). What are the applicable laws in this case? Can N-S even have an agreement to cover this situation. What are South's obligations? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 08/02/2006 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 10 01:11:41 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Feb 10 01:24:32 2006 Subject: [blml] accepted irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000001c62dd7$f9143ef0$4609e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] accepted irregularities > Another example is Law 30A (Pass out of rotation > before any player has bid), where the penalty for a > non-accepted irregular pass is not withdrawal of the > irregular pass, but rather repetition of the irregular pass. > The WBF LC has specifically ruled that information > from this non-withdrawn irregular pass is nevertheless > unauthorised to the offending side. > > I think that part of the problem is that when the 1987 > Lawbook was amended in 1997 by the insertion of > Law 16C, Edgar Kaplan gave insufficient thought > to some necessary consequential changes required in > some other Laws. > +=+ Not exactly 'insertion of', rather 'rewording of'. There were difficulties surrounding the 1994/97 work which affected the cohesion of the exercise. It was always difficult to know which words should be ascribed to an ailing Edgar himself and which to those standing to his shoulder.. I think we were best to avoid personal judgements. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 10 01:37:45 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Feb 10 01:41:41 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62d51$ab47fb20$6400a8c0@WINXP><001301c62d6f$3f6289c0$61a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><001701c62d80$737eee40$1b9468d5@jeushtlj> <000401c62dc5$bfb18fd0$4dcc403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000a01c62dda$592b05b0$f004e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> +=+ The only purpose of this is to say that fulfilment of the undermentioned expectation has become embroiled in moderator approval Something I wrote in the subject line, it seems. +=+ > There are, too, some matters of detail in applying > an authorization that I will explore in a separate email. > From mustikka at charter.net Fri Feb 10 02:10:50 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri Feb 10 02:15:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000001c62d51$ab47fb20$6400a8c0@WINXP><001301c62d6f$3f6289c0$61a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><001701c62d80$737eee40$1b9468d5@jeushtlj><000401c62dc5$bfb18fd0$4dcc403e@Mildred> <000a01c62dda$592b05b0$f004e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <001e01c62dde$d5974c90$c010b618@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "The mair they talk I'm kent the better, E'en let them clash." > [Robert Burns] > ============================= >>> > > +=+ The only purpose of this is to say that fulfilment of the > undermentioned expectation has become embroiled in > moderator approval Something I wrote in the subject line, it seems. +=+ > >> There are, too, some matters of detail in applying >> an authorization that I will explore in a separate email. >> Whatever officially unfolds, I hope will be shared in blml. Some players (me, for example) are interested how this all ends. From toddz at att.net Fri Feb 10 02:37:59 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Feb 10 02:42:26 2006 Subject: [blml] accepted irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43EBEE77.4030509@att.net> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Suppose that partner exposes the ace of diamonds during the auction. The > ace of diamonds is not withdrawn, and Law 24B requires me to pass for one > round. However, if subsequent to my enforced pass I get another chance to > call, Law 16C2 would not apply. Therefore, would it be legal for me to be > entitled to use the information from the ace of diamonds to choose amongst > logical alternatives a successful sacrifice in diamonds? I don't think so > under the philosophy of the current 1997 Lawbook. As the card was exposed by partner, L16A does apply even if L16C2 does not. The AI/UI status of this card for opponents is another matter. -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 10 02:49:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 10 02:54:01 2006 Subject: [blml] accepted irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Suppose that partner exposes the ace of diamonds during the auction. > The ace of diamonds is not withdrawn, and Law 24B requires me to pass > for one round. However, if subsequent to my enforced pass I get another > chance to call, Law 16C2 would not apply. Therefore, would it be legal > for me to be entitled to use the information from the ace of diamonds to > choose amongst logical alternatives a successful sacrifice in diamonds? > I don't think so under the philosophy of the current 1997 Lawbook. Why not? Surely such a choice would be compatible with law72A5. (NOS remain protected by L72b1). 5. Offenders' Options Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction. A curious quirk, or a good excuse to change L24B to say "The card must be picked up, UI to pard, AI to opps, now get on with it." Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 10 02:49:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 10 02:54:02 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > >Indeed it is, but then drawing attention to an irregularity is > >specifically legal > > So what? Merely because an action is specifically legal does > not necessarily mean that information from that legal act must > be authorised information. It was legal for me to call the TD, he gave a ruling (which I believe to be AI). Only if the TD rules that his ruling is UI can it be UI that pard has accepted the boot deliberately. All pard has done is listen to the options and then called. The inferences are in the TD ruling and partner's call - not in anything else partner did or said. What UI do I have from pard and why on earth do you think L73a1 has any application in this situation. The information about who called the TD might (just about) be UI [albeit in EBUland TD's arrive at the table and say "Who called me"] but that information doesn't seem to suggest any call over another. Are you suggesting that the presence of the TD (and the ruling he gives) are, in themselves, UI? > Likewise, because the Scope of the Laws specifically states that > drawing attention to an irregularity is optional, inferences > from a decision to exercise or not exercise such an option are > beyond the scope of Law 73A1 So what? If partner draws attention (by saying something, reacting, twitching, or whatever) to the irregularity the TD *must* be called. If he doesn't draw attention one doesn't know whether he didn't notice or decided not to call the TD. Tim From toddz at att.net Fri Feb 10 02:56:25 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Feb 10 03:00:51 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <000001c62db3$4c3deb00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c62db3$4c3deb00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43EBF2C9.9040300@att.net> Sven Pran wrote: >>+=+ Sven, >> I think you need to make a distinction between >> (a) those things on which you may base your agreements >> and >> (b) the information that you are authorized to use when >> applying those agreements in the course of the auction and play. >> >> The fact that an piece of information is AI to you during the >> auction/play does not signify that you may then base fresh >> agreements on it. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > HUH ? ? ? ? ? (a) calls, plays, and conditions of the current deal (b) legal calls, plays, and mannerisms of the opponents You can base your agreements on (a). You cannot, for instance, agree that double is for penalty if your opponent mispronouces 'flannery'. That is authorized information to you, but not a legal basis for having an agreement. -Todd From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 10 04:00:30 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Feb 10 04:01:48 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c62dce$55a64230$4101a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>>The fact that an piece of information is AI to you >>>during the auction/play does not signify that you >>>may then base fresh agreements on it. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ David Barton: >>Let us suppose that West opens 1H with dealer being >>North. North declines to accept this bid and then >>bids 1H himself. Among the North-South agreements >>is that a bid in a suit known to be held by >>opponents is a Michaels cue bid showing 5-5 in >>spades and a minor (in the case of hearts). Richard Hills: If North-South also have an agreement that an opening bid of 1H as dealer shows 5+ hearts, then there is an inconsistency in the North-South agreements. Roy Sorensen, A Brief History of the Paradox, pages 62-63: >Lawyers sued lawyers. Law students sued their >teachers. Teachers sued students: Euathlus had >contracted to pay Protagoras for his lessons when >he had won his first case. After completing his >studies, Euathlus never went to court. Determined >to collect his fee, Protagoras threatened to sue. >He pointed out that if he sued Euathlus, then >Euathlus would be obliged to pay either way. If >Protagoras won the suit, then Euathlus would be >obliged to pay because that is what the court >ordered. If Protagoras lost, then Euathlus would >have won his first case and so would have to pay >by virtue of his contract. > >However, Euathlus had learned his lessons well. >Euathlus countered that if he won, then, in >accordance with the court's decision, he owes >nothing to Protagoras. If Euathlus loses, then he >has yet to win his first case and so is still >under no obligation to pay. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training Delivery Section 02 6225 6285 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Feb 10 04:15:26 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Feb 10 04:19:49 2006 Subject: [blml] accepted irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200602092249.k19MnVoI025974@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602092249.k19MnVoI025974@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43EC054E.9070507@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > A non-withdrawn irregular action is not necessarily an accepted irregular > action. Consider Law 24 (Card exposed or led during the auction). > > Suppose that partner exposes the ace of diamonds during the auction. The > ace of diamonds is not withdrawn, and Law 24B requires me to pass for one > round. However, if subsequent to my enforced pass I get another chance to > call, Law 16C2 would not apply. Therefore, would it be legal for me to be > entitled to use the information from the ace of diamonds to choose amongst > logical alternatives a successful sacrifice in diamonds? I don't think so > under the philosophy of the current 1997 Lawbook. My head hurts! If a card face up on the table is not supposed to be AI to all parties for all purposes, I think the law writers owe us an explicit statement. You may have read this before somewhere :-), but the attempt to mix mechanical penalties and information restrictions is... um... misguided. The idea of having a piece of information authorized for some purposes but not others is... words fail me. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 9 22:01:40 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Feb 10 09:10:59 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. Message-ID: <000501c62dc5$c0c15220$4dcc403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <002201c62e1e$32034710$4101a8c0@david> ] > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >>>>The fact that an piece of information is AI to you >>>>during the auction/play does not signify that you >>>>may then base fresh agreements on it. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > David Barton: > >>>Let us suppose that West opens 1H with dealer being >>>North. North declines to accept this bid and then >>>bids 1H himself. Among the North-South agreements >>>is that a bid in a suit known to be held by >>>opponents is a Michaels cue bid showing 5-5 in >>>spades and a minor (in the case of hearts). > > Richard Hills: > > If North-South also have an agreement that an opening > bid of 1H as dealer shows 5+ hearts, then there is an > inconsistency in the North-South agreements. > Yes, but the inconsistency can ONLY arise following an infraction. To have an agreement that says (a) rather than (b) applies in these circumstances is to have an agreement that is contingent upon an infraction having occurred. IF I have been following this thread correctly having such an agreement is illegal. So yes the agreements are inconsistent, but I can see no easy LEGAL way to resolve this inconsistency. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 09/02/2006 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Feb 10 13:08:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Feb 10 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <002201c62e1e$32034710$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <002901c62e3a$cd067090$1dc987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > > Yes, but > the inconsistency can ONLY arise following an infraction. > To have an agreement that says (a) rather than (b) applies in > these circumstances is to have an agreement that is contingent > upon an infraction having occurred. > > IF I have been following this thread correctly having > such an agreement is illegal. > > So yes the agreements are inconsistent, but I can see > no easy LEGAL way to resolve this inconsistency. > +=+ So, on the basis that there is no authorizing regulation (a) The information from the BOOT may be used in deciding not to make a normal 1 H opener. That could, of course, prove to be a misjudgement. He may also use the information in the play (but not by a change of signalling methods). (b) The 1H opener out of rotation having been cancelled it does not exist, so that a bid in Hearts is not a cue bid. To use it so would be use of an agreement applying after an infraction. The 'inconsistency' (sic) does not seem to be in law but arises rather from a wish to use information illegally. North may show his hand by making his normal opener on it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Feb 10 16:55:36 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Feb 10 17:03:27 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <000501c62dc5$c0c15220$4dcc403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001a01c62e5a$6fb36540$239868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan] > +=+ The EBU L&E minute 3.4 etc. reads: > "The L & E noted that there is some doubt > as to present policy with regard to > agreements that 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" [nige1] Congratulations on the quick response. Unfortunately as a minute it is of marginal use to directors and no use to players. To achieve practical effect, it must be incorporated into the EBU Orange Book or, better still, TFLB. [Grattan] > Be in no doubt I welcome a regulation > and every NBO would be better having > one. But it does need any loose strings > to be tied. So I have asked: > 1. (i) Is the authorisation to apply in > the lowest level competitions? [nige1] Obviously yes. Why ever not? [Grattan] > (ii) In intermediate level events not > run directly by the EBU will the local > sponsor be permitted to strike out the > regulation and disallow such agreements? [nige1] What is the normal default with EBU diktats? How can this be different? [Grattan] > 2. (i) When the meaning of a call or > play varies by agreement after an > infraction is it intended it shall be > alerted/announced? [nige1] Presumably it has the status of any other agreement and normal announce/alert rules apply. Why wouldn't they? [Grattan] > (ii) If so what view is taken of the > possibility that an unexpected alert/ > announcement will serve to remind partner > of the agreement? [nige1] The usual hypocritical one. In theory, players are not meant to take advantage of reminders from partner's alerts and explanations. In practice, the law turns a blind eye unless the effect is crude and blatant. [Grattan] > (iii) How about signalling methods, not > normally ever alertable under EBU > regulations? [nige1] Why should signals suddenly become alertable? [Grattan] > 3. Does "after an opponent has committed > an infraction" mean: > (a) forthwith upon occurrence of the > infraction? > (b) after attention has been drawn to the > infraction? > (c) after the Director has ruled upon the > alleged infraction (and established that > there has been an infraction)? or > (d) some other defined point of time? [nige1] (c) of course. The rules should be tightened up to refer to "alleged" or "putative" infractions until the director has ruled (or the committee has ruled if there is an appeal). [Grattan] > 4. What is the definition of 'blanket provisions'? [nige1] Good question. Presumably Linus Van Pelt is on the EBU L&E committee. [Grattan] > OB14.2.1/14.2.2 - can you change from a transfer response > (to one of a suit opening bid) to another > transfer response? e.g. > (i) can Spades showing a no trump hand alter > to Spades showing a suit transfer to clubs; [nige1] If the convention licensing laws at that level permit both [Grattan] > (ii) can any bid in either of the above modes > change to a relay bid, forcing, constructive, > giving no other information? - and vice versa. [nige1] Again, yes, if both are licensed at this level [Grattan] > OB13.1.1 - > (iii) may an opening bid minimum Rule of > 19 or 11 HCP change to an opening bid free > of these constraints with all use of > conventions abandoned? [nige1] Why not? [Grattan] > Well, I just asked. ~ G ~ +=+ [nige1] I just guessed answers :) From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 10 16:59:17 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri Feb 10 17:03:41 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <000501c62dc5$c0c15220$4dcc403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <007501c62e5a$f2951a30$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:01 PM Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. Grattan EndicottFrom a workig floor TD's point of view and as a player my gut feel is that if the opponents infract then one is entitled to take any and all advantage of this infraction - this is my perception of how even the best players see the way the laws work - and it gets very tough indeed to explain "Yes, but not in this special case". So I side strongly with Tim that ANY actions by opponents legal or not should be authorised to the NOS, and to draw the Laws to reflect this would be an appropriate way forward. 73F2 72A4 would seem to suggest this could be an appropriate treatment and would be more readily understood by the players and the TDs. I wish good luck to players who are prepared to put the time and energy into working out how to turn infractions to their benefit, and don't see how the essence of the game is damaged if some players do do this. cheers john +=+ The EBU L&E minute 3.4 etc. reads: "The L & E noted that there is some doubt as to present policy with regard to agreements that 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" Be in no doubt I welcome a regulation and every NBO would be better having one. But it does need any loose strings to be tied. So I have asked: 1. Is the authorisation to apply in the lowest level competitions? In intermediate level events not run directly by the EBU will the local sponsor be permitted to strike out the regulation and disallow such agreements? 2. When the meaning of a call or play varies by agreement after an infraction is it intended it shall be alerted/announced? If so what view is taken of the possibility that an unexpected alert/announcement will serve to remind partner of the agreement? How about signalling methods, not normally ever alertable under EBU regulations? 3. Does "after an opponent has committed an infraction" mean: (a) forthwith upon occurrence of the infraction? (b) after attention has been drawn to the infraction? (c) after the Director has ruled upon the alleged infraction (and established that there has been an infraction)? or (d) some other defined point of time? 4. What is the definition of 'blanket provisions'? OB14.2.1/14.2.2 - can you change from a transfer response (to one of a suit opening bid) to another transfer response? e.g. can Spades showing a no trump hand alter to Spades showing a suit transfer to clubs; can any bid in either of the above modes change to a relay bid, forcing, constructive, giving no other information? - and vice versa. OB13.1.1 - may an opening bid minimum Rule of 19 or 11 HCP change to an opening bid free of these constraints with all use of conventions abandoned? Well, I just asked. ~ G ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Feb 10 17:18:22 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Feb 10 17:26:12 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. Message-ID: <002001c62e5d$9d4dddc0$239868d5@jeushtlj> Incidentally, the Orange & White Books, together with WBF/ACBl/EBL... minutes and commentaries all come under the "Etcetera of Regulation." Most are superfluous to players' requirements. For example, I have been conducting a straw-poll among EBU tournament Bridge Players as to who has read the EBU Orange Book. Apart from my team (who are all so-handicapped), few have. Defiant ignorance is prevalent even among experts who chair appeals committees. The fact is that many players still treat Bridge as a game, a relaxation. We are happy to wade through reams of advice on bidding a play -- but not great steaming heaps of minutes and rule-books of different hue. In the past, too much consideration has been given to providing job-interest for directors. For the sake of us players, please would the WBFLC produce something simple, clear and complete? From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 10 17:30:29 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Feb 10 17:34:52 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002901c62e3a$cd067090$1dc987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000101c62e5f$4e660f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............. > (b) The 1H opener out of rotation having been cancelled > it does not exist, so that a bid in Hearts is not a cue bid. > To use it so would be use of an agreement applying after > an infraction. The 'inconsistency' (sic) does not seem to > be in law but arises rather from a wish to use information > illegally. North may show his hand by making his normal > opener on it. We all agree that the withdrawn 1H bid "does no longer exist" in this case, but that cannot alter the fact that the information arisen from this OBOOT does indeed exist and is (according to L16C1) authorized for NOS. So NOS is entitled to "know" and to base their actions on the fact that the offender has shown a hand consistent with OS' agreements for a 1H opening bid. This is becoming rather technical, but given the following agreement: "A bid at the lowest available level in a suit shown by an opponent is a request to partner that he bids in NT if he has a stopper in that suit" do you argue that this agreement is illegal, and if so under which law? May I call your attention to the fact that this agreement is almost standard, at least in Norway? So far I do not believe anybody here has gotten the idea of applying it in the scenario given above, but rejecting a non-conventional OBOOT in order to make the same opening bid oneself is so peculiar that I think I might (after some reasoning) suspect that was precisely how my partner hoped I would understand it. Furthermore I trust that partner's next call shall clarify the situation in case I was wrong. During my life I have met two main types of bridge players: Those who automatically pass when they do not understand their partner's call and those who (absent a covering agreement) try to figure out what partner has in mind. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 10 19:07:07 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Feb 10 19:11:41 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <002001c62e5d$9d4dddc0$239868d5@jeushtlj> References: <002001c62e5d$9d4dddc0$239868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <05D77040-C6AB-42C0-A215-162883CB4E6B@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 10, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Guthrie wrote: > In the past, too much consideration has been given to providing job- > interest for directors. I believe, Nigel, that this is neither fair nor accurate. From schoderb at msn.com Fri Feb 10 19:09:09 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Feb 10 19:13:37 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <002001c62e5d$9d4dddc0$239868d5@jeushtlj> <05D77040-C6AB-42C0-A215-162883CB4E6B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: But, you have to understand that there are those who can't pass up the opportunity to blare out their biases, as stupid as his remark is. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > On Feb 10, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Guthrie wrote: > > > In the past, too much consideration has been given to providing job- > > interest for directors. > > I believe, Nigel, that this is neither fair nor accurate. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 10 21:51:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 10 21:56:14 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <002901c62e3a$cd067090$1dc987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > (b) The 1H opener out of rotation having been cancelled > it does not exist, The 1H bid does not exist, but the information (to NOS) from the withdrawn action that BOOTer has shown H *does* exist. > so that a bid in Hearts is not a cue bid. It is also debatable as whether a 1H bid after a 1D transfer opening is, technically, a "cue-bid". What is not in doubt, in either sequence, is that 1H is a "bid at the minimum legal level in a suit shown shown by opponents". If the SO has a regulation authorising the conventional use of such bids then one may, fairly obviously, employ a convention so authorised. If the SO does not so authorise a convention then one must use a "non- conventional" meaning for the 1H opening. The mechanisms and wordings of any applicable SO regulations will determine what options are available. When it comes to regulations SOs have absolute freedom to regulate conventions - but, where they exercise such freedom in setting regulations, the words they choose matter! Note also that (under EBU regs) were such a 1H opening to be employed and disclosed as "55 in S+Minor" the partner of OBOOTer would be fully entitled to deduce that his partner had "shown" H, the possession of the H suit by that player becomes "specified" and any possible lead penalties would no longer apply. This results from the detail of EBU regulation (basically 1H may only be used in this manner if opps have shown H). Personally I would not recommend playing 1H in this manner. It would, IMO, be better used to show a hand with 3 or 4 small H and the values for a 1N opener. That meaning is not conventional and not subject to direct SO regulation (albeit in EBU land one may not make any conventional bids thereafter). Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 11 00:35:00 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Feb 11 00:39:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 14:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > Grattan wrote: > Personally I would not recommend playing 1H in this manner. It would, > IMO, be better used to show a hand with 3 or 4 small H and the values for > a 1N opener. That meaning is not conventional and not subject to direct > SO regulation (albeit in EBU land one may not make any conventional bids > thereafter). It is my opinion that such an agreement, since it promises to lack a stopper in hearts, artificially conveys that message. And in addition, it conveys artificially a specific range of strength. regards roger pewick > Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 11 01:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Feb 11 01:34:40 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <007501c62e5a$f2951a30$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: Probst wrote: > ANY actions by opponents legal or not should be authorised to > the NOS, and to draw the Laws to reflect this would be an appropriate > way forward. The laws DO already reflect this - it's just that they are fragmented and lacking in clarity. The laws are, at fundamental level, mostly right. The likes of Grattan should be seeking to improve the way the laws are communicated rather than the content. His propensity for obfuscation is likely to be a barrier to progress on this front but such is life. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 11 01:36:41 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Feb 11 02:15:17 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <000501c62dc5$c0c15220$4dcc403e@Mildred> <001a01c62e5a$6fb36540$239868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <006101c62ea8$3782cbe0$580ee150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > [Grattan] >> Well, I just asked. > > [nige1] > I just guessed answers :) > +=+ Understood. But the answers from the EBU will no doubt be more germane to the players' future choices. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 11 02:10:31 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Feb 11 02:15:18 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario References: <000101c62e5f$4e660f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006201c62ea8$38653ca0$580ee150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:30 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A somewhat different scenario >> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > ............. >> (b) The 1H opener out of rotation having been cancelled >> it does not exist, so that a bid in Hearts is not a cue bid. >> To use it so would be use of an agreement applying after >> an infraction. The 'inconsistency' (sic) does not seem to >> be in law but arises rather from a wish to use information >> illegally. North may show his hand by making his normal >> opener on it. > > We all agree that the withdrawn 1H bid "does no longer exist" > in this case, but that cannot alter the fact that the information > arisen from this OBOOT does indeed exist and is (according > to L16C1) authorized for NOS. So NOS is entitled to "know" > and to base their actions on the fact that the offender has shown > a hand consistent with OS' agreements for a 1H opening bid. > > This is becoming rather technical, but given the following > agreement: "A bid at the lowest available level in a suit shown > by an opponent is a request to partner that he bids in NT if he > has a stopper in that suit" do you argue that this agreement is > illegal, and if so under which law? > +=+ We have stated and restated the operation of the relevant laws so many times that I refer you now to the previous posts. In shorthand, base your choice of action yes, your agreement as to the meaning of any call or play you select no, saving the existence of a regulation that permits of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 11 02:46:32 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Feb 11 02:54:24 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <002001c62e5d$9d4dddc0$239868d5@jeushtlj><05D77040-C6AB-42C0-A215-162883CB4E6B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <009801c62eac$fc6ea4c0$239868d5@jeushtlj> [nige1] >>> In the past, too much consideration has >>> been given to providing job-interest for >>> directors. [Ed Reppert] >> I believe, Nigel, that this is neither >> fair nor accurate. [nige1] I've argued this view in previous postings. (Most law-makers are directors. They consult the views of few players who aren't directors. In my experience, directors express more approval than players for the fragmented, sophisticated and subjective laws. There are germane analogies with other legislative contexts. And so on). [Kojak] > But, you have to understand that there are > those who can't pass up the opportunity to > blare out their biases, as stupid as his > remark is [Nige2] Kojak cannot claim a monopoly. Even Ed and I must be allowed to blare out the occasional stupid remark :) From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sat Feb 11 02:58:21 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sat Feb 11 03:01:50 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario Message-ID: <001401c62eae$a27ee450$4101a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A somewhat different scenario > >>> >>> Yes, but >>> the inconsistency can ONLY arise following an infraction. >>> To have an agreement that says (a) rather than (b) applies in >>> these circumstances is to have an agreement that is contingent >>> upon an infraction having occurred. >>> >>> IF I have been following this thread correctly having >>> such an agreement is illegal. >>> >>> So yes the agreements are inconsistent, but I can see >>> no easy LEGAL way to resolve this inconsistency. >>> >> +=+ So, on the basis that there is no authorizing regulation >> (a) The information from the BOOT may be used >> in deciding not to make a normal 1 H opener. That >> could, of course, prove to be a misjudgement. He may >> also use the information in the play (but not by a change >> of signalling methods). >> (b) The 1H opener out of rotation having been cancelled >> it does not exist, so that a bid in Hearts is not a cue bid. >> To use it so would be use of an agreement applying after >> an infraction. The 'inconsistency' (sic) does not seem to >> be in law but arises rather from a wish to use information >> illegally. North may show his hand by making his normal >> opener on it. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > Thank you Grattan for your reply. > > I am quite happy with para (a), but there are some issues > in (b) that are causing me some difficulties. > > The Orange Book defines a cue bid as as "an artificial bid in > a suit bid or **shown** by opponents". Even though the bid > no longer exists the suit has been shown, so 1H remains > a cue bid (at least in EBUland). > > You are surely allowed agreements to apply AFTER an infraction. > What has been argued up to now is that you cannot have an > agreement BASED upon an infraction. Where based upon > effectively means that the agreement differs from that applying > if the bid had been legal. > > The scenario had the pair playing Michaels whenever their > first bid was in a suit shown by opponents. This agreement > therefore applied generally and so is surely NOT an agreement > based upon an infraction. > > The point of the question was not that a pair wished to have > illegal agreements. > > The real issue was that IF an opponent's infraction introduced > possible inconsistencies or ambiguities into their methods, > (such as whether a 1H should be treated as natural or a cue), > then they would be unable to resolve the issue because any > agreement they made about it would be an agreement based > upon an infraction and hence illegal. > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton@lineone.net > ***************************************** > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 From schoderb at msn.com Sat Feb 11 03:04:17 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Feb 11 03:08:58 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <002001c62e5d$9d4dddc0$239868d5@jeushtlj><05D77040-C6AB-42C0-A215-162883CB4E6B@rochester.rr.com> <009801c62eac$fc6ea4c0$239868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: And by all means continue to do so -- it puts the proper coloration on what you then want to have taken seriously. Of the 7 people on the drafting committee Max, Kojak (emeritus), and Ton are the only TDs. Seems like simple numbers outnumber us by 3 to 4 but who would bother to count anyhow when making a spurious argument. At the risk on making someone sound more than silly, I won't even bother to list the members of the WBFLC and who are TDs. Why not get your facts before making asinine statements like "most"? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > [nige1] > >>> In the past, too much consideration has > >>> been given to providing job-interest for > >>> directors. > [Ed Reppert] > >> I believe, Nigel, that this is neither > >> fair nor accurate. > [nige1] > I've argued this view in previous postings. > (Most law-makers are directors. They consult the > views of few players who aren't directors. In my > experience, directors express more approval than > players for the fragmented, sophisticated and > subjective laws. There are germane analogies with > other legislative contexts. And so on). > [Kojak] > > But, you have to understand that there are > > those who can't pass up the opportunity to > > blare out their biases, as stupid as his > > remark is > [Nige2] > Kojak cannot claim a monopoly. Even Ed and I must > be allowed to blare out the occasional stupid > remark :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Sat Feb 11 03:06:08 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Feb 11 03:10:32 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: Wow! "....Propensity for obfuscation...." -- wish I had that ability. Then I could just shut down this whole mess, stop the regurgitation, get back to normalcy, and probably sound the a death knell for the junk that BLML has become. So much of what is posited is not for the enlightenment of anyone, but for the ego satisfaction of finding the laws to be lacking. If this sounds like I'm tired of the bullshit - so be it. You(all) asked what Law 16 said, you were told what it said. You asked how that affected other laws and you were told how. You then put together a whole bunch of of garbage to prove how brilliant you are and how stupid we are, and now continue to rechew the cud ad nauseum. If those of you who aspire or see yourself as TDs don't know what to do by THIS TIME, then why not turn in your credentials and join Guthrie in making snide comments about TDs? And just a side thought -- it seems that most of the anti-TD crap originates from other than the ACBL - even thought the ACBL/BLMLer's are notorious for their righteous indignation and assurance of superior knowledge, they at least realize that our game is well and growing in that area. Would that the rest of the world could say the same. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > Probst wrote: > > > ANY actions by opponents legal or not should be authorised to > > the NOS, and to draw the Laws to reflect this would be an appropriate > > way forward. > > The laws DO already reflect this - it's just that they are fragmented and > lacking in clarity. The laws are, at fundamental level, mostly right. > The likes of Grattan should be seeking to improve the way the laws are > communicated rather than the content. His propensity for obfuscation is > likely to be a barrier to progress on this front but such is life. > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 11 03:21:21 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Feb 11 03:29:13 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: <00fc01c62eb1$d9cb3460$239868d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Wow! "....Propensity for obfuscation...." -- wish I had that ability [SNIP] > If those of you who aspire or see yourself > as TDs don't know what to do by THIS TIME, > then why not turn in your credentials and > join Guthrie in making snide comments about > TDs? And just a side thought -- it seems > that most of the anti-TD crap originates > from other than the ACBL [nige1] Neither Tim nor I criticised TDs, in general, just some who are on the WBFLC. If Kojak aspires to Tim's grasp of language, he could try composing his emails in the library rather than the lavatory. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 11 04:14:46 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Feb 11 04:22:38 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation Message-ID: <012301c62eb9$4ff7b8a0$239868d5@jeushtlj> [nige1] ...Most law makers are directors... [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Of the 7 people on the drafting committee > Max, Kojak (emeritus), and Ton are the only > TDs. Seems like simple numbers outnumber us > by 3 to 4 but who would bother to count > anyhow when making a spurious argument. [http://www.worldbridge.org/people/] Grattan Endicott 2003- Member EBL Tournament Directors Committee [nige2] Criticism of past committees may be justified by reference to current laws; but judgement on the current committee awaits the results of their labours. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 11 04:39:19 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Feb 11 04:47:10 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. Message-ID: <016f01c62ebc$bdd637e0$239868d5@jeushtlj> > [nige1] > ... nor I criticised TDs, in > general, just some who are on the WBFLC. [nige1] Forgive me. What I wrote isn't what I meant. Perhaps Kojak's invective is getting to me. IMO, on the net, it's OK to criticise public committees but not individuals. And it's wrong to criticise the current committee before the new edition of TFLB. From svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 11 08:26:56 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Feb 11 08:31:20 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: <006201c62ea8$38653ca0$580ee150@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c62edc$89fe6030$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan > From: "Sven Pran" > >> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > > ............. > >> (b) The 1H opener out of rotation having been cancelled > >> it does not exist, so that a bid in Hearts is not a cue bid. > >> To use it so would be use of an agreement applying after > >> an infraction. The 'inconsistency' (sic) does not seem to > >> be in law but arises rather from a wish to use information > >> illegally. North may show his hand by making his normal > >> opener on it. > > > > We all agree that the withdrawn 1H bid "does no longer exist" > > in this case, but that cannot alter the fact that the information > > arisen from this OBOOT does indeed exist and is (according > > to L16C1) authorized for NOS. So NOS is entitled to "know" > > and to base their actions on the fact that the offender has shown > > a hand consistent with OS' agreements for a 1H opening bid. > > > > This is becoming rather technical, but given the following > > agreement: "A bid at the lowest available level in a suit shown > > by an opponent is a request to partner that he bids in NT if he > > has a stopper in that suit" do you argue that this agreement is > > illegal, and if so under which law? > > > +=+ We have stated and restated the operation of the relevant > laws so many times that I refer you now to the previous posts. > In shorthand, base your choice of action yes, your agreement > as to the meaning of any call or play you select no, saving the > existence of a regulation that permits of it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sorry Grattan, your previous posts make me no wiser except that I notice a clear pattern of you avoiding answering simple questions which could immediately clarify the issues by examples. I have a strong feeling that this is one of the main reasons this thread has been going on for so long, apparently without any progress. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 11 09:08:59 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Feb 11 09:13:23 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <009801c62eac$fc6ea4c0$239868d5@jeushtlj> References: <002001c62e5d$9d4dddc0$239868d5@jeushtlj> <05D77040-C6AB-42C0-A215-162883CB4E6B@rochester.rr.com> <009801c62eac$fc6ea4c0$239868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <5DA14DFA-F6B0-4340-947A-C4E75EF0B886@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 10, 2006, at 8:46 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Kojak cannot claim a monopoly. Even Ed and I must > be allowed to blare out the occasional stupid > remark :) I may make stupid remarks from time to time, but I don't think I've done so recently. In any case, you'd do better to stick to facts. When you make statements that are demonstrably untrue ("Most lawmakers are directors") you lessen the credibility of everything you say. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 11 09:16:52 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Feb 11 09:21:16 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <986AA814-C442-4B0B-9850-2A8A5791A7AC@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:06 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > If those of you who aspire or see yourself as TDs don't > know what to do by THIS TIME, then why not turn in your credentials > and join > Guthrie in making snide comments about TDs? You paint with a pretty broad brush, there, Kojak. Excuse me, I have to go find something to clean up these pain spatters. :( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 11 09:18:20 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Feb 11 09:22:44 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <00fc01c62eb1$d9cb3460$239868d5@jeushtlj> References: <00fc01c62eb1$d9cb3460$239868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Neither Tim nor I criticised TDs, in general, just > some who are on the WBFLC. If Kojak aspires to > Tim's grasp of language, he could try composing > his emails in the library rather than the > lavatory. Okay, that's it. If this thread wasn't a waste of electrons before, it sure as Hell is now. I'm outta here. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 11 12:02:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Feb 11 12:06:34 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > Wow! "....Propensity for obfuscation...." -- wish I had that ability. To an extent you do Bill. Five times now I have asked/pleaded/begged for clarification of your *opinion* on whether numerous things which are clearly not included in the intro to Law16 but are routinely used by players should be ruled EI/UI. You haven't answered albeit a simple "Tim, all those things are UI because they are not listed in Law16." or an "OK, L16 cannot, in isolation, be used as a definition of what information is authorised." > You(all) asked what Law 16 said, you were told what it said. We weren't "told what it said" - we can read that. We were given an interpretation (by you and Grattan) that required us to treat the introductory paragraph of law 16 as "exhaustive" rather than "indicative". That interpretation runs so deeply against the way players and TDs currently interpret the laws that it causes grave concern. > If those of you who aspire or see yourself as TDs don't > know what to do by THIS TIME, I am a TD, and a bloody good one - so are many others who contribute to this list. When I give a ruling that a partnership agreement is illegal it *will* be supported by careful references to various laws and my SO regulations. I *know* the game is unplayable if we are required to treat the current L16 as exhaustive. I *know* that when a BOOT is accepted it is "treated as legal" for all purposes during the auction/play by everybody at the table [including the meanings of all subsequent calls and the application of system agreements by both sides]. I don't think you are stupid Bill, I do think you are stubborn (but then so am I). I also doubt I'm the only person in England (or even a minority viewholder) who considers that a principle for the new laws of being "clear, unambiguous, and written in plain simple language" will present a challenge for Grattan. Surely years of reading this list is enough to convince us that such is far from his natural style [and that's not a criticism, Grattan is man of considerable erudition who obviously loves the artistry of language]. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 11 12:02:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Feb 11 12:06:36 2006 Subject: [blml] A somewhat different scenario In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrtoe: > > Personally I would not recommend playing 1H in this manner. It would, > > IMO, be better used to show a hand with 3 or 4 small H and the values > > for a 1N opener. That meaning is not conventional and not subject to > > direct SO regulation (albeit in EBU land one may not make any > > conventional bids > > thereafter). > > It is my opinion that such an agreement, since it promises to lack a > stopper in hearts, artificially conveys that message. You could be right, it's a matter of interpretation as whether the inference about a lack of stopper comes from the failure to open a normal 1N (which would not usually promise a H stopper but probably should do so after an opp's 1H was withdrawn). > And in addition, it conveys artificially a specific range of strength. That's definitely not enough to make it a convention "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." is stated in the definitions. Tim From brian at meadows.pair.com Sat Feb 11 13:02:10 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat Feb 11 13:06:47 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim West-Meads wrote: >I also doubt I'm the only person in England (or even a minority >viewholder) who considers that a principle for the new laws of being >"clear, unambiguous, and written in plain simple language" will present a >challenge for Grattan. Although no longer resident in England, I played bridge there (and have read BLML) for long enough to share Tim's view on the above. At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I will suggest once again that when the new version of TFLB has been argued out, it should be given to a competent technical author before release, with a request to clarify/simplify the text as much as possible while preserving the meaning. I recall a posting from Marv that gave (IMO) a good idea or two for a first step in that direction. Even if the WBF subsequently rejects half of the suggested changes, the end result should still be well worth it. Yes, bridge is a complex game. Yes, that means the laws will also be complex - but that *doesn't* mean that the language in which those laws are expressed must also be complex. Brian. From schoderb at msn.com Sat Feb 11 13:12:56 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Feb 11 13:17:24 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: It is my fervent hope that the draft of the new laws will be in the language approved by the drafting committee. That is to say, not ascribable to any one individual. Besides that comment I fully agree with Brian's third and fourth paragraphs below -- let's see what happens. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim > West-Meads wrote: > > >I also doubt I'm the only person in England (or even a minority > >viewholder) who considers that a principle for the new laws of being > >"clear, unambiguous, and written in plain simple language" will present a > >challenge for Grattan. > > Although no longer resident in England, I played bridge there > (and have read BLML) for long enough to share Tim's view on the > above. > > At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I will suggest once again > that when the new version of TFLB has been argued out, it should > be given to a competent technical author before release, with a > request to clarify/simplify the text as much as possible while > preserving the meaning. I recall a posting from Marv that gave > (IMO) a good idea or two for a first step in that direction. > > Even if the WBF subsequently rejects half of the suggested > changes, the end result should still be well worth it. Yes, > bridge is a complex game. Yes, that means the laws will also be > complex - but that *doesn't* mean that the language in which > those laws are expressed must also be complex. > > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Sat Feb 11 13:14:18 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Feb 11 13:18:46 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: And once again ---- Grattan has indicated and taken the time to indicate what/when regulations apply to the Laws when there is doubt. He has posted relevant EBU, EBL, and WBF interpretations. There has also been ACBL regulation on this posted. I'm sorry that my cryptic answer does not satisfy you. Clearly there is a problem. Clearly there are interpretations. Clearly the regulatory bodies involved have to/need to make those interpretations. Go there to look for your answers, and you will probably find them different. You want my opinion on those regulations? I don't commit professional suicide by request. If enough of the drafting committee agree you will see a proposal in the near future. As to my comment about TDs, it was addressed to Mr. Guthrie's snide remark which always seems to crop up when he is making points about the laws. Seems to me he has a personal problem, but it gets thin to hear his opinions about TDs when he is supposedly talking about the substance of a law. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > Kojak wrote: > > > Wow! "....Propensity for obfuscation...." -- wish I had that ability. > > To an extent you do Bill. Five times now I have asked/pleaded/begged for > clarification of your *opinion* on whether numerous things which are > clearly not included in the intro to Law16 but are routinely used by > players should be ruled EI/UI. You haven't answered albeit a simple "Tim, > all those things are UI because they are not listed in Law16." or an "OK, > L16 cannot, in isolation, be used as a definition of what information is > authorised." > > > You(all) asked what Law 16 said, you were told what it said. > > We weren't "told what it said" - we can read that. We were given an > interpretation (by you and Grattan) that required us to treat the > introductory paragraph of law 16 as "exhaustive" rather than "indicative". > That interpretation runs so deeply against the way players and TDs > currently interpret the laws that it causes grave concern. > > > If those of you who aspire or see yourself as TDs don't > > know what to do by THIS TIME, > > I am a TD, and a bloody good one - so are many others who contribute to > this list. When I give a ruling that a partnership agreement is illegal > it *will* be supported by careful references to various laws and my SO > regulations. I *know* the game is unplayable if we are required to treat > the current L16 as exhaustive. I *know* that when a BOOT is accepted it > is "treated as legal" for all purposes during the auction/play by > everybody at the table [including the meanings of all subsequent calls and > the application of system agreements by both sides]. > > I don't think you are stupid Bill, I do think you are stubborn (but then > so am I). I also doubt I'm the only person in England (or even a minority > viewholder) who considers that a principle for the new laws of being > "clear, unambiguous, and written in plain simple language" will present a > challenge for Grattan. Surely years of reading this list is enough to > convince us that such is far from his natural style [and that's not a > criticism, Grattan is man of considerable erudition who obviously loves > the artistry of language]. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 11 13:49:20 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Feb 11 13:57:15 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <00fc01c62eb1$d9cb3460$239868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <010801c62f09$947d7960$419868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim] >> Neither Tim nor I criticised TDs, in >> general, just some who are on the WBFLC. >> If Kojak aspires to Tim's grasp of language, >> he could try composing his emails in the >> library rather than the lavatory. [Ed Reppert] > Okay, that's it. If this thread wasn't a waste > of electrons before, it sure as Hell is now. > I'm outta here. [nige1] I've already apologised. It's no excuse but you may discern the reason for my fall from grace if you scan Kojak's emails (including the one that Ed snipped) for metaphors involving excreta used in Kojak's castigation of law critics. BTW, if the WBFLC don't consider criticism more sympathetically, especially in forum like this, you can't expect players to be keen to voice their wishes and concerns about the rules of bridge. From schoderb at msn.com Sat Feb 11 14:21:15 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Feb 11 14:25:48 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <00fc01c62eb1$d9cb3460$239868d5@jeushtlj> <010801c62f09$947d7960$419868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Prima facie evidence of what I said. Guthrie continues to fail to see that his personal vendetta to denigrate TDs at every opportunity detracts from anything of value he might contribute. He seems to find it necessary to take shots at TDs -- of every level -- to support his opinions. I'm not castigating Laws critics -they serve a very useful purpose -- I'm castigating the snide who insert irrelevant personal opinions of dedicated individuals into their criticism of the laws. I don't aspire to Tim's grasp of language, but it seems that I do have the facility to get my point across and engender irritated responses. And, my computer is not in the lavatory - it's on my desk. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > [Tim] > >> Neither Tim nor I criticised TDs, in > >> general, just some who are on the WBFLC. > >> If Kojak aspires to Tim's grasp of language, > >> he could try composing his emails in the > >> library rather than the lavatory. > [Ed Reppert] > > Okay, that's it. If this thread wasn't a waste > > of electrons before, it sure as Hell is now. > > I'm outta here. > [nige1] > I've already apologised. It's no excuse but you > may discern the reason for my fall from grace if > you scan Kojak's emails (including the one that Ed > snipped) for metaphors involving excreta used in > Kojak's castigation of law critics. > > BTW, if the WBFLC don't consider criticism more > sympathetically, especially in forum like this, > you can't expect players to be keen to voice their > wishes and concerns about the rules of bridge. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 11 15:03:22 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Feb 11 15:11:19 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <00fc01c62eb1$d9cb3460$239868d5@jeushtlj> <010801c62f09$947d7960$419868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000c01c62f13$eba9dda0$3f9868d5@jeushtlj> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Guthrie continues to fail to see that > his personal vendetta to denigrate TDs > at every opportunity detracts from > anything of value he might contribute. > He seems to find it necessary to take > shots at TDs -- of every level -- to > support his opinions. I'm not castigating > Laws critics - they serve a very useful > purpose -- I'm castigating the snide who > insert irrelevant personal opinions of > dedicated individuals into their criticism > of the laws. [nige1] Manifestly, I don't pursue a "personal vendetta to denigrate TDs at every opportunity". On the contrary, I admire them and often say so. Anyway, such personal attacks by Kojak waste BLML time. As do reactions like mine. In future I shall try not to react to personal invective. We should concentrate on arguments. No matter how badly you think of a person, it should not detract from his valid arguments. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 11 15:23:05 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Feb 11 15:27:39 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > ......Yes, bridge is a complex game. > Brian. I think that this assertion deserves some rebuttle. Contrary to Brian's assertion, bridge is a simple game. Remedies for infractions may, or may not, be complex; but the game is simple. However, the game promulgated by the WBF is impossible for homo sapiens to play in accordance with its rules. regards roger pewick From brian at meadows.pair.com Sat Feb 11 16:55:01 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat Feb 11 16:59:42 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:23:05 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meadows" >To: >Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:02 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > > >> ......Yes, bridge is a complex game. >> Brian. > > >I think that this assertion deserves some rebuttle. As do I with your counter-assertion. Incidentally, it's "rebuttal". >Contrary to Brian's >assertion, bridge is a simple game. The basic concepts may be simple. The game itself is not. Well, not once you get past absolute novice standard, anyway. >Remedies for infractions may, or may >not, be complex; but the game is simple. If bridge really was a simple game, you wouldn't be able to amass bridge libraries full of books on bidding theory and card play. The first couple of books would have said all there was to be said. >However, the game promulgated by >the WBF is impossible for homo sapiens to play in accordance with its rules. > On this last point, we have some measure of agreement - although I'd want to say "strict accordance" or "almost impossible". Brian. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 11 17:02:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Feb 11 17:06:37 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > And once again ---- > > Grattan has indicated and taken the time to indicate what/when > regulations apply to the Laws when there is doubt. He has posted > relevant EBU, EBL, and WBF interpretations. There has also been ACBL > regulation on this posted. No, he hasn't. > I'm sorry that my cryptic answer does not satisfy you. No Bill, you obviously aren't sorry. If you were you would post a straightforward answer rather than a cryptic one. I repeat, yet again, for the convenience of you both: 1. Is the use of all of the following authorised by L16? The cards you hold. The auction and play so far. The system being played by opponents (including any explanations thereof). Your knowledge of your own system agreements (except where agreements have been forgotten). The vulnerability, dealer and position on the deal of each player. Your knowledge of the state of your game and the form of scoring. Any information conveyed by a remark, action, tempo, question, or in any other way by an opponent (except that conveyed as a result of one's own infraction). Your knowledge of opponents (whether by experience or repute). Your knowledge of the laws and relevant SO regulations. Rulings given by the TD at the table. Information arising from any withdrawn action where the partnership is the NOS. Any inferences available from all of the above. 2. Of those things listed which are not explicitly authorised by Law16 are there *any* that players may legitimately use as a a basis for their bidding decisions? 3. Do you still maintain that L16 should be considered as an exhaustive list of legally useable information and that all TD rulings must be based on that principle? These are not minor questions, they are not about NBO/SO regulations, they are about the fundamental philosophy of the laws and the way the game is played. If answering them amounts to "professional suicide" the health of bridge administration is far, far worse than I feared. Tim. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 11 18:58:09 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Feb 11 19:02:40 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Brian Meadows wrote: > it should be given to a competent technical author before release I think you mean "technical editor", no? With that change, I agree. From brian at meadows.pair.com Sat Feb 11 19:25:03 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat Feb 11 19:29:33 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com> References: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6kasu1ta70u8f3c3dg6m5dii8u54a0vc81@4ax.com> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:58:09 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Brian Meadows wrote: > >> it should be given to a competent technical author before release > >I think you mean "technical editor", no? With that change, I agree. > My only knowledge of that type of work is from the software industry, Ed, where, logically or otherwise, they're called "technical authors". At least in my experience, anyway. Yes, sometimes they do write the documentation from scratch - but on other occasions, the programmer gets landed with doing the first draft. If you're thinking about "normal" publishing, as opposed to producing reference manuals, then "technical editor" may well be the correct term. Anyway, I think we both understand the job that I'm suggesting needs to be done. Brian. From mustikka at charter.net Sat Feb 11 23:59:47 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun Feb 12 00:04:21 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: <005801c62f5e$db8ba070$c010b618@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. (snipped a lot) > I also doubt I'm the only person in England (or even a minority > viewholder) who considers that a principle for the new laws of being > "clear, unambiguous, and written in plain simple language" will present a > challenge for Grattan. Surely years of reading this list is enough to > convince us that such is far from his natural style [and that's not a > criticism, Grattan is man of considerable erudition who obviously loves > the artistry of language]. > > Tim I think you are in the vast, overwhelming majority who does NOT want artistry of language in the Laws. TFLB needs simple sentences and clear, unambiguous word choices. Marvin had a list of suggestions for replacing complex "hi-faluting" words with everyday words. Take heed! And do not use the passive tense. Raija D From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 12 02:15:11 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Feb 12 02:24:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Standard system again Message-ID: <004f01c62f71$e8fc5a20$389868d5@jeushtlj> Some time ago, it was proposed that the WBFLC define laws based on a "Standard" system in the hope that it would simplify legislation and generate other benefits. Simplest would be if the "Standard" system were universal; but benefits would be likely to accrue even if different legislatures specified different standards. Possible advantages that were suggested: {A] Beginners could learn it. [B] Teachers could teach it. [C] "No-fear events" could insist on its use. [D] "Individual" events could insist on its use. {E] "Demonstration matches" to help publicise the game could use it. [F] Non bridge-players could have a stab at understanding what was going on -- and perhaps even commentate on events that used it. [G] Pick-up partners could use it. [H] Universal default disclosure laws could be based on alerting *departures* from it. [I] Even better would be disclosure laws that allowed you to ask opponents to *explain* departures (or forbid them from doing so). [J] "Bobby Wolfe" type convention disruption laws could be tried out -- but imposed only on partnerships experimenting with non-"standard" methods. {K] Local legislatures would not be forced to plug disclosure "holes" in the laws. [L] Dissenting SOs would at least have the option of basing a similar disclosure structure on their own "Standard" system. .... Apparently these proposals have long been overtaken by events. We're told that the popular international online Bridge-site OKBridge expects members to disclose departures from a simple version of SAYC that they define as "standard". How does that work in practice? For example.. Do players understand OKB disclosure rules? On the whole, do they approve of them? Does it work well in an international setting? Is it hard for players who didn't know SAYC? Is it a terrible bind if you play Acol or Strong club or Polish club? Does it save time or waste time? Is it effective in improving disclosure? Does it improve rapport for pick-up partnerships? Is the game easier to understand for kibitzers? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 12 02:43:26 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Feb 12 02:51:22 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: <007001c62f75$b8520560$389868d5@jeushtlj> ["Tim West-Meads"] > I also doubt I'm the only person in England > (or even a minority viewholder) who considers > that a principle for the new laws of being > "clear, unambiguous, and written in plain > simple language" will present a challenge for > Grattan. Surely years of reading this list is > enough to convince us that such is far from > his natural style [and that's not a criticism, > Grattan is man of considerable erudition who > obviously loves the artistry of language]. [nige1] IMO Grattan can express himself as seriously and clearly as anybody but prefers a light, good-natured, and humorous approach in this list. He also seems to relish sophistication because he is expert at unravelling and disambiguating complex legal issues. For example, my main concern is that he may be willing to sacrifice simplicity and objectivity on the altar of "Equity". From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Feb 12 03:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Feb 12 04:01:52 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <007001c62f75$b8520560$389868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > For example, my main concern > is that he may be willing to sacrifice simplicity > and objectivity on the altar of "Equity". Neither simplicity nor objectivity should be seen as the enemy of equity. If the laws of game are not directed towards fairness then why bother with them at all? Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 12 12:47:41 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Feb 12 12:53:01 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: <000201c62fca$78f15920$9bef403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: ; "Brian Meadows" Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > It is my fervent hope that the draft of the new laws > will be in the language approved by the drafting > committee. That is to say, not ascribable to any > one individual. Besides that comment I fully agree > with Brian's third and fourth paragraphs below -- > let's see what happens. > > Kojak > +=+ Nor indeed would I wish the language to be ascribed to any individual. It is well known that I wish to rewrite in simpler language much more of the 1997 text than is the wish of the majority of my colleagues, so - provided certain targets are met - I am collaborating acquiescently in a lesser rewrite. But I would add that if there is any truth in the assertion made that "Grattan obviously loves the artistry of language" (sic) then it should extend to the production of simple words where they are appropriate and capable of fully expressing the intention of the law. I think it a little unfair for suspicion to be hurled at me on the basis of assumptions alone by those who have not read my drafts before their reshaping and rewriting by others. Both Kojak and I have had some difficulty in expressing the current relationship of Law 16 and other laws to the forming of agreements and to the use of authorized information. This is because the 1997 Code is designed to authorize free regulation of certain specific matters (for example, in Laws 78D, 80E, 40D, 40E ) and to provide a conditional power of regulation beyond such specified areas in Law 80F. The preamble of Law 16 identifies certain bases upon which agreements may be authorized. It does not deny that others may be allowed by regulation so, if agreements based upon the occurrence of an infraction are to be allowed, there needs to be a regulation made under Law 80F. The error of some here has been to confuse the use of AI in selecting one's action within partnership agreements with a belief that this extends to the formation of partnership agreements. This arises from a misunderstanding of the modus operandi of the 1997 laws which has required further explanation. There are those who seek to debate that explanation, which the WBFLC sought to give, in pursuit of other views as to how the law is to be read (which is not for them to say). Both Kojak, I believe, and I accept that there is a lesson here to be learned in writing future laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sun Feb 12 13:59:40 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Feb 12 14:04:08 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <000201c62fca$78f15920$9bef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: And if I can add another thought: So Tim, your beautifully constructed list of things you want me to answer are basically under the purview of your SO to regulate. I suggest you go there for your answers. I would not endeavor to even try to answer for them, or any other SO without full knowledge of their regulations and the permission of their regulating body. That is what I mean by "professional suicide". I applaud Grattan's promise of the universality of the language to be used in the draft, and solicit his full cooperation in getting the job done. And, I'm sure that those "....certain targets to be met..." are also those of the committee and not any single individual assuming a veto power over the committee's efforts. If by a "....lesser rewrite...." he means lesser in scope and a different approach than he had proposed then we are on the same frequency. If "lesser" is to infer quality, then we are not. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "The mair they talk I'm kent the > better, E'en let them clash." > [Robert Burns] > > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: ; > "Brian Meadows" > Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:12 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > > > It is my fervent hope that the draft of the new laws > > will be in the language approved by the drafting > > committee. That is to say, not ascribable to any > > one individual. Besides that comment I fully agree > > with Brian's third and fourth paragraphs below -- > > let's see what happens. > > > > Kojak > > > +=+ Nor indeed would I wish the language to be > ascribed to any individual. It is well known that I > wish to rewrite in simpler language much more of > the 1997 text than is the wish of the majority of my > colleagues, so - provided certain targets are met - > I am collaborating acquiescently in a lesser rewrite. > But I would add that if there is any truth in the assertion > made that "Grattan obviously loves the artistry of > language" (sic) then it should extend to the production > of simple words where they are appropriate and > capable of fully expressing the intention of the law. I > think it a little unfair for suspicion to be hurled at me > on the basis of assumptions alone by those who have > not read my drafts before their reshaping and > rewriting by others. > Both Kojak and I have had some difficulty in > expressing the current relationship of Law 16 and > other laws to the forming of agreements and to the > use of authorized information. This is because the > 1997 Code is designed to authorize free regulation > of certain specific matters (for example, in Laws 78D, > 80E, 40D, 40E ) and to provide a conditional power > of regulation beyond such specified areas in Law 80F. > The preamble of Law 16 identifies certain bases > upon which agreements may be authorized. It does > not deny that others may be allowed by regulation so, > if agreements based upon the occurrence of an infraction > are to be allowed, there needs to be a regulation made > under Law 80F. The error of some here has been to > confuse the use of AI in selecting one's action within > partnership agreements with a belief that this extends to > the formation of partnership agreements. This arises > from a misunderstanding of the modus operandi of the > 1997 laws which has required further explanation. There > are those who seek to debate that explanation, which > the WBFLC sought to give, in pursuit of other views as > to how the law is to be read (which is not for them to > say). Both Kojak, I believe, and I accept that there is > a lesson here to be learned in writing future laws. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 12 14:17:27 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Feb 12 14:21:39 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com> <6kasu1ta70u8f3c3dg6m5dii8u54a0vc81@4ax.com> Message-ID: <004e01c62fd6$d95bb290$9bef403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > Anyway, I think we both understand the job that > I'm suggesting needs to be done. > +=+ I think you underestimate the total resources of the drafting subcommittee. The final overview of language is, however, something that its Chairman has taken to himself. He is an honours graduate in English of one of the most distinguished English Universities. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Feb 12 15:01:57 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sun Feb 12 15:06:28 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com><6kasu1ta70u8f3c3dg6m5dii8u54a0vc81@4ax.com> <004e01c62fd6$d95bb290$9bef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901c62fdc$e3039050$4101a8c0@david> >> >> Anyway, I think we both understand the job that >> I'm suggesting needs to be done. >> > +=+ I think you underestimate the total resources > of the drafting subcommittee. The final overview > of language is, however, something that its Chairman > has taken to himself. He is an honours graduate in > English of one of the most distinguished English > Universities. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Exactly the WRONG choice in my view. (a) The review should be undertaken by someone with little knowledge of Bridge Law so that he reads what is actually written rather than what he knows it means. (b) The language should be "The cat sat on the mat", which is not the style that I would associate with "an honours graduate in English of one of the most distinguished English Universities." This is not to be taken as a comment on the individual concerned, but as my view on the suitability of the qualifications listed above. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Feb 12 15:28:04 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun Feb 12 15:34:14 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <004e01c62fd6$d95bb290$9bef403e@Mildred> References: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com> <6kasu1ta70u8f3c3dg6m5dii8u54a0vc81@4ax.com> <004e01c62fd6$d95bb290$9bef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:17:27 -0000, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meadows" >To: >Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:25 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > >> >> Anyway, I think we both understand the job that >> I'm suggesting needs to be done. >> >+=+ I think you underestimate the total resources >of the drafting subcommittee. The final overview >of language is, however, something that its Chairman >has taken to himself. He is an honours graduate in >English of one of the most distinguished English >Universities. To be blunt, it wouldn't change my opinion if the chairman was the chair of the department, rather than an honours(*) graduate. I think he's *far* too close to the process to do the job of the final overview. In my opinion, you need someone who *hasn't* been involved in the production of the draft. That way, the reviewer starts from scratch - in other words, on an equal footing with the poor old club TD (drafted into the job because he was one of the few club members willing to do it) who has to try to apply the Laws that the WBF produces. Brian. (*) I've been through the British university system myself, as both undergrad and postgrad. There are very few "non-honours" graduates, students who haven't got it in them to get at least third-class honours generally don't even make the final exams. I forget what the borderline between third and pass (non-honours) was, it's been almost 30 years since my undergrad days, but it was somewhere *well* below 50%. To the best of my recollection, from around 80 students in my year group, not one came out with less than a third. Now if your chairman got a first, then that's a far more select company, but still doesn't change my opinion that he's too close to the drafting process to do the final overview. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Feb 12 16:25:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Feb 12 16:30:03 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill wrote: > > So Tim, your beautifully constructed list of things you want me to > answer are basically under the purview of your SO to regulate. Really? So if the laws themselves do not define what information is authorised (it being a matter for SOs) how on earth can you justify invoking L16 to say that certain information is unauthorised as you did near the beginning of this thread. > I suggest you go there for your answers. Bill, I play the majority of my duplicate bridge under WBF regulations. There is nothing in those which addresses the issues (at least insofar as I am aware). Feel free to consider the question in purely WBF terms, or as a general question of "in the absence of specific SO regulation". FWIW the EBU has no regulations covering most of the issues I listed (probably in the belief that they are covered in the laws) and EBU TD's are thus expected to rule based on the lawbook alone in such situations. Sadly I am left knowing that you are simply ducking the issue. That's a shame, but not unexpected. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 12 16:45:36 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Feb 12 16:54:16 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com><6kasu1ta70u8f3c3dg6m5dii8u54a0vc81@4ax.com><004e01c62fd6$d95bb290$9bef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001601c62fec$2c129340$60d9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > I think he's *far* too close to the process to do the > job of the final overview. In my opinion, you need > someone who *hasn't* been involved in the production > of the draft. That way, the reviewer starts from scratch > - in other words, on an equal footing with the poor old > club TD (drafted into the job because he was one of > the few club members willing to do it) who has to try to > apply the Laws that the WBF produces. > +=+ You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It lies within the WBF to decide and there has been no such suggestion there. Indeed there may be some political issues with regard to some of the wording, Should any serious flaw be noted when the proposals are settled and unveiled to the NBOs there will be time to change it. In the meantime, on what basis can you judge the skills of John Wignall? Do you know him? I have worked closely with him on language and in my experience he is testing on simplicity and directness. ~ G ~ +=+ From mustikka at charter.net Sun Feb 12 16:51:04 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun Feb 12 16:55:36 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com><6kasu1ta70u8f3c3dg6m5dii8u54a0vc81@4ax.com> <004e01c62fd6$d95bb290$9bef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001301c62fec$21b9cd50$c010b618@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "The mair they talk I'm kent the better, E'en let them clash." > [Robert Burns] > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Meadows" > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > >> >> Anyway, I think we both understand the job that I'm suggesting needs to >> be done. > +=+ I think you underestimate the total resources of the drafting > subcommittee. The final overview of language is, however, something that > its Chairman has taken to himself. He is an honours graduate in English of > one of the most distinguished English Universities. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > IMVHO, this need not be the best choice as it would inevitably lead for even more unnecessary artistry in the language than already exists. TD's in their everyday work and bridge players of VARYING academic and non-academic backgrounds are the audience for the laws, not English professors or honors graduates. Also note that some may not be native English speakers who will be much better served by simple language that cannot be misunderstood. I am grateful for the opportunity to voice an opinion from the grass roots as a player, here on blml. Raija From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sun Feb 12 17:34:03 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Sun Feb 12 17:38:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Law Review References: <000201c62fca$78f15920$9bef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001101c62ff2$22d62b10$4101a8c0@david> Grattan wrote > It is well known that I > wish to rewrite in simpler language much more of > the 1997 text than is the wish of the majority of my > colleagues, so - provided certain targets are met - > I am collaborating acquiescently in a lesser rewrite. Can anyone, without breaching any confidences, explain the reasoning behind, and implications of, "a lesser rewrite". Also is this a "done deal" or is it possible that appropriate lobbying could restore the complete and comprehensive review that I, in my ignorance of realities, imagine to be more appropriate. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Feb 12 18:32:37 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Feb 12 18:39:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Law Review References: <000201c62fca$78f15920$9bef403e@Mildred> <001101c62ff2$22d62b10$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <002201c62ffa$52d29620$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Barton" > Grattan wrote > > > It is well known that I > > wish to rewrite in simpler language much more of > > the 1997 text than is the wish of the majority of my > > colleagues, so - provided certain targets are met - > > I am collaborating acquiescently in a lesser rewrite. > > Can anyone, without breaching any confidences, explain > the reasoning behind, and implications of, "a lesser rewrite". > I'm afraid it means they will keep the stuffy writing that is often hard to understand. Translation for the lawmakers: I am apprehensive that they will retain the pretentious language and its manifold consequent ambiguities. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Feb 12 19:01:14 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun Feb 12 19:07:26 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <001601c62fec$2c129340$60d9403e@Mildred> References: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com><6kasu1ta70u8f3c3dg6m5dii8u54a0vc81@4ax.com><004e01c62fd6$d95bb290$9bef403e@Mildred> <001601c62fec$2c129340$60d9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:45:36 -0000, Grattan wrote: >In the meantime, on what basis can you >judge the skills of John Wignall? I've answered Grattan privately at rather greater length, but I trust that everyone else on BLML realised that my objection had absolutely nothing to do with John Wignall personally, and I rather resent Grattan's trying to make it appear that it had. I don't think *any* member of the drafting sub-committee should be responsible for the final review. Brian. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Feb 12 21:26:06 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Feb 12 21:30:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <200602112203.k1BM38NA021890@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602112203.k1BM38NA021890@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43EF99DE.8030105@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Brian Meadows > I will suggest once again > that when the new version of TFLB has been argued out, it should > be given to a competent technical author before release, I have had some professional experience as an editor and endorse this suggestion. _No one_ can find the ambiguities in his own writing. The original writer _knows_ what the text is supposed to mean and _therefore_ cannot recognize places where misinterpretation is possible. Being unable to do so is no reflection on one's intelligence or education. In my opinion, the ideal editor would be someone who has experience with rules of other games but who has never played bridge before. Of course this suggestion only makes sense if the language of the Laws is given the radical overhaul some of us think it needs. If changes are modest, no one without experience can hope to understand what the Laws are supposed to be saying. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Feb 12 23:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Feb 12 23:05:33 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <000201c62fca$78f15920$9bef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The preamble of Law 16 identifies certain bases > upon which agreements may be authorized. Read it again. L16 makes no mention of agreements at all. >It does not deny that others may be allowed by regulation so, > if agreements based upon the occurrence of an infraction > are to be allowed, there needs to be a regulation made > under Law 80F. This is complete fiction. the 1997 laws neither state nor intimate such a position. The error of some here has been to > confuse the use of AI in selecting one's action within > partnership agreements with a belief that this extends to > the formation of partnership agreements. What error. The laws do not create a category of information on which one may base calls but not agreements. They cover AI, EI, and UI. Grattan may be unprepared to say into which category certain information falls but there is no category for "information which may be used in choosing calls but not for the formation of partnership agreements". > This arises > from a misunderstanding of the modus operandi of the > 1997 laws which has required further explanation. There 1997 laws are "as written". If that is, in some way, not as the authors intended - too bad. TDs are required to enforce the written laws - not some nebulous "we didn't say what we meant" prevarication. If you made a mistake - 'fess up. Rewrite the laws, stop playing politics with the ZOs and do your jobs. But kindly desist from criticising the poor TDs who have to struggle through the lawbook and come up with carefully prepared legally defensible rulings which players can *see* to be justified. > There are those who seek to debate that explanation, which > the WBFLC sought to give, in pursuit of other views as > to how the law is to be read (which is not for them to > say). Which means what exactly? Law72A1 "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the laws." L81C5 "TDs duty to..administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. " Don't give us any more guff. It is TDs on the ground who have an obligation to administer and interpret the laws. Grand proclamations from soi-disant experts are worthless. Actual *rulings* have to quote the laws and law numbers, the interpretations, the reasoning and relate all that to the situation at the table. In every major issue on this thread I have done precisely that. Pulling together logic, inferences, detailed references and making a case that any player/AC could understand. And what do you do Grattan? You whinge about "oh the WBF didn't really mean that" or "the laws aren't designed to handle that". You patronise, you ignore anything inconvenient and studiously avoid giving answers based upon the laws as written. It's absolutely pathetic. > Both Kojak, I believe, and I accept that there is > a lesson here to be learned in writing future laws. And one day, perhaps, in some other dimension, you may even come to understand what that lesson actually is. On the off-chance that I have slipped into just such a dimension I'll even tell you: "The laws *as written* are the ones that TDs *have* to apply." Oh, and fulsome apologies to any prima-donna who feels that a mere TD shouldn't at least *try* to educate members of the WBFLC - although lord knows such education is sadly needed. Tim From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Feb 13 01:37:38 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Feb 13 01:42:02 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: <000701c63035$b12aa600$4101a8c0@david> > Grattan wrote: > >> The preamble of Law 16 identifies certain bases >> upon which agreements may be authorized. > > Read it again. L16 makes no mention of agreements at all. > >>It does not deny that others may be allowed by regulation so, >> if agreements based upon the occurrence of an infraction >> are to be allowed, there needs to be a regulation made >> under Law 80F. > > This is complete fiction. the 1997 laws neither state nor intimate such a > position. > > The error of some here has been to >> confuse the use of AI in selecting one's action within >> partnership agreements with a belief that this extends to >> the formation of partnership agreements. > > What error. The laws do not create a category of information on which one > may base calls but not agreements. They cover AI, EI, and UI. Grattan > may be unprepared to say into which category certain information falls but > there is no category for "information which may be used in choosing calls > but not for the formation of partnership agreements". > My understanding of the official position is:- L16 authorises choice of calls or plays to be based upon AI. L75A authorises information to be conveyed by agreements, but such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. Now whether L16 achieves this and in particular whether the definition of AI is sufficiently widely drawn I will leave others to judge. You will note that L75A makes no mention of AI, so reading this in conjunction with the infamous minute which stated that anything that was not explicitly authorised, was unathorised, gives rise to the view that the ONLY basis for agreements was calls and conditions of the deal. This would exclude for example basing agreements upon the fact that an infraction had occurred, that there were other penalties that could have been chosen, or upon withdrawn calls. This has been given, the somewhat misleading (in my view) shorthand of "you cannot have agreements based upon an infraction". Now whether this achieves what is claimed others will have to judge. I can appreciate that the official position is at least arguable, even if I am not totally convinced. YMMV ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Feb 13 01:41:03 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Feb 13 01:49:00 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: <004f01c63036$2ba15b40$429868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] Neither simplicity nor objectivity should be seen as the enemy of equity. If the laws of game are not directed towards fairness then why bother with them at all? [nige1] Put like that it might seem that there can be no argument. In application, however, the "Equity" of Bridge rules doesn't equate to "Fairness". IMO, in practice, when an infraction occurs, Bridge rules don't adequately deter offenders or compensate victims. Also, they're too sophisticated and overly dependent on subjective judgement. Hence rulings are inconsistent. In the context of a game, rules can be crude and simple -- even "unfair" in some theoretical sense. Because players understand simple rules, enjoyable games can still result. In the judgement of players, such rules are fair. They are also easy to enforce and mostly result in unanimous decisions. Of course, the downside of such reform is that we would have to say goodbye to the fascinating controversies -- where legal eagles are split about 50-50 on rulings on the same agreed facts -- that enliven so many Bridge Fora like BLML. From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 13 01:41:12 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Mon Feb 13 02:00:46 2006 Subject: [blml] L24B - Led but still face down. Message-ID: We had an incident at the club where part way through the auction there was a premature lead. The lead was made face down and thus never exposed to partner. Does Law 24 apply? I see the following possibilities; 1. The lead must be faced and L24B now applies. 2. The lead is retracted, thus no penalty card, but L24B still applies and partner must pass for the remainder of the auction. 3. The lead is retracted. L24 does not apply, but L16 does. My heart says [2], but my head says [3]. Which is correct? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Mon Feb 13 02:02:12 2006 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Mon Feb 13 02:06:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) Message-ID: <43EFDA94.6010807@nyc.rr.com> I was handed revised system notes a few minutes before a match. I suggested I would read them while dummy. One of my opponents said that was ok with him, but that it was against the rules. This was in an ACBL event. Where would I be able to establish whether this was true or not? I tried the ACBL website, but I couldn't find anything under "charts, rules and regulations" (except possibly as "paying insufficient attention to the game", although that seems likely to be inconsistently ruled). What about other venues? -- Mike Kopera If you never try anything new, you'll miss out on many of life's greatest disappointments. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 13 02:06:03 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Feb 13 02:10:34 2006 Subject: [blml] L24B - Led but still face down. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2006, at 7:41 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > My heart says [2], but my head says [3]. > > Which is correct? 3. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 13 02:17:25 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Feb 13 02:21:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) In-Reply-To: <43EFDA94.6010807@nyc.rr.com> References: <43EFDA94.6010807@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Michael Kopera wrote: > I was handed revised system notes a few minutes before a match. I > suggested I would read them while dummy. One of my opponents said > that was ok with him, but that it was against the rules. This was > in an ACBL event. > > Where would I be able to establish whether this was true or not? I > tried the ACBL website, but I couldn't find anything under "charts, > rules and regulations" (except possibly as "paying insufficient > attention to the game", although that seems likely to be > inconsistently ruled). I would have asked him to tell me which rule it violates. If he can't I would either ignore him, or ask the TD for clarification- probably the latter. In any case, but particularly if the TD rules you can't read 'em, I would ask partner not to hand me notes that soon before a match. Either get 'em to me earlier, or hand 'em to me after, and make them effective the *next* match. The only provision of Law which might apply, IMO, is the footnote to Law 40E2, which says "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." However, I think it's a stretch to apply it. I note also that "not entitled to" is not the same thing as "not permitted to have". From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 13 02:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 13 03:04:19 2006 Subject: [blml] L24B - Led but still face down. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Wright wrote: > We had an incident at the club where part way through the auction there > was a premature lead. The lead was made face down and thus never > exposed to partner. > > Does Law 24 apply? The preamble to L24 reads "When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner.." >From your description of events this does not seem to be the case. > 3. The lead is retracted. L24 does not apply, but L16 does. > > My heart says [2], but my head says [3]. Go with the head. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 13 02:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 13 03:04:21 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <000701c63035$b12aa600$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: David wrote: > You will note that L75A makes no mention of AI, so reading > this in conjunction with the infamous minute which stated that > anything that was not explicitly authorised, was unathorised, > gives rise to the view that the ONLY basis for agreements > was calls and conditions of the deal. Which should not, IMO, cause any great problem. IBs, COOTs and withdrawn calls are all "calls". If dealer's first legal call happens to be a double we know that someone opened out of turn. "Opps are talented pair of juniors playing precision and we need two averages on the last two boards" is a condition of the deal. I accept that an SO *could* outlaw an agreement (typically made when approaching the table) like "Keep the conventional 2N response fully up to strength against these two pard - they defend like demons". I'd find it much harder to accept that a specific "enabling regulation" was required of the SO before such an agreement became legal. Disclosable - obviously, illegal - that would be a hell of a shock to most of the players I know. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Mon Feb 13 04:00:51 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Feb 13 04:05:21 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: Your last sentence says it all. You fully knew when you wrote that you would not get the answer that you expected. So, be happy in your ignorance, and chalk one up for the good guys that don't allow themselves to get baited, or is it evident from your invective that only the answers you expect are acceptable? Don't bother to answer, and remain secure that you are not tasked to perform as a TD in SO's who would not tolerate your flights of fancy. It is interesting that you play the majority of your bridge under WBF regulations, which seems to indicate that you play in the extremely few duplicates which are under the SO of the WBF. Perhaps more varied experience would be in order. Adios muchacho, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > Bill wrote: > > > > So Tim, your beautifully constructed list of things you want me to > > answer are basically under the purview of your SO to regulate. > > Really? So if the laws themselves do not define what information is > authorised (it being a matter for SOs) how on earth can you justify > invoking L16 to say that certain information is unauthorised as you did > near the beginning of this thread. > > > I suggest you go there for your answers. > > Bill, I play the majority of my duplicate bridge under WBF regulations. > There is nothing in those which addresses the issues (at least insofar as > I am aware). Feel free to consider the question in purely WBF terms, or > as a general question of "in the absence of specific SO regulation". > > FWIW the EBU has no regulations covering most of the issues I listed > (probably in the belief that they are covered in the laws) and EBU TD's > are thus expected to rule based on the lawbook alone in such situations. > > Sadly I am left knowing that you are simply ducking the issue. That's a > shame, but not unexpected. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 13 04:19:43 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Feb 13 04:21:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >The only provision of Law which might apply, IMO, is the footnote to >Law 40E2, which says "A player is not entitled, during the auction >and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or >technique." However, I think it's a stretch to apply it. Richard Hills: Yes and no. A player is dummy only during a "play period", so the Law 40E2 footnote is clearly relevant. Of course, this infraction of the Law 40E2 footnote does not directly damage the opponents, because dummy is "le mort", so unable to immediately use these new bidding and/or defensive agreements. Indeed, a declarer is put at a disadvantage by their dummy reading notes, since dummy is now distracted from exercising their Law 42 rights (for example, dummy's right to prevent declarer committing an irregularity). And the opponents may later gain an indirect benefit, if dummy's hasty reading of the new system notes results in a subsequent misinterpretation of the new system and a consequential -1100 penalty. :-) Ed Reppert: >I note also that "not entitled to" is not the same thing as "not >permitted to have". Richard Hills: In my opinion, Ed Reppert has construed "not entitled to" out of context, due to Ed mentioning only the first sentence of the Law 40E2 sentence. Law 40E2 footnote (both sentences): >>A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to >>any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, >>sponsoring organisations may designate unusual methods and allow >>written defences against opponents' unusual methods to be referred >>to at the table. Richard Hills: In my opinion, "not entitled to" means "not permitted to have unless the SO allows written defences against opponents' unusual methods", because the second sentence begins with the word "However". Given the importance of the Law 40E2 footnote, in my opinion it would be useful if it was elevated to a Law in its own right in the 2008 Lawbook. Anecdotal evidence from a high-level ACBL Appeals Committee member suggests that some high-level ACBL Appeals Committees were unaware of this footnote, possibly because it is a fine-print footnote rather than an independent Law with a bold heading in block capitals. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 13 04:49:33 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Feb 13 04:54:51 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004f01c63036$2ba15b40$429868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >In application, however, the "Equity" of Bridge >rules doesn't equate to "Fairness". IMO, in >practice, when an infraction occurs, Bridge >rules don't adequately deter offenders or >compensate victims. Also, they're too >sophisticated and overly dependent on subjective >judgement. Richard Hills: The devil's advocate David Burn Death Penalty for revokes was that the revoking side should lose _all_ tricks from the revoke trick onwards. That would render the sophisticated and subjective "equity" Law 64C moot. It would also deter revokes. But it might also deter the "little old ladies" from ever playing bridge again. Nigel Guthrie: >Hence rulings are inconsistent. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882): >>A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of >>little minds. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From toddz at att.net Mon Feb 13 05:44:36 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Feb 13 05:49:08 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43F00EB4.4020504@att.net> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > The devil's advocate David Burn Death Penalty for > revokes was that the revoking side should lose > _all_ tricks from the revoke trick onwards. > > That would render the sophisticated and > subjective "equity" Law 64C moot. It would also > deter revokes. But it might also deter the > "little old ladies" from ever playing bridge > again. There are other, more likely reasons they'll stop playing bridge. Pinochle's renege law is even harsher. You lose all tricks before, during, and after the renege. A bad claim means you lose all remaining tricks. The game is alive and well at senior centers in the US. That's American justice for you! -Todd From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Feb 13 11:22:11 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Feb 13 11:26:32 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: <001e01c63087$5a4cab10$4101a8c0@david> > David wrote: > >> You will note that L75A makes no mention of AI, so reading >> this in conjunction with the infamous minute which stated that >> anything that was not explicitly authorised, was unathorised, >> gives rise to the view that the ONLY basis for agreements >> was calls and conditions of the deal. > > Which should not, IMO, cause any great problem. IBs, COOTs and withdrawn > calls are all "calls". I think you will find that a withdrawn call fails the definition of a call. Call - Any bid double redouble or pass Bid - An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks .... So for example a withdrawn 1H bid is none of a bid double redouble or pass. There is no undertaking to win 7+ tricks in hearts. > If dealer's first legal call happens to be a > double we know that someone opened out of turn. No problem. Your choice of call is governed by L16. You can use all AI. Your agreements are covered by L75A so may use the bid itself, but NOT its illegality or knowledge that there was a choice not to accept. So an agreement (explicit or implicit) that a double of an out of turn preempt was penalty while a double of the corresponding in turn bid was take out would not be allowed as the agreement is not based solely on the bid plus conditions. However an agreement such as "a double by dealer at his first turn to call, of a bid at the three level or higher, is penalties" would appear to me to be legal. > "Opps are talented pair > of juniors playing precision and we need two averages on the last two > boards" is a condition of the deal. > > I accept that an SO *could* outlaw an agreement (typically made when > approaching the table) like "Keep the conventional 2N response fully up to > strength against these two pard - they defend like demons". I'd find it > much harder to accept that a specific "enabling regulation" was required > of the SO before such an agreement became legal. Disclosable - obviously, > illegal - that would be a hell of a shock to most of the players I know. > Now you are considering something rather different. ie changing your announced agreements prior to start of play of the board/round. This I would GUESS is legal subject to disclosure and SO regulations. Disclaimer I do not claim to be an authority and am simply reproducing what I understand to be the official line. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 13 10:47:02 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Feb 13 12:47:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Something else again. Message-ID: <000801c63092$13e4ad70$08ce87d9@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) ------------------------------------------------ "Keep the conventional 2N response fully up to strength against these two pard - they defend like demons". +=+ Not that there is any expectation that the strength would be less than announced, one may assume? +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 13 12:59:30 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Feb 13 13:03:57 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <001e01c63087$5a4cab10$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000101c63094$f234d6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton ........... > I think you will find that a withdrawn call fails the definition of a > call. > Call - Any bid double redouble or pass > Bid - An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks > .... > > So for example a withdrawn 1H bid is none of a bid double redouble > or pass. There is no undertaking to win 7+ tricks in hearts. However, according to L16C1 (quote): For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. My questions, unanswered so far, are: Exactly what does this mean? Can the players on NOS legally base their calls (and plays) on information arisen from this withdrawn call as well as on other authorized information? If for instance a player makes a call that according to agreements shows a five-card suit in Diamonds (absent any irregularity) he must most probably have intended something else with his call when the withdrawn call "promised" an eight-card suit in Diamonds. Exactly what he intended is up to his partner to figure out at his own risk. The preamble to L16 cannot possibly be considered exhaustive on what constitutes authorized versus extraneous information. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 13 13:33:20 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Feb 13 13:43:10 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <001e01c63087$5a4cab10$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <002201c63099$d1d737b0$08ce87d9@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) ------------------------------------------------ +=+ Except that one may question the basis for making agreements specifying actions neither authorized by the preamble to Law 16 nor by any relevant regulation. The WBF interpretation of the laws is that absence of prohibition does not authorize. Within the EBU the regulation recently devised will apply from the confirmation of the minute, with potential adjustments following questions raised. For EBL and WBF events there is no authorization of such agreements that I have found. ~ G ~ +=+ < ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > No problem. Your choice of call is governed by L16. > You can use all AI. Your agreements are covered by > L75A so may use the bid itself, but NOT its illegality > or knowledge that there was a choice not to accept. > > So an agreement (explicit or implicit) that a double > of an out of turn preempt was penalty while a double > of the corresponding in turn bid was take out would > not be allowed as the agreement is not based solely > on the bid plus conditions. > From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Feb 13 14:16:10 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Feb 13 14:20:32 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <001e01c63087$5a4cab10$4101a8c0@david> <002201c63099$d1d737b0$08ce87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000e01c6309f$a81b1bc0$4101a8c0@david> Sorry Grattan, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here. Is this a reference to a part of my posting you have managed to snip? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** > ------------------------------------------------ > +=+ Except that one may question the basis for > making agreements specifying actions neither > authorized by the preamble to Law 16 nor by > any relevant regulation. The WBF interpretation > of the laws is that absence of prohibition does > not authorize. Within the EBU the regulation > recently devised will apply from the confirmation > of the minute, with potential adjustments following > questions raised. For EBL and WBF events there > is no authorization of such agreements that I have > found. ~ G ~ +=+ > < > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Barton" > To: > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > > >> >> No problem. Your choice of call is governed by L16. >> You can use all AI. Your agreements are covered by >> L75A so may use the bid itself, but NOT its illegality >> or knowledge that there was a choice not to accept. >> >> So an agreement (explicit or implicit) that a double >> of an out of turn preempt was penalty while a double >> of the corresponding in turn bid was take out would >> not be allowed as the agreement is not based solely >> on the bid plus conditions. >> > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 13 15:06:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 13 15:11:41 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <001e01c63087$5a4cab10$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: David wrote: > > Which should not, IMO, cause any great problem. IBs, COOTs and > > withdrawn calls are all "calls". > > I think you will find that a withdrawn call fails the definition of a > call. > Call - Any bid double redouble or pass > Bid - An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks > .... > > So for example a withdrawn 1H bid is none of a bid double redouble > or pass. There is no undertaking to win 7+ tricks in hearts. At the time the 1H bid was made it was certainly a call (and an undertaking to win 7 tricks in H). If not accepted it is, perforce "withdrawn" (and specifically AI to NOS). There is a class "Calls" with sub-classes of legal, insufficient, OOT, withdrawn, inadmissible. > > If dealer's first legal call happens to be a > > double we know that someone opened out of turn. > > So an agreement (explicit or implicit) that a double of > an out of turn preempt was penalty while a double of the > corresponding in turn bid was take out would not be allowed > as the agreement is not based solely on the bid plus conditions. > However an agreement such as "a double by dealer at his first turn to > call, of a bid at the three level or higher, is penalties" would > appear to me to be legal. And there's the rub. One can *always* describe such agreements purely by reference to the actual calls, seat and dealer. "A 3rd seat double of a pre-empt, when partner not yet called, is penalty". Thus the meaning of a given call is a *function* of the "calls and conditions" (even using the narrowest possible sense of that term and even if NOS don't describe it in that way). And, TBH, I think just describing the double as "Penalties, showing a very good H suit" is rather more helpful to opponents than a long-winded technical answer. It's not even a situation where the pre-emptor can claim damage if the agreement isn't on the CC. The argument "I would not have opened out of turn if I had known that" just doesn't hold water. > > "Opps are talented pair > > of juniors playing precision and we need two averages on the last two > > boards" is a condition of the deal. > > > > I accept that an SO *could* outlaw an agreement (typically made when > > approaching the table) like "Keep the conventional 2N response fully > > up to strength against these two pard - they defend like demons". I'd > > find it much harder to accept that a specific "enabling regulation" > > was required of the SO before such an agreement became legal. > > Disclosable - obviously, illegal - that would be a hell of a shock to > > most of the players I know. > > > > Now you are considering something rather different. ie changing your > announced agreements prior to start of play of the board/round. I doubt it would amount to "changing", the CC will say something like "2N shows a sound raise to at least 3M". The detail of disclosure is that what one considers "Sound" (in terms of HCP, suit quality and distribution) against Mrs Guggenheim may not be adequate if the Hideous Hog is going to be defending. Obviously the way one describes the bid (if asked for detail) should reflect the opposition of the moment. > This I would GUESS is legal subject to disclosure and SO regulations. I would rule it was legal. After all players all round the world have frequent implicit (and often explicit) agreements about this sort of thing. The key is that TDs will rule it legal despite the lack of an explicit SO regulation allowing it (but would, of course, rule it illegal were such a regulation to exist - just as I would happily rule the use of a conventional variation illegal if the SO had a regulation forbidding such variations over illegal bids). > Disclaimer > I do not claim to be an authority and am simply reproducing what I > understand to be the official line. Understood. Unfortunately TDs can't use "It's the official line" in their defence. They have to actually quote laws, regulations etc and they have to do so in a way that will stand up in court (whether that court is a small claims court in the UK or the International Sports Court in Lausanne is irrelevant - if we don't believe our technical rulings will stand up to rigorous legal examination we shouldn't be making them). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 13 15:07:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 13 15:11:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Something else again. In-Reply-To: <000801c63092$13e4ad70$08ce87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > "Keep the conventional 2N response fully up to > strength against these two pard - they defend > like demons". > > +=+ Not that there is any expectation that the > strength would be less than announced, one > may assume? +=+ In the real world the 2N response to 1x will be described on the CC as e.g. showing "A sound raise to at least 3x, 4+ card support", this differentiates it from 1x-3x (a distributional raise), and 1x-2x (not enough to bid 3x either way). The *precise* requirements (points, suit, shape, hand texture etc) will vary by seat, position, vulnerability, form of scoring, state of match, perceived competence of opponents and everything else players use to make judgements. Obviously, in a regular partnership, the level of detailed disclosure required gets progressively more copious with experience. Nobody is expecting this disclosure on the CC itself (CCs would run to thousands of pages) but it is *required* in answer to an opponent's question. Wherever one "draws a line" there will be hands close to it. Suppose one considers KT9x,AJTx,xx,xxx an "always 2N hand" then KT62,AJ9x,xx,xxx is a "marginal 2N hand". At times one would settle for 2S, at other times push a bit with 2N. Playing MP against good defenders I'm much more likely to choose 2S - and partner *knows* that. If I know opps and pard doesn't (or vice versa) we *will* share our knowledge of them as we/they approach the table. Having shared that knowledge we will *know* how to answer a question about the minimum holding expected for the 2N bid. "Keep the 2N fully up to strength.." is fairly typical example of what we would say to eachother. Are you suggesting that we are doing something wrong? NB, partner and I don't discuss "system" much - we do discuss suit quality, and honour placement requirements a *lot* (there are positions where I know pard may have a suit minimum of QT8732 and he knows I am promising QT9732 or better). Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 13 14:14:31 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Feb 13 15:18:31 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <000101c63094$f234d6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005001c630a7$23b5da70$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:59 AM Subject: RE: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. < My questions, unanswered so far, are: Exactly what does this mean? Can the players on NOS legally base their calls (and plays) on information arisen from this withdrawn call as well as on other authorized information? < +=+ I had believed the answer had been given. The NOS may use the information from a withdrawn action in selecting its own action from its announced methods. It may not use the fact that an infraction has occurred to move to different agreements except as authorized (positively) by regulation. The law itself does not authorize it. +=+ < If for instance a player makes a call that according to agreements shows a five-card suit in Diamonds (absent any irregularity) he must most probably have intended something else with his call when the withdrawn call "promised" an eight-card suit in Diamonds. Exactly what he intended is up to his partner to figure out at his own risk. < +=+ In the absence of any agreement. It is a moot point how quickly that becomes then an agreement. +=+ < The preamble to L16 cannot possibly be considered exhaustive on what constitutes authorized versus extraneous information. < +=+ If you mean it so this is an extravagant denial of what the WBF states is the authorized basis of players' actions. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Feb 13 15:26:26 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Feb 13 15:36:59 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: Message-ID: <009101c630a9$b770d830$55a487d9@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: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: ; "Tim West-Meads" Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > It is interesting that you play the majority of your > bridge under WBF regulations, which seems to > indicate that you play in the extremely few > duplicates which are under the SO of the WBF. > Perhaps more varied experience would be in order. > +=+ Research of the WBF records 2002 onwards fails to detect any participation in an event organized by the WBF, or any convention card lodged with the WBF, by this gentleman. Some other body may be applying WBF regulations, and we do not know how closely in keeping with WBF procedures. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 13 16:39:25 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Feb 13 16:43:55 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <005001c630a7$23b5da70$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000501c630b3$aba8e650$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ........... > If for instance a player makes a call that according to > agreements shows a five-card suit in Diamonds (absent > any irregularity) he must most probably have intended > something else with his call when the withdrawn call > "promised" an eight-card suit in Diamonds. Exactly > what he intended is up to his partner to figure out at > his own risk. > < > +=+ In the absence of any agreement. It is a moot point > how quickly that becomes then an agreement. +=+ "In the absence of any agreement" So say that my LHO opens out of turn in 2H (weak, shows 6 card suit) and pd does not accept that OBOOT. Pd now bids 1H which as an opening bid would show at least a 5-card suit. I start thinking. Even without the three small hearts in my hand I very much doubt that pd intends his bid as an ordinary opening bid, there must be something special going on. Pd did not just double (for takeout) or make any other bid so what sort of hand can he have? Finally I come out with the most probable answer to be void or Ace in Hearts and a decent opening hand with three suits, a hand that very often can be difficult to show. So happily I go along these lines and we end up in an OK contract. Afterwards pd confirms my reasoning with the words: I hoped you would reason just that way. According to what you have written above I take it you accept our actions as being legal, but do you at the same time say that we now have an "agreement" which will make such actions illegal for us to use in the future? (There is no relevant regulation in force). Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Feb 13 17:11:28 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon Feb 13 17:16:01 2006 Subject: [blml] A long rant about lawmaking Message-ID: <20060213161128.9EC0BEB301@poczta.interia.pl> Warning - contains profanity. About month ago I lost a ruling in the Polish First Division on a trivial case of a withdrawn concession. I don't mind losing a ruling if a TD's decision is legal and correct and it that case it was. What irked me, though, was the discovery of what our bridge unions (both European and, unfortunately, the Polish Bridge Union) expect an average bridge to know about the law. So here is my story. The case in question was trivial. Or so I thought. South, my teammate, was in 3NT. At some point West claimed "two down", declarer agreed and -100 was entered to both scoresheets and the players began the next deal. About 10 minutes after the match was over the opponents came back claiming that the score should have been down three for -150 instead of down two. A closer inspection of the layout revealed that although technically there existed a line of defense leading to down only two but everyone agreed that it was completely nonsensical and absurd not just at this level for defenders of this caliber but even for rank novices. But it existed nonetheless. OK, so how do you rule on this, rulebook in your hand? Let's say you go to http://www.eurobridge.org and there you click on DEPARTMENTS and then on LAWS. +== The European Bridge League has adopted the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation in 1997. The complete Laws is posted on the WBF website. ==+ Ah yes, this is this well known 1997 edition, that has also beeb translated into Polish and is also available both online and offline. This edition is described as "complete" which means we don't have to go anywhere else. So let's have a look at the relevant laws that deal with this situation. This is clearly L71A/C case: +== A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession A) if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. C) if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. ==+ There was a legal way to lose a trick for the defenders so obviously A doesn't apply. The trick that the defenders conceded couldn't have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards but the conceding side did make a call on a subsequent board before withdrawing its concession so C doesn't apply either. Therefore the correct ruling is 3NT -2, right? Wrong. If you want to know what the ruling should be you have to go to http://www.eurobridge.org and click not on the LAWS but on DIRECTING. The you click on Courses and are presented with a list of TD courses from various years. Your sixth sense tells you that "Lecture Notes" under 5th EBL Tournament Directors Course is the link to follow. The rest is a piece of cake. Another link "Law 68-71" leads you to a PDF document that you open (or download): http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/2001Course/LecureNotes/Laws%2068.pdf Once you begin reading you reach point 22 which says: +== 22 The last full sentence of L 71C (implausible concession) should be ignored. +== Hallelujah!! Then you need do the same for all the courses that came later to make sure this Law hasn't been changed since then. No, it hasn't! Thus you can happily rule 3NT -2 as the "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board" is no longer a part of the laws. Not all this was EBL's fault, of course. The Polish Bridge Union gets his fare share of blame because it announed the change in exactly the same fashion. To find out about the correction you would have to go to the PBU's website, dig to one of the zipped folders from a TD course that took place several years ago, unzip it, find out the right Word document, and there it is. But EBL is responsible in the first place for changing the laws in this manner and changing it in a behind the scenes manner, almost invisible to players. This is nuts. A fundamental rule of every game is that every player is expected to know the rules. In every game, especially every card game a player who doesn't know a rule is being told "ignorantia iuris nocet" which translates into English as "get stuffed, read the f..g rule book and then play". Appearently WBF/EBL/PBU (don't know about other national unions - what is the status of this law in your countries?) expect an average bridge player to participate in TD courses all over Europe, frequently check for updates in the DIRECTING department of the EBL's website, often unzip various files, analyze its contents and make corrections on his copy of the rule book. This is, excusez le mot, completed f..ed up. The best proof for it is that one of the top Polish TDs, with international certificates, was unaware of that change and didn't have it in his copy of the rulebook (unfortunately this wasn't the one who was making the ruling, the one who was happended to know about this 2001 change). But it still took me and another TD an hour in front of a PC before we were able to track down this document on the Internet; he simply knew that this LAw had been changed but had no recollection of exactly where and when the change had been made. Does anyone seriously think that TDs at lower levels have any idea of all this? Not to mention an average player. Announcing changes to the law in this fashion is something absolutely horrendous. Please never mention again that mantra about the importance of teaching the Laws to the players while I am around. I might start jumping. The system is broken. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fotoerotica! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1904 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Feb 13 17:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Feb 13 17:18:28 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <009101c630a9$b770d830$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > It is interesting that you play the majority of your > > bridge under WBF regulations, which seems to Which is not what I said. Majority of my *duplicate* bridge were the words I used. The majority of my *bridge* is played under the 1993 laws. > > indicate that you play in the extremely few > > duplicates which are under the SO of the WBF. > > Perhaps more varied experience would be in order. > > > +=+ Research of the WBF records 2002 onwards > fails to detect any participation in an event organized > by the WBF, or any convention card lodged with > the WBF, by this gentleman. And nor did I suggest that such would be the case, I was merely indicating that an answer *based* solely on WBF regulations would be entirely satisfactory. > Some other body may > be applying WBF regulations, and we do not know > how closely in keeping with WBF procedures. BridgeClubLive, an internet club, has adopted WBF regulations as a default for a majority of its competitions. As a SO it is, of course, entitled to introduce additional regulations [and indeed has done so with regard to one minor matter of alerting but that really isn't relevant]. However, in most regards the club relies on the regulations published by the WBF. If it has been defective in matters of procedure nobody is aware of the problem - and that would, in any event, be an internal matter. The club would *wish* to permit players to base their choice of call on, amongst other things, "Who the opponents are and the system they are playing". The WBF currently (as far as I aware) has no regulation "enabling" such choices. To be honest I don't think it has occurred to anyone outside this list that explicit permission to take opponents into account when deciding what to bid is necessary. The clue, common even amongst those who compete at the highest levels of WBF events, is the fact that when given a "bridge problem" they often ask "who are my opps?". Tim From toddz at att.net Mon Feb 13 23:12:49 2006 From: toddz at att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Feb 13 23:17:23 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43F10461.8050201@att.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > And there's the rub. One can *always* describe such agreements purely by > reference to the actual calls, seat and dealer. I think always only in the case of accepted IB/COOT. When not accepted and withdrawn, it's much more difficult to describe. For example, Dealer N, W opens 1H not accepted. N opens 1H. -Todd From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Feb 14 00:42:05 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Feb 14 00:46:39 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? Message-ID: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com> We play Muiderberg (2M = 5card M and 4+card m and weak), but in 3th hand after 2 passes we play "gambling" Muiderberg. Especially Not vulnerable 2M in 3th hand after 2 passes can be a bit different: - only 3 card m - can go to 13 pts iso max 10 pts. - only 4 card M - can be weaker. (at the club we don't do this anymore because they introduced the rule that we can only open with 5+ pts). Muiderberg opening are allowed at the club. (Only rule is that you need to have 5+ pts to open weak 2 at the club). Is the above "gambling" system allowed if properly alerted and explained? What do you choose: - Only if brown sticker conventions are allowed. - If muiderberg is allowed then the above should always be allowed in 3th hand. This is just bridge - This is not allowed and no bridge - anything else or other remarks? Thanks, Koen From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Feb 14 01:00:45 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Feb 14 01:08:46 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <009101c630a9$b770d830$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003701c630f9$b54dc2c0$1e9468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan] > +=+ Research of the WBF records 2002 onwards > fails to detect any participation in an event > organized by the WBF... [nige1] Is this really important? More interesting is whether Tim's questions have answers, in the context of WBF sponsorship. From henk at ripe.net Tue Feb 14 01:04:43 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue Feb 14 01:09:54 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com> References: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214005519.03429488@ripe.net> At 00:42 14/02/2006, koen wrote: >We play Muiderberg (2M = 5card M and 4+card m and weak), >but in 3th hand after 2 passes we play "gambling" Muiderberg. [...] > Is the above "gambling" system allowed if properly alerted and > explained? What do you choose: You have to look at this differently. Your 3rd hand, NV, 2M opening shows "4-5 M, 3-4 m, 5-13 points" (which can be reduce to "4-5M, 5-13 hcp", since 4422 is not a bridge hand). That has nothing to do with Muiderberg, so you shouldn't call it that. The real question is: are opening bids at the two level with "4-5M, 5-13hcp" allowed wherever you play. Since you didn't tell us where you are playing, we cannot answer that, though I think it probably is in most NCBO's. >- Only if brown sticker conventions are allowed. It promises length in a known suit, so it cannot be a BSC. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400. Watch this space... From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Feb 14 01:30:18 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Feb 14 01:38:17 2006 Subject: [blml] A long rant about lawmaking References: <20060213161128.9EC0BEB301@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <003f01c630fd$d5810760$1e9468d5@jeushtlj> [Konrad Ciborowski] Once you begin reading you reach point 22 which says: +== 22 The last full sentence of L 71C (implausible concession) should be ignored. [nige1] As usual, Konrad is right: fragmentation of the laws means that most players cannot keep up with them. The simple easy solution has been suggested many times: [A] TFLB should be *complete* so that no SO is forced to plug gaps. [B] Interim changes and corrections should inserted *in-place* into the law-book; and the modified law-book republished on the net. Separate commentaries, minutes and guidelines should not have force of law. [C] If a sponsoring organisation wants to modify laws or add its own regulations, it should insert them *in-place* into a local retitled edition of TFLB. e.g. "T Orange FLB" [D] Hence, in all cases, players and directors would have to consult only *one document*. A possible exception would be books of appeal decisions. Approved instructive rulings, however, should be inserted directly into the appropriate place in TFLB as paradigms of judgement. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 14 02:02:22 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Feb 14 02:07:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2006, at 10:19 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In my opinion, "not entitled to" means "not permitted to have unless > the SO allows written defences against opponents' unusual methods", > because the second sentence begins with the word "However". On the "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden" model, I see your point. But we've already seen how that leads to a can of worms. > Given the importance of the Law 40E2 footnote, in my opinion it > would be useful if it was elevated to a Law in its own right in the > 2008 Lawbook. With this, I agree. From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 14 02:09:27 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Feb 14 02:14:00 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <009101c630a9$b770d830$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <003701c630f9$b54dc2c0$1e9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Of course Tim's bona fides are of no interest in his opinions are they? I wonder about his ruminations on brain surgery. Or, have we now arrived at the exotic place where you can say anything you want about anything, and if you say it loud and often enough, it will become reality? Don't answer - my delete key is spring loaded. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > [Grattan] > > +=+ Research of the WBF records 2002 onwards > > fails to detect any participation in an event > > organized by the WBF... > [nige1] > Is this really important? More interesting is > whether Tim's questions have answers, in the > context of WBF sponsorship. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 14 02:30:39 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 14 02:31:52 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43F1194D.3090303@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Koen asked: >We play Muiderberg (2M = 5card M and 4+card m and weak), >but in 3th hand after 2 passes we play "gambling" Muiderberg. >Especially Not vulnerable 2M in 3th hand after 2 passes can be a bit >different: >- only 3 card m >- can go to 13 pts iso max 10 pts. >- only 4 card M >- can be weaker. (at the club we don't do this anymore because they >introduced the rule that we can only open with 5+ pts). >Muiderberg opening are allowed at the club. (Only rule is that you need >to have 5+ pts to open weak 2 at the club). Is the above "gambling" >system allowed if properly alerted and explained? What do you choose: >- Only if brown sticker conventions are allowed. >- If muiderberg is allowed then the above should always be allowed in >3th hand. This is just bridge >- This is not allowed and no bridge >- anything else or other remarks? Richard replies: It seems that Koen's "3rd hand gambling" agreement could be summarised as -> In third seat, an opening bid of 2 of a major promises: (a) 4+ cards in that major, and (b) 3+ cards in an unspecified minor, and (c) 5-13 hcp In the Chapter 1 definition of "Convention", the phrase "conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named" must mean that, because of criterion (b), Koen's agreement is not "just bridge", but rather must be defined as a convention. Law 40D states that, "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions." It therefore depends upon the specifics of Koen's local SO regulations whether, and under what conditions, his convention is permissible. Of course, a fundamental condition for permissibility of the Koen convention would be the Law 75A requirement that "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents". It would definitely be illegal for Koen to merely write "Muiderberg" on his convention card but then omit to reveal that the Koen convention variant of Muiderberg was played in third seat. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 14 03:23:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Feb 14 03:28:19 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > Of course Tim's bona fides are of no interest in his opinions are they? If you wish to question my bridge credentials you are welcome. I've been playing for about 33 years. I've taken two sets of EBU directing exams getting distinctions both times. I've "hosted" (the equivalent of TDing) well over 1,000 sessions of Chicago style bridge for serious(ish) stakes. Duplicate I play mostly in a mixture of congresses (under EBU regs) and on-line (under WBF regs) with occasional games at the YC. I have been given to understand that the EBL has adopted WBF regulations for its competitions, I know BridgeClubLive has, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that other SOs have too. I have never played in a WBF organised competition and I have never claimed to have done so. Outside of bridge I've spent nearly twenty years working in HR consultancy and specialising in computerised job evaluation (a field that requires detailed linguistic analysis in the context of a fair amount European and UK legislation) not a bad grounding for analysing what words actually say (as opposed to how people wish them to be interpreted). If the WBF has a regulation authorising one to base a call/play on the cards one holds I have found no evidence of it. I can find no such authorisation in the L16 pre-amble. I consider it implicit in L7b1 that one's cards are AI but even if Kojak and Grattan consider nothing else I hope they understand the game sufficiently to see that L16 cannot *possibly* be considered "exhaustive". Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Feb 14 04:11:09 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Feb 14 04:15:32 2006 Subject: [blml] A long rant about lawmaking In-Reply-To: <200602131649.k1DGnRoC026787@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602131649.k1DGnRoC026787@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43F14A4D.6040705@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Konrad Ciborowski > South, my teammate, was in 3NT. At some point West > claimed "two down", declarer agreed and -100 > was entered to both scoresheets and the players > began the next deal. I take it from what follows that West conceded some tricks as well as claiming a total of six? > About 10 minutes after the match was over the opponents came back > claiming that the score should have been down three for -150 ... > The trick that the defenders conceded couldn't have been lost > by any normal play of the remaining cards [L71 excerpt:] > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the > correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the > Director shall cancel a concession ... > C) if a player has conceded > a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining > cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent > board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel > the concession of a trick that could not have been lost > by any normal play of the remaining cards. The problem is apparent: the general time limitation before A is broader than the specific limitation in C. If you read each sentence separately, the second will always be redundant. You are correct that the official interpretation to this effect is virtually impossible to discover. So you ended up with the correct ruling of -3? You were unlucky to have a TD who had been to one of the training courses. Of course by the same token your opponents were lucky. > Announcing changes to the law in this fashion is something > absolutely horrendous. Indeed. You are not the first person to mention that. Unfortunately, neither you nor I will have any influence. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 14 04:37:14 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 14 04:37:45 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214005519.03429488@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal: >Your 3rd hand, NV, 2M opening shows "4-5 M, 3-4 m, 5-13 >points" (which can be reduced to "4-5M, 5-13 hcp", since >4422 is not a bridge hand). Richard Hills: Is not 4522 a bridge hand? If Koen's gambling agreement permits a 3rd hand 2H opening with a 4531 and/or a 4540 shape, but prohibits a 2H opening with a 4522 shape, then Koen's 3rd hand gambling agreement is ipso facto a convention. On the other hand, if Koen and his partner have an agreement that 2H is never opened when also holding four spades, then that agreement too "conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named", so Koen's 3rd hand gambling agreement remains ipso facto a convention. However, there is one distributional constraint permitted for a partnership agreement which will not cause that particular partnership agreement to defined as a convention. WBF LC minutes, 24th August 1998: >>Consideration was given to the definition of >>"convention". The Committee held the definition in the >>laws to be adequate. In writing the definition the >>intention was not to deem it conventional if a natural >>opening bid carried an inference as a matter of general >>bridge knowledge that the hand held no longer suit than >>the one named. No doubt the WBF LC "intention" will be specifically written into the 2008 Lawbook's definition of convention. Beware of the leopard! :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Feb 14 09:54:17 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Feb 14 09:58:52 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214005519.03429488@ripe.net> References: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060214005519.03429488@ripe.net> Message-ID: <43F19AB9.6000007@hotmail.com> Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > At 00:42 14/02/2006, koen wrote: > >> We play Muiderberg (2M = 5card M and 4+card m and weak), >> but in 3th hand after 2 passes we play "gambling" Muiderberg. [...] >> Is the above "gambling" system allowed if properly alerted and >> explained? What do you choose: > > > You have to look at this differently. Your 3rd hand, NV, 2M opening > shows "4-5 M, 3-4 m, 5-13 points" (which can be reduce to "4-5M, 5-13 > hcp", since 4422 is not a bridge hand). That has nothing to do with > Muiderberg, so you shouldn't call it that. The real question is: are > opening bids at the two level with "4-5M, 5-13hcp" allowed wherever > you play. Since you didn't tell us where you are playing, we cannot > answer that, though I think it probably is in most NCBO's. > (Thanks for the answer!) I play in Belgium. Local club tournemants and competition in Liga 1 (which is between national and district). I understand from this that you are rather saying: It is normal bridge to vary 3th hand weak openings more and you can do this as long as the opening does not include a variation that is not an allowed opening by the NCBO. (F.i: my local club does not allow weak 2 opening with less then 5 points, so my 3th hand weak to can go from 5 to 16 pts if I want it). >> - Only if brown sticker conventions are allowed. > > > It promises length in a known suit, so it cannot be a BSC. > > Henk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 1160438400. Watch this space... > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 14 10:57:41 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 14 11:16:12 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004601c6314e$71e76cc0$859987d9@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: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > It seems that Koen's "3rd hand gambling" agreement > could be summarised as - > > In third seat, an opening bid of 2 of a major promises: > > (a) 4+ cards in that major, and > (b) 3+ cards in an unspecified minor, and > (c) 5-13 hcp > > Law 40D states that, "The sponsoring organisation > may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions." > It therefore depends upon the specifics of Koen's > local SO regulations whether, and under what > conditions, his convention is permissible. > +=+ Under the WBF and EBL Systems Policies an agreement to make such an opening bid is Brown Sticker - see subsection (g). Its use is allowed, subject to conditions, in Category 1 & 2 events, but not in Category 3 events (the overwhelming majority). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 14 11:05:19 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 14 11:16:14 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? References: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060214005519.03429488@ripe.net> <43F19AB9.6000007@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <004701c6314e$72e8d730$859987d9@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: "koen" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > >> - Only if brown sticker conventions are > >> allowed. > > > > > > It promises length in a known suit, so it > > cannot be a BSC. > > +=+ As described it is a two-suited hand one of the suits being potentially only 3 cards. It is Brown Sticker. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Feb 14 12:00:23 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Feb 14 12:02:16 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <004701c6314e$72e8d730$859987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060214005519.03429488@ripe.net> <43F19AB9.6000007@hotmail.com> <004701c6314e$72e8d730$859987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43F1B847.2060706@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > 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: "koen" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? > > > >>Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> >> >>>>- Only if brown sticker conventions are >>>> allowed. >>> >>> >>>It promises length in a known suit, so it >>>cannot be a BSC. >>> > > +=+ As described it is a two-suited hand one > of the suits being potentially only 3 cards. It > is Brown Sticker. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I have never really understood this regulation. If he descrives it as a two-suiter it is forbidden. But if he describes it as 5-11, 4c, any distribution (which it is), then it is allowed? > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 267.15.7/259 - Release Date: 13/02/2006 From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Feb 14 12:16:42 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue Feb 14 12:21:15 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C925@hotel.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] Sent: 14 February 2006 11:00 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? Grattan Endicott wrote: > 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: "koen" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? > > > >>Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> >> >>>>- Only if brown sticker conventions are >>>> allowed. >>> >>> >>>It promises length in a known suit, so it >>>cannot be a BSC. >>> > > +=+ As described it is a two-suited hand one > of the suits being potentially only 3 cards. It > is Brown Sticker. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I have never really understood this regulation. If he descrives it as a two-suiter it is forbidden. But if he describes it as 5-11, 4c, any distribution (which it is), then it is allowed? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- Herman This regulation only really kicks in when either suit in a two-suiter may be three cards. e.g. 2H = H 3+ S 3+. In the original question, the major was still 4+ so (as long as you don't call it a two-suiter) it is not BS. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 14 13:11:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Feb 14 13:15:45 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <43F1B847.2060706@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > +=+ As described it is a two-suited hand one > > of the suits being potentially only 3 cards. It > > is Brown Sticker. > > I have never really understood this regulation. If he descrives it as > a two-suiter it is forbidden. But if he describes it as 5-11, 4c, any > distribution (which it is), then it is allowed? There does seem to be some inconsistency between items b) and c) [There is no g) so I'm pretty sure Grattan meant c)] 2.4bii) Exception 1. The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker Convention.) 2.4 c) Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two or three level that may by agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits. *My* interpretation is that the "one of" in 2.4c means "either one of", and thus a guaranteed 4+ "anchor" suit takes the convention out of brown sticker territory. I stress that this is a purely personal interpretation (the only one I can think of which allows both 2.4b and c to be true) and that there may be other interpretations (although none are immediately apparent on the WBF website). I suspect that Koen plays his 3rd seat bid as "Either 5H+ with a 3+ minor or 4+H with a 4+minor" and does not actually open 3433 hands - albeit I think it would be legal for him so to do (pls regard that as request for clarification Koen). Disclosure, of course, is paramount - but that is primarily a matter of not misleading opponents. I believe that if a convention *can* be described in manner which clearly makes it a legal convention then it is legal even if the users have, unfortunately, chosen to describe it in a way that makes it "sound" illegal - albeit I will be predisposed to adjust for MI damage in such cases. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 14 13:48:12 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 14 13:59:03 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C925@hotel.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <003001c63165$3205d9e0$2f9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "blml" Cc: "'Herman De Wael'" Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:16 AM Subject: RE: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? > > This regulation only really kicks in when either suit > in a two-suiter may be three cards. e.g. 2H = H 3+ S 3+. > In the original question, the major was still 4+ so (as >long as you don't call it a two-suiter) it is not BS. > > Robin > +=+ Handle with care. An agreement say "H5+ with clubs 3+" at the level of two or three is BS, whether an opening bid or in competition - "may by agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits". I am still digesting the situation of a 2H bid that may be only 4 cards Hearts and may be balanced; what I ask myself are the inferences? We might deduce something from the disclosure of the development of the auction, which would have to be quite detailed at EBL/WBF level. If it inferred something about a second suit this would be a matter for enquiry. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 14 14:00:29 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 14 14:10:02 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? References: Message-ID: <004601c63166$ba6abb60$2f9d87d9@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, February 14, 2006 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? > > There does seem to be some inconsistency between > items b) and c) [There is no g) so I'm pretty sure > Grattan meant c)] > +=+ It is 40.4 (g) in the EBL Policy I have to hand, and as you say 41.4(c) in the WBF General Conditions of Contest. The EBL numbering is peculiar. +=+ From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 14:12:04 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Feb 14 14:16:33 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <003001c63165$3205d9e0$2f9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C925@hotel.npl.ad.local> <003001c63165$3205d9e0$2f9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0602140512m3ef9b875id87a5c7280055c88@mail.gmail.com> Here's my recommendation: Step 1: Determine whether your local regulations permit you to change your bidding system based on what seat you a sitting in. Consult your local rules. More importantly, look at what other pairs are playing. If you find anyone playing a convention like Drury in 3rd/4th seat but not in 1st/2nd seat you're good to go. Step 2: I think that you are making a big mistake describing your convention as a highly undisiplined version of Muiderberg. Once your at the point where the opening bid promises 4+ cards in a major and 3+ cards in either minor, it seems wrong to focus on minor suit length as a defining characteristic. I suspect that it would be more helpful to focused your disclosure on implications regarding the maximum length in the major opened as well as the maximum length in the other major. I strongly recommend referencing some of the debates on this mailing list as well as rec.games.bridge regarding whether whether a "disciplined" weak 2 opening style where (for example) a 2H opening which promises 6+ Hearts and denies a 4 card spade suit and denies a side suit void and denies an 8+ card heart suit has been ruled to be non-conventional... (For what its worth, I disagree with this ruling). With this said and done, I suspect that if this opening is ruled to be non-conventional, your own opening is not conventional and does not require specific sanction. -- The Olympic Opening Ceremonies have to be the only event on the planet where you find yourself thinking, "You know who'd fit in perfectly right here? Bj?rk." - King Kaufman From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 14 14:32:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Feb 14 14:37:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Yes and no. A player is dummy only during a "play period", so the Law > 40E2 footnote is clearly relevant. OK, I'm slightly bewildered - how can reading system notes aid *dummy* in his "memory, calculation or technique". All he *has* to do is play the cards declarer nominates and I can't imagine a set of system notes even touching on that issue. Personally I regard dummy reading (whether it be a newspaper or system notes) at the table as an issue of courtesy. Opps might, quite reasonably, claim such activity to be distracting (and thus discourteous) but if, as in this case, the opps have no problem with it on those grounds then as a TD I wouldn't either. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 14 14:32:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Feb 14 14:37:33 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <004601c63166$ba6abb60$2f9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > There does seem to be some inconsistency between > > items b) and c) [There is no g) so I'm pretty sure > > Grattan meant c)] > > > +=+ It is 40.4 (g) in the EBL Policy I have to hand, > and as you say 41.4(c) in the WBF General Conditions > of Contest. The EBL numbering is peculiar. +=+ Fair enough. Indeed I have just noticed that I said 2.4b when I meant 2.4a when referencing the WBF website. (http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp) I'm assuming the actual words are the same across the various sources even if the numbering is specific to a particular document. Tim From henk at ripe.net Tue Feb 14 15:41:10 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue Feb 14 15:46:22 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <43F19AB9.6000007@hotmail.com> References: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060214005519.03429488@ripe.net> <43F19AB9.6000007@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060214153607.033c1d40@ripe.net> At 09:54 14/02/2006, koen wrote: >I understand from this that you are rather saying: It is normal >bridge to vary 3th hand weak openings more and you can do this as >long as the opening does not include a variation that is not an >allowed opening by the NCBO. Not really. I'm saying: = in 1st/2nd seat we play Muiderberg = in 3rd seat we play 5-10, 4/5 M. Then you check if either agreement is legal. I wouldn't call your 3rd seat opener Muiderberg as it has nothing to do with that convention. (Compare it to: Non-vul we play 12-14 NT's, Vul we play 15-17.) Henk > (F.i: my local club does not allow weak 2 opening with less then 5 > points, so my 3th hand weak to can go from 5 to 16 pts if I want it). > >>>- Only if brown sticker conventions are allowed. >> >> >>It promises length in a known suit, so it cannot be a BSC. >> >>Henk >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >>RIPE Network Coordination Centre >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk >>P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >>1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >>The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >>1160438400. Watch this space... >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 hermandw at hdw.be Tue Feb 14 15:44:34 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Feb 14 15:46:28 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <003001c63165$3205d9e0$2f9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C925@hotel.npl.ad.local> <003001c63165$3205d9e0$2f9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43F1ECD2.3050108@hdw.be> I think I see the point now. If one describes the bid as 5H & 4(3)C then it is BS. If one describes it as 5H then it is not. If one describes it as 5H and 3m then one is just being silly. Grattan Endicott wrote: > 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: "Robin Barker" > To: "blml" > Cc: "'Herman De Wael'" > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:16 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? > > > > >>This regulation only really kicks in when either suit >>in a two-suiter may be three cards. e.g. 2H = H 3+ S 3+. >>In the original question, the major was still 4+ so (as >>long as you don't call it a two-suiter) it is not BS. >> >>Robin >> > > +=+ Handle with care. > An agreement say "H5+ with clubs 3+" at the level > of two or three is BS, whether an opening bid or > in competition - "may by agreement be made with > three cards or fewer in one of the suits". > I am still digesting the situation of a 2H bid that > may be only 4 cards Hearts and may be balanced; > what I ask myself are the inferences? We might > deduce something from the disclosure of the > development of the auction, which would have to > be quite detailed at EBL/WBF level. If it inferred > something about a second suit this would be a > matter for enquiry. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > -- 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: 267.15.7/259 - Release Date: 13/02/2006 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 14 15:38:11 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 14 15:47:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009b01c63174$64282e00$2f9d87d9@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: To: Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Reading notes while dummy > Law 40E2 footnote (both sentences): > > >>A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to > >>any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, > >>sponsoring organisations may designate unusual methods and allow > >>written defences against opponents' unusual methods to be referred > >>to at the table. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, "not entitled to" means "not permitted to have unless > the SO allows written defences against opponents' unusual methods", > because the second sentence begins with the word "However". > > Given the importance of the Law 40E2 footnote, in my opinion it > would be useful if it was elevated to a Law in its own right in the > 2008 Lawbook. Anecdotal evidence from a high-level ACBL Appeals > Committee member suggests that some high-level ACBL Appeals Committees > were unaware of this footnote, possibly because it is a fine-print > footnote rather than an independent Law with a bold heading in block > capitals. > +=+ WBF General Conditions of Contest: " 13. ...etc.... After withdrawing his cards from the board and until they are restored at the conclusion of the play, a player may not consult his own Card or Supplementary Sheets." I am not conscious of anything similar in EBL regulations. ~ G ~ +=+ From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Feb 14 20:41:13 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue Feb 14 20:45:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case Message-ID: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david> The following case cropped up at the club last night. I was called to the table where the auction had gone N E S 1H 2D X X had been alerted as 7+ points with 4 spades. East explained that she had not made her intended bid and could it be changed. I determined it was a "mechanical error" and that L25A was applicable. Accordingly I cancelled the E and S bids and informed them that South's X was AI to N-S and UI to E-W. The auction then went N E S W 1H 3D P P We now reached a situation that is classically quoted as how a non-offending side may use AI arising from a withdrawn call. And indeed the auction proceeded 3S all pass. Now let us think what we are saying here. The whole world knows that you may use the AI to bid 3S. Hence the whole world knows that when N bids 3S it WILL BE on the basis of supporting South's suit. The N-S agreement for the meaning of 3S will not then be based (only) on the bids and conditions of the deal. (In apparent contravention of L75A) Have N-S committed an offense and if so what should I have done about it? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.7/259 - Release Date: 13/02/2006 From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Tue Feb 14 22:47:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue Feb 14 22:51:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case In-Reply-To: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david> References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> Hello David, David Barton wrote: > The following case cropped up at the club last night. > > I was called to the table where the auction had gone > N E S > 1H 2D X > > X had been alerted as 7+ points with 4 spades. > East explained that she had not made her intended bid > and could it be changed. I determined it was a > "mechanical error" and that L25A was applicable. > > Accordingly I cancelled the E and S bids and informed > them that South's X was AI to N-S and UI to E-W. > > The auction then went > N E S W > 1H 3D P P > > We now reached a situation that is classically quoted > as how a non-offending side may use AI arising from > a withdrawn call. And indeed the auction proceeded > 3S all pass. > > Now let us think what we are saying here. > The whole world knows that you may use the AI to bid 3S. > Hence the whole world knows that when N bids 3S > it WILL BE on the basis of supporting South's suit. > The N-S agreement for the meaning of 3S will not then > be based (only) on the bids and conditions of the deal. > (In apparent contravention of L75A) > > Have N-S committed an offense and if so what should > I have done about it? No, N-S had not committed an offense. Prove: L 16 C1 "For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorised, whether the action be its own or its opponents." As Grattan and Kojak stated multiple times, only those informations which are called authorised by the laws can be used as a base for one's own actions. Informations which are not explicitly mentioned in the laws are may not be used as the base for one's own actions. The default definition of those 'legal' informations is given in the heading of L 16. But L 16 C1 defines a further type of authorised and thus 'legal' informations. Those of withdrawn actions when I am the non- offending side. It says "... all information ...", so North is entitled to use the hole information (7+ Pts, 4 spades) for all his further actions. BTW: I don't think, you can compare this case with those in the recent past, where the main item was, whether you are allowed to have special agreements upon opponents irregularities. Here you just have additional (non repeated) information from partner, which is - by the law - authorised to your side but not for the offending side. In the case of (say) insufficient and withdrawn bids the non- offending side is entitled to use the information, that the offender wanted to bid the suit of the insufficient bid or (maybe) that the offender has something (when he replaces the IB with pass) etc. BUT you are not allowed - even as the non-offending side - to use the fact "bid after IB" as the base of your agreements. Regards Peter Eidt From mustikka at charter.net Tue Feb 14 23:17:52 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue Feb 14 23:22:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david> <1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case Hello David, David Barton wrote: > The following case cropped up at the club last night. > > I was called to the table where the auction had gone > N E S > 1H 2D X > > X had been alerted as 7+ points with 4 spades. > East explained that she had not made her intended bid > and could it be changed. I determined it was a > "mechanical error" and that L25A was applicable. > > Accordingly I cancelled the E and S bids and informed > them that South's X was AI to N-S and UI to E-W. > > The auction then went > N E S W > 1H 3D P P > > We now reached a situation that is classically quoted > as how a non-offending side may use AI arising from > a withdrawn call. And indeed the auction proceeded > 3S all pass. > > Now let us think what we are saying here. > The whole world knows that you may use the AI to bid 3S. > Hence the whole world knows that when N bids 3S > it WILL BE on the basis of supporting South's suit. > The N-S agreement for the meaning of 3S will not then > be based (only) on the bids and conditions of the deal. > (In apparent contravention of L75A) > > Have N-S committed an offense and if so what should > I have done about it? No, N-S had not committed an offense. Prove: L 16 C1 "For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorised, whether the action be its own or its opponents." (snipped the rest) As a non-native English speaker, I need help understanding this law in isolation. For someone like me who is not a law expert, this sentence raises questions. Why is the word "all" there? Does it imply that for the offending side "some" information arising from the auction is authorised but not "all" while for the non-offending side "all" is authorised? Or does it imply that other law(s) covering other cases where an action is withdrawn specify that, for the non-offending side, "not all" information is authorised but "some" is? Raija D From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 15 00:14:27 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Feb 15 00:19:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009b01c63174$64282e00$2f9d87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Upon rereading the main text of Law 40E2, it seems to me that it is susceptible to misinterpretation by a sea-lawyer: "During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own (12)." A sea-lawyer could argue that the "except dummy" phrase inverts both conditions mentioned, that is dummy may not refer to their opponents' convention card, but dummy may refer to their own convention card. In my opinion, there would be greater clarity if Law 40E2 was rewritten as two sentences, for example: "During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to their opponents' convention card at the player's own turn to call or play. During the auction and play, no player including dummy may ever refer to their own convention card (12)." It would also be useful if Law 43 (Dummy's Limitations) contained a cross-reference to Law 40E2. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 15 01:20:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Feb 15 01:25:22 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Extract from WBF Brown Sticker regulation: >>2.4bii) Exception 1. The bid always shows at least four cards in a known >>suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it >>must show a hand a king or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where >>all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the >>strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it >>is not a Brown Sticker Convention.) >> >>2.4 c) Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two or three level that may by >>agreement be made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits. Tim West-Meads: >*My* interpretation is that the "one of" in 2.4c means "either one of", >and thus a guaranteed 4+ "anchor" suit takes the convention out of brown >sticker territory. I stress that this is a purely personal >interpretation (the only one I can think of which allows both 2.4b and c >to be true) and that there may be other interpretations (although none >are immediately apparent on the WBF website). [snip] Richard Hills: While the WBF Brown Sticker regulation is ambiguous, the ABF systems committee cleverly inserted a clarifying statement at the beginning of the Aussie Brown Sticker regulation -> "**Any one** of the following characteristics qualifies a convention/ treatment as BS if it is a matter of partnership agreement:" {RJH emphasis} Ergo, in Australia, once a two-suiter could (by partnership agreement) have one of the suits as only 3 cards, it is automatically Brown Sticker whether or not a guaranteed 4+ "anchor" suit exists. Therefore, if Koen were an Aussie, his 3rd hand gambling convention would be Brown Sticker. On the other hand, if Koen were an Aussie, he would be allowed to play his favourite Brown Sticker conventions in many local club events and congresses. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Feb 15 01:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Feb 15 01:45:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case In-Reply-To: <1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: > Hello David, > > David Barton wrote: > > The following case cropped up at the club last night. > > > > I was called to the table where the auction had gone > > N E S > > 1H 2D X > > > > X had been alerted as 7+ points with 4 spades. > > East explained that she had not made her intended bid > > and could it be changed. I determined it was a > > "mechanical error" and that L25A was applicable. > > > > Accordingly I cancelled the E and S bids and informed > > them that South's X was AI to N-S and UI to E-W. > > > > The auction then went > > N E S W > > 1H 3D P P > > > > We now reached a situation that is classically quoted > > as how a non-offending side may use AI arising from > > a withdrawn call. And indeed the auction proceeded > > 3S all pass. > > > > Now let us think what we are saying here. > > The whole world knows that you may use the AI to bid 3S. > > Hence the whole world knows that when N bids 3S > > it WILL BE on the basis of supporting South's suit. > > The N-S agreement for the meaning of 3S will not then > > be based (only) on the bids and conditions of the deal. > > (In apparent contravention of L75A) > > > > Have N-S committed an offense and if so what should > > I have done about it? > > No, N-S had not committed an offense. > > Prove: L 16 C1 > "For the non-offending side, all information arising from > a withdrawn action is authorised, whether the action be its > own or its opponents." > > As Grattan and Kojak stated multiple times, only those > informations which are called authorised by the laws can be > used as a base for one's own actions. Actually they have stated "only information authorised by L16". If they said we were allowed to base our choices on information authorised by "the laws" as a whole life would be easier. > Informations which are > not explicitly mentioned in the laws are may not be used as > the base for one's own actions. The laws do not explicitly authorise basing a call on the cards you hold - it's tough game bridge. > The default definition of those 'legal' informations is given in > the heading of L 16. And as many have pointed out there is l > But L 16 C1 defines a further type of authorised and thus 'legal' > informations. Those of withdrawn actions when I am the non- > offending side. It says "... all information ...", so North is > entitled to use the hole information (7+ Pts, 4 spades) for all > his further actions. That is certainly clear. > BTW: I don't think, you can compare this case with those in > the recent past, where the main item was, whether you are allowed > to have special agreements upon opponents irregularities. Why not compare? Assume that in the case David cites the TD investigates and establishes, to his complete satisfaction, that NOS have encountered similar situations sufficiently often to have an implicit agreement based on experience. [NB, if they haven't *this* time they *will* have next time] > Here you just have additional (non repeated) information > from partner, which is - by the law - authorised to your side > but not for the offending side. Again, assume a regular partnership with prior experience of a similar sequence (most/many regular partnerships have come across an opponent making a L25a change). > In the case of (say) insufficient and withdrawn bids the non- > offending side is entitled to use the information, that the > offender wanted to bid the suit of the insufficient bid or > (maybe) that the offender has something (when he replaces > the IB with pass) etc. Is he not also entitled to use the information contained in (and the existence of) the IB/COOT when he chooses to accept it? (For example, my agreement is that a bid of opp's suit shows a sound raise to the next level up in partner's suit (1H)-1S-(P)-2H is a sound raise to 2S, 1S-(2H)-3H is a sound raise to 3S, etc. 1S-(1Haccepted)-2H thus shows a sound raise to 2S. Illegal? > BUT you are not allowed - even as the > non-offending side - to use the fact "bid after IB" as > the base of your agreements. This is a non-sequitur. On which of the following pieces of information is one not permitted to vary the agreed meaning of a call? 1. Partner dealt/was in 2nd/3rd/4th seat 2. Partner has/has not yet called is/is not a passed hand. 3. RHO has promised 4+H (perhaps by a 1D transfer O/call, perhaps by bidding 1H). Specifically, what law number (or numbers) are you going to quote to the appeal committee when you say "The information was authorised to be used by the player in question but not authorised to be used as the basis for an agreement". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Feb 15 01:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Feb 15 01:45:20 2006 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC. Message-ID: Ok, I was perusing and I quote this purely because it amused me: "NBOs are asked to take note of the recognition of Bridge as a Sport by the IOC and requests that players should, at all times, be dressed appropriately;...Shorts may not be worn during play." Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 15 01:58:15 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Feb 15 02:02:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009b01c63174$64282e00$2f9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <009b01c63174$64282e00$2f9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <41C0DFA3-2491-44D7-9ED6-889BA9E691A9@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 14, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ WBF General Conditions of Contest: > " 13. ...etc.... > After withdrawing his cards from the board and until > they are restored at the conclusion of the play, a player may not > consult his own Card or Supplementary Sheets." > > I am not conscious of anything similar in EBL regulations. Nor am I in the case of ACBL regulations From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Feb 15 02:37:49 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Feb 15 02:42:17 2006 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC. References: Message-ID: <000d01c631d0$6f04c520$795c0d52@AnnesComputer> Why did it amuse you Tim. I was ammused beyond measure by the sight of the bums in shorts at Brighton last year. They were all off duty EBU TDs as I recall. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:40 AM Subject: [blml] WBF CoC. > Ok, I was perusing and I quote this purely because it amused me: > > "NBOs are asked to take note of the recognition of Bridge as a Sport by > the IOC and requests that players should, at all times, be dressed > appropriately;...Shorts may not be worn during play." > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 15 02:42:31 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Feb 15 02:51:35 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. References: Message-ID: <000001c631d1$f0a6d8b0$32d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? > Extract from WBF Brown Sticker regulation: > >>>2.4 c) Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two >>> or three level that may by >>>agreement be made with three cards or fewer >>> in one of the suits. > > Tim West-Meads: > >>*My* interpretation is that the "one of" in 2.4c >> means "either one of", < +=+ The regulation does not say "either one of" - there is nothing to suggest its meaning is limited to that. I manage the Systems and Convention Cards desk at EBL Championships. 1S - 3C overcall (showing at least three clubs with a six+ card Heart suit, weak) = BS. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Wed Feb 15 08:22:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed Feb 15 08:27:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case In-Reply-To: <003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361> References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david> <1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> <003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <1F9H0C-0FpgbA0@fwd28.sul.t-online.de> Hello Raija, "raija" wrote: > No, N-S had not committed an offense. > > Proof: L 16 C1 > "For the non-offending side, all information arising from > a withdrawn action is authorised, whether the action be its > own or its opponents." > > (snipped the rest) > > As a non-native English speaker, I need help understanding this law in > isolation. For someone like me who is not a law expert, this sentence raises > questions. > > Why is the word "all" there? Does it imply that for the offending side > "some" information arising from the auction is authorised but not "all" > while for the non-offending side "all" is authorised? Or does it imply that > other law(s) covering other cases where an action is withdrawn specify that, > for the non-offending side, "not all" information is authorised but "some" > is? IMHO the word "all" here just simply shows, that there are no limitations to the information which is classified as authorised. Your suggestions fail because the offending side is dealt with in L 16 C2, and your assumption of other laws dealing with similar problems and allowing less information for the NOS as L 16 C1 is just (one of) the main problems when reading law texts. Some persons are (often) trying to find implications in the laws that actually don't exist. They try to find intentions in the laws that were never intended. And they refuse to read the laws as they are written. I don't call you, Raija, belonging to this group (!) cause I don't know you. Peter From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 15 09:32:08 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed Feb 15 09:36:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case In-Reply-To: <1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david> <1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <43F2E708.8070806@meteo.fr> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Hello David, > > David Barton wrote: > >>The following case cropped up at the club last night. >> >>I was called to the table where the auction had gone >>N E S >>1H 2D X >> >>X had been alerted as 7+ points with 4 spades. >>East explained that she had not made her intended bid >>and could it be changed. I determined it was a >>"mechanical error" and that L25A was applicable. >> >>Accordingly I cancelled the E and S bids and informed >>them that South's X was AI to N-S and UI to E-W. >> >>The auction then went >>N E S W >>1H 3D P P >> >>We now reached a situation that is classically quoted >>as how a non-offending side may use AI arising from >>a withdrawn call. And indeed the auction proceeded >>3S all pass. >> >>Now let us think what we are saying here. >>The whole world knows that you may use the AI to bid 3S. >>Hence the whole world knows that when N bids 3S >>it WILL BE on the basis of supporting South's suit. >>The N-S agreement for the meaning of 3S will not then >>be based (only) on the bids and conditions of the deal. >>(In apparent contravention of L75A) >> >>Have N-S committed an offense and if so what should >>I have done about it? > > > No, N-S had not committed an offense. > > Prove: L 16 C1 > "For the non-offending side, all information arising from > a withdrawn action is authorised, whether the action be its > own or its opponents." > > As Grattan and Kojak stated multiple times, only those > informations which are called authorised by the laws can be > used as a base for one's own actions. Informations which are > not explicitly mentioned in the laws are may not be used as > the base for one's own actions. > The default definition of those 'legal' informations is given in > the heading of L 16. > But L 16 C1 defines a further type of authorised and thus 'legal' > informations. Those of withdrawn actions when I am the non- > offending side. It says "... all information ...", so North is > entitled to use the hole information (7+ Pts, 4 spades) for all > his further actions. the problem, as i understand it, is not for north but for south: is he entitled to understand that the 3S bid is based upon south's withdrawn double, when he has to elect to pass or to raise to 4S? is south allowed to know north has changed the meaning of his 3S bid from the agreed meaning it would have had absent the infraction? for my part, i hope he is allowed but, maybe, somebody more informed will say he is not. jp rocafort > > BTW: I don't think, you can compare this case with those in > the recent past, where the main item was, whether you are allowed > to have special agreements upon opponents irregularities. > Here you just have additional (non repeated) information > from partner, which is - by the law - authorised to your side > but not for the offending side. > In the case of (say) insufficient and withdrawn bids the non- > offending side is entitled to use the information, that the > offender wanted to bid the suit of the insufficient bid or > (maybe) that the offender has something (when he replaces > the IB with pass) etc. BUT you are not allowed - even as the > non-offending side - to use the fact "bid after IB" as > the base of your agreements. > > Regards > Peter Eidt > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 15 09:36:23 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed Feb 15 09:41:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43F2E807.4090900@meteo.fr> richard.hills@immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Upon rereading the main text of Law 40E2, it seems to me that > it is susceptible to misinterpretation by a sea-lawyer: > > "During the auction and play, any player except dummy may > refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to > call or play, but not to his own (12)." > > A sea-lawyer could argue that the "except dummy" phrase > inverts both conditions mentioned, that is dummy may not > refer to their opponents' convention card, but dummy may > refer to their own convention card. > > In my opinion, there would be greater clarity if Law 40E2 > was rewritten as two sentences, for example: > > "During the auction and play, any player except dummy may > refer to their opponents' convention card at the player's > own turn to call or play. During the auction and play, no > player including dummy may ever refer to their own > convention card (12)." a sea-lawyer might also misinterpret what dummy is allowed to do during the auction. jp rocafort > > It would also be useful if Law 43 (Dummy's Limitations) > contained a cross-reference to Law 40E2. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 09:55:46 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Wed Feb 15 10:00:22 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com> References: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <43F2EC92.6070208@hotmail.com> Let me try to summarise the responses I got (BTW: I have no idea how any player that is not top class is able to know what he can and cannot bid) If Brown sticker is not allowed then I can not play in 3th hand weak 2M = 4+M and 3+m and 5 to 13 pts (the 3+m part would be the issue). It is better to explain it as: - 4+M and 5 to 13 pts. But most of the time it would be standard Muiderberg. So to give complete information I add to the explanation that my partnership experience is that it is: - mostly 5cardM - mostly a 4+m - mostly no other 4+M - mostly 5 to 10 pts .... Or would this additional clarification make it Brown sticker again? Other question: Am I allowed to play 3th hand 2M opening with agreement that partner has to pass. So alert explanation would be: "This 2M can be anything. I have to pass." Thanks, Koen koen wrote: > We play Muiderberg (2M = 5card M and 4+card m and weak), > but in 3th hand after 2 passes we play "gambling" Muiderberg. > Especially Not vulnerable 2M in 3th hand after 2 passes can be a bit > different: > - only 3 card m > - can go to 13 pts iso max 10 pts. > - only 4 card M > - can be weaker. (at the club we don't do this anymore because they > introduced the rule that we can only open with 5+ pts). > Muiderberg opening are allowed at the club. (Only rule is that you > need to have 5+ pts to open weak 2 at the club). Is the above > "gambling" system allowed if properly alerted and explained? What do > you choose: > - Only if brown sticker conventions are allowed. > - If muiderberg is allowed then the above should always be allowed in > 3th hand. This is just bridge > - This is not allowed and no bridge > - anything else or other remarks? > > Thanks, > Koen > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Feb 15 12:30:27 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed Feb 15 12:34:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david><1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> <43F2E708.8070806@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000301c63223$38a15860$4101a8c0@david> Thanks for the responses to date. It appears (at least to me) that confusion still abounds. Brief version:- Auction N E S W 1H (2D) (X) 3D P P 3S P P P Where () indicates withdrawn bid in accordance with L25A. I have been wrong too many times on this issue to have any confidence, but my understanding is:- L16 provides a basis on which a player may choose a bid and authorises the choice (for N-S) to be based upon the information from the withdrawn double. L75A provides the basis for partnership agreements. "Information provided... must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal". As I understand it there is nothing else within the current laws that provides for a broader basis for agreements than L75A does. Specifically L16 does NOT provide that agreements can be based upon (authorised) information arising from withdrawn calls. SO's can regulate to provide such a broader basis but as yet mine (English BU) has not yet done so. The implication is that agreements, including implicit agreements relating to N E S W 1H (2D) (X) 3D P P 3S P P P must be the same as for N E S W 1H 3D P P 3S P P P Since they have identical calls and conditions. However without any discussion I can be confident that my implicit agreements are that bids in the first sequence above would have the same meaning as in the sequence N E S W 1H 2D X 3D So 3S is competitive X is game try in Spades 4N is RKCB for spades etc. I would be VERY surprised if there was any serious partnership that did not have similar (illegal???) agreements. Have I (as usual) got this wrong? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release Date: 14/02/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Feb 15 12:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Feb 15 13:04:15 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. In-Reply-To: <000001c631d1$f0a6d8b0$32d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > Extract from WBF Brown Sticker regulation: > > > >>>2.4 c) Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two > >>> or three level that may by > >>>agreement be made with three cards or fewer > >>> in one of the suits. > > > > Tim West-Meads: > > > >>*My* interpretation is that the "one of" in 2.4c > >> means "either one of", > < > +=+ The regulation does not say "either one of" - > there is nothing to suggest its meaning is > limited to that. Why did you snip the quote from 2.4.a)ii ? "Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker Convention." I don't think the bid Koen described is a "two-suited" bid. I think it is a pre-empt in H showing one of a) 4H+ a 4+cm b) 5H and not 4522 c) 6H and not 3622 It might include d) 4H any 4432/4333 (it wasn't clear if Koen used it on such hands) The key being there is no meaning that doesn't promise 4H. The way in which the WBF regs are written give me the strong impression that any bid guaranteeing 4 cards in a known suit is OK. The rationale behind such a rule being that the "known" 4 card suit provides opps with a suit they can cue bid (or double for t/o) and thus requires no special defences. "Two-suited" bids in which *neither* suit is guaranteed as 4+cards are a lot tougher for opponents to deal with since it is *much* more likely that one of those suits is their best fit and special defences are required. I did stress that the interpretation was purely personal. I think it is obvious that ambiguity exists between the current wording of 2.4aii) and 2.4c). > I manage the Systems and > Convention Cards desk at EBL Championships. > 1S - 3C overcall (showing at least three clubs > with a six+ card Heart suit, weak) = BS. For overcalls there is no possible conflict with 2.4aii) and no "Exception" under 2.4b) which creates ambiguity. I too would rule this as "BS". NB, I don't think it *needs* to be BS because it promises 6H and thus, IMO, requires no special defences. My overall impression is that the regulators *intended* that any such call (opening or OC) promising 4+ cards in a known suit be "non-BS". Where there is ambiguity I allow that impression to sway my decision, where there is no such ambiguity I ignore intent. I accept that my thinking on intent may not be grounded in reality but I hope the logic behind my thinking is clear. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 15 15:33:58 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 15 15:38:58 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: References: <007001c62f75$b8520560$389868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060215092049.02ba6eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:57 PM 2/11/06, twm wrote: >Neither simplicity nor objectivity should be seen as the enemy of equity. >If the laws of game are not directed towards fairness then why bother >with >them at all? ISTM that our extensive discussion of the issues raised by references to "class of player" in the laws should have taught us that we cannot use "equity" and "fairness" interchangeably; they are different, and while both are noble goals, we must, in some cases, reduce one to increase the other. "Equity" requires a process that deals with infractions by restoring those results that would have occurred had the infraction not taken place. "Fairness" requires a process that deals with infractions uniformly regardless of who has committed them. Fairness in our rulings requires an objective process in which the identity of the parties to the process do not affect its results. Equity in our rulings requires inherently subjective judgments of issues like "class of player". Either can be simple, but neither objectivity nor fairness is promoted by laws that strive for equity. Our lawmakers cannot give us all the good things we want, and must make choices. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 15 17:39:50 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 15 17:44:48 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <000201c62fca$78f15920$9bef403e@Mildred> References: <000201c62fca$78f15920$9bef403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060215112800.02b760d0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:47 AM 2/12/06, Grattan wrote: > Both Kojak and I have had some difficulty in >expressing the current relationship of Law 16 and other laws to the >forming of agreements and to the >use of authorized information. This is because the >1997 Code is designed to authorize free regulation of certain specific >matters (for example, in Laws 78D, >80E, 40D, 40E ) and to provide a conditional power >of regulation beyond such specified areas in Law 80F. The preamble >of Law 16 identifies certain bases >upon which agreements may be authorized. It does not deny that others >may be allowed by regulation so, >if agreements based upon the occurrence of an infraction >are to be allowed, there needs to be a regulation made under Law >80F. The error of some here has been to >confuse the use of AI in selecting one's action within >partnership agreements with a belief that this extends to the >formation of partnership agreements. This arises from a >misunderstanding of the modus operandi of the 1997 laws which has >required further explanation. There are those who seek to debate that >explanation, which the WBFLC sought to give, in pursuit of other views >as to how the law is to be read (which is not for them to say). Both >Kojak, I believe, and I accept that there is a lesson here to be >learned in writing future laws. The laws, as Grattan says, are "designed to authorize free regulation" and to "provide a conditional power of regulation". We can -- and do -- debate the extent to which this is desirable, and to what extent the "power of regulation" may be closer to "absolute" than to "conditional", but those are not germane to the current subject. But I don't believe that the laws are, or should be, designed to *require* additional regulation. That becomes necessary when the unsupplemented laws as written are impossible to apply in practical situations, which does seem to be the case in the area under discussion. We have enough trouble when regulation appears to contradict or nullify the laws in the lawbook; we are totally lost when lack of regulation does so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 15 17:50:17 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 15 17:55:12 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <000901c62fdc$e3039050$4101a8c0@david> References: <3D3F25E6-7BA8-4524-B025-7A0E0FD6E8A5@rochester.rr.com> <6kasu1ta70u8f3c3dg6m5dii8u54a0vc81@4ax.com> <004e01c62fd6$d95bb290$9bef403e@Mildred> <000901c62fdc$e3039050$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060215114338.02ac20e0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:01 AM 2/12/06, David wrote: >>>Anyway, I think we both understand the job that I'm suggesting needs >>>to be done. >>+=+ I think you underestimate the total resources of the drafting >>subcommittee. The final overview of language is, however, something >>that its Chairman has taken to himself. He is an honours graduate in >>English of one of the most distinguished English Universities. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Exactly the WRONG choice in my view. > >(a) The review should be undertaken by someone >with little knowledge of Bridge Law so that he reads >what is actually written rather than what he knows it means. > >(b) The language should be "The cat sat on the mat", which >is not the style that I would associate with "an honours graduate in >English of one of the most >distinguished English Universities." > >This is not to be taken as a comment on the individual >concerned, but as my view on the suitability of the >qualifications listed above. And, critically, (c) The review, if it is to have any usefulness at all, must be undertaken by someone who was not in any way involved with the writing of the original language. I'm sure the committee Chairman (whoever he may be) is fully capable of understanding what he has himself written (or had any hand in the writing of), but the purpose of having the language subjected to a final review is to make sure that it is equally understandable by those who have not been involved in its authorship. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 15 18:23:21 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 15 18:28:13 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <005001c630a7$23b5da70$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000101c63094$f234d6c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <005001c630a7$23b5da70$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060215121233.02ac3990@pop.starpower.net> At 08:14 AM 2/13/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" > >My questions, unanswered so far, are: Exactly what >does this mean? Can the players on NOS legally base >their calls (and plays) on information arisen from this >withdrawn call as well as on other authorized information? >< >+=+ I had believed the answer had been given. The NOS >may use the information from a withdrawn action in selecting >its own action from its announced methods. It may not use >the fact that an infraction has occurred to move to different >agreements except as authorized (positively) by regulation. >The law itself does not authorize it. +=+ >< >If for instance a player makes a call that according to >agreements shows a five-card suit in Diamonds (absent > any irregularity) he must most probably have intended >something else with his call when the withdrawn call >"promised" an eight-card suit in Diamonds. Exactly >what he intended is up to his partner to figure out at >his own risk. >< >+=+ In the absence of any agreement. It is a moot point >how quickly that becomes then an agreement. +=+ It may be a moot point *how quickly* that becomes an agreement, but not that, at some point, it does. The NOS "may use the information... in selecting its own action from its announced methods", but as soon as it does so (or at some point thereafter) it becomes an agreement as to how those announced methods apply in the particular situation and in those the partnership may deem analogous. This is a problem not because the partnership has "move[d] to [a] *different* agreement[]" but because it has moved from having no agreement to having some agreement, and because the laws make no distinction between these. That leads to contradiction: the information may be used only if it is not used; once it is, it may not be. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 15 18:37:12 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 15 18:42:02 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. In-Reply-To: <000501c630b3$aba8e650$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <005001c630a7$23b5da70$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000501c630b3$aba8e650$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060215122657.02ac7d70@pop.starpower.net> At 10:39 AM 2/13/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott >........... > > If for instance a player makes a call that according to > > agreements shows a five-card suit in Diamonds (absent > > any irregularity) he must most probably have intended > > something else with his call when the withdrawn call > > "promised" an eight-card suit in Diamonds. Exactly > > what he intended is up to his partner to figure out at > > his own risk. > > < > > +=+ In the absence of any agreement. It is a moot point > > how quickly that becomes then an agreement. +=+ > >"In the absence of any agreement" > >So say that my LHO opens out of turn in 2H (weak, shows 6 card suit) >and pd >does not accept that OBOOT. Pd now bids 1H which as an opening bid would >show at least a 5-card suit. I start thinking. Even without the three >small >hearts in my hand I very much doubt that pd intends his bid as an ordinary >opening bid, there must be something special going on. > >Pd did not just double (for takeout) or make any other bid so what sort of >hand can he have? Finally I come out with the most probable answer to be >void or Ace in Hearts and a decent opening hand with three suits, a hand >that very often can be difficult to show. So happily I go along these >lines >and we end up in an OK contract. Afterwards pd confirms my reasoning with >the words: I hoped you would reason just that way. > >According to what you have written above I take it you accept our >actions as >being legal, but do you at the same time say that we now have an >"agreement" >which will make such actions illegal for us to use in the future? It's worse than that, because "the future is now". These are illegal agreements; you are prohibited from having them, whether or not the occasion which would put them to use has actually arisen. So the law allows you to use your reasoning and judgment in such situations, but does not allow you to make agreements regarding them. This is self-contradictory when, as in Sven's example, you cannot do the former without also (at least "implicitly") doing the latter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 15 21:57:13 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 15 22:02:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Reading notes while dummy (ACBL) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <009b01c63174$64282e00$2f9d87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060215154817.02b70200@pop.starpower.net> At 06:14 PM 2/14/06, richard.hills wrote: >Upon rereading the main text of Law 40E2, it seems to me that >it is susceptible to misinterpretation by a sea-lawyer: > >"During the auction and play, any player except dummy may >refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to >call or play, but not to his own (12)." > >A sea-lawyer could argue that the "except dummy" phrase >inverts both conditions mentioned, that is dummy may not >refer to their opponents' convention card, but dummy may >refer to their own convention card. > >In my opinion, there would be greater clarity if Law 40E2 >was rewritten as two sentences, for example: > >"During the auction and play, any player except dummy may >refer to their opponents' convention card at the player's >own turn to call or play. During the auction and play, no >player including dummy may ever refer to their own >convention card (12)." > >It would also be useful if Law 43 (Dummy's Limitations) >contained a cross-reference to Law 40E2. Sure, but why do we want to? What does anyone find objectionable about dummy perusing his own convention card while properly fulfilling his obligations as dummy? What possible benefit to the game or its players is (or would be) served by prohibiting the practice? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 15 22:17:33 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Feb 15 22:22:26 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? In-Reply-To: <43F2EC92.6070208@hotmail.com> References: <43F1194D.3090303@hotmail.com> <43F2EC92.6070208@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060215160537.02b724d0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:55 AM 2/15/06, koen wrote: >Other question: Am I allowed to play 3th hand 2M opening with >agreement that partner has to pass. So alert explanation would be: >"This 2M can be anything. I have to pass." I have in the past seen several partnerships employ so-called "bar bids", opening bids which provide no information whatsoever as to the bidder's holding, with the agreement that any bid by responder represents an undertaking to play in the named contract regardless of what opener holds (which in practice means that the opening bid is almost always passed). Since I play in the ACBL, I take my observation to imply that TFLB, at least as interpreted by the ACBLLC, permits such agreements. I should say, though, that I have not seen such agreements used by those same partnerships recently (probably not since prior to the 1997 Laws, but I don't think that matters), and infer the possibility that the ACBL has at some point banned them by regulation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 15 22:31:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Feb 15 22:36:32 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. When is it allowed? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43F2EC92.6070208@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Koen asked: >>Other question: Am I allowed to play 3th hand 2M opening with agreement >>that partner has to pass? So alert explanation would be: "This 2M can >>be anything. I have to pass." WBF system policy: >2.6 Random Openings > >It is forbidden to open hands which, by agreement, may contain fewer >than 8 high card points and for which no further definition is provided. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 16 00:30:10 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 16 00:34:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? Message-ID: From the ACBL web site: > The American Contract Bridge League was founded in 1937. Today it > is the largest bridge organization in the world, with more than > 160,000 members living in the United States, Canada, Mexico and > Bermuda. A not-for-profit organization, the ACBL determines > internationally recognized rules of bridge, sanctions clubs and > tournament games, and encourages participation at all levels of > proficiency and experience. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. -- Proverbs 16:18 From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 16 00:47:16 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Feb 16 02:44:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:30:10 EST." Message-ID: <200602152346.PAA21436@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > From the ACBL web site: > > > The American Contract Bridge League was founded in 1937. Today it > > is the largest bridge organization in the world, with more than > > 160,000 members living in the United States, Canada, Mexico and > > Bermuda. A not-for-profit organization, the ACBL determines > > internationally recognized rules of bridge, sanctions clubs and > > tournament games, and encourages participation at all levels of > > proficiency and experience. > > Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. > -- Proverbs 16:18 I assume you're referring to the bit about "ACBL determines internationally recognized rules of bridge". It does sound a little like they're saying "We make the rules of the game and other nations bow down to us". I don't believe they actually intended to say that---if they really believed that, I don't think that they're *that* foolish that they'd come out and say it. More likely, they just don't know how to write clearly. After all, if the Laws really are the ACBL's sole doing, then that's proof enough that the ACBL doesn't know how to write clearly and unambiguously. :) :) I think the phrase is just ambiguous. Since it says that the ACBL determines "internationally recognized rules", rather than "*the* internationally recognized rules" or "*all* the internationally recognized rules", it could perhaps be read as saying that the ACBL has a major role in determining the rules of the game, and that at least some of the rules are developed by the ACBL's people. It wouldn't be hubris to say that. Another factor: this paragraph was probably written by their marketing or public relations department. As an engineer type who tends to identify with Dilbert, my inclination would be to blame this on "typical marketing/public relations hype B.S." rather than on "ACBL hubris". -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 15 01:49:59 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Feb 16 02:44:28 2006 Subject: [blml] WBF CoC. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:40:00 GMT." Message-ID: <200602150049.QAA12309@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > Ok, I was perusing and I quote this purely because it amused me: > > "NBOs are asked to take note of the recognition of Bridge as a Sport by > the IOC and requests that players should, at all times, be dressed > appropriately;...Shorts may not be worn during play." Hmmm. Maybe they want us all to dress like figure skaters?? -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 16 04:18:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 16 04:23:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? In-Reply-To: <200602152346.PAA21436@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > Another factor: this paragraph was probably written by their marketing > or public relations department. As an engineer type who tends to > identify with Dilbert, my inclination would be to blame this on > "typical marketing/public relations hype B.S." rather than on "ACBL > hubris". I'm not sure I understand - are you implying that public relations is "Brown Sticker" in all ACBL events? Tim From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 16 04:22:40 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Feb 16 04:27:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:18:00 GMT." Message-ID: <200602160321.TAA23081@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > Adam wrote: > > > Another factor: this paragraph was probably written by their marketing > > or public relations department. As an engineer type who tends to > > identify with Dilbert, my inclination would be to blame this on > > "typical marketing/public relations hype B.S." rather than on "ACBL > > hubris". > > I'm not sure I understand - are you implying that public relations is > "Brown Sticker" in all ACBL events? Well, you got the color right ...... -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 16 06:36:17 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 16 06:40:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? In-Reply-To: <200602152346.PAA21436@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200602152346.PAA21436@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <8489ECE8-4486-485B-96B7-59E9E91E877B@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 15, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I assume you're referring to the bit about "ACBL determines > internationally recognized rules of bridge". That and the bit about "largest bridge organization in the world". The EBL has more than twice as many members, according to the WBF web site. Of course, the WBF could be mistaken. :-) > More likely, they just don't know how to write clearly. After all, > if the > Laws really are the ACBL's sole doing, then that's proof enough that > the ACBL doesn't know how to write clearly and unambiguously. :) :) "An' dat's de troof!" -- Edith Ann, age 5 (thank you, Lily Tomlin). [snip] > Another factor: this paragraph was probably written by their marketing > or public relations department. As an engineer type who tends to > identify with Dilbert, my inclination would be to blame this on > "typical marketing/public relations hype B.S." rather than on "ACBL > hubris". An' dat, too. :-) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Feb 16 08:40:46 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Feb 16 08:48:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? References: <200602152346.PAA21436@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <009b01c632cc$4fe28400$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> >From the ACBL By-Laws: 7.5 Laws Commission. There shall be an ACBL Laws Commission which will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission. You see, they really do believe that the WBF LC has no dominion over the ACBL LC, despite what the By-Laws of the WBF say (to which the ACBL is signatory!): 8.8. Laws Committee [of the WBF] The President shall appoint a Laws Committee and shall designate the Chairman of such Committee. The Committee shall consist of not less than seven members representing at least three Zones. The function and duty of this Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall make whatever changes in the laws it deems appropriate, subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 16 14:35:57 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Feb 16 14:59:52 2006 Subject: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. References: <005001c630a7$23b5da70$55a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><000501c630b3$aba8e650$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20060215122657.02ac7d70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002801c63300$0328a610$a49787d9@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: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:37 PM Subject: RE: [blml] The Etceteras of a regulation. > It's worse than that, because "the future is now". > These are illegal agreements; you are prohibited > from having them, whether or not the occasion > which would put them to use has actually arisen. > So the law allows you to use your reasoning and > judgment in such situations, but does not allow > you to make agreements regarding them. This is > self-contradictory when, as in Sven's example, > you cannot do the former without also (at least "implicitly") doing the latter. > +=+ We will try to clear it all up in the 2006/?07/?08 code. Meanwhile, the English Bridge Union minute that I quoted earlier in this thread has been referred back to the Laws & Ethics Committee for further examination and clarification. In the interim there is no EBU regulation on the subject. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 16 14:49:30 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Feb 16 14:59:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? References: <200602152346.PAA21436@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002b01c63300$041e50b0$a49787d9@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: "Adam Beneschan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hubris? > > Ed wrote: > > > From the ACBL web site: > > > > > The American Contract Bridge League was founded in > > < 1937. Today it is the largest bridge organization in the > > > world, with more than 160,000 members living in the > > > United States, Canada, Mexico and Bermuda. A > > > not-for-profit organization, the ACBL determines > > > internationally recognized rules of bridge, sanctions > > > clubs and tournament games, and encourages participation > > > at all levels of proficiency and experience. > > > > Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before > > a fall. -- Proverbs 16:18 > > I assume you're referring to the bit about "ACBL determines > internationally recognized rules of bridge". > +=+ Well, the European Bridge League would not assent to that assertion. We regard the ACBL as a Zone with no greater influence than the EBL. And with the French Federation having exceeded a 100,000 membership (and targetting 120,000), the Dutch around 80,000 individuals, and 38 or 39 other EBL affiliated Federations, the reference to 'largest' is outdated. We are also left to wonder what is the de facto size of the Chinese Federation - we think possibly millions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 16 18:47:37 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Feb 16 18:52:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:36:17 EST." <8489ECE8-4486-485B-96B7-59E9E91E877B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200602161746.JAA28583@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Feb 15, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > I assume you're referring to the bit about "ACBL determines > > internationally recognized rules of bridge". > > That and the bit about "largest bridge organization in the world". > The EBL has more than twice as many members, according to the WBF web > site. Of course, the WBF could be mistaken. :-) I suppose it could depend on how one defines "organization". In one sense, I'd guess that the WBF is the largest organization in the world, since it subsumes all the other organizations. Then again, if making one a member of the ACBL doesn't automatically make one a "member" of the WBF, then is it the case that being a member of the French Federation or Dutch Federation automatically makes one a member of the EBL? Does it matter whether those members pay dues to the EBL or not? Or are the definitions of what constitutes an "organization" and a "member" of an organization simply arbitrary things? I don't know. Without some reasonable definitions, talking about the "size" of an "organization" could become meaningless. Grattan brought up another point when he referred to this bit as "outdated": a simple failure of the ACBL to keep their web site up to date may be a better explanation than "hubris", especially since failure to keep web sites current is a very common problem on the Internet. -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 17 02:16:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 17 02:22:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case In-Reply-To: <000301c63223$38a15860$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: David Barton wrote: > L75A provides the basis for partnership agreements. > "Information provided... must arise from the calls, plays > and conditions of the current deal". > > As I understand it there is nothing else within the current > laws that provides for a broader basis for agreements > than L75A does. Specifically L16 does NOT provide that > agreements can be based upon (authorised) information > arising from withdrawn calls. Indeed, it merely provides that such information is authorised to the NOS. It is L75A *itself* allows us to base agreements on "calls". The definitions say: Call: Any bid, double, redouble or pass. Note the "any". Is 1H a "call" in the sequence 1S-(1H)? Yes. Is a call out of a turn a "call" - I feel the clue is in the language. Does a call, once withdrawn, suddenly become an aardvark? Surely the name, yet again, gives us a clue that it does not. It doesn't have to be complicated. The irregular call is part of the "calls, plays and conditions of the current deal". Yes there laws that make specific calls UI to the OS - that's not a problem, TDs know how to deal with UI cases (for the NOS the withdrawn calls are AI and remain "calls" within the definitions). Yes, disclosure can be a problem, but alerts and explanations can handle it. SOs can regulate, if they choose, which/how conventions may be applied after an infraction by opponents. I'd *advise* them to avoid regulating conventional agreements which are based around bridge logic and implicit understandings and experience. I don't have strong feelings about a sentiment like "Conventions specifically designed to take advantage of infractions are disallowed" [the example from the ACBL regs of a conventional pass is OK as an example of that sentiment]. Yes the current laws are not exactly a model of clarity [e.g. the L16 preamble doesn't mention a lot of stuff we *know* is AI] but if we just stick to the words that are written they are workable. Sven can bid 2H in response to his partner's accepted 1H OOT secure in the knowledge he is showing a simple raise. The shades of Torp and Vinje can take pride in their clever use of the extra bidding space. Readers of this list can double 4H for penalties when it is opened OOT and they are holding AK,AQTxx,xxx,xxx without worrying that the double will be ruled illegal (or worrying how pard will interpret a 1H opener if the 4H is not accepted). Players can carry on basing their decisions on who the opponents are and the system opps are playing (just as they always have - and disclose such things properly without ridiculous assertions that that info is unauthorised). And who knows, perhaps even Grattan and Kojak will be able to build the suggestions/concerns/ideas from the many strands of this thread into a new and improved lawbook. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 17 03:03:52 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Feb 17 03:08:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? In-Reply-To: <002b01c63300$041e50b0$a49787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200602152346.PAA21436@mailhub.irvine.com> <002b01c63300$041e50b0$a49787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <401BFF3A-2869-49D3-AD3B-C72B2C1AB7C8@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 16, 2006, at 8:49 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > We are also left to wonder what is the de facto size of the > Chinese Federation - we think possibly millions. Possibly - but the WBF site says 9900, with another couple hundred in Hong Kong (and 2100 or so in "Chinese Taipei", if that counts). Ah, but you said de facto. If you mean to include all bridge players, whether or not members of the respective NBOs, then you have to include those people in *all* countries, which changes things considerably. ISTR there's supposed to be a couple million American bridge players not in the ACBL, for example. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Feb 17 03:08:31 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Feb 17 03:13:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? In-Reply-To: <200602161746.JAA28583@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200602161746.JAA28583@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <612774E0-12D1-4876-B37C-9C748510CDF5@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Grattan brought up another point when he referred to this bit as > "outdated": a simple failure of the ACBL to keep their web site up to > date may be a better explanation than "hubris", especially since > failure to keep web sites current is a very common problem on the > Internet. Perhaps. OTOH, if the ACBL aren't guilty of that fault, that's fine with me, but I'm not inclined to go looking for reasons *why* they aren't. :-) From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Feb 17 09:36:49 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Feb 17 09:38:43 2006 Subject: [blml] who can appeal? Message-ID: <43F58B21.2090208@hdw.be> A team arrive late at a match. There is no quarrel about that. The match is played normally, and the late arrival is mentioned on the official form (competition played in clubs, no director present). The competition director decides not to award penalty points against the late arrivees. The opponents are not happy about this, but are they allowed to appeal this? They say they want to appeal it in order to protect other sufferers from opponent's neglect. Would your answer be different depending on whether the competition regulations specify automatic penalties or not? -- 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: 267.15.9/261 - Release Date: 15/02/2006 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Feb 17 10:10:53 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Feb 17 10:15:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case References: Message-ID: <000c01c633a2$0e2126d0$4101a8c0@david> ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case > David Barton wrote: > >> L75A provides the basis for partnership agreements. >> "Information provided... must arise from the calls, plays >> and conditions of the current deal". >> >> As I understand it there is nothing else within the current >> laws that provides for a broader basis for agreements >> than L75A does. Specifically L16 does NOT provide that >> agreements can be based upon (authorised) information >> arising from withdrawn calls. > > Indeed, it merely provides that such information is authorised to the NOS. > It is L75A *itself* allows us to base agreements on "calls". > > The definitions say: > > Call: Any bid, double, redouble or pass. > > Note the "any". > Is 1H a "call" in the sequence 1S-(1H)? Yes. > Is a call out of a turn a "call" - I feel the clue is in the language. > Does a call, once withdrawn, suddenly become an aardvark? Surely the > name, yet again, gives us a clue that it does not. > > It doesn't have to be complicated. The irregular call is part of the > "calls, plays and conditions of the current deal". Yes there laws that > make specific calls UI to the OS - that's not a problem, TDs know how to > deal with UI cases (for the NOS the withdrawn calls are AI and remain > "calls" within the definitions). Yes, disclosure can be a problem, but > alerts and explanations can handle it. > Usually difficult to prove things don't exist, but can sometimes be done by contradiction. So here goes. If TWM thinks withdrawn bids still "exist and form part of the auction" I invite him to rule upon the following. With North the dealer the auction goes East 1H an OBOOT not accepted North X Follow the wording of L19 and you will find, I believe, that IF the 1H "exists" the double is legal. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date: 16/02/2006 From will-t at online.no Fri Feb 17 10:24:47 2006 From: will-t at online.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Fri Feb 17 10:29:22 2006 Subject: SV: [blml] who can appeal? In-Reply-To: <43F58B21.2090208@hdw.be> Message-ID: I miss one vital information. What was the reason for the late arrival? Are we talking about force majoure? If so I can see no reason to award penalty points and no reason whatsoevever for an appeal... __________________________ Regards, Willy Teigen Toppen 1 8515 Narvik Norway Tlf. +47 915 58578 e-mail: will-t@online.no __________________________ -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]P? vegne av Herman De Wael Sendt: 17. februar 2006 09:37 Til: blml Emne: [blml] who can appeal? A team arrive late at a match. There is no quarrel about that. The match is played normally, and the late arrival is mentioned on the official form (competition played in clubs, no director present). The competition director decides not to award penalty points against the late arrivees. The opponents are not happy about this, but are they allowed to appeal this? They say they want to appeal it in order to protect other sufferers from opponent's neglect. Would your answer be different depending on whether the competition regulations specify automatic penalties or not? -- 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: 267.15.9/261 - Release Date: 15/02/2006 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 13.09.2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 13.09.2004 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Feb 17 10:39:49 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Feb 17 10:41:47 2006 Subject: SV: [blml] who can appeal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43F599E5.7080709@hdw.be> Obviously not. If there had been even a suggestion of force majeur I wouild have told so. Willy Teigen wrote: > I miss one vital information. What was the reason for the late arrival? > Are we talking about force majoure? If so I can see no reason to award > penalty points and no reason whatsoevever for an appeal... > -- 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: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date: 16/02/2006 From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 17 10:41:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Feb 17 10:46:04 2006 Subject: [blml] who can appeal? In-Reply-To: <43F58B21.2090208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c633a6$55563aa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > A team arrive late at a match. There is no quarrel about that. The > match is played normally, and the late arrival is mentioned on the > official form (competition played in clubs, no director present). > The competition director decides not to award penalty points against > the late arrivees. > The opponents are not happy about this, but are they allowed to appeal > this? They say they want to appeal it in order to protect other > sufferers from opponent's neglect. > Would your answer be different depending on whether the competition > regulations specify automatic penalties or not? Penalty for late arrival is a procedural penalty that the Director "may" award (Law 90A and 90B1). His decision in such cases is final and not subject to appeal (Law 91A). However, if a regulation is in force that mandates a particular penalty for late arrival (probably depending on the amount of tardiness) then the Director is in no position to ignore this regulation and any participant must be allowed to "appeal" if he does so. Regards Sven From a.witzen at chello.nl Fri Feb 17 11:25:44 2006 From: a.witzen at chello.nl (Anton Witzen) Date: Fri Feb 17 11:30:14 2006 Subject: [blml] who can appeal? In-Reply-To: <43F58B21.2090208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20060217112544.0118fcb8@mail.chello.nl> At 09:36 AM 2/17/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >A team arrive late at a match. There is no quarrel about that. The >match is played normally, and the late arrival is mentioned on the >official form (competition played in clubs, no director present). >The competition director decides not to award penalty points against >the late arrivees. >The opponents are not happy about this, but are they allowed to appeal >this? They say they want to appeal it in order to protect other >sufferers from opponent's neglect. >Would your answer be different depending on whether the competition >regulations specify automatic penalties or not? >-- in holland the districts are fairly autonomous in giving penalties for late arrival ore late finishing, an appeal against late arrival of opponents is legal of course (why not? it is in their interest too i think). where automatic penalties are in use the CTD is obliged to hand them out i think but here they are nearly exclusively handed out in matches played in central locations. >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: 267.15.9/261 - Release Date: 15/02/2006 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Anton Witzen. Tel: 020 7763175 boniplein 86 1094 SG Amsterdam From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 17 12:22:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 17 12:27:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Different scenario - Practical case In-Reply-To: <000c01c633a2$0e2126d0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: David Wrote: > If TWM thinks withdrawn bids still "exist and form part of the > auction" I invite him to rule upon the following. > With North the dealer the auction goes A withdrawn/cancelled call is still a call made on the current deal. L75a references "calls" (which are are *any* bid, double, redouble, or pass). A review of the auction would include "1H, not accepted...". > East 1H an OBOOT not accepted > North X > Follow the wording of L19 and you will find, I believe, that IF > the 1H "exists" the double is legal. Actually, if the 1H stands the double is OOT rather than inadmissible but still not legal:) As it happens I simply rule the X inadmissible. If forced to say why I will explain that the "cancellation" of the bid means it can no longer be considered "preceding" in the context of L19. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Feb 17 19:23:30 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Feb 17 19:44:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Hubris? References: <200602152346.PAA21436@mailhub.irvine.com><002b01c63300$041e50b0$a49787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <401BFF3A-2869-49D3-AD3B-C72B2C1AB7C8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007a01c633f0$ed84d170$199c87d9@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: Friday, February 17, 2006 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hubris? > > > Ah, but you said de facto. > +=+ I had in mind reported membership as distinct from active membership.. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 20 02:00:55 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Feb 20 02:05:45 2006 Subject: [blml] who can appeal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c633a6$55563aa0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Penalty for late arrival is a procedural penalty that the >Director "may" award (Law 90A and 90B1). His decision in >such cases is final and not subject to appeal (Law 91A). Richard Hills: I think Sven is assuming that Law 90 procedural penalties and Law 91 disciplinary penalties are synonymous. I beg to differ. There are numerous instances in appeals casebooks in which a TD did not award a Law 90 PP, but an AC changed that not-final TD decision and did award a Law 90 PP. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 20 10:09:23 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Feb 20 10:13:58 2006 Subject: [blml] who can appeal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c635fd$579b2060$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >Penalty for late arrival is a procedural penalty that the > >Director "may" award (Law 90A and 90B1). His decision in > >such cases is final and not subject to appeal (Law 91A). > > Richard Hills: > > I think Sven is assuming that Law 90 procedural penalties > and Law 91 disciplinary penalties are synonymous. > > I beg to differ. There are numerous instances in appeals > casebooks in which a TD did not award a Law 90 PP, but an > AC changed that not-final TD decision and did award a Law > 90 PP. There are many cases where an AC has overruled the Director on his ruling under Law 12 and varied the adjusted score for the offending side with an additional "procedural penalty". This is fully within the powers of the AC except that I do not appreciate the term "procedural penalty" for such adjustments because they have nothing to do with Law 90. (The power is explicit both for the TD and for the AC from the clause "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance" occurring a couple of places in Law 12.) An alleged fact that there might be numerous cases where an AC has overruled a TD on his ruling under Laws 90 (and 91) does not prove that the AC was empowered to do so. Law 91 concerns the Director's duty to maintain order and discipline. I beg to be told what this means if not executing his power under Law 90? IMO Law 90 tells us examples of what kind of procedural irregularities are subject to penalty and Law 91 tells us what kind of penalties the Director may apply for such irregularities. Law 91A specifically states that the Director's decision under this clause is final. (We also have Law 91B empowering the Director to disqualify a contestant for cause subject to approval by the Tournament Committee or SO.) Regards Sven From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Mon Feb 20 11:35:17 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Mon Feb 20 11:39:59 2006 Subject: [blml] 3th hand gambling. Is this definition BS? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43F99B65.5020508@hotmail.com> Koen asked: > > >>We play Muiderberg (2M = 5card M and 4+card m and weak), >>but in 3th hand after 2 passes we play "gambling" Muiderberg. >>Especially Not vulnerable 2M in 3th hand after 2 passes can be a bit >>different: >>- only 3 card m >>- can go to 13 pts iso max 10 pts. >>- only 4 card M >>- can be weaker. (at the club we don't do this anymore because they >>introduced the rule that we can only open with 5+ pts). >>Muiderberg opening are allowed at the club. (Only rule is that you need >>to have 5+ pts to open weak 2 at the club). Is the above "gambling" >>system allowed if properly alerted and explained? What do you choose: >> >> It was said that 2-suits weak with second suit only 3+ is BS. What about: Suppose S and Cl en weak, we would open in 3th hand with: 5=?=?=4+ 5=max2=?=? 4=max2=?=4+ Not with eg: 5=3=2=3 => - either 2-suits 5-4 - either 5-card M and max 2-card in other M - either 4-card M and 4-card m en max 2-card in other M Is this BS? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 21 01:20:52 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 21 01:25:38 2006 Subject: [blml] who can appeal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c635fd$579b2060$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Law 91 concerns the Director's duty to maintain order and discipline. I >beg to be told what this means if not executing his power under Law 90? > >IMO Law 90 tells us examples of what kind of procedural irregularities are >subject to penalty and Law 91 tells us what kind of penalties the Director >may apply for such irregularities. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Law 90A and Law 91A define different types of offences. In my opinion, a Law 90 procedural penalty is appropriate for a simple error in procedure. In my opinion, a Law 91A disciplinary penalty is appropriate for a disruptive lack of "order and discipline" (such as a player being aggressively drunk). Sven Pran: >Law 91A specifically states that the Director's decision under this clause >is final. Richard Hills: But "this clause" is Law 91A; there is not any specific statement that Law 90 procedural penalties may not be appealed. Indeed, there is an authoritative example to the contrary. In the semi-official appeals examples attached to the WBF Code of Practice, example number 13 shows that a WBF AC believed it had the power to hear an appeal against a TD's Law 90B1 procedural penalty upon a contestant for late arrival. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 21 02:42:10 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Feb 21 02:46:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Lille Appeal #7, COP example Message-ID: <97A3E129-3866-471B-8074-07B42332555D@rochester.rr.com> This is the seventh example attached to the WBF's COP for Appeals Committees. You can view the full appeal at http:// www.worldbridge.org/departments/appeals/198Lille/Lille07.htm, but what I found odd is this: "The TD decided that there had been an infraction and that South had been damaged, but as she could not tell what would have happened without the infraction she scored the hand 60/40 in favour of North/ South." Later, the committee affirmed this decision. Now, I have been taught that when a result is obtained at the table (and one was in this case) it is *illegal* to award an artificial adjusted score - yet the TD did just that, and the committee backed him up! If this is what happens at high level international tournaments, how are we lowly club TDs supposed to get it right? :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 21 03:00:35 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Feb 21 03:05:13 2006 Subject: Fwd: [blml] who can appeal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Oops. Meant to send this to the list. Sorry, Richard. One further comment: in the 53 Lille appeals, I found several in which the AC gave a PP when the TD did not. I found none where the AC rescinded a PP given by the TD. Begin forwarded message: > From: Ed Reppert > Date: February 20, 2006 8:37:02 PM EST > To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Subject: Re: [blml] who can appeal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > On Feb 20, 2006, at 7:20 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> But "this clause" is Law 91A; there is not any specific statement >> that Law >> 90 procedural penalties may not be appealed. Indeed, there is an >> authoritative example to the contrary. In the semi-official appeals >> examples attached to the WBF Code of Practice, example number 13 >> shows that >> a WBF AC believed it had the power to hear an appeal against a >> TD's Law >> 90B1 procedural penalty upon a contestant for late arrival. > > The referenced COP does assert, in the section "Function of an > Appeal Committee", that a committee does have the power to change a > penalty assigned by the TD under Law 90: > > "The committee may recommend likewise to the Director a review of > any disciplinary penalty he may have applied under Law 91A but may > not rescind or vary it (powers that it does have in relation to Law > 90 penalties)." > > Of course, the COP does not say where they get this, it just makes > the assertion. > > Appeal # 13 doesn't appear to have anything to do with PPs. #4 > does, though. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 21 05:06:33 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 21 05:11:28 2006 Subject: [blml] who can appeal? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43F58B21.2090208@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >>The competition director decides not to award penalty >>points against the late arrivees. >>The opponents are not happy about this, but are they >>allowed to appeal this? >>They say they want to appeal it in order to protect other >>sufferers from opponent's neglect. [snip] WBF Code of Practice, pages 4 and 5: >No account is to be taken of the interests of other >contestants in the outcome. [snip] >An appeal committee does have the power to apply a >disciplinary penalty if the director has not done so and >there is found to have been a breach of the laws governing >conduct that the Director has not penalized. The WBF >recommends the greatest restraint in exercising this power >when the Director has not done so and points to the >possible alternative of admonishment if a majority of the >committee is strongly of the opinion that some action is >justified. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Tue Feb 21 10:36:43 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue Feb 21 11:16:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Individual movement Message-ID: <007f01c636ca$53428580$69a2ec51@admin> To Linda, I suggest you read "Movements", page 376-389. There you find regular and irregular Mitchell individual movemnts for 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 15 and 16 tables. You can write me for more details at hans-olof.hallen@bolina.hsb.se From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Feb 21 14:35:56 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue Feb 21 14:40:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? Message-ID: <43fb173c.664a.0@esatclear.ie> Recently in a teams league team A is playing team B. The boards are all fairly flat bar one. Team B through a bidding misunderstanding arrive at 6H which goes off 4 for 400. Team B is N/S and team A E/W at this point. Team B members have a "discussion" afterwards looking at the hands and subsequently put all the cards back in the wrong pockets (N-> S, E->W). The board is passed on. The switch is discovered as the hands dont match the hand records. The TD is called and rules the board is unplayable. He rules that board be excluded from the match score. Team A object. They claim it was team B's fault the cards were put back incorrectly. They also claim that regardless of fault an adjusted score should be given amounting to the difference between 6H-4 and the room average on that board. So what is the correct procedure here ? Karel *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR20 per month! Always-on internet & wireless option - find out more at http://www.btireland.ie/broadband From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Feb 21 11:48:36 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Feb 21 14:40:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Lille Appeal #7, COP example References: <97A3E129-3866-471B-8074-07B42332555D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001e01c636eb$216d1810$d9cb87d9@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, February 21, 2006 1:42 AM Subject: [blml] Lille Appeal #7, COP example > This is the seventh example attached to the WBF's COP for Appeals > Committees. You can view the full appeal at http:// > www.worldbridge.org/departments/appeals/198Lille/Lille07.htm, but > what I found odd is this: > > "The TD decided that there had been an infraction and that South had > been damaged, but as she could not tell what would have happened > without the infraction she scored the hand 60/40 in favour of North/ > South." Later, the committee affirmed this decision. > > Now, I have been taught that when a result is obtained at the table > (and one was in this case) it is *illegal* to award an artificial > adjusted score - yet the TD did just that, and the committee backed > him up! If this is what happens at high level international > tournaments, how are we lowly club TDs supposed to get it right? :-( > +=+ Curiously it is not example 7 in my copy. I must check up on this. If it is a COP appeal there will be a WBF comment attached at the end. What does it say? Just looking at the statements you make it appears that 60/40 was an assigned adjusted score (which the scorer would translate into the scoring medium). Is this apparent? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Feb 21 14:46:21 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Feb 21 14:48:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <43fb173c.664a.0@esatclear.ie> References: <43fb173c.664a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <43FB19AD.6080107@hdw.be> Karel wrote: > Recently in a teams league team A is playing team B. The boards are all fairly > flat bar one. > > Team B through a bidding misunderstanding arrive at 6H which goes off 4 for > 400. Team B is N/S and team A E/W at this point. Team B members have a "discussion" > afterwards looking at the hands and subsequently put all the cards back in the > wrong pockets (N-> S, E->W). The board is passed on. The switch is discovered > as the hands dont match the hand records. The TD is called and rules the board > is unplayable. He rules that board be excluded from the match score. > > Team A object. They claim it was team B's fault the cards were put back incorrectly. > They also claim that regardless of fault an adjusted score should be given > amounting to the difference between 6H-4 and the room average on that board. > > > So what is the correct procedure here ? > The correct procedure should be one in which the WBF would sanction a method of calculating Averages in Team Play. > -- 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: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: 20/02/2006 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 21 23:56:15 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Feb 22 00:00:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43fb173c.664a.0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Karel asked: >Recently in a teams league team A is playing team B. The boards are all >fairly flat bar one. > >Team B through a bidding misunderstanding arrive at 6H which goes off 4 >for 400. Team B is N/S and team A E/W at this point. Team B members >have a "discussion" afterwards looking at the hands and subsequently put >all the cards back in the wrong pockets (N-> S, E->W). The board is >passed on. The switch is discovered as the hands don't match the hand >records. The TD is called and rules the board is unplayable. He rules >that board be excluded from the match score. > >Team A object. They claim it was team B's fault the cards were put back >incorrectly. They also claim that regardless of fault an adjusted score >should be given amounting to the difference between 6H-4 and the room >average on that board. > >So what is the correct procedure here ? Richard replies: North-South of Team B have infracted Law 7C (Returning Cards to Board) when they "could have known" that that infraction would damage the non- offending side. The correct procedure would have been for the TD to award an adjusted score under the "could have known" provisions of Law 72B1. It is a moot point whether this particular circumstance permits only an artificial adjusted score of +3 imps / -3 imps. The EBU has regulated that an EBU TD may award an assigned adjusted score, but this EBU regulation seems contrary to the Chapter 1 Definition of Adjusted Score. Of course, no matter what the eventual adjusted score was, if I was the TD I would have applied a large procedural penalty to Team B. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Feb 22 02:32:03 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed Feb 22 02:36:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <43fb173c.664a.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <002a01c6374f$ca0f6b30$6500a8c0@rota> Karel writes: > Recently in a teams league team A is playing team B. The boards are all > fairly > flat bar one. > > Team B through a bidding misunderstanding arrive at 6H which goes off 4 > for > 400. Team B is N/S and team A E/W at this point. Team B members have a > "discussion" > afterwards looking at the hands and subsequently put all the cards back in > the > wrong pockets (N-> S, E->W). The board is passed on. The switch is > discovered > as the hands dont match the hand records. The TD is called and rules the > board > is unplayable. He rules that board be excluded from the match score. > > Team A object. They claim it was team B's fault the cards were put back > incorrectly. This is clear, and it subjects team B to a penalty. Their action made the board unplayable, with no fault by their opponents, and thus some penalty is in order for the offenders. The normal penalty would be 3 IMPs. > They also claim that regardless of fault an adjusted score should be given > amounting to the difference between 6H-4 and the room average on that > board. This adjustment should not be independent of the fault. If both teams were at fault, or neither team were, the board would just be thrown out. (This is a common situation; if the Swiss match has to be shortened by one board and neither team is primarily responsible for the delay, the board just gets thrown out rather than trying to restore equity on the board played only once.) However, since team B was at fault, and could have known that the infraction would be to their benefit (fouling a bad board), an adjusted score is in order. I would apply Law 12C2 to determine the adjusted score, rather than the room average; if +980 and +480 were both likely scores, +980 should be used for the comparisons. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 22 04:09:25 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Feb 22 04:14:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Lille Appeal #7, COP example In-Reply-To: <001e01c636eb$216d1810$d9cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <97A3E129-3866-471B-8074-07B42332555D@rochester.rr.com> <001e01c636eb$216d1810$d9cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Feb 21, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Curiously it is not example 7 in my copy. I must check up > on this. If it is a COP appeal there will be a WBF comment > attached at the end. What does it say? > Just looking at the statements you make it appears that > 60/40 was an assigned adjusted score (which the scorer would > translate into the scoring medium). Is this apparent? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Aha! I see what happened. The WBF web site page on appeals (http:// www.worldbridge.org/departments/appeals/default.asp) is confusing. It lists the original 1999 version of the COP in bold, and then has a one sentence reference which says "A revised version of Code of Practice, with examples and the guidelines for rulings is available in PDF format by clicking here," where "here" is a link to the new version. I had looked at the old COP, and not finding any appeals there, went back to the appeals page, which, after the bit about the COP, has a box nicely highlighted with a link to the appeals from Lille, so I thought *that* was the COP example file. I would suggest that somebody look at rewriting that page a bit. :-) Regarding Lille appeal #7, there's no WBF commentary (not surprising, considering my error. :) I don't see how 60/40 can be an assigned adjusted score, since Law 12C2 says "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" and the TD stated explicitly that she couldn't figure out what the most favorable and most unfavorable results, respectively, should be. Since it is common practice in some places (clubs in the ACBL, for example) for TDs to use 12C1 when they feel that 12C2 is just too hard, it looks to me like that's what happened here. From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Feb 22 09:48:30 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Feb 22 09:50:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Lille Appeal #7, COP example In-Reply-To: References: <97A3E129-3866-471B-8074-07B42332555D@rochester.rr.com> <001e01c636eb$216d1810$d9cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43FC255E.3060503@hdw.be> I have just re-read Lille appeal 7. It appears I was on the Committee even. It seems to me that this is no longer an interesting case. The Directors used L12C3 when that was not yet in their powers. This case has been superseded by more recent developments. It has no real relevance any more. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> Curiously it is not example 7 in my copy. I must check up >> on this. If it is a COP appeal there will be a WBF comment >> attached at the end. What does it say? >> Just looking at the statements you make it appears that >> 60/40 was an assigned adjusted score (which the scorer would >> translate into the scoring medium). Is this apparent? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Aha! I see what happened. The WBF web site page on appeals (http:// > www.worldbridge.org/departments/appeals/default.asp) is confusing. It > lists the original 1999 version of the COP in bold, and then has a one > sentence reference which says "A revised version of Code of Practice, > with examples and the guidelines for rulings is available in PDF format > by clicking here," where "here" is a link to the new version. I had > looked at the old COP, and not finding any appeals there, went back to > the appeals page, which, after the bit about the COP, has a box nicely > highlighted with a link to the appeals from Lille, so I thought *that* > was the COP example file. > > I would suggest that somebody look at rewriting that page a bit. :-) > > Regarding Lille appeal #7, there's no WBF commentary (not surprising, > considering my error. :) I don't see how 60/40 can be an assigned > adjusted score, since Law 12C2 says "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" and the TD stated explicitly that she > couldn't figure out what the most favorable and most unfavorable > results, respectively, should be. Since it is common practice in some > places (clubs in the ACBL, for example) for TDs to use 12C1 when they > feel that 12C2 is just too hard, it looks to me like that's what > happened here. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: 20/02/2006 From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Feb 22 11:22:21 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed Feb 22 11:26:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? Message-ID: <43fc3b5d.49f9.0@esatclear.ie> Just trying to find out where precisely in the laws it deems N/S are responsible for the below situation. Law 7 has been quoted (transcribed below) as the appropriate law ... Law 7 C. Returning Cards to Board Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. D. Responsibility for Procedures Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table. ... 7C + 7D seem to imply that it is the responsibility of ALL players at the table to ensure the "conditions of play" are met, which must include returning cards to pockets ?? This was N/S argument that yes they had looked at all the hands ... but E/W where present at all times and had an equal responsibility to ensure the cards were returned properly ... ergo no adjustment ? Karel *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR20 per month! Always-on internet & wireless option - find out more at http://www.btireland.ie/broadband From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Feb 22 12:20:29 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Feb 22 12:31:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002201c637a2$2bf194c0$50af87d9@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: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard replies: > > North-South of Team B have infracted Law 7C (Returning Cards to Board) > when they "could have known" that that infraction would damage the non- > offending side. The correct procedure would have been for the TD to > award an adjusted score under the "could have known" provisions of Law > 72B1. > > It is a moot point whether this particular circumstance permits only an > artificial adjusted score of +3 imps / -3 imps. The EBU has regulated > that an EBU TD may award an assigned adjusted score, but this EBU > regulation seems contrary to the Chapter 1 Definition of Adjusted Score. > > Of course, no matter what the eventual adjusted score was, if I was the > TD I would have applied a large procedural penalty to Team B. > +=+ There is an infraction of Law 7B2 as well as of Law 7C. It is true that Law 86A is misconceived in failing to take account of 'at most' and 'at least' where they appear in Law 12C1. However, the Director can and should ensure that equity is restored by the size of the procedural penalty he assesses or the 72B1 adjustment he makes. In my opinion he should compensate for what he anticipates to be the best likely score on the second table for the non-offending side. In addition, he should report the incident for further consideration under the disciplinary rules applying to the tournament; disqualification of the offenders is not unthinkable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 22 12:31:33 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Feb 22 12:36:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <43fc3b5d.49f9.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000401c637a3$8923a790$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel > Just trying to find out where precisely in the laws it deems N/S are > responsible > for the below situation. Law 7 has been quoted (transcribed below) as the > appropriate > law ... > > > Law 7 > > C. Returning Cards to Board > Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket > corresponding > to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the > board > unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. > > D. Responsibility for Procedures > Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily > responsible > for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table. > > > ... 7C + 7D seem to imply that it is the responsibility of ALL players at > the > table to ensure the "conditions of play" are met, which must include > returning > cards to pockets ?? > > This was N/S argument that yes they had looked at all the hands ... but > E/W > where present at all times and had an equal responsibility to ensure the > cards > were returned properly ... ergo no adjustment ? You seem to have overlooked Law 7B2 in addition to the other relevant laws. North South seems to admit their irregularity ending up with fouling the board and then claiming responsibility on East/West because they did not call the cops? As a Director I would rule A+ to East/West (3 IMPS) and consider the application of Law 72B1 for a greater IMP score (North/South "could have known). In any case I would probably impose a PP (1 VP penalty) on North/South because of their irregularity. If North/South then tried to argue responsibility on East/Westr they would be lucky to get away without another PP for that attempt! Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Feb 22 16:35:38 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Feb 22 16:37:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002201c637a2$2bf194c0$50af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <002201c637a2$2bf194c0$50af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <43FC84CA.2090408@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >>Of course, no matter what the eventual adjusted score was, if I was the >>TD I would have applied a large procedural penalty to Team B. >> > > +=+ There is an infraction of Law 7B2 as well as of Law 7C. It is true > that Law 86A is misconceived in failing to take account of 'at most' and > 'at least' where they appear in Law 12C1. However, the Director can > and should ensure that equity is restored by the size of the procedural > penalty he assesses or the 72B1 adjustment he makes. In my opinion > he should compensate for what he anticipates to be the best likely score > on the second table for the non-offending side. In addition, he should > report the incident for further consideration under the disciplinary rules > applying to the tournament; disqualification of the offenders is not > unthinkable. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I don't like imposing procedural penalties that are higher simply because the "result" is higher. This smacks of "we can't prove you did it on purpose, but we'll handle it like that". Better to have a general rule which takes away completely the advantage gained by scrapping the bad board. If the result of this board is +/- 7 IMPs, regardless of the reason why the board is scrapped, then the "offenders" will no longer think they have anything to gain from having the board being cancelled. For all we know, the offenders are innocent. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/266 - Release Date: 21/02/2006 From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 22 17:20:33 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Feb 22 17:25:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43FC84CA.2090408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c637cb$e84c2170$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >> > >>Of course, no matter what the eventual adjusted score was, if I was the > >>TD I would have applied a large procedural penalty to Team B. > >> > > > > +=+ There is an infraction of Law 7B2 as well as of Law 7C. It is true > > that Law 86A is misconceived in failing to take account of 'at most' and > > 'at least' where they appear in Law 12C1. However, the Director can > > and should ensure that equity is restored by the size of the procedural > > penalty he assesses or the 72B1 adjustment he makes. In my opinion > > he should compensate for what he anticipates to be the best likely score > > on the second table for the non-offending side. In addition, he should > > report the incident for further consideration under the disciplinary > rules > > applying to the tournament; disqualification of the offenders is not > > unthinkable. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I don't like imposing procedural penalties that are higher simply > because the "result" is higher. This smacks of "we can't prove you did > it on purpose, but we'll handle it like that". Better to have a > general rule which takes away completely the advantage gained by > scrapping the bad board. If the result of this board is +/- 7 IMPs, > regardless of the reason why the board is scrapped, then the > "offenders" will no longer think they have anything to gain from > having the board being cancelled. Law 90A makes a point of whether an offence results in damage to other contestants. When an offence does not result in damage I frequently just impose a PP in the form of a warning while when damage is the result I find it correct and reasonable to grade the penalty according to the damage caused. > For all we know, the offenders are innocent. Is there any doubt that the offenders in this case violated Law 7C by removing the cards from the board again and in particular Law 7B2 by "touching" their opponents' cards? Whatever really happened this is IMO an extremely good example of a case where North/South "could have known" (law 72B1) that it would be to their advantage if they "accidentally" destroyed the board while violating Law 7. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Feb 22 18:21:12 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Feb 22 18:26:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c637cb$e84c2170$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c637cb$e84c2170$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43FC9D88.9070808@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > > Law 90A makes a point of whether an offence results in damage to other > contestants. When an offence does not result in damage I frequently just > impose a PP in the form of a warning while when damage is the result I find > it correct and reasonable to grade the penalty according to the damage > caused. > > >>For all we know, the offenders are innocent. > > > Is there any doubt that the offenders in this case violated Law 7C by > removing the cards from the board again and in particular Law 7B2 by > "touching" their opponents' cards? > Is there any reason to believe they did so deliberately? (yes of course there is, but are you ready to accuse them of it?) > Whatever really happened this is IMO an extremely good example of a case > where North/South "could have known" (law 72B1) that it would be to their > advantage if they "accidentally" destroyed the board while violating Law 7. > True, but the "could have known" applies always. So either you always restore equity, or you always award PP's. But what you should not do is change the height of the PP with regards to the damage. > Regards Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/266 - Release Date: 21/02/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 22 19:37:13 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Feb 22 19:41:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <000401c637a3$8923a790$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c637a3$8923a790$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:31 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > You seem to have overlooked Law 7B2 in addition to the other > relevant laws. > > North South seems to admit their irregularity ending up with > fouling the > board and then claiming responsibility on East/West because they > did not > call the cops? > > As a Director I would rule A+ to East/West (3 IMPS) and consider the > application of Law 72B1 for a greater IMP score (North/South "could > have > known). In any case I would probably impose a PP (1 VP penalty) on > North/South because of their irregularity. > > If North/South then tried to argue responsibility on East/Westr > they would > be lucky to get away without another PP for that attempt! The last sentence of 7B2 clearly prohibits a player from touching any other player's cards. Interestingly, this makes illegal the common local practice (at clubs, anyway) of a defender turning dummy's card when dummy must leave the table. :-) Karel said "The switch is discovered as the hands dont match the hand records. The TD is called and rules the board is unplayable. He rules that board be excluded from the match score." Did this happen before the board was played at the second table? If so, then I don't believe law 72B1 applies since it says "he (the TD) shall require the auction and play to continue..." which didn't happen in this case. Under Law 12C1, I would agree the ruling would be A+ to E/W (in no way at fault) and A- to N/S. I note that law allows E/W to get more than 60%, and N/S to get less than 40%, but I know of no guidance when and how to do this - I'd sure like some! :-) I also agree with a PP for N/S (Law 7B2, Law 90). However, I note that Laws 90B5 and 90B6 suggest that E/W should also get a PP in this case, Why should they not? Under what Law do you award a PP for N/S for arguing that E/W were at least partly responsible? Law 90, perhaps, but even so, against what law is this an offense? Note: I'm not talking about persistent arguing, delaying the game, that clearly rates a PP. If you hear N/S's argument and agree with it, then E/W should get average, not A+. IMO, you can't dismiss the argument on the grounds that you want to give A+ to E/W (I'm not saying anyone here has done so, just trying to cover all the bases) - that violates Law 12B. If you disagree with the argument, then E/W gets A+, but that's separate from any consideration of penalties. If the TD is authorized to use 12C3, then he can "do equity", but that's a different kettle of fish. I note also that Law 88 says that the SO might prescribe a redeal in this case, provided that doing so does not violate Law 86C - which I suspect it would, in this case. Was such a regulation in force? "He rules that board be excluded from the match score." Since Law 86C seems to prohibit that, it's director error, which can be corrected easily, since it involves only the scoring. IOW, the last clause of Law 82C (regarding giving A+ to both sides) does not apply, From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 22 19:46:47 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Feb 22 19:51:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c637cb$e84c2170$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c637cb$e84c2170$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 90A makes a point of whether an offence results in damage to other > contestants. When an offence does not result in damage I frequently > just > impose a PP in the form of a warning while when damage is the > result I find > it correct and reasonable to grade the penalty according to the damage > caused. If a warning is a PP, then if ()A requires the NOS to have been damaged as a prerequisite for a PP, then you cannot do this. (IMO nothing says you can't warn players that in a case where there *is* damage you will award a PP, you just can't call this warning a PP). By what logic do you find it correct and reasonable to grade the penalty as you say? Please don't tell me it's to restore equity! > Whatever really happened this is IMO an extremely good example of a > case > where North/South "could have known" (law 72B1) that it would be to > their > advantage if they "accidentally" destroyed the board while > violating Law 7. Law 72B1 says "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." How does the director "require the auction and play to continue" at the second table in this case? I think he was right to rule the board unplayable, but doesn't this negate the possible use of Law 72B1 as it's worded? Aside from that, all 72B1 authorizes the director to do is to award an adjusted score - which he's already doing anyway. So what's the point? From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 22 19:53:10 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Feb 22 19:57:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43FC9D88.9070808@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c637e1$39e18c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 90A makes a point of whether an offence results in damage to > > other contestants. When an offence does not result in damage I > > frequently just impose a PP in the form of a warning while when > > damage is the result I find it correct and reasonable to grade > > the penalty according to the damage caused. > > > > > >>For all we know, the offenders are innocent. > > > > > > Is there any doubt that the offenders in this case violated Law 7C by > > removing the cards from the board again and in particular Law 7B2 by > > "touching" their opponents' cards? > > > > Is there any reason to believe they did so deliberately? > (yes of course there is, but are you ready to accuse them of it?) Can there be any doubt that the removal of the cards from the board and their handling of those cards were "deliberate"? > > > Whatever really happened this is IMO an extremely good example of a case > > where North/South "could have known" (law 72B1) that it would be to > their > > advantage if they "accidentally" destroyed the board while violating Law > 7. > > > > True, but the "could have known" applies always. So either you always > restore equity, or you always award PP's. But what you should not do > is change the height of the PP with regards to the damage. I always consider both, this is not a matter of "either - or". And I reserve my right to judge the circumstances of the procedural error when considering the procedural penalty (unless my freedom to do so is removed by some regulation). Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Feb 22 19:38:52 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Feb 22 20:19:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002201c637a2$2bf194c0$50af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <002201c637a2$2bf194c0$50af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > However, the Director can and should ensure that equity is > restored by the size of the procedural > penalty he assesses or the 72B1 adjustment he makes !!!!???? I have long been under the impression that this is illegal. Why is it not? From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 22 20:57:29 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Feb 22 21:02:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c637ea$3633fed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ............ > The last sentence of 7B2 clearly prohibits a player from touching any > other player's cards. Interestingly, this makes illegal the common > local practice (at clubs, anyway) of a defender turning dummy's card > when dummy must leave the table. :-) > > Karel said "The switch is discovered as the hands dont match the hand > records. The TD is called and rules the board is unplayable. He > rules that board be excluded from the match score." Did this happen > before the board was played at the second table? > > If so, then I don't believe law 72B1 applies since it says "he (the > TD) shall require the auction and play to continue..." which didn't > happen in this case. L72B1 does not depend on when or how an irregularity is detected. From the given information we must assume that the irregularity was not detected until the auction at the second table had proceeded beyond the point where it could have been corrected. > Under Law 12C1, I would agree the ruling would be A+ to E/W (in no > way at fault) and A- to N/S. I note that law allows E/W to get more > than 60%, and N/S to get less than 40%, but I know of no guidance > when and how to do this - I'd sure like some! :-) I believe this is to specify the rounding to integer when 40% and 60% calculation results in points with fractions. > I also agree with a > PP for N/S (Law 7B2, Law 90). However, I note that Laws 90B5 and 90B6 > suggest that E/W should also get a PP in this case, Why should they not? The information we have is that North and South removed the cards to discuss a disastrous mistake in their bidding. We have no information that East and West took part in this irregular handling of the cards. > > Under what Law do you award a PP for N/S for arguing that E/W were at > least partly responsible? Law 90, perhaps, but even so, against what > law is this an offense? Note: I'm not talking about persistent > arguing, delaying the game, that clearly rates a PP. Law 74A2. I consider the argumentation an insult from OS fishing for an excuse to transfer some of the responsibility to NOS. > > If you hear N/S's argument and agree with it, then E/W should get > average, not A+. IMO, you can't dismiss the argument on the grounds > that you want to give A+ to E/W (I'm not saying anyone here has done > so, just trying to cover all the bases) - that violates Law 12B. If > you disagree with the argument, then E/W gets A+, but that's separate > from any consideration of penalties. I do not hold E/W accountable for their failure to "call the cops" when they noticed the irregular activity initiated and carried out by N/S. The irregularity did not take place during the auction or play so I give NOS much leniency here. > > If the TD is authorized to use 12C3, then he can "do equity", but > that's a different kettle of fish. > > I note also that Law 88 says that the SO might prescribe a redeal in > this case, provided that doing so does not violate Law 86C - which I > suspect it would, in this case. Was such a regulation in force? > > "He rules that board be excluded from the match score." Since Law > 86C seems to prohibit that, it's director error, which can be > corrected easily, since it involves only the scoring. IOW, the last > clause of Law 82C (regarding giving A+ to both sides) does not apply, I am generally allergic to fishing tours on behalf of OS trying to pin some responsibility on NOS. So also here. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 22 21:16:32 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Feb 22 21:21:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c637ec$e03b73c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Feb 22, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 90A makes a point of whether an offence results in damage to other > > contestants. When an offence does not result in damage I frequently > > just impose a PP in the form of a warning while when damage is the > > result I find it correct and reasonable to grade the penalty according > > to the damage caused. > > If a warning is a PP, then if ()A requires the NOS to have been > damaged as a prerequisite for a PP, then you cannot do this. (IMO > nothing says you can't warn players that in a case where there *is* > damage you will award a PP, you just can't call this warning a PP). There is to my knowledge no prerequisite for a PP that damage has been caused. And I do indeed consider a warning as the mildest grade of PP. > > By what logic do you find it correct and reasonable to grade the > penalty as you say? Please don't tell me it's to restore equity! Certainly not. I believe it is part of our civilization that we consider all circumstances around irregularities when assessing the relevant penalty. Such circumstances include among else the severity of the irregularity itself, the danger that it will lead to damage and the amount of damage actually caused. > > > Whatever really happened this is IMO an extremely good example of a > > case where North/South "could have known" (law 72B1) that it would > > be to their advantage if they "accidentally" destroyed the board > > while violating Law 7. > > Law 72B1 says "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could > have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity > would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require > the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted > score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage > through the irregularity." > > How does the director "require the auction and play to continue" at > the second table in this case? I think he was right to rule the board > unplayable, but doesn't this negate the possible use of Law 72B1 as > it's worded? Certainly not. Consider the case where a side experiencing a disaster at the first table deliberately makes the board unplayable at the second table (for instance by boxing all 52 cards in the board). Of course L72B1 applies. > > Aside from that, all 72B1 authorizes the director to do is to award > an adjusted score - which he's already doing anyway. So what's the > point? Adjusted scores and PP are entirely different matters. We adjust scores to restore equity. We award PP (only) for penalty. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Feb 22 22:46:55 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Feb 22 22:48:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c637e1$39e18c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c637e1$39e18c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43FCDBCF.6020906@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>Is there any doubt that the offenders in this case violated Law 7C by >>>removing the cards from the board again and in particular Law 7B2 by >>>"touching" their opponents' cards? >>> >> >>Is there any reason to believe they did so deliberately? >>(yes of course there is, but are you ready to accuse them of it?) > > > Can there be any doubt that the removal of the cards from the board and > their handling of those cards were "deliberate"? > Of course that is deliberate. But it is not that infraction which made the board unplayable. That was the infraction of putting the cards back in the wrong way. And you cannot be certain that this second infraction was deliberate. Because if you are certain of it, Av- is certainly not the right ruling, expulsion would be. > >>>Whatever really happened this is IMO an extremely good example of a case >>>where North/South "could have known" (law 72B1) that it would be to >> >>their >> >>>advantage if they "accidentally" destroyed the board while violating Law >> >>7. >> >>True, but the "could have known" applies always. So either you always >>restore equity, or you always award PP's. But what you should not do >>is change the height of the PP with regards to the damage. > > > I always consider both, this is not a matter of "either - or". > > And I reserve my right to judge the circumstances of the procedural error > when considering the procedural penalty (unless my freedom to do so is > removed by some regulation). > > Sven > I think that freedom was never present to start with. The laws are quite clear about Artificial scores. I don't believe you can use Artificial scores in their present form to tackle this problem. This problem is restricted to team playand non-existant in pairs play - because the AS will not help potential offenders get away with the bad score they already have. If we can make certain that the bad score is kept when applying the AS on the other table, this kind of problem will cease to exist. I have stated before that I believe it is possible to change the calculation of Artificial scores in team matches in such a way that the bad score is kept. -- 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: 267.15.12/266 - Release Date: 21/02/2006 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 22 20:41:43 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Feb 22 22:51:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <000401c637a3$8923a790$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003d01c637f9$b4c1c520$6ee0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who is responsible ? > > > > If the TD is authorized to use 12C3, then he can > "do equity", but that's a different kettle of fish. > +=+ The attitude of the EBL is that the Directors should always 'do equity'. This has been so ever since I began to participate in Laws and Appeals matters internationally in the mid-Seventies. It was particularly emphasised when, representing the EBL, I insisted that we would not consent to the inscription of Law 12C2 in 1987 unless we had the means to skip past it. At no time , then or since, has the EBL believed that 12C2 is a good law or one to be adhered to except in the breach. Although it is comparatively recently that formal powers have been given to the Chief Director under 12C3, Director's have always been mandated by the EBU to adjust scores as they think fit for equity. For many years it was done rather crudely. Only comparatively recently have we developed the sophistication of weighting adjustments in line with judged probabilities of the principal results that we feel should be taken into consideration. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 22 23:07:23 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Feb 22 23:11:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002201c637a2$2bf194c0$50af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <005d01c637fc$7d928b40$6ee0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> However, the Director can and should ensure that > > equity is restored by the size of the procedural >> penalty he assesses or the 72B1 adjustment he makes > > !!!!???? > > I have long been under the impression that this is illegal. > Why is it not? > +=+ How did you form the impression? Which law? +=+ From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 23 00:03:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 23 00:08:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <43FCDBCF.6020906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c63804$3fd9a290$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > > Can there be any doubt that the removal of the cards from the board and > > their handling of those cards were "deliberate"? > > > > Of course that is deliberate. But it is not that infraction which made > the board unplayable. That was the infraction of putting the cards > back in the wrong way. And you cannot be certain that this second > infraction was deliberate. Because if you are certain of it, Av- is > certainly not the right ruling, expulsion would be. Retrieving and handling the cards in conflict with Laws 7B2 and 7C is explicitly named as infringements in these laws. Returning the cards afterwards is not named as infringement of any law (probably because that action shall not occur). What caused this error was the deliberate infringement in removing the cards and handling them. Carelessly returning the cards afterwards just sealed the "destruction" of the board. I do not claim that this carelessness was deliberate, that is insignificant. What _is_ significant was the deliberate infringement that took place initially. We cannot excuse an infringement of laws by claiming that somebody could have prevented the damage from this infringement by taking some particular action subsequent to that infringement. The responsibility for such damage remains with the original offence. Sven From karel at esatclear.ie Thu Feb 23 03:04:05 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu Feb 23 03:08:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c63804$3fd9a290$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001501c6381d$6d2bc570$2301a8c0@Karel3200> +++ a side issue : Sven seems to be saying that you are not allowed to touch your opps (or pd's) cards period full stop and any such action immediately places that person in violation of Law 7 and any attached ramifications. It is fairly normal practice in my bridge circles to ask an opponent to look at their cards should you wish to do so. Now I'm on unsteady ground here ... but ... having been given this consent, that person is now equally responsible for ensuring the cards are replaced correctly (at least this is the impression I have been under for the last x number of years). As this practice of loooking at, at least pd's, cards seems very common - maybe a 7E covering what happens in such circumstances might be an idea ? I don't know what the precise circumstances were on the original post. I don't think N/S deliberately replaced the cards back incorrectly to spoil the board (not the impression I got). I also believe E/W were always present (discussion & replacement of cards). I do not know if E/W agreed to the examination of cards. I do gather the cards were hastily replaced as the boards where in the process of being moved. As to the 2nd table - the curtain cards & hands were reversed for all 4 players so it was impossible to to play the board. Sometimes under such circumstances I have seen TD's redeal the board and get both sides to (re)play it, if sufficient time. This though by passes and avoids tackling the issue. Karel [snip] " Retrieving and handling the cards in conflict with Laws 7B2 and 7C is explicitly named as infringements in these laws. Returning the cards afterwards is not named as infringement of any law (probably because that action shall not occur). What caused this error was the deliberate infringement in removing the cards and handling them. Carelessly returning the cards afterwards just sealed the "destruction" of the board. I do not claim that this carelessness was deliberate, that is insignificant. What _is_ significant was the deliberate infringement that took place initially. We cannot excuse an infringement of laws by claiming that somebody could have prevented the damage from this infringement by taking some particular action subsequent to that infringement. The responsibility for such damage remains with the original offence. " From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Feb 23 04:47:51 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Feb 23 04:52:36 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan" > ... representing the EBL, > I insisted that we would not consent to the inscription > of Law 12C2 in 1987 unless we had the means to > skip past it. At no time , then or since, has the EBL > believed that 12C2 is a good law Is that view held only in Europe, or is it more widespread? I've always thought L12C2 was quite a good one. What problems do you find in it? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 23 06:56:25 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Feb 23 07:01:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c6381d$6d2bc570$2301a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Lawbook Chapter 1 Definitions: >>Adjusted Score - An arbitrary score awarded by the Director (see Law 12). It is >>either "artificial" or "assigned". 1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded >>in lieu of a result because no result can be obtained or estimated for a >>particular deal (e.g., **when an irregularity prevents play of a deal**). 2. An >>assigned adjusted score is awarded to one side, or to both sides, to be the >>result of the deal in place of the **result actually obtained** after an >>irregularity. EBU White Book clause 12.6: >If team A gets a good or lucky board against team B and, because of an infraction >by team B, the board **cannot be played** at the second table, then the non- >offenders are **entitled to an assigned** adjusted score under Law 72B1 [snip] Monty Python's Life of Brian (slightly modified): BRIAN: Ohh. Look. There was this man, and he had two servants. ARTHUR: What were they called? BRIAN: What? ARTHUR: What were their names? BRIAN: I don't know. And he gave them some talents. EDDIE: You don't know?! BRIAN: Well, it doesn't matter! ARTHUR: He doesn't know what they were called! BRIAN: Oh, they were called 'artificial' and 'assigned'. Now-- ARTHUR: Oh! You said you didn't know! BRIAN: It really doesn't matter. The point is there were these two servants-- ARTHUR: He's making it up as he goes along. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Feb 23 09:13:59 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Feb 23 09:15:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c63804$3fd9a290$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c63804$3fd9a290$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43FD6EC7.3000408@hdw.be> Yet again there is nothing you write that is particularly wrong, Sven, but you have still managed to totally miss my point: Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > >>>Can there be any doubt that the removal of the cards from the board and >>>their handling of those cards were "deliberate"? >>> >> >>Of course that is deliberate. But it is not that infraction which made >>the board unplayable. That was the infraction of putting the cards >>back in the wrong way. And you cannot be certain that this second >>infraction was deliberate. Because if you are certain of it, Av- is >>certainly not the right ruling, expulsion would be. > > > Retrieving and handling the cards in conflict with Laws 7B2 and 7C is > explicitly named as infringements in these laws. Returning the cards > afterwards is not named as infringement of any law (probably because that > action shall not occur). > > What caused this error was the deliberate infringement in removing the cards > and handling them. Carelessly returning the cards afterwards just sealed the > "destruction" of the board. I do not claim that this carelessness was > deliberate, that is insignificant. What _is_ significant was the deliberate > infringement that took place initially. > > We cannot excuse an infringement of laws by claiming that somebody could > have prevented the damage from this infringement by taking some particular > action subsequent to that infringement. The responsibility for such damage > remains with the original offence. > Whatever else you think about the second "error", it is that one which causes the board to be made unplayable. If you refuse to acknowledge that the second error takes place, then I ask you to deal with the first error alone. If you are going to punish this pair for this infraction, then you must also punish every other pair that commits the same infraction. Which you don't (because you are not called to rule on those infractions since they cause no damage). If you rule on the same infraction in a different manner because of some other error comitted later, then you are not ruling on the infraction itself, but on the error committed afterwards. > 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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/266 - Release Date: 21/02/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 09:28:09 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 09:32:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <000301c637ea$3633fed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c637ea$3633fed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4F911BCE-C09F-4605-B618-AC204EB66166@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > L72B1 does not depend on when or how an irregularity is detected. > From the > given information we must assume that the irregularity was not > detected > until the auction at the second table had proceeded beyond the > point where > it could have been corrected. Must we? I've not played in Ireland, where this apparently took place, but I have played in England, and as I recall, boards there often (if not always) had "curtain cards" in them, the purpose of which was to check you had not just 13 cards, but the *right* 13 cards, before the bidding starts. If that is the case here, then your assumption is incorrect. > I believe this is to specify the rounding to integer when 40% and 60% > calculation results in points with fractions. On what basis? This idea would never have occurred to me. > The information we have is that North and South removed the cards > to discuss > a disastrous mistake in their bidding. We have no information that > East and > West took part in this irregular handling of the cards. You're right. My bad. :-) > Law 74A2. > > I consider the argumentation an insult from OS fishing for an > excuse to > transfer some of the responsibility to NOS. It sounded to me, from Karel's second post, like NS either were unsure of the legal position (ie, whether law 7D applies) or had the erroneous impression that it did. So they brought it up. I don't take Karel's use of the word "argument" to mean they were argumentative, just that they presented their reasoning. I think you're too harsh here. > I do not hold E/W accountable for their failure to "call the cops" > when they > noticed the irregular activity initiated and carried out by N/S. The > irregularity did not take place during the auction or play so I > give NOS > much leniency here. Well, "I am only an egg," but I wonder if other experienced TDs will agree with you on that. :-) > I am generally allergic to fishing tours on behalf of OS trying to > pin some > responsibility on NOS. So also here. Are you suggesting that I'm on such a tour? I'm not - I'm simply trying to make sure I understand all the ramifications of the circumstances and the applicable laws. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 09:30:49 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 09:35:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <003d01c637f9$b4c1c520$6ee0403e@Mildred> References: <000401c637a3$8923a790$6400a8c0@WINXP> <003d01c637f9$b4c1c520$6ee0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Grattan wrote: > The attitude of the EBL is... [remainder stripped for brevity's sake] Yeah, well, the EBL (and you) may be right about 12C2, but I'm not in the EBL. :-) From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 23 09:32:53 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 23 09:37:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c6381d$6d2bc570$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <000001c63853$bd4eb1d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel > +++ a side issue : Sven seems to be saying that you are not allowed to > touch your opps (or pd's) cards period full stop Except that declarer is explicitly permitted to handle Dummy's cards in addition to his own. That permission of course (technically) expires at the end of the play period. > and any such action > immediately places that person in violation of Law 7 and any attached > ramifications. It is fairly normal practice in my bridge circles to ask > an > opponent to look at their cards should you wish to do so. Now I'm on > unsteady ground here ... but ... having been given this consent, that > person > is now equally responsible for ensuring the cards are replaced correctly > (at > least this is the impression I have been under for the last x number of > years). As this practice of loooking at, at least pd's, cards seems very > common - maybe a 7E covering what happens in such circumstances might be > an > idea ? No need for a Law 7E. Each player is responsible for his own cards from the moment they are taken from the board until they are returned to the board. > > > I don't know what the precise circumstances were on the original post. I > don't think N/S deliberately replaced the cards back incorrectly to spoil > the board (not the impression I got). I also believe E/W were always > present (discussion & replacement of cards). I do not know if E/W agreed > to > the examination of cards. I do gather the cards were hastily replaced as > the boards where in the process of being moved. So do I, but the damage was initiated already when North/South took the cards from the board and began their analysis. This is by far the most common cause for "fouled boards" and should be opposed by all means. > As to the 2nd table - the > curtain cards & hands were reversed for all 4 players so it was impossible > to to play the board. Sometimes under such circumstances I have seen TD's > redeal the board and get both sides to (re)play it, if sufficient time. > This though by passes and avoids tackling the issue. It is quite correct (given time) to order a redeal of the board even if it has already been played at the other table except when the final result of the match "could be known" to any of the affected contestants (Law 86C). But the Director should impose the same procedure penalty when a board must be redealt as when the board must simply be cancelled when the other circumstances of the irregularity are identical. Regards Sven > Karel > > > [snip] > " Retrieving and handling the cards in conflict with Laws 7B2 and 7C is > explicitly named as infringements in these laws. Returning the cards > afterwards is not named as infringement of any law (probably because that > action shall not occur). > > What caused this error was the deliberate infringement in removing the > cards > and handling them. Carelessly returning the cards afterwards just sealed > the > "destruction" of the board. I do not claim that this carelessness was > deliberate, that is insignificant. What _is_ significant was the > deliberate > infringement that took place initially. > > We cannot excuse an infringement of laws by claiming that somebody could > have prevented the damage from this infringement by taking some particular > action subsequent to that infringement. The responsibility for such damage > remains with the original offence. " > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 09:43:09 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 09:47:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c637ec$e03b73c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c637ec$e03b73c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <518777D9-1650-414D-AD6C-E40685EA4252@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 22, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert >> On Feb 22, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Law 90A makes a point of whether an offence results in damage to >>> other >>> contestants. When an offence does not result in damage I frequently >>> just impose a PP in the form of a warning while when damage is the >>> result I find it correct and reasonable to grade the penalty >>> according >>> to the damage caused. >> >> If a warning is a PP, then if ()A requires the NOS to have been >> damaged as a prerequisite for a PP, then you cannot do this. (IMO >> nothing says you can't warn players that in a case where there *is* >> damage you will award a PP, you just can't call this warning a PP). > > There is to my knowledge no prerequisite for a PP that damage has been > caused. And I do indeed consider a warning as the mildest grade of PP. Then why did you say "Law 90A make a point of whether an offense results in damage to other contestants"? > Consider the case where a side experiencing a disaster at the > first table deliberately makes the board unplayable at the second > table (for > instance by boxing all 52 cards in the board). Of course L72B1 > applies. Heh. Prove it. :-) >> Aside from that, all 72B1 authorizes the director to do is to award >> an adjusted score - which he's already doing anyway. So what's the >> point? > > Adjusted scores and PP are entirely different matters. We adjust > scores to > restore equity. We award PP (only) for penalty. I'm tired, so my brain may not be firing on all cylinders, but... this sounds like you want to adjust the score under one law (or set of laws), and then award a PP for violating 72B1, without using that Law to adjust. Is that right? From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 23 10:25:49 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 23 10:30:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <4F911BCE-C09F-4605-B618-AC204EB66166@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000801c6385b$2294e300$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > L72B1 does not depend on when or how an irregularity is detected. > > From the > > given information we must assume that the irregularity was not > > detected > > until the auction at the second table had proceeded beyond the > > point where > > it could have been corrected. > > Must we? I've not played in Ireland, where this apparently took > place, but I have played in England, and as I recall, boards there > often (if not always) had "curtain cards" in them, the purpose of > which was to check you had not just 13 cards, but the *right* 13 > cards, before the bidding starts. If that is the case here, then your > assumption is incorrect. True (We do not use such cards to be inspected before the auction begins here). But I think the Director was correct in ruling that normal play of the board is impossible because all players have seen (too much of) other player's cards. (Compare also law 13B) > > > I believe this is to specify the rounding to integer when 40% and 60% > > calculation results in points with fractions. > > On what basis? This idea would never have occurred to me. In the days of manual scoring when a pair should be awarded 60% of a possible top of 22 MP which amounted to 13.2 MP we would award 14 MP. Similarly we would round 40% down from 8.8 to 8 MP. > > > The information we have is that North and South removed the cards > > to discuss > > a disastrous mistake in their bidding. We have no information that > > East and > > West took part in this irregular handling of the cards. > > You're right. My bad. :-) > > > Law 74A2. > > > > I consider the argumentation an insult from OS fishing for an > > excuse to > > transfer some of the responsibility to NOS. > > It sounded to me, from Karel's second post, like NS either were > unsure of the legal position (ie, whether law 7D applies) or had the > erroneous impression that it did. So they brought it up. I don't take > Karel's use of the word "argument" to mean they were argumentative, > just that they presented their reasoning. I think you're too harsh here. If they just asked I agree. In that case I would explain to them that the main cause for the destruction of the board was their initial infringement of laws and just leave it there. If they really argued apparently in order to make East/West share the responsibility then I maintain my position. (How would you like being dragged into some crime by a villain claiming that you are partly responsible as you happened to be spectator not taking any action to avoid or reduce the consequences of the crime?) > > I do not hold E/W accountable for their failure to "call the cops" > > when they > > noticed the irregular activity initiated and carried out by N/S. The > > irregularity did not take place during the auction or play so I > > give NOS > > much leniency here. > > Well, "I am only an egg," but I wonder if other experienced TDs will > agree with you on that. :-) > > > I am generally allergic to fishing tours on behalf of OS trying to > > pin some > > responsibility on NOS. So also here. > > Are you suggesting that I'm on such a tour? I'm not - I'm simply > trying to make sure I understand all the ramifications of the > circumstances and the applicable laws. No, not you. But some of the argumentation sure sounds like that in my ears. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 23 10:41:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 23 10:46:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <518777D9-1650-414D-AD6C-E40685EA4252@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c6385d$5e523e40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ................. > >> Aside from that, all 72B1 authorizes the director to do is to award > >> an adjusted score - which he's already doing anyway. So what's the > >> point? > > > > Adjusted scores and PP are entirely different matters. We adjust > > scores to > > restore equity. We award PP (only) for penalty. > > I'm tired, so my brain may not be firing on all cylinders, but... > this sounds like you want to adjust the score under one law (or set > of laws), and then award a PP for violating 72B1, without using that > Law to adjust. Is that right? Not for violating 72B1 but for performing the irregularity itself. I consider the irregularity to be more serious if it (additionally) can be brought within the scope of L72B1 adjustments. IMO L72B1 is the closest we can get to accusing somebody of willful cheating without actually doing it. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 23 11:37:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 23 11:42:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <000301c637ea$3633fed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > L72B1 does not depend on when or how an irregularity is detected. From > the given information we must assume that the irregularity was not > detected until the auction at the second table had proceeded beyond the > point where it could have been corrected. The hands are removed from the board, counted and checked against the curtain cards - all according to procedure. Every player is now looking at a hand that in no way resembles the curtain card. The players are not dumb, they know they are looking at someone else's hand from the same deal - the TD, of course, rules the hand unplayable before the auction even starts. Absent curtain cards the error would not be detected until scoring up time - at which point the board would have to be scrubbed. Personally I would ensure that any PP (beyond the +3/-3 adjustment) was of sufficient size to demonstrate to offenders that they could never expect to gain from deliberately misboarding. That might be anything from 0 to 20 IMPs but would be consistently just above their maximum possible gain. A suspicion of deliberate intent would be reported to the L&EC (who would doubtless take matters further if this was a repeat offence). A suspicion is not an accusation. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Feb 23 11:34:27 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Feb 23 11:44:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c637e1$39e18c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43FCDBCF.6020906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005901c63864$d4b20780$55c987d9@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: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who is responsible ? > > I think that freedom was never present to start with. The laws are > quite clear about Artificial scores. I don't believe you can use > Artificial scores in their present form to tackle this problem. > > This problem is restricted to team playand non-existant in pairs play > - because the AS will not help potential offenders get away with the > bad score they already have. If we can make certain that the bad score > is kept when applying the AS on the other table, this kind of problem > will cease to exist. > > I have stated before that I believe it is possible to change the > calculation of Artificial scores in team matches in such a way that > the bad score is kept. > +=+ I am wondering whether I can stir my brain to recall the occasion when a principle was educed that in a match between teams when the board has been played at the first table it remains in play for those contestants until it has been played (?scored) at the remaining table(s) of the match. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Feb 23 11:53:06 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Feb 23 11:54:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43FD9412.4010208@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > doubtless take matters further if this was a repeat offence). A suspicion > is not an accusation. > > Tim > No, but a penalty of more than the standard sum _is_. I agree that this is how we should be able to deal with this kind of occurance. But I don't agree that we _can_ under the present regulations. Which is why I urge the WBF to write regulations that enable this sort of ruling. Perhaps an idea for Verona, Ton? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 22/02/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 23 14:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 23 14:04:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <43FD9412.4010208@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > doubtless take matters further if this was a repeat offence). A > > suspicion is not an accusation. > > > > Tim > > > > No, but a penalty of more than the standard sum _is_. L90. A. Director's Authority The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. B. Offences Subject to Penalty Offences subject to penalty include but are not limited to: 6. Misplacing Cards in Board placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board. This clearly empowers TDs to impose penalties beyond the standard adjustment. When I explain to *accidental* offenders that the PP is always of sufficient magnitude to provide no incentive for deliberate misboarding I'm not accusing them and they won't *think* I'm accusing them, indeed they will see the necessity of such an approach. NB, if the pair *does* go all indignant and start telling me that +3/-3 is the maximum adjustment I'm much more likely to get suspicious! Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Feb 23 14:16:54 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Feb 23 14:18:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43FDB5C6.5030206@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: >>Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >> >>>doubtless take matters further if this was a repeat offence). A >>>suspicion is not an accusation. >>> >>>Tim >>> >> >>No, but a penalty of more than the standard sum _is_. > > > L90. A. Director's Authority > The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these > Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or > obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct > procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. > B. Offences Subject to Penalty > Offences subject to penalty include but are not limited to: > 6. Misplacing Cards in Board > placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board. > This is all quite clear - A TD does have the powers suggested. > This clearly empowers TDs to impose penalties beyond the standard > adjustment. Indeed. But it does not mean that the TD would be right to impose a 25 IMP fine on a player who takes his partner's cards out of the board. > When I explain to *accidental* offenders that the PP is > always of sufficient magnitude to provide no incentive for deliberate > misboarding I'm not accusing them and they won't *think* I'm accusing > them, indeed they will see the necessity of such an approach. Maybe they would, but you are still left with different fines for the same offence, simply because of the circumstances. > NB, if the > pair *does* go all indignant and start telling me that +3/-3 is the > maximum adjustment I'm much more likely to get suspicious! > That is true, but I'm not talking of explaining this to the players. When you give this penalty, no doubt the players will believe there is a regulation that supports your view. But we know better than that. There is no such regulation, and even if I believe you would be right in doing so, I still believe you are wrong (regulation-wise). I maintain that the regulations should be changed to make these extra fines legal. > 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: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 22/02/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 23 15:50:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 23 15:54:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <43FDB5C6.5030206@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Maybe they would, but you are still left with different fines for the > same offence, simply because of the circumstances. The level of penalty is designed to *fit* the circumstances. That's a reasonable legal precept in the UK. Doing 40mph on a stretch of road outside a primary school at 3.30pm will attract a (much) harsher penalty than doing the same speed on the same road at 3.30am. For some other motoring convictions the fine varies with income rather than the offence per se. I know nothing of Belgian law, you may be right that a change in the laws (or an explicit regulation) would be necessary to justify such rulings over there - we can happily operate without such a change in the UK. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 16:23:46 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 16:28:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005901c63864$d4b20780$55c987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000101c637e1$39e18c90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <43FCDBCF.6020906@hdw.be> <005901c63864$d4b20780$55c987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <1C7594DE-2D30-4966-BB1E-3E460BF95EF5@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 23, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > I am wondering whether I can stir my brain to recall > the occasion when a principle was educed that in a match > between teams when the board has been played at the first > table it remains in play for those contestants until it has > been played (?scored) at the remaining table(s) of the match. Interesting principle. It raises two questions in my mind: 1. Why should it only be applicable to team play? 2. If it is applicable to pairs play, it means that a board once played at *any* table is still "in play" for that table until the end of the stanza. What are the implications of that? Okay, three questions: 3. What is the logic behind this principle? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 16:43:33 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 16:48:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005d01c637fc$7d928b40$6ee0403e@Mildred> References: <002201c637a2$2bf194c0$50af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <005d01c637fc$7d928b40$6ee0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <029D34C1-3430-4769-9039-A94B9509680C@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 22, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Grattan wrote: >> On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> However, the Director can and should ensure that >>> equity is restored by the size of the procedural >>> penalty he assesses or the 72B1 adjustment he makes >> !!!!???? >> I have long been under the impression that this is illegal. Why is >> it not? > +=+ How did you form the impression? Which law? +=+ IIRC I got the idea from DWS. I *think* he stated it explicitly, but I may be mistaken. I don't think I can quote a specific law. I would think that several laws (not to mention the Scope) would be germane. Probably including 81B2, 81C6, 81C7 (note particularly "when applicable"), 82B (which omits to suggest that it's appropriate to use a penalty to restore equity). We seem, if I'm not mistaken, to have established the legal principle, for players, that if something is not expressly permitted in the laws, it is forbidden. Why should that not apply equally to directors? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 16:47:52 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 16:52:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c63804$3fd9a290$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c63804$3fd9a290$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Returning the cards afterwards is not named as infringement of any > law (probably because that > action shall not occur). If NS pulled all four hands out and later returned them to the board, then one or both of NS is guilty of violating Law 7C, since he returned cards *not his own* to the board. Even if that was not the case, they may still be guilty if each returned his partner's cards to the board. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 17:00:57 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 17:05:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c6381d$6d2bc570$2301a8c0@Karel3200> References: <001501c6381d$6d2bc570$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2006, at 9:04 PM, Karel wrote: > It is fairly normal practice in my bridge circles to ask an > opponent to look at their cards should you wish to do so. Now I'm on > unsteady ground here ... but ... having been given this consent, > that person > is now equally responsible for ensuring the cards are replaced > correctly (at > least this is the impression I have been under for the last x > number of > years). As this practice of loooking at, at least pd's, cards > seems very > common - maybe a 7E covering what happens in such circumstances > might be an > idea ? It's common practice here too. Doesn't make it legal. There is nothing in the laws that permits a player to consent to another player's breach of law 7. We don't need a 7E, we need to educate players that this common practice is (already) illegal. > I don't know what the precise circumstances were on the original > post. I > don't think N/S deliberately replaced the cards back incorrectly to > spoil > the board (not the impression I got). I also believe E/W were always > present (discussion & replacement of cards). I do not know if E/W > agreed to > the examination of cards. I do gather the cards were hastily > replaced as > the boards where in the process of being moved. As to the 2nd > table - the > curtain cards & hands were reversed for all 4 players so it was > impossible > to to play the board. Sometimes under such circumstances I have > seen TD's > redeal the board and get both sides to (re)play it, if sufficient > time. > This though by passes and avoids tackling the issue. That EW were present doesn't mean they were paying attention. :-) Hm. I don't remember - do curtain cards indicate explicitly to which hand they belong? If not, and the cards were kept with the correct hands, I don't see how the problem can have been revealed. IAC, I note that my impression that curtain cards were involved, rather than hand records examined after the play, was correct. :-) I'm not sure the TD is allowed to order a redeal in this case. You said most of the other boards were pretty flat. If the players knew that, then Law 86C prohibits a redeal. OTOH, most of the club level TDs around here take the attitude that the laws are only guidelines, and they can do whatever they want to "keep the game going" or "keep the players happy." As far as they're concerned, Law 81B2 doesn't exist. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 17:13:53 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 17:18:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <000801c6385b$2294e300$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c6385b$2294e300$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <59E99A6D-6B6D-4785-BB04-1C0E45DA95F9@rochester.rr.com> > True (We do not use such cards to be inspected before the auction > begins > here). But I think the Director was correct in ruling that normal > play of > the board is impossible because all players have seen (too much of) > other > player's cards. (Compare also law 13B) I note that Karel did mention there were curtain cards. :-) I agree with the ruling (that part of it, anyway) too. >>> I believe this is to specify the rounding to integer when 40% and >>> 60% >>> calculation results in points with fractions. >> >> On what basis? This idea would never have occurred to me. > > In the days of manual scoring when a pair should be awarded 60% of a > possible top of 22 MP which amounted to 13.2 MP we would award 14 MP. > Similarly we would round 40% down from 8.8 to 8 MP. Well, I have the great advantage of not having been around much in the days of manual scoring. And while you can use 12C1 to justify that kind of adjustment, the law doesn't say its application is limited to that. Aside from that, these days we use computer scoring, and our scoring programs round to the nearest tenth or hundredth (the latter, I think) of a point. In ACBLScore, at least, that rounding is not user adjustable, it's built in. Hopefully, the programmer had some guidance from Memphis where to set it, but in any case, by your interpretation, that guidance should have been included in Law 12C1, or else the provision that is there is obsolete. Folks talk about "restoring equity". It seems to me that the wording of Law 12C1 gives TDs a tool for doing that. If it doesn't, why not? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 17:22:41 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 17:27:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0A8EE2A7-6DCF-430C-B990-6256FA17A21E@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 23, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Every player is now looking at a hand that in no way resembles the > curtain card. Actually, I got the impression that the curtain card is marked as to the position of the hand (ie, N,E,S,W) and that the curtain card remained with the correct hand, and *both* were put in the wrong pocket. So each player knows that he's looking at his partner's hand. Hm. If that's the case, why didn't the director just rule that the board be played with the directions reversed? At this point, each player has information about only one hand (and it's one his side should be playing). No, it must be that the curtain cards were *not* kept with the correct hands, so that each player knows *two* hands. Otherwise, the TD is a putz. :-) > Personally I would ensure that any PP (beyond the +3/-3 adjustment) > was of > sufficient size to demonstrate to offenders that they could never > expect > to gain from deliberately misboarding. That might be anything from > 0 to > 20 IMPs but would be consistently just above their maximum possible > gain. > A suspicion of deliberate intent would be reported to the L&EC (who > would > doubtless take matters further if this was a repeat offence). A > suspicion > is not an accusation. Heh. Tell that to the players. :-) Is "severity of the offense" synonymous with "maximum possible gain"? I ask because (a) it seems to me it's not and (b) we are supposed to be gauging the size of PPs according to the former, not the latter. From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Feb 23 17:30:38 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Feb 23 17:32:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43FDE32E.607@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Maybe they would, but you are still left with different fines for the >>same offence, simply because of the circumstances. > > > The level of penalty is designed to *fit* the circumstances. That's a > reasonable legal precept in the UK. Doing 40mph on a stretch of road > outside a primary school at 3.30pm will attract a (much) harsher penalty > than doing the same speed on the same road at 3.30am. For some other > motoring convictions the fine varies with income rather than the offence > per se. > I don't believe these examples, if they are even correct, fit the bill. The offence of speeding outside a school in daytime is a different one from the one of speeding at night. The offence of taking out the cards if one has a bad board may well be different from the same offence when one has a good board, but I never see anyone giving PP for this offence, neither after a good nor after a bad board. Don't forget that we should be doing the same in a pairs tournament. There neither, do we award different levels of PP for this offence, if we ever do that anyway. Besides which, we are talking about something totally different here. We are talking of the other table, where the board has not been played at all (at least not in the same lay-out). We are talking about what to give that table. And we're not even talking about that, since we all agree that Av+/Av- is what it should be. So all that is left to talk about is a way of punishing the possibly malicious offenders at the first table, who are under present regulations getting away with -3. If we are talking about PP, then 3 questions remain: - where does it say that we are allowed to award PP's according to damage? - how can we give such PP's without saying that we believe OS are cheats? - how can we give anything to recompense the NOs, who have been done out of a good score? The only way to do this is to score the board as AS: Av+/Av- => +12/-12. Where do we find a regulation that enables us to do so? > I know nothing of Belgian law, you may be right that a change in the laws > (or an explicit regulation) would be necessary to justify such rulings > over there - we can happily operate without such a change in the UK. > In Belgium, during the past year, a new traffic rule has cropped up limiting the speed to 30kph near schools. In some places, special boards have been set up that limit the speed only during school hours. > 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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 22/02/2006 From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 23 17:52:15 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Feb 23 17:56:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c63899$80791b10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Returning the cards afterwards is not named as infringement of any > > law (probably because that > > action shall not occur). > > If NS pulled all four hands out and later returned them to the board, > then one or both of NS is guilty of violating Law 7C, since he > returned cards *not his own* to the board. Even if that was not the > case, they may still be guilty if each returned his partner's cards > to the board. He is guilty of "touching" another player's cards. That suffices. Regards Sven From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 23 13:46:35 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu Feb 23 18:01:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: <000301c637ea$3633fed0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7gVGI7Er6a$DFwrT@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message , Tim West-Meads writes >Sven wrote: > >> L72B1 does not depend on when or how an irregularity is detected. From >> the given information we must assume that the irregularity was not >> detected until the auction at the second table had proceeded beyond the >> point where it could have been corrected. > >The hands are removed from the board, counted and checked against the >curtain cards - all according to procedure. Every player is now looking >at a hand that in no way resembles the curtain card. The players are not >dumb, they know they are looking at someone else's hand from the same deal >- the TD, of course, rules the hand unplayable before the auction even >starts. Absent curtain cards the error would not be detected until >scoring up time - at which point the board would have to be scrubbed. > There is also the possibility that the curtain card was transposed along with the hand. How many of us actually check that the curtain that is in the North pocket actually says "North" on it before we look at the list of cards on it? It wouldn't surprise me that even with curtain cards the hand gets played and problem isn't noticed until scoring up. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 23 18:51:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 23 18:56:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <43FDE32E.607@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > > > >>Maybe they would, but you are still left with different fines for the > >>same offence, simply because of the circumstances. > > > > > > The level of penalty is designed to *fit* the circumstances. That's > > a reasonable legal precept in the UK. Doing 40mph on a stretch of > > road outside a primary school at 3.30pm will attract a (much) harsher > > penalty than doing the same speed on the same road at 3.30am. For > > some other motoring convictions the fine varies with income rather > > than the offence per se. > > > > I don't believe these examples, if they are even correct, fit the > bill. The offence of speeding outside a school in daytime is a > different one from the one of speeding at night. Why say that? The offence is "Excess Speed" the decision to offer a fixed penalty (likely at 3.30am) or seek a greater penalty in court (likely at 3.30pm) rests with the authorities. The speed limit is (usually) 30MPH in both cases. > The offence of taking out the cards if one has a bad board may well be > different from the same offence when one has a good board, but I never > see anyone giving PP for this offence, neither after a good nor after > a bad board. The penalty is not for taking the cards out (a rap on the knuckles suffices for that) but for putting them back wrong. > Don't forget that we should be doing the same in a pairs > tournament. There neither, do we award different levels of PP for this > offence, if we ever do that anyway. In a pairs tournament it matters only if the misboarding occurs on the first round (otherwise L87 provides for comparisons in two groups). And yes, of course I would rule the same way. > Besides which, we are talking about something totally different here. > We are talking of the other table, where the board has not been played > at all (at least not in the same lay-out). We are talking about what > to give that table. And we're not even talking about that, since we > all agree that Av+/Av- is what it should be. Yes, ave+/ave- at the table where the board can't be played. PP at the table where the offence took place. > So all that is left to talk about is a way of punishing the possibly > malicious offenders at the first table, who are under present > regulations getting away with -3. Not in the EBU they aren't. > If we are talking about PP, then 3 questions remain: > - where does it say that we are allowed to award PP's according to > damage? The PP is not related to damage, it is related to the possible gain from the offence. The PP is intended as a deterrent to deliberate infraction, not a restoration of equity. > - how can we give such PP's without saying that we believe OS are > cheats? By simply explaining the need to protect the innocent from the accusations of malfeasance that would arise if we scored it as +3/-3. > - how can we give anything to recompense the NOs, who have been done > out of a good score? Easy - apply variable penalties in order to ensure the OS can never gain. > The only way to do this is to score the board as AS: Av+/Av- => > +12/-12. Where do we find a regulation that enables us to do so? +12/-12 may be inadequate, it may be overkill. I have a regulation that allows me to apply discretionary penalties with regard to the circumstances - I'll happily use it. > In Belgium, during the past year, a new traffic rule has cropped up > limiting the speed to 30kph near schools. In some places, special > boards have been set up that limit the speed only during school hours. There are roads in the UK with similar variable limits. In most places the limit remains fixed at 30mph. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 23 18:51:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 23 18:56:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <7gVGI7Er6a$DFwrT@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Steve Wright wrote: > It wouldn't surprise me that even with curtain cards the hand gets > played and problem isn't noticed until scoring up. It wouldn't particularly surpise me either. The original post led me to believe that a curtain-hand mismatch had occurred in this case. Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Feb 23 18:49:53 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Feb 23 18:57:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu> <43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Grattan" > > ... representing the EBL, > > I insisted that we would not consent to the inscription > > of Law 12C2 in 1987 unless we had the means to > > skip past it. At no time , then or since, has the EBL > > believed that 12C2 is a good law > > Is that view held only in Europe, or is it more widespread? I've always > thought L12C2 was quite a good one. What problems do you find in it? I can answer that. The "equity enthusiasts" have a hidden agenda, which is to deny any potential windfalls to the NOS. Instead of giving them much benefit of doubt, they want to give them little benefit of doubt. They would deny me a compound squeeze in a score adjustment because in their opinion my "level of player" would be unlikely to execute it I'm entitled to that squeeze, and I want it!! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Feb 23 19:09:12 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Feb 23 19:11:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu> <43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu> <000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <43FDFA48.2040103@hdw.be> Marvin French wrote: > always > >>thought L12C2 was quite a good one. What problems do you find in > > it? > > I can answer that. The "equity enthusiasts" have a hidden agenda, > which is to deny any potential windfalls to the NOS. Instead of > giving them much benefit of doubt, they want to give them little > benefit of doubt. They would deny me a compound squeeze in a score > adjustment because in their opinion my "level of player" would be > unlikely to execute it I'm entitled to that squeeze, and I want > it!! > I think you'll find that if there is a double squeeze and you are good enough, then you will get it even under L12C3. What you will not get though, is 13 tricks because the OS might underlead a doubleton queen. The chances of that happening are too remote. And then if 13 tricks depend on you finessing that queen the right way - are you really so good that you'll always find her? I suppose giving you 60% of that finesse is far better than giving it to you 100% of the time. It just does not feel right to give you windfalls for what might well be a very slight infraction by OS. Anyway, I have the choice of what to give you. You don't. Who's better off? I can give you 60%. You will have to choose between 100% and 0%. You may well think you get 100% all of the time, but I doubt that you would. > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 22/02/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Feb 23 20:09:52 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Feb 23 20:14:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c63899$80791b10$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c63899$80791b10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert >> On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Returning the cards afterwards is not named as infringement of any >>> law (probably because that >>> action shall not occur). >> >> If NS pulled all four hands out and later returned them to the board, >> then one or both of NS is guilty of violating Law 7C, since he >> returned cards *not his own* to the board. Even if that was not the >> case, they may still be guilty if each returned his partner's cards >> to the board. > > He is guilty of "touching" another player's cards. That suffices. I was pointing out, Sven, that you were mistaken . There *is* an infringement of law when a player returns cards not his own to the board. What happened before that is irrelevant to that determination. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Feb 23 20:52:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Feb 23 20:57:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > I can answer that. The "equity enthusiasts" have a hidden agenda, > which is to deny any potential windfalls to the NOS. Instead of > giving them much benefit of doubt, they want to give them little > benefit of doubt. They would deny me a compound squeeze in a score > adjustment because in their opinion my "level of player" would be > unlikely to execute it I'm entitled to that squeeze, and I want > it!! L12c3/L12c2 makes no difference to this equity enthusiast. Either I believe you are capable (likely if you tell me at the table - I'm not going to accept a claim of finding a 10% compound squeeze against a 75% double finesse though) or I don't and you get 0% or 100% of the squeeze whichever Law I use. The difference with L12c3 is that I will give you 15% of that 12th trick squeeze playing in 6N + 85% playing in 3N as opposed to 100% of playing in 3N. Nor are you "entitled" to the squeeze if the chances of opps leading the break-up card/suit are significant - opps lead is nothing to do with *your* "level of player". One of us misunderstands how L12c3 is meant to be used - I hope it isn't me! Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 23 23:52:38 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Feb 23 23:57:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005901c63864$d4b20780$55c987d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >+=+ I am wondering whether I can stir my brain to recall >the occasion when a principle was educed that in a match >between teams when the board has been played at the first >table it remains in play for those contestants until it has >been played (?scored) at the remaining table(s) of the match. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think it would be helpful if the 2008 Lawbook modified the definition of "assigned adjusted score" (and modified the wording of Law 72B1) to specifically permit an "assigned adjusted score" if a team-of-four contestant has achieved 50% of a result when a board played at the first of its two tables could not be played at the second of its two tables due to a "could have known" infraction by its opponents. A more radical proposition would be to abolish artificial adjusted scores altogether, with all 2008 adjusted scores to be assigned on the equity principle of the current Law 12C3. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Feb 24 04:34:47 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Feb 24 04:39:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <200602232024.k1NKO0qw010165@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602232024.k1NKO0qw010165@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <43FE7ED7.2040701@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > We are talking of the other table, where the board has not been played > at all (at least not in the same lay-out). We are talking about what > to give that table. And we're not even talking about that, since we > all agree that Av+/Av- is what it should be. No, there are two different views on what to give the other table. Everyone agrees that the final IMP score -- however it is reached -- has to be sufficiently unfavorable to the OS to ensure they cannot gain. One view is to give avg+/avg- an a large PP. The alternate view is to give an _assigned_ adjusted score at the other table. In contrast to what Tim wrote, I thought an assigned score was explicitly mandated by the EBU White Book, but maybe I'm mistaken. Giving an assigned score has the advantage that the punishment automatically fits the crime. An assigned score also protects the NOS., who are entitled to something much better than a mere +3 IMPs. If an assigned score is given, there is no reason to give anything other than the standard PP -- perhaps a warning for a first offense or 0.5-1.0 VP or whatever. An assigned score seems much the best approach to me, but it isn't entirely clear that the Laws allow it. I'm afraid that wouldn't stop me from giving one were I directing. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 24 06:23:37 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Feb 24 06:28:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6E3 infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The primary function of curtain cards is to limit the number of fouled boards. But curtain cards are no longer used for important events in Australia. The view of a very senior Aussie and World Director is that curtain cards cause more fouled boards than they prevent, as it is easier to misplace a few curtain cards in the wrong slots than it is to misplace entire hands in the wrong slots. An erstwhile secondary function of curtain cards in Australia was to serve as a hand record in the old days of hand-dealt boards. Now that computer generated deals and hand records are available, this secondary function is no longer relevant. But computer generated deals sometimes pose their own idiosyncratic fouled board problems. The Canberra Bridge Club frequently runs Swiss teams events of 14-board matches, with several theoretically identical computer generated sets of boards in play shared amongst adjacent tables. Due to the local preference for teams to have a "home" table, opposing teams do not necessarily use the same physical set of boards. Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- longer fouled boards 13 and 14. But was it legal for me to draw attention to this irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 was inapplicable. And I had not yet received unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so Law 16B was inapplicable. Is this case a counterexample to the so-called "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" interpretation of the Laws? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Feb 24 08:54:42 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Feb 24 09:06:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43FEBBC2.4000407@hdw.be> I see that Tim failed to answer one of my questions: Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>If we are talking about PP, then 3 questions remain: >>- where does it say that we are allowed to award PP's according to >>damage? > > > The PP is not related to damage, it is related to the possible gain from > the offence. The PP is intended as a deterrent to deliberate infraction, > not a restoration of equity. > > >>- how can we give such PP's without saying that we believe OS are >>cheats? > > > By simply explaining the need to protect the innocent from the accusations > of malfeasance that would arise if we scored it as +3/-3. > > >>- how can we give anything to recompense the NOs, who have been done >>out of a good score? > > > Easy - apply variable penalties in order to ensure the OS can never gain. > That does not help the NOs, does it? Or are you advocating issueing a double PP so that the difference stays the same? That helps in a knock-out, but not in a Rond Robin! -- 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: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date: 22/02/2006 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Feb 24 11:52:58 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Feb 24 12:10:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6E3 infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009301c63932$3b3317b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > Richard James Hills: > Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, > 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the > stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 > arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 > and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's > assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards > 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. > > The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and > thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also > rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- > longer fouled boards 13 and 14. > > But was it legal for me to draw attention to this > irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 > was inapplicable. And I had not yet received > unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so > Law 16B was inapplicable. > > Is this case a counterexample to the so-called > "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" > interpretation of the Laws? No it is not, it is another example of 'how many angels fit on the point of a needle?' . It is quite easy to add hundreds of such examples: wrong dealer, wrong vulnerability, different backsides of the cards in a board, a faced up card in a pocket, go on, go on. On behalf of the bridge community thanks for your attentive reaction at the table, though. ton From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 24 12:14:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 24 12:19:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <43FE7ED7.2040701@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > The alternate view is to > give an _assigned_ adjusted score at the other table. In contrast to > what Tim wrote, I thought an assigned score was explicitly mandated by > the EBU White Book, but maybe I'm mistaken. WB147.4ii) if in the opinion of the TD a result superior to what he considers the par on the deal was obtained by the non-offending side in the first room, he may award an adjusted score under Law 12A, allowing the non-offenders the benefit of their superior score. It's a "may" rather than a "must". Like you I have doubts as to the legality of the regulation. I have no doubts as to the legitimacy of issuing a deterrent PP. Most EBU players have neither heard of, nor seen, the WB (few EBU TDs carry it around) and I prefer to give rulings which relate only to the FLB where possible. The result, from OS/NOS PoV is, of course, the same score and the penalty approach can be used in non-EBU competitions. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 24 12:14:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 24 12:19:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <43FEBBC2.4000407@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I see that Tim failed to answer one of my questions: So sorry Herman - my only excuse is that you hadn't asked the question at the time. > That does not help the NOs, does it? Or are you advocating issueing a > double PP so that the difference stays the same? Yes, albeit I don't think of it as a double PP, just as the PP necessary to prevent gain. > That helps in a knock-out, but not in a Rond Robin! OK, in a Round Robin (under EBU regs) I fall back (reluctantly) on WB147.4ii). Absent such a regulation (even one of dubious legality) I'll just assign an adjusted score at one table and a penalty at the other and then send it to an AC as a TD error such that *they* may legally apply L12c3. They will *do equity* on behalf of the non-played table (probably assigning a result which marginally favours the OS over what one would wish since neither pair at that table is OS). The penalty imposed at the other table serves to prevent gain. Not perfect, but close to the fair result. If the AC ticks me off for making a TD error I can live with it. Of course I'd rather the laws addressed this issue directly, but the current ones don't. We do what we can to ensure the OS doesn't gain and the NOS isn't robbed. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 24 12:30:54 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Feb 24 12:35:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6E3 infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c63935$c68e6af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............. > Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, > 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the > stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 > arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 > and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's > assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards > 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. > > The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and > thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also > rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- > longer fouled boards 13 and 14. > > But was it legal for me to draw attention to this > irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 > was inapplicable. And I had not yet received > unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so > Law 16B was inapplicable. > > Is this case a counterexample to the so-called > "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" > interpretation of the Laws? Sure your action was legal and in fact commendable. I annually provide tens of thousands of pre-duplicated boards to various customers and one of my instructions to the recipients is to be alert if they find boards out of sequence or boards "upside down" (i.e. rotated 180 degrees) when unpacking a set. (This last situation can occur because we use soft plastic boards, not cassette containers.) Although extremely scarce errors can occur when you produce 300 boards per hour and it takes so little to have the TD verifying a board that should raise suspicion of an error. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Feb 24 13:52:45 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Feb 24 13:54:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43FF019D.1080208@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>I see that Tim failed to answer one of my questions: > > > So sorry Herman - my only excuse is that you hadn't asked the question at > the time. > You replied to the post in which my three questions were put, but I won't go into that further. As I later saw, you had given a response, even if not completely satisfactory. > >>That does not help the NOs, does it? Or are you advocating issueing a >>double PP so that the difference stays the same? > > > Yes, albeit I don't think of it as a double PP, just as the PP necessary > to prevent gain. > But if you only prevent gain for OS, then you have not restituted the loss for NOs. > >>That helps in a knock-out, but not in a Rond Robin! > > > OK, in a Round Robin (under EBU regs) I fall back (reluctantly) on > WB147.4ii). Absent such a regulation (even one of dubious legality) I'll > just assign an adjusted score at one table and a penalty at the other and > then send it to an AC as a TD error such that *they* may legally apply > L12c3. They will *do equity* on behalf of the non-played table (probably > assigning a result which marginally favours the OS over what one would > wish since neither pair at that table is OS). The penalty imposed at the > other table serves to prevent gain. Not perfect, but close to the fair > result. If the AC ticks me off for making a TD error I can live with it. > I don't believe that an AC can apply L12C3 when the Director cannot even apply L12C2. (in those jurisdictions where the TD has no right to use L12C3 himself of course) > Of course I'd rather the laws addressed this issue directly, but the > current ones don't. We do what we can to ensure the OS doesn't gain and > the NOS isn't robbed. > And there you have echoed my conclusion: the Laws (and regulations) do not deal with this situation sufficiently well. We need a calculation regulation that ensures that a team which is awarded an ArtAS at one table does not lose the benefit/damage which occured at the other one. This regulation is needed not just to ensure that the "trick" we suspect can no longer gain, but also so that a simple fault which results in an ArtAS does no damage to the correct result of a match. Think of the happenings at Menton: quite a number of fouled boards in one part of one room, resulting in several matches that had to be scrapped because there were not enough comparisons left - some matches were replayed in full, some in part. Quite a number of matches could have been saved if the regulations had provided ways for scoring boards that are fouled between one room and the other. (although probably that would not have been enough in the Menton case - there is little one can do if all eight boards of a match are fouled) > 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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 23/02/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Feb 24 13:51:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Feb 24 13:56:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6E3 infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009301c63932$3b3317b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > > Is this case a counterexample to the so-called > > "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" > > interpretation of the Laws? > > No it is not, it is another example of 'how many angels fit on the > point of a needle?' . It is quite easy to add hundreds of such examples: Perhaps, but the real question is do we seriously imagine that the laws will *ever* reach a point where "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" even begins to approach reality? I don't think there's any chance of that happening (and it certainly isn't the case now) and thus would suggest that attempts to impute that principle to the laws are seriously flawed. A better "principle" might be to acknowledge that the Laws are not expected to encompass every eventuality and that (absent SO regulation) it is the responsibility of TDs to judge the legality of such actions in keeping with the spirit of the laws. This may seem trivial, but, taking Richard's example if one applied the "not specifically permitted" principle his opps could legitimately have their bad boards cancelled (as they would have been had Richard not acted extra-legally). Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Feb 24 13:55:30 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Feb 24 13:57:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43FF0242.8050107@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Steve wrote: > > >>The alternate view is to >>give an _assigned_ adjusted score at the other table. In contrast to >>what Tim wrote, I thought an assigned score was explicitly mandated by >>the EBU White Book, but maybe I'm mistaken. > > > WB147.4ii) if in the opinion of the TD a result superior to what he > considers the par on the deal was obtained by the non-offending side in > the first room, he may award an adjusted score under Law 12A, allowing the > non-offenders the benefit of their superior score. > This is precisely the kind of regulation I would like to see written for all team matches. I'm sorry Tim, for writing my replies to your post. You are probably in a small minority of directors who can reasonably solve this particular problem. > It's a "may" rather than a "must". Like you I have doubts as to the > legality of the regulation. I have no doubts as to the legitimacy of > issuing a deterrent PP. Most EBU players have neither heard of, nor seen, > the WB (few EBU TDs carry it around) and I prefer to give rulings which > relate only to the FLB where possible. The result, from OS/NOS PoV is, of > course, the same score and the penalty approach can be used in non-EBU > competitions. > > 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: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 23/02/2006 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Feb 24 23:55:56 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat Feb 25 00:01:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002201c637a2$2bf194c0$50af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><005d01c637fc$7d928b40$6ee0403e@Mildred> <029D34C1-3430-4769-9039-A94B9509680C@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001701c63995$9108a110$589087d9@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: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Feb 22, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Grattan wrote: > > >> On Feb 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>> However, the Director can and should ensure that > >>> equity is restored by the size of the procedural > >>> penalty he assesses or the 72B1 adjustment he makes > >> !!!!???? > >> I have long been under the impression that this is illegal. Why is > >> it not? > > +=+ How did you form the impression? Which law? +=+ > > IIRC I got the idea from DWS. I *think* he stated it explicitly, > but I may be mistaken. I don't think I can quote a specific law. I > would think that several laws (not to mention the Scope) would be > germane. Probably including 81B2, 81C6, 81C7 (note particularly "when > applicable"), 82B (which omits to suggest that it's appropriate to > use a penalty to restore equity). > > We seem, if I'm not mistaken, to have established the legal > principle, for players, that if something is not expressly permitted > in the laws, it is forbidden. Why should that not apply equally to > directors? > +=+ I would certainly argue that a Director needs authority in law or regulation for his rulings. In the case of a procedural penalty, the Director is authorized to assess it under Law 90 where there is nothing to restrict the size of a penalty. I have just completed a review of the proposed Rules & Regulations for the 2006 EBL Teams Championships in Warsaw, and submitted opinion. In the draft, but not new on this occasion, when dealing with a fouled board (with only one side having caused the problem) the following is written: "if in the opinion of the Director a result significantly superior to what he considers normal on the hand was obtained by a non-offending side in the first room, he may award an adjusted score allowing those non-offenders the benefit of their superior score." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 25 02:35:08 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Feb 25 02:39:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu><43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu> <000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <004c01c639ab$b7c57600$099868d5@jeushtlj> [Gratttan Endicott] >>> At no time, then or since, has the EBL >>> believed that 12C2 is a good law. [Steve Willner] >> I've always thought L12C2 was quite a good one. >> What problems do you find in it? [Marvin French] > I can answer that. The "equity enthusiasts" have > a hidden agenda, which is to deny any potential > windfalls to the NOS. Instead of giving them > much benefit of doubt, they want to give them > little benefit of doubt. They would deny me a > compound squeeze in a score adjustment because > in their opinion my "level of player" would be > unlikely to execute it I'm entitled to that > squeeze, and I want it!! [Nige1] Is the EBL equivalent to its officials? or does it include bridge-players from member countries? If the latter, then I demur: the players that I've consulted prefer L12C2 to subsequent fudges. It is clear, simple, and can be applied fairly consistently. Of course, friends don't deliberately break the law. I concede that habitual offenders welcome equity legislation because they get to keep more of their ill-gotten gains and there is less incentive for their victims to report their infractions. TDs may also like fudge laws because it gives them a quiet life. The law-breakers are obviously delighted. Their victims know there is little point in complaining or appealing. Victims just lick their wounds and wonder if law-makers are deliberately encouraging some kinds of infraction. My contention is that this is one of the areas, where the interests of directors are slightly different from those of other honest players. I am sorry that this annoys Kojak. BTW, IMO, it is sensible that law-committees contain many directors and officials. Few object to that. If they *consulted* more ordinary players, however, then they would be less likely to delude themselves - for example -- that their opinion is the opinion of players in the EBL. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Feb 25 04:01:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Feb 25 04:01:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <004c01c639ab$b7c57600$099868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > TDs may also like fudge laws because it gives them > a quiet life. The law-breakers are obviously > delighted. Their victims know there is little > point in complaining or appealing. Jeez Nige - sometimes you're completely clueless. The whole point of "equity" law is to allow TDs to crush the unethical while not unduly punishing the merely incompetent. That some TDs fail to use the flexibility in the intended manner is *not* a problem with the laws but with the TDs - report the ones who fail in this respect to the L&E or STFU. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Feb 25 10:56:23 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat Feb 25 11:01:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu><43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu><000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <004c01c639ab$b7c57600$099868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000d01c639f1$d2381470$f8a687d9@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: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who is responsible ? > [Gratttan Endicott] > >>> At no time, then or since, has the EBL > >>> believed that 12C2 is a good law. > > [Steve Willner] > >> I've always thought L12C2 was quite a good one. > >> What problems do you find in it? > +=+ That it fails to meet the principle on which the laws are founded that the "laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". (sic) +=+ > ------------------ \x/ --------------------- < > My contention is that this is one of the areas, > where the interests of directors are slightly > different from those of other honest players. I am > sorry that this annoys Kojak. > > BTW, IMO, it is sensible that law-committees > contain many directors and officials. Few object > to that. If they *consulted* more ordinary > players, however, then they would be less likely > to delude themselves - for example -- that their > opinion is the opinion of players in the EBL. > +=+ The Executive Committees of bridge organizations do not import non-players to appoint to Laws Committees. I do not recall having met a Laws Committee member who was not a competent and experienced player. Competent and experienced players progress from the level of 'ordinary' - it is part of their experience. It is a strangely warped view that ascribes to directors interests that are 'different' and, therefore, by implication not pointed at the good of the game as a whole. It detracts from Nigel's argument when he attacks persons rather than principles. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Feb 25 12:44:53 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat Feb 25 15:15:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6E3 infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001c63a15$fc3a6f10$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 6E3 infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard: > > > Is this case a counterexample to the so-called > > > "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" > > > interpretation of the Laws? Ton answered: > > No it is not, it is another example of 'how many angels fit on the > > point of a needle?' . It is quite easy to add hundreds of such examples: > and Tim reacted: > Perhaps, but the real question is do we seriously imagine that the laws > will *ever* reach a point where "everything not specifically permitted is > illegal" even begins to approach reality? Not if some basic principles in reading anything are ignored, one of them being that some interpretation is needed. In Richard's approach blowing one's nose during bridge is illegal, since nothing in the laws allows you to do so. And 'blowing one's nose' stands for anything done at the table. We need players but they should not be there. In a more practical oriented environment we assume that the laws describe correct procedure and that deviations from that procedure are not alllowed. And then blowing one's nose is not considered to be a deviation but something completely independent from the kern of playing bridge (up till the moment that it carries an illegal message concerning the board being played). And it is up to the TD to declare that noticing a strange order in the boards to be played is closer to blowing one's nose than to deviating from correct procedure. It was the organisation that deviated from correct procedure. ton ton If correct procedure tells a player to shut up during play and he then calls the TD for whatever reason that is an infraction. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 25 17:13:16 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Feb 25 17:17:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu><43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu><000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><004c01c639ab$b7c57600$099868d5@jeushtlj> <000d01c639f1$d2381470$f8a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004501c63a26$63b4cf40$219468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > I do not recall having met a Laws Committee > member who was not a competent and experienced > player. Competent and experienced players > progress from the level of 'ordinary' - it is > part of their experience. It is a strangely > warped view that ascribes to directors interests > that are 'different' and, therefore, by > implication not pointed at the good of the game > as a whole. It detracts from Nigel's argument > when he attacks persons rather than > principles. [nige1] A committee may be a legitimate target of criticism even if it is (allegedly) composed of persons :) :) What I said is that TDs and officials have subtly different interests from *other players*. (Of course I accept that law-committee members are expert players). For example, on the subject of "equity", in the narrow sense of merely restoring the status quo: I fully accept that these laws do reduce the amount of open whinging by players. What the TD sees is a happy offender who is at most a little worse off than if he had not broken the law. The habitual offender is undeterred because he banks more than enough profit from unreported infractions. Of course the victim of the infraction would prefer rulings that redressed damage and deterred law-breakers; It seems tough on the victim who undergoes a lot of hassle for inadequate compensation; but all he can do is grin and bear it. It's pointless to complain to the TD who is merely enforcing the law, trying to keep everyone happy, according to his best judgement. (please tell me I'm wrong, but my understanding is that) appeals committees are instructed not to make adjustments to these "fudge" rulings. IMO, Bridge is fast becoming a game like cheat or liar-dice: the laws are so vague, weak and inconsistently enforced, that you cannot blame some players for failing to appreciate that the intent is still that players remain honest. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Feb 25 18:41:14 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Feb 25 18:41:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? Message-ID: <440096BA.8090307@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Grattan Endicott" > That [L12C2] fails to meet the principle on which > the laws are founded that the "laws are primarily > designed not as punishment for irregularities, but > rather as redress for damage". (sic) It seems to me that L12C2 does very well in redressing damage. Of course "redress" is not easy to quantify. Just as L12C1 gives the NOS 60%+ to compensate for what they might have achieved instead of their 50%+ expectation value, L12C2/3 adjustments should give some benefit of doubt to the NOS. While there is no unique prescription for how much benefit is proper, L12C2 seems to me pretty close to the mark. Is the dislike of L12C2 primarily an EBL view, or is it widely held? > It is a strangely warped view > that ascribes to directors interests that are 'different' > and, therefore, by implication not pointed at the good > of the game as a whole. It detracts from Nigel's > argument when he attacks persons rather than > principles. While you may disagree with Nigel, saying he "attacks persons" strikes me as unfair. Perhaps you should read his argument again. Personally, I think directors' interests would be best served by maximizing mechanical rulings and minimizing judgment ones. As a player, what _I_ want is that my results should reflect what happened at the table. In particular, I don't want to be denied a good result by an opponent's infraction. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Feb 25 18:57:36 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat Feb 25 18:57:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <200602241540.k1OFecR1029460@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602241540.k1OFecR1029460@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44009A90.2080307@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > WB147.4ii) if in the opinion of the TD a result superior to what he > considers the par on the deal was obtained by the non-offending side in > the first room, he may award an adjusted score under Law 12A, allowing the > non-offenders the benefit of their superior score. > > It's a "may" rather than a "must". Thanks, and I stand corrected. Nevertheless, it seems to me the TD normally should give an assigned score in the circumstances described. > Like you I have doubts as to the > legality of the regulation. I have no doubts as to the legitimacy of > issuing a deterrent PP. Most EBU players have neither heard of, nor seen, > the WB (few EBU TDs carry it around) and I prefer to give rulings which > relate only to the FLB where possible. The result, from OS/NOS PoV is, of > course, the same score and the penalty approach can be used in non-EBU > competitions. The result is the same from the OS PoV but not (as Herman points out) for the NOS except in a knockout. While it may be a matter of taste, my personal preference would be to handle the infraction in the same way for all competitions: give an assigned adjusted score to restore equity for both sides and give a (usually small) PP for the offense itself. But of course no one can really complain about any different process that reaches the same result. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Feb 25 20:17:31 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Feb 25 20:17:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <004501c63a26$63b4cf40$219468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu> <43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu> <000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <004c01c639ab$b7c57600$099868d5@jeushtlj> <000d01c639f1$d2381470$f8a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004501c63a26$63b4cf40$219468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Feb 25, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Guthrie wrote: > The habitual offender is undeterred because he banks more than > enough profit from unreported infractions. Assuming this contention is true, whose fault is that? Certainly not the law-makers, who have provided that when attention is called to an irregularity the TD must be called, and also that any player may call attention to an irregularity. Yes, even dummy, though he must wait until after the hand is played. No, the fault is on players who are reluctant to call the director. "It'll slow down the game," they say, or "they are much better players than we are; surely I'm mistaken, they can't have committed an irregularity," or "it doesn't matter; we were getting a bad board anyway," or "we'll get an adverse ruling" (for any of a number of reasons, most of which are, in the British vernacular, bollocks). There may be some few infractions which go unnoticed, but in my experience, most are noticed, but nothing is done. The director is not omniscient - players *must* inform him when an irregularity occurs if we want him to deal with these "habitual offenders". From emu at fwi.net.au Sun Feb 26 00:24:21 2006 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sun Feb 26 00:24:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <004501c63a26$63b4cf40$219468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c63a62$9ed19860$0401a8c0@DESKTOP> >What the TD sees is a happy offender who is at >most a little worse off than if he had not broken >the law. The habitual offender is undeterred >because he banks more than enough profit from >unreported infractions. >IMO, Bridge is fast becoming a game like cheat or >liar-dice: the laws are so vague, weak and >inconsistently enforced, that you cannot blame >some players for failing to appreciate that the >intent is still that players remain honest. Where do you play Nigel? Seems to me that the Bridge where you play is a pale shadow of what the game is meant to be. People who flout the rules here (Australia) soon get put in their place - most habitual offenders have to resort to non-ABF affiliated clubs to get away with it. We just don't put up with it. regards, Noel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 26 02:47:03 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Feb 26 02:51:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <000001c63a62$9ed19860$0401a8c0@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <001301c63a76$8b3201a0$039468d5@jeushtlj> [Noel & Pamela] > Where do you play Nigel? > Seems to me that the Bridge where you play is a > pale shadow of what the game is meant to be. > People who flout the rules here (Australia) > soon get put in their place - most habitual > offenders have to resort to non-ABF affiliated > clubs to get away with it. We just don't put > up with it. [nigel] Most tournaments in which I compete are under EBU jurisdiction. IMO, if the EBU were to throw out players who habitually break the law, few would remain. Our notorious Orange book contains sophisticated local regulations. Few have read the OB, fewer understand it, and fewer still comply with it. For example, in many events, there are clear opening bid restrictions, which even TD players flout. Our team have lost matches by complying with such regulations. IMO our alert rules are overcomplicated (and about to get worse). For example, currently, we must alert a raise of 1S to 2S if that may be done on 3 cards (but, again, of course, few alert). TFLB is just as buggy and woolly. Proposals to simplify and standardise disclosure procedures (convention cards, stops, alerts) have had no impact. I contend that most partnerships habitually use unauthorised information from each others alerts and explanations (when they can do so indetectably). Proposals that would reduce the opportunity to do this have attracted little consideration. Cunning declarers are making (what I judge to be) faulty claims, especially when they have "lost the place" in the play. Against naive opponents, they get away with such claims, undisputed. Even when a director is called, he is increasingly likely to rule for the claimer. IMO claim law would be simplified and improved. As has been previously suggested, the law could exhort a declarer simply to face his cards (preferably with an explanation) and invite opponents to concede or to play on with sight of declarer's hand. Many EBU players seem to use Conventions like Ghestem as "random overcalls", at least at favourable vulnerability. They seem to make no effort to learn their methods, and opponents are left floundering in the dark. Directors seem to treat Ghestem junkies with kid gloves. The poor victim is inhibited from taking his normal action if there is a danger that it may be ruled "wild and gambling" and so deprive him of any possible redress. This law just adds insult to injury. Other laws put pressure on players to lie. For example, the law treats a player more favourably if he pretends that a bid was "a slip of the hand rather than a slip of the mind." I think all such actions should be treated the same -- as mechanical errors. BTW there is no problem when, for example, an old or disabled player makes a mechanical error. Players can ask the director to waive the penalty and I'm sure the director would comply. Similarly, I contend that players often prevaricate when they dismiss a query with "no agreement" or like phrase. Again proposals that would mitigate this problem have been ignored. Every time, I've heard of a ruling that resulted in a weighted mixture of scores, different judges have arrived at different weightings. Anyway the offender seems to escape lightly and the victim receive inadequate redress. Such rulings are *inherently* inconsistent because the exact weighting is a matter of fine judgement. This will often mean that the whim of a director/committee decides the result of a competition without any possibility of sensible appeal. I'm sure EBU players could add many other examples. Would the situation improve if we called the director more often? Apparently not, in most of the cases cited above. One of the unfortunate aspects of rules that simply restore the status quo is that they reduce the player's incentive to call the director (for example when opponents deliberately break the law but the damage to you is unclear). Australians are lucky not to experience such problems. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 26 03:16:00 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Feb 26 03:20:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu><43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu><000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><004c01c639ab$b7c57600$099868d5@jeushtlj><000d01c639f1$d2381470$f8a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><004501c63a26$63b4cf40$219468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002501c63a7a$96a2a360$039468d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > Assuming this contention is true, whose fault > is that? Certainly not the law-makers, who have > provided that when attention is called to an > irregularity the TD must be called, and also > that any player may call attention to an > irregularity. Yes, even dummy, though he must > wait until after the hand is played. No, the > fault is on players who are reluctant to call > the director. "It'll slow down the game," they > say, or "they are much better players than we > are; surely I'm mistaken, they can't have > committed an irregularity," or "it doesn't > matter; we were getting a bad board anyway," or > "we'll get an adverse ruling" (for any of a > number of reasons, most of which are, in the > British vernacular, bollocks). There may be > some few infractions which go unnoticed, but > in my experience, most are noticed, but > nothing is done. The director is not omniscient > - players *must* inform him when an > irregularity occurs if we want him to deal > with these "habitual offenders". [nigel] [A} "Unless attention has been drawn to it" there is no legal obligation on a player to report any irregularity (and there is often little incentive) [B] Not all infractions are detected, recognised by their victims, reported, or ruled against. [C] Players don't report infractions or appeal doubtful rulings for a variety of reasons. The most common is that they know they are "out of contention" and can do without unnecessary hassle and expense. [D] This is human nature. Game-rules that make no allowance for human nature are inadequate. [E] For example, simply "restoring the status quo" can be no deterrent to the law-breaker. [F] Even if some of the doubtful points are resolved in favour of the victim the law often provides him with inadequate redress. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 26 11:12:24 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Feb 26 11:11:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <000001c63a62$9ed19860$0401a8c0@DESKTOP> <001301c63a76$8b3201a0$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002201c63abd$46824410$7be3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who is responsible ? > [Noel & Pamela] >> Where do you play Nigel? >> Seems to me that the Bridge where you play is a >> pale shadow of what the game is meant to be. >> People who flout the rules here (Australia) >> soon get put in their place - most habitual >> offenders have to resort to non-ABF affiliated >> clubs to get away with it. We just don't put >> up with it. > > [nigel] > Most tournaments in which I compete are under EBU > jurisdiction. IMO, if the EBU were to throw out > players who habitually break the law, few would > remain. > > Our notorious Orange book contains sophisticated > local regulations. Few have read the OB, fewer > understand it, and fewer still comply with it. For > example, in many events, there are clear opening > bid restrictions, which even TD players flout. Our > team have lost matches by complying with such > regulations. > +=+ Nigel is consistently strong in his opinions of the way the game is regulated in England. It is sad that he does not acknowledge the consistency and the assiduity with which the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee attends, in a methodically organised way, to the maintenance of standards. At every meeting it has a number of incidents at tournaments under review - twenty or thirty usually, selected from the reports it receives from all EBU tournaments. It publishes its views of them where it believes lessons are to be learned (in minutes circulated to all EBU tournament directors), and writes to the directors and appeal committee members concerned. There are regular seminars for directors of all categories. . That Nigel does not like the product is a separate issue. He is entitled to his opinions. He will have to face the fact that the generality of them are not shared by those responsible for the administration of the game in England and there is no great outcry. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 26 13:34:17 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Feb 26 13:38:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <000001c63a62$9ed19860$0401a8c0@DESKTOP><001301c63a76$8b3201a0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <002201c63abd$46824410$7be3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001c01c63ad0$f677e920$299468d5@jeushtlj> {grattan Endicott] > +=+ Nigel is consistently strong in his opinions > of the way the game is regulated in England. It > is sad that he does not acknowledge the > consistency and the assiduity with which the EBU > Laws and Ethics Committee attends, in a > methodically organised way, to the maintenance > of standards. At every meeting it has a number > of incidents at tournaments under review - > twenty or thirty usually, selected from > the reports it receives from all EBU > tournaments. It publishes its views of them > where it believes lessons are to be learned (in > minutes circulated to all EBU tournament > directors), and writes to the directors > and appeal committee members concerned. There > are regular seminars for directors of all > categories. . > That Nigel does not like the product is a > separate issue. He is entitled to his opinions. > He will have to face the fact that the > generality of them are not shared by those > responsible for the administration of the game > in England and there is no great outcry. [nige1] I am sure the problem is not unique to the EBU. I respect those on our L&C committee and the WBFLC. They are bright but resistant to change. "If it ain't broke...". But I think face-to-face Bridge laws aren't exactly broke but are crying out for completion, simplification and clarification. Grattan tells us that the EBU circulates minutes of its decisions to directors; similarly, the EBL and WBFLC who circulate minutes and commentaries to a few other officials. This is really more of the same and probably does nothing to address my "equity" and sophistication fears. Anyway, what use is that to the average Bridge player? Surely legal decisions should be accessible to players in one well publicised TFLB web-location, in TWO WAYS. [1] Listed as new changes or paradigms. [2] Carefully inserted as amendments or illustrations of the laws that they affect. Other bridge sites would be encouraged to mirror this location. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 26 17:46:56 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Feb 26 17:46:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? References: <000001c63a62$9ed19860$0401a8c0@DESKTOP><001301c63a76$8b3201a0$039468d5@jeushtlj><002201c63abd$46824410$7be3403e@Mildred> <001c01c63ad0$f677e920$299468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000801c63af4$65acea20$c2ef403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who is responsible ? > [nige1] > > Grattan tells us that the EBU circulates minutes > of its decisions to directors; similarly, the EBL > and WBFLC who circulate minutes and commentaries > to a few other officials. > > This is really more of the same and probably does > nothing to address my "equity" and sophistication > fears. > > Anyway, what use is that to the average Bridge > player? > +=+ The average bridge player is disinclined to access the minutes on the EBU web site, but they are there nevertheless. You can lead a horse to water ....... " ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Feb 26 18:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Feb 26 18:59:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <440096BA.8090307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote:> > It seems to me that L12C2 does very well in redressing damage. Of > course "redress" is not easy to quantify. Just as L12C1 gives the NOS > 60%+ to compensate for what they might have achieved instead of their > 50%+ expectation value, L12C2/3 adjustments should give some benefit of > doubt to the NOS. While there is no unique prescription for how much > benefit is proper, L12C2 seems to me pretty close to the mark. > > Is the dislike of L12C2 primarily an EBL view, or is it widely held? [NB - I'm using "I" because the TD alone makes the judgements. Please assume that I have consulted appropriately with regards to LAs/leads/play etc before doing so]. It think "dislike" is too strong a word. There are common situations where L12c2 creates a degree of discomfort. e.g. NS illegally bid 4S, the contract would otherwise have been 4H, making 10 tricks (est 75% freq) or 11 tricks (est 25% freq) based on the likely T1 lead. Thus the L12c2 ruling is EW 4H=, NS 4H+1. I can live with that - but I prefer the L12c3 flexibility that lets me award NOS 35% of 450 + 65% of 420. For the OS I *might* choose to leave their score as -450 (if I think the LA of pass was fairly obvious) while awarding (the balancing) 35/65 if I believe the offender made a genuine effort to avoid taking advantage of the UI but got a close decision as whether pass was an LA wrong. In either case the OS have scored worse than they would have expected had they not offended. (And I do recognise I could have awarded NOS 100% of 450 under L12c2 but that doesn't feel fair either). I also recognise that some EBU TDs are a bit too keen to apply L12c3. I wish the guidelines made clear that L12c2 should always be applied *first* and L12c3 powers *only* used if the L12c2 ruling causes discomfort (typically because one wants to include elements of 5%-15% chance worse score for OS or a 5%-30% chance of a better score for NOS). I strongly believe applying the law as above is in the best interests of all my customers but, and here's the rub, I also believe that the vast majority of EBU TDs are, essentially, amateurs. They often lack the legal knowledge, playing ability/judgement and investigating skills necessary to get these judgements right. I'm not blaming the TDs for that - I blame the players for being unprepared to pay the wages that high quality TDs should, rightfully, demand. The feedback I have had from *players* at recent international events is that things are genuinely "good" nowadays (and hugely better than they were). This isn't down to changes in the laws, but rather that the players actually respect the small cadre of professional international TDs (and the efforts of the EBL to put this support in place). Overall the laws, together with professional TDs, are seen to provide a suitable environment for top-level international bridge. Ask these same players for their views on lower-level (national/regional/club events) and picture changes dramatically. They don't even *expect* decent rulings from typical club TDs (either here in the UK or abroad) - and their expectations are seldom exceeded. I may regard Nigel as an extremist and frequently doolally representative of the disgruntled (he's just plain wrong about a lot of things) but he is not a "lone voice in the wilderness" - his dissatisfaction is widely echoed amongst the whole echelon of "not quite" international players. Grattan tells us > He will > have to face the fact that the generality of them are > not shared by those responsible for the administration One would hope not. Surely if those administrators realised the extent of the contempt in which they were held by the better players they would resign in embarrassment. > of the game in England and there is no great outcry. Of course there's no great outcry. Most players can't be bothered to "fight City Hall". On the whole they don't want to become targets for the personal bias of the administrative fleet. I frequently get consulted by juniors with regard to awful rulings they have suffered in lower-level. I'm willing to help them prepare official complaints and try and get things changed but I *advise* them to do nothing because I *know* if they are tagged as "troublemakers" it will damage their selection chances. Grattan also claimed: > It is sad > that he does not acknowledge the consistency and > the assiduity with which the EBU Laws and Ethics > Committee attends, in a methodically organised > way, to the maintenance of standards. Unfortunately one cannot acknowledge something which doesn't exist. I can think of at least two recent examples where the L&E has ignored the laws because they don't like the outcome. There is both playing and legal talent on the L&E, but nothing like enough of either to ensure sufficiency every time the committee is quorate. Consistency isn't achievable under those conditions. Perhaps we do need two completely different sets of laws for the "professional" and "amateur" versions of the game but I'm not yet ready to abandon my dreams that recent improvements at EBL level can be promulgated downwards over time. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Feb 26 19:29:16 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Feb 26 19:29:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <002501c63a7a$96a2a360$039468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200602222242.k1MMgeta005756@cfa.harvard.edu> <43FD3067.8030404@cfa.harvard.edu> <000e01c638a1$8e941f80$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <004c01c639ab$b7c57600$099868d5@jeushtlj> <000d01c639f1$d2381470$f8a687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004501c63a26$63b4cf40$219468d5@jeushtlj> <002501c63a7a$96a2a360$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <3CAD0E84-EB16-4101-9CAC-3DC721723883@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Guthrie wrote: > A} "Unless attention has been drawn to it" there is no legal > obligation on a player to report any irregularity I know that. I said so. > (and there is often little incentive) That's your perception - and may be the perception of some other players. IMO, you're wrong. > [B] Not all infractions are detected, recognised by their victims, > reported, or ruled against. If an infraction is detected or recognized by the NOS, and it doesn't get reported, that's the fault of the NOS. If it gets reported and doesn't get a ruling, that's the fault of the director, and his non- ruling may (and should, IMO, even in a club game) be appealed to the National Authority. As to "victims," you insist that when an irregularity occurs, the NOS are "victims" of that irregularity. *I* insist that's hogwash. > [C] Players don't report infractions or appeal doubtful rulings for > a variety of reasons. The most common is that they know they are > "out of contention" and can do without unnecessary hassle > and expense. If the objective is to make sure the OS gets dinged for their (alleged by you) deliberate attempts to sabotage their opponents, then calling the director is neither unnecessary hassle nor unnecessary expense (I would submit that it is no expense at all, since if you're right, the deposit will be returned). > [D] This is human nature. Game-rules that make no allowance for > human nature are inadequate. So you claim. Prove it. > [E] For example, simply "restoring the status quo" can be no > deterrent to the law-breaker. Can it not? If it happens enough, he will gain a bad reputation, which most people try to avoid - that's human nature, too. > [F] Even if some of the doubtful points are resolved in favour of > the victim the law often provides him with inadequate redress. I'm from Missouri. Show me a case. Or several. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Feb 26 19:32:27 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Feb 26 19:32:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <002201c63abd$46824410$7be3403e@Mildred> References: <000001c63a62$9ed19860$0401a8c0@DESKTOP> <001301c63a76$8b3201a0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <002201c63abd$46824410$7be3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Feb 26, 2006, at 5:12 AM, Grattan wrote: > He will have to face the fact that the generality of them are not > shared by those responsible for the administration of the game in > England and there is no great outcry. That there is no great outcry seems to me to indicate the wrongheadedness of Nigel's opinions in this respect - unless he correctly contends that the majority of English bridge players are either lazy or stupid, or both. And I don't believe that he is correct if he does believe that. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Feb 26 19:51:45 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Feb 26 19:51:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4487B9D6-2EE6-4882-B844-C2A2EF420359@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > It think "dislike" is too strong a word. There are common situations > where L12c2 creates a degree of discomfort. e.g. NS illegally bid > 4S, the > contract would otherwise have been 4H, making 10 tricks (est 75% > freq) or > 11 tricks (est 25% freq) based on the likely T1 lead. > > Thus the L12c2 ruling is EW 4H=, NS 4H+1. I can live with that - > but I > prefer the L12c3 flexibility that lets me award NOS 35% of 450 + > 65% of > 420. Huh? if the estimated frequency is 75/25, why are you awarding 65/35? [snip] > I also recognise that some EBU TDs are a bit too keen to apply > L12c3. I > wish the guidelines made clear that L12c2 should always be applied > *first* > and L12c3 powers *only* used if the L12c2 ruling causes discomfort > (typically because one wants to include elements of 5%-15% chance > worse > score for OS or a 5%-30% chance of a better score for NOS). This makes sense. > I strongly believe applying the law as above is in the best > interests of > all my customers but, and here's the rub, I also believe that the vast > majority of EBU TDs are, essentially, amateurs. They often lack > the legal > knowledge, playing ability/judgement and investigating skills > necessary to > get these judgements right. I'm not blaming the TDs for that - I > blame > the players for being unprepared to pay the wages that high quality > TDs > should, rightfully, demand. My impression is that the EBU club TD training program is considerably better that the ACBL's. So that's a plus for your side of the pond. As to money, I don't really know the details. I do know that the first game I solo directed (5 tables, iirc) netted me about 40 bucks; the second (7 or 8 tables) about 60. And that's with me not asking for any specific payment. I know that one of the club directors here typically charges about $75+ to direct a session. How does that compare with England? > The feedback I have had from *players* at recent international > events is > that things are genuinely "good" nowadays (and hugely better than they > were). This isn't down to changes in the laws, but rather that the > players actually respect the small cadre of professional > international TDs > (and the efforts of the EBL to put this support in place). > > Overall the laws, together with professional TDs, are seen to > provide a > suitable environment for top-level international bridge. > > Ask these same players for their views on lower-level > (national/regional/club events) and picture changes dramatically. > They don't even *expect* decent rulings from typical club TDs > (either here > in the UK or abroad) - and their expectations are seldom exceeded. > I may regard Nigel as an extremist and frequently doolally > representative > of the disgruntled (he's just plain wrong about a lot of things) > but he is > not a "lone voice in the wilderness" - his dissatisfaction is widely > echoed amongst the whole echelon of "not quite" international players. Hm. > Grattan tells us >> He will have to face the fact that the generality of them are not >> shared by those responsible for the administration >> of the game in England and there is no great outcry. > > One would hope not. Surely if those administrators realised the > extent of > the contempt in which they were held by the better players they would > resign in embarrassment. How does the expectation of bad rulings from club TDs equate to contempt for EBU administrators? > Of course there's no great outcry. Most players can't be bothered to > "fight City Hall". On the whole they don't want to become targets > for the > personal bias of the administrative fleet. Huh? Where did *that* come from? > I frequently get consulted by juniors with regard to awful rulings > they > have suffered in lower-level. I'm willing to help them prepare > official > complaints and try and get things changed but I *advise* them to do > nothing because I *know* if they are tagged as "troublemakers" it will > damage their selection chances. If the EBU administration are tagging players as "troublemakers" because they make legitimate complaints about bad rulings, they're doing the game a serious disservice, and they ought to be fired, or impeached, or shot, whatever it takes to remove them from office. > Grattan also claimed: >> It is sad that he does not acknowledge the consistency and >> the assiduity with which the EBU Laws and Ethics >> Committee attends, in a methodically organised >> way, to the maintenance of standards. > Unfortunately one cannot acknowledge something which doesn't exist. > I can think of at least two recent examples where the L&E has > ignored the > laws because they don't like the outcome. As I said to Nigel. I'm from Missouri. Show me. > There is both playing and legal talent on the L&E, but nothing > like enough of either to ensure sufficiency every time the > committee is quorate. Consistency isn't achievable under > those conditions. Maybe the number (or qualifications) of members required for a quorum needs modification. From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 27 01:40:26 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Mon Feb 27 01:43:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <4487B9D6-2EE6-4882-B844-C2A2EF420359@rochester.rr.com> References: <4487B9D6-2EE6-4882-B844-C2A2EF420359@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6msu0JI6pkAEFwOT@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message <4487B9D6-2EE6-4882-B844-C2A2EF420359@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes >My impression is that the EBU club TD training program is considerably >better that the ACBL's. So that's a plus for your side of the pond. As >to money, I don't really know the details. I do know that the first >game I solo directed (5 tables, iirc) netted me about 40 bucks; the >second (7 or 8 tables) about 60. And that's with me not asking for any >specific payment. I know that one of the club directors here typically >charges about $75+ to direct a session. How does that compare with >England? > If I direct at County level it is always as a non-playing TD and I get 25 pounds. As we only have four active County TDs in our county, we sometime struggle to find non-playing TDs for county events. Although I refuse to be a playing TD, I do get appointed as assistant TD to help with rulings when I'm dummy or between hands. In those circumstances I am unpaid. At Club level, as playing TD I merely play for nothing. In other words I get paid my 2 pounds table money. If I'm a non-playing TD then I'm entitled to free drinks from the bar during play. In the case of a catered event, I get free food as well :-) 40 bucks for club event? - Never in a month of Sundays. As for $75 ... -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Feb 27 06:53:21 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Feb 27 06:53:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <6msu0JI6pkAEFwOT@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> References: <4487B9D6-2EE6-4882-B844-C2A2EF420359@rochester.rr.com> <6msu0JI6pkAEFwOT@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Feb 26, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > If I direct at County level it is always as a non-playing TD and I > get 25 pounds. > > As we only have four active County TDs in our county, we sometime > struggle to find non-playing TDs for county events. Although I > refuse to be a playing TD, I do get appointed as assistant TD to > help with rulings when I'm dummy or between hands. In those > circumstances I am unpaid. > > At Club level, as playing TD I merely play for nothing. In other > words I get paid my 2 pounds table money. > > If I'm a non-playing TD then I'm entitled to free drinks from the > bar during play. In the case of a catered event, I get free food as > well :-) > > 40 bucks for club event? - Never in a month of Sundays. As for $75 ... Huh. Different strokes, I guess. An expert friend of mine, who used to run a club in California years ago, tells me that in his opinion at least, club TDs in the US today want to actually make a living at it, which wasn't true 20-30 years ago. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 28 01:13:36 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Feb 28 01:13:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >There may be some few infractions which go unnoticed, but >in my experience, most are noticed, but nothing is done. >The director is not omniscient - players *must* inform >him when an irregularity occurs if we want him to deal >with these "habitual offenders". Richard Hills: Good directors are almost omniscient. When I was a trainee director at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge, I was impressed by the policy laid down by the CTDs that the pack of TDs should continually patrol through the field. (Although by the end of my week's traineeship my feet were killing me.) Not only did these patrols mean that a TD was close by if an incident occurred, the fact that the "cops" were around may have deterred habitual offenders from pulling a swifty. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Feb 28 09:05:22 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Feb 28 09:05:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E2D6E53-7818-4571-8A0E-A8C51A236D75@rochester.rr.com> On Feb 27, 2006, at 7:13 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > When I was a trainee director at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge, > I was impressed by the policy laid down by the CTDs that > the pack of TDs should continually patrol through the > field. (Although by the end of my week's traineeship my > feet were killing me.) Not only did these patrols mean > that a TD was close by if an incident occurred, the fact > that the "cops" were around may have deterred habitual > offenders from pulling a swifty. Yeah, that works - when you have a pack of TDs. Must club games, of course, do not. From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 10:59:16 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Feb 28 10:59:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Declarer pulls wrong card Message-ID: <44041EF4.9030300@hotmail.com> Sorry if this is asked before/already clear for everybody. (I have the feeling that I did rule wrong yesterday at the local club, and I like to have a good view of when a card is played and when it can be taken back): This is my basic question: - If declarer pulls the wrong card, it touches the table and he immediatly takes it back can he play another card then or is this first card played? - What if declarer did not play this card, but it dropped from declarer's hand? And what id diamonds were played by declarer's LHO, declarer has from diamonds DK3 and accidently D3 dropped from his hand, right before him, like the card was played - do you believe that it dropped from his hand or does it not matter? - It was clear that declarer did pull the wrong card - D3 - and intended to play the other card - DK...However can we be sure that is was a miss-pull or maybe he was just thinking about something else - fi the next trick - and that was the reason he played the wrong card. Does it make any difference? - What if the card is seen by all players, but did not yet touch the table? - Is the rule the same for the defenders or are ther some differences? - Is the rule the same if declarer calls a card from dummy? - Is the rule the same if declarer plays a card from dummy: -- Declarer touches dummy's card, clearly not with the intention to sort the card properly. -- Declarer moves dummy's card, clearly not with the intention to sort the card properly. If you feel that I will not have enough information - to decide when a card is played or not - with the answers you gave to the questions above then you can write any additional info here: (sorry for this last sentence that sounds like a government form ;) ) Thanks a lot! Koen From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 28 12:08:04 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Feb 28 12:08:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Declarer pulls wrong card In-Reply-To: <44041EF4.9030300@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c63c57$3fc208e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> You should rule that declarer may take the card back if it was accidentally "dropped" or "lost" rather than deliberately played. This implies that declarer may not (apparently) change his mind because he discovers that he has initiated a stupid play. Much depends on the impression (feeling) you get at the table when you investigate what actually happened and I have found it very fruitful to let the players (dummy and both defenders) express their opinions on the question. If declarer really lost the card rather than play it most defenders will admit this as a fact. (However, don't make the mistake of ruling for the majority of votes; the decision is yours and yours alone). The rule is different for dummy's cards: If declarer calls a card he is free to correct a misnomer but not free to change his mind. If he touches a card that card is played unless it appears obvious that he had no intention of playing it. (Example: Declarer may push a card aside in order to reach the card he intends to play.) The rule is also different for the defenders: If a defender exposes a card so that it could be possible for his partner to see its face then that card becomes a penalty card which must be played at the first legal possibility. (Except that a single card of rank below that of honors accidentally dropped becomes a minor penalty card with far less severe consequences.) Regards Sven > On Behalf Of koen > Sorry if this is asked before/already clear for everybody. (I have the > feeling that I did rule wrong yesterday at the local club, and I like to > have a good view of when a card is played and when it can be taken back): > This is my basic question: > - If declarer pulls the wrong card, it touches the table and he > immediatly takes it back can he play another card then or is this first > card played? > - What if declarer did not play this card, but it dropped from > declarer's hand? And what id diamonds were played by declarer's LHO, > declarer has from diamonds DK3 and accidently D3 dropped from his hand, > right before him, like the card was played - do you believe that it > dropped from his hand or does it not matter? > - It was clear that declarer did pull the wrong card - D3 - and intended > to play the other card - DK...However can we be sure that is was a > miss-pull or maybe he was just thinking about something else - fi the > next trick - and that was the reason he played the wrong card. Does it > make any difference? > - What if the card is seen by all players, but did not yet touch the > table? > - Is the rule the same for the defenders or are ther some differences? > - Is the rule the same if declarer calls a card from dummy? > - Is the rule the same if declarer plays a card from dummy: > -- Declarer touches dummy's card, clearly not with the intention to sort > the card properly. > -- Declarer moves dummy's card, clearly not with the intention to sort > the card properly. > If you feel that I will not have enough information - to decide when a > card is played or not - with the answers you gave to the questions above > then you can write any additional info here: (sorry for this last > sentence that sounds like a government form ;) ) > > Thanks a lot! > Koen > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermy at hdw.be Tue Feb 28 13:49:46 2006 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Tue Feb 28 13:47:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Declarer pulls wrong card In-Reply-To: <44041EF4.9030300@hotmail.com> References: <44041EF4.9030300@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <440446EA.80106@hdw.be> koen wrote: > Sorry if this is asked before/already clear for everybody. (I have the > feeling that I did rule wrong yesterday at the local club, and I like to > have a good view of when a card is played and when it can be taken back): > This is my basic question: > - If declarer pulls the wrong card, it touches the table and he > immediatly takes it back can he play another card then or is this first > card played? If it is "held as if to indicate it is played" then it is played. Some people have translated it as "when the wrist moves, the card is played". Some declarers pull a card out of their hand but don't turn it. Such a card is not played, even when defenders can see it. But when he turns his wrist and shows it (touching or nearly touching the table) then ii is played. And a played card -even by declarer- cannot be taken back > - What if declarer did not play this card, but it dropped from > declarer's hand? It does not matter how many defenders could see how many cards - they are not played. > And what id diamonds were played by declarer's LHO, > declarer has from diamonds DK3 and accidently D3 dropped from his hand, > right before him, like the card was played - do you believe that it > dropped from his hand or does it not matter? It is up to the director to establish whether a player is telling the truth or not. > - It was clear that declarer did pull the wrong card - D3 - and intended > to play the other card - DK...However can we be sure that is was a > miss-pull or maybe he was just thinking about something else - fi the > next trick - and that was the reason he played the wrong card. Does it > make any difference? Again, all this is evidence the director shall use in determining whether declarer intended to play the card or not. But in any case, a card that drops on the table is not played, even if declarer took it out of his hand with intent. Declarer is always authorized to detach a card from his hand and put it back, so unless he clearly indicates it is the card he wants to play (he "turns his wrist"), the card is not played. > - What if the card is seen by all players, but did not yet touch the table? The card being seen does not matter. > - Is the rule the same for the defenders or are ther some differences? Totally different. A defenders' card is played when it is held so that partner could see it. Of course a truely "dropped" card by defender is not a played card but a (minor/major, depending on the size) penalty card. A dropped 10 has to be played, a dropped 9 does not have to be played. > - Is the rule the same if declarer calls a card from dummy? Again a different rule. When it is called, it is played. > - Is the rule the same if declarer plays a card from dummy: Same rule as one higher. > -- Declarer touches dummy's card, clearly not with the intention to sort > the card properly. If it is clearly not his intention to sort it, it must be his intention to play it, so it is played. > -- Declarer moves dummy's card, clearly not with the intention to sort > the card properly. same. > If you feel that I will not have enough information - to decide when a > card is played or not - with the answers you gave to the questions above > then you can write any additional info here: (sorry for this last > sentence that sounds like a government form ;) ) > > Thanks a lot! > Koen > -- 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: 268.1.1/270 - Release Date: 27/02/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Feb 28 13:50:04 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Feb 28 13:47:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Declarer pulls wrong card In-Reply-To: <44041EF4.9030300@hotmail.com> References: <44041EF4.9030300@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <440446FC.5000901@hdw.be> koen wrote: > Sorry if this is asked before/already clear for everybody. (I have the > feeling that I did rule wrong yesterday at the local club, and I like to > have a good view of when a card is played and when it can be taken back): > This is my basic question: > - If declarer pulls the wrong card, it touches the table and he > immediatly takes it back can he play another card then or is this first > card played? If it is "held as if to indicate it is played" then it is played. Some people have translated it as "when the wrist moves, the card is played". Some declarers pull a card out of their hand but don't turn it. Such a card is not played, even when defenders can see it. But when he turns his wrist and shows it (touching or nearly touching the table) then ii is played. And a played card -even by declarer- cannot be taken back > - What if declarer did not play this card, but it dropped from > declarer's hand? It does not matter how many defenders could see how many cards - they are not played. > And what id diamonds were played by declarer's LHO, > declarer has from diamonds DK3 and accidently D3 dropped from his hand, > right before him, like the card was played - do you believe that it > dropped from his hand or does it not matter? It is up to the director to establish whether a player is telling the truth or not. > - It was clear that declarer did pull the wrong card - D3 - and intended > to play the other card - DK...However can we be sure that is was a > miss-pull or maybe he was just thinking about something else - fi the > next trick - and that was the reason he played the wrong card. Does it > make any difference? Again, all this is evidence the director shall use in determining whether declarer intended to play the card or not. But in any case, a card that drops on the table is not played, even if declarer took it out of his hand with intent. Declarer is always authorized to detach a card from his hand and put it back, so unless he clearly indicates it is the card he wants to play (he "turns his wrist"), the card is not played. > - What if the card is seen by all players, but did not yet touch the table? The card being seen does not matter. > - Is the rule the same for the defenders or are ther some differences? Totally different. A defenders' card is played when it is held so that partner could see it. Of course a truely "dropped" card by defender is not a played card but a (minor/major, depending on the size) penalty card. A dropped 10 has to be played, a dropped 9 does not have to be played. > - Is the rule the same if declarer calls a card from dummy? Again a different rule. When it is called, it is played. > - Is the rule the same if declarer plays a card from dummy: Same rule as one higher. > -- Declarer touches dummy's card, clearly not with the intention to sort > the card properly. If it is clearly not his intention to sort it, it must be his intention to play it, so it is played. > -- Declarer moves dummy's card, clearly not with the intention to sort > the card properly. same. > If you feel that I will not have enough information - to decide when a > card is played or not - with the answers you gave to the questions above > then you can write any additional info here: (sorry for this last > sentence that sounds like a government form ;) ) > > Thanks a lot! > Koen > -- 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: 268.1.1/270 - Release Date: 27/02/2006 From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Feb 28 14:13:30 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue Feb 28 14:11:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 Message-ID: Hi all, In Law 24 we can read: (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50). The French version says: P?nalit? : si le joueur devient ult?rieurement un joueur de la d?fense, le d?clarant traite chacune de ces cartes comme une carte p?nalis?e (Loi 50). The English version says the declarer "MAY" (no obligation), but the French one (as I read) lets no choice. This was pointed out by one of my club director students. In my French version of "Laws of duplicate bridge made easier" my flow chart was made using the English version so that I never realized the difference. I remember having lost some points in the ACBL TA exam on Law 24 because I missed the "MAY". Is there an error of translation from English to French ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 14:17:41 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue Feb 28 14:17:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Declarer pulls wrong card In-Reply-To: <44041EF4.9030300@hotmail.com> References: <44041EF4.9030300@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <44044D75.4000608@hotmail.com> Thanks for the answers I already received. Let me ask an additional question based on an (exaggerated) example: -- xxxxx xx K3 xxxx vs KQJT9 AK A2 AKQJ -- Declarer plays 3NT (or 6NT if you want). A small diamond is lead and declarer plays the K from dummy, RHO following. Now declarer takes the Ace from his hand, moves it so it touches (or almost touches) the table and turning it away from him at the same time and then immediatly takes it back and replaces it by the 2. Is he allowed to play the 2 if: - he tells you that he wanted to play the 2, but accidently took the Ace first. He does not know how it happened and saw it when the Ace was (almost) touching the table. Of course he never wanted to play the ace. - he tells that he had missorted his cards: KQJT9 AK AKQJ 2A instead of KQJT9 AK AKQJ A2 (S-H-C-D to mix the colours) and took the card at the right side of his hand without looking, thinking it was the 2. - he tells that he was already thinking at the next tricks and misplayed the Ace to this first trick, but obviously always wanted to play 2 - he tells you that the Ace was just a joke. I would think that you allow the 2 in the first case (or never?), but then: - how do you know that he is telling the truth? - based on what law do you allow the switch? Thanks, Koen From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Feb 28 15:11:14 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Feb 28 15:08:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44045A02.9090608@hdw.be> Hello Laval, Perhaps my contribution may be valuable in this case, as I am qualified to direct in both these languages, neither of which is my mother tongue. (to be complete, the Dutch translation uses the words "mag de leider als strafkaart behandelen" - again a "may"). Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Hi all, > > In Law 24 we can read: > (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, > declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50). > What does this mean, to be exact? I really don't know what it means other than that they are penalty cards. > The French version says: > P?nalit? : si le joueur devient ult?rieurement un joueur de > la d?fense, le d?clarant traite chacune de ces cartes comme > une carte p?nalis?e (Loi 50). > This does indeed omit the "may", but again I don't see the difference between "they are penalty cards" and "the declarer treats them as penalty cards". > The English version says the declarer "MAY" (no obligation), > but the French one (as I read) lets no choice. > > This was pointed out by one of my club director students. > In my French version of "Laws of duplicate bridge made easier" > my flow chart was made using the English version so that I > never realized the difference. I remember having lost some > points in the ACBL TA exam on Law 24 because I missed the > "MAY". > > Is there an error of translation from English to French ? > Yes, but I don't think it is an important one. > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > -- 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: 268.1.1/270 - Release Date: 27/02/2006 From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 28 17:35:50 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Feb 28 17:36:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: Message-ID: Yes. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:13 AM Subject: [blml] Law 24 > Hi all, > > In Law 24 we can read: > (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, > declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50). > > The French version says: > P?nalit? : si le joueur devient ult?rieurement un joueur de > la d?fense, le d?clarant traite chacune de ces cartes comme > une carte p?nalis?e (Loi 50). > > The English version says the declarer "MAY" (no obligation), > but the French one (as I read) lets no choice. > > This was pointed out by one of my club director students. > In my French version of "Laws of duplicate bridge made easier" > my flow chart was made using the English version so that I > never realized the difference. I remember having lost some > points in the ACBL TA exam on Law 24 because I missed the > "MAY". > > Is there an error of translation from English to French ? > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 28 19:36:27 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Feb 28 19:39:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: Message-ID: <000c01c63c95$e4196120$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Laval Dubreuil" From: "Laval Dubreuil" > > In Law 24 we can read: > (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, > declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50). > > The French version says: > P?nalit? : si le joueur devient ult?rieurement un joueur de > la d?fense, le d?clarant traite chacune de ces cartes comme > une carte p?nalis?e (Loi 50). > > The English version says the declarer "MAY" (no obligation), > but the French one (as I read) lets no choice. > > This was pointed out by one of my club director students. > In my French version of "Laws of duplicate bridge made easier" > my flow chart was made using the English version so that I > never realized the difference. I remember having lost some > points in the ACBL TA exam on Law 24 because I missed the > "MAY". > > Is there an error of translation from English to French ? > Yes. However, ACBL TDs don't like this "may," thinking it might lead to favorable treatment of friends by a declarer. I doubt that any will give declarer the right version of the law (if they know it) when called to the table. That being so, it might be well to change the English Laws to agree with the French version. Someone can probably come up with a situation in which declarer does not want an honor to become a major penalty card. If so, the "may" should be retained. Perhaps the lawmakers thought that an exposed honor card carries such a huge penalty (the partner must pass at his next turn) that a declarer should be allowed to be merciful thereafter. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Feb 28 20:33:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Feb 28 20:33:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6E3 infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c63a15$fc3a6f10$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > In Richard's approach blowing one's nose during bridge is illegal, since > nothing in the laws allows you to do so. The approach is not Richard's, rather one promulgated by certain members of the WBFLC. > In a more practical oriented environment we assume that the laws > describe correct procedure and that deviations from that procedure are > not alllowed. No problem with that. I'd just add that the laws aren't written to encompass every possible circumstance that might arise at the table. > And then blowing one's nose is not considered to be a deviation but > something completely independent from the kern of playing bridge (up > till the moment that it carries an illegal message concerning the board > being played). Or indeed the moment when it is done unreasonably noisily in an attempt to break the concentration of an opponent. > And it is up to the TD to declare that noticing a strange > order in the boards to be played is closer to blowing one's nose than to > deviating from correct procedure. "Noticing" can't really be considered "correct" or "incorrect" - it's outside any player's control. It's the action taken *after* noticing that matters. My own view is that the TD should be saying "The laws are silent on what you should have done but my ruling is that your actions contributed positively to the proper and orderly progression of the game and prevented a potentially embarrassing TD error, what you did was legal - TY." The TD should *not* be in the position of having to say "What you did was technically illegal but I'm not going to punish it and I'm not to restore to your opps the result that would have occurred had you not acted illegally." > It was the organisation that deviated from correct procedure. I agree. And other organisations will do so in future, human errors occur. When such things happen a player will sometimes be in a position where the laws don't explicitly address the issue. Do we *want* players to do as Richard did, or do we want them to remain silent because "anything not explicitly permitted is illegal". FWIW I think "anything not explicitly permitted is illegal" ranks alongside "anything not explicitly forbidden is legal" in terms of impracticality. OTOH "anything not directly addressed in the laws *may* be judged illegal by the TD (and penalised/rectified accordingly)" is, IMO, extremely practical. Tim