From schoderb at msn.com Wed Mar 1 00:36:04 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Mar 1 00:36:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <000c01c63c95$e4196120$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Gee it's interesting to see that Mr. French finds himself a spokesman for the ACBL TDs. I doubt highly that this is more than his own personal bias, and can speak for those I know (many many more than Mr. French) that he is creating facts from whole cloth. Why doesn't he just speak for himself, or is he afraid that would give it a taint which might make it ludicrous? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at amsterdamned.org Wed Mar 1 01:01:00 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Mar 1 01:01:01 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 willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 1 03:37:46 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 1 03:37:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Declarer pulls wrong card In-Reply-To: <200602281840.k1SIeL39008119@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602281840.k1SIeL39008119@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <440508FA.207@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: koen > - how do you know that he is telling the truth? > - based on what law do you allow the switch? One nice thing about the rules that control declarer's play of a card is that his intent is irrelevant. Another is that no switch is ever allowed. Either declarer's card was played or it wasn't, and the decision depends only on what motions declarer made with the card. If the sides disagree on what that motion was, the Director will have to make a decision, but at least it's one based purely on fact, not intent or bridge judgment or anything else. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 1 03:50:14 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 1 03:50:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Who is responsible ? In-Reply-To: <200602271614.k1RGEvLB016628@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200602271614.k1RGEvLB016628@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44050BE6.5060304@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) > 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. I don't have any discomfort with this, but I can understand the point. > I > prefer the L12c3 flexibility that lets me award NOS 35% of 450 + 65% of > 420. In your capable hands, Tim, I don't have any problem with this, especially as you include a little "sympathy" for the NOS in your weighting. I shudder to think, though, what we might see from ACBL directors, and even you seem to wonder (below, snipped) whether average EBU TD's are up to the task. > 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 I don't think you should do this. In general, I don't see why a weighted score should ever be split. Of course you may give a PP if you think the OS should have known better, but that should be independent of score adjustment in my view. > 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). If L12C3 itself specified how it should be applied, I'd have much less discomfort with it. Even written regulations from the SO or NA would go a long way. > 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). Regardless of what the Laws say, if TD's know them and apply them inpartially, I think most players will be happy. > 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. I think improved TD skills will help at every level of the game, but it will also help if the Laws are easier to apply. Bridge has many random elements, and I don't think a bit of windfall from an opponent's infraction harms the game. If you don't like, say, two-trick penalties, just don't revoke. At least that approach is easy to explain to the customers. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 1 07:35:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 1 07:35:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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? Richard Hills: In my opinion, the English version of Law 24 is inconsistent with the first sentence of Law 50 (to which Law 24 is specifically cross-referenced): "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise." How can *both* the declarer and the director have the power to designate/treat a card as a penalty card? Of course, perhaps the "declarer may treat" phrase in Law 24 could be merely an allusion to a non-offending side's option under Law 81C8: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From adam at irvine.com Wed Mar 1 17:53:36 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Mar 1 17:53:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:35:42 +1100." Message-ID: <200603011651.IAA15809@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > In my opinion, the English version of Law 24 is inconsistent > with the first sentence of Law 50 (to which Law 24 is > specifically cross-referenced): > > "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a > defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates > otherwise." > > How can *both* the declarer and the director have the power > to designate/treat a card as a penalty card? I think the answer here is that there's no inconsistency, because if a card is exposed during the auction, it's not exposed by a defender (there aren't any defenders yet), and thus this sentence of Law 50 doesn't apply. I think we can all agree that if a card is exposed by a player who has already become a defender, then declarer does *not* have an option to treat it as a penalty card; but there's again no contradiction because it's too late for Law 24 to apply. I'll let everyone else argue about the boundary case in which the auction has over, the presumed opening leader has led face down, one of the presumed defending side then accidentally exposes a card, but because of an irregularity during the auction, the Director allows someone to rescind the final pass and so the auction continues. Now does Law 24 or Law 50 apply? This may be a case where the Law could use some clarification. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 1 18:39:30 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 1 18:39:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: <200603011651.IAA15809@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000601c63d57$18414e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan ............. > I'll let everyone else argue about the boundary case in which the > auction has over, the presumed opening leader has led face down, one > of the presumed defending side then accidentally exposes a card, but > because of an irregularity during the auction, the Director allows > someone to rescind the final pass and so the auction continues. Now > does Law 24 or Law 50 apply? This may be a case where the Law could > use some clarification. This is no problem and the Law is clear: The auction "is not over" so Law 50 never applies until after the opening lead is made face up (Law 17E). Notice that it is quite possible for the originally presumed defender to become declarer or dummy when the auction eventually ends, in which case Law 50 will not apply at all! Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Wed Mar 1 18:49:52 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Mar 1 18:50:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:39:30 +0100." <000601c63d57$18414e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200603011747.JAA16178@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > I'll let everyone else argue about the boundary case in which the > > auction has over, the presumed opening leader has led face down, one > > of the presumed defending side then accidentally exposes a card, but > > because of an irregularity during the auction, the Director allows > > someone to rescind the final pass and so the auction continues. Now > > does Law 24 or Law 50 apply? This may be a case where the Law could > > use some clarification. > > This is no problem and the Law is clear: The auction "is not over" so Law 50 > never applies until after the opening lead is made face up (Law 17E). I'm sure you're right. The reasons I think that someone *might* think there is an ambiguity is that (1) Law 17E tells when the auction *period* is over; but Law 24 talks about cards exposed during the "auction", not during the "auction period", and it seems to me that we on BLML have found other cases in the Laws that indicate that the two terms do not always mean the same thing, in all cases; (2) the definition of "defender" in the Definitions is "An opponent of (presumed) declarer", and I think the "presumed" and the parentheses around it means that someone *may* be considered a defender during that period after the final pass but before the opening lead has been faced, depending on the situation; so there's some possible question about whether the term "defender" as used in Law 50 could refer to the opponent of a presumed declarer or not. Of course, this is very unlikely to cause a problem in real life. The only difference it would make is in a case where a presumed defender's card is exposed after the final pass and before the opening lead is faced, when presumed declarer wishes to be magnanimous and not treat the card as a penalty card, and the Director for some reason does not want to go along with declarer's wishes. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 1 20:04:46 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 1 20:04:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: <200603011747.JAA16178@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000701c63d63$02aa4e10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sven wrote: > > > > I'll let everyone else argue about the boundary case in which the > > > auction has over, the presumed opening leader has led face down, one > > > of the presumed defending side then accidentally exposes a card, but > > > because of an irregularity during the auction, the Director allows > > > someone to rescind the final pass and so the auction continues. Now > > > does Law 24 or Law 50 apply? This may be a case where the Law could > > > use some clarification. > > > > This is no problem and the Law is clear: The auction "is not over" so > Law 50 > > never applies until after the opening lead is made face up (Law 17E). > > I'm sure you're right. The reasons I think that someone *might* think > there is an ambiguity is that (1) Law 17E tells when the auction > *period* is over; but Law 24 talks about cards exposed during the > "auction", not during the "auction period", and it seems to me that we > on BLML have found other cases in the Laws that indicate that the two > terms do not always mean the same thing, in all cases; (2) the > definition of "defender" in the Definitions is "An opponent of > (presumed) declarer", and I think the "presumed" and the parentheses > around it means that someone *may* be considered a defender during > that period after the final pass but before the opening lead has been > faced, depending on the situation; so there's some possible question > about whether the term "defender" as used in Law 50 could refer to the > opponent of a presumed declarer or not. > > Of course, this is very unlikely to cause a problem in real life. The > only difference it would make is in a case where a presumed defender's > card is exposed after the final pass and before the opening lead is > faced, when presumed declarer wishes to be magnanimous and not treat > the card as a penalty card, and the Director for some reason does not > want to go along with declarer's wishes. You are touching a situation which needs very precise definitions and you may notice that the laws do not use the terms declarer, dummy and defenders for situations during the interval between the third pass in a row and the moment the opening lead is been faced. Once an auction "ends" with three consecutive passes after at least one bid has been made we have "presumed" declarer, dummy and defenders. The reason why they are "presumed" is that if the auction is continued under Law 21B1 it is quite possible that the final declarer will be a different player from the originally "presumed" declarer etc. And this possibility is indeed not unlikely as such! It takes no more than a "presumed defender" deciding to bid his own contract instead of letting opponents play theirs when he learns that he has had incorrect explanation. Once you understand this possible scenario I believe that the Laws will appear unambiguous as far as Law 24 etc. is concerned. Regards Sven From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Mar 3 13:38:07 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Mar 3 13:37:45 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B Message-ID: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> With E-W defending, W leads a diamond and E revokes. W illegally draws attention to the revoke before it is established. Under which of the following circumstances should TWO tricks be transferred:- (a) East would have won the trick ie he revoked by ruffing, but declarer wins the trick when the revoke is corrected. (b) As in (a) but WEST wins the trick. (b) East did win the trick with the diamond he substituted but would not have won the trick with the revoke card. (c) East won a subsequent trick with a diamond. I am sure this question has been asked before, but I cannot find anything authoratitive. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/273 - Release Date: 02/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 3 14:53:06 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 3 14:51:05 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B In-Reply-To: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <44084A42.4030708@hdw.be> This is indeed a problem, and it has never been satisfactorally resolved. I would like to offer the following decision tree: The following happens: -Anyone, not just partner, leads to a trick -a defender, let's call him west, does not follow suit to that trick -his partner draws attention to the revoke. Let's say he does so immediately, all the other are just complications concerning further withdrawn cards, not really important to this case -west does have a card in the suit led. The card is exchanged and the first card becomes a major penalty card, also not important to this story -play continues but the director must assess penalties "as if the revoke had become established" There are two possible cases: A) West now plays a higher card and wins the trick. He has now won the "revoke trick", so he's liable to the two trick penalty - if his side wins another one. B) West now plays a lower card and does not win the trick. There are still 2 possibilities: B1) He later wins a trick in this suit. There are now again 2 penalty tricks (if their side win another one) B2) He does not win a trick in this suit. There is one penalty trick (if his side win one). OK? David Barton wrote: > With E-W defending, W leads a diamond and E revokes. > W illegally draws attention to the revoke before it is established. > > Under which of the following circumstances should TWO tricks > be transferred:- > > (a) East would have won the trick ie he revoked by ruffing, > but declarer wins the trick when the revoke is corrected. > (b) As in (a) but WEST wins the trick. > (b) East did win the trick with the diamond he substituted > but would not have won the trick with the revoke card. > (c) East won a subsequent trick with a diamond. > > I am sure this question has been asked before, but I cannot > find anything authoratitive. > > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton@lineone.net > ***************************************** > > > -- 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: 268.1.1/273 - Release Date: 2/03/2006 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Mar 3 15:55:37 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri Mar 3 15:55:08 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> <44084A42.4030708@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001501c63ed2$87f56b20$4101a8c0@david> Thank you Herman for your very clear explanation. This does indeed accord with how I would expect it to operate. My confusion arises from the expression "as if the revoke had become established". A possible interpretation of this expression is that the penalties would be based upon the card that revoker played before the correction, because that is encompassed within "as if the revoke had become established". I am happy to accept that this is not the intention, but would wish that this law had been expressed with greater clarity. Thanks again. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** > This is indeed a problem, and it has never been satisfactorally resolved. > > I would like to offer the following decision tree: > > The following happens: > -Anyone, not just partner, leads to a trick > -a defender, let's call him west, does not follow suit to that trick > -his partner draws attention to the revoke. Let's say he does so > immediately, all the other are just complications concerning further > withdrawn cards, not really important to this case > -west does have a card in the suit led. The card is exchanged and the > first card becomes a major penalty card, also not important to this story > -play continues but the director must assess penalties "as if the > revoke had become established" > > There are two possible cases: > > A) West now plays a higher card and wins the trick. > > He has now won the "revoke trick", so he's liable to the two trick > penalty - if his side wins another one. > > B) West now plays a lower card and does not win the trick. > > There are still 2 possibilities: > > B1) He later wins a trick in this suit. > > There are now again 2 penalty tricks (if their side win another one) > > B2) He does not win a trick in this suit. > > There is one penalty trick (if his side win one). > > OK? > > David Barton wrote: > >> With E-W defending, W leads a diamond and E revokes. >> W illegally draws attention to the revoke before it is established. >> >> Under which of the following circumstances should TWO tricks >> be transferred:- >> >> (a) East would have won the trick ie he revoked by ruffing, >> but declarer wins the trick when the revoke is corrected. >> (b) As in (a) but WEST wins the trick. >> (b) East did win the trick with the diamond he substituted >> but would not have won the trick with the revoke card. >> (c) East won a subsequent trick with a diamond. >> >> I am sure this question has been asked before, but I cannot >> find anything authoratitive. >> >> >> ***************************************** >> david.j.barton@lineone.net >> ***************************************** >> >> >> > > -- > 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: 268.1.1/273 - Release Date: 2/03/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/273 - Release Date: 02/03/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/273 - Release Date: 02/03/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 3 16:16:10 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Mar 3 16:16:23 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 3, 2006, at 7:38 AM, David Barton wrote: > With E-W defending, W leads a diamond and E revokes. > W illegally draws attention to the revoke before it is established. This brings up another question, hence the change in thread title. In the ACBL, the problem David puts forward won't happen, because a defender can legally ask if his partner revoked. So 63B will never apply. My question, though, deals with the wording of the ACBL's election in the laws. Law 61B allows the zonal organization (ACBL, in this case) to permit defenders to ask each other about a possible revoke. The ABCL has done so. Fair enough. But the wording of the election is "NOTE: The ACBL Board of Directors under the authority granted in the revised Law61B, has ruled that in ACBL sanctioned events, a defender may inquire of his partner whether he has a card of the suit led." What's bothering me is that little phrase in the middle: "in ACBL sanctioned events". Since ACBL are wearing their zonal authority hat here, shouldn't the election apply to *all* duplicate bridge games in Zone 2, not just those sanctioned by the ACBL? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 3 16:17:08 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Mar 3 16:17:21 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B In-Reply-To: <001501c63ed2$87f56b20$4101a8c0@david> References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> <44084A42.4030708@hdw.be> <001501c63ed2$87f56b20$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <0018076C-1218-479B-AD20-3E467FAB5B24@rochester.rr.com> Oops, sent to David, meant to send to the list. Sorry David. On Mar 3, 2006, at 9:55 AM, David Barton wrote: > My confusion arises from the expression "as if the revoke had > become established". A possible interpretation of this expression > is that the penalties would be based upon the card that revoker > played before the correction, because that is encompassed within > "as if the revoke had become established". I think you're reading more into it than is there. "The revoke is established" simply means that it happened. Now, Law 64 deals with how to penalize a revoke - but notice a prerequisite to apply Law 64 is that the revoke be "established". So if you correct the revoke IAW Law 63B, you couldn't ordinarily apply Law 64, except that 63B tells you to ignore the prerequisite, or rather to act as if it's been met. Note that Law 64A1 doesn't require offender to win the revoke trick with the revoke *card*, it is sufficient that he win it. From schoderb at msn.com Fri Mar 3 17:51:55 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Mar 3 17:52:07 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> <8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: No. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > > On Mar 3, 2006, at 7:38 AM, David Barton wrote: > > > With E-W defending, W leads a diamond and E revokes. > > W illegally draws attention to the revoke before it is established. > > This brings up another question, hence the change in thread title. > > In the ACBL, the problem David puts forward won't happen, because a > defender can legally ask if his partner revoked. So 63B will never > apply. My question, though, deals with the wording of the ACBL's > election in the laws. > > Law 61B allows the zonal organization (ACBL, in this case) to permit > defenders to ask each other about a possible revoke. The ABCL has > done so. Fair enough. But the wording of the election is "NOTE: > The ACBL Board of Directors under the authority granted in the > revised Law61B, has ruled that in ACBL sanctioned events, a defender > may inquire of his partner whether he has a card of the suit led." > What's bothering me is that little phrase in the middle: "in ACBL > sanctioned events". Since ACBL are wearing their zonal authority hat > here, shouldn't the election apply to *all* duplicate bridge games in > Zone 2, not just those sanctioned by the ACBL? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 3 18:28:43 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 3 18:28:54 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B In-Reply-To: <0018076C-1218-479B-AD20-3E467FAB5B24@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c63ee7$ec1367a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Mar 3, 2006, at 9:55 AM, David Barton wrote: > > > My confusion arises from the expression "as if the revoke had > > become established". A possible interpretation of this expression > > is that the penalties would be based upon the card that revoker > > played before the correction, because that is encompassed within > > "as if the revoke had become established". > > I think you're reading more into it than is there. "The revoke is > established" simply means that it happened. Now, Law 64 deals with > how to penalize a revoke - but notice a prerequisite to apply Law 64 > is that the revoke be "established". So if you correct the revoke IAW > Law 63B, you couldn't ordinarily apply Law 64, except that 63B tells > you to ignore the prerequisite, or rather to act as if it's been met. > Note that Law 64A1 doesn't require offender to win the revoke trick > with the revoke *card*, it is sufficient that he win it. The governing rule is set forth in WBFLC minutes Bermuda Jan 12th. 2000 #2: 2 The question of the 'two trick penalty in Law 64', see Law 43B2(c), was revisited. Mr. Ghose's remarks were noted. It was agreed that the wording of the minute in Ocho Rios requires amendment. Accordingly the committee confirmed its position that the legal card which is substituted for the first card determines the ownership of the revoke trick. This card is played subsequently to the revoke. Law 64 is then to be applied, so that there may be 2 trick penalty but not necessarily so. Thwere are two important clauses to be aware of in this minute: 1: The obvious (?) fact that the ownership of the trick in question is determined by the four cards finally constituting that trick and that the first card played by the offender has no influence on the ownership. 2: The clause that the substitute card played by the offender is played "subsequent to the revoke". I do not understand why WBFLC made a point of this; what is the effect (if any) of the substitute card having been played subsequent to the revoke? Without this remark it is IMO no doubt that the offender won the revoke trick (for the application of Law 64A1) if he did so with his substitute card played to that trick. Have I overlooked something that makes it important to be aware that the substitute card is played subsequent to the revoke? Regards Sven From schoderb at msn.com Sat Mar 4 02:31:34 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Mar 4 02:31:46 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> <8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com> <7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Because a hell-of-a-lot of bridge, in duplicate fashion, is played without any involvement of the ACBL. I didn't think it necessary to advise you of that, and that the ACBL as a Zone of the WBF does not control all of bridge in the USA, Canada Mexico, and Bermuda. Why can you imagine, there are organizations who play bridge, in duplicate fashion, who are in no way affiliated with the ACBL. Even in places like Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, and the USA! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > On Mar 3, 2006, at 11:51 AM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > No. > > Okay. Why not? > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 5 01:56:14 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Mar 5 01:56:21 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david> <8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com> <7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mar 3, 2006, at 8:31 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Because a hell-of-a-lot of bridge, in duplicate fashion, is played > without > any involvement of the ACBL. I didn't think it necessary to advise > you of > that, and that the ACBL as a Zone of the WBF does not control all > of bridge > in the USA, Canada Mexico, and Bermuda. > Why can you imagine, there are organizations who play bridge, in > duplicate > fashion, who are in no way affiliated with the ACBL. Even in places > like > Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, and the USA! well, then, I imagine the WBF has nothing to say about what those organizations do, either. Including as regards the so-called "International Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". From schoderb at msn.com Sun Mar 5 02:08:52 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Mar 5 02:08:59 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david><8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com><7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: You got it! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > > On Mar 3, 2006, at 8:31 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > Because a hell-of-a-lot of bridge, in duplicate fashion, is played > > without > > any involvement of the ACBL. I didn't think it necessary to advise > > you of > > that, and that the ACBL as a Zone of the WBF does not control all > > of bridge > > in the USA, Canada Mexico, and Bermuda. > > Why can you imagine, there are organizations who play bridge, in > > duplicate > > fashion, who are in no way affiliated with the ACBL. Even in places > > like > > Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, and the USA! > > well, then, I imagine the WBF has nothing to say about what those > organizations do, either. Including as regards the so-called > "International Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 5 03:39:45 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun Mar 5 03:40:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david> <1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> <003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361> <1F9H0C-0FpgbA0@fwd28.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <002201c63ffe$6a446c70$78e1403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case > > 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. > ~~~ \x/ ~~~ > 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. < +=+ Add that they refuse to acknowledge the authorized interpretations that are issued from time to time, the authorized guidance given as to the way the laws should be read. The questioned clause is not an example of the standards for clarity and simplicity desirable in international usage. But there are those who are long custodians of the rules of the game and steeped in, largely content with, the overly erudite English usage that its laws present. Change is hard to come by. The cry goes up 'if it ain't broke don't mend it' - and offers an excuse for remaining in the past, not responding to the quest for plainer words, greater precision, crisper presentation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mustikka at charter.net Sun Mar 5 06:18:13 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun Mar 5 06:18:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david><1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de><003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361><1F9H0C-0FpgbA0@fwd28.sul.t-online.de> <002201c63ffe$6a446c70$78e1403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000301c64014$340d0570$2b150947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" (snip) >But there are those who > are long custodians of the rules of the game and steeped in, largely > content with, the overly erudite English usage that its laws present. > Change is hard to come by. The cry goes up 'if it ain't broke don't mend > it' - and offers an excuse for remaining in the past, not responding to > the quest for plainer words, greater precision, crisper presentation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The custodians are content, the actual users and readers of the Laws are not content, and for the custodians of the Laws to be satisfied with having an excuse to not make the presentation plain, crisp and clear, is IMO [you can insert adjective here] Sincerely, Raija Davis From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Mar 5 19:05:05 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Mar 5 19:05:15 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question Message-ID: Unfortunately we haven't foreseen this case in our regulations: In a teams' event of 6 teams (double round robin of 32-board rounds), scores are cross-imped for an individual ranking. So what should we do if in one of the matches, a board has only been played in one room due to an irregularity in the other room which had to be dealt with by an artAS? Should we use the one result for the cross-imps or ignore it and only use the four results from the other two matches? And should an artAS in any way be taken into account in the cross-imps-computations? Thanks for your advice. Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Mar 5 19:26:13 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Mar 5 19:29:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david> <1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de> <003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361> <1F9H0C-0FpgbA0@fwd28.sul.t-online.de> <002201c63ffe$6a446c70$78e1403e@Mildred> <000301c64014$340d0570$2b150947@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000b01c64082$4b4cfa60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "raija" > From: "Grattan" < > (snip) > > >But there are those who > > are long custodians of the rules of the game and steeped in, largely > > content with, the overly erudite English usage that its laws present. > > Change is hard to come by. The cry goes up 'if it ain't broke don't mend > > it' - and offers an excuse for remaining in the past, not responding to > > the quest for plainer words, greater precision, crisper presentation. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The custodians are content, the actual users and readers of the Laws are not > content, and for the custodians of the Laws to be satisfied with having an > excuse to not make the presentation plain, crisp and clear, is IMO [you can > insert adjective here] Arrogant. Not to worry, Raija. When they are through with their exercise in bureaucratize, we will write our own version of the Laws, using plain language, and distribute it via the internet. We will have one version for players and another for TDs (and players, if they wish). The former need not delve much into the penalties and remedies for irregularities or the responsibilities of TDs, as the latter will. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Sun Mar 5 21:01:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun Mar 5 21:01:35 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FFzQ2-0lp8Mq0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Hello, IMHO this should be easy. For each board you have 6 comparable scores. For your cross-imp scores you normally compare each score with the other 5; so you add the 5 IMP-scores to result in your personal score in this board. If there is / are (a) missing score(s) you add the remaining IMP-scores and factor the result with (5 / [# comparisons]). For the artAS it depends on your regulation regarding the IMP value for artAS in a pairs event. In Germany every 10% away of 50% the score is 3 IMPs. I know in other countries it is 2 IMPs. So, you calculate your personal IMP-score and factor it with 5 (in this example). And yes, you should take those artAS into account. And yes, this should be fixed in your regulations ;-) Regards Peter Eidt "Petrus Schuster OSB" wrote: > Unfortunately we haven't foreseen this case in our regulations: > In a teams' event of 6 teams (double round robin of 32-board rounds), > scores are cross-imped for an individual ranking. > So what should we do if in one of the matches, a board has only been > played in one room due to an irregularity in the other room which had to > be dealt with by an artAS? Should we use the one result for the cross-imps > or ignore it and only use the four results from the other two matches? > And should an artAS in any way be taken into account in the > cross-imps-computations? From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 5 21:10:42 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Mar 5 21:10:46 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c64090$e15c7900$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > Subject: [blml] cross-imp question > > Unfortunately we haven't foreseen this case in our regulations: > In a teams' event of 6 teams (double round robin of 32-board rounds), > scores are cross-imped for an individual ranking. > So what should we do if in one of the matches, a board has only been > played in one room due to an irregularity in the other room which had to > be dealt with by an artAS? Should we use the one result for the cross-imps > or ignore it and only use the four results from the other two matches? > And should an artAS in any way be taken into account in the > cross-imps-computations? > Thanks for your advice. > Petrus In Norway our most common scoring programs treat the entire event as a competition for pairs when ranking individual pairs. In your case this means that we defined a pairs event with 6 competitors (pairs). When there is an irregularity at one table we score this exactly as we would have scored in a true pairs event. (i.e. five normal scores and one artAS). Regards Sven From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Mar 5 22:10:22 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Mar 5 22:10:30 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <000501c64090$e15c7900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c64090$e15c7900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:10:42 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB >> Subject: [blml] cross-imp question >> >> Unfortunately we haven't foreseen this case in our regulations: >> In a teams' event of 6 teams (double round robin of 32-board rounds), >> scores are cross-imped for an individual ranking. >> So what should we do if in one of the matches, a board has only been >> played in one room due to an irregularity in the other room which had to >> be dealt with by an artAS? Should we use the one result for the >> cross-imps >> or ignore it and only use the four results from the other two matches? >> And should an artAS in any way be taken into account in the >> cross-imps-computations? >> Thanks for your advice. >> Petrus > > In Norway our most common scoring programs treat the entire event as a > competition for pairs when ranking individual pairs. In your case this > means > that we defined a pairs event with 6 competitors (pairs). > > When there is an irregularity at one table we score this exactly as we > would > have scored in a true pairs event. (i.e. five normal scores and one > artAS). > The scores were: Open [+3 IMP], +100, -170; Closed -420, +50, -110 If I understand you correctly, you cross-imp the 5 actual scores for +5.0, -1.8, -6.8, +3.6 and 0 and give +3 to Table 1? (Your reference to pairs scoring puts me slightly off, as you would use Neuberg with an artAS on the board?) Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Mar 5 22:27:43 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Mar 5 22:27:47 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <1FFzQ2-0lp8Mq0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> References: <1FFzQ2-0lp8Mq0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:01:00 +0100, Peter Eidt wrote: > Hello, > > IMHO this should be easy. > > For each board you have 6 comparable scores. > For your cross-imp scores you normally compare each score > with the other 5; so you add the 5 IMP-scores to result in your > personal score in this board. > > If there is / are (a) missing score(s) you add the remaining > IMP-scores and factor the result with (5 / [# comparisons]). > So you want to give every board equal weight, and not every comparison? I hadn't thought of that. > For the artAS it depends on your regulation regarding the > IMP value for artAS in a pairs event. In Germany every 10% > away of 50% the score is 3 IMPs. I know in other countries > it is 2 IMPs. So, you calculate your personal IMP-score > and factor it with 5 (in this example). > And yes, you should take those artAS into account. > > And yes, this should be fixed in your regulations ;-) > Federation-wide, maybe in 2007... Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From schoderb at msn.com Sun Mar 5 22:28:32 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Mar 5 22:28:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david><1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de><003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361><1F9H0C-0FpgbA0@fwd28.sul.t-online.de><002201c63ffe$6a446c70$78e1403e@Mildred><000301c64014$340d0570$2b150947@DFYXB361> <000b01c64082$4b4cfa60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Gee Marvin, the word 'arrogant' should apply to your two paragraphs rather than precede them. It certainly is appropriate to your plans. Yet it also fits Grattan's derogation of the motives, abilities, and command of English of his colleagues. It boggles my mind to evaluate some of the proposals I've seen from one who claims clarity, crispness, and direct plain wording. To hide changes in the meanings of the laws which are not agreed upon by fanfares and ridiculous claims about good usage while blowing smoke screens and bad mouthing your co-workers is really beyond the pale, not constructive cooperation, and is unacceptable behavior towards dedicated individuals, no? The quest for improvement continues. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case > > From: "raija" > > > From: "Grattan" < > > > (snip) > > > > >But there are those who > > > are long custodians of the rules of the game and steeped in, largely > > > content with, the overly erudite English usage that its laws present. > > > Change is hard to come by. The cry goes up 'if it ain't broke don't > > > mend > > > it' - and offers an excuse for remaining in the past, not responding > > > to > > > the quest for plainer words, greater precision, crisper presentation. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > The custodians are content, the actual users and readers of the Laws are > > not > > content, and for the custodians of the Laws to be satisfied with having > > an > > excuse to not make the presentation plain, crisp and clear, is IMO [you > > can > > insert adjective here] > > Arrogant. > > Not to worry, Raija. When they are through with their exercise in > bureaucratize, we will write our own version of the Laws, using plain > language, and distribute it via the internet. > > We will have one version for players and another for TDs (and players, if > they > wish). The former need not delve much into the penalties and remedies for > irregularities or the responsibilities of TDs, as the latter will. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 5 22:56:26 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Mar 5 22:56:30 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <000501c64090$e15c7900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c6409f$a6c23140$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Subject: RE: [blml] cross-imp question > > > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > > Subject: [blml] cross-imp question > > > > Unfortunately we haven't foreseen this case in our regulations: > > In a teams' event of 6 teams (double round robin of 32-board rounds), > > scores are cross-imped for an individual ranking. > > So what should we do if in one of the matches, a board has only been > > played in one room due to an irregularity in the other room which had to > > be dealt with by an artAS? Should we use the one result for the cross- > imps > > or ignore it and only use the four results from the other two matches? > > And should an artAS in any way be taken into account in the > > cross-imps-computations? > > Thanks for your advice. > > Petrus > > In Norway our most common scoring programs treat the entire event as a > competition for pairs when ranking individual pairs. In your case this > means > that we defined a pairs event with 6 competitors (pairs). Typo: Of course I meant 12 pairs! Sven > > When there is an irregularity at one table we score this exactly as we > would > have scored in a true pairs event. (i.e. five normal scores and one > artAS). > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 5 23:00:07 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Mar 5 23:00:11 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c640a0$2a6365a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > Subject: Re: [blml] cross-imp question > > On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:10:42 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > >> Subject: [blml] cross-imp question > >> > >> Unfortunately we haven't foreseen this case in our regulations: > >> In a teams' event of 6 teams (double round robin of 32-board rounds), > >> scores are cross-imped for an individual ranking. > >> So what should we do if in one of the matches, a board has only been > >> played in one room due to an irregularity in the other room which had > to > >> be dealt with by an artAS? Should we use the one result for the > >> cross-imps > >> or ignore it and only use the four results from the other two matches? > >> And should an artAS in any way be taken into account in the > >> cross-imps-computations? > >> Thanks for your advice. > >> Petrus > > > > In Norway our most common scoring programs treat the entire event as a > > competition for pairs when ranking individual pairs. In your case this > > means > > that we defined a pairs event with 6 competitors (pairs). > > > > When there is an irregularity at one table we score this exactly as we > > would > > have scored in a true pairs event. (i.e. five normal scores and one > > artAS). > > > The scores were: Open [+3 IMP], +100, -170; Closed -420, +50, -110 > If I understand you correctly, you cross-imp the 5 actual scores for +5.0, > -1.8, -6.8, +3.6 and 0 and give +3 to Table 1? (Your reference to pairs > scoring puts me slightly off, as you would use Neuberg with an artAS on > the board?) Yes. (And of course when I wrote 6 pairs it was a typo for 12 pairs) Regards Sven > Regards, > Petrus > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Mon Mar 6 00:43:26 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Mon Mar 6 00:14:37 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <000501c64090$e15c7900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c64090$e15c7900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <440B779E.8020508@cs.elte.hu> Sven Pran wrote: >In Norway our most common scoring programs treat the entire event as a >competition for pairs when ranking individual pairs. In your case this means >that we defined a pairs event with 6 competitors (pairs). > >When there is an irregularity at one table we score this exactly as we would >have scored in a true pairs event. (i.e. five normal scores and one artAS). > >Regards Sven > I'm new on this list, so "Hello everybudy!" :) Cross-IMPs on team events are usually not official competitions, so we can use any normal methods. I agree Sven that the best we can do is to use the same as in pairs event, but the main quiestion is: how to score in a cross-imp pairs event if there are boards with different number of results? Peter Eidt writes his idea which means in general that a pair's imp on this board is calculated with the following: P = p*N/n where P is the final points on this board of the pair; p is the points of this pair with the real comparisons; N is the maximal number of comparaisons; n is the real number of comparisons. This is OK when the scoring is TOTAL-imps. Using CROSS-imps --- which is equal to the TOTAL-imps, but the points on a board is divided by the number of comparisons --- this method means the following not so difficult formula: P=p Anyway in Hungary we use this method for cross-imp pairs competitions --- and for the cross-imps in teams events ---, cos that's the method which is used in the ACBL program. I really do not like it. regards Laci (L?szl? Heged?s from Hungary) ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Mon Mar 6 05:05:43 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Mon Mar 6 04:36:57 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <000701c640a0$2a6365a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c640a0$2a6365a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <440BB517.80306@cs.elte.hu> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB >>Subject: Re: [blml] cross-imp question >> >> >> >> >>The scores were: Open [+3 IMP], +100, -170; Closed -420, +50, -110 >>If I understand you correctly, you cross-imp the 5 actual scores for +5.0, >>-1.8, -6.8, +3.6 and 0 and give +3 to Table 1? (Your reference to pairs >>scoring puts me slightly off, as you would use Neuberg with an artAS on >>the board?) >> >> > >Yes. (And of course when I wrote 6 pairs it was a typo for 12 pairs) > or 6 tables :) I think the points were miscalculated (divided by 5 instead of 4) +6.25, -2.25, -8.5, +4.5 and 0 are the cross-imps. regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 6 04:46:45 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon Mar 6 04:46:43 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question Message-ID: <440BB0A5.1050707@cfa.harvard.edu> From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > In a teams' event of 6 teams (double round robin of 32-board rounds), > scores are cross-imped for an individual ranking. So you are in effect running a combined teams and pair event? > So what should we do if in one of the matches, a board has only been > played in one room due to an irregularity in the other room which had to > be dealt with by an artAS? As others have said, there should be no great difficulty. You do as you would in a pairs event, score the five "real" results, then somehow "factor" to the equivalent of six results. The only debate is the formula to use for factoring. There is no perfect formula, but most jurisdictions use Neuberg or its equivalent. > The scores were: Open [+3 IMP], +100, -170; Closed -420, +50, -110 > If I understand you correctly, you cross-imp the 5 actual scores for +5.0, > -1.8, -6.8, +3.6 and 0 and give +3 to Table 1? (Your reference to pairs > scoring puts me slightly off, as you would use Neuberg with an artAS on > the board?) If you believe in Neuberg, the proper factoring is to divide IMP totals by number of results (_not_ number of comparisons). You really should be doing this anyway to bring the IMP scores to the normal scale. I think you are doing it right. To spell it out, the +100 wins 7, 11, 2, and 5 against the four other scores. That's a total of 25, and divide by 5 to get +5.0 IMPs. On the boards with six results add up the five comparisons, and divide by six. If some other board is spoiled twice, cross-imp the four results (three comparisons) and divide by four. Then at the end, just add the results on all the boards for each pair. (If pairs have played different numbers of boards, you have to factor to allow for that.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Mar 6 04:59:23 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon Mar 6 04:59:19 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question Message-ID: <440BB39B.5090603@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Laszlo Hegedus Hi, Laszlo. Welcome to BLML. I think you are the first Hungarian to post here, and I look forward to learning about bridge in your country. > I think the points were miscalculated (divided by 5 instead of 4) > +6.25, -2.25, -8.5, +4.5 and 0 are the cross-imps. Your message hadn't arrived when I posted mine a few minutes ago. As I wrote there, no single formula is perfect. If you would use straight factoring in a matchpoint event, then the above is correct: divide by the number of comparisons. If you would use Neuberg, divide by number of results. If you would use some different formula (Bethe, perhaps), there will be a different divisor, which you will have to calculate. I believe some EBU events use sqrt(results*comparisons) for the divisor. That doesn't correspond to any commonly-used matchpoint formula but isn't ridiculous. Maybe the matchpoint formula should be modified to the equivalent of this, but I haven't heard of anyone doing that. The important thing is to have a regulation in advance specifying what formula should be used. If there isn't one specific to IMP pairs, then I think you have to adapt the one for matchpoints. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Mar 6 05:34:49 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Mar 6 05:38:09 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question References: <440BB0A5.1050707@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007d01c640d7$4f636c60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > If you believe in Neuberg, the proper factoring is to divide IMP totals > by number of results (_not_ number of comparisons). You really should > be doing this anyway to bring the IMP scores to the normal scale. > Not knowing to whom I should make the suggestion, I wrote to acblscore@acbl.org, last year, urging that the divisor for Cross-IMP scores be changed from the number of comparisons to the number of results. I also offered to debate the matter with anyone there in Memphis who might oppose the change. There was no response. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Mar 6 08:05:15 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Mon Mar 6 08:05:25 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <007d01c640d7$4f636c60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <440BB0A5.1050707@cfa.harvard.edu> <007d01c640d7$4f636c60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <1FG9mN-0oFH4S0@fwd35.aul.t-online.de> From: "Steve Willner" > > If you believe in Neuberg, the proper factoring is to divide IMP totals > by number of results (_not_ number of comparisons). ?You really should > be doing this anyway to bring the IMP scores to the normal scale. > Why ? curious Peter From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 6 08:38:08 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 6 08:38:13 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <1FG9mN-0oFH4S0@fwd35.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000101c640f0$ea413af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of PeterEidt@t-online.de > Sent: 6. mars 2006 08:05 > To: blml@amsterdamned.org > Subject: Re: [blml] cross-imp question > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > > If you believe in Neuberg, the proper factoring is to divide IMP > totals > > by number of results (_not_ number of comparisons). ?You really should > > be doing this anyway to bring the IMP scores to the normal scale. > > > > Why ? It doesn't really matter for the ranking as long as you have no assigned scores because all results will be reduced with the same factor. But when there is an artAS then "normalizing" all IMP scores has the advantage that the artAS will be comparable to the "normalized" scores. With six tables and one artAS you should either divide the ten X-IMPs by five (yes, the number of results, not the number of comparisons) or the artAS assigned should be for instance 18 IMPs (in a six table event) rather than 3! Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 6 09:01:40 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 6 08:58:58 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <440B779E.8020508@cs.elte.hu> References: <000501c64090$e15c7900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <440B779E.8020508@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <440BEC64.3060306@hdw.be> Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> In Norway our most common scoring programs treat the entire event as a >> competition for pairs when ranking individual pairs. In your case this >> means >> that we defined a pairs event with 6 competitors (pairs). >> When there is an irregularity at one table we score this exactly as we >> would >> have scored in a true pairs event. (i.e. five normal scores and one >> artAS). >> >> Regards Sven >> > I'm new on this list, so "Hello everybudy!" :) > Hello Laci. > Cross-IMPs on team events are usually not official competitions, so we > can use any normal methods. I agree Sven that the best we can do is to > use the same as in pairs event, but the main quiestion is: how to score > in a cross-imp pairs event if there are boards with different number of > results? > > Peter Eidt writes his idea which means in general that a pair's imp on > this board is calculated with the following: > > P = p*N/n > where > P is the final points on this board of the pair; > p is the points of this pair with the real comparisons; > N is the maximal number of comparaisons; > n is the real number of comparisons. > > This is OK when the scoring is TOTAL-imps. Using CROSS-imps --- which is > equal to the TOTAL-imps, but the points on a board is divided by the > number of comparisons --- this method means the following not so > difficult formula: > P=p > I offer the following alternative: to divide by the number of scores, not the number of comparisons. The way to correct the total imps becomes (in this case) dividing by 5 and multiplying by 6. The complicated formula that Laci derived stays the same! > Anyway in Hungary we use this method for cross-imp pairs competitions > --- and for the cross-imps in teams events ---, cos that's the method > which is used in the ACBL program. I really do not like it. > > regards > Laci > -- 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: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 3/03/2006 From schuster at eduhi.at Mon Mar 6 09:20:13 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon Mar 6 09:20:20 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you all for your recommendations. Let me sum up: - A score should be used for the cross-imps even if it is not used for the team match (as the board is scored as +3 IMP). - There seems to be no consensus so far whether each comparison should have equal weight (Lacis P=p) or each board should have equal weight in the session result (the effect of Peter's factoring of boards with fewer comparisons). - An artAS counts towards the cross-imp-score of the pairs involved. Interestingly, if you look at the Butler scores of European Teams' Championships, you find players with an odd number of boards (like 219). Surely there must have been an AS of some sort on the missing board? Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Mar 6 09:46:22 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Mon Mar 6 09:45:20 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B References: <000001c63ee7$ec1367a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c640fa$72017e60$4101a8c0@david> One further question on this issue. Suppose N-S were playing in 4H on the following layout. AQx Axxx KQxx Ax xx xxxxx QT Jxx xxxx x Qxxxx Kxxxx KJx K9xx AJxx Jx West leads a diamond. E ruffs. W illegally enquires. The revoke is corrected. N-S eventually concede a trump and a club to score 11 tricks + 1 for revoke = 12 tricks. Without the illegal enquiry N-S still score 11 tricks but this time + 2 for the revoke = 13 tricks. How many tricks should N-S be awarded and on what legal basis? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 03/03/2006 From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 6 10:41:27 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 6 10:41:33 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B In-Reply-To: <000601c640fa$72017e60$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000501c64102$24223740$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > One further question on this issue. > Suppose N-S were playing in 4H on the following layout. > > AQx > Axxx > KQxx > Ax > > xx xxxxx > QT Jxx > xxxx x > Qxxxx Kxxxx > > KJx > K9xx > AJxx > Jx > > West leads a diamond. E ruffs. W illegally enquires. > The revoke is corrected. N-S eventually concede a > trump and a club to score 11 tricks + 1 for revoke = 12 tricks. > Without the illegal enquiry N-S still score 11 tricks but > this time + 2 for the revoke = 13 tricks. > > How many tricks should N-S be awarded and on what legal > basis? The facts: The table result is 11 tricks East has a corrected revoke subject to penalty under law 63B East did not win the revoke trick nor did he win any subsequent trick with a Diamond East-West won two subsequent tricks Consequently: The penalty is one trick North-South score 12 tricks. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 6 10:57:59 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 6 11:04:41 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david><8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com><7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002001c64104$b4ee0450$2f9987d9@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: Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > > well, then, I imagine the WBF has nothing to > say about what those organizations do, either. > Including as regards the so-called "International > Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". > +=+ An interesting view. But has the WBF not identified itself as the international curator of the game? - and taken over the task of devising its rules? If you assent to that then its duty is not to organizations but to the game itself. It is then unavoidable that progression, development of the game in its hands, is of relevance to all who play the game under those rules regardless of affiliations. ~ G ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Mon Mar 6 11:06:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon Mar 6 11:06:49 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B In-Reply-To: <000601c640fa$72017e60$4101a8c0@david> References: <000001c63ee7$ec1367a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000601c640fa$72017e60$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <1FGCbq-0Z2MMq0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> Hi, "David Barton" wrote: > West leads a diamond. E ruffs. W illegally enquires. > The revoke is corrected. N-S eventually concede a > trump and a club to score 11 tricks + 1 for revoke = 12 tricks. > Without the illegal enquiry N-S still score 11 tricks but > this time + 2 for the revoke = 13 tricks. > > How many tricks should N-S be awarded and on what legal > basis? 12 tricks, see L 61B, L 63B, L 64 A2 (1st part) cheers Peter From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 6 11:30:33 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 6 11:28:04 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B In-Reply-To: <000601c640fa$72017e60$4101a8c0@david> References: <000001c63ee7$ec1367a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000601c640fa$72017e60$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <440C0F49.7080701@hdw.be> considering that NS are normally only getting 11 tricks, 12 seems a valid compensation. some revokes cost a trick, some don't. Some illegal inquiries cost tricks, others don't. David Barton wrote: > One further question on this issue. > Suppose N-S were playing in 4H on the following layout. > > AQx > Axxx > KQxx > Ax > > xx xxxxx > QT Jxx > xxxx x > Qxxxx Kxxxx > > KJx > K9xx > AJxx > Jx > > West leads a diamond. E ruffs. W illegally enquires. > The revoke is corrected. N-S eventually concede a > trump and a club to score 11 tricks + 1 for revoke = 12 tricks. > Without the illegal enquiry N-S still score 11 tricks but > this time + 2 for the revoke = 13 tricks. > > How many tricks should N-S be awarded and on what legal > basis? > > ***************************************** > david.j.barton@lineone.net > ***************************************** > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 3/03/2006 From tzimnoch at comcast.net Mon Mar 6 11:37:16 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Mar 6 11:37:24 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <002001c64104$b4ee0450$2f9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david><8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com><7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> <002001c64104$b4ee0450$2f9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <440C10DC.5030704@comcast.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ An interesting view. But has the WBF not > identified itself as the international curator of the > game? - and taken over the task of devising its > rules? If you assent to that then its duty is not to > organizations but to the game itself. It is then > unavoidable that progression, development of > the game in its hands, is of relevance to all who > play the game under those rules regardless of > affiliations. I found a similar attitude in the introduction to the WBF's laws for online bridge. "...This is an appropriate time for WBF consideration of the manner in which the laws should govern online bridge, and timely action by the WBFLC will have a positive impact on the direction of future changes.... "The online game should not be permitted to drive deleterious changes in the game of bridge." -Todd From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Mon Mar 6 11:51:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon Mar 6 11:51:39 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <000101c640f0$ea413af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c640f0$ea413af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1FGDJC-06Kwt60@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Hi again, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of PeterEidt@t-online.de > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > > > > If you believe in Neuberg, the proper factoring is to divide IMP > > totals > > > by number of results (_not_ number of comparisons). ?You really should > > > be doing this anyway to bring the IMP scores to the normal scale. > > > > > > > Why ? > > It doesn't really matter for the ranking as long as you have no assigned > scores because all results will be reduced with the same factor. > > But when there is an artAS then "normalizing" all IMP scores has the > advantage that the artAS will be comparable to the "normalized" scores. > > With six tables and one artAS you should either divide the ten X-IMPs by > five (yes, the number of results, not the number of comparisons) or the > artAS assigned should be for instance 18 IMPs (in a six table event) rather > than 3! This was not an answer to my question, but I admit the possibility, that the intention of my question wasn't that clear in its length ;-) The fact that artAS and cross-imp-scores have to be "normalized" if they come together, is without any doubt. My question is, why you (all) normalize with the number of results and not with the number of comparisons. Some mentioned Neuberg and Neuberg works with #results, ok. But Neuberg [MP = (N:n x (M+1))-1] deals with boards less often played than others and if you take Neuberg to handle with a board that is not less often played than others (which means N = n), than Neuberg does not effect the Score of any pair (MP = M). In your "normalisation" with #results a pair never can get its "normal" score. Suppose as an example: Pair A gets +100 and all other pairs have a passout. All comparisons make +3 IMP for pair A and surely (IMHO) the score of pair A should be +3 IMPs (or any multiple thereof) "regardless" the number of passouts. If you - however - normalize the score of A using #results you get various different scores: #results score (A) 2 1.5 +3 : 2 3 2.0 +3+3 : 3 4 2.25 +3+3+3 : 4 5 2.4 +3+3+3+3 : 5 100 2.97 +297 : 100 Never ever pair A will get its score of "normalized" +3 IMPs, even if this board has no artAS. The artAS (60%) on the other side always gets its +3 IMPs, regardless of the #results. So, I repeat my question. Why do you use #results to "normalize" cross-imp scores and do not use #comparisons ? cheers Peter Eidt From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 6 11:41:34 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 6 12:04:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david><1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de><003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361><1F9H0C-0FpgbA0@fwd28.sul.t-online.de><002201c63ffe$6a446c70$78e1403e@Mildred><000301c64014$340d0570$2b150947@DFYXB361><000b01c64082$4b4cfa60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003c01c6410d$0788e470$2f9987d9@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" ; "Marvin French" Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case > > Yet it also fits Grattan's derogation of the motives, > abilities, and command of English of his colleagues. > It boggles my mind to evaluate some of the proposals > I've seen from one who claims clarity, crispness, and > direct plain wording. < +=+ I do not know where it is suggested that I have said the motives of anyone are in doubt. Nor do I recall that I have ever attacked the ability of others to devise plain English, nor that I have ever claimed perfection for any words that I have suggested. What I regard as open to severe attack is any complacency that is not interested to substitute simpler words where possible for the obscurities of language in the current laws (something that should be done, in my view, even when the current text, correctly understood, is adequate). The default position on this lies, of course, in the expectation that NBOs will have opportunity to consider the next code before it is set in concrete, and propose further improvements of expression. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 6 13:03:47 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Mar 6 13:06:08 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <440C10DC.5030704@comcast.net> References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david><8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com><7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> <002001c64104$b4ee0450$2f9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <440C10DC.5030704@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 05:37:16 -0500, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> +=+ An interesting view. But has the WBF not >> identified itself as the international curator of the >> game? - and taken over the task of devising its >> rules? If you assent to that then its duty is not to >> organizations but to the game itself. It is then >> unavoidable that progression, development of >> the game in its hands, is of relevance to all who >> play the game under those rules regardless of >> affiliations. > > I found a similar attitude in the introduction to the WBF's >laws for online bridge. > >"...This is an appropriate time for WBF consideration of the >manner in which the laws should govern online bridge, and >timely action by the WBFLC will have a positive impact on >the direction of future changes.... >"The online game should not be permitted to drive >deleterious changes in the game of bridge." > The WBF's attempt at a code of Laws for online bridge was both one of the funniest and also the most pitiful things I have ever read. If it were not for the fact that I know Bill Segraves was involved (although I have no idea as to the extent of his involvement) then I would seriously doubt whether any of the people responsible for the document had ever played online bridge in their lives. I joined OKbridge in February of 1995, shortly after OKBridge first became available to those without access to a Unix shell account, and I then switched to Bridge Base Online in March of 2003, so I think I can say that I've seen a fair amount of the development of online bridge. If anyone can be bothered wading through all the irrelevant bumph in the online laws, e.g. dealing with shuffling the deck, assignment of seats, bidding or playing out of turn, etc, etc (and in my view, not 1 in 100 online players will do so) then they're left with a collection of laws, many of which bear no resemblance to how online bridge is actually played. Just a few examples are those governing disputed claims, retraction of bids and plays, bidding reviews, defences to opponents' system, and more besides. If you took a statistically significant number of online players, selected at random, my bet would be that at least 90% of them wouldn't even know there was a set of WBF laws governing online play (as opposed to the rules of whichever site they play on), and that at least 90% of the remainder would consider them largely irrelevant. No doubt those responsible for programming the online games will still attempt to make the game "recognisably bridge", but as far as my experience of OKBridge and BBO is concerned, it appears that those sites intend to take fullest advantage of the benefits available from the online environment, and to hell with what the WBF thinks about the matter. Brian. From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 6 14:10:39 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 6 14:07:57 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <1FGDJC-06Kwt60@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> References: <000101c640f0$ea413af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1FGDJC-06Kwt60@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <440C34CF.8090709@hdw.be> Hallo Peter, Peter Eidt wrote: > Hi again, > > Sven Pran wrote: > >>With six tables and one artAS you should either divide the ten X-IMPs by >>five (yes, the number of results, not the number of comparisons) or the >>artAS assigned should be for instance 18 IMPs (in a six table event) rather >>than 3! > > > This was not an answer to my question, but I admit the possibility, > that the intention of my question wasn't that clear in its length ;-) > > The fact that artAS and cross-imp-scores have to be "normalized" > if they come together, is without any doubt. > My question is, why you (all) normalize with the number of results > and not with the number of comparisons. The "all" is a very small percentage of people, actually. It just so happens that many of the proponents of the "divide by results" faction have voiced their opinion. We are in a small, yet growing, minority. I for one am glad to be in a minority and not all alone in this battle. > Some mentioned Neuberg and Neuberg works with #results, ok. > But Neuberg [MP = (N:n x (M+1))-1] deals with boards less often played > than others and if you take Neuberg to handle with a board that is > not less often played than others (which means N = n), than Neuberg > does not effect the Score of any pair (MP = M). > But this problem is exactly the same. The board should be played 6 times and it is only played 5 times. I assume you realize that the fact that it is part of a teams contest does not affect the way the pairs (side-)contest has to be scored. So we are all talking about a pairs contest, and how to factor the results from a smaller set to a larger one. > In your "normalisation" with #results a pair never can get its > "normal" score. Suppose as an example: Pair A gets +100 and all > other pairs have a passout. All comparisons make +3 IMP for pair A > and surely (IMHO) the score of pair A should be +3 IMPs (or any > multiple thereof) "regardless" the number of passouts. No it should not. Since the pass-outs will get a negative score, and this score is dependent on the number of them, the positive score for the one table can also be different. > If you - however - normalize the score of A using #results you > get various different scores: > #results score (A) > 2 1.5 +3 : 2 > 3 2.0 +3+3 : 3 > 4 2.25 +3+3+3 : 4 > 5 2.4 +3+3+3+3 : 5 > 100 2.97 +297 : 100 > I consider a pair who score +100 against 99 0's to have played "better" than one who has scored the same against just one other table. > Never ever pair A will get its score of "normalized" +3 IMPs, > even if this board has no artAS. > The artAS (60%) on the other side always gets its +3 IMPs, > regardless of the #results. > Maybe the ArtAS is wrong, then? > So, I repeat my question. > Why do you use #results to "normalize" cross-imp scores and > do not use #comparisons ? > one good reason: consider 2 tables. one scores +620, the other -100. Total-IMPs +/-12. Cross-IMP either +12 or +6. now consider 4 tables. two score +620, two -100 Total-IMPs +/-24. Cross-IMP either +8 or +6. now consider 200 tables, half and half Cross-IMPs in either system (almost +6). Which system produces the best results if we consider that the same frequency ought to give the same result? Clear, IMO. One remark to that one: this is only true if we believe that the same frequency ought to give the same result, something which not everybody ascribes to. But the WBF in its official capacity does, which is the basis for the Neuberg formula. > cheers > Peter Eidt > -- 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: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 3/03/2006 From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 6 15:01:53 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 6 15:01:59 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <1FGDJC-06Kwt60@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000f01c64126$85f582a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt ........... > This was not an answer to my question, but I admit the possibility, > that the intention of my question wasn't that clear in its length ;-) > > The fact that artAS and cross-imp-scores have to be "normalized" > if they come together, is without any doubt. > My question is, why you (all) normalize with the number of results > and not with the number of comparisons. This has to do with statistics and sampling theory. When you have N observations and shall predict the statistics for a greater domain with M occurrences on the assumption that your samples are randomly taken from that greater domain the theory says that you shall use a normalizing factor of N+1 rather than N. (Notice that the number of results is one greater than the number of comparisons and N here is equal to the number of comparisons). > Some mentioned Neuberg and Neuberg works with #results, ok. > But Neuberg [MP = (N:n x (M+1))-1] deals with boards less often played > than others and if you take Neuberg to handle with a board that is > not less often played than others (which means N = n), than Neuberg > does not effect the Score of any pair (MP = M). Actually Acherman's formula is "better" than Neuberg's, but they are identical when applied to scores that are given plus and minus relative to the average instead of from zero to top. We always calculate scores relative to the average in Norway so we do not notice, nor do we bother about the error in Neuberg's formula. Regards Sven From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 15:41:37 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon Mar 6 15:41:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot Message-ID: <2da24b8e0603060641u27b0f4c8qb3c2b548bf4960e7@mail.gmail.com> My attitude towards the WBF's code for Online Laws is somewhat more charitable than Brian's. Online Bridge is evolving very rapidly. Accordingly, I believe that it might be appropriate to adopt a "wait and see" attitude. Observe how the online playing environment evolves before attempting to impose an arbitrary regulatory scheme. With this said and done, I think that its important to differentiate between developing a regulatory system and adopting a regulatory system. I very much believe that the WBF should be using the time available to have in depth discussions regarding the how the Laws will need to change. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the WBF seems to prefer ignore online bridge altogether with vague hopes that this new fangled thing is going to go away. I think that its crucial to emphasize two important points: 1.The electronic playing environment is going to displace traditional "face-to-face" play as the dominant form for competitive and social bridge. Like it or not, major competitions such as the the Bermuda Bowl or the Cavendish are going to migrate towards an electronic playing environment. The electronic environment is infinitely superior in terms of physical security and permits automated broadcasts of "live" play. 2.Electronic Bridge is fundamentally different from the face-to-face game. Anyone wishing to produce a relevant set of Laws for electronic bridge is going to need to perform a comprehensive rewrite from the ground up. Minor edits like the ones used in the 2001 Laws of Online Bridge aren't going to cut it. As the title of the email suggests, I think that the WBF has reached a "Shit or Get Off the Pot" moment. The WBF needs to signal that it has a serious appreciation for online bridge by devoting resources to study revising the Laws. In the absence of such an effort, I think that it is reasonable for individuals interested in this topic to assume that the WBF is abrogating responsibility for this this sphere of the game. I'll note in passing that once you cede control of this sphere, you might find that you have an awful lot of difficulty getting it back. "Pass the Buck" is the theme of the 2001 Laws of Online Bridge. This isn't going to cut it much longer. In order to get the ball rolling, I want to provide a few practical examples of the types of issues that probably need to be addressed in a "serious" version of the Laws on Online Bridge. Sponsoring Organization? Assume a situation in which an ACBL tournament is conducted on BBO's server. Who is the sponsoring authority? What happens if the ACBL and BBO disagree about some aspect of the Laws? Should mechanical errors like revokes or leads out of turn be allowed by the software? The 2001 Online Laws delegated authority to the sponsoring organization. I think that some form of guidance is appropriate. Dealing and Shuffling: Most of the laws regarding the mechanics of Dealing are completely irrelevant. With this said and done, it could be argued that the Laws should specify some set of statistical tests for randomness that the shuffling algorithms need to pass. Disclosure: Disclosure is probably the most complicated issue in all of Online Bridge. On the one hand, online bridge provides wonderful mechanical aides that permit individual players to talk to the opponents without providing direct UI to the partner. At the same time, online bridge is dominated by ephemeral partnerships that spend little to no time discussing system. This creates a number of complex issues: What constitutes partnership agreement? What if two players agree to play a system and announce that they are playing a system (be it SAYC or Acol) but in fact they one or both players are playing something completely different. Who should explain bids? (The player making the bid? his partner? Both? Neither?) "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" - Aleister Crowley From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 6 17:24:22 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Mar 6 17:26:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0603060641u27b0f4c8qb3c2b548bf4960e7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0603060641u27b0f4c8qb3c2b548bf4960e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:41:37 -0500, Richard Willey wrote: >Should mechanical errors like revokes or leads out of turn be allowed >by the software? The 2001 Online Laws delegated authority to the >sponsoring organization. I think that some form of guidance is >appropriate. > While I don't disagree with the vast majority of what Richard said, the answer to the above seems obvious to me. I know I'm far from being the only reader of BLML who earns or earned a living from programming. Does any one of the other programmers reading BLML seriously believe that any significant bridge site will undertake the added development work needed in order that users can commit errors that it's easier to prevent them from committing in the first place? Brian. From adam at irvine.com Mon Mar 6 17:56:31 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Mar 6 17:56:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:24:22 EST." Message-ID: <200603061654.IAA26842@mailhub.irvine.com> Brian Meadows wrote: > On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:41:37 -0500, Richard Willey wrote: > > >Should mechanical errors like revokes or leads out of turn be allowed > >by the software? The 2001 Online Laws delegated authority to the > >sponsoring organization. I think that some form of guidance is > >appropriate. > > > > While I don't disagree with the vast majority of what Richard > said, the answer to the above seems obvious to me. > > I know I'm far from being the only reader of BLML who earns or > earned a living from programming. Does any one of the other > programmers reading BLML seriously believe that any significant > bridge site will undertake the added development work needed in > order that users can commit errors that it's easier to prevent > them from committing in the first place? Sure, if there's enough of a demand for it. Why not? If, say, the ACBL decides that it wants online bridge players to be able to revoke and commit other irregulaties, and if the ACBL is making a signficant move toward holding online tournaments, then I don't see why online bridge sites wouldn't comply. The development work involved shouldn't be all that staggering. I just can't imagine there being any demand for it. But I suspect I didn't understand your point. -- Adam From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 6 19:42:48 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Mar 6 19:45:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: <200603061654.IAA26842@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200603061654.IAA26842@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <3vvo02plip73pc35b0mfuskcdknineklt8@4ax.com> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:56:31 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Brian Meadows wrote: > >> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:41:37 -0500, Richard Willey wrote: >> >> >Should mechanical errors like revokes or leads out of turn be allowed >> >by the software? The 2001 Online Laws delegated authority to the >> >sponsoring organization. I think that some form of guidance is >> >appropriate. >> > >> >> While I don't disagree with the vast majority of what Richard >> said, the answer to the above seems obvious to me. >> >> I know I'm far from being the only reader of BLML who earns or >> earned a living from programming. Does any one of the other >> programmers reading BLML seriously believe that any significant >> bridge site will undertake the added development work needed in >> order that users can commit errors that it's easier to prevent >> them from committing in the first place? > >Sure, if there's enough of a demand for it. Why not? If, say, the >ACBL decides that it wants online bridge players to be able to revoke >and commit other irregulaties, and if the ACBL is making a signficant >move toward holding online tournaments, then I don't see why online >bridge sites wouldn't comply. The development work involved shouldn't >be all that staggering. > >I just can't imagine there being any demand for it. > >But I suspect I didn't understand your point. > My point is simple enough - given that (AFAIK, on a sample of two) no online bridge sites currently allow calls, leads and plays out of turn, can you really imagine that they're just going to say "Yes, OK" if the ACBL (to use your example) said "Please modify your code to allow irregularities"? With all the extra complaints to abuse@ from users that's going to involve, and the work entailed in sorting them? I just bet you the ACBL isn't going to volunteer to handle any disputes, even if they did ask for the mods. And if you're going to tell me that the *software*, rather than the players at the table, is going to enforce the appropriate penalties for the irregularities, then I don't share your view of the amount of development work which that would entail. Brian. From adam at irvine.com Mon Mar 6 20:10:13 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Mar 6 20:10:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:42:48 EST." <3vvo02plip73pc35b0mfuskcdknineklt8@4ax.com> Message-ID: <200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> Brian wrote: > On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:56:31 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > >Brian Meadows wrote: > > > >> I know I'm far from being the only reader of BLML who earns or > >> earned a living from programming. Does any one of the other > >> programmers reading BLML seriously believe that any significant > >> bridge site will undertake the added development work needed in > >> order that users can commit errors that it's easier to prevent > >> them from committing in the first place? > > > >Sure, if there's enough of a demand for it. Why not? If, say, the > >ACBL decides that it wants online bridge players to be able to revoke > >and commit other irregulaties, and if the ACBL is making a signficant > >move toward holding online tournaments, then I don't see why online > >bridge sites wouldn't comply. The development work involved shouldn't > >be all that staggering. > > > >I just can't imagine there being any demand for it. > > > >But I suspect I didn't understand your point. > > > My point is simple enough - given that (AFAIK, on a sample of > two) no online bridge sites currently allow calls, leads and > plays out of turn, can you really imagine that they're just going > to say "Yes, OK" if the ACBL (to use your example) said "Please > modify your code to allow irregularities"? It depends on how serious they think the ACBL is. If the ACBL were to ask them to do this but didn't show any commitment to supporting on-line bridge, the online bridge sites may well think it isn't worth their while. But if there were a good chance that it would result in significantly more usage (and thus more revenue), then sure they would. That's why I included the condition "if the ACBL is making a significant move toward holding online tournaments"---the point is that online bridge services wouldn't be doing this just to be nice; but if a big move away from face-to-face bridge and toward online bridge is afoot, the online bridge services would do well to do whatever they can to prepare for this move, which may include adding new features if needed. > With all the extra > complaints to abuse@ from users that's going to involve, and the > work entailed in sorting them? I just bet you the ACBL isn't > going to volunteer to handle any disputes, even if they did ask > for the mods. Don't the online bridge sites (or at least one of them) already have directors to handle certain things that can't be done automatically? So their directors would be given the additional task of judging Law 64C cases, and some others. If this proves to be too great a burden, then some negotiation with the ACBL would be in order. > And if you're going to tell me that the *software*, rather than > the players at the table, is going to enforce the appropriate > penalties for the irregularities, then I don't share your view of > the amount of development work which that would entail. This, I don't get at all. Computing the appropriate penalty for a revoke, say, is something a first-year computer science student could do. I may be biased here, since my livelihood involves maintaining an Ada compiler; and compared to the rules I have to get the compiler to enforce, writing software to enforce a rule about revoke penalties or insufficient bids appears very trivial. All of this is pretty academic, since I don't believe the ACBL or anyone else would *want* online bridge to allow revokes or insufficient bids or other kinds of mistakes. As a player, I know I wouldn't. I enjoy bridge much more when everyone (including my opponents) is playing the game correctly and not screwing up. -- Adam From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 6 21:12:02 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Mar 6 21:14:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: <200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <3vvo02plip73pc35b0mfuskcdknineklt8@4ax.com> <200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:10:13 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >It depends on how serious they think the ACBL is. If the ACBL were to >ask them to do this but didn't show any commitment to supporting >on-line bridge, the online bridge sites may well think it isn't worth >their while. But if there were a good chance that it would result in >significantly more usage (and thus more revenue), then sure they >would. In the case of Bridge Base Online, AFAIK by far the largest online site, there's no revenue - in fact, it costs Fred money, which he appears to write off as advertising for his bridge software. >That's why I included the condition "if the ACBL is making a >significant move toward holding online tournaments"---the point is >that online bridge services wouldn't be doing this just to be nice; >but if a big move away from face-to-face bridge and toward online >bridge is afoot, the online bridge services would do well to do >whatever they can to prepare for this move, which may include adding >new features if needed. > OK, I didn't appreciate just how big a move you were envisaging. Both OKBridge and BBO hold ACBL-sanctioned tournaments, I had read your comment as suggesting more of the same. > >Don't the online bridge sites (or at least one of them) already have >directors to handle certain things that can't be done automatically? In the case of OKBridge and Bridge Base Online, only for the tourneys. At least, that was the case for OKBridge, my knowledge of their services is two years out of date. >So their directors would be given the additional task of judging Law >64C cases, and some others. If this proves to be too great a burden, >then some negotiation with the ACBL would be in order. > I've seen almost 8000 people logged into Bridge Base Online at one time. How many TDs do you think a *free* service would have to provide, and at what cost, in order to provide sufficient coverage for all play? > >> And if you're going to tell me that the *software*, rather than >> the players at the table, is going to enforce the appropriate >> penalties for the irregularities, then I don't share your view of >> the amount of development work which that would entail. > >This, I don't get at all. Computing the appropriate penalty for a >revoke, say, is something a first-year computer science student could >do. I may be biased here, since my livelihood involves maintaining an >Ada compiler; and compared to the rules I have to get the compiler to >enforce, writing software to enforce a rule about revoke penalties or >insufficient bids appears very trivial. > Well, we're about as far apart in terms of computing background as its possible to get, so it's not entirely surprising that we have different views about the task. To me, the task of (for example) enforcing rules about exposed cards and the possible UI arising from same would be rather complex (ref. comments about TDs above), and the number of modifications needed to the code would be substantial, but then my background is in laboratory systems, and I accept that may have given me a somewhat lop-sided view of the development process. I do agree with you that revoke penalties would be a much simpler matter to code. Maybe that's why we're differing so much, because you're thinking of revoke penalties, and I'm thinking of automating as many of the TD's tasks as possible, because I don't think it's practical for the offline sites (certainly not a free one!) to employ that many human TDs, or find that many qualified unpaid volunteers. There's also the second layer to consider, which would add to the complexity. If you're going to allow players to play cards as and when they wish, are you going to develop the code to handle the situation where a player (e.g.) plays a card in violation of a requirement to play an existing penalty card, or are you going to use the software to enforce compliance in the latter situation, unlike in "offline" bridge? How about BOOTs? Do you assume all BOOTs are natural, just to keep things simple? >All of this is pretty academic, since I don't believe the ACBL or >anyone else would *want* online bridge to allow revokes or >insufficient bids or other kinds of mistakes. As a player, I know I >wouldn't. I enjoy bridge much more when everyone (including my >opponents) is playing the game correctly and not screwing up. > I totally agree - which is why I think the ACBL, or anyone else asking the online sites to modify their code to permit such irregularities, would be greeted with incredulity and/or an outright refusal, no matter how much of a shift towards online bridge the ACBL (or whoever) was planning. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 6 22:14:33 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Mar 6 22:14:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: References: <3vvo02plip73pc35b0mfuskcdknineklt8@4ax.com> <200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060306160203.02b17090@pop.starpower.net> At 03:12 PM 3/6/06, Brian wrote: >On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:10:13 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >All of this is pretty academic, since I don't believe the ACBL or > >anyone else would *want* online bridge to allow revokes or > >insufficient bids or other kinds of mistakes. As a player, I know I > >wouldn't. I enjoy bridge much more when everyone (including my > >opponents) is playing the game correctly and not screwing up. > >I totally agree - which is why I think the ACBL, or anyone else >asking the online sites to modify their code to permit such >irregularities, would be greeted with incredulity and/or an >outright refusal, no matter how much of a shift towards online >bridge the ACBL (or whoever) was planning. This discussion started with the fact that the WBF "on-line laws" provide penalties for various infractions that are not possible on the existing on-line bridge sites. But WTP? It may seem silly, but there's no inherent contradiction in having penalties for offenses that cannot occur. L72B2 makes it clear that there is no positive "right" to commit an irregularity. So just because there are prescribed penalties, there's still no reason to think that anyone would require that it be possible to incur them (certainly there's nothing in T-regular-FLB that would suggest that). Someday, if and when on-line sites proliferate, one may come along that is so sloppily programmed that it will not prevent such things as revokes or bids out of turn, and then those laws that the WBF "forgot" to omit will be useful after all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 6 22:32:57 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Mar 6 22:35:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060306160203.02b17090@pop.starpower.net> References: <3vvo02plip73pc35b0mfuskcdknineklt8@4ax.com> <200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060306160203.02b17090@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:14:33 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >This discussion started with the fact that the WBF "on-line laws" >provide penalties for various infractions that are not possible on the >existing on-line bridge sites. But WTP? It may seem silly, but >there's no inherent contradiction in having penalties for offenses that >cannot occur. L72B2 makes it clear that there is no positive "right" >to commit an irregularity. So just because there are prescribed >penalties, there's still no reason to think that anyone would require >that it be possible to incur them (certainly there's nothing in >T-regular-FLB that would suggest that). Someday, if and when on-line >sites proliferate, one may come along that is so sloppily programmed >that it will not prevent such things as revokes or bids out of turn, >and then those laws that the WBF "forgot" to omit will be useful after all. > If such a site comes along, Eric, with those "features" left in *unintentionally*, do you really expect that it will last that long, or attract a significant number of members, given the current competition? And as regards "WTP" with leaving the currently-irrelevant laws in there anyway, I think it's that if you managed to greatly condense (not to mention simplify the wording of!) TFLB for online play, you might get a whole lot more online players who would take the trouble to read it, no bad thing IMHO. Perhaps a compromise would be to produce a cut-down version of TFLB specifically for online play, with references in an index to the full version in the event that the other laws ever became relevant. That could even be something that individual online providers could do, customise a version relevant to their own software, assuming any copyright problems could be sorted out first. Brian. From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Mon Mar 6 22:51:40 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Mon Mar 6 22:51:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot References: <200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002501c64168$2a00fd70$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> While I don't think it would be a forward step to write software that allows for mechanical errors, I can see a need for the BBO Viewgraph software to allow for such. I had my first experience of being a viewgraph operator on the weekend just gone. There was a revoke at a table fortunately not on viewgraph. It was not spotted until after the round end, and I hope will feature in the WBU appeals booklet next time. However the operator would have had a problem hiding from the players that some error had ocurred., and if that had happened it might well have made a difference to the outcome of an International Match. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot > > Brian wrote: > >> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:56:31 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> > >> >Brian Meadows wrote: >> > >> >> I know I'm far from being the only reader of BLML who earns or >> >> earned a living from programming. Does any one of the other >> >> programmers reading BLML seriously believe that any significant >> >> bridge site will undertake the added development work needed in >> >> order that users can commit errors that it's easier to prevent >> >> them from committing in the first place? >> > >> >Sure, if there's enough of a demand for it. Why not? If, say, the >> >ACBL decides that it wants online bridge players to be able to revoke >> >and commit other irregulaties, and if the ACBL is making a signficant >> >move toward holding online tournaments, then I don't see why online >> >bridge sites wouldn't comply. The development work involved shouldn't >> >be all that staggering. >> > >> >I just can't imagine there being any demand for it. >> > >> >But I suspect I didn't understand your point. >> > > >> My point is simple enough - given that (AFAIK, on a sample of >> two) no online bridge sites currently allow calls, leads and >> plays out of turn, can you really imagine that they're just going >> to say "Yes, OK" if the ACBL (to use your example) said "Please >> modify your code to allow irregularities"? > > It depends on how serious they think the ACBL is. If the ACBL were to > ask them to do this but didn't show any commitment to supporting > on-line bridge, the online bridge sites may well think it isn't worth > their while. But if there were a good chance that it would result in > significantly more usage (and thus more revenue), then sure they > would. That's why I included the condition "if the ACBL is making a > significant move toward holding online tournaments"---the point is > that online bridge services wouldn't be doing this just to be nice; > but if a big move away from face-to-face bridge and toward online > bridge is afoot, the online bridge services would do well to do > whatever they can to prepare for this move, which may include adding > new features if needed. > > >> With all the extra >> complaints to abuse@ from users that's going to involve, and the >> work entailed in sorting them? I just bet you the ACBL isn't >> going to volunteer to handle any disputes, even if they did ask >> for the mods. > > Don't the online bridge sites (or at least one of them) already have > directors to handle certain things that can't be done automatically? > So their directors would be given the additional task of judging Law > 64C cases, and some others. If this proves to be too great a burden, > then some negotiation with the ACBL would be in order. > > >> And if you're going to tell me that the *software*, rather than >> the players at the table, is going to enforce the appropriate >> penalties for the irregularities, then I don't share your view of >> the amount of development work which that would entail. > > This, I don't get at all. Computing the appropriate penalty for a > revoke, say, is something a first-year computer science student could > do. I may be biased here, since my livelihood involves maintaining an > Ada compiler; and compared to the rules I have to get the compiler to > enforce, writing software to enforce a rule about revoke penalties or > insufficient bids appears very trivial. > > All of this is pretty academic, since I don't believe the ACBL or > anyone else would *want* online bridge to allow revokes or > insufficient bids or other kinds of mistakes. As a player, I know I > wouldn't. I enjoy bridge much more when everyone (including my > opponents) is playing the game correctly and not screwing up. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Mar 6 23:07:15 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon Mar 6 23:07:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot References: <3vvo02plip73pc35b0mfuskcdknineklt8@4ax.com><200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060306160203.02b17090@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00c501c6416a$55127690$6400a8c0@rota> Eric Landau writes: > This discussion started with the fact that the WBF "on-line laws" provide > penalties for various infractions that are not possible on the existing > on-line bridge sites. But WTP? It may seem silly, but there's no > inherent contradiction in having penalties for offenses that cannot occur. As an analogy, the Laws provide a penalty for a bid of more than seven, but such a bid is impossible with bidding boxes. Similarly, screens make it impossible for South to bid out of turn at North's turn to call (since it does not become North's turn to call until the tray is passed to the other side). But nobody claims that bridge with bidding boxes, or with screens, is not bridge. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Mar 6 23:11:29 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon Mar 6 23:11:30 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B References: <000001c63ee7$ec1367a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000601c640fa$72017e60$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <00da01c6416a$ee143b80$6400a8c0@rota> David Barton writes: > West leads a diamond. E ruffs. W illegally enquires. > The revoke is corrected. N-S eventually concede a > trump and a club to score 11 tricks + 1 for revoke = 12 tricks. > Without the illegal enquiry N-S still score 11 tricks but > this time + 2 for the revoke = 13 tricks. > > How many tricks should N-S be awarded and on what legal > basis? 12 tricks. West could not have known at the time of his illegal inquiry that the result with the inquiry, even after paying the penalty, would be better for his side than the result without the inquiry. (And, in fact, he could not have known this even double dummy; if East had noticed his own revoke before leading to the next trick, he would have corrected it without penalty.) From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 6 23:49:02 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 6 23:46:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: <002501c64168$2a00fd70$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> References: <200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> <002501c64168$2a00fd70$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <440CBC5E.3050804@hdw.be> True, but that is only because a program is being used for a function it does not have. I have entered scores for vue-graph as well, and I have remarked that a play engine is just not the right tool for it. Anne Jones wrote: > While I don't think it would be a forward step to write software that > allows > for mechanical errors, I can see a need for the BBO Viewgraph software to > allow for such. > I had my first experience of being a viewgraph operator on the weekend just > gone. There was a revoke at a table fortunately not on viewgraph. It was > not > spotted until after the round end, and I hope will feature in the WBU > appeals booklet next time. However the operator would have had a problem > hiding from the players that some error had ocurred., and if that had > happened it might well have made a difference to the outcome of an > International Match. > Anne > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:10 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot > > >> >> Brian wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:56:31 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >Brian Meadows wrote: >>> > >>> >> I know I'm far from being the only reader of BLML who earns or >>> >> earned a living from programming. Does any one of the other >>> >> programmers reading BLML seriously believe that any significant >>> >> bridge site will undertake the added development work needed in >>> >> order that users can commit errors that it's easier to prevent >>> >> them from committing in the first place? >>> > >>> >Sure, if there's enough of a demand for it. Why not? If, say, the >>> >ACBL decides that it wants online bridge players to be able to revoke >>> >and commit other irregulaties, and if the ACBL is making a signficant >>> >move toward holding online tournaments, then I don't see why online >>> >bridge sites wouldn't comply. The development work involved shouldn't >>> >be all that staggering. >>> > >>> >I just can't imagine there being any demand for it. >>> > >>> >But I suspect I didn't understand your point. >>> > >> >> >>> My point is simple enough - given that (AFAIK, on a sample of >>> two) no online bridge sites currently allow calls, leads and >>> plays out of turn, can you really imagine that they're just going >>> to say "Yes, OK" if the ACBL (to use your example) said "Please >>> modify your code to allow irregularities"? >> >> >> It depends on how serious they think the ACBL is. If the ACBL were to >> ask them to do this but didn't show any commitment to supporting >> on-line bridge, the online bridge sites may well think it isn't worth >> their while. But if there were a good chance that it would result in >> significantly more usage (and thus more revenue), then sure they >> would. That's why I included the condition "if the ACBL is making a >> significant move toward holding online tournaments"---the point is >> that online bridge services wouldn't be doing this just to be nice; >> but if a big move away from face-to-face bridge and toward online >> bridge is afoot, the online bridge services would do well to do >> whatever they can to prepare for this move, which may include adding >> new features if needed. >> >> >>> With all the extra >>> complaints to abuse@ from users that's going to involve, and the >>> work entailed in sorting them? I just bet you the ACBL isn't >>> going to volunteer to handle any disputes, even if they did ask >>> for the mods. >> >> >> Don't the online bridge sites (or at least one of them) already have >> directors to handle certain things that can't be done automatically? >> So their directors would be given the additional task of judging Law >> 64C cases, and some others. If this proves to be too great a burden, >> then some negotiation with the ACBL would be in order. >> >> >>> And if you're going to tell me that the *software*, rather than >>> the players at the table, is going to enforce the appropriate >>> penalties for the irregularities, then I don't share your view of >>> the amount of development work which that would entail. >> >> >> This, I don't get at all. Computing the appropriate penalty for a >> revoke, say, is something a first-year computer science student could >> do. I may be biased here, since my livelihood involves maintaining an >> Ada compiler; and compared to the rules I have to get the compiler to >> enforce, writing software to enforce a rule about revoke penalties or >> insufficient bids appears very trivial. >> >> All of this is pretty academic, since I don't believe the ACBL or >> anyone else would *want* online bridge to allow revokes or >> insufficient bids or other kinds of mistakes. As a player, I know I >> wouldn't. I enjoy bridge much more when everyone (including my >> opponents) is playing the game correctly and not screwing up. >> >> -- Adam >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > -- 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: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 3/03/2006 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 7 03:31:51 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 7 03:31:55 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <200603061840.k26IeJnk020740@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603061840.k26IeJnk020740@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <440CF097.9000201@cfa.harvard.edu> SW>>by number of results (_not_ number of comparisons). You really should SW>>be doing this anyway to bring the IMP scores to the normal scale. From: "Peter Eidt" >Why ? Because if you tell your players they have won 100 cross-IMPs on some board, few if any will have any clue what that means. If instead you tell them they have won 6.17 IMPs, they can draw their teams experience to see how well they have done (in this case better than a part score swing but less than a game swing). > Why do you use #results to "normalize" cross-imp scores and > do not use #comparisons ? Herman has answered that very well _provided_ you accept Neuberg for matchpoints. There is, of course, no mathematical justification for Neuberg, but it's easy to apply, gives a reasonable answer, and is therefore widely used. > Suppose as an example: Pair A gets +100 and all > other pairs have a passout. All comparisons make +3 IMP for pair A Only if there are an infinite number of passouts. If there is only one other score (a passout), why do you believe the results should be +3/-3 instead of +1.5/-1.5? (There actually is a mathematical argument for +3/-3, but the same argument says you should use straight factoring of matchpoints rather than Neuberg.) I don't understand why the concepts behind this issue are so hard to grasp, but they seem to be. The issue comes up every six months or so, and the answers are always the same. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 7 03:35:09 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 7 03:35:05 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B In-Reply-To: <200603061849.k26InjeL021857@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603061849.k26InjeL021857@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <440CF15D.2020101@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Barton" > West leads a diamond. E ruffs. W illegally enquires. > The revoke is corrected. N-S eventually concede a > trump and a club to score 11 tricks + 1 for revoke = 12 tricks. > Without the illegal enquiry N-S still score 11 tricks but > this time + 2 for the revoke = 13 tricks. Cute deal. I'm surprised that only David G. points out the possible relevance of L72B1, but I agree with him that there's no way West "could have known" in the example given. This time the illegal inquiry saves a trick, but it could just as easily have cost one. From craigstamps at comcast.net Tue Mar 7 04:32:29 2006 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Tue Mar 7 04:56:53 2006 Subject: [blml] S**t or Get Off the Pot References: <3vvo02plip73pc35b0mfuskcdknineklt8@4ax.com><200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com><6.1.1.1.0.20060306160203.02b17090@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003701c64197$c3fe5510$4e125344@craigjkd4vrl7u> My congratulations to blml posters. Now in addition to being rude and insulting to each other, we are sounding as potty-mouthed in our subject line as a bad rap song. Could we consider restoring some modicum of civility to this list? I think those responsible should be assessed a substantial procedural penalty and we should have zero tolerance for such crude terminology in future, inasmuch as it adds nothing to the discussion. As directors we would hardly put up with this sort of offensive language in a tournament; many clubs would suspend some players for using such terms. While I fully defend everyone's freedom of speech, must it degenerate into license? Am I the only one to take umbrage? I usually reserve such words for dropping heavy objects on my toe! Is the f word next? Are we really trying to outdo both Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Redd Foxx, and the aptly surnamed Howard? Is it really too late to expect bridge to be discussed by ladies and gentlemen? Craig From zecurado at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 05:09:06 2006 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Tue Mar 7 05:22:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Shit or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: <440CBC5E.3050804@hdw.be> References: <200603061907.LAA27707@mailhub.irvine.com> <002501c64168$2a00fd70$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> <440CBC5E.3050804@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 3/6/06, Herman De Wael wrote: > > True, but that is only because a program is being used for a function > it does not have. I have entered scores for vue-graph as well, and I > have remarked that a play engine is just not the right tool for it. Herman just got to the point. It is also very difficult to enter a "Throw In" in a BBO broadcast if you are not broadcasting both rooms... As for on-line bridge play engines (as opposed to broadcasting tools) allowing players to do something that the laws try to prevent I just can not agree. The use of Bidding Boxes and Screens already try to help us TD's (and the game in general) to make it easier for everybody to comply with the "rules" of Bridge. In a recent EBL TD course, during simulation exercises, one of the "players" would try to tell the table what he intended to do had a BOOT by his LHO not occurred... The "player" at the "table-where-I-was-called" never got the chance to do it because I "shut him up" before he could do it (Something like that happened to me before). Should my marks be worse because I prevented the irregularity? Likewise, should on-line bridge be worse because its programmers decided to prevent irregularities? Jose -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060307/1aff0aac/attachment.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 7 05:26:20 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Mar 7 05:30:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Item for Law Review ? - Different scenario - Practical case References: <000401c6319e$9cff2b00$4101a8c0@david><1F9810-0XYEz20@fwd26.sul.t-online.de><003c01c631b4$80e20c10$c010b618@DFYXB361><1F9H0C-0FpgbA0@fwd28.sul.t-online.de><002201c63ffe$6a446c70$78e1403e@Mildred><000301c64014$340d0570$2b150947@DFYXB361><000b01c64082$4b4cfa60$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <003c01c6410d$0788e470$2f9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <003301c6419f$4a29d9a0$089468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ I do not know where it is suggested that > I have said the motives of anyone are in doubt. > Nor do I recall that I have ever attacked the > ability of others to devise plain English, nor > that I have ever claimed perfection for > any words that I have suggested. What I regard > as open to severe attack is any complacency > that is not interested to substitute simpler > words where possible for the obscurities > of language in the current laws (something that > should be done, in my view, even when the > current text, correctly understood, is > adequate). > The default position on this lies, of course, > in the expectation that NBOs will have opportunity > to consider the next code before it is set in > concrete, and propose further improvements of > expression. [nige1] A paradigm of politeness and persuasive common sense. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 7 05:38:57 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Mar 7 05:43:29 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david><8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com><7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> <002001c64104$b4ee0450$2f9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><440C10DC.5030704@comcast.net> Message-ID: <003d01c641a1$0c586ea0$089468d5@jeushtlj> [Brian Meadows] > The WBF's attempt at a code of Laws for online > bridge was both one of the funniest and also > the most pitiful things I have ever read. > No doubt those responsible for programming the > online games will still attempt to make the > game "recognisably bridge", but as far > as my experience of OKBridge and BBO is > concerned, it appears that those sites intend > to take fullest advantage of the benefits > available from the online environment, and to > hell with what the WBF thinks about the matter. [nige1] The WBFLC might be prepared to make sensible changes after studying the legal improvements made by OKbridge and BBO. For example, they could investigate if there is any way of making legal decisions more mechanical and objective. And implement a disclosure law that requires you to explain departures from a "standard" system. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 7 06:28:03 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 7 06:28:33 2006 Subject: [blml] S**t or Get Off the Pot [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003701c64197$c3fe5510$4e125344@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Craig: [snip] >Is it really too late to expect bridge to be discussed by ladies and >gentlemen? Richard: One of the campaign themes used by the Republican Party in the 1952 Presidential election was to return good language to the White House (an attempt to make political capital against the retiring Democratic President Harry S Truman, who was notorious for his salty language). However, after making the famous / notorious Checkers speech, Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon hypocritically used the salty phrase "s**t or get off the pot" to his own leader, Republican Presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower, because Eisenhower had until then been equivocal on whether he supported Nixon remaining on the Republican ticket. Nixon's memoir "Six Crises" bowdlerised his salty phrase to "fish or cut bait". On the other hand, Eisenhower must have been a gentleman, since Ike was a keen bridge player. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From schuster at eduhi.at Tue Mar 7 07:19:11 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue Mar 7 07:19:19 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <440CF097.9000201@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603061840.k26IeJnk020740@cfa.harvard.edu> <440CF097.9000201@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 03:31:51 +0100, Steve Willner wrote: > > If there is only one other score (a passout), why do you believe the > results should be +3/-3 instead of +1.5/-1.5? Maybe because that's the result you get in the team match? Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Mar 7 10:22:14 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue Mar 7 10:24:36 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <003d01c641a1$0c586ea0$089468d5@jeushtlj> References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david><8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com><7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> <002001c64104$b4ee0450$2f9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><440C10DC.5030704@comcast.net> <003d01c641a1$0c586ea0$089468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 04:38:57 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Brian Meadows] >> The WBF's attempt at a code of Laws for online >> bridge was both one of the funniest and also >> the most pitiful things I have ever read. >> No doubt those responsible for programming the >> online games will still attempt to make the >> game "recognisably bridge", but as far >> as my experience of OKBridge and BBO is >> concerned, it appears that those sites intend >> to take fullest advantage of the benefits >> available from the online environment, and to >> hell with what the WBF thinks about the matter. > >[nige1] >The WBFLC might be prepared to make sensible >changes after studying the legal improvements made >by OKbridge and BBO. For example, they could >investigate if there is any way of making legal >decisions more mechanical and objective. And >implement a disclosure law that requires you to >explain departures from a "standard" system. > Hmm. I'd certainly be delighted to see the WBFLC learning from the online game, but at least as far as the OKBridge discussion list goes, the idea used in OKBridge tourney play (at least it was only in tourneys when I left OKBridge) of basing the alert system on SAYC was less than popular. The alert system on OKBridge then, and on BBO now, is to alert anything that you think your opponents may not understand. The problems with "alert non-SAYC" are firstly that there seem to be a number of different versions of SAYC due to the holes left in the system definition, and secondly that there are quite a number of players who apparently don't know SAYC anyway. It seems fundamentally wrong to me to expect (e.g.) a Polish pair playing WJ to learn SAYC solely in order that they know what to alert. It even causes problems with something like Acol weak NT. For example, take the sequence 1D-1H-1N. Is 1D alertable because it guarantees 4 cards rather than 3? Is 1NT alertable because the rebid is stronger than in SAYC? And so on. Brian. From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 7 15:12:21 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 7 15:09:59 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: References: <200603061840.k26IeJnk020740@cfa.harvard.edu> <440CF097.9000201@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <440D94C5.4050305@hdw.be> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 03:31:51 +0100, Steve Willner > wrote: > > >> >> If there is only one other score (a passout), why do you believe the >> results should be +3/-3 instead of +1.5/-1.5? > > > Maybe because that's the result you get in the team match? No it's not! In a team match, your team will get +3 IMPs, and the other team will get -3IMPs. But in the pairs competition that you could be scoring as well, you and your partners may be getting +1.5 IMPs each, and both opponents -1.5 IMPs. This is just as logical, or just a little bit more so! > Regards, > Petrus > > -- 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: 268.2.0/275 - Release Date: 6/03/2006 From georgiev_d at yahoo.com Tue Mar 7 15:20:44 2006 From: georgiev_d at yahoo.com (Dimitr Georgiev) Date: Tue Mar 7 15:20:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Fouled Board Message-ID: <20060307142044.28659.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Could you share the practice in your country aboud fouled boards. The situation is as follow: 1. The boards are pre-dealed by organizers. In both rooms there are 2 sets of boards. 2. One card is changed between partners hands in a way that both hands consist 13 cards. The opponent hands are corect. 3. In open room the board is ok but in closed room is fouled. 4. In open room one team get an excellent result because of wild opponents auction. The question is: Is it appropriate to give them some imps compesantion? Best regards Dimitar __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Mar 7 16:50:46 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Mar 7 16:50:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Fouled Board References: <20060307142044.28659.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000b01c641fe$e7880eb0$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> You say there are 2 sets of boards in each room. Are these two identical sets so that the physical boards do not travel? If this is an error in dealing - we cannot fine the dealer and we would merely redeal and duplicate another board. No redress for score achieved. However if the physical board is moved from one room to another-----If the side that got the bad board was the side that fouled the board I would be referring the matter to the NA. Cards do get misplaced but rarely one for one across the board. Did any official witness the actions? In reply to your question, the board is fouled and would be redealt here. There would be no recompense for the NOS but as I explained the OS would certainly be investigated. It is not common practice in UK to fine a pair for misboarding. Are we sure that the board travelled from the open room to the closed room without any official looking at the cards? Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dimitr Georgiev" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:20 PM Subject: [blml] Fouled Board > > Hi all, > > Could you share the practice in your country aboud > fouled boards. The situation is as follow: > > 1. The boards are pre-dealed by organizers. In both > rooms there are 2 sets of boards. > 2. One card is changed between partners hands in a way > that both hands consist 13 cards. The opponent hands > are corect. > 3. In open room the board is ok but in closed room is > fouled. > 4. In open room one team get an excellent result > because of wild opponents auction. > > The question is: Is it appropriate to give them some > imps compesantion? > > Best regards > > Dimitar > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 7 17:39:18 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Mar 7 17:39:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Perform or Vacate the Facilities In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2006 22:32:29 EST." <003701c64197$c3fe5510$4e125344@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: <200603071636.IAA03845@mailhub.irvine.com> Craig wrote: > My congratulations to blml posters. Now in addition to being rude and > insulting to each other, we are sounding as potty-mouthed in our subject > line as a bad rap song. Could we consider restoring some modicum of civility > to this list? I think those responsible should be assessed a substantial > procedural penalty and we should have zero tolerance for such crude > terminology in future, inasmuch as it adds nothing to the discussion. As > directors we would hardly put up with this sort of offensive language in a > tournament; many clubs would suspend some players for using such terms. > While I fully defend everyone's freedom of speech, must it degenerate into > license? > Am I the only one to take umbrage? I usually reserve such words for dropping > heavy objects on my toe! Is the f word next? Are we really trying to outdo > both Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Redd Foxx, and the aptly surnamed Howard? > Is it really too late to expect bridge to be discussed by ladies and > gentlemen? My apologies for my part in this. I should have changed the subject line when I responded earlier. I actually did think about doing so, but then I forgot. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 7 18:11:07 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Mar 7 18:14:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Perform or Vacate the Facilities References: <200603071636.IAA03845@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003a01c6420a$22bf33e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" < > > My apologies for my part in this. I should have changed the subject > line when I responded earlier. I actually did think about doing so, > but then I forgot. You're excused, since you are such a nice guy. We must remember that our society does not like to be reminded of its near-kinship to animals (who surely have no afterlife), preferring to hide or disguise evidence of the close relationship. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Tue Mar 7 19:49:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue Mar 7 19:50:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Fouled Board In-Reply-To: <000b01c641fe$e7880eb0$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> References: <20060307142044.28659.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> <000b01c641fe$e7880eb0$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <1FGhFQ-1jtlom0@fwd30.sul.t-online.de> Hello Anne, Anne Jones wrote: > You say there are 2 sets of boards in each room. > Are these two identical sets so that the physical > boards do not travel? > If this is an error in dealing - we cannot fine the > dealer and we would merely redeal and duplicate another > board. No redress for score achieved. sorry, but Law 86 C: "The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. Instead, he awards an adjusted score." If they have 2 sets of boards, they will not notice it before comparing the scores. So you can't redeal the board. With the problem with calculating a ArtAS opposite a very good board of a (the) NOS in the other room, we just had an open discussion a few days ago... Cheers Peter Eidt From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Mar 7 20:39:56 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Mar 7 20:40:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Fouled Board References: <20060307142044.28659.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> <000b01c641fe$e7880eb0$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> <1FGhFQ-1jtlom0@fwd30.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001201c6421e$eafdc6f0$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> There was no suggestion that the result of the match be known. I assumed that this was spotted on viewgrapgh or because of the lead on the record slip. We weren't told how it was discovered, except that it appears that it was discovered to be fouled in the closed room. If as you say it was discovered after the end of play the match is I believe scored without that board. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fouled Board Hello Anne, Anne Jones wrote: > You say there are 2 sets of boards in each room. > Are these two identical sets so that the physical > boards do not travel? > If this is an error in dealing - we cannot fine the > dealer and we would merely redeal and duplicate another > board. No redress for score achieved. sorry, but Law 86 C: "The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. Instead, he awards an adjusted score." If they have 2 sets of boards, they will not notice it before comparing the scores. So you can't redeal the board. With the problem with calculating a ArtAS opposite a very good board of a (the) NOS in the other room, we just had an open discussion a few days ago... Cheers Peter Eidt _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Mar 7 21:18:47 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Mar 7 21:18:58 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: <000501c63ebf$52bc0fd0$4101a8c0@david><8214A811-834A-4772-BEED-CCB54691CD26@rochester.rr.com><7FB031CC-2CE9-4055-8A99-539837167CF8@rochester.rr.com> <002001c64104$b4ee0450$2f9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><440C10DC.5030704@comcast.net> <003d01c641a1$0c586ea0$089468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <440DEAA7.9030109@comcast.net> Brian Meadows wrote: > Hmm. I'd certainly be delighted to see the WBFLC learning from > the online game, but at least as far as the OKBridge discussion > list goes, the idea used in OKBridge tourney play (at least it > was only in tourneys when I left OKBridge) of basing the alert > system on SAYC was less than popular. The alert system on > OKBridge then, and on BBO now, is to alert anything that you > think your opponents may not understand. Alerts are, then and now and probably later, a matter of regulation. The WBFLC terribly missed the boat leaving completely unexplored issues like misclicking, server disconnects, secure shuffling algorithms, etc. Instead, they concentrated on 'allowing' changes already employed by online bridge sites -- ability to review the previous trick while the current one is in progress, displaying the auction throughout the entirety of play, looking at one's own CC, dummy becoming spectator -- as if any of these were the WBFLC's ideas. The lone recommendation not adopted previous to WBFLC's opus publishing is the footnote to L17E: "Service providers are encouraged to develop software permitting re-opening of the auction until the opening lead has been faced." -Todd From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 8 03:05:12 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 8 03:05:08 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <200603071616.k27GGw35011893@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603071616.k27GGw35011893@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <440E3BD8.4080009@cfa.harvard.edu> SW>If there is only one other score (a passout), why do you believe the SW>results should be +3/-3 instead of +1.5/-1.5? > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > Maybe because that's the result you get in the team match? Not exactly. +3 IMPs the result you _and your teammates_ get in a team match. In a pair match, why shouldn't the result be split between the two pairs? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 8 03:12:15 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 8 03:12:10 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <200603071618.k27GI16c012017@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603071618.k27GI16c012017@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Brian Meadows > The problems with "alert non-SAYC" are firstly that there seem to > be a number of different versions of SAYC due to the holes left > in the system definition, What holes are those? There are certainly different systems labelled "Standard American Yellow Card," but if by "holes" you mean basic things that are undefined, I don't think the ACBL version has any of those. If by "holes" you mean agreements that are less than optimum, then yes, there are plenty. While I can understand the impulse to optimize the system, what I don't understand is why anyone would call the new and different system "SAYC." Nevertheless, that's what some people have done. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 8 03:21:47 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 8 03:21:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Fouled Board In-Reply-To: <200603071944.k27JiGNE013647@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603071944.k27JiGNE013647@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <440E3FBB.6060100@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Dimitr Georgiev ... > 3. In open room the board is ok but in closed room is > fouled. > 4. In open room one team get an excellent result > because of wild opponents auction. If the fouling is caused by the organizers or an external agency, there's no compensation. Both teams get avg+, which in a knockout match means the board doesn't count. As others have said, a substitute board may be played if circumstances allow. If the side who got a poor score might have been responsible for the fouling, L72B1 can apply, and the Director could give an _assigned_ score at the table where the board could not be played. One thing that must never be done is compare results obtained with any difference whatsoever in how the cards lie. Something like this came up several years ago in an ACBL pairs championship. An expert pair bid to a good slam, missed by most of the field. After play was over, they compared with hand records (as was required for that event) and discovered two irrelevant small cards were switched. (I think it was literally the two and three of clubs, but I could well be wrong about that. Anyway, it was completely clear that the switched cards could make no difference whatsoever.) The decision was that both pairs got avg+, and the board was corrected for the next round. That was terrible luck for the expert pair but nevertheless the correct ruling. From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Mar 8 08:34:48 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed Mar 8 08:36:59 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603071618.k27GI16c012017@cfa.harvard.edu> <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:12:15 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: It'll take me a day or two, because I'll have to dig through my archive of OKBridge messages, as well as find and download the ACBL version to double-check against that, but I'll post the list when I have it done. As I have a regular online partner with whom I play a club system, I don't play that much SAYC myself, the comment was mainly based on reading the (sometimes extensive) discussions that have happened on the OKBridge discussion list concerning parts of the system that it was eventually decided were undefined. Brian. >> From: Brian Meadows >> The problems with "alert non-SAYC" are firstly that there seem to >> be a number of different versions of SAYC due to the holes left >> in the system definition, > >What holes are those? There are certainly different systems labelled >"Standard American Yellow Card," but if by "holes" you mean basic things >that are undefined, I don't think the ACBL version has any of those. If >by "holes" you mean agreements that are less than optimum, then yes, >there are plenty. While I can understand the impulse to optimize the >system, what I don't understand is why anyone would call the new and >different system "SAYC." Nevertheless, that's what some people have done. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Wed Mar 8 09:23:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed Mar 8 09:24:22 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <440C34CF.8090709@hdw.be> References: <000101c640f0$ea413af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1FGDJC-06Kwt60@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> <440C34CF.8090709@hdw.be> Message-ID: <1FGtxq-1oX7vU0@fwd30.sul.t-online.de> Hallo Herman, to please you, I have some counter-arguments ;-) Herman De Wael wrote: > > So, I repeat my question. > > Why do you use #results to "normalize" cross-imp scores and > > do not use #comparisons ? > > > > one good reason: > > consider 2 tables. > one scores +620, the other -100. > Total-IMPs +/-12. Cross-IMP either +12 or +6. with MP calculation you earn 2 MP = 100% (TOP = 2) > now consider 4 tables. > two score +620, two -100 > Total-IMPs +/-24. Cross-IMP either +8 or +6. with MP calculation you earn 5 MP ~ 83,3 % (TOP = 6) > now consider 200 tables, half and half > Cross-IMPs in either system (almost +6). with MP calculation you earn 299 MP ~ 75,1% (TOP = 398) > Which system produces the best results if we consider that the same > frequency ought to give the same result? Clear, IMO. > > One remark to that one: this is only true if we believe that the same > frequency ought to give the same result, something which not everybody > ascribes to. But the WBF in its official capacity does, which is the > basis for the Neuberg formula. > So, with MP calculation your score decreases with the number of tables, even with the same frequency. Why shouldn't it be the same with cross-imps ? And, FWIW, BBO uses #comparisons for their cross-imp calclulation. --- Peter Eidt From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Mar 8 10:22:01 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed Mar 8 10:24:12 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603071618.k27GI16c012017@cfa.harvard.edu> <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:12:15 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Brian Meadows >> The problems with "alert non-SAYC" are firstly that there seem to >> be a number of different versions of SAYC due to the holes left >> in the system definition, > >What holes are those? There are certainly different systems labelled >"Standard American Yellow Card," but if by "holes" you mean basic things >that are undefined, I don't think the ACBL version has any of those. If >by "holes" you mean agreements that are less than optimum, then yes, >there are plenty. While I can understand the impulse to optimize the >system, what I don't understand is why anyone would call the new and >different system "SAYC." Nevertheless, that's what some people have done. > OK. First off, let's be sure we're working against the same version of the system. Plugging 'SAYC" into the ACBL's search routine led me to http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf All comments are based against that document, which is marked as having been revised in April 2004. To start with, I note that the document itself states, in the introduction "Few sequences are defined in the later rounds of ACBL Standard Yellow Card auctions. Players are free to assign forcing, invitational or non-forcing meanings to natural calls in such sequences. They are not, however, free to introduce their own sophisticated methods in these undefined areas." IMO, this statement on its own, presumably by the "authors" of the system, should be sufficient to indicate that basing an alerting system on SAYC is a bad idea - and let me say now that it's my position that basing an alerting system on ANY bidding system is a bad idea. I remember the EBU removed all references to Acol in its handbook of regulations a few years after I started playing bridge, say about 25 years ago as a guesstimate. You asked for specifics. All right, as far as I can see, the following list is undefined in SAYC. They're in no particular order, other than the one in which I think of them - and before you tell me that some of these sequences are unlikely to come up, remember that I'm talking about the idiocy (IMO) of using "non-SAYC" as an alerting system. You could make this a general question - where the SAYC specification is silent on a particular bid, what is alertable? All meanings or none, and why? 1) Jump shifts by a passed hand. Weak? Natural with a maximum pass? Fit-showing? Splinter? Never mind what it's likely to mean, which of those meanings are alertable, and why? 2) Responses of 4D and above to a 1NT opener. Which is the alertable 4H response, Texas or natural? Extend that to suit openers, too. The bidding goes 1H-4C, opps silent. What meanings for 4C are alertable, and why? 3) Overcalls of opponents 1NT. Yes, I know you should take them as natural absent agreement, but where is that *defined* for purposes of alerting? As far as I can see, there is no mention of competitive bidding when your opponents open 1NT. At least in my experience of online bridge, you've got a better chance of being right if you expect overcalls to be Cappelletti a.k.a. Hamilton a.k.a. Pottage than if you take them as natural. How about a 2NT overcall? Minors or GF 2-suiter? Which is alertable? 4) Fourth suit bids. Forcing for one round, or game forcing? In fact, does SAYC even use FSF? As far as I can see, it's not mentioned at all. 5) Responsive doubles, e.g. (1C)-dbl-(2C)-dbl. Assuming you play them (again, I can find no mention of them) how high do they go? In other words, at what level does the penalty double become "natural" and the responsive double alertable? 6) Competitive bidding over opponents *artificial* openers. You're playing SAYC, I open my strong 1C, your partner doubles. What does his bid mean? Which meaning is alertable, clubs or a takeout of clubs, and why? It is really feasible, let alone sensible, to treat all openers as natural, irrespective of what they mean? Next hand, I open 1C again, this time your pard bids 3C. What's he got this time? What meanings are or aren't alertable? In fact, why don't we make that second one more general. What does a jump cue bid mean over opponents opener, and why? And while we're at it, how about a jump cue over their overcall? 1C-(1S)-3S - what meanings are or aren't alertable, and why? This isn't even touching on the more esoteric stuff. For example, in the strong club system I play, a 1NT opener shows diamonds. Is a 2D overcall alertable if it shows diamonds, or alertable if it's Michaels, or neither, or both? Why? Now, it's not quite 4am as I write this, and I can probably come up with some more sequences when I wake up properly, but will these six do to be going on with? It bears repeating, I am *not* concerned with the merits of playing SAYC. I'm perfectly happy to accept that if I do so, then I don't (e.g.) make a jump shift as a passed hand. The problem is if I'm playing a system which DOES include jump shifts by a passed hand - given that the SAYC specification doesn't mention them, and assuming that your alerting system is "alert non-SAYC", then what meanings are or aren't alertable, and why? Brian. From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Mar 8 10:34:36 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Mar 8 10:32:11 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <1FGtxq-1oX7vU0@fwd30.sul.t-online.de> References: <000101c640f0$ea413af0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1FGDJC-06Kwt60@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> <440C34CF.8090709@hdw.be> <1FGtxq-1oX7vU0@fwd30.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <440EA52C.9040405@hdw.be> Hallo Peter, Peter Eidt wrote: > Hallo Herman, > > to please you, I have some counter-arguments ;-) > And I will counter that one. ;-) > Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>So, I repeat my question. >>>Why do you use #results to "normalize" cross-imp scores and >>>do not use #comparisons ? >>> >> >>one good reason: >> >>consider 2 tables. >>one scores +620, the other -100. >>Total-IMPs +/-12. Cross-IMP either +12 or +6. > > > with MP calculation you earn 2 MP = 100% (TOP = 2) > Suppose these two tables are a fouled board in a field of 200 tables. Neuberg changes those 2MP into : 2+1/2*200-1 = 299 (75.126%) > >>now consider 4 tables. >>two score +620, two -100 >>Total-IMPs +/-24. Cross-IMP either +8 or +6. > > > with MP calculation you earn 5 MP ~ 83,3 % (TOP = 6) > Neuberg changes that to : 5+1/4*200-1 = 299 > >>now consider 200 tables, half and half >>Cross-IMPs in either system (almost +6). > > > with MP calculation you earn 299 MP ~ 75,1% (TOP = 398) > 299 ! bingo ! The Neuberg equation means that you should not compare percentages unless you use the same top. > >>Which system produces the best results if we consider that the same >>frequency ought to give the same result? Clear, IMO. >> >>One remark to that one: this is only true if we believe that the same >>frequency ought to give the same result, something which not everybody >>ascribes to. But the WBF in its official capacity does, which is the >>basis for the Neuberg formula. >> > > > So, with MP calculation your score decreases with the number of > tables, even with the same frequency. Why shouldn't it be the same > with cross-imps ? > Because the MP calculation does not change, only the percentages if you don't use Neuberg. > And, FWIW, BBO uses #comparisons for their cross-imp calclulation. > And, FWIW, Tomas Brenning's program uses #results. (and so does mine) > --- > Peter Eidt > -- 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: 268.2.0/276 - Release Date: 7/03/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 8 13:21:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 8 13:21:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Spliff or Get Off the Pot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brian wrote: > I know I'm far from being the only reader of BLML who earns or > earned a living from programming. Does any one of the other > programmers reading BLML seriously believe that any significant > bridge site will undertake the added development work needed in > order that users can commit errors that it's easier to prevent > them from committing in the first place? I dunno - there's definitely a large group of players who don't like internet bridge because "it's different". Perhaps a combination of new technology could, someday, facilitate a "holodeck" type environment where the feeling of f2f bridge can be properly replicated, perhaps the market for this will be exploited. Ok, not likely at the moment but I wouldn't want the on-line laws to prevent it. I still think it correct that sites are *allowed* to prevent mechanical errors and don't think that by doing so they make the game "not bridge". Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Mar 8 14:04:38 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Mar 8 14:09:36 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <200603071618.k27GI16c012017@cfa.harvard.edu> <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003101c642b0$dbf85480$029468d5@jeushtlj> [Brian Meadows] >> The problems with "alert non-SAYC" are firstly >> that there seem to be a number of different >> versions of SAYC due to the holes left in the >> system definition, [Steve Willner] > What holes are those? There are certainly > different systems labelled "Standard American > Yellow Card," but if by "holes" you mean basic > things that are undefined, I don't think the > ACBL version has any of those. If by "holes" > you mean agreements that are less than optimum, > then yes, there are plenty. While I can > understand the impulse to optimize the > system, what I don't understand is why anyone > would call the new and different system "SAYC." > Nevertheless, that's what some people have done. [nige1] The standard system need not be SAYC although it is likely to be a 5 card major, strong notrump system because that is what most of the world plays. The standard system would have to be fairly simple but could still incorporate (the simpler aspects of) modern bidding theory like splinters, negative doubles, 4th suit, RKCB, and so on. Except in a few enlightened jurisdictions like New Zealand, players are already forced to learn a "systems" from which to alert - namely the increasingly sophisticated systems implicit in the alerting regulations; which change from country to country and year to year; and which are, typically, as complex and bizarre as a player's real-life system. For example, in the UK, you must alert a single raise (like 1S-2S) if it may show only 3 card support. In the UK, the situation is about to become much worse with the advent of an even more complex alerting "system" -- with extra unauthorised information from toxic additives like "announcements", which (like "alerts") poor long-suffering opponents aren't permitted to switch off. Americans have had to put up with announcements for years. How often are rules broken (omission and commission? And what are the penalties? Suppose you announce your 1N as 13-15 but your convention card says 14-16. Is that infraction? If so but it is hard to demonstrate resulting damage, what penalty would the announcer suffer (if any)? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 8 14:14:29 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 8 14:14:15 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603071618.k27GI16c012017@cfa.harvard.edu> <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060308080755.02bdeac0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:12 PM 3/7/06, Steve wrote: >>From: Brian Meadows >>The problems with "alert non-SAYC" are firstly that there seem to >>be a number of different versions of SAYC due to the holes left >>in the system definition, > >What holes are those? There are certainly different systems labelled >"Standard American Yellow Card," but if by "holes" you mean basic >things that are undefined, I don't think the ACBL version has any of those. In the ACBL's original version of SAYC (I don't know whether it has developed since) 1NT-P-2S was a transfer to 3C; responder passed or corrected to diamonds (to play). -P-2NT was left as an "impossible" (undefined) continuation. I would imagine there are (or were) others. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From erdnbaum at netvision.net.il Wed Mar 8 15:19:51 2006 From: erdnbaum at netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Wed Mar 8 14:26:04 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question References: <200603071616.k27GGw35011893@cfa.harvard.edu> <440E3BD8.4080009@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000801c642bb$607f2260$cd5dfa55@mycomputer> Why shouldn't the result be 60/60 Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] cross-imp question > SW>If there is only one other score (a passout), why do you believe the > SW>results should be +3/-3 instead of +1.5/-1.5? > > > From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" > > Maybe because that's the result you get in the team match? > > Not exactly. +3 IMPs the result you _and your teammates_ get in a team > match. In a pair match, why shouldn't the result be split between the > two pairs? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Mar 8 15:21:09 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Mar 8 15:21:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Spliff or Get Off the Pot References: Message-ID: <001a01c642bb$8ca3cb20$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> Subject line change noted and humour appreciated.:-)) http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spliff or Get Off the Pot > Brian wrote: > >> I know I'm far from being the only reader of BLML who earns or >> earned a living from programming. Does any one of the other >> programmers reading BLML seriously believe that any significant >> bridge site will undertake the added development work needed in >> order that users can commit errors that it's easier to prevent >> them from committing in the first place? > > I dunno - there's definitely a large group of players who don't like > internet bridge because "it's different". Perhaps a combination of new > technology could, someday, facilitate a "holodeck" type environment > where the feeling of f2f bridge can be properly replicated, perhaps the > market for this will be exploited. > Ok, not likely at the moment but I wouldn't want the on-line laws to > prevent it. > > I still think it correct that sites are *allowed* to prevent mechanical > errors and don't think that by doing so they make the game "not bridge". > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 15:36:16 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed Mar 8 15:36:23 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060308080755.02bdeac0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200603071618.k27GI16c012017@cfa.harvard.edu> <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20060308080755.02bdeac0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0603080636s12f341e5u79cff5322277f5c3@mail.gmail.com> Given that we're discussing online bridge regulations to some extent, I'd like to suggest an alert / aanouncement regime which (hopefully) will permit enough flexibility to make everyone happy. Lets make the assumption (radical that it is) that bother partnerships are using convention cards. Furthermore, lets make the assumption that these convention cards are actually Full Disclosure files of the sort recently implemented on Bridge Base Online. This isn't true today. it won't be true tomorrow. It will (hopefully) be true someday. Why not permit individual users to customize the alerting regime that they wish to use? This is a dreadful over-simplification, but most alerting regimes can be collapsed into one of two general cases (with a few exceptions thrown in for good measure) 1. Alert all bids that are not "natural" 2. Alert all bids that are not "standard" 2.a. "Standard" bids are defined by the sponsoring organization 2.b. "Standard" bids are defined as what my partnership plays Suppose that partner and I sit down to play an opposing pair in a tournament. It so happens that we are playing MOSCITO and "they" are playing some version of "Standard American". I happen to know SAYC pretty well. My only really concern is understanding where their bids happen to deviate from a BBO Standard. So I go and select a configuration box that indicates that the FD application should compare the opponent's card with BBO standard and generate an alert if/when for those bids where they announcements don't match. My partner, on the other hand, happens to be from Britain. He very much prefers an alert regime in which all artifical bids are alerted. Accordingly, he configures the application to alert artificial bids. As for the opponents: All they know is they system that they happen to play. They configure the system to alert any time that our card differs from their own. This would seem to solve the whole problem rather nicely. I readily admit that this creates new and different problems. But it does solve the old boring ones rather nicely. From to.eanes at mail.telepac.pt Tue Mar 7 20:51:48 2006 From: to.eanes at mail.telepac.pt (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ant=F3nio?= Eanes) Date: Wed Mar 8 15:36:52 2006 Subject: [blml] S**t or Get Off the Pot [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060307195128.01aa2c00@mail.telepac.pt> Dear fellows TD As non native English speaker, I must add that any strong language would not hurt my feelings, as it would not have the weight as if was translated to my mother language. I believe it happen's to the majority of non English native speakers. On the other hand, some of the historical references that sometimes I found around on some comments, does improve my knowledge on Anglo-American culture. I had to look over the web to find out some of the characters you mention. If this sort of language would be a way for some of us to improve our Anglo-American culture, would be to bold of me to say to keep going? "A l?ngua portuguesa ? a minha p?tria!" Fernando Pessoa "Portugueses language is my motherland!" Ant?nio Eanes At 05:28 07-03-2006, you wrote: >Craig: > >[snip] > > >Is it really too late to expect bridge to be discussed by ladies and > >gentlemen? > >Richard: > >One of the campaign themes used by the Republican Party in the 1952 >Presidential election was to return good language to the White House >(an attempt to make political capital against the retiring >Democratic President Harry S Truman, who was notorious for his salty >language). > >However, after making the famous / notorious Checkers speech, >Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon hypocritically >used the salty phrase "s**t or get off the pot" to his own leader, >Republican Presidential candidate Dwight Eisenhower, because >Eisenhower had until then been equivocal on whether he supported >Nixon remaining on the Republican ticket. > >Nixon's memoir "Six Crises" bowdlerised his salty phrase to "fish or >cut bait". > >On the other hand, Eisenhower must have been a gentleman, since Ike >was a keen bridge player. > >:-) > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae >National Training Branch >02 6225 6285 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060307/46b44b6d/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 8 17:44:25 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 8 17:44:05 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <003101c642b0$dbf85480$029468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200603071618.k27GI16c012017@cfa.harvard.edu> <440E3D7F.3040405@cfa.harvard.edu> <003101c642b0$dbf85480$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060308113545.02a8ca70@pop.starpower.net> At 08:04 AM 3/8/06, Guthrie wrote: >The standard system need not be SAYC although it >is likely to be a 5 card major, strong notrump >system because that is what most of the world >plays. That may be what "most of the world plays", but there are large parts of the world where absolutely no one plays it, and Nigel's "standard system" hobbyhorse would require that everyone learn it, whether or not they intend ever to play anywhere else. >The standard system would have to be fairly >simple but could still incorporate (the simpler >aspects of) modern bidding theory like splinters, >negative doubles, 4th suit, RKCB, and so on. There are plenty of older players plugging away at the game in their local duplicate clubs who have never heard of splinters, negative doubles, artifical 4th suit bids, RKCB, and so on, and who are quite content to keep on that way for the rest of their lives. Does Nigel really want us to require that they master (what are for them) all kinds of fancy newfangled methods that they never intend to use before we let them into the local duplicate game? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mustikka at charter.net Wed Mar 8 22:58:16 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed Mar 8 22:58:29 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] L63B in the ACBL Message-ID: <001501c642fb$67b29860$2ad4cd18@DFYXB361> Oops! I meant this for blml, not just Eric. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Eric Landau" Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > > (snipped Brian Meadows and Steve Willner discussion) >> >> In the ACBL's original version of SAYC (I don't know whether it has >> developed since) 1NT-P-2S was a transfer to 3C; responder passed or >> corrected to diamonds (to play). -P-2NT was left as an "impossible" >> (undefined) continuation. I would imagine there are (or were) others. >> >> >> Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > > > You betcha. In SAYC, some calls are not part of the system. There are > calls that SAYC does not define at all, and conversely, those calls are > not p[art of SAYC. Additional agreements can be made, but the question > then becomes: Is it still SAYC if we add Cappelletti/Hamilton, Texas, > Inverted Minors, Splinter, Weak Jump Shift, Four-Suit Transfers, and > Lebensohl? My answer is *No*, that could easily be called 5-Card Majors, > but on OKB at least, where Brian's bone originates, many people announce > *SAYC with...* and list their conventions. Also, there are no ACBL > sanctioned tournaments on OKB, have not been for about four years. > > Many of Brian's original questions are explained in the SAYC pamphlet. The > confusion is not as big as Brian suggests, for example: Fourth suit > forcing = for one round; Texas = not part of SAYC; 2NT overcall = for 2 > lowest unbid suits; splinter = not part of SAYC. > > Here is the link again to the ACBL April 2004 rev. of the SAYC system > notes. See for yourself. > > http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf > > Cheers, > Raija (who will not play SAYC unless in BPT event or mentoring beginner) > > > From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu Mar 9 01:33:07 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu Mar 9 01:04:42 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440F77C3.2050409@cs.elte.hu> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Thank you all for your recommendations. > Let me sum up: > - A score should be used for the cross-imps even if it is not used for > the team match (as the board is scored as +3 IMP). > - There seems to be no consensus so far whether each comparison > should have equal weight (Lacis P=p) or each board should have equal > weight in the session result (the effect of Peter's factoring of > boards with fewer comparisons). P=p is not mine :) We just use it in Hungary, becouse the ACBL's scoring program works like that. I think Neuberg is much better. But I think Neuberg is not exactly what i could read in this forum. I know the Neuberg formula for MPs: P=(N/n)*(p+1)-1 Look, how it works! For example 6 different results in a board. The points are for NS: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or if we use the 1-point scoring method, which I prefer: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But what happens with 5 normal different results and an average? 2-points method: 0.2, 2.6, 5, 7.4, 9.8; 1-point method: 0.1, 1.3, 2.5, 3.7, 4.9. Of course for the 1-point MPs the Neuberg is modificated to (N/n)*(p+0.5)-0.5, but we use in none of the cases some formula like that: N/n*p or ((N-1)/(n-1))*p. So the Neuberg formula does not factor or multiply whith the rate of the total results or comparisons. It's a simply more complicated, but much better formula. Look at the worst NS-score which recieves 0.1 MPs. Why 0.1? 1 MP for each worse score and 1/2 MPs for each equal score. In this case thre are no worse score and maybe 0.2 equal. Why 0.2? That's the 1/5 part of the average score. And it works with the other final results as well: look at for example the 2nd best score: there are 3 worse score from the other 4 and 0 equal, but calculating with the artAS there are 3.6 worse score and 0.2 equal (3.6 + 0.2/2 =3.7). So Neuberg works with the following principle: For calculing the other MPs the artASs are used as weighted scores (all the non artifical results at the other tables with the same weight with multiplicity). Why cannot we do the same in IMPs? The formula (Neuberg for IMPs) which makes it: P= p*(n-1)*(n+1)/(n*N) where n is the number of valid results (not the comparisons) on the board and N is the maximum number of results on the boards. Mean the scores are: AV, +100, -170, -420, +50, -110 , the frequenci table is the following: res/#/A/B/C/ (N=6 n=5) 100 1 +5.00 +6.25 +6.00 50 1 +3.60 +4.50 +4.32 -110 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 -170 1 -1.80 -2.25 -2.16 -420 1 -6.80 -8.50 -8.16 where the results are calculated like A: P=p*4/5 or P=p*(n-1)/(N-1) B: P=p C: Neuberg for IMPs P=p*24/25 in MPs the result would be (3 possibilities, C is the Neuberg): 100 1 4.50 5.00 4.90 50 1 3.50 3.75 3.70 -110 1 2.50 2.50 2.50 -170 1 1.50 1.25 1.30 -420 1 0.50 0.00 0.10 The three methods are very similar to the other three above. regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Mar 9 03:25:04 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu Mar 9 03:27:16 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <001501c642fb$67b29860$2ad4cd18@DFYXB361> References: <001501c642fb$67b29860$2ad4cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:58:16 -0800, Raija wrote: >> You betcha. In SAYC, some calls are not part of the system. There are >> calls that SAYC does not define at all, and conversely, those calls are >> not p[art of SAYC. But the discussion was about the use of SAYC as a basis for an alerting system. If SAYC does not define some calls, as you state, then which meanings of those calls are alertable, and which are not, and why? >> Additional agreements can be made, but the question >> then becomes: Is it still SAYC if we add Cappelletti/Hamilton, Texas, >> Inverted Minors, Splinter, Weak Jump Shift, Four-Suit Transfers, and >> Lebensohl? My answer is *No*, that could easily be called 5-Card Majors, >> but on OKB at least, where Brian's bone originates, many people announce >> *SAYC with...* and list their conventions. Also, there are no ACBL >> sanctioned tournaments on OKB, have not been for about four years. >> I did say my knowledge of OKBridge could be out of date, although I was under the impression that there were still ACBL sanctioned tournaments when I moved to BBO. >> Many of Brian's original questions are explained in the SAYC pamphlet. The >> confusion is not as big as Brian suggests, for example: Fourth suit >> forcing = for one round; You're right, I missed that one. SAYC does define fourth suit. Mea culpa. >> Texas = not part of SAYC; The SAYC specification doesn't define 4D, 4H or 4S responses to a 1NT opener. How do you know whether Texas is alertable or not? Remember, I'm not talking about how you'd play it with a pickup partner, the question is how someone who's *not* playing SAYC, who may not even know the system, knows what meanings are or aren't alertable when your alert system is "alert non-SAYC bids". >> 2NT overcall = for 2 >> lowest unbid suits; If the opening bid is one of a suit, yes. I specified the sequence (1NT)-2NT, I think if you check up in the SAYC specification, you'll find that it's a *jump* overcall of 2NT that's defined as being 5-5 in the two lowest unbid suits. (1NT)-2NT is not a jump. Yes, I know that some play it as the minors. I also know that some play it as a GF 2-suiter. I repeat my question, which of those are alertable under "alert non-SAYC", and why? >>splinter = not part of SAYC. Double jump shifts over a 1M opener are undefined, as far as I can see. See my comments for Texas. Brian. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 9 18:26:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 9 18:26:31 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brian wrote: > If SAYC does not define some calls, as you > state, then which meanings of those calls are alertable, and > which are not, and why? If the alert rules are "Alert all calls which are not SAYC" then all meanings are alertable for a call which is undefined in SAYC, surely that's not a difficult interpretation? It may be a fatuous alerting system but that's because of the starting point. "Where a call differs in meaning from that defined in SAYC it should be alerted, where a call is undefined in SAYC conventional meanings are alertable, natural meanings are not." would address that particular problem. Which is not to say that I think the alerting "departures" approach a good one. A pair playing Acol under such a regime gets to have wonderful auctions like P(a1)-1S(a2)-1N(a3) a1: Denies some 11pt hands that would be opened in SAYC a2: May have only 4S a3: about 6-9hcp not 6-10 Would all that alerting really help anyone? Tim From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Mar 9 19:32:29 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu Mar 9 19:34:38 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim West-Meads wrote: >Brian wrote: > >> If SAYC does not define some calls, as you >> state, then which meanings of those calls are alertable, and >> which are not, and why? > >If the alert rules are "Alert all calls which are not SAYC" then all >meanings are alertable for a call which is undefined in SAYC, surely >that's not a difficult interpretation? If you really believe that players are going to think "Ah, the call is undefined, so I alert any meaning", then yes, it's a simple interpretation. The problem is that I don't think that's what will happen. IMO, what will happen is that a substantial percentage of players will convince themselves that SAYC means *something* in these situations, probably whatever they happen to play the call as showing, and then you're going to get all kinds of hassle as to what is or isn't alertable. "Why didn't you alert your 4C response to 1H?" "Because we play SAYC, so it was a splinter, and not alertable." "*We* play SAYC, and 4C isn't a splinter, it's Gerber." etc. etc... That doesn't even begin to address the parts of SAYC which are clearly enough defined, but everyone seems to ignore. For example, 1H-2D-2NT, 2NT is supposed to show 13-15 and it's forcing, according to the spec. That doesn't seem to prevent a large percentage of people (I'd suggest a majority) playing it as 11 to a bad 13. >It may be a fatuous alerting >system but that's because of the starting point. "Where a call differs >in meaning from that defined in SAYC it should be alerted, where a call >is undefined in SAYC conventional meanings are alertable, natural >meanings are not." would address that particular problem. > As above, I admire your optimism. >Which is not to say that I think the alerting "departures" approach a >good one. A pair playing Acol under such a regime gets to have >wonderful auctions like P(a1)-1S(a2)-1N(a3) >a1: Denies some 11pt hands that would be opened in SAYC >a2: May have only 4S >a3: about 6-9hcp not 6-10 > >Would all that alerting really help anyone? > Of course not, which is why trying to base your alerting system on deviations from a "standard" bidding system - even if it is the majority one - is a damn silly idea. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 9 22:46:20 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 9 22:45:57 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060309163755.02b468d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:26 PM 3/9/06, Tim wrote: >Brian wrote: > > > If SAYC does not define some calls, as you > > state, then which meanings of those calls are alertable, and > > which are not, and why? > >If the alert rules are "Alert all calls which are not SAYC" then all >meanings are alertable for a call which is undefined in SAYC, surely >that's not a difficult interpretation? It may be a fatuous alerting >system but that's because of the starting point. "Where a call differs >in meaning from that defined in SAYC it should be alerted, where a call >is undefined in SAYC conventional meanings are alertable, natural >meanings are not." would address that particular problem. Such an alert procedure would require all the players to have a thorough knowledge of SAYC, which would manifestly require them to know which calls were defined and which weren't. So it would only be necessary to alert deviations from defined meanings; any sequence that was not defined in SAYC would be "self-alerting" perforce. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 9 22:55:20 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 9 22:54:48 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060309164732.02b495a0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:32 PM 3/9/06, Brian wrote: >On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim >West-Meads wrote: > > >Brian wrote: > > > >If the alert rules are "Alert all calls which are not SAYC" then all > >meanings are alertable for a call which is undefined in SAYC, surely > >that's not a difficult interpretation? > >If you really believe that players are going to think "Ah, the >call is undefined, so I alert any meaning", then yes, it's a >simple interpretation. > >The problem is that I don't think that's what will happen. > >IMO, what will happen is that a substantial percentage of players >will convince themselves that SAYC means *something* in these >situations, probably whatever they happen to play the call as >showing, and then you're going to get all kinds of hassle as to >what is or isn't alertable. Of course that's what will happen, because a substantial percentage of players have a minimal amount of common sense, along with their experience of existing alert procedures, both of which will convince them that it's ridiculous to have an alerting procedure in which a very large number, probably most, sequences would always be alertable regardless of what they mean. You don't need an alert to tell you that a sequence with no defined meaning means something other than that which it has been defined to mean. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 9 23:40:00 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Mar 9 23:44:39 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060309164732.02b495a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006801c643ca$66ecfd60$2c9868d5@jeushtlj> [A] Why alert? IMO it is *not* to remind locals of what everybody plays. It is mainly to help novices, strangers, foreigners and others who are *unfamiliar* with local habits. [B} Is it hard to learn a standard system? Under most jurisdictions, you already have to learn a system to alert from -- namely the system implicitly defined by the local alerting rules. That system differs from year to year and place to place. It imposes most burden on the very people whom alerting should help. [C] SAYC is a possibility but any simple modern 5-card major strong notrump system would do. (I prefer strong club systems myself; but probably the best candidate for an international standard is a modernised version of "WBF standard"). [D] Of course there would be more alerts, the more the local system differed from the standard. Admittedly, that is a major draw-back in countries like the UK with a strong local tradition. Unfortunately we would have to alert a lot of bids. Of course, the Local jurisdiction could instead substitute its own standard (such as the one implicitly defined in the EBU Orange book alerting regulations) but IMO that would be a retrograde step. For reasons stated above, it would be better to alert from a single international standard. [E] In fact, as more and more players try on-line bridge, "Strong notrump and five card majors" is becoming a *de facto* standard. Even in the UK, many club-players have adopted it. If UK bridge-teachers started to teach it, then it would catch on quickly. [F] A standard system has many other benefits. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 9 23:51:17 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Mar 9 23:55:56 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060309163755.02b468d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007b01c643cb$fa748480$2c9868d5@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > Such an alert procedure would require all the > players to have a thorough knowledge of SAYC, > which would manifestly require them to know > which calls were defined and which weren't. > So it would only be necessary to alert > deviations from defined meanings; any sequence > that was not defined in SAYC would be "self- > alerting" perforce. [nige1] A standard system isn't sufficient on its own. The WBF would also have to define a few basic disclosure rules. I like Eric's suggestion that bids undefined by the Standard are self-alerting; but it might be better to make alerting such calls compulsory. Also, I quite like the Antipodean idea of defining all passes, doubles, redoubles and bids above 3N as self-alerting. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 10 03:17:56 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Mar 10 03:17:58 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <200603081546.k28FkPgR024893@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603081546.k28FkPgR024893@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4410E1D4.80900@cfa.harvard.edu> SW> if by "holes" you mean basic things SW>that are undefined, I don't think the ACBL version has any of those. > From: Brian Meadows > OK. First off, let's be sure we're working against the same > version of the system. Plugging 'SAYC" into the ACBL's search > routine led me to > http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf There's also a convention card at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/sayc_card.pdf but it appears to be the 1997 version. I think any disagreement that may remain comes down to what one considers "basic things." > basing an > alerting system on SAYC is a bad idea - and let me say now that > it's my position that basing an alerting system on ANY bidding > system is a bad idea. I agree with the second point, but I don't think basing an alerting system on SAYC is worse than basing it on any other system. That's especially true if 90% of the pairs are playing SAYC (or claim to be). > You could make this a general > question - where the SAYC specification is silent on a particular > bid, what is alertable? All meanings or none, and why? The SO should say. The problem you identify is not with SAYC or basing an alerting system on it; the problem is incomplete alerting regulations. (It would help this problem as well as improve the system if the SAYC system book stated that any call not otherwise defined is natural.) It seems to me the existence of several different systems labelled "SAYC" is a bigger problem than any deficiency in the ACBL version. > From: "Guthrie" > [A] Why alert? IMO it is *not* to remind locals of > what everybody plays. It is mainly to help > novices, strangers, foreigners and others who are > *unfamiliar* with local habits. If you play in an environment where everyone plays the same thing, alerting is unnecessary. That's not how things are around here. The "locals" play a wide variety of methods. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 10 03:44:13 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Mar 10 03:44:14 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <200603081547.k28FlxhD025072@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603081547.k28FlxhD025072@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4410E7FD.5070402@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Peter Eidt" > So, with MP calculation your score decreases with the number of > tables, even with the same frequency. Why shouldn't it be the same > with cross-imps ? What you are arguing is that straight factoring is better than Neuberg. David desJardins made the same argument in a more mathematical way: http://www.desjardins.org/david/factor.txt What this argument neglects is that variance increases in a smaller field. Neuberg is a "rough and ready" attempt to compensate, though it has no mathematical justification. Other methods have been suggested but are not widely used. I suspect a method based on Stein's Paradox could be developed, but I've never seen that done. What is inarguable is that the assumption underlying Neuberg implies you should divide cross-IMPs by the number of results. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Mar 10 04:32:40 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Mar 10 04:37:19 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <200603081546.k28FkPgR024893@cfa.harvard.edu> <4410E1D4.80900@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00c901c643f3$49b43aa0$2c9868d5@jeushtlj> >> [nige1] >> [A] Why alert? IMO it is *not* to remind >> locals of what everybody plays. It is mainly >> to help novices, strangers, foreigners and >> others who are *unfamiliar* with local >> habits. [Steve Willner] > If you play in an environment where everyone > plays the same thing, alerting is > unnecessary. That's not how things are around > here. The "locals" play a wide variety of > methods. [nigel] I explained myself badly. What I meant is that local player's systems usually have more in common with each other than with foreign systems. Under current rules, strangers experience difficulty in understanding local systems and even greater difficulty in knowing when and how to disclose their own methods -- because what is alertable and how and when to alert it changes with each set of local regulations. Clearly, universal rules based on a standard system substantially reduce handicaps and difficulties. Admittedly, at first, the system against which you alert may seem a little strange but not nearly as strange as the different alerting systems that the traveller must currently learn. Some BLMLers seem to have lost contact with the reality of how local regulations are enforced. In the UK, players have voted with their feet on current local laws. I have heard a UK magazine editor and a county appeal panel member proudly boast that they have not read the EBU Orange book. At the EBU Brighton Congress a poll of seminar participants revealed that a majority had not read it. Even fewer casual club players have read it. I guess the situation is similar in other jurisdictions. For example, if you call a club director about an alleged EBU rule of 19 infraction, he is likely to laugh. Who can blame him? Perusal of relevant EBU minutes would just make a difficult task nigh impossible. Authorities can hardly expect *worse* compliance with a standard system of alerts; even if most still failed to comply, some players would at least learn a complete new system which they could use world-wide in individual competition and in pick-up partnerships. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 10 05:22:19 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Mar 10 05:22:28 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: <001501c642fb$67b29860$2ad4cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <1BC3717F-402B-48DE-9CBA-51BB61152F9D@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 8, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Brian Meadows wrote: > The SAYC specification doesn't define 4D, 4H or 4S responses to a > 1NT opener. How do you know whether Texas is alertable or not? > Remember, I'm not talking about how you'd play it with a pickup > partner, the question is how someone who's *not* playing SAYC, > who may not even know the system, knows what meanings are or > aren't alertable when your alert system is "alert non-SAYC bids". If SAYC doesn't define these bids, and the alert regulation is "alert non-SAYC bids", then *any* meaning of the bids is alertable. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Mar 10 13:21:55 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Mar 10 13:26:53 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL Message-ID: <001c01c6443d$38f7de20$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] >> Which is not to say that I think the alerting >> "departures" approach a good one. A pair >> playing Acol under such a regime gets to have >> wonderful auctions like P(a1)-1S(a2)-1N(a3) >> a1: Denies some 11pt hands that SAYC opens. >> a2: May have only 4S. >> a3: about 6-9hcp not 6-10. >> Would all that alerting really help anyone? [Brian Meadows] > Of course not, which is why trying to base your > alerting system on deviations from a "standard" > bidding system - even if it is the majority one > - is a damn silly idea. [nige1] Tim points out a drawback in the "standard system" approach. For example, under current rules, players in the EBU must alert partner's 1C or 1D opener if it could be 3 cards. They also alert a major opening if it promises 5 cards. Under a "standard system" approach, they might have to alert the more normal UK meaning of 4 or more cards for such bids. Admittedly that would be a bind for us locals; but it would be helpful to strangers who don't know Acol but are familiar with the international standard system. Such simplistic ideas may seem "damn silly" to most BLMLers. And I concede that, to begin with at any rate, they would make little difference to most players, who are unfamiliar with their own alerting regulations, anyway. But IMO, as the standard became more widely known, the playing-field would level. All players would begin to appreciate simpler fairer universal laws, especially when they compete abroad. Arguably, incomplete subjective complex unclear laws with a mess of unnecessary local variations are a contributory cause to the decline in f2f bridge. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 10 13:40:04 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Mar 10 13:38:07 2006 Subject: [blml] unexpected UI Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310132520.01ffed20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Back from lethargy to enjoy hair-splitting with you again. And directly active with that strange case that happened to a teammate of mine : Taems ; West / none West East J10xxx AQ9x xx AKQJ QJ10xxx Kx --- xxx p 1C X 2NT (1) 3S p 4S (2) 5C p(3) p X (4) p 5D p 5S (1) club preempt (2) a little timorous, I'd say, but the only alternative is 4C with 3 losers there (3) not forcing given the vulnerability (4) rather slow Assume we allow West's take-out (and I'd say we should, with so much total tricks around). East now thought about bidding 5H, in effect a slam move. He rejected it, because : "My partner knows about ethics, and he dared take my double out, so it should be an obvious move, certainly with a club void. But this is UI arising from my tempo. Had I doubled in normal tempo, I wouldn't have been able to infer this. So I'm not allowed to try for slam." And contented himself with 5S. Do you agree with his restraint ? And if you do, isn't it a bit paradoxical that West's ethics constitute a handicap to E/W ? Thank you for your lights. Alain. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 10 14:06:44 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Mar 10 14:06:53 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <001501c642fb$67b29860$2ad4cd18@DFYXB361> <1BC3717F-402B-48DE-9CBA-51BB61152F9D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 22:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > > On Mar 8, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Brian Meadows wrote: > > > The SAYC specification doesn't define 4D, 4H or 4S responses to a > > 1NT opener. How do you know whether Texas is alertable or not? > > Remember, I'm not talking about how you'd play it with a pickup > > partner, the question is how someone who's *not* playing SAYC, > > who may not even know the system, knows what meanings are or > > aren't alertable when your alert system is "alert non-SAYC bids". > > If SAYC doesn't define these bids, and the alert regulation is "alert > non-SAYC bids", then *any* meaning of the bids is alertable. I'm not sure how this thread got around to talking about alert policy but I have a few observations and comments. Over the years millions of scores have been adjusted on the basis that a player's action subsequent to an alert or non alert was thereby influenced and the possibility of damage arose. In my opinion that is conclusive evidence alerts and non alerts are communication between partners. In as much that it is codified into tournament regulations it is a system of communication. TFLB has prohibited [L80F and L73B1] such regulations [regardless of the professions of the various LC around the world] and rightly so. The law goes so far as to assign its gravest admonition to such violation in the words of L73B2 " The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." As such, instead of discussing how to alert, the discussion should be about what do to instead of alerts. For those inclined to protest, I point out that in June of 2005 a pair was disqualified from the EBL team championships and later suspended from several bridge organizations after a single incident of improper communication, which may have been via a system of prearranged communication, but may not have been. regards roger pewick From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 10 14:21:17 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 10 14:18:49 2006 Subject: [blml] unexpected UI In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310132520.01ffed20@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310132520.01ffed20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <44117D4D.3080203@hdw.be> Hello Alain, and welcome back! (and with a different case than the one that you sent me this week! we must talk about that one also) two small remarks: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > Back from lethargy to enjoy hair-splitting with you again. > And directly active with that strange case that happened to a teammate > of mine : > > Taems ; West / none > > West East > > J10xxx AQ9x > xx AKQJ > QJ10xxx Kx > --- xxx > > p 1C X 2NT (1) > 3S p 4S (2) 5C > p(3) p X (4) p > 5D p 5S > > (1) club preempt > (2) a little timorous, I'd say, but the only alternative is 4C with 3 > losers there > (3) not forcing given the vulnerability > (4) rather slow > > Assume we allow West's take-out (and I'd say we should, with so much > total tricks around). > I'll take your word for it. > East now thought about bidding 5H, in effect a slam move. > He rejected it, because : > "My partner knows about ethics, and he dared take my double out, so it > should be an obvious move, certainly with a club void. But this is UI > arising from my tempo. Had I doubled in normal tempo, I wouldn't have > been able to infer this. So I'm not allowed to try for slam." > And contented himself with 5S. > > Do you agree with his restraint ? I won't comment on the validity of the bridge reasoning, but yes, it is UI that you have given UI to partner and that his actions must therefore be more clear-cut than they would be otherwise. > And if you do, isn't it a bit > paradoxical that West's ethics constitute a handicap to E/W ? > No it's not. Because two things could happen: Either west is not as ethical as East thinks he is, and he has bid on less than he should have. Then we correct for his unethical running from the double. Or east is not as ethical as he apparently is, and will go to slam. Then we will correct for this (in the sense that we rule it to 5+1 if it makes, and leave it as 6-1 if it doesn't - either way east is better off staying out of the slam). Either way the ethical pair get a better result than the unethical one. Of course the faster deciders get an even better result, as there is no UI to start with. Of course the fast deciders would not be in slam either, since they won't have the UI that this pair have. All in all, the best results will be gained by the unethical pair who manage to remain undetected. That's not fair, but it's just the way it is. > Thank you for your lights. > > Alain. > > Will you post the case of the double S3 or shall I? -- 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: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 9/03/2006 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Mar 10 14:45:22 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Mar 10 14:50:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Explain rather than Alert References: <001501c642fb$67b29860$2ad4cd18@DFYXB361><1BC3717F-402B-48DE-9CBA-51BB61152F9D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004901c64448$e12e9ba0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Roger Pewick] > TFLB has prohibited [L80F and L73B1] such > regulations [regardless of the professions > of the various LC around the world] and > rightly so. The law goes so far as to assign > its gravest admonition to such violation in > the words of L73B2 " The gravest possible > offence is for a partnership to exchange > information through prearranged methods of > communication other than those sanctioned > by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks > expulsion." > As such, instead of discussing how to alert, > the discussion should be about what do to > instead of alerts. [nige1] Alerts do often "wake up" a pair to their conventions. A question by the other side about a specific alerted call may also transmit unauthorised information. No wonder that alerts give rise to so many rulings and appeals. In the UK you may ask for an explanation only if you are thinking of bidding. In other jurisdictions, you are allowed to ask, no matter what your hand is. In any jurisdiction, however, you must ask about all alerts if you want to avoid transmitting unauthorised information when you do ask. (OK you *could* ask "randomly" but then you would sometimes have to remain in ignorance, when you would like to have asked; and hence you will miss opportunities for beneficial action). The WBF could drastically simplify and improve disclosure laws by insisting that you explain *all* partner's alertable bids. This would eliminate some unauthorised information and save time because there would be no need for an alert and a question. Even better, before the auction, you should have the alternative option -- to *prevent* any explanations. If a side exercised the "don't explain" option it would speed up the game even more. At the end of the auction, the declaring side would still have to offer to explain; and declarer could still ask about any call by the defending side. Exercising your "don't explain" option would eliminate unauthorised information from alerts, questions and explanations and go some way to meeting Roger Pewick's criticism of current alert regulations. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 10 16:07:12 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Mar 10 19:34:00 2006 Subject: [blml] wrong deck In-Reply-To: <44117D4D.3080203@hdw.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310132520.01ffed20@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060310132520.01ffed20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310150825.01ffc060@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:21 10/03/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Will you post the case of the double S3 or shall I? Okay, here it is. Teams, 3 directors at the table, no neutral director in the room. We deal and play boards 7-12, our share of the 1st half. On board 8, South (the only non-director, but rather experienced player) misdefends and lets 6S win. West claims 2? tricks from the end. From embarrassment perhaps, South forgets to put his last two cards back in the board. Alas, we don't alternate card backs between boards, and we didn't realize he began board 9 with 15 cards ! When he saw them, we knew what had happened. No problem, put your two undue cards back in the slot and play with your fair amount of cards. He hadn't bid at that time, so there was no harm done. West ended once again at the wheel, this time in 2S doubled after escaping from a weak NT. North led a diamond honor, covered by dummy's Ace and ruffed by South. Later in the deal, West discarded on diamonds, and East instantly realized there was something wrong : somebody had to have one more diamond. It wasn't too difficult to understand that West had put *the wrong* cards back into board 8. He should have "discarded" the D7 and S4, but had got rid of the D7 and D6. Board 9 was being played with an illegal deck containing 14 spades (explaining why South had been eager to double) and only 12 diamonds. We placed the right cards into board 8, decided board 9 had been non-existent, and re-shuffled it. However, in the post-match analysis, we thought about it once more. The rules say that, if a player has less than 13 cards, because he let some in the slot perhaps, and the other three have what they should, the board is deemed non-fouled, and the player suffers all due consequences of his having played with too few cards, perhaps bidding badly, or revoking. It was a question at my exam. I had to make some physical exercise to find the card back, stuck between the table's leg and Nathalie's bag ;-) We thought that perhaps this rule should be extended to the present case. It was IOTTMCO that board 9 had seen life with a regular pack, and South's error was the only cause of the fouled board. Three players had the cards they were entitled to, the fourth being responsible for the mess. Hence, perhaps he should be deemed to have started with the right cards, have committed and unsound pass of partner's TO double, and revoked on the first trick (twice in the deal, as a matter of fact). Which would have resulted, after applying the penalty, in 2S doubled made with one or two overtricks. What are your feelings about that ? Did such a case arise before ? There is a moral side to the story : we won 12 IMPs on the substitute board ;-) Best wishes, Alain. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060310/b481e6e2/attachment.htm From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Mar 10 19:51:40 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Mar 10 19:54:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Explain rather than Alert References: <001501c642fb$67b29860$2ad4cd18@DFYXB361> <1BC3717F-402B-48DE-9CBA-51BB61152F9D@rochester.rr.com> <004901c64448$e12e9ba0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <004f01c64473$ac77d4a0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > Alerts do often "wake up" a pair to their > conventions. A question by the other side about > a specific alerted call may also transmit > unauthorised information. No wonder that alerts > give rise to so many rulings and appeals. > > In the UK you may ask for an explanation only if > you are thinking of bidding. > > In other jurisdictions, you are allowed to ask, no > matter what your hand is. Announcements of very common ageements does away with the UI associated with "selective asking." That is the ACBL approach, which should be extended to more conventions that a pair is unlikely to forget. Jacoby 2NT response to 1M is a prime candidate > In any jurisdiction, however, you must ask about > all alerts if you want to avoid transmitting > unauthorised information when you do ask. An argument for Announcmenst and the non-Alerting of such things as Stayman club repsonses to a 1NT/2NTopening or overcall. > > (OK you *could* ask "randomly" but then you would > sometimes have to remain in ignorance, when you > would like to have asked; and hence you will miss > opportunities for beneficial action). "Random" doesn't work because the randomness would be questioned. Kantar and Miles once pre-alerted opponents that they employed random hesitations during the auction. At the time that seemed like a good idea to me, but either someone told them to stop the practice or they did so on their own. It was actually not a good idea for a number of reasons The solution is to use slow even tempo in all tempo-sensitive situations, as the Laws suggest. > > Exercising your "don't explain" option would > eliminate unauthorised information from alerts, > questions and explanations and go some way to > meeting Roger Pewick's criticism of current alert > regulations. When Alerts first came out many players didn't like the UI that went with them, and frequently exercised the option of "No Alerting, please." For some reason the ACBL TDs do not permit that option, or at least do not require opponents to comply with it. I'd like to say, "Please do not Alert anything that is plainly disclosed on your convention card." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 10 20:33:07 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 10 20:33:14 2006 Subject: [blml] wrong deck In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002d01c64479$752e54a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > Sent: 10. mars 2006 20:26 > To: svenpran@online.no > Subject: Your message to blml awaits moderator approval > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > RE: [blml] wrong deck > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Message has a suspicious header > Another reason why we should avoid html formatted messages on blml! I tried first to convert the original message format to plain text, but then no ">" symbols were inserted to mark the original message lines. I expect my comments to show up eventually. Regards Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Mar 10 23:37:36 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Mar 10 23:40:42 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question References: <200603081547.k28FlxhD025072@cfa.harvard.edu> <4410E7FD.5070402@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <006001c64493$3c9ad860$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > > What this argument neglects is that variance increases in a smaller > field. Neuberg is a "rough and ready" attempt to compensate, though it > has no mathematical justification. Steve always says this, and I always ask about it. If a 13-table group is be ranked together with a 26-table group at another venue, across-the field matchpointing obviously not practical, Neuberg assumes that the 13 results int he first group would be duplicated if it had another 13 tabes. For me this is "mathematical justification" if the assumption, admittedly not valid, is the best we can use as a basis for doing the math.. It is difficult to see why this assumption is said to be inferior to the factoring approach, which multiplies the scores of the smaller group by 25/12, allowing a cold top to remain a cold top and forcing a cold zero to temain a cold zero. In short, factoring assumes that everyone would have the same percentage score if the group were larger. That seems like a worse assumption to me. At least Neuberg does "shrink" the extreme scores of the smaller group toward the middle, top in my example going to 24-1/2 instead of the 25 factoring would produce, with zero becoming 1/2.. > Other methods have been suggested > but are not widely used. I suspect a method based on Stein's Paradox > could be developed, but I've never seen that done. The scores of the smaller 13-table group should have a larger variance than those of the 26-table group, everyone knows that. Accordingly, "Stein's Paradox" (proven mathematically) says that a pair's performance in the smaller group is not the best estimate of what they would do in a larger group, assuming the same skill level and the same boards. High and low scores would tend to "shrink" toward average. An analogy is that batting averages at mid-season are not the best estimate of a player's season-ending batting average. Both high and low batting averages would have a tendency to move toward a more central average. People who like factoring would say that the mid-season batting average is the best estimate for the full-season average, certainly not "mathematically justified." An artcle in Scientific American (Nov 1977?) described a "Jules-Stein" estimator that could be applied in such situations, but applying it to bridge seems to be an intractable problem. However, it did indeed do a pretty good job of estimating season-ending btting averages using the mid-season data, and only one high average did not "shrink." I seem to remember that Henry Bethe compared all the 26-table scores in an NABC event with what would have happened if scores were computed across the entire huge event and found that the supposed "shrinkage" did not seem to eventuate. Many good scores in the 26- table fields were even better when scored overall, and many bad scores became even worse. Of course that would be expected for a few, but there seemed to be no general trend that would reflect the Stein Paradox, at least when looking at the raw data. A computer program might see something there, and the data sample was perhaps too small for making any big conclusions. > > What is inarguable is that the assumption underlying Neuberg implies you > should divide cross-IMPs by the number of results. Absolutely. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 10 20:25:55 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Mar 11 10:59:12 2006 Subject: [blml] wrong deck In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060310150825.01ffc060@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002801c64478$741c8bf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: 10. mars 2006 16:07 To: Herman De Wael; blml Subject: Re: [blml] wrong deck At 14:21 10/03/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: Will you post the case of the double S3 or shall I? Okay, here it is. Teams, 3 directors at the table, no neutral director in the room. We deal and play boards 7-12, our share of the 1st half. On board 8, South (the only non-director, but rather experienced player) misdefends and lets 6S win. West claims 2? tricks from the end. From embarrassment perhaps, South forgets to put his last two cards back in the board. Alas, we don't alternate card backs between boards, and we didn't realize he began board 9 with 15 cards ! When he saw them, we knew what had happened. No problem, put your two undue cards back in the slot and play with your fair amount of cards. He hadn't bid at that time, so there was no harm done. West ended once again at the wheel, this time in 2S doubled after escaping from a weak NT. North led a diamond honor, covered by dummy's Ace and ruffed by South. Later in the deal, West discarded on diamonds, and East instantly realized there was something wrong : somebody had to have one more diamond. It wasn't too difficult to understand that West had put *the wrong* cards back into board 8. He should have "discarded" the D7 and S4, but had got rid of the D7 and D6. Is this a typo or had West (illegally) handled cards that belonged to South? Board 9 was being played with an illegal deck containing 14 spades (explaining why South had been eager to double) and only 12 diamonds. We placed the right cards into board 8, decided board 9 had been non-existent, and re-shuffled it. However, in the post-match analysis, we thought about it once more. The rules say that, if a player has less than 13 cards, because he let some in the slot perhaps, and the other three have what they should, the board is deemed non-fouled, and the player suffers all due consequences of his having played with too few cards, perhaps bidding badly, or revoking. It was a question at my exam. I had to make some physical exercise to find the card back, stuck between the table's leg and Nathalie's bag ;-) Sure enough, this is Law 14, but according to your story no player started board 9 with less than 13 cards? We thought that perhaps this rule should be extended to the present case. It was IOTTMCO that board 9 had seen life with a regular pack, and South's error was the only cause of the fouled board. Three players had the cards they were entitled to, the fourth being responsible for the mess. Hence, perhaps he should be deemed to have started with the right cards, have committed and unsound pass of partner's TO double, and revoked on the first trick (twice in the deal, as a matter of fact). Which would have resulted, after applying the penalty, in 2S doubled made with one or two overtricks. What are your feelings about that ? Did such a case arise before ? Law 14 applies when three players have exactly 13 cards and the fourth player has less than 13 cards. Law 14 does not apply when the fourth player has more than 13 cards. In such cases the applicable law is Law 1 and the game those players started on board 9 was not bridge at all as the pack did not conform to the specifications in Law 1. Having written this far I do indeed wonder if my text will stand out as comments or just appear indistinguishable from the original text. I do not fancy html in e-mail like this. Regards Sven There is a moral side to the story : we won 12 IMPs on the substitute board ;-) Best wishes, Alain. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060310/dfd4e18a/attachment.htm From brian at meadows.pair.com Sat Mar 11 11:46:04 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat Mar 11 11:48:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Explain rather than Alert In-Reply-To: <004901c64448$e12e9ba0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <001501c642fb$67b29860$2ad4cd18@DFYXB361><1BC3717F-402B-48DE-9CBA-51BB61152F9D@rochester.rr.com> <004901c64448$e12e9ba0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <25a512td173f7l0b2ephi9fk68bqdes1ho@4ax.com> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:45:22 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >Even better, before the auction, you should have >the alternative option -- to *prevent* any >explanations. If a side exercised the "don't >explain" option it would speed up the game even >more. At the end of the auction, the declaring >side would still have to offer to explain; and >declarer could still ask about any call by the >defending side. > >Exercising your "don't explain" option would >eliminate unauthorised information from alerts, >questions and explanations and go some way to >meeting Roger Pewick's criticism of current alert >regulations. > You realise you will have to get at least the English administrators, and I suspect quite a few more, to have a total change of heart on this one, Nigel? When I first started playing bridge in the early 70s, you were allowed to ask opps not to alert - I remember it only too well, as since we were playing a minority system, a lot of people seemed to think it gave them an advantage (it didn't, we knew our system). Then the EBU went through a phase where you could ask for no alerts, but also recommended that you didn't do so, before banning the practice outright. I can't remember exactly when this was, I *think* some time in the late 80s, but others may have better memories. Brian. From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Mar 11 12:14:00 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Mar 11 12:11:20 2006 Subject: [blml] wrong deck Message-ID: <4412B0F8.7000302@hdw.be> I have re-copied Alain's contribution about the wrong deck. I have had numerous private conversations about this case this week, so I might shed some light on some of the misunderstandings (most of which I had as well). My comments will be marked (hdw) below: Alain wrote: Teams, 3 directors at the table, no neutral director in the room. We deal and play boards 7-12, our share of the 1st half. On board 8, South (the only non-director, but rather experienced player) misdefends and lets 6S win. West claims 2? tricks from the end. From embarrassment perhaps, South forgets to put his last two cards back in the board. Alas, we don't alternate card backs between boards, and we didn't realize he began board 9 with 15 cards ! When he saw them, we knew what had happened. No problem, put your two undue cards back in the slot and play with your fair amount of cards. He hadn't bid at that time, so there was no harm done. West ended once again at the wheel, this time in 2S doubled after escaping from a weak NT. North led a diamond honor, covered by dummy's Ace and ruffed by South. Later in the deal, West discarded on diamonds, and East instantly realized there was something wrong : somebody had to have one more diamond. It wasn't too difficult to understand that West had put *the wrong* cards back into board 8. He should have "discarded" the D7 and S4, but had got rid of the D7 and D6. Board 9 was being played with an illegal deck containing 14 spades (explaining why South had been eager to double) and only 12 diamonds. (hdw) so what had happened was that the S4 in West's hand was actually a D6. We placed the right cards into board 8, decided board 9 had been non-existent, and re-shuffled it. However, in the post-match analysis, we thought about it once more. The rules say that, if a player has less than 13 cards, because he let some in the slot perhaps, and the other three have what they should, the board is deemed non-fouled, and the player suffers all due consequences of his having played with too few cards, perhaps bidding badly, or revoking. It was a question at my exam. I had to make some physical exercise to find the card back, stuck between the table's leg and Nathalie's bag ;-) We thought that perhaps this rule should be extended to the present case. It was IOTTMCO that board 9 had seen life with a regular pack, and South's error was the only cause of the fouled board. Three players had the cards they were entitled to, the fourth being responsible for the mess. Hence, perhaps he should be deemed to have started with the right cards, have committed and unsound pass of partner's TO double, and revoked on the first trick (twice in the deal, as a matter of fact). Which would have resulted, after applying the penalty, in 2S doubled made with one or two overtricks. (hdw) the "revoke" (if you call it that) was when west played his S4, which was actually a D6. There are 3(4) possible cases: 1- he followed to a spade trick 1a- he has other spades than the S4 1b- he has no other spades than the S4 2- he ruffed a heart or club trick 3- he ruffed a diamond trick We now know that this trick should not contain a S4, but maybe a D7. If we consider that the D7 should be played to this trick, then in case: 1a - he has revoked, by not following suit when he could. 1 penalty trick 1b- he has not revoked 2- he has not revoked (presuming he did not revoke by playing his S4 either) 3- he has not revoked, and the next trick contains an accepted lead out of turn. He will give up this trick, since he has not made it We can also consider that he has not played to the trick in question. In that case he should (at the end, when the problem is discovered) insert a card (only the D6 is possible) into the defective trick, not changing the ownership of that trick. I presume this means that the ownership of the original trick is the three-card ownership, excluding the possible "ruff". There will then be a revoke as well. So we have: 1a- 1 penalty trick 1b- 1 penalty trick 2- 1 penalty trick 3- the trick goes to the original high diamond (excluding the 6, if at all possible), and there is an additional penalty trick. We see that it is important that we decide what should be done. Is this a defective trick or is it a pack with a strange looking D6? I do believe that we should not be too harsh here. Next time this happens, it is probably no-one's fault. There will be, for whatever reason, 2 S4's in a pack, and no D6. We should not be ruling that this game can be played, since the penalties are far too severe. I would always consider this board to be unplayable, and deal with the culprit who rendered it thus separately. (end hdw) What are your feelings about that ? Did such a case arise before ? There is a moral side to the story : we won 12 IMPs on the substitute board ;-) Best wishes, Alain. -- 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: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 9/03/2006 From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 11 13:21:43 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Mar 11 13:21:48 2006 Subject: [blml] wrong deck In-Reply-To: <4412B0F8.7000302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c64506$5bc0f350$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ......... > We see that it is important that we decide what should be done. Is > this a defective trick or is it a pack with a strange looking D6? > > I do believe that we should not be too harsh here. Next time this > happens, it is probably no-one's fault. There will be, for whatever > reason, 2 S4's in a pack, and no D6. We should not be ruling that this > game can be played, since the penalties are far too severe. > I would always consider this board to be unplayable, and deal with the > culprit who rendered it thus separately. > (end hdw) As I have already stated in my first comment which was severely delayed due to the html formatting used by OP: When you play some game with a deck of cards that does not comply with Law 1 then that game is definitely not Contract Bridge however much it resembles bridge. Even when the discrepancy it no more than that the pack contains two 2Cs and no 3C the game played is not bridge and no result should be scored. And notice that it is not a matter of judgment whether the error is significant or not. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 11 14:56:46 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Mar 11 14:57:00 2006 Subject: [blml] wrong deck References: <4412B0F8.7000302@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:14 AM Subject: [blml] wrong deck I have re-copied Alain's contribution about the wrong deck. I have had numerous private conversations about this case this week, so I might shed some light on some of the misunderstandings (most of which I had as well). My comments will be marked (hdw) below: Alain wrote: Teams, 3 directors at the table, no neutral director in the room. We deal and play boards 7-12, our share of the 1st half. On board 8, South (the only non-director, but rather experienced player) misdefends and lets 6S win. West claims 2? tricks from the end. From embarrassment perhaps, South forgets to put his last two cards back in the board. Alas, we don't alternate card backs between boards, and we didn't realize he began board 9 with 15 cards ! When he saw them, we knew what had happened. No problem, put your two undue cards back in the slot and play with your fair amount of cards. He hadn't bid at that time, so there was no harm done. West ended once again at the wheel, this time in 2S doubled after escaping from a weak NT. North led a diamond honor, covered by dummy's Ace and ruffed by South. Later in the deal, West discarded on diamonds, and East instantly realized there was something wrong : somebody had to have one more diamond. It wasn't too difficult to understand that West had put *the wrong* cards back into board 8. He should have "discarded" the D7 and S4, but had got rid of the D7 and D6. Board 9 was being played with an illegal deck containing 14 spades (explaining why South had been eager to double) and only 12 diamonds. (hdw) so what had happened was that the S4 in West's hand was actually a D6. We placed the right cards into board 8, decided board 9 had been non-existent, and re-shuffled it. However, in the post-match analysis, we thought about it once more. The rules say that, if a player has less than 13 cards, because he let some in the slot perhaps, and the other three have what they should, the board is deemed non-fouled, and the player suffers all due consequences of his having played with too few cards, perhaps bidding badly, or revoking. It was a question at my exam. I had to make some physical exercise to find the card back, stuck between the table's leg and Nathalie's bag ;-) We thought that perhaps this rule should be extended to the present case. It was IOTTMCO that board 9 had seen life with a regular pack, and South's error was the only cause of the fouled board. Three players had the cards they were entitled to, the fourth being responsible for the mess. Hence, perhaps he should be deemed to have started with the right cards, have committed and unsound pass of partner's TO double, and revoked on the first trick (twice in the deal, as a matter of fact). Which would have resulted, after applying the penalty, in 2S doubled made with one or two overtricks. (hdw) the "revoke" (if you call it that) was when west played his S4, which was actually a D6. There are 3(4) possible cases: 1- he followed to a spade trick 1a- he has other spades than the S4 1b- he has no other spades than the S4 2- he ruffed a heart or club trick 3- he ruffed a diamond trick We now know that this trick should not contain a S4, but maybe a D7. If we consider that the D7 should be played to this trick, then in case: 1a - he has revoked, by not following suit when he could. 1 penalty trick 1b- he has not revoked 2- he has not revoked (presuming he did not revoke by playing his S4 either) 3- he has not revoked, and the next trick contains an accepted lead out of turn. He will give up this trick, since he has not made it We can also consider that he has not played to the trick in question. In that case he should (at the end, when the problem is discovered) insert a card (only the D6 is possible) into the defective trick, not changing the ownership of that trick. I presume this means that the ownership of the original trick is the three-card ownership, excluding the possible "ruff". There will then be a revoke as well. So we have: 1a- 1 penalty trick 1b- 1 penalty trick 2- 1 penalty trick 3- the trick goes to the original high diamond (excluding the 6, if at all possible), and there is an additional penalty trick. We see that it is important that we decide what should be done. Is this a defective trick or is it a pack with a strange looking D6? ** L67 specifies action only when too few [or too many] cards were part of the trick which would happen [it being arguable whether playing a card to a trick consititutes failing [67B1]to play to a trick] only if the S4 was contributed to a trick and then withdrawn in the process of restoring the hand. That leaves L14B/ 14B1b. Now, there is quibbling to be done with the word 'deficient' since the expected useage is 'lacking a card[s]' rather than 'has an incorrect card'. I feel that since the hand during tha bidding did not have the card that was dealt it then the hand was indeed deficient. I do believe that we should not be too harsh here. ** I think that the law ought be applied- neither giving nor taking quarter. Next time this happens, it is probably no-one's fault. There will be, for whatever reason, 2 S4's in a pack, and no D6. We should not be ruling that this game can be played, since the penalties are far too severe. I would always consider this board to be unplayable, and deal with the culprit who rendered it thus separately. (end hdw) ** I think the board playable, and ought be played as any action by offender was of his own doing. At least until the agreeed score is recorded. However, the law does offer conflict: L17D- If a player who has inadvertently picked up cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is canceled....... It being arguable whether [after] thoughtful retention of the S4 constitutes inadvertent rather than intentional. regards roger pewick What are your feelings about that ? Did such a case arise before ? There is a moral side to the story : we won 12 IMPs on the substitute board ;-) Best wishes, Alain. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 12 02:39:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Mar 12 02:39:37 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <001c01c6443d$38f7de20$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > EBU must alert partner's 1C or 1D opener if it > could be 3 cards. Which is true. > They also alert a major opening > if it promises 5 cards. Some players may, although I haven't seen it myself. It's not required. I still can't see the benefits of alerting differences from a standard system though. The current WBF alerting rules can be learnt in 1/2 an hour and applied anywhere in the world. Any "standard" system takes several days to learn once all the secondary inferences are considered. One would then have to compare one's own system to the standard for every sequence and identify which bids held different meanings and which bids did not. Playing "Sound modern Acol responses" the 2C bid in the sequence 1S-2C shows much the same hands as an SAYC 1S-2C. Nevertheless the Acol 2C does not promise a rebid while the SAYC 2C does. Alert or not? The 2D in 1S-2C-2D can be slightly weaker in Acol than in SAYC - but that's because the 1S bid can be slightly weaker. Is 2D alertable or not? Even if one is *playing* SAYC there are issues. SAYC permits 15-17 5332 hands with a 5 card major to open 1N or 1M but offers no restrictions/suggestions on which might be chosen when. Any partnership which has relevant experience/discussion of this issue is no longer playing "Booklet SAYC" - are 1M/1N now alertable as non-standard? Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Mar 12 03:23:07 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Mar 12 03:27:58 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: Message-ID: <00ba01c6457b$e86eb060$189868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > The current WBF alerting rules can be > learnt in 1/2 an hour and applied > anywhere in the world. [nige1] Just the ticket! Please would you post the latest URL, Tim. I've "Googled" for it but although I've found references to it, on Ecats and elsewhere, I can't find the actual document. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Mar 12 03:43:42 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Mar 12 03:48:31 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: Message-ID: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> This is all I could find, Tim. It is four years old and a bit vague but I like it. Basically it says you should alert conventional calls other than Xs, XXs, and calls above 3N. Systems Policy - Appendix 3 WBF Alerting Policy(Adopted July 1997, revised August 2002) Preamble 1. The objective is to have a uniform WBF policy which is applied to all WBF events. 2. It is not intended that this should over-ride Alerting Policies developed by the Zone or NBOs. 3. Full disclosure is vital. However, players who participate in WBF events are expected to protect themselves to a large extent. They are also expected to observe the spirit of the Laws as well as the letter. 4. The Policy has been made as simple as possible. Players are, however, expected to alert whenever there is doubt. (N.B. Where screens are in use, an alert on one side but not on the other does not necessarily imply an infraction.) Policy The following classes of calls should be alerted: 1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. 2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (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, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(b). 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: 1. All doubles. 2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. 3. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter. From eruppin at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 08:03:52 2006 From: eruppin at gmail.com (Elianna Ruppin) Date: Sun Mar 12 08:03:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL Message-ID: <5cf4523e0603112303w5a068023td12ac201bda3ca12@mail.gmail.com> Hi. I'm somewhat new to BLML, so I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I've seen many people deal the cards in five piles, combining piles number 1 and 5 at the end of dealing [So the pile numbers go: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, etc]. I have been told that this is to get around Law 6B, in that they're not dealling two cards to a pile [As in 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, etc]. Also, this supposedly adds in an extra shuffle. A director at my local club claimed that this was illegal, because according to Law 6B (according to him) the cards must be dealt into four hands. I was wondering if anyone can speak to the legality of the first method of shuffling, especially as it applies in ACBL. Thanks, and sorry if I'm boring those of you who've seen this before. -Elianna Ruppin From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 12 09:33:07 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 12 09:30:22 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4413DCC3.1060606@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > I still can't see the benefits of alerting differences from a standard > system though. The current WBF alerting rules can be learnt in 1/2 an > hour and applied anywhere in the world. > > Any "standard" system takes several days to learn once all the secondary > inferences are considered. One would then have to compare one's own > system to the standard for every sequence and identify which bids held > different meanings and which bids did not. > But that is your own system! Surely it should be your burden to investigate in what ways your system is different from the standard one, not your opponent's! You may be right in what you are saying, but you are drawing the wrong conclusions. Yes, a standard system should be (and usually is) easy to learn. And every pair is responsible for checking their system with the standard one, and then to alert the differences. -- 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: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 9/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 12 09:35:33 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 12 09:32:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL In-Reply-To: <5cf4523e0603112303w5a068023td12ac201bda3ca12@mail.gmail.com> References: <5cf4523e0603112303w5a068023td12ac201bda3ca12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4413DD55.20806@hdw.be> Hello Elianna, and welcome to BLML! Elianna Ruppin wrote: > Hi. I'm somewhat new to BLML, so I'm sorry if this has been asked before. > > I've seen many people deal the cards in five piles, combining piles > number 1 and 5 at the end of dealing [So the pile numbers go: 1, 2, 3, > 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, etc]. I have been told that this is to get > around Law 6B, in that they're not dealling two cards to a pile [As in > 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, etc]. Also, this supposedly adds in an > extra shuffle. A director at my local club claimed that this was > illegal, because according to Law 6B (according to him) the cards must > be dealt into four hands. > exactly, into 4 hands. It does not say "into 4 heaps", and therefore the method you describe is perfectly legal. > I was wondering if anyone can speak to the legality of the first > method of shuffling, especially as it applies in ACBL. > This is WBF territory, so unless the ACBL has changed something to that (not to my knowledge) this is also true in North America. > Thanks, and sorry if I'm boring those of you who've seen this before. > > -Elianna Ruppin > -- 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: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 9/03/2006 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Mar 12 22:26:39 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Mar 12 22:26:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL Message-ID: <4414920F.9020206@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Elianna Ruppin" > I've seen many people deal the cards in five piles, combining piles > number 1 and 5 at the end of dealing [So the pile numbers go: 1, 2, 3, > 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, etc]. I have been told that this is to get > around Law 6B, in that they're not dealling two cards to a pile [As in > 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, etc]. Hi, Elianna. Welcome to BLML. As Herman said, the usual interpretation -- in fact the only interpretation I've ever seen -- of "one card at a time" is that consecutive cards may not go into the same hand. I think the last sentence of L6B makes it clear that the "five pile" method is not prohibited. Of course L6E4 gives the Director authority to allow or disallow any method he chooses. (If Grattan were still taking notes, I would suggest that this should specify "consistent with random dealing" or words to that effect. Playing set hands may be useful for teaching, but it isn't "Duplicate Contract Bridge.") > Also, this supposedly adds in an extra shuffle. I don't see how that could be. The pack is either randomized or not before dealing starts, but the dealing itself is deterministic regardless of method. What the "five pile" method _might_ do -- and I am very far from convinced -- is make it harder for players to recognize the effect of a poorly-randomized pack. That is perhaps useful, but I'd rather just shuffle a couple more times if there is any doubt. From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 12 23:01:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Mar 12 23:01:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL In-Reply-To: <4414920F.9020206@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000601c64620$8fcfb5d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner ............. > > Also, this supposedly adds in an extra shuffle. > > I don't see how that could be. The pack is either randomized or not > before dealing starts, but the dealing itself is deterministic > regardless of method. What the "five pile" method _might_ do -- and I > am very far from convinced -- is make it harder for players to recognize > the effect of a poorly-randomized pack. That is perhaps useful, but I'd > rather just shuffle a couple more times if there is any doubt. It doesn't "add an extra shuffle", but what it does is to disturb the regularity in the dealing process. With "ordinary" dealing each hand receives exactly every fourth card from the pack. With the "five pile" method does is to make two of the hands receive alternately every second and every sixth card in the pack thus partly breaking up the "resonance" effect that is present with "ordinary" dealing. Regards Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Mar 12 23:12:08 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Mar 12 23:12:09 2006 Subject: [blml] unexpected UI In-Reply-To: <200603101605.k2AG5EnH013328@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603101605.k2AG5EnH013328@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44149CB8.2050205@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > it > is UI that you have given UI to partner and that his actions must > therefore be more clear-cut than they would be otherwise. We discussed this subject some years ago. I thought the conclusion was the opposite: that you _must_ take into account that you have given UI, and partner's actions were constrained. I think it was Linda Trent who put forward that proposition, and I don't remember any disagreement. I also don't remember the reasoning. Anybody care to look up the old thread? My memory is likely wrong on details if not on the main conclusion. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Mar 12 23:23:51 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Mar 12 23:23:52 2006 Subject: [blml] cross-imp question In-Reply-To: <200603102303.k2AN3uC8009453@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603102303.k2AN3uC8009453@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44149F77.7030808@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin French" > If a 13-table group is be ranked together with a 26-table group at another > venue, across-the field matchpointing obviously not practical, Neuberg assumes > that the 13 results int he first group would be duplicated if it had another > 13 tabes. > > For me this is "mathematical justification" if the assumption, admittedly not > valid, is the best we can use as a basis for doing the math.. David desJardins addressed this in his article. > People > who like factoring would say that the mid-season batting average is the best > estimate for the full-season average, certainly not "mathematically > justified." It's not quite the same problem. > I seem to remember that Henry Bethe compared all the 26-table scores in an > NABC event with what would have happened if scores were computed across the > entire huge event and found that the supposed "shrinkage" did not seem to > eventuate. This is yet a different problem. Once you have as many as 26 scores, the variance is controlled by the intrinsic randomness of bridge, not by which sample of players ("section") you choose. David Grabiner can explain why. Variance should still go down by sampling across the field but only by a tiny amount. A score that is good enough to be a top among 26 results is quite likely to be a top even among 100 results. As usual, to have a mathematical solution, you have to state _precisely_ what question you are trying to answer. The general problem of "factoring" is difficult because people don't entirely agree on what the goal should be. Of course in practice, any formula that isn't ridiculous is good enough. The intrinsic randomness of bridge will be much more important than any small theoretical errors in the formula. The only exception might be for very small fields, where the randomness in sample selection can dominate. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 13 01:58:01 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 13 01:57:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger Pewick: >I'm not sure how this thread got around to talking about alert >policy but I have a few observations and comments. > >Over the years millions of scores have been adjusted on the >basis that a player's action subsequent to an alert or non >alert was thereby influenced and the possibility of damage >arose. In my opinion that is conclusive evidence alerts and >non alerts are communication between partners. In as much >that it is codified into tournament regulations it is a system >of communication. > >TFLB has prohibited [L80F and L73B1] such regulations >[regardless of the professions of the various LC around the >world] and rightly so. The law goes so far as to assign its >gravest admonition to such violation in the words of L73B2 " >The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to >exchange information through prearranged methods of >communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A >guilty partnership risks expulsion." [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, a fallacious argument. Alert regulations *are* "sanctioned by these Laws." Chapter 1 of the Lawbook defines "Alert" as: "A notification, whose form may be specified by a sponsoring organisation, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation." And the final phrase of Law 40B states: "...or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." *Creation* of UI is not always illegal; indeed sometimes creation of UI is mandatory (eg Law 20F, Law 40B, Law 75C). It is only *use* of UI which is always illegal due to Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Mon Mar 13 03:22:47 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Mon Mar 13 02:53:37 2006 Subject: [blml] some ruling questions Message-ID: <4414D777.3060008@cs.elte.hu> Hi I've written yet, that i'm new on this mailing list. This yaer I've been participated on the EBL TD course in Telecitta and after that I've founded there are lots of questions about the principles in the ruling which can be anwsered in several ways (some of them are just the opposite to each other) and I still do not know the anwsers to them. So I need your help in some questions which I'll send to you. thanx and regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Mon Mar 13 03:24:31 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Mon Mar 13 02:55:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right Message-ID: <4414D7DF.20407@cs.elte.hu> When I started to learn TD my mentor showed me the following hand: Dummy: - - A KT93 Hand: - - - AQ854 Dummy is on lead in notrump contract, declarer could recieve no useful informations during the play and this time he is claiming the rest of the tricks with no statement. TD! The solution of this problem is the fact that he'll lose a trick if West has all the remaining clubs. I cannot see more help than the general principle in L70A, but the principle is clear: there's a problem left in declarer's play. He have not said anything about this problem, so he may not realize it. Althought this problem is quite basic it's a bridge problem and with careless play he may go wrong. We met quasi the same problem in Telecitta on the EBL TD course. In excersise 16B declarer played notrump contract and had founded himself in the following situation: Dummy: AJ - JT83 9 Hand: T - AK9742 - He plays dummy's 3 of diamonds to his Ace, opponents following the suit with the 6 and the 5 and he claims the rest without a statement. TD! The official solution was the same as my view: He should block the suit and loses two tricks. The reason is the same as above. Although it's so basic unblocking the suit is a real bridge problem, and he had shown no sign of realizing that. It would be very nice till now, but a really strange thing happened in Telecitta final test problem_1. Q2 J74 93 T87652 AKT763 J54 KQT A65 J8 QT6542 AK 3 98 9832 AK7 QJ94 West plays 6 spades and North leads the 9 of diamonds (9 from either 93 or 983). South wins with the Ace, declarer plays the J. South switches to the 9 of trumps. After 2 round of trumps declarer plays the ten of hearts to the Ace and leads a small diamond from dummy. South revokes with the 2 of hearts, declarer plays the 8 and South discovers his revoke now. TD! The official solution is the following: "It is impossible to write any hand consistent with West's bidding where ducking the diamond is the right thing to do. [...] Result stands." Well, I'm not quite sure that the first sentence is right, even I have some problems if I accept it. The minimum what we can say is that South should think about the question while he founds that the best solution is playing the King, but he may think wrong, or he can guess he should play the low card suddenly before he shows his King with the hasitation. Althought his problem is "say" basic, it's a real bridge problem, which he haven't solved yet. This situation is quite similar to the other two above, but the ruling is not against a claimer but a revoker. And the ruling is generally more rigorous with a revoker than a claimer. Was this solution only someones idea which can be modifed or is it the general ruling in this situation? What are the keys wich makes the difference between this situation and the other two? I have some ideas: --- in this situation the revoker really had a problem to think about, would surely realize the problem exists. In the two claiming problems the claimer maybe did not realise there were problems. --- the claimer declared they had no problem, the revoker did not. But these does not seem to be enough. regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 13 03:53:29 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 13 03:53:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4414D7DF.20407@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laszlo Hegedus: [snip] >It would be very nice till now, but a really strange thing >happened in Telecitta final test problem_1. > > Q2 > J74 > 93 > T87652 >AKT763 J54 >KQT A65 >J8 QT6542 >AK 3 > 98 > 9832 > AK7 > QJ94 > >West plays 6 spades and North leads the 9 of diamonds (9 >from either 93 or 983). South wins with the Ace, declarer >plays the J. South switches to the 9 of trumps. After 2 >round of trumps declarer plays the ten of hearts to the >Ace and leads a small diamond from dummy. South revokes >with the 2 of hearts, declarer plays the 8 and South >discovers his revoke now. TD! > >The official solution is the following: "It is impossible >to write any hand consistent with West's bidding where >ducking the diamond is the right thing to do. [...] Result >stands." [snip] Richard Hills: Not impossible. This hand was the subject of a panel discussion in issue number 43 of the Australian Directors' Bulletin (http://www.abf.com.au/directors/index.html). My answer was: >>South false carded with the DA at trick one, >>then failed to cash the DK at trick two. These plays >>are significant evidence that South believed that >>North's D9 opening lead was consistent with North >>initially holding D983. >> >>The evidence suggests that South may have >>reasonably believed that one of the possible layouts >>of the deal could have been similar to this: >> >> Q2 >> Q74 >> 983 >> 87652 >>AKT763 J54 >>KJT A65 >>J QT6542 >>AKT 3 >> 98 >> 9832 >> AK7 >> QJ94 >> >>In this hypothetical layout, South might believe that >>South's trick one false card had fooled declarer. >>Maybe declarer was taking the line of ruffing a >>diamond - just in case North's opening lead was a >>flashy play from K9 doubleton - before falling back >>on the heart finesse. Of course, in this layout, it >>would be fatal for South to jump up with the DK. >> >>South's unestablished revoke might also have been >>the Alcatraz Coup, which is a deliberate and illegal >>failure to follow suit to gain information from the >>opponents. Before the 1987 edition of the Laws, many >>Alcatraz Coups were a success for their perpetrators, >>since an adjusted score required the Director to find >>unequivocal evidence of deliberate cheating, rather >>than lucky inadvertency. >> >>However, Law 72B1 was rewritten in 1997, and now >>reads: "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." >> >>The phrase "could have known", inserted into this >>Law (and some other Laws) in 1997 means that >>inadvertency is no longer lucky. An inadvertent revoke >>results in the same score adjustment as a deliberate >>Alcatraz Coup, if the revoker could have known (at >>the time of the revoke) that an unestablished revoke >>would gain useful information. >> >>Therefore, as Director, I adjust the score to N/S -980 >>and E/W +980. If this incident had occurred in an >>Australian national championship, I would refer a >>report of South's revoke to the official Recorder. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 13 05:13:53 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Mar 13 05:14:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:58:01 +1100 > >Roger Pewick: > > >I'm not sure how this thread got around to talking about alert > >policy but I have a few observations and comments. > > > >Over the years millions of scores have been adjusted on the > >basis that a player's action subsequent to an alert or non > >alert was thereby influenced and the possibility of damage > >arose. In my opinion that is conclusive evidence alerts and > >non alerts are communication between partners. In as much > >that it is codified into tournament regulations it is a system > >of communication. > > > >TFLB has prohibited [L80F and L73B1] such regulations > >[regardless of the professions of the various LC around the > >world] and rightly so. The law goes so far as to assign its > >gravest admonition to such violation in the words of L73B2 " > >The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to > >exchange information through prearranged methods of > >communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A > >guilty partnership risks expulsion." > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, a fallacious argument. Alert regulations *are* >"sanctioned by these Laws." What I did notice is that you did not deny that L80F forbids alerts. >Chapter 1 of the Lawbook defines "Alert" as: > >"A notification, whose form may be specified by a sponsoring >organisation, to the effect that opponents may be in need of >an explanation." > >And the final phrase of Law 40B states: > >"...or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play >in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring >organisation." Does it really need to be said that there is a presumption that regulations satisfy the mandates of law? But, the law does not sanction alerts in any way. However, the law permits alerts if and only if they satisfy law. A necessary condition [but not necessarily the only condition] for satisfying law [80F] is that screens are used. L40B does not grant the SO the power to regulate. It does grant players the right to make certain calls and plays that satisfy certain conditions. There is no passage of law other than what I have cited that provides for the creation of alerts. >*Creation* of UI is not always illegal; L73B2 says otherwise, when it is via prearranged communication between partners other than by call or play [PCBPOTBCOP], which is the gravest possible offense- and that is what alerts are- a PCBPOTBCOP. >indeed sometimes >creation of UI is mandatory (eg Law 20F, Law 40B, Law 75C). It >is only *use* of UI which is always illegal due to Law 73C: >"When a player has available to him unauthorised information >from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, >gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or >hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that >might accrue to his side." I was not making UI the issue for my view of alerts- even though it ought to be more than enough force to evoke movement. But improper UI is the compelling issue of law that prohibits alerts [as well as the complement of alerts]. Regards Roger pewick >Best wishes From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 13 08:54:29 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 13 08:51:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right In-Reply-To: <4414D7DF.20407@cs.elte.hu> References: <4414D7DF.20407@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <44152535.40600@hdw.be> Hi Laci, I also got this question "wrong" on my exam and I don't agree with the official answer: Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > > It would be very nice till now, but a really strange thing happened in > Telecitta final test problem_1. > > Q2 > J74 > 93 > T87652 > AKT763 J54 > KQT A65 > J8 QT6542 > AK 3 > 98 > 9832 > AK7 > QJ94 > > West plays 6 spades and North leads the 9 of diamonds (9 from either 93 > or 983). South wins with the Ace, declarer plays the J. South switches > to the 9 of trumps. After 2 round of trumps declarer plays the ten of > hearts to the Ace and leads a small diamond from dummy. South revokes > with the 2 of hearts, declarer plays the 8 and South discovers his > revoke now. TD! > > The official solution is the following: "It is impossible to write any > hand consistent with West's bidding where ducking the diamond is the > right thing to do. [...] Result stands." Only one thing is clear: South does not know if he wants to play the King or not. So whether or not there is any hand consistent with the bidding, South does not realize this. I believe South is trying a variation of the Alcatraz coup and he should not benefit. > Well, I'm not quite sure that the first sentence is right, even I have > some problems if I accept it. The minimum what we can say is that South > should think about the question while he founds that the best solution > is playing the King, but he may think wrong, or he can guess he should > play the low card suddenly before he shows his King with the hasitation. > Althought his problem is "say" basic, it's a real bridge problem, which > he haven't solved yet. Exactly. In the post-exam analysis, I found no contestant who agreed with the official solution. Which may well mean that we got all treated similarly. -- 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: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 10/03/2006 From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Sun Mar 12 12:26:39 2006 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Mon Mar 13 09:11:02 2006 Subject: [blml] UI ? Message-ID: <16402013.1142162799593.JavaMail.www@wwinf1531> Hi all May i have your opinion ? A) North,the dummy,plays a card not declared by South.East and South play and the mistake is found out.East and South take their card back.No penalty but: 1- East played a card in required colour 2- East revoked B) South(declarer) plays spade,calls spade an dummy plays heart! East,absent-minded,plays heart too(revoke) In which case(s) law 16 applies ? - for South -for West In case B there is a penalty card or not? Many thanks - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060312/7ab194aa/attachment.htm From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Mon Mar 13 10:23:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon Mar 13 10:23:59 2006 Subject: [blml] UI ? In-Reply-To: <16402013.1142162799593.JavaMail.www@wwinf1531> References: <16402013.1142162799593.JavaMail.www@wwinf1531> Message-ID: <1FIjH6-1xbBtQ0@fwd27.sul.t-online.de> Hello Henri, Henri DEFRANCHI wrote: > A) North,the dummy,plays a card not declared by South. > East and South play and the mistake is found out. > East and South take their card back. no automatic withdrawal of South's card !! Only, if East withdraws his card, South is allowed to withdraw his card. > No penalty but: > 1- East played a card in required colour > 2- East revoked the revoke vanishes ... > > B) South(declarer) plays spade, calls spade > and dummy plays heart! > East, absent-minded, plays heart too(revoke) > > In which case(s) law 16 applies ? > - for South in all cases. > - for West never. The offending side is NS, and after the withdrawal of East's card there is no further irregularity by EW, so they are non-offending and can use all arisen information. > In case B there is a penalty card or not? no, the card from East is withdrawn without penalty (L 45 D). Regards Peter Eidt From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 13 11:44:02 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 13 12:30:46 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > This is all I could find, Tim. It is four years > old and a bit vague but I like it. Basically it > says you should alert conventional calls other > than Xs, XXs, and calls above 3N. > > Systems Policy - Appendix 3 WBF Alerting > Policy(Adopted July 1997, revised August 2002) > +=+ This alerting regulation is current. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 13 12:06:34 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 13 12:30:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL References: <4414920F.9020206@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <010f01c64690$de5dc500$cca987d9@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: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL > > Hi, Elianna. Welcome to BLML. As Herman said, > the usual interpretation -- in fact the only interpretation > I've ever seen -- of "one card at a time" is that consecutive > cards may not go into the same hand. I think the last > sentence of L6B makes it clear that the "five pile" method > is not prohibited. Of course L6E4 gives the Director > authority to allow or disallow any method he chooses. > (If Grattan were still taking notes, I would suggest that > this should specify "consistent with random dealing" > or words to that effect. Playing set hands may be useful > for teaching, but it isn't "Duplicate Contract Bridge.") > +=+ I believe that tournaments based on replaying hands dealt in earlier tournaments are considered to be within the scope of Duplicate Contract Bridge. The laws provide the basics of dealing. The object, of course, is that any random distribution of 52 cards into four hands of thirteen cards each, randomly juxtaposed to each other, may occur. If I recall the numbers correctly the potential variations are the product of the calculation 635013559600 x 4 x 8122425444 x 3 x 10400600 x 2. The Laws establish basic requirements. The intent of the last sentence of L6B is as Steve suggests. The stance of the WBF is not to interfere with idiosyncratic methods of dealing if they conform to the basics of the law. It is not precluded that a Sponsoring Organization may choose to apply more stringent requirements by regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 13 12:23:44 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 13 12:30:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) References: Message-ID: <011001c64690$df4761b0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Here the great art lies, to discern in what the law is to be to distraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work." (John Milton) ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) > > > L40B does not grant the SO the power to regulate. > It does grant players the right to make certain calls > and plays that satisfy certain conditions. There is > no passage of law other than what I have cited that > provides for the creation of alerts. > +=+ The Laws begin with Chapter I. The definition of Alerts includes an authorization of their creation. The reference to alerts in Law 20B should be added to those cited in this thread. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Mar 13 13:18:15 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Mar 13 13:23:08 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> [Ecats] >> Systems Policy - Appendix 3 WBF Alerting >> Policy(Adopted July 1997, revised August 2002) >> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ This alerting regulation is current. ~ G ~ +=+ [nige1] Please would WBFLC include this (and similar documents) as laws in TFLB. If an SO is unhappy with them, it can still use them as a basis for its own rules. (: I still think "Explain" would be better :) From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 13 15:05:53 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 13 15:06:00 2006 Subject: [blml] wrong deck In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060313130705.02008160@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001a01c646a7$3dc262b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] On board 8, South (the only non-director, but rather experienced player) misdefends and lets 6S win. West claims 2? tricks from the end. From embarrassment perhaps, South forgets to put his last two cards back in the board. Sven: Here we are told that South was the player who forgot to put his last two cards back in the board. Alas, we don't alternate card backs between boards, and we didn't realize he began board 9 with 15 cards ! When he saw them, we knew what had happened. No problem, put your two undue cards back in the slot and play with your fair amount of cards. He hadn't bid at that time, so there was no harm done. West ended once again at the wheel, this time in 2S doubled after escaping from a weak NT. North led a diamond honor, covered by dummy's Ace and ruffed by South. Later in the deal, West discarded on diamonds, and East instantly realized there was something wrong : somebody had to have one more diamond. It wasn't too difficult to understand that West had put *the wrong* cards back into board 8. He should have "discarded" the D7 and S4, but had got rid of the D7 and D6. Sven (originally): Is this a typo or had West (illegally) handled cards that belonged to South? Sven: I asked because here we were told that West had put the wrong cards back into the board. No typo, no error. West put his last two cards into his slot of board 8. At least *that* isn't wrong. Sven: If West handled his own cards only then how could his hand become incorrect? What happened to the last two cards in South's hand, where did they go and when ????? Sven (originally): Law 14 applies when three players have exactly 13 cards and the fourth player has less than 13 cards. Law 14 does not apply when the fourth player has more than 13 cards. In such cases the applicable law is Law 1 and the game those players started on board 9 was not bridge at all as the pack did not conform to the specifications in Law 1. What does apply when each player starts with 13 cards, only one of them doesn't have the right ones? Sven: Let me repeat: If the fourth hand contains less than thirteen cards then Law 14 (explicitly) applies. If it contains more than thirteen cards then the deck does not conform to the specifications in Law 1 (it contains more than fifty-two cards) and the game "played" is not bridge. It is said his bids should stand, but what happens if he has already played some cards? Sven: Again you must distinguish between the fourth hand having less than, and having more than thirteen cards. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 13 15:10:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 13 15:10:55 2006 Subject: [blml] wrong deck In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060313131219.0200d7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001b01c646a7$edc1c660$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > >When you play some game with a deck of cards that does not comply with > Law 1 > >then that game is definitely not Contract Bridge however much it > resembles > >bridge. > > However, when somebody has taken his cards in the wrong slot, resulting in > a wrong deck, the result will stand (at least, the bidding). Isn't this > case similar ? I suppose you mean "taken from the *wrong* slot? No, that doesn't make the game unplayable like when they start off with a board that contains more than 52 cards or in other ways disagrees with the specifications in Law 1. However it is quite likely that the board they play cannot be compared with the "same" board played at the other tables. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 13 16:50:48 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Mar 13 16:46:01 2006 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] wrong deck Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060313165009.0201aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:13:38 +0100 >To: "Sven Pran" >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: RE: [blml] wrong deck > >At 13:21 11/03/2006 +0100, you wrote: > > >>When you play some game with a deck of cards that does not comply with Law 1 >>then that game is definitely not Contract Bridge however much it resembles >>bridge. > >However, when somebody has taken his cards in the wrong slot, resulting in >a wrong deck, the result will stand (at least, the bidding). Isn't this >case similar ? From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 13 16:54:38 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Mar 13 16:54:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) In-Reply-To: <011001c64690$df4761b0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) >Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:23:44 -0000 > > >from Grattan Endicott >grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >[also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >************************************* > "Here the great art lies, to discern >in what the law is to be to distraint >and punishment, and in what things >persuasion only is to work." > (John Milton) > >------------------------------------------------ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Roger Pewick" >To: >Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:13 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) > > > > > > L40B does not grant the SO the power to regulate. > > It does grant players the right to make certain calls > > and plays that satisfy certain conditions. There is > > no passage of law other than what I have cited that > > provides for the creation of alerts. > > >+=+ The Laws begin with Chapter I. The definition >of Alerts includes an authorization of their creation. > The reference to alerts in Law 20B should be >added to those cited in this thread. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Mentioning something is nothing more than mentioning. To be more there must be language of empowerment. There is none. And nowhere in the law is there sanction for alerts. And nowhere in law is there empowerment except via satisfaction of 80F. And L73B2 speaks to a class of things that are prohibited which include alerts. L20B speaks to the implementation of regulation, not the authorization for the regulation. regards roger pewick From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 13 17:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 13 17:19:45 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Hi Nigel, That's the one. I like to think the *reason* it is 4 years old is that it has proven sufficiently robust/workable that no changes have been deemed necessary. It is, as Grattan points out, still current. There's only one change I'd probably like to see and that is incorporating (with some clarification) the ACBL requirement to alert unusual Xs/XXs (e.g. double of a splinter to request a lead in a specific suit [not the splinter one], XX of 1N-(x) which promises C). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 13 17:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 13 17:19:46 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <4413DCC3.1060606@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Any "standard" system takes several days to learn once all the > secondary inferences are considered. One would then have to compare > > one's own system to the standard for every sequence and identify > > which bids held different meanings and which bids did not. > > > > But that is your own system! Surely it should be your burden to > investigate in what ways your system is different from the standard > one, not your opponent's! Why? My "burden" is to explain to opponents what the bids show in *our* system. Their "burden" is to ask. Pre-disclosure along the lines of "We don't play 'standard' so most of our calls may have slightly different meanings" will have the same effect (more efficiently) than alerting every call in every auction. Mostly I just disagree with your assertion that "a standard system should be (and usually is) easy to learn". I'm a reasonably competent player with plenty of experience of playing Acol with a strong and weak NT, 4/5cM and yet even after hours of studying the system and 1000s of hands playing SAYC(or close relations thereof) I am not confident that I understand all the secondary/tertiary inferences of meaning in similar sequences between Acol and SA. This is, in part, because neither system is documented in sufficient detail to make such comparisons easy and in part because the differences *usually* don't matter enough to prevent one playing a reasonable game of bridge. Since I believe relatively few club players will be capable of performing the detailed analysis required (even fewer prepared to put in the effort) I regard any approach based on learning a system one never intends to play purely in order to alert departures therefrom is doomed to fail. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 13 18:02:31 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 13 18:00:07 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4415A5A7.4010607@hdw.be> Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >> Any "standard" system takes several days to learn once all the >>secondary inferences are considered. One would then have to compare >> >>>one's own system to the standard for every sequence and identify >>>which bids held different meanings and which bids did not. >>> >> >>But that is your own system! Surely it should be your burden to >>investigate in what ways your system is different from the standard >>one, not your opponent's! > > > Why? My "burden" is to explain to opponents what the bids show in *our* > system. Their "burden" is to ask. Pre-disclosure along the lines of > "We don't play 'standard' so most of our calls may have slightly > different meanings" will have the same effect (more efficiently) than > alerting every call in every auction. > Not when there is an alert procedure in place. > Mostly I just disagree with your assertion that "a standard system > should be (and usually is) easy to learn". I'm a reasonably competent > player with plenty of experience of playing Acol with a strong and weak > NT, 4/5cM and yet even after hours of studying the system and 1000s of > hands playing SAYC(or close relations thereof) I am not confident that I > understand all the secondary/tertiary inferences of meaning in similar > sequences between Acol and SA. Now you are talking of a very peculiar case. You are playing in an American environment, yet you do not know the American standard system. Of course you will be at a disadvantage. > This is, in part, because neither system is documented in sufficient > detail to make such comparisons easy and in part because the differences > *usually* don't matter enough to prevent one playing a reasonable game of > bridge. And probably because you would be at a late stage in the bidding before a difference occurs. I don't think this should detract us from the general principles which my post was all about. > Since I believe relatively few club players will be capable of > performing the detailed analysis required (even fewer prepared to put in > the effort) I regard any approach based on learning a system one never > intends to play purely in order to alert departures therefrom is doomed > to fail. > > 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: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 10/03/2006 From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 13 18:07:35 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Mar 13 18:09:53 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <4415A5A7.4010607@hdw.be> References: <4415A5A7.4010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6k9b121eh35kkef4u4luocsq33m11les5s@4ax.com> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:02:31 +0100, Herman wrote: >Now you are talking of a very peculiar case. You are playing in an >American environment, yet you do not know the American standard >system. Of course you will be at a disadvantage. > It's actually a very common case in online bridge. Brian. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 13 19:20:46 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Mar 13 19:20:59 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <04A658F6-0700-4D6A-B811-B9EA3F960382@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 13, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Guthrie wrote: > Please would WBFLC include this (and similar > documents) as laws in TFLB. I suspect Kojak's answer to this would be "no". :-) From schoderb at msn.com Mon Mar 13 23:05:26 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Mar 13 23:05:32 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj><010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> <04A658F6-0700-4D6A-B811-B9EA3F960382@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: What you suspect is that Kojak would not wish to include Rules and Regulations in the Laws. That is, if you if know the difference. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > > On Mar 13, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Guthrie wrote: > > > Please would WBFLC include this (and similar > > documents) as laws in TFLB. > > I suspect Kojak's answer to this would be "no". :-) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 13 23:43:57 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Mar 13 23:44:08 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> <04A658F6-0700-4D6A-B811-B9EA3F960382@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > What you suspect is that Kojak would not wish to include Rules and > Regulations in the Laws. That is, if you if know the difference. I do know the difference, thank you very much. It's why I made the comment. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 14 02:31:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 14 02:31:46 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <4415A5A7.4010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > Why? My "burden" is to explain to opponents what the bids show in > > *our* system. Their "burden" is to ask. Pre-disclosure along the > > lines of "We don't play 'standard' so most of our calls may have > > slightly different meanings" will have the same effect (more > > efficiently) than alerting every call in every auction. > > Not when there is an alert procedure in place. Since we are discussing what bids must be alerted on must presume there is an alert procedure in place. The issue is whether the alert procedure is *better* if it resembles current WBF/EBL procedures or if it is takes the form of "alert any bid which differs from BWS/SAYC/ACol/Polish Club" or whatever single standard is suggested for global use. > Now you are talking of a very peculiar case. You are playing in an > American environment, yet you do not know the American standard > system. Well, I know SAYC as well as most on-line players, certainly well enough to play it on line. However, I know it less well than I know Acol so in many places I will be unsure if the inferences available to me playing Acol are different from the inferences available to someone else playing SAYC > Of course you will be at a disadvantage. I'm not at a disadvantage during play - I can ask opps about their system and opps can ask me about mine - either way we get whatever info is available. In reality, of course, I'd just alert every bid on the grounds it's highly likely to have a slightly different meaning from "standard" - and everybody else who had agreed some other system would doubtless do the same leading to a (relatively) meaningless tide of alerts. > And probably because you would be at a late stage in the bidding > before a difference occurs. I'd have thought the reverse was true. If anything systems tend to converge at the later stages in the auction (or at least reach equality of ill-definition). Tim From schoderb at msn.com Tue Mar 14 02:48:49 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Mar 14 02:48:59 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj><010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj><04A658F6-0700-4D6A-B811-B9EA3F960382@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Bravo! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > > On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > What you suspect is that Kojak would not wish to include Rules and > > Regulations in the Laws. That is, if you if know the difference. > > I do know the difference, thank you very much. It's why I made the > comment. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 14 07:07:03 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 14 07:06:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The Laws begin with Chapter I. The definition >>of Alerts includes an authorization of their creation. >> The reference to alerts in Law 20B should be >>added to those cited in this thread. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Roger Pewick: >Mentioning something is nothing more than mentioning. >To be more there must be language of empowerment. >There is none. [snip] >L73B2 speaks to a class of things that are prohibited >which include alerts. [snip] Richard Hills: Before 1987, the Proprieties (now numbered as Laws 72 to 76) did not have Law numbers and were not binding. The Proprieties were merely sweeping statements of principle. So, when the Proprieties were incorporated holus-bolus into the Laws (and given Law numbers) in 1987, some logical inconsistencies were created in the Laws. For example, the sweeping "fully and freely available" disclosure of partnership agreements required by Propriety Law 75A is logically inconsistent with the power that a sponsoring organisation has to limit disclosure of partnership agreements via Law 40B and/or Law 40E. Better cross-referencing in the next edition of the Laws could resolve internal conflicts. Until then, the pragmatic approach is to assume that the specific prevails over the general when there is a logical inconsistency in the Laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 14 09:08:20 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 14 09:05:40 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> <04A658F6-0700-4D6A-B811-B9EA3F960382@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <441679F4.3060502@hdw.be> At the risk of incurring Kojak's wrath (but what's new), I would say "I don't". That is to say - of course I know the difference between a law and a rule or regulation, at present, but I fail to see why there should be two of those. Consider the case of the screen regulations - why should those be called regulations and not be put into laws? Or the calculation - why should the basics be a law (L78A) but the Neuberg formula a regulation? Of course there are regional differences, which can only be put in regional "regulations", not global "laws", but even those should be considered more alike than different. I urge the WBFLC to rethink its approach to some issues and not allow "tradition" to be the answer. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > >> What you suspect is that Kojak would not wish to include Rules and >> Regulations in the Laws. That is, if you if know the difference. > > > I do know the difference, thank you very much. It's why I made the > comment. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 10/03/2006 From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 14 09:47:22 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Mar 14 09:47:31 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <441679F4.3060502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c64743$e9498bd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > At the risk of incurring Kojak's wrath (but what's new), I would say > "I don't". > > That is to say - of course I know the difference between a law and a > rule or regulation, at present, but I fail to see why there should be > two of those. > > Consider the case of the screen regulations - why should those be > called regulations and not be put into laws? > Or the calculation - why should the basics be a law (L78A) but the > Neuberg formula a regulation? I believe there is a very simple answer to these questions: The need for some rules related to screens etc. arose at a time when there was no law revision in progress and the bridge world could not wait for the next scheduled revision to set the rules. So regulations were the natural tool available for establishing rules on the use of screens, Neuberg formula, stop, alert and whatever - you name it. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 14 10:58:36 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 14 10:55:51 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <000001c64743$e9498bd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c64743$e9498bd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <441693CC.1080801@hdw.be> You've said it Sven : > So regulations were the natural tool available for establishing rules on the WERE I fully agree with the use of regulations for these things IN THE PAST. I do not agree with the continued use of regulations for these things, simply because this was the normal thing to do in the past. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>At the risk of incurring Kojak's wrath (but what's new), I would say >>"I don't". >> >>That is to say - of course I know the difference between a law and a >>rule or regulation, at present, but I fail to see why there should be >>two of those. >> >>Consider the case of the screen regulations - why should those be >>called regulations and not be put into laws? >>Or the calculation - why should the basics be a law (L78A) but the >>Neuberg formula a regulation? > > > I believe there is a very simple answer to these questions: The need for > some rules related to screens etc. arose at a time when there was no law > revision in progress and the bridge world could not wait for the next > scheduled revision to set the rules. > > So regulations were the natural tool available for establishing rules on the > use of screens, Neuberg formula, stop, alert and whatever - you name it. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 14 11:21:25 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 14 12:56:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) References: Message-ID: <001801c6475d$8d7ae550$76bd87d9@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, March 14, 2006 6:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) < > Grattan Endicott: > > >>+=+ The Laws begin with Chapter I. The definition > >>of Alerts includes an authorization of their creation. > >> The reference to alerts in Law 20B should be > >>added to those cited in this thread. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Roger Pewick: > > >Mentioning something is nothing more than mentioning. > >To be more there must be language of empowerment. > >There is none. > +=+ When authority tells me that something is a "notification, whose form may be specified by" I read it as empowerment to give form to something whose existence is acknowledged at various points in the laws. When the laws tell me that "failure to alert promptly to a conventional call, or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organisation, is deemed misinformation" I have confirmation that the sponsoring organisation may institute such a requirement. It may be argued, for sure, that the laws make the reader search about for it and that it could be said more explicitly in one place with advantage. The 'incremental' method of writing rules does tend to such frailties, but if you read the laws all together the indisputable intent in this matter may be inferred. Thirty-one years' experience of writing rules in the gaming industry has led me to an awareness that the informed method of rewriting a set of rules is to do it from scratch, incorporating such segments of the old text as, with security, one cannot express more simply, and then checking off each former provision against the new to ensure that each requirement, if it persists, is covered (together with anything new). It calls for confident and patient attention to detail and, be it for want of time, expertise or inclination to test the work, those not accustomed to such exercises commonly worry about the product, its unfamiliarity and the fresh ordering of it for greater clarity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 14 12:50:11 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 14 12:56:05 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> <04A658F6-0700-4D6A-B811-B9EA3F960382@rochester.rr.com> <441679F4.3060502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001901c6475d$8e85ecb0$76bd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > At the risk of incurring Kojak's wrath (but what's > new), I would say "I don't". > > That is to say - of course I know the difference > between a law and a rule or regulation, at present, > but I fail to see why there should be two of those. > > Consider the case of the screen regulations - why > should those be called regulations and not be put > into laws? > Or the calculation - why should the basics be a > law (L78A) but the Neuberg formula a regulation? > > Of course there are regional differences, which > can only be put in regional "regulations", not global > "laws", but even those should be considered more > alike than different. > > I urge the WBFLC to rethink its approach to > some issues and not allow "tradition" to be the > answer. > +=+ Herman, My judgement is that Kojak's 'wrath' is a mark of his recognition of your status as a leading opinion on laws matters in your own national authority and one whose views are listened to in European circles with respect - albeit not uniformly concurred in. He would tend to scorn, I believe, if failing to recognize where you are coming from. The distinction that I make between law and regulation is that the one is universal - and to be universally understood - whilst the other is for areas of practice and control that are conceded to be matters of discretion and preference. Between the two the boundaries may be matters of consent or they may be determined by the force of disaccord. I doubt that 'tradition' is an irresistible persuasion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 14 13:17:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 14 13:18:04 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <441693CC.1080801@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I fully agree with the use of regulations for these things IN THE > PAST. > I do not agree with the continued use of regulations for these > things, simply because this was the normal thing to do in the past. I tend to agree. Were I the WBF the criterion would be "Is the matter strongly expected to be a subject of global uniformity?". With a "Yes" making the issue a candidate for the laws. Thus screen regs, scoring, clarification of when a call/play is made etc would likely make it to the law-book while alerting/movements and such would be delegated to Zone/NBO/SO level for regulation. However, that would place a considerable burden of additional work on the WBF and it may lack the manpower (or womanpower) to do it well. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 14 13:47:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 14 13:48:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) In-Reply-To: <001801c6475d$8d7ae550$76bd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ When authority tells me that something is a > "notification, whose form may be specified by" I read > it as empowerment to give form to something whose > existence is acknowledged at various points in the laws. And while I do not disagree with his analysis of this issue I might also have pointed to L80E - a law which specifically empowers "special conditions for bidding and play" and would certainly empower alerting regs in relation to either written bidding or bidding boxes. (Personally I think the context of the "such as.." allows extension to oral bidding as well but a pedantic quibble over the examples may have some technical merit). Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 14 13:47:03 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 14 13:52:56 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <000001c64743$e9498bd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c64765$810d9da0$059887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:47 AM Subject: RE: [blml] L63B in the ACBL < I believe there is a very simple answer to these questions: The need for some rules related to screens etc. arose at a time when there was no law revision in progress and the bridge world could not wait for the next scheduled revision to set the rules. So regulations were the natural tool available for establishing rules on the use of screens, Neuberg formula, stop, alert and whatever - you name it. +=+ This was not the whole story. Some matters appeared in regulations issued by various organizations and were imported (or rehatched, as the case may be), at times with limited consultation, by other regulatory bodies. When the WBF got to them it was already an enormous task to achieve overall consensus, without which the exercise would have been futile. Somewhere in existence there is these last few years, for example, a Schoder rewrite of the regulations for play with screens. I have seen no sign of its gaining a consensus at international level, leave alone if presented to national levels worldwide. It, or something like it, could only get into the laws if there were a sufficient consensus, not yet foreseen. With the differences of opinion set, the only sensible recourse is to powers of regulation; ideals of uniformity are as yet unachievable - and the goal itself is strongly questioned. For my part, I am unconvinced that the rifts in culture (even between parts of Zone 1) can be bridged. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 14 13:56:28 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Mar 14 13:56:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:07:03 +1100 > >Grattan Endicott: > > >>+=+ The Laws begin with Chapter I. The definition > >>of Alerts includes an authorization of their creation. > >> The reference to alerts in Law 20B should be > >>added to those cited in this thread. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Roger Pewick: > > >Mentioning something is nothing more than mentioning. > >To be more there must be language of empowerment. > >There is none. > >[snip] > > >L73B2 speaks to a class of things that are prohibited > >which include alerts. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Before 1987, the Proprieties (now numbered as Laws 72 >to 76) did not have Law numbers and were not binding. >The Proprieties were merely sweeping statements of >principle. > >So, when the Proprieties were incorporated holus-bolus >into the Laws (and given Law numbers) in 1987, some >logical inconsistencies were created in the Laws. > >For example, the sweeping "fully and freely available" >disclosure of partnership agreements required by >Propriety Law 75A is logically inconsistent with the >power that a sponsoring organisation has to limit >disclosure of partnership agreements via Law 40B and/or >Law 40E. And you have the gall to mention that you have noticed. In addition to changing the subject. >Better cross-referencing in the next edition of the Laws >could resolve internal conflicts. Until then, the >pragmatic approach is to assume that the specific >prevails over the general when there is a logical >inconsistency in the Laws. Ok. Look; or don’t look if it suits you. The WBFLC has announced recently that inconsistency in TFLB will remain. It is lunacy for passages of law to stand independently from another if they are not independent. As such, passages of law necessarily need to stand together as one. And such a concept lies in L80F- that of consistency. And law that manufactures problems is a horror show. As for cross referencing, it is a wonderful tool that can identify inconsistency to be eliminated. As for pragmatism, the pragmatic thing to do is to eliminate inconsistency. regards roger pewick >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 14 14:36:29 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 14 14:33:56 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <001901c6475d$8e85ecb0$76bd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> <04A658F6-0700-4D6A-B811-B9EA3F960382@rochester.rr.com> <441679F4.3060502@hdw.be> <001901c6475d$8e85ecb0$76bd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4416C6DD.4070703@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > "We but teach bloody instructions, > which, being taught, return, to plague > the inventor." > ['Macbeth'] >> >>I urge the WBFLC to rethink its approach to >>some issues and not allow "tradition" to be the >>answer. >> > > +=+ Herman, > My judgement is that Kojak's 'wrath' is a mark > of his recognition of your status as a leading opinion > on laws matters in your own national authority and > one whose views are listened to in European circles > with respect - albeit not uniformly concurred in. He > would tend to scorn, I believe, if failing to recognize > where you are coming from. I thank Grattan for these kind words. > The distinction that I make between law and > regulation is that the one is universal - and to be > universally understood - whilst the other is for areas > of practice and control that are conceded to be > matters of discretion and preference. Between the > two the boundaries may be matters of consent or > they may be determined by the force of disaccord. > I doubt that 'tradition' is an irresistible persuasion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I believe the distinction is a correct one. That being said, the WBFLC would do well in critically examining which parts of the structure need to be "conceded to discretion" and which ones should be global. I for one believe that the screen regulations should be global. Therefor, the matters currently dealt with in regulations should be upgraded to laws. There is a second distinction which can also be used. Whereas Laws are set for 10 years or more, regulations can be used to allow more frequent changing. In such areas as systems policy, regulations shall continue to be used for the foreseeable future. But there too there is a distinction between what is global (as I believe system regulations ought to be) and what needs to be local (as an alert procedure invariably shall be). There too, the WBFLC should examine the introduction of (let's call them) "default WBF regulations". Calculation is another part of regulations which could be upgraded to laws, but for which "default WBF regulations" could also be appropriate, possibly as an appendix to the Lawbook. I have in the past written comprehensive regulations about calculations and would welcome an invitation by the WBFLC to submit such regulations for their perusal and possible approval. -- 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: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 14 14:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 14 14:44:07 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim wrote: > Thus screen regs, scoring, clarification of when a call/play is made > etc would likely make it to the law-book Oh what a naive fool he was! Apparently there is sufficient diversity of firmly held belief to prevent even such a "simple" issue being handled under law. I'm not questioning Grattan's assessment of the state of affairs - just finding it regrettable. Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 14 14:48:19 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Mar 14 14:48:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) In-Reply-To: <001801c6475d$8d7ae550$76bd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 >10:21:25 -0000 > > >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, March 14, 2006 6:07 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) >< > > Grattan Endicott: > > > > >>+=+ The Laws begin with Chapter I. The definition > > >>of Alerts includes an authorization of their creation. > > >> The reference to alerts in Law 20B should be > > >>added to those cited in this thread. > > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Roger Pewick: > > > > >Mentioning something is nothing more than mentioning. > > >To be more there must be language of empowerment. > > >There is none. > > >+=+ When authority tells me that something is a >"notification, whose form may be specified by" I read >it as empowerment to give form to something whose >existence is acknowledged at various points in the laws. >When the laws tell me that "failure to alert promptly to >a conventional call, or special understanding, where >such alert is required by the sponsoring organisation, >is deemed misinformation" I have confirmation that >the sponsoring organisation may institute such a >requirement. It may be argued, for sure, that the laws >make the reader search about for it and that it could >be said more explicitly in one place with advantage. >The 'incremental' method of writing rules does tend to >such frailties, but if you read the laws all together the >indisputable intent in this matter may be inferred. > Thirty-one years' experience of writing rules in >the gaming industry has led me to an awareness that >the informed method of rewriting a set of rules is to >do it from scratch, incorporating such segments of the >old text as, with security, one cannot express more >simply, and then checking off each former provision >against the new to ensure that each requirement, if it >persists, is covered (together with anything new). It >calls for confident and patient attention to detail and, >be it for want of time, expertise or inclination to test >the work, those not accustomed to such exercises >commonly worry about the product, its unfamiliarity >and the fresh ordering of it for greater clarity. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Do definitions speak to definitions or do they speak to the empowerment to redefine? I think it is the former. Within the context of definition, the referenced words refer to the status of alert [alerts are specified by the SO], not the source of empowerment. As such, regulation must necessarily satisfy the empowerment provision of L80F. regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 14 16:38:55 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Mar 14 16:38:19 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <4415A5A7.4010607@hdw.be> References: <4415A5A7.4010607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060314102140.02a3f4b0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:02 PM 3/13/06, Herman wrote: >Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>Mostly I just disagree with your assertion that "a standard system >>should be (and usually is) easy to learn". I'm a >>reasonably competent player with plenty of experience of playing >>Acol with a strong and weak NT, 4/5cM and yet even after hours of >>studying the system and 1000s of hands playing SAYC(or close >>relations thereof) I am not confident that I understand all the >>secondary/tertiary inferences of meaning in similar sequences between >>Acol and SA. > >Now you are talking of a very peculiar case. You are playing in an >American environment, yet you do not know the American standard >system. Of course you will be at a disadvantage. I'm confident that if Tim chose to play in an American environment, given its unfamiliarity, he would be at considerable disadvantage, since his competitors would be far more capable of drawing correct inferences from their opponents' bidding. I'm equally confident that he would happily accept those disadvantages and would likely enjoy the game despite them. But I suspect he would be very unhappy if the "disadvantage" forced upon him by an "alert any deviations from the standard system" regulation turned out to be that he was not permitted to play on the grounds that he would be incapable of doing so without violating that regulation. Or was permitted to play, but repeatedly penalized for his inability to comply with it. In a Nigellian world, where such a regulation was worldwide, and there was a single "standard system" defined, that disadvantage would accrue not only to folks who wanted to play in an unfamiliar environment, but to entire populations of bridge players who have no desire to play in anything other than their "home" environment. I can imagine myself making an announcement in some local games along the lines of, "Starting next week, you will be required to alert any time you make a bid whose meaning differs from what it would mean in standard Acol. Please do not come back until you are prepared to follow that regulation." I would spend my entire lifetime waiting for the first of my regular players to return. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 14 17:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 14 17:10:55 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060314102140.02a3f4b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > I'm confident that if Tim chose to play in an American environment, > given its unfamiliarity, he would be at considerable disadvantage, > since his competitors would be far more capable of drawing correct > inferences from their opponents' bidding. Hey Eric! I'd have settled for "somewhat more" and preferred "slightly more". > I'm equally confident that he would happily accept those > disadvantages and would likely enjoy the game despite them. Indeed. > > But I suspect he would be very unhappy if the "disadvantage" forced > upon him by an "alert any deviations from the standard system" > regulation turned out to be that he was not permitted to play on the > grounds that he would be incapable of doing so without violating that > regulation. Or was permitted to play, but repeatedly penalized for > his inability to comply with it. Precisely. The third option being "only able to play without being penalised after weeks of work studying a system he's never likely to play". As it happens the system I normally play isn't all that far from EHAA (a common US approach, surely!) but it isn't close enough to avoid multiple alerts even if EHAA were selected as the world standard. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 14 18:52:47 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Mar 14 19:27:46 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj><010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj><04A658F6-0700-4D6A-B811-B9EA3F960382@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001d01c64794$4c85b200$4a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > I do know the difference [ between Rules and > Regulations in the Laws], thank you very much. > It's why I made the comment. [nige1] For my purposes I define the rules of Bridge as all rules pertinent to playing bridge (laws, official minutes, official interpretations, regulations, officially sanctioned case law, local regulations, official commentaries, conditions of contest, and so on). Some players are aware that WBFLC rules of bridge are called "Laws"; that they are incomplete; that they are amended by various rules, buried in obscure minutes; that local jurisdictions plug the gaps and make local amendments with extra rules sometimes called "Regulations"; and that a sponsor can make up additional rules called "Conditions of Contest". There seems little rhyme or reason to it, however. Except perhaps for some Coc, the distinctions seem arbitrary. In particular, there seems no excuse for omitting fundamental rules (eg about disclosure -- convention cards, bidding boxes, alerting, screens and the like) from TFLB. These could still be over-ridden (as now) by local jurisdictions. OK, not everybody uses bidding boxes or screens or whatever; but it seems sensible to cater for the most popular defaults. For example, the law book already covers both pairs and teams. Most importantly, there seem no need for so many separate publications. Additions and amendments should be incorporated, in place, in a local edition of TFLB (with amendments in a distinctive font, perhaps, to make it clear that they are not part of the original text). Obvious exceptions could be allowed. For example for Coc. In principle, however, this would allow ordinary players their first opportunity to understand the rules ( = laws, commentaries, minutes, rules, regulations, conditions, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) of the game they aspire to play. I find it mind-boggling that so many BLMLers (directors and law-makers alike) persist in defending the current fragmentation of the "rules"; although the more sensitive must be well aware that it means that no ordinary player can, in practice, learn the "rules" of the game that he would like to play. From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Mar 14 20:47:57 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Mar 14 20:48:08 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <44171DED.6090809@comcast.net> Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > Please would WBFLC include this (and similar > documents) as laws in TFLB. If an SO is unhappy > with them, it can still use them as a basis for > its own rules. Not that the ACBL has any apparent problems violating TFLB, I wouldn't encourage malleability within the TFLB or suggest an SO could do away with it entirely and use its own rules. As a matter of picking one's fights, I'd settle for being able to find up-to-date documents all in one place, regardless of how many. -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 14 22:29:23 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Mar 14 22:28:51 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060314102140.02a3f4b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060314161615.02eb3eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:10 AM 3/14/06, Tim wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > But I suspect he would be very unhappy if the "disadvantage" forced > > upon him by an "alert any deviations from the standard system" > > regulation turned out to be that he was not permitted to play on the > > grounds that he would be incapable of doing so without violating that > > regulation. Or was permitted to play, but repeatedly penalized for > > his inability to comply with it. > >Precisely. The third option being "only able to play without being >penalised after weeks of work studying a system he's never likely to >play". As it happens the system I normally play isn't all that far from >EHAA (a common US approach, surely!)... Don't I wish! Although it continues to gain in popularity, it's still a long way from being realistically called "common". >...but it isn't close enough to avoid >multiple alerts even if EHAA were selected as the world standard. The obvious advantage of EHAA as a world standard is that only one book has been published describing it, so there is an unambiguous single source for its definition. AFAIK it is the most widely played system extant about which this can be said. But, as with any system played by more than one partnership, its sole-source "definition" isn't precise enough to unambiguously define more than a small fraction of even the most basic auctions, notwithstanding that the "sole-source 'definition'" runs to 64 pages. I wrote it. I know what it says, and what it means, better than anyone else on the planet. But not even I would be capable of specifying what would be alertable under a regulation that said "alert any deviations from EHAA"! Which is enough to convince me, if not Nigel, that any regulation that said "alert any deviations from [insert name of any system here]" would be totally unworkable nonsense. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 14 22:43:36 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Mar 14 22:42:54 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL In-Reply-To: <44171DED.6090809@comcast.net> References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj> <010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj> <44171DED.6090809@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060314163306.02eb56e0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:47 PM 3/14/06, Todd wrote: > Not that the ACBL has any apparent problems violating TFLB, I > wouldn't encourage malleability within the TFLB or suggest an SO > could do away with it entirely and use its own rules. But they can! Grattan has (more than once) cited a WBF minute which states quite clearly that L80F, despite its obvious interpretation to the contrary, does not prevent them from doing so, and has also admitted that, given the latitude allowed, we are left to rely on the discretion and good sense of well-meaning ZO/NCBO administrators not to make a total farce of the game. IOW, TFLB is already, by WBF decree, infinitely malleable. Whatever one's opinion of that minute, I don't see how, if the WBF really stands by it, one can object to writing the laws so that they express the intent of their authors and no longer need an obscure, unpublicized WBF minute to justify the legality of actions that the WBF intends be legal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 14 22:47:48 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 14 22:48:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>Better cross-referencing in the next edition of the Laws >>>could resolve internal conflicts. Roger Pewick: >>As for cross referencing, it is a wonderful tool that can >>identify inconsistency to be eliminated. As for pragmatism, >>the pragmatic thing to do is to eliminate inconsistency. Australian Constitution, clause 109: >When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the >Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, >to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. Richard Hills: Sorry; I did not make myself clear. By "better" cross- referencing I meant, for example, a note under Laws 40A and 40D which stated that Law 40D prevailed over Law 40A in the event of any inconsistency. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 14 23:43:04 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Mar 14 23:43:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:47:48 +1100 > >Richard Hills: > > >>>Better cross-referencing in the next edition of the Laws > >>>could resolve internal conflicts. > >Roger Pewick: > > >>As for cross referencing, it is a wonderful tool that can > >>identify inconsistency to be eliminated. As for pragmatism, > >>the pragmatic thing to do is to eliminate inconsistency. > >Australian Constitution, clause 109: > > >When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the > >Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, > >to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. > >Richard Hills: > >Sorry; I did not make myself clear. By "better" cross- >referencing I meant, for example, a note under Laws 40A and >40D which stated that Law 40D prevailed over Law 40A in the >event of any inconsistency. > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae It is a bit more clear now. The reason for cross reference is to insure that inconsistencies and incompatibilities are retained. I was suffering from hero worship until 4 minutes ago . regards roger pewick From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Mar 15 02:34:40 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Mar 15 02:39:41 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060314102140.02a3f4b0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060314161615.02eb3eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006d01c647d0$a197fd20$4a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > Which is enough to convince me, if not Nigel, > that any regulation that said "alert any > deviations from [insert name of any system > here]" would be totally unworkable nonsense. [nige1] Eric is right that alerting from *any system* is difficult and error-prone even if it is your own local system. For example, take the alert system implicitly defined by EBU Orange book alert regulations (neither fish nor fowl but loosely Acol based). In fact, few EBU players have read it and fewer abide by it; but those (like my team) who have studied it and try hard to conform to it, still make frequent mistakes. Thus, we often forget to alert a single raise of partner's opening 1H or 1S (although we can raise on 3 cards, so for us it is alertable). Pre-emptive raises and transfer completions are frequent sources of alert-violations for almost all EBU players. Eric's experience may be different. If Eric avers that most USA players comply with current ACBL alert regulations, I may have to revise my opinions. As Herman says, the EBU alert system is especially hard on foreigners unfamiliar with Acol. They find it hard to guess what to alert (for example a one club bid that could be 3 cards). They tend to make even more mistakes than we do; also, our alerts are of little help to them. Of course, people would still make alert mistakes, in spite of a well-defined universal standard system. They would have to learn only one alerting system, however, instead of a new one for each new venue. And the universal system would be of more use to players than (say) the system implicitly defined by the EBU Orange Book. You could use it in Individuals and with pick-up partners everywhere. Even if their preferred system is Acol or Polish club or Precision, almost all players have played and are familiar with the principles of a five card major/strong notrump system; hence, IMO, the hardship in alerting from such a system is exaggerated by Tim and Eric. A universal standard system would be a boon to ordinary players, but I concede it man not be strictly necessary -- universal stripped down alert-rules might suffice. For example, the WBF could endorse as law, the system defined in Appendix 3 of the obscure systems document (part of the conditions of contest for some WBF events) encoded in pdf (and so illegible to some) and available by local google search of the ecats site. Now and again, it is vital that a man appears who is prepared to stand up and state the blindingly obvious. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 15 03:32:43 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 15 03:32:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right In-Reply-To: <200603131524.k2DFO5RG011764@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603131524.k2DFO5RG011764@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44177CCB.6070302@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Laszlo Hegedus > It would be very nice till now, but a really strange thing happened in > Telecitta final test problem_1. > > Q2 > J74 > 93 > T87652 > AKT763 J54 > KQT A65 > J8 QT6542 > AK 3 > 98 > 9832 > AK7 > QJ94 > > West plays 6 spades and North leads the 9 of diamonds (9 from either 93 > or 983). South wins with the Ace, declarer plays the J. South switches > to the 9 of trumps. After 2 round of trumps declarer plays the ten of > hearts to the Ace and leads a small diamond from dummy. South revokes > with the 2 of hearts, declarer plays the 8 and South discovers his > revoke now. TD! I'm with you and Herman. Looks like an Alcatraz Coup to me. We assume it's unintentional, but that shouldn't stop us from using L72B1 to adjust the score. (There's also L16C: declarer's D-8 is UI to South. But L72B1 looks simpler to me. Either way should give the same result.) Who designed the test problems? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 15 03:42:55 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 15 03:42:50 2006 Subject: [blml] UI ? In-Reply-To: <200603131521.k2DFLnen011480@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603131521.k2DFLnen011480@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44177F2F.1030406@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Henri DEFRANCHI > A) North,the dummy,plays a card not declared by South.East and South play and > the mistake is found out.East and South take their card back.No penalty but: > 1- East played a card in required colour > 2- East revoked What's the question? Assuming it was declarer or dummy who created the problem, East's plays are UI to South, and South's plays are AI to East and West. If East corrects his revoke, there's no infraction. If he revokes even after dummy has played the correct card, then it is penalized as usual. Am I missing something? Relevant Laws seem to be 16C, 45D, possibly 55C and 72B1. > B) South(declarer) plays spade,calls spade an dummy plays heart! > East,absent-minded,plays heart too(revoke) > In which case(s) law 16 applies ? - for South -for West Dummy has caused the problem. East can withdraw his card without penalty, and the card is UI to South, AI to West. > In case B there is a penalty card or not? No penalty card: L45D. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Mar 15 03:52:00 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Mar 15 03:51:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL In-Reply-To: <200603131516.k2DFG1QI010551@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603131516.k2DFG1QI010551@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44178150.9000202@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I believe that tournaments based on replaying hands > dealt in earlier tournaments are considered to be within > the scope of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Isn't there a Law to the effect that no result may stand if the board was previously played in a different session? (I just had a quick scan of the FLB and can't find it; was it deleted?) Of course such events are quite popular, but I'm not sure they are in strict conformity with the Laws. > The laws provide the basics of dealing. The object, > of course, is that any random distribution of 52 cards into > four hands of thirteen cards each, randomly juxtaposed to > each other, may occur. I agree, of course, as I hope all of us do. Perhaps it would be worth stating explicitly. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 15 07:06:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 15 07:06:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44178150.9000202@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ I believe that tournaments based on replaying hands >>>dealt in earlier tournaments are considered to be within >>>the scope of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Steve Willner: >>Isn't there a Law to the effect that no result may stand >>if the board was previously played in a different session? >>(I just had a quick scan of the FLB and can't find it; was >>it deleted?) >> >>Of course such events are quite popular, but I'm not sure >>they are in strict conformity with the Laws. Law 6D2: >No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle >from a sorted deck or if the deal had previously been >played in a different session. Law 6E4: >The Director may require a different method of dealing or >pre-dealing. Richard Hills: Presumably Grattan's belief about the scope of Duplicate Contract Bridge is based on the principle that conditions of contest designed pursuant to Law 6E4 prevail over Law 6D2 in the event of any inconsistency. As discussed in the parallel "Alert policy" thread, I believe it would be useful if the Lawbook itself stated which way its internal inconsistencies were to be resolved. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Mar 15 11:48:16 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed Mar 15 11:48:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C98C@hotel.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] Sent: 15 March 2006 02:52 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I believe that tournaments based on replaying hands > dealt in earlier tournaments are considered to be within > the scope of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Isn't there a Law to the effect that no result may stand if the board was previously played in a different session? (I just had a quick scan of the FLB and can't find it; was it deleted?) _______________________________________________ Steve, Law 6D2: No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted pack or if the deal had previously been played in a different session. 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 Wed Mar 15 16:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 15 16:11:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C98C@hotel.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: Robin wrote: > Law 6D2: > No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a > sorted pack or if the deal had previously been played in a different > session. It's an EBU Sim night, play starts on schedule (7.00pm) at the Acol and by 7.08 all odd-numbered boards have been played once. Sadly the start was delayed until 7.10 at the YC (or maybe scheduled for 7.15), no result may stand on those boards when they are played at the YC (except board 27 of course, which isn't "in play" at the Acol session (13x2 bd rounds), but is at the YC session (9x3)). Time for an interpretation? I think 62d2 is addressing boards which are discovered to have been played in a previous session but accidentally not re-dealt [the results *are* going to stand if nobody discovers and reports the issue]. Deliberate scheduling of such boards (whether in a "Play with the Experts" event or a variable-start time sim) is thus vaguely compliant with the law. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 15 17:39:14 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 15 17:39:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c6484e$ff317c80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Robin wrote: > > > Law 6D2: > > No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a > > sorted pack or if the deal had previously been played in a different > > session. > > It's an EBU Sim night, play starts on schedule (7.00pm) at the Acol and > by 7.08 all odd-numbered boards have been played once. Sadly the start > was delayed until 7.10 at the YC (or maybe scheduled for 7.15), no > result may stand on those boards when they are played at the YC (except > board 27 of course, which isn't "in play" at the Acol session (13x2 bd > rounds), but is at the YC session (9x3)). Time for an interpretation? > I think 62d2 is addressing boards which are discovered to have been > played in a previous session but accidentally not re-dealt [the results > *are* going to stand if nobody discovers and reports the issue]. > Deliberate scheduling of such boards (whether in a "Play with the > Experts" event or a variable-start time sim) is thus > vaguely compliant with the law. > > Tim Law 6D2 addresses all situations where a board can be known to a player either because it was not dealt properly or because it has been played in a previous session "anywhere in the world". Boards happen to be commented and a player will sometimes be able to recognize a board from having read about it in some paper etc. I don't believe that overlapping sessions shall be considered one of them being previous to the other for the purpose of applying L6D2. Regards Sven From schoderb at msn.com Wed Mar 15 17:48:33 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Mar 15 17:48:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL References: Message-ID: Looks to me like you have the reality of this subject. Playing boards that have been played before by intent (I.e. Play with the experts, etc) in a duplicate fashion is not what this law is all about. It is about where a hand was not was not shuffled from a previous session, etc. It is also about such things as when a set of pre-duplicated hands that were played in 1994 in the WBF Championships in China show up again in 200? in the Southamerican Championships in Buenos Aires, Argentina due to a glitch in the duplicating program. The use of hand records for duplicating deals tends to lessen the problem, and even then we find occasional hands that were played two days before in the same tournament still in the pockets of a new session. There are many club events in the world where pre-played hands are purposely used. Also, it doesn't have anything to do with playing the same hands at different clubs at more or less the same time. For instance in ACBL "STACs" (Sectional Tournament At Clubs) where there may be 30 or more clubs involved, and certainly in the Worldwide Pairs (old Epson) where literally hundreds of sites play the same hands. "PAR" contests also are not what Law 6 is about, and the magnificent hands that Pietro Bernasconi devised for the WBF Par Contests certainly would not fit Law 6. And as an aside, if "wrath" is the proper word to describe my inquietude over some postings, so be it, but it boggles my mind to find time and effort being expended to dig for obscure and tortuously manufactured applications of the Laws to make obviously silly arguments. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:10 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL > Robin wrote: > > > Law 6D2: > > No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a > > sorted pack or if the deal had previously been played in a different > > session. > > It's an EBU Sim night, play starts on schedule (7.00pm) at the Acol and > by 7.08 all odd-numbered boards have been played once. Sadly the start > was delayed until 7.10 at the YC (or maybe scheduled for 7.15), no > result may stand on those boards when they are played at the YC (except > board 27 of course, which isn't "in play" at the Acol session (13x2 bd > rounds), but is at the YC session (9x3)). Time for an interpretation? > I think 62d2 is addressing boards which are discovered to have been > played in a previous session but accidentally not re-dealt [the results > *are* going to stand if nobody discovers and reports the issue]. > Deliberate scheduling of such boards (whether in a "Play with the > Experts" event or a variable-start time sim) is thus > vaguely compliant with the law. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 15 13:35:43 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 15 18:38:21 2006 Subject: [blml] L63B in the ACBL References: <00c201c6457e$c71250e0$189868d5@jeushtlj><010e01c64690$dd3faad0$cca987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><004d01c64698$356320a0$079868d5@jeushtlj><44171DED.6090809@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060314163306.02eb56e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001d01c64856$88fdf590$589887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L63B in the ACBL > > Whatever one's opinion of that minute, I don't > see how, if the WBF really stands by it, one > can object to writing the laws so that they express > the intent of their authors and no longer need an > obscure, unpublicized WBF minute to justify the > legality of actions that the WBF intends be legal. > +=+ I agree with the underlying philosophy of this paragraph, but not with any premise that the current law does not justify the interpretation laid upon it in the matter by the WBF. What the WBFLC established - even as long ago as under the chairmanship of Ed Theus - is that, except it be so specified, no one law is subject to another. In Eric's remarks I would simply insert the word "plainly" after "express". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 15 13:46:16 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 15 18:38:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right References: <200603131524.k2DFO5RG011764@cfa.harvard.edu> <44177CCB.6070302@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002001c64856$89e79240$589887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right > > I'm with you and Herman. Looks like an Alcatraz Coup to me. We assume > it's unintentional, but that shouldn't stop us from using L72B1 to > adjust the score. (There's also L16C: declarer's D-8 is UI to South. > But L72B1 looks simpler to me. Either way should give the same result.) > > Who designed the test problems? > +=+ My understanding is that the designer was Ton Kooijman and that he consulted the WBF CTD, maybe also others, with regard to his proposed solutions. ~ G ~ +=+ From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Mar 15 19:52:51 2006 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed Mar 15 19:53:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right References: <200603131524.k2DFO5RG011764@cfa.harvard.edu><44177CCB.6070302@cfa.harvard.edu> <002001c64856$89e79240$589887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00ac01c64861$c0f53200$c0493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> > > > > I'm with you and Herman. Looks like an Alcatraz Coup to me. We assume > > it's unintentional, but that shouldn't stop us from using L72B1 to > > adjust the score. (There's also L16C: declarer's D-8 is UI to South. > > But L72B1 looks simpler to me. Either way should give the same result.) > > > > Who designed the test problems? > > > +=+ My understanding is that the designer > was Ton Kooijman and that he consulted > the WBF CTD, maybe also others, with > regard to his proposed solutions. > According to me it happened about 20 years ago. It was a ruling and Con Holzscherer was the director. The AC just needed 10 seconds to support his decision. Ben From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 15 20:50:43 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 15 20:50:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right In-Reply-To: <00ac01c64861$c0f53200$c0493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <000601c64869$bef65b20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Ben Schelen > Sent: 15. mars 2006 19:53 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right > > > > > > > I'm with you and Herman. Looks like an Alcatraz Coup to me. We > assume > > > it's unintentional, but that shouldn't stop us from using L72B1 to > > > adjust the score. (There's also L16C: declarer's D-8 is UI to South. > > > But L72B1 looks simpler to me. Either way should give the same > result.) > > > > > > Who designed the test problems? > > > > > +=+ My understanding is that the designer > > was Ton Kooijman and that he consulted > > the WBF CTD, maybe also others, with > > regard to his proposed solutions. > > > According to me it happened about 20 years ago. > It was a ruling and Con Holzscherer was the director. > The AC just needed 10 seconds to support his decision. > > Ben Which was? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 16 01:22:50 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Mar 16 01:23:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right References: <000601c64869$bef65b20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c64890$133ca5b0$e5dd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:50 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right > > > According to me it happened about 20 years ago. > It was a ruling and Con Holzscherer was the director. > The AC just needed 10 seconds to support his decision. > > Ben (Schelen) < Which was? > +=+ In a seminar for TDs I might argue that the director would be wise to consult some first class players before ruling that there is no hand on which it is right to duck the King. Also I might be wary of any AC that spends only 10 seconds in deciding in such a case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 16 02:13:52 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 16 02:14:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Alert policy (was L63B...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801c6475d$8d7ae550$76bd87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006: >...if you read the laws all together the >indisputable intent in this matter may be >inferred... Grattan Endicott, 15th March 2006: >...What the WBFLC established - even as >long ago as under the chairmanship of Ed >Theus - is that, except it be so specified, >no one law is subject to another... Walt Whitman (1819-1892): Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu Mar 16 04:05:42 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu Mar 16 03:36:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right In-Reply-To: <000001c64890$133ca5b0$e5dd403e@Mildred> References: <000601c64869$bef65b20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c64890$133ca5b0$e5dd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4418D606.6020307@cs.elte.hu> Grattan wrote: >> According to me it happened about 20 years ago. >> It was a ruling and Con Holzscherer was the director. >> The AC just needed 10 seconds to support his decision. >> >> Ben (Schelen) > > < > Which was? > >> > +=+ In a seminar for TDs I might argue that the > director would be wise to consult some first class > players before ruling that there is no hand on which it is right to > duck the King. Also I might be wary of any AC that spends only 10 > seconds in deciding in such a case. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ Althought my opinion is just the opposite i can accept that -1 is the right decision. Of course it's not important to me whether my decision in this problem was right or not in a test 2 months ago. As a TD I'dlike to judge as similar as possible to the WBF official ruling and I'd like to know the principle which explains this decision. If the captain of the declarer's team on this board tells me that he understands that there are no reason to duck if someone thinks it over, but the opponent has a bridge problem, which he havent't solved yet without the help of the UI, and we cannot be sure he will solve it, what sell I anwser him? Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 16 04:55:01 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 16 04:54:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4418D606.6020307@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laszlo Hegedus: >>Although my opinion is just the opposite I can accept that -1 is >>the right decision. Of course it's not important to me whether my >>decision in this problem was right or not in a test 2 months ago. >>As a TD I'd like to judge as similar as possible to the WBF >>official ruling and I'd like to know the principle which explains >>this decision. >> >>If the captain of the declarer's team on this board tells me that >>he understands that there are no reason to duck if someone thinks >>it over, but the opponent has a bridge problem, which he hasn't >>solved yet without the help of the UI, and we cannot be sure he >>will solve it, how shall I answer him? Law 16C2: >For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn >action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is >unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from >among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have >been suggested over another by the unauthorised information. Richard Hills: As a result of their now-withdrawn revoke, South gained information that West would follow to a second round of diamonds. The key issue, therefore, is whether rising with the king of diamonds would have been South's sole "logical alternative" without the UI. The problem is that "logical alternative" is a misnomer; even if a duck of the king of diamonds is objectively illogical, it may subjectively remain a "logical alternative" for the actual South. The principle which explains the correct resolution of this problem is the definition of "logical alternative" in the WBF Code of Practice: "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." For me, the only logical line of defence is to immediately cash diamond winners at tricks one and two. South's actual illogical choice of a trick two trump switch could have been disastrous if the complete deal was hypothetically: Q2 JT74 93 87652 AKT763 J54 KQ A65 J8 QT6542 AKT 3 98 9832 AK7 QJ94 But since South demonstrably belongs to an illogical class of player which would false card with the DA at trick one, then fail to cash the DK at trick two, South might continue their illogic by consistently choosing a logical alternative (for them) of a duck of the king of diamonds at trick five. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 16 05:29:26 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 16 05:28:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c64890$133ca5b0$e5dd403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ben Schelen: >>According to me it happened about 20 years ago. >>It was a ruling and Con Holzscherer was the director. >>The AC just needed 10 seconds to support his decision. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ In a seminar for TDs I might argue that the >director would be wise to consult some first class >players before ruling that there is no hand on which >it is right to duck the King. Also I might be wary of >any AC that spends only 10 seconds in deciding in >such a case. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: If "about 20 years ago" means that the 1987 version of the Lawbook had not yet come into effect, so the 1975 Lawbook applied, then an AC taking only 10 seconds was appropriate in those primitive times, since "could have known" infractions did not yet exist, and the relevant 1975 Propriety stated: "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." 10 seconds was enough time for a pre-1987 AC to decide that a lucky coincidence was insufficient evidence to prove cheating via a **premeditated** infraction. Of course, the 1997 Propriety, Law 72A5, has the prefatory phrase: "Subject to Law 16C2..." Even though blmlers complain about the 1997 Lawbook, it is comforting to realise that it was a big improvement on the 1975 Lawbook. When the 2008 Lawbook appears, I confidently expect that it will continue the trend of continuous improvement. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Mar 16 05:48:18 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Mar 16 05:48:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5189CD1F-72A5-446C-82C2-39ABDA72051E@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:55 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The problem is that "logical alternative" is a misnomer; Yes, indeed. There seems to be a lot of that going around in this game. "Words mean what I want them to mean; neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 16 07:01:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 16 07:01:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 6D2: >>No result may stand ... if the deal had previously been >>played in a different session. Kojak: >the reality of this subject. Playing boards that have >been played before by intent (I.e. Play with the experts, >etc) in a duplicate fashion is not what this law is all >about. [snip] >it boggles my mind to find time and effort being expended >to dig for obscure and tortuously manufactured >applications of the Laws to make obviously silly >arguments. Richard Hills: I once participated in an Aussie "play with the experts" simultaneous pairs which used deals from World Championships of a few decades ago. Unfortunately, the organisers included the grand slam swing which decided the final of the 1980 Olympiad, and I recognised that famous deal at the table. I think it was not merely obviously silly, but also illegal, that the sponsoring organisation provided me with authorised information on that deal which less well-read players did not receive. Rather, I think that interpretations of the Lawbook which over-ride plain words such as "no result may stand" are the tortuous and obscure arguments which ignore the reality of this subject. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 16 10:52:46 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 16 10:59:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Correction and apology. Message-ID: <003301c648df$909dded0$8a9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ The following reached me privately and I have commented as shown: > You can probably expect an irate reply from Ton. > The final test questions were set by Maurizio di > Sacco. > +=+ Thank you for the correction, and my apologies to ton. I wonder with whom Maurizio consulted before settling his solutions? But I imagine, as in the past, any 'solutions' that the examiners were unhappy with would not count against the examinees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 16 12:19:42 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 16 12:58:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right References: <000601c64869$bef65b20$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c64890$133ca5b0$e5dd403e@Mildred> <4418D606.6020307@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <000201c648f0$32770690$c1a887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laszlo Hegedus" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ In a seminar for TDs I might argue that the > > director would be wise to consult some first class > > players before ruling that there is no hand on which > > it is right to duck the King. Also I might be wary > > of any AC that spends only 10 seconds in deciding > > in such a case. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > ______________________________________ > Laszlo responded: > >. As a TD I'dlike to judge as similar as possible to the > WBF official ruling and I'd like to know the principle > which explains this decision. > +=+ There are fascinating layers of considerations to contemplate in replying to such a plea. Laws Committees define the laws and their meanings. It is not the role of a legislator to make bridge judgements in applying defined law to cases; that is the role of appeals committees, as guided by standing appeals committees. Within the environment thus created a Tournament Directors' Committee has the task of giving guidance to Directors on their deportment and upon their approach to rulings and the application of law. The seminar from which this discussion arose was an EBL seminar, planned for the guidance of Directors within the European zone. It is not the case that the guidance given in Europe would necessarily be guidance applicable universally - there remain differences of philosophy and practice between zonal and national bodies, and between them and the WBF; this last aims at uniformity through persuasion but has only succeeded to an extent. Some subscribers to blml would like the WBF to attempt to impose its wishes on Zones and NBOs, but the truth is that the world is not ready for that and such an attempt would snap the strings that bind the world together. My personal opinion, even in the EBL where TDs are constantly admonished to give the 'right' ruling, in favour of the offender if that is 'right', is that the case in question cries out for consideration by an appeals committee; my advice to a director would be to apply Laws 72B1 and 83. In my view the Director would be wise to think there is a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, and wholly unwise to apply bridge judgement that there is no logical alternative to playing the King without having opinion from expert players that he could quote. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 16 16:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 16 16:27:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > I once participated in an Aussie "play with the experts" > simultaneous pairs which used deals from World > Championships of a few decades ago. Unfortunately, the > organisers included the grand slam swing which decided > the final of the 1980 Olympiad, and I recognised that > famous deal at the table. "Play with Experts" events require a degree of co-operation if they are to work. Organisers should strive to avoid famous hands but players also have a responsibility to call the TD under L16 if they have UI from recognising a hand. If the PwE is based on a specific event (as it should be IMO) with which a player is familiar then the player should recuse himself. Using a '63 Reisinger Semi in a UK event (or a '77 Gold Cup Semi in a US event) generally avoids such problems. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 16 16:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 16 16:27:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right In-Reply-To: <000001c64890$133ca5b0$e5dd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ In a seminar for TDs I might argue that the > director would be wise to consult some first class > players before ruling that there is no hand on which > it is right to duck the King. Or, (for those ruling there is no LA to the DK), as to why good players think West might not play as he did holding: AKTxxx T J Axxxx He might, in the light of the false card at trick 1, have decided there was a sneaky underlead from K9. While I'm aware he hasn't taken the most flexible line to cater to other possibilities I don't believe any declarer is entirely immune to "idee fixe" syndrome. Trying the Alcatraz saves an awful lot of thinking and will usually work unless TDs are prepared to give zero "benefit of doubt" in such situations. > Also I might be wary of > any AC that spends only 10 seconds in deciding in > such a case. Ten seconds looks about right "to decide" - assuming the TD has done a good job. A bit longer spent reading his ruling of course. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 16 16:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 16 16:27:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL In-Reply-To: <000501c6484e$ff317c80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Law 6D2 addresses all situations where a board can be known to a > player either because it was not dealt properly or because it has > been played in a previous session "anywhere in the world". Boards > happen to be commented and a player will sometimes be able to > recognize a board from having read about it in some paper etc. > I don't believe that overlapping sessions shall be considered one of > them being previous to the other for the purpose of applying L6D2. In worldwide Sims (or even US STACs) it seems likely that sessions will not overlap and an NY player could send the hand records to an SF player in the meantime (and anyway the law refers only to the board being played previously in a different session with no reference to session overlap). One might schedule a "novice event" in the afternoon session at the club and use the hands from the previous evening session (scoring separately) because one knows (and ensures) the same players won't play both sessions (and, as with sims, we ask the evening players not to relay the hands). One might play (as the YC did/does) early and late sessions scored across the field (albeit one could classify that as early and late sittings of a single session). Basically, I'm of the opinion that the law isn't addressing deliberate scheduling but the fairly common (in pre-computer dealt days) occurrence of (usualy in about the 4th round) a player saying "Ooh, I recognise this - it's the same board 12 as we played last Tuesday". At the other extreme it is possible that a deal today in London will be exactly the same as a deal played 4 years ago in, say, Sydney. Maybe, technically, no result on that deal may stand - but how the hell does the TD know/check? "Play with Experts" events aren't something I feel strongly about. If one SO decides they are illegal and another decides they are legal that's fine by me. If the EBU decides (retrospectively) that they are illegal I will face the loss of the 13 local points I once won in such an event with equanimity. Tim From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 16 20:17:31 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Mar 16 20:17:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right References: <000601c64869$bef65b20$6400a8c0@WINXP><000001c64890$133ca5b0$e5dd403e@Mildred> <4418D606.6020307@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <005b01c6492e$459f5130$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laszlo Hegedus" Cc: "blml" <> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ruling questions #1 - revokers' and claimers' right > Grattan wrote: > >>> According to me it happened about 20 years ago. >>> It was a ruling and Con Holzscherer was the director. >>> The AC just needed 10 seconds to support his decision. the relevant point on this ruling is that if declarer started with a singleton you should duck and kill the long suit in dummy, and if he has a doubleton you must take the Ace. Partner's opening lead in the suit was murky (which is why you switched at trick 2), when you'd grabbed the King and switched and it's now decision time. Declarer had worked hard to give you a problem and had entered dummy in order to lead to hand. look guys, this is an Alcatraz and if it takes a panel of experts 15 minutes to work out there's no bridge reason for ducking, then that's entirely irrelevant. Players do not spend 15 minutes at the table working out what's correct. They just make mistakes. I don't mind what intent the player had, he's solved his problem by revoking and that's what a cheat would do. He can take it to appeal and argue the case with the AC, but that'll be after I've briefed the AC on what an Alcatraz is, and why it applies here. One of the simulations was very similar: Opps play strong and 5 and the bidding goes 1S on your left, splinter, rolling keycard walpurgis checkback and they end up in 6S with 5 trumps in dummy. Your spade holding is Kxx. Pard cashes the Ace of the splinter suit and continues with the King. When declarer leads a spade off deck it's obviouis to play both small spades together. Any competent declarer will now play for the drop. This is another version of the same thing. Once again I'll brief the AC. John >>> >>> Ben (Schelen) >> >> < >> Which was? >> >>> >> +=+ In a seminar for TDs I might argue that the >> director would be wise to consult some first class >> players before ruling that there is no hand on which it is right to duck >> the King. Also I might be wary of any AC that spends only 10 seconds in >> deciding in such a case. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > > Althought my opinion is just the opposite i can accept that -1 is the > right decision. Of course it's not important to me whether my decision in > this problem was right or not in a test 2 months ago. As a TD I'dlike to > judge as similar as possible to the WBF official ruling and I'd like to > know the principle which explains this decision. > If the captain of the declarer's team on this board tells me that he > understands that there are no reason to duck if someone thinks it over, > but the opponent has a bridge problem, which he havent't solved yet > without the help of the UI, and we cannot be sure he will solve it, what > sell I anwser him? > > Laci > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a > FreeStarttol > Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu Mar 16 21:40:58 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu Mar 16 21:11:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Correction and apology. In-Reply-To: <003301c648df$909dded0$8a9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <003301c648df$909dded0$8a9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4419CD5A.40804@cs.elte.hu> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > But I imagine, as in the past, any 'solutions' that >the examiners were unhappy with would not count against >the examinees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I'm quite sure in it. My quetion is not about the examination but a ruling problem --- which currently was in the final test in Telecitta. Anyway thanks all the comments on the blml to my question but I have still not got the anwser. :( Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Mar 17 01:42:11 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri Mar 17 01:42:32 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? Message-ID: <008601c6495b$a2356e20$6400a8c0@rota> As dealer, you hold QJTxx AKx Ax Qxx, and drop the SQ on the table, barring partner for one round, what is your call? Both 1S and 4S are logical alternatives, and you might choose either. (If you don't agree that both are logical alternatives, add or subtract a few points as appropriate.) Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. You have the AI that partner is barred for one round, but you also have the UI that partner has less than an opening bid and thus 4S is less likely to make. Must you bid 4S? This seems to be an unusually harsh penalty because of Law 16C; not only are you forced to guess the correct bid, but you are not allowed to make the most likely correct guess. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 17 09:44:35 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Mar 17 09:39:39 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <008601c6495b$a2356e20$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060317093227.02879a50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:42 16/03/2006 -0500, you wrote: >As dealer, you hold QJTxx AKx Ax Qxx, and drop the SQ on the table, >barring partner for one round, what is your call? Both 1S and 4S are >logical alternatives, and you might choose either. (If you don't agree >that both are logical alternatives, add or subtract a few points as >appropriate.) I'd say 1NT and 3NT are other alternatives ; I would choose 1NT ; after all, most compatriots would open this 1NT. >Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. You have the >AI that partner is barred for one round, but you also have the UI that >partner has less than an opening bid and thus 4S is less likely to make. >Must you bid 4S? No, because when you have paid the penalty for some infraction (here, your partner's forced pass), you are allowed to bid and play otherwise to the best of your interests. Where did I put TFLB ? Is that L72 ? And it has been said before that partner's being barred is AI. Also, I would ask the question with a slightly stronger hand (say 18). Here, 4S is too wild a gamble, and few would bid it. BTA, when you have 18, partner's average count when he passes is not that much lower than when he didn't. Hence, marginal UI only. One last point : a guy who is under influence of a flying cow, so large that he can't see who dealt, can't be relied on when he says he hasn't got opening bid values. From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 17 10:16:29 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 17 10:16:40 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060317093227.02879a50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c649a3$79e4ea20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............ > >Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. > >You have the AI that partner is barred for one round, but you > >also have the UI that partner has less than an opening bid and > >thus 4S is less likely to make. Must you bid 4S? > > > > No, because when you have paid the penalty for some infraction > (here, your partner's forced pass), you are allowed to bid and > play otherwise to the best of your interests. I think you overlooked the point: Although the fact that partner is forced to pass once is AI the fact that his withdrawn call was a pass is not. You are not allowed to base your selection of an action (in part) on this knowledge. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 17 10:19:08 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 17 10:19:19 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <008601c6495b$a2356e20$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <000201c649a3$d8d989f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Grabiner > As dealer, you hold QJTxx AKx Ax Qxx, and drop the SQ on the table, > barring > partner for one round, what is your call? Both 1S and 4S are logical > alternatives, and you might choose either. (If you don't agree that both > are logical alternatives, add or subtract a few points as appropriate.) > > Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. You have the > AI that partner is barred for one round, but you also have the UI that > partner has less than an opening bid and thus 4S is less likely to make. > Must you bid 4S? > > This seems to be an unusually harsh penalty because of Law 16C; not only > are you forced to guess the correct bid, but you are not allowed to make > the most likely correct guess. The difference between the two cases is that in the last case you have extra information about your partner's hand and this information is clearly UI to you. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 17 11:16:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Mar 17 11:16:34 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060317093227.02879a50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > At 19:42 16/03/2006 -0500, you wrote: > >As dealer, you hold QJTxx AKx Ax Qxx, and drop the SQ on the table, > >barring partner for one round, what is your call? Both 1S and 4S > are >logical alternatives, and you might choose either. (If you > don't agree >that both are logical alternatives, add or subtract a > few points as >appropriate.) > > I'd say 1NT and 3NT are other alternatives ; I would choose 1NT ; > after all, most compatriots would open this 1NT. I'd agree NT contracts were LAs, my actual choice would probably depend on the state of the match. > >Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. You > have the >AI that partner is barred for one round, but you also have > the UI that >partner has less than an opening bid and thus 4S is less > likely to make. >Must you bid 4S? > > No, because when you have paid the penalty for some infraction (here, > your partner's forced pass), you are allowed to bid and play > otherwise to the best of your interests. Where did I put TFLB ? Is > that L72 ? L2A5: 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. > And it has been said before that partner's being barred is AI. Partner's being barred for one round is AI but clearly one has UI from the withdrawn POOT. The question remains as to whether one can deduce, solely from the AI, that partner is unlikely to have opening values, or, put another way, could partner have been barred for one round for any irregularity apart from an unaccepted POOT? IMO it is AI to a player that *he* has not infracted L24B/C so I *think* the answer is that the POOT is deducible (may have missed something though). Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 17 12:16:56 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 17 12:17:07 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c649b4$4d6bf720$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > Partner's being barred for one round is AI but clearly one has UI from > the withdrawn POOT. The question remains as to whether one can deduce, > solely from the AI, that partner is unlikely to have opening values, or, > put another way, could partner have been barred for one round for any > irregularity apart from an unaccepted POOT? > IMO it is AI to a player that *he* has not infracted L24B/C so I *think* > the answer is that the POOT is deducible (may have missed something > though). The fact that partner is subject to a penalty forcing him to pass one round is AI as is the fact that the reason for this penalty was a call out of turn. But the fact that his withdrawn call was a pass is UI except when it is obvious from the legal calls made so far that he cannot have values for any other call. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Mar 17 15:38:25 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Mar 17 15:43:32 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? References: <000101c649a3$79e4ea20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002d01c649d0$73ad4bc0$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > I think you overlooked the point: > Although the fact that partner is forced > to pass once is AI the fact that his > withdrawn call was a pass is not. [nige1] IMO Sven is right once more. But so what? Again and again, such legal subtleties seem to be beyond even seasoned BLMLers. So what chance has an ordinary player to understand and comply? And again, the solution is so breathtakingly simple that the sophists among the law-makers are likely to block it: Authorise the information from infractions to offenders and non-offenders alike but adjust the penalties to compensate the latter. Of course, sometimes, this would entail also having to scrap the board -- but, IMO, in many cases this would be the fairest course of action, anyway. If, in the context of Bridge-rules, "Equity" is defined as "restoring the status quo", then I realise that this suggestion is another stage in consigning that weird concept to the dustbin. Players like me would say "good-riddance". From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 17 16:53:53 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 17 16:54:09 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <002d01c649d0$73ad4bc0$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c649da$fe17d230$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > > I think you overlooked the point: > > Although the fact that partner is forced > > to pass once is AI the fact that his > > withdrawn call was a pass is not. > > [nige1] > IMO Sven is right once more. But so what? Again > and again, such legal subtleties seem to be beyond > even seasoned BLMLers. So what chance has an > ordinary player to understand and comply? > > And again, the solution is so breathtakingly > simple that the sophists among the law-makers are > likely to block it: > > Authorise the information from infractions to > offenders and non-offenders alike but adjust the > penalties to compensate the latter. Of course, > sometimes, this would entail also having to scrap > the board -- but, IMO, in many cases this would be > the fairest course of action, anyway. Your "solution" confuses me (for one). If the information were AI then there would be no legal foundation for adjustment. As it is today we (Directors) must be aware of the fact that UI is present, preferably warn offender's partner that he is under restrictions not to make any use of that UI, and stand ready to adjust if we find that UI has been used. Specifically for an opening pass out of turn I really do not see what the penalty ought to be if we were to authorize all information arisen from the infraction. Maybe offender should be left free to make whatever call he wants and his partner forced to pass for the rest of the auction? (As is the case for almost all out of turn calls other than pass.) Frankly I consider the present law better for all parties (including the Director). Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Mar 17 17:40:51 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Mar 17 17:46:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Correction and apology. References: <003301c648df$909dded0$8a9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4419CD5A.40804@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <000901c649e1$aa81f270$8abf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laszlo Hegedus" To: Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Correction and apology. > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > But I imagine, as in the past, any 'solutions' that > >the examiners were unhappy with would not > >count against the examinees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > I'm quite sure in it. My quetion is not about the > examination but a ruling problem --- which currently > was in the final test in Telecitta. Anyway thanks all > the comments on the blml to my question but I have > still not got the anwser. :( > Laci > +=+ You may have been asking the impossible, Laszlo. I gave as much of a reply as I could: "My personal opinion, even in the EBL where TDs are constantly admonished to give the 'right' ruling, in favour of the offender if that is 'right', is that the case in question cries out for consideration by an appeals committee; my advice to a director would be to apply Laws 72B1 and 83. In my view the Director would be wise to think there is a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, and wholly unwise to apply bridge judgement that there is no logical alternative to playing the King without having opinion from expert players that he could quote." There is no absolute answer in a case of this kind. The question is: when faced with such a case what should the TD do about it? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 17 19:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Mar 17 19:11:00 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <000401c649b4$4d6bf720$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > The fact that partner is subject to a penalty forcing him to pass one > round is AI as is the fact that the reason for this penalty was a > call out of turn. That isn't so is it? Surely if the call out of rotation was a bid/x/xx partner would be barred *throughout* and not merely for one round. It is the uniqueness of the penalty that allows one to deduce, based purely on logic, knowledge of the laws, and the AI that it is only a 1 round bar, that pard POOTed. Supposing, for a moment, that a player has been carted off after hearing the TD's ruling and going into shock. You are called in to replace him. There are no cards face up on the table, you are informed that your partner is barred for one round. What are the logical possibilities? What UI do *you* have? The alternative, it seems to me, is to advise any player whose pard has POOTed that they should punt game on any decent hand (because that would *always* be an LA in the analogous L24 situation). OK, one doesn't have to advise but one *will* adjust if they don't punt and game goes off. That makes the penalty for a POOT way too harsh IMO. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 17 20:15:25 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Mar 17 20:15:43 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <002d01c649d0$73ad4bc0$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <000101c649a3$79e4ea20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <002d01c649d0$73ad4bc0$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Sven Pran] >> I think you overlooked the point: >> Although the fact that partner is forced >> to pass once is AI the fact that his >> withdrawn call was a pass is not. > > [nige1] > IMO Sven is right once more. But so what? Again > and again, such legal subtleties seem to be beyond > even seasoned BLMLers. So what chance has an > ordinary player to understand and comply? > > And again, the solution is so breathtakingly > simple that the sophists among the law-makers are > likely to block it: > > Authorise the information from infractions to > offenders and non-offenders alike but adjust the > penalties to compensate the latter. Of course, > sometimes, this would entail also having to scrap > the board -- but, IMO, in many cases this would be > the fairest course of action, anyway. > > If, in the context of Bridge-rules, "Equity" is > defined as "restoring the status quo", then I > realise that this suggestion is another stage in > consigning that weird concept to the dustbin. > > Players like me would say "good-riddance". Nigel takes yet another opportunity to ignore the question before us* and present, for the 4,963rd time, his agenda for changes to the laws. :-( *That question being "given the laws as they are now, how do we handle this?" From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 17 20:47:52 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Mar 17 20:48:07 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64291F71-C944-4CBB-8FFF-1519EC66710C@rochester.rr.com> I'm with Tim here, I think. I might go further: while your partnership's infraction may sometimes put you between a rock and a hard place, that in itself is IMO well within the spirit of the game. But when your side pays a penalty for that infraction, and you are *still* stuck between Scylla and Charybdis, it seems grossly unfair to me if the situation is such that you're screwed *whatever* direction you choose to go. That said, it seems to me that Law 72A5 provides that there is no restriction on opener's choice of call, "subject to Law 16C2", as the former law explicitly says. So what of the latter law? It says: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information." Question: is the POOT in this case a withdrawn action? What actually happened (and will always happen within the laws) is that POOTer's RHO was given the opportunity to accept the POOT, he declined to do so, and the director, IAW Law 29B, cancelled the POOT. "Cancelled" is not quite the same as "withdrawn", according to my dictionary. I note that Law 26 starts with "When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call for that turn..." This seems to confirm my opinion that a withdrawn call is one that a player "pulls back", when he still has a choice as to his call for that turn. However, as we've seen before, Humpty Dumpty is an influential member of most, if not all, bridge laws committees. :-) If a call cancelled by the laws is not a "withdrawn call", then Law 16C2 does not apply, and opener can do whatever he likes. If it is a withdrawn call, and Law 16C2 does apply, then if 1S and 4S are LAs, or 1S, 4S, 1NT and 3NT, and the information conveyed by the POOT is that partner does not have an opening hand, then since opener has a 16 HCP, six loser hand, that information clearly suggests that opener should *not* try game. Therefor he *must* try game - and probably go down. And in the event he makes it, the opponents will *still* howl. :-( This is "fair"? This is "equity"? I sincerely doubt it. To the first person who replies "of course it's a withdrawn call!": I invite you to think about it before you make that assertion, because if you do make it, my next comment will be "Okay. Prove it." And if you don't, won't or can't, then I will take from this thread that a cancelled call is *not* a withdrawn call in these laws, and rule accordingly in future. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 17 21:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Mar 17 21:40:27 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <200603171904.k2HJ4inC001943@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Hi, Tim. L24? David G. mentioned that one in his original post. I intended, with the "there are no cards face up on the table", that a law-knowledgeable person could exclude L24 by deduction. The other way of looking at it is that I believe it is AI to any player that he has *not* infracted L24 (assuming he hasn't). I would not dispute that if a player has dropped an honour face up at about the same time his partner has POOTed he cannot draw the same inferences. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 17 21:42:41 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 17 21:42:54 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c64a03$560c93e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > The fact that partner is subject to a penalty forcing him to pass one > > round is AI as is the fact that the reason for this penalty was a > > call out of turn. > > That isn't so is it? Surely if the call out of rotation was a bid/x/xx > partner would be barred *throughout* and not merely for one round. > > It is the uniqueness of the penalty that allows one to deduce, based > purely on logic, knowledge of the laws, and the AI that it is only a 1 > round bar, that pard POOTed. Supposing, for a moment, that a player has > been carted off after hearing the TD's ruling and going into shock. You > are called in to replace him. There are no cards face up on the table, > you are informed that your partner is barred for one round. What are > the logical possibilities? What UI do *you* have? > > The alternative, it seems to me, is to advise any player whose pard has > POOTed that they should punt game on any decent hand (because that would > *always* be an LA in the analogous L24 situation). OK, one doesn't have > to advise but one *will* adjust if they don't punt and game goes off. > That makes the penalty for a POOT way too harsh IMO. Sorry Tim, the important fact is that when the offender's partner is about to make his initial call he has information that he should not have had at this time: The offender does not have a hand that justifies an opening bid at any level (weak, normal or strong). THIS information is not authorized to him and he must select his first call without taking any advantage of that information. May I remind you of the leading clause in Law 16: Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls ands or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. I and I believe most directors grant the offender's partner the privilege of taking into account the knowledge that his partner must pass at his first legal opportunity, but even this practice can be questioned as it is not derived from one or more legal calls. But the limitations of the offender's hand indicated by his illegal and withdrawn call are definitely not authorized information for the offender's partner. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 17 22:20:12 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Mar 17 22:20:27 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <64291F71-C944-4CBB-8FFF-1519EC66710C@rochester.rr.com> References: <64291F71-C944-4CBB-8FFF-1519EC66710C@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3803F23E-586B-442C-BDDE-C6AA2396C2F9@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > POOTer's RHO was given the opportunity to accept the POOT Sorry. LHO. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Mar 17 22:21:23 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Mar 17 22:21:38 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <000201c64a03$560c93e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c64a03$560c93e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <841A7A18-7BEA-4247-BC76-41E6887959B5@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 17, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > infraction of law. Yes, it may. Then again it may not. From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 17 22:23:36 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Mar 17 22:23:49 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <64291F71-C944-4CBB-8FFF-1519EC66710C@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c64a09$0d9e3130$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ............. > That said, it seems to me that Law 72A5 provides that there is no > restriction on opener's choice of call, "subject to Law 16C2", as the > former law explicitly says. So what of the latter law? It says: In my book L72A5 begins with the words: "Subject to Law 16C2," WTP? > "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn > action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is > unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from > among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the unauthorized information." > > Question: is the POOT in this case a withdrawn action? What actually > happened (and will always happen within the laws) is that POOTer's > RHO was given the opportunity to accept the POOT, he declined to do > so, and the director, IAW Law 29B, cancelled the POOT. "Cancelled" is > not quite the same as "withdrawn", according to my dictionary. I note > that Law 26 starts with "When an offending player's call is > withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call for that turn..." > This seems to confirm my opinion that a withdrawn call is one that a > player "pulls back", when he still has a choice as to his call for > that turn. However, as we've seen before, Humpty Dumpty is an > influential member of most, if not all, bridge laws committees. :-) This is a too narrow understanding of the laws. The player does not necessarily withdraw an action on his own free will; it is still a withdrawn action if he is required by law to withdraw it (e.g. the action is cancelled by law). And when Law 26 uses the words: "and he chooses a different final call for that turn" this law applies also when the _final_ call replaces a call withdrawn (cancelled) because it was made out of turn and not accepted by the offender's LHO. > > If a call cancelled by the laws is not a "withdrawn call", then Law > 16C2 does not apply, and opener can do whatever he likes. If it is a > withdrawn call, and Law 16C2 does apply, then if 1S and 4S are LAs, > or 1S, 4S, 1NT and 3NT, and the information conveyed by the POOT is > that partner does not have an opening hand, then since opener has a > 16 HCP, six loser hand, that information clearly suggests that opener > should *not* try game. Therefor he *must* try game - and probably go > down. And in the event he makes it, the opponents will *still* > howl. :-( This is "fair"? This is "equity"? I sincerely doubt it. Holding an opening hand with 16 HCP and six losers still leaves a significant probability that your side does _not_ make game. I guess the chances are about fifty-fifty so I see no reason to rule neither against a player who in this situation gambles 3 NT nor against the player who just bids 1 NT. I have yet to experience a player in such a situation gambling a pass but might rule that he probably has made use of the UI that partner is weak. > > To the first person who replies "of course it's a withdrawn call!": I > invite you to think about it before you make that assertion, because > if you do make it, my next comment will be "Okay. Prove it." And if > you don't, won't or can't, then I will take from this thread that a > cancelled call is *not* a withdrawn call in these laws, and rule > accordingly in future. I don't know what evidence you want, I have given my reasons for stating that yes, withdrawn actions include actions that a player is forced by law to withdraw. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 17 22:42:32 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Mar 17 22:41:54 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <008601c6495b$a2356e20$6400a8c0@rota> References: <008601c6495b$a2356e20$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060317162206.02aa2650@pop.starpower.net> At 07:42 PM 3/16/06, David wrote: >As dealer, you hold QJTxx AKx Ax Qxx, and drop the SQ on the table, >barring partner for one round, what is your call? Both 1S and 4S are >logical alternatives, and you might choose either. (If you don't >agree that both are logical alternatives, add or subtract a few points >as appropriate.) > >Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. You have >the AI that partner is barred for one round, but you also have the UI >that partner has less than an opening bid and thus 4S is less likely >to make. Must you bid 4S? I wouldn't think so. You have UI, but what does it suggest? You have 16 HCP, so partner's expected count is about 8 HCP. As you're going to base your guess as to what to bid on that calculation in any case, it won't be affected by the knowledge that he has less than 13 HCP. For the expected value of partner's hand to be enough to have opened in first seat, you would need to hold no more than about 3 HCP, in which case you'd presumably be passing in any case, making the UI still irrelevant. Looked at from another angle, partner's POOT doesn't preclude his having the values to make a game, but it does mean that he can't have enough for slam. So if you believe that it's not sufficient to simply disregard the UI, but that you must take an action that is counter-indicated by it, you would have to bid 6S rather than 4S. Personally, if I were punting on this hand, I'd choose notrump rather than spades, but that doesn't affect David's question. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Fri Mar 17 22:57:40 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Mar 17 22:57:52 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:42:32 EST." <6.1.1.1.0.20060317162206.02aa2650@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200603172154.NAA30070@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:42 PM 3/16/06, David wrote: > > >As dealer, you hold QJTxx AKx Ax Qxx, and drop the SQ on the table, > >barring partner for one round, what is your call? Both 1S and 4S are > >logical alternatives, and you might choose either. (If you don't > >agree that both are logical alternatives, add or subtract a few points > >as appropriate.) > > > >Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. You have > >the AI that partner is barred for one round, but you also have the UI > >that partner has less than an opening bid and thus 4S is less likely > >to make. Must you bid 4S? > Looked at from another angle, partner's POOT doesn't preclude his > having the values to make a game, but it does mean that he can't have > enough for slam. So if you believe that it's not sufficient to simply > disregard the UI, but that you must take an action that is > counter-indicated by it, you would have to bid 6S rather than 4S. Fortunately, the Laws don't require that you choose an illogical alternative (or, in this case, a completely insane alternative) in order to take a counter-indicated action. Opening 6S would be totally insane even if partner hadn't given any info before he was barred, as in the first scenario, so it can't be required in the second. > Personally, if I were punting on this hand, I'd choose notrump rather > than spades, but that doesn't affect David's question. Yep, one of my first thoughts was to shoot out 3NT. If we can agree that 3NT is a possibility, then maybe we should apply Hamman's law and choose it. Does Hamman's Law qualify as one of the Laws that the Bridge Laws Discussion List is supposed to discuss? Anyway, I'm a little put off by the fact that my long suit is missing the ace-king, which I think makes it more likely that they can set up five before we can set up nine in notrump if partner has neither honor. But missing those two honors can sometimes cause problems for spade contracts too. I dunno. -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 18 00:50:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Mar 18 00:51:01 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <000201c64a03$560c93e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > May I remind you of the leading clause in Law 16: Players are > authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal > calls ands or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a > call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of > law. Which was the subject of a long and bitter debate recently. I am of the opinion that a ruling given by the TD, and the laws themselves are both AI to the player. I don't believe the "mechanical" penalties are workable in any other way. Do we really think we can say that a "take-out" double is a logical alternative for a player who knows his partner is barred? It's only a "may" in that paragraph. When I rule I allow players to take into account mechanical restrictions on partner, explanations or pauses by opponents (a pause is not a "mannerism" according to the dictionaries), the state of the match, opps system (even if they have not yet bid) and various other things (authorised implicitly or explicitly elsewhere in the laws). Thus AI includes (IMO) Pard is barred for 1 round You have not infracted L24 The only (other) infraction for which a 1 round bar is the penalty is a POOT. My belief is that penalties which combine mechanical and UI restrictions are a total nightmare. If laws just said (of revokes, POots/Boots etc) "Automatic 5% fine (or transfer to opps score), take it back, all information is UI to OS and AI to NOS, play on and call me back at the end just in case I need to redress damage" they'd be shorter, simpler, and a damn sight easier to administer. (Feel free to substitute 3/10/20% if you wish - as long as it is standard for any given offence). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 18 00:50:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Mar 18 00:51:04 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <200603172135.k2HLZhHB021871@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > I intended, with the "there are no cards face up on the table", > > that a law-knowledgeable person could exclude L24 by deduction. > > Hi, Tim. OK. It all comes down to Ed's question: is partner's "I > have less than an opening bid" AI or UI. I think I probably covered the same ground in my reply to Sven, but it depends on what we include in "AI". *I* think players are not only allowed to base decisions on the laws but required to do so (After an unopposed 1S-2S-3C-3S it is crystal clear to me that only "the laws" prevent 2S from being the standout bid). Similarly I regard the game as unplayable if players are required to bid as if in ignorance of a TD ruling. (Particularly TD rulings like "You must pass at your next turn to call"). Which brings me back to the player suddenly teleported in to the situation. If he can legally deduce what partner did then it would seem (to me) "illogical" that a non-teleported player cannot. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Mar 18 03:19:22 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Mar 18 03:24:29 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? References: <000101c649a3$79e4ea20$6400a8c0@WINXP><002d01c649d0$73ad4bc0$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002901c64a32$5f6f7cc0$069468d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > Nigel takes yet another opportunity to > ignore the question before us* and present, > for the 4,963rd time, his agenda for changes > to the laws. :-( [nige1] I'm afraid that you are mistaken, again, Ed. I almost always give my verdict FWIW. In this case, as usual, I voted with Sven. Ed may be right however, that BLML opinion has been split on a 4,963 other rulings about cases with undisputed facts. If BlMLers cannot agree on the interpretation of so many Bridge rules, what hope have we would-be players to understand and comply with laws of the game. All these legal controversies amuse BLMers but players would just prefer simpler clearer laws. As a player, I make no secret of that agenda. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 18 06:01:22 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Mar 18 06:01:40 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <000301c64a09$0d9e3130$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c64a09$0d9e3130$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mar 17, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I don't know what evidence you want, I have given my reasons for > stating > that yes, withdrawn actions include actions that a player is forced > by law > to withdraw. I made an argument on the basis of differing meanings for the words "cancelled" and "withdrawn". In addressing that, you have asserted that they mean the same thing (and perhaps they do), and as "proof" you offer... the assertion that they are the same thing. Can you not see what's wrong with this picture? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 18 06:19:13 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Mar 18 06:19:28 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <002901c64a32$5f6f7cc0$069468d5@jeushtlj> References: <000101c649a3$79e4ea20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <002d01c649d0$73ad4bc0$1d9468d5@jeushtlj> <002901c64a32$5f6f7cc0$069468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:19 PM, Guthrie wrote: > All these legal controversies amuse BLMers but > players would just prefer simpler clearer laws. As > a player, I make no secret of that agenda. I do a hell of a lot more playing than I do directing. Wearing either hat, I would prefer clear, unambigous laws. Mr. Kaplan apparently did not - and he had a bigger stick in this then I will ever have. In any case, we have the laws we have, and as players and as directors, we must deal with them. In that, what I (or anyone else) would *prefer* is irrelevant. In a thread about how to deal with a situation under current law, that irrelevancy is a distraction, at least. If you want to start a separate thread discussing what's wrong with the laws involved here, and how to fix them, that's fine by me - but we've heard your general "the laws are fubar" a thousand times already. We don't - or at least *I* don't - need yet another digression into that morass detracting from answering the original questions. My opinion. YMMV. Regards, Ed From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 18 09:01:08 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Mar 18 09:01:22 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c64a62$1d664590$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Mar 17, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I don't know what evidence you want, I have given my > > reasons for stating that yes, withdrawn actions > > include actions that a player is forced by law > > to withdraw. > > I made an argument on the basis of differing meanings for the words > "cancelled" and "withdrawn". In addressing that, you have asserted > that they mean the same thing (and perhaps they do), and as "proof" > you offer... the assertion that they are the same thing. Can you not > see what's wrong with this picture? No! (A cancelled action is a subset of a withdrawn action) The way I understand the laws a player can (try to) withdraw an action at his own will (see for instance laws 21B, 25, 47C, 47D and 47E) and he can be forced by law to withdraw his action (see Laws 27B, 29B, 36 through 39, 45D, 47A and 47B). Common to all those cases is that an action as such is "withdrawn" whether the withdrawal is voluntarily or forced. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Mar 18 11:44:00 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat Mar 18 11:39:07 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <000101c649e0$c7b333f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060317171809.02103380@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318114122.02084080@pop.ulb.ac.be> > > >We do not bother with "proving" that UI was an element, we just rule whether >it could have been influencing the choice of action. And that's the problem. Since "it could" is something quite elastic, we will decide against him in cases where the gamble is quite wrong according to most, and that means he will be virtually forced to make absurd gambles or be penalized. If that is how the rules are interpreted, please change the rules. Best regards Alain From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Mar 18 12:33:51 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Mar 18 12:31:15 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations Message-ID: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> Two weeks ago a group of duthc juniors visited Antwerp. They played a club tournament in my club on saturday and a larger tournament on sunday. I was director at both. On saturday, I was also playing, and a pair arrived at my table, and asked what system we were playing. When we told them it was 5-card majors, diamonds-4, they produced a system page with their defences against our (2-card) 1club opening. Sadly, I had to put them straight. Belgian system regulations are different from dutch ones, in that the 2-card 1Cl opener is NOT considered conventional, so special defences against it remain brown sticker, and hence not allowed in the saturday tournament. Then on sunday, the same pair approached me again. The conditions for that tournament (students being what they are) allowed brown sticker conventions. OK, I said, no problem then for your using your special defences. BUT, I said, If you want to play this system, and you do so in Holland only over 2-card clubs, because it would be brown otherwise, then logically, if brown systems are allowed, you should be wanting to do it against any clubs. So I _ordered_ them to play the same defences against 2-card clubs AND 3-card clubs. That way, I also re-equalized the problems for the different Belgians. They use better minor or diamonds-4 without much problems, since in Belgium, both are treated the same way. I did not wish to introduce a difference because a pair who played 2-card clubs would be worse off (having to face BS) than one who played better minor. Have you ever instructed a pair to change their system to an even more brown one? I have now! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Mar 18 12:54:19 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Mar 18 12:59:30 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c64a82$b1be9920$069468d5@jeushtlj> [Herman De Wael] > ... they produced a system page with their > defences against our (2-card) 1club opening. > Sadly, I had to put them straight. Belgian > system regulations are different from dutch > ones, in that the 2-card 1Cl opener is NOT > considered conventional, so special defences > against it remain brown sticker, and hence > not allowed in the saturday tournament. > Then on sunday, the same pair approached me > again. The conditions for that tournament > (students being what they are) allowed brown > sticker conventions. OK, I said, no problem then for your using your special defences. > BUT, I said, If you want to play this system, > and you do so in Holland only over 2-card > clubs, because it would be brown otherwise, > then logically, if brown systems are allowed, > you should be wanting to do it against any > clubs. So I _ordered_ them to play the same > defences against 2-card clubs AND 3-card > clubs. [nige1] I presume what Herman did was legal; although in the second case even that seems doubtful; anyway it does seem immoral. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 18 14:03:57 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Mar 18 14:04:13 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <000d01c64a82$b1be9920$069468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: >From: "Guthrie" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations >Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:54:19 -0000 > >[Herman De Wael] > > ... they produced a system page with their > > defences against our (2-card) 1club opening. > > Sadly, I had to put them straight. Belgian > > system regulations are different from dutch > > ones, in that the 2-card 1Cl opener is NOT > > considered conventional, so special defences > > against it remain brown sticker, and hence > > not allowed in the saturday tournament. > > > Then on sunday, the same pair approached me > > again. The conditions for that tournament > > (students being what they are) allowed brown > > sticker conventions. OK, I said, no problem then >for your using your special defences. > > BUT, I said, If you want to play this system, > > and you do so in Holland only over 2-card > > clubs, because it would be brown otherwise, > > then logically, if brown systems are allowed, > > you should be wanting to do it against any > > clubs. So I _ordered_ them to play the same > > defences against 2-card clubs AND 3-card > > clubs. > >[nige1] >I presume what Herman did was legal; although in >the second case even that seems doubtful; anyway >it does seem immoral. A few days ago LHO pulled RHO’s cards from the board, in the process turning over the HK. She asks what should be done. I replied that I believed that the law specified that an artificial score is to be awarded. I further mentioned that I had the book out in the car. They said, ’go ahead and get it.’ We read the applicable law [16] which provided three options the only applicable one was to assign an artificial score. LHO and RHO know that that the director will give a cheating ruling and they knew what that cheating ruling would be. They summoned the director and he ruled that there would be no problem playing the board and there was no UI. regards roger pewick From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Mar 18 14:50:45 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Mar 18 14:48:09 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 12:33 18/03/2006 +0100, you wrote: > > > >> BUT, I said, If you want to play this system, and you do so in Holland >> only over 2-card clubs, because it would be brown otherwise, then >> logically, if brown systems are allowed, you should be wanting to do >> it against any clubs. >> >> So I _ordered_ them to play the same defences against 2-card clubs >> AND 3-card clubs. > > > I don't see why. If they play "better minor " (especially if they don't > systematically open 1C on 33, but genuine "better" minor), you won't be > eager to show various hand types including clubs. There is an objective > difference. > But it is a small one. Surely even they realize that a 1-club opening, even when _possible_ on 4432, contains 3 cards clubs more than 95% of the time (or an even larger number). So if they want to use a method against that kind of opening, why not against every opening that can contain only 3 clubs? >> That way, I also re-equalized the problems for the different >> Belgians. They use better minor or diamonds-4 without much problems, >> since in Belgium, both are treated the same way. >> I did not wish to introduce a difference because a pair who played >> 2-card clubs would be worse off (having to face BS) than one who >> played better minor. > > > IBTD. If you play "better minor", you have some additional problems both > in constructyive bidding (after 1D-2C) and competitive bidding (do yuo > raise partner's diamonds ?). I have never seen those additional problems. It often happens to me that 3/4 through the tournament I still don't know (or have forgotten) whether we are playing diamonds-4 or better minor. I never encounter problems and I always leave it up to partner to choose which one we shall be playing. If in Holland, I shall always choose better minor, in order to not have to deal with the possibility of BS defences. > The tradeoff is that you avoid their intricated defenses. No need to > equalize whatsoever. > I don't see that as a trade-off. And even if such a trade-off exists in Holland, it does not exist in Belgium, and our pairs have not been warned that they might have see a different defence depending on what system they play. So I thought I should equalize that. The alternative being that I should order the dutch pair to announce at the start of each round "we are playing this against 2-card clubs and that against 3-card clubs, do you wish to change yuour system for this round?". > That seems to be the Dutch Federation's official position, and it holds > together quite well. > That's not my problem. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Mar 18 14:51:37 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Mar 18 14:49:09 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <000d01c64a82$b1be9920$069468d5@jeushtlj> References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> <000d01c64a82$b1be9920$069468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <441C1069.1070905@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > > [nige1] > I presume what Herman did was legal; although in > the second case even that seems doubtful; anyway > it does seem immoral. > Why? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Mar 18 14:27:41 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Sat Mar 18 15:19:45 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <1FKbT3-0tr7wG0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Hello Herman, > BUT, I said, If you want to play this system, and you > do so in Holland only over 2-card clubs, because it > would be brown otherwise, then logically, if brown > systems are allowed, you should be wanting to do > it against any clubs. > > So I _ordered_ them to play the same defences > against 2-card clubs AND ?3-card clubs. Sorry, but I have the strong feeling, this _order_ to be somewhat hubristic. I do not know the Belgian regulations, but i doubt that the TD in Belgium has the power to do so. If a pair wants to play a special defence against 2+ clubs they do not automatically want to play the same defence against 3+ clubs. That Belgian regulations classify both 3+ and 2+ club-openings as 'natural' and furthermore any 'special' (= artificial) defence against both of them as Brown Sticker, does not force any pair to produce equal defences against both of them. Of course, if they agree with your _order_ it hasn't done any harm. Kind regards Peter From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 18 15:37:00 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Mar 18 15:37:13 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c64a99$6a785300$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ................. > A few days ago LHO pulled RHO's cards from the board, > in the process turning over the HK. She asks what > should be done. I replied that I believed that the > law specified that an artificial score is to be awarded. > I further mentioned that I had the book out in the car. > They said, 'go ahead and get it.' We read the applicable > law [16] which provided three options the only applicable > one was to assign an artificial score. The applicable law is Law 6D1 (There must be a new shuffle and a re-deal if it is ascertained before the auction begins for both sides ..... that a player could have seen the face of a card belonging to another hand). Obviously this cannot save the board to be played (unless the board was originally dealt at this table and in this round) so we must pass on to Law 12A2 and award an artificial adjusted score. The above is based upon an assumption that the error (LHO pulling RHO's cards from the board) was inadvertent. If the error was deliberate then the Director should still award an AAS, but in that case he should also impose an additional PP on the offending side. Law 16 is not applicable here. > LHO and RHO know that that the director will give a cheating > ruling and they knew what that cheating ruling would be. > They summoned the director and he ruled that there would be no > problem playing the board and there was no UI. I don't know what "a cheating ruling" is, but this ruling is just plain wrong. It would still have been wrong if the exposed card had been say the 2C, but in that case the ruling could have been understandable. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 18 16:33:47 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Mar 18 16:34:06 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <000401c64a99$6a785300$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations >Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:37:00 +0100 > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >................. > > A few days ago LHO pulled RHO's cards from the board, > > in the process turning over the HK. She asks what > > should be done. I replied that I believed that the > > law specified that an artificial score is to be awarded. > > I further mentioned that I had the book out in the car. > > They said, 'go ahead and get it.' We read the applicable > > law [16] which provided three options the only applicable > > one was to assign an artificial score. > >The applicable law is Law 6D1 (There must be a new shuffle and a re-deal if >it is ascertained before the auction begins for both sides ..... that a >player could have seen the face of a card belonging to another hand). > >Obviously this cannot save the board to be played (unless the board was >originally dealt at this table and in this round) so we must pass on to Law >12A2 and award an artificial adjusted score. > >The above is based upon an assumption that the error (LHO pulling RHO's >cards from the board) was inadvertent. If the error was deliberate then the >Director should still award an AAS, but in that case he should also impose >an additional PP on the offending side. > >Law 16 is not applicable here. > > > LHO and RHO know that that the director will give a cheating > > ruling and they knew what that cheating ruling would be. > > They summoned the director and he ruled that there would be no > > problem playing the board and there was no UI. > >I don't know what "a cheating ruling" is, but this ruling is just plain >wrong. It would still have been wrong if the exposed card had been say the >2C, but in that case the ruling could have been understandable. > >Regards Sven I know that Grattan has affirmed that the correct view is that passages of law stand alone. However, I suggest that you inspect the bottoms of your boots. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 18 18:22:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Mar 18 18:23:04 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c64ab0$954dc800$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > >................. > > > A few days ago LHO pulled RHO's cards from the board, > > > in the process turning over the HK. She asks what > > > should be done. I replied that I believed that the > > > law specified that an artificial score is to be awarded. > > > I further mentioned that I had the book out in the car. > > > They said, 'go ahead and get it.' We read the applicable > > > law [16] which provided three options the only applicable > > > one was to assign an artificial score. > > > >The applicable law is Law 6D1 (There must be a new shuffle > >and a re-deal if it is ascertained before the auction begins > >for both sides ..... that a player could have seen the face > >of a card belonging to another hand). > > > >Obviously this cannot save the board to be played (unless the > >board was originally dealt at this table and in this round) so > >we must pass on to Law12A2 and award an artificial adjusted > >score. > > > >The above is based upon an assumption that the error (LHO pulling > >RHO's cards from the board) was inadvertent. If the error was > >deliberate then the Director should still award an AAS, but in > >that case he should also impose an additional PP on the offending > >side. > > > >Law 16 is not applicable here. > > > > > LHO and RHO know that that the director will give a cheating > > > ruling and they knew what that cheating ruling would be. > > > They summoned the director and he ruled that there would be no > > > problem playing the board and there was no UI. > > > >I don't know what "a cheating ruling" is, but this ruling is just > >plain wrong. It would still have been wrong if the exposed card > >had been say the2C, but in that case the ruling could have been > >understandable. > > > >Regards Sven > > I know that Grattan has affirmed that the correct view is that > passages of law stand alone. However, I suggest that you inspect > the bottoms of your boots. And what is that supposed to mean? However, there is one alternative which I forgot to mention simply because that alternative did not appear relevant from the given story: If LHO was the only player that could have seen the HK belonging to RHO's hand and none of the other players had yet looked at their cards then the Director should simply order the board to be played with the players rotated (so that they effectively exchanged seats with their partners for just this board). Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Mar 18 18:57:02 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Mar 18 18:54:26 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <1FKbT3-0tr7wG0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> <1FKbT3-0tr7wG0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <441C49EE.5040106@hdw.be> PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: > Hello Herman, > > >>BUT, I said, If you want to play this system, and you >>do so in Holland only over 2-card clubs, because it >>would be brown otherwise, then logically, if brown >>systems are allowed, you should be wanting to do >>it against any clubs. >> >>So I _ordered_ them to play the same defences >>against 2-card clubs AND 3-card clubs. > > > Sorry, but I have the strong feeling, this _order_ > to be somewhat hubristic. I do not know the > Belgian regulations, but i doubt that the TD in > Belgium has the power to do so. > Would he not? I'm not certain. Isn't this of the same sort as prohibiting a pair from playing Ghestem for the remainder of the session? It feels like a director has that power. > If a pair wants to play a special defence against > 2+ clubs they do not automatically want to play > the same defence against 3+ clubs. > And if they can tell me why they won't, I might revise my ruling. But I don't think they would - and then it's up to me to provide a level playing field for their opponents. Surely they cannot start playing "strong overcalls against men with beards and weak ones against little old ladies". > That Belgian regulations classify both 3+ and 2+ > club-openings as 'natural' and furthermore any > 'special' (= artificial) defence against both of them > as Brown Sticker, does not force any pair to > produce equal defences against both of them. > > Of course, if they agree with your _order_ it > hasn't done any harm. > They did agree - gladly so! They had not yet thought of the possibility it offered them. > Kind regards > Peter > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 18 19:00:01 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Mar 18 19:00:16 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <000601c64ab0$954dc800$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: RE: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations >Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:22:50 +0100 > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > >................. > > > > A few days ago LHO pulled RHO's cards from the board, > > > > in the process turning over the HK. She asks what > > > > should be done. I replied that I believed that the > > > > law specified that an artificial score is to be awarded. > > > > I further mentioned that I had the book out in the car. > > > > They said, 'go ahead and get it.' We read the applicable > > > > law [16] which provided three options the only applicable > > > > one was to assign an artificial score. > > > > > >The applicable law is Law 6D1 (There must be a new shuffle > > >and a re-deal if it is ascertained before the auction begins > > >for both sides ..... that a player could have seen the face > > >of a card belonging to another hand). > > > > > >Obviously this cannot save the board to be played (unless the > > >board was originally dealt at this table and in this round) so > > >we must pass on to Law12A2 and award an artificial adjusted > > >score. > > > > > >The above is based upon an assumption that the error (LHO pulling > > >RHO's cards from the board) was inadvertent. If the error was > > >deliberate then the Director should still award an AAS, but in > > >that case he should also impose an additional PP on the offending > > >side. > > > > > >Law 16 is not applicable here. > > > > > > > LHO and RHO know that that the director will give a cheating > > > > ruling and they knew what that cheating ruling would be. > > > > They summoned the director and he ruled that there would be no > > > > problem playing the board and there was no UI. > > > > > >I don't know what "a cheating ruling" is, but this ruling is just > > >plain wrong. It would still have been wrong if the exposed card > > >had been say the2C, but in that case the ruling could have been > > >understandable. > > > > > >Regards Sven > > > > I know that Grattan has affirmed that the correct view is that > > passages of law stand alone. However, I suggest that you inspect > > the bottoms of your boots. > >And what is that supposed to mean? > >However, there is one alternative which I forgot to mention simply because >that alternative did not appear relevant from the given story: If LHO was >the only player that could have seen the HK belonging to RHO's hand and >none >of the other players had yet looked at their cards then the Director should >simply order the board to be played with the players rotated (so that they >effectively exchanged seats with their partners for just this board). > >Sven You were wise to wear waterproof boots when treading through a cow pasture. When a card is exposed before the auction L6D1 specifies the remedy of reshuffling. The remedy specified by L16B [the exposed card being UI] for an exposed card before the auction is to adjust the positions [if the contest permits] or appoint a substitute [with concurrence] or assign an artificial score. Though you have suggested the former- the passage 6D1 of your LB reads differently from mine. As you think that the facts are important it was March 14 at 2:03cst board 30 during rd 8. S reached across the table, pulled out N’s hand, turning over the HK. All players could see the HK and all players did see it. S spent the next 7 minutes babbling…… regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Sat Mar 18 19:42:25 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Mar 18 19:42:38 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c64abb$b35b9060$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > > >................. > > > > > A few days ago LHO pulled RHO's cards from the board, > > > > > in the process turning over the HK. She asks what > > > > > should be done. I replied that I believed that the > > > > > law specified that an artificial score is to be awarded. > > > > > I further mentioned that I had the book out in the car. > > > > > They said, 'go ahead and get it.' We read the applicable > > > > > law [16] which provided three options the only applicable > > > > > one was to assign an artificial score. > > > > > > > >The applicable law is Law 6D1 (There must be a new shuffle > > > >and a re-deal if it is ascertained before the auction begins > > > >for both sides ..... that a player could have seen the face > > > >of a card belonging to another hand). > > > > > > > >Obviously this cannot save the board to be played (unless the > > > >board was originally dealt at this table and in this round) so > > > >we must pass on to Law12A2 and award an artificial adjusted > > > >score. > > > > > > > >The above is based upon an assumption that the error (LHO pulling > > > >RHO's cards from the board) was inadvertent. If the error was > > > >deliberate then the Director should still award an AAS, but in > > > >that case he should also impose an additional PP on the offending > > > >side. > > > > > > > >Law 16 is not applicable here. > > > > > > > > > LHO and RHO know that that the director will give a cheating > > > > > ruling and they knew what that cheating ruling would be. > > > > > They summoned the director and he ruled that there would be no > > > > > problem playing the board and there was no UI. > > > > > > > >I don't know what "a cheating ruling" is, but this ruling is just > > > >plain wrong. It would still have been wrong if the exposed card > > > >had been say the2C, but in that case the ruling could have been > > > >understandable. > > > > > > > >Regards Sven > > > > > > I know that Grattan has affirmed that the correct view is that > > > passages of law stand alone. However, I suggest that you inspect > > > the bottoms of your boots. > > > >And what is that supposed to mean? > > > >However, there is one alternative which I forgot to mention simply > because > >that alternative did not appear relevant from the given story: If LHO was > >the only player that could have seen the HK belonging to RHO's hand and > >none > >of the other players had yet looked at their cards then the Director > should > >simply order the board to be played with the players rotated (so that > they > >effectively exchanged seats with their partners for just this board). > > > >Sven > > You were wise to wear waterproof boots when treading through a cow > pasture. > > When a card is exposed before the auction L6D1 specifies the remedy of > reshuffling. > > The remedy specified by L16B [the exposed card being UI] for an exposed > card > before the auction is to adjust the positions [if the contest permits] or > appoint a substitute [with concurrence] or assign an artificial score. > Though you have suggested the former- the passage 6D1 of your LB reads > differently from mine. > > As you think that the facts are important it was March 14 at 2:03cst board > 30 during rd 8. S reached across the table, pulled out N's hand, turning > over the HK. All players could see the HK and all players did see it. S > spent the next 7 minutes babbling.. That is precisely how I (intuitively) understood your original posting and then the Director has no legal alternative other than to rule the board destroyed for that table. The added facts tell me that South deliberately violated Law 7 and as such should be subject to a procedural penalty in addition to being awarded A- on this board. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Mar 18 20:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Mar 18 20:20:09 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Belgian system regulations are > different from dutch ones, in that the 2-card 1Cl opener is NOT > considered conventional Considered by whom? It's not as if this an ambiguous area of law, a 2 card club opener simply *is* conventional, consideration doesn't come into it. > special defences against it remain brown > sticker, and hence not allowed in the saturday tournament. Which makes this a non-sequitur. If system regs permit "any defence" to "conventional" 1C openers then it's allowed whether brown sticker or not. If the system regs permit "any defence" to a strong and forcing 1C but limit the defences played to a 2+ card 1C then their defence isn't allowed. It's just a matter of writing the system regs to reflect what the Belgians want to achieve and doesn't require ignoring the legal definition of a convention. > BUT, I said, If you want to play this system, and you do so in > Holland only over 2-card clubs, because it would be brown otherwise, > then logically, if brown systems are allowed, you should be wanting > to do it against any clubs. > > So I _ordered_ them to play the same defences against 2-card clubs > AND 3-card clubs. You aren't entitled to order them to do that unless there is a regulation supporting the requirement. Of course there is every chance that they are perfectly happy complying with your (possibly illegal) order (ie they would have complied with a *request*). > That way, I also re-equalized the problems for the different > Belgians. They use better minor or diamonds-4 without much > problems, since in Belgium, both are treated the same way. I don't see any particular rationale in this. Better minor/SAYC/D by 4 all present different problems to opponents and there seems no reason why their users should not face different problems in return. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 18 22:22:41 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Mar 18 22:22:55 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 18, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > A few days ago LHO pulled RHO?s cards from the board, in the > process turning over the HK. She asks what should be done. I > replied that I believed that the law specified that an artificial > score is to be awarded. I further mentioned that I had the book > out in the car. They said, ?go ahead and get it.? We read the > applicable law [16] which provided three options the only > applicable one was to assign an artificial score. You left out part of that law [16B]: the three options are preceded by "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may:" > LHO and RHO know that that the director will give a cheating ruling > and they knew what that cheating ruling would be. They summoned > the director and he ruled that there would be no problem playing > the board and there was no UI. No, they don't know it. Not if they read and understood the whole of that law. OTOH, If the director said there was no UI, he was mistaken. If he said the UI could not interfere with normal play, well, that's a judgment call. In my judgment, he was mistaken there, too, but the only recourse in *that* even is to appeal - and that is the prerogative of the players at the table, not me. The point is, it is not a certainty that one of those three options must be applied in this case, or similar cases. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 18 22:34:09 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Mar 18 22:34:22 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <000401c64a99$6a785300$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c64a99$6a785300$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mar 18, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The applicable law is Law 6D1 (There must be a new shuffle and a re- > deal if > it is ascertained before the auction begins for both sides ..... > that a > player could have seen the face of a card belonging to another hand). Law 6D1 cannot apply except on or before the first play of the board. > Law 16 is not applicable here. It is, after the first play of the board. > I don't know what "a cheating ruling" is, but this ruling is just > plain > wrong. It would still have been wrong if the exposed card had been > say the > 2C, but in that case the ruling could have been understandable. What I think you're saying is that the TD's *judgment* (that the exposure of the card could not affect the play of the board) was wrong. And probably that his assertion that there was no UI was also wrong. I happen to agree in both cases, However, given that judgment, the *ruling* [except for the "no UI" comment] accords with the law, which says "*If* [emphasis mine] the director considers that the information could interfere with normal play". If it was deliberate, I'd issue a severe DP, and refer the case to a conduct & ethics committee. But how are we to know? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Mar 18 22:46:09 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Mar 18 22:46:22 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <000701c64abb$b35b9060$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c64abb$b35b9060$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9A8972FC-B92B-45F1-9837-A6795803805C@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 18, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > The added facts tell me that South deliberately violated Law 7 and > as such > should be subject to a procedural penalty in addition to being > awarded A- on > this board. Hm. I was going to suggest (in fact, I did suggest, in another message) a DP, but on rereading Law 91, I retract that suggestion. A PP it is. I would still refer the case to an ethics committee, unless S can convince me he just wasn't thinking. From john at asimere.com Sun Mar 19 01:25:54 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun Mar 19 01:26:05 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? References: Message-ID: <004c01c64aeb$af922b80$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:10 PM Subject: RE: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? > Sven wrote: > >> The fact that partner is subject to a penalty forcing him to pass one >> round is AI as is the fact that the reason for this penalty was a >> call out of turn. > > That isn't so is it? Surely if the call out of rotation was a bid/x/xx > partner would be barred *throughout* and not merely for one round. > > It is the uniqueness of the penalty that allows one to deduce, based > purely on logic, knowledge of the laws, and the AI that it is only a 1 > round bar, that pard POOTed. Supposing, for a moment, that a player has > been carted off after hearing the TD's ruling and going into shock. You > are called in to replace him. There are no cards face up on the table, > you are informed that your partner is barred for one round. What are > the logical possibilities? What UI do *you* have? > > The alternative, it seems to me, is to advise any player whose pard has > POOTed that they should punt game on any decent hand (because that would > *always* be an LA in the analogous L24 situation). OK, one doesn't have > to advise but one *will* adjust if they don't punt and game goes off. > That makes the penalty for a POOT way too harsh IMO. > > Tim Tim, you are unbelievably devious :) "You arrive at a table with no bidding cards visible to be told pard is barred one round and thus can deduce he POOTed and it wasn't accepted." Sheesh. Anyway, given the random 16/17+ count that any competent player pots 3NT on in this situation, what you do know is that pard has about 8 points on average and thus 3NT is a reasonable shot. Given that the inferred info is that the set of hands where pard has 12+ is excluded from the set of all hands he could hold then, of the LA's (1NT and 3NT normally), 3NT is the one you have to choose. We have discussed this before, and agreed we'd adjust if the failure to punt were successful. cheers John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Mar 19 04:25:46 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun Mar 19 04:25:59 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0603181925h220860c4q2958ae26c5920f52@mail.gmail.com> I have VERY big problems with a director ordering a pair to change their methods on what amounts to a whim. The players competing in the events that you direct aren't lab rats that you get to use use to test inane new interpretations of the law. Personally, I think that you're bored with the game and pull shit like this to create controversy. I think that your attitude towards disclosure amounts to cheating. This ruling suggests that you abuse your authority as director. I'm constantly shocked that your license to director hasn't been revoked. Couple closing comments: 1. I think that its useful to differentiate beween ordering a pair to play a defense over a 3+ card 1C opening and pointing out that the pair has the option to employ their defense over a 3+ card 1C opening. I"m conflicted whether Directors should do the latter. On the one hand, I can see that this could benefit the pair in question if they didn't understand that they had this option available to them. On the other hand, I personally prefer a playing environment in which the directors are invisible until needed. It seems strange for the Directors to randomly insert themselves into the game. Potentially the dest course of action would be to make a suggestion to the pair at the close of the event. 2. Your Ghestem example seems to be comparing apples and oranges. My understanding is that directors can ban pairs from using Ghestem if the pair is question has demostrated that they don't have firm partnership agreements. This seems very different from intervening in a random manner. Herman's Ghestem example is completely -- 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 hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 19 09:55:42 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 19 09:53:07 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <004b01c64ade$b868aa20$1e9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> <000d01c64a82$b1be9920$069468d5@jeushtlj> <441C1069.1070905@hdw.be> <004b01c64ade$b868aa20$1e9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <441D1C8E.5050803@hdw.be> Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > >>>I presume what Herman did was legal; although > > in > >>>the second case even that seems doubtful; > > anyway > >>>it does seem immoral. > > > [Herman de Wael] > >>Why? > > > [nige2] > Herman, I am sure that some of your posts (like > this one) are deliberate wind-ups. But keep them > coming! They're good fun! > I can assure you that nothing I said was untrue or that I would not rule the same way the next time this happens. > Others have given legal reasons. > No they have not - but anyway, you have called it immoral, not illegal, even saying that you imagined it was legal after all. > It was just my gut feeling that it was wrong that > your foreign opponents were faced with an > unfamiliar and (arguably) artificial bid, and were > not allowed to use the methods they'd cobbled > together to try and cope with it. > ehm, did you read the case correctly? My foreign opponents came to the table with a defence against a bid which they call artificial, but we call natural. Since they were allowed to play the system against one natural opening, I told them to also play it against some other openings. Not only were they _not_ "not allowed to use the methods", they were even _instructed_ to use the methods they cobbled together in more situations than they are allowed to at home. > In the second context, your "level playing field" > seems flawed. Your poor opponents found themselves > on a slippery slope, unfairly deprived of the > skiing equipment that they'd brought with them. > No, I actually made certain all hills were equally steep, so they could use their skis against all our pairs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 19 09:57:24 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 19 09:54:47 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441D1CF4.80804@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Belgian system regulations are >>different from dutch ones, in that the 2-card 1Cl opener is NOT >>considered conventional > > > Considered by whom? It's not as if this an ambiguous area of law, a 2 > card club opener simply *is* conventional, consideration doesn't come > into it. > But the regulation which in other countries reads "you are allowed to use anything against conventional openings", has an addition ".. except 4432 1Cl openings" in Belgium. Sorry for using shorthand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 19 10:03:45 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 19 10:01:00 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441D1E71.4030309@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>That way, I also re-equalized the problems for the different >>Belgians. They use better minor or diamonds-4 without much >>problems, since in Belgium, both are treated the same way. > > > I don't see any particular rationale in this. Better minor/SAYC/D by 4 > all present different problems to opponents and there seems no reason > why their users should not face different problems in return. > Because their Belgian users are not used to there being a different defence against either system. A dutchman who switches from ACOL to 5-card majors needs to decide whether he's going to play diamonds-4 or better minor. If he plays in an environment where "BS" defences are common, he might well select better minor in order to escape having BS played against him. A Belgian player has no such problem. He can select either system on merits or habit, and he needn't worry that he's going to face BS defences. But if a dutchman enters the room, and BS defences are allowed, and the dutchman sticks to his system of only playing the BS defence against 2-card clubs, then the Belgian who plays 2-card clubs is disadvantaged against his colleague who plays better minor. And this from some sort of "non-knowledge" by his dutch opponent of Belgian regulations. So maybe I should not have "instructed" them to play the system also against better minor, but rather have explained to them that they were allowed to use the system and expect them to draw their own conclusion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 19 10:05:39 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 19 10:03:02 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0603181925h220860c4q2958ae26c5920f52@mail.gmail.com> References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> <2da24b8e0603181925h220860c4q2958ae26c5920f52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <441D1EE3.1020408@hdw.be> I consider this post to be a very polite way of saying some very hurtful things. It does not merit any more attention, other than to ask others who feel this is totally unwarranted to react. richard willey wrote: > I have VERY big problems with a director ordering a pair to change ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Mar 19 11:35:06 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun Mar 19 11:37:40 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441D1EE3.1020408@hdw.be> References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> <2da24b8e0603181925h220860c4q2958ae26c5920f52@mail.gmail.com> <441D1EE3.1020408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9sbq125cqrfa2j8a6odp0p2ruj6384iq1d@4ax.com> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:05:39 +0100, Herman wrote: >I consider this post to be a very polite way of saying some very >hurtful things. >It does not merit any more attention, other than to ask others who >feel this is totally unwarranted to react. > So you only want people who think it's unwarranted to react? While I wouldn't go as far as he does in other respects, I think Richard's comments about your *ordering* (your _emphasised_ word, remember) a pair to change their system are right on the mark. Provided the system a pair plays conforms with all applicable laws, regulations, CoC, etc, they're entitled to play what they like, whether you think it makes sense or not. If you think a pair or pairs don't realise that a restriction in their home area doesn't apply in your area due to some local regulation, then by all means point it out to them, or make an announcement before the start about BS defences so that everybody gets to hear about it. If a pair wants to regard a 2+ card 1C opener as a different opener to a 3+ card 1C opener, then they have a perfect right to do so, IMO, and you have no right to _order_ them to do otherwise. There are more than enough system regulations without you making up your own on the fly. Brian. From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Mar 19 12:22:17 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Mar 19 12:19:36 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <9sbq125cqrfa2j8a6odp0p2ruj6384iq1d@4ax.com> References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> <2da24b8e0603181925h220860c4q2958ae26c5920f52@mail.gmail.com> <441D1EE3.1020408@hdw.be> <9sbq125cqrfa2j8a6odp0p2ruj6384iq1d@4ax.com> Message-ID: <441D3EE9.3000004@hdw.be> Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:05:39 +0100, Herman wrote: > > >>I consider this post to be a very polite way of saying some very >>hurtful things. >>It does not merit any more attention, other than to ask others who >>feel this is totally unwarranted to react. >> > > > So you only want people who think it's unwarranted to react? I was talking about the tone, not necessarily the content. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Mar 19 14:59:54 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Mar 19 15:05:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players Message-ID: <005101c64b5d$83da4780$309468d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > I would prefer clear, unambiguous laws. > .... If you want to start a separate thread > discussing what's wrong with the laws > involved here, and how to fix them, that's > fine by me .... [nige1] Several of us have made specific suggestions intended to simplify and clarify the laws. Does anybody ever argue for these changes to WBFLC, even as a "Devil's Advocate"? Grattan Endicott takes proposals seriously - although he rejects anything radical. William Schoder seems to spurn constructive criticism; he also attacks critics personally; and casts aspersions on their motives. William is naturally keen to suppress views in conflict with his own; but even his reaction is much better than no reaction at all. The WBFLC talks about "soliciting players views". Do they poll the views of rank and file players? Or do they consult only with fellow directors and administrators in the hope that the consultation task may be safely delegated to them? For example, do you expect the average player to tell a director that he would prefer less subjective laws because he distrusts directors' judgement? More fundamentally, do law-makers really believe that players would prefer to be kept in enforced ignorance of the game they want to play -by maintaining the unnecessary fragmentation and complexity of its rules? From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Mar 19 15:26:20 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Mar 19 15:26:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? Message-ID: West (a mediocre player of several years' experience) was declarer in 1 NT on the following layout: Q54 K976 A752 53 T6 AJ832 Q432 A 63 K84 A9842 QJ76 K97 JT85 QJT9 KT Having won the H lead in dummy, he played on clubs: Q - K - A - 5 4 - 3 - ? North allegedly hesitated some seconds before playing C3, and declarer finessed the C10 for one down. North (an elderly gentleman) claims he had not noticed any hesitation on his part, but later conceded that he might not have been distracted and so given the impression of a hesitation. When I asked West what he thought North might have been thinking about (playing the 10 from 10-3 would be irrational), he replied that after a hesitation North had to have 10-3 because with a singleton 3 he would have been obliged to play immediately. Now, L73D2 specifically prohibits hesitating with a singleton, and 73F2 applies: This particular declarer had drawn a false, if unwarranted, inference from the hesitation, North could have known etc. But somehow, it feels wrong to protect a declarer in such a case, where there can be no bridge reason for a defender to hesitate with either 10-3 or 3 singleton. What do you make of it? Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Mar 19 16:24:18 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Sun Mar 19 16:24:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FKzlS-1S75hQ0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Hi, > ? ? ? ? ? 53 > > A9842 ? ? ? ? ? ?QJ76 > > ? ? ? ? ? KT > > Q - K - A - 5 > 4 - 3 - ? > > North allegedly hesitated some seconds before > playing C3, and declarer ?finessed the C10 for > one down. > North (an elderly gentleman) claims he had not > noticed any hesitation on ?his part, but later conceded > that he might [not P.E.] have been distracted and so ? > given the impression of a hesitation. > When I asked West what he thought North might have > been thinking about ?(playing the 10 from 10-3 would > be irrational), he replied that after a ?hesitation North > had to have 10-3 because with a singleton 3 he would > have ?been obliged to play immediately. > > Now, L73D2 specifically prohibits hesitating with a > singleton, and 73F2 ?applies: This particular declarer > had drawn a false, if unwarranted, ?inference from the > hesitation, North could have known etc. > But somehow, it feels wrong to protect a declarer in > such a case, where ?there can be no bridge reason for > a defender to hesitate with either 10-3 ?or 3 singleton. > > What do you make of it? I apply 73 D1 and give North a severe warning to pay more attention to the play. If I "knew" North, he gets a PP. We were taught in Torino (and before) not to give a player a clear doubl-shot in cases when it's clear cut, that the "offender" could not have any problems with his decision of what card to play. This is especially in cases of a singleton or a special (searched) card, when the possible alternative play would unnecessarily expose the critical card. Mostly when the play is small towards a tenace and when there is no obvious reason to raise or unblock. Regards Peter From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 19 16:24:40 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Mar 19 16:24:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >To: "blml@amsterdamned.org" >Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? >Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:26:20 +0100 > >West (a mediocre player of several years' experience) was declarer in 1 NT >on the following layout: > > Q54 > K976 > A752 > 53 > >T6 AJ832 >Q432 A >63 K84 >A9842 QJ76 > > K97 > JT85 > QJT9 > KT > > >Having won the H lead in dummy, he played on clubs: >Q - K - A - 5 >4 - 3 - ? > >North allegedly hesitated some seconds before playing C3, and declarer >finessed the C10 for one down. >North (an elderly gentleman) claims he had not noticed any hesitation on >his part, but later conceded that he might not have been distracted and so >given the impression of a hesitation. >When I asked West what he thought North might have been thinking about >(playing the 10 from 10-3 would be irrational), he replied that after a >hesitation North had to have 10-3 because with a singleton 3 he would have >been obliged to play immediately. > >Now, L73D2 specifically prohibits hesitating with a singleton, and 73F2 >applies: This particular declarer had drawn a false, if unwarranted, >inference from the hesitation, North could have known etc. >But somehow, it feels wrong to protect a declarer in such a case, where >there can be no bridge reason for a defender to hesitate with either 10-3 >or 3 singleton. > >What do you make of it? >Regards, >Petrus The N player does not know the number of clubs that his partner has started with. Holding Tx it may well be necessary to play the T to maximize the number of defensive tricks. L73 admonishes players to exercise care to avoid variations [inadvertent and intentional] that could improperly deceive opponents. W has some entitlement to rely on this admonishment. As W can know that the only club outstanding is the T and that N’s variation must mean there was a decision between clubs then the only logical conclusion is the inference that N holds the missing C. Whether or not the variation was intentional, if there was something to be gotten wrong it would be gotten wrong once the improper variation occurred. If W claims he was damaged via the variation it is appropriate to so find. Imo, the time to call the TD and make such a claim is prior to playing to the next trick so as to establish in a timely manner his reasoning for acting as he did and provide evidence upon which to make judgment. regards roger pewick From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 19 18:15:27 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Mar 19 18:15:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: <1FKzlS-1S75hQ0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> References: <1FKzlS-1S75hQ0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mar 19, 2006, at 10:24 AM, PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: > I apply 73 D1 and give North a severe warning to pay more > attention to the play. I agree that 73D1 is applicable here ("players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side"), but I'm not so sure about the severe warning. A warning, yes, but its severity should depend, imo, on the venue and the players involved. > If I "knew" North, he gets a PP. I trust you mean "knew" in something other than the Biblical sense. :-) If you mean that you are aware that this player has done this before, has received warning(s) about it, and has persisted in doing it, then I agree. > We were taught in Torino (and before) not to give a > player a clear doubl-shot in cases when it's clear cut, > that the "offender" could not have any problems with his > decision of what card to play. I've never been to Torino, so perhaps that's why I don't see a "double shot" here. How is it such? > This is especially in cases of a singleton or a special > (searched) card, when the possible alternative play > would unnecessarily expose the critical card. Mostly > when the play is small towards a tenace and when > there is no obvious reason to raise or unblock. I don't understand this, so I don't understand what relevance it has to this case. Explain, please. From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Mar 19 19:16:43 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Mar 19 19:16:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: <1FKzlS-1S75hQ0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> References: <1FKzlS-1S75hQ0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:24:18 +0100, PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > >> ? ? ? ? ? 53 >> >> A9842 ? ? ? ? ? ?QJ76 >> >> ? ? ? ? ? KT >> >> Q - K - A - 5 >> 4 - 3 - ? >> >> North allegedly hesitated some seconds before >> playing C3, and declarer ?finessed the C10 for >> one down. >> North (an elderly gentleman) claims he had not >> noticed any hesitation on ?his part, but later conceded >> that he might [not P.E.] have been distracted and so ? >> given the impression of a hesitation. >> When I asked West what he thought North might have >> been thinking about ?(playing the 10 from 10-3 would >> be irrational), he replied that after a ?hesitation North >> had to have 10-3 because with a singleton 3 he would >> have ?been obliged to play immediately. >> >> Now, L73D2 specifically prohibits hesitating with a >> singleton, and 73F2 ?applies: This particular declarer >> had drawn a false, if unwarranted, ?inference from the >> hesitation, North could have known etc. >> But somehow, it feels wrong to protect a declarer in >> such a case, where ?there can be no bridge reason for >> a defender to hesitate with either 10-3 ?or 3 singleton. >> >> What do you make of it? > > I apply 73 D1 and give North a severe warning to pay more > attention to the play. I don't think you can do this, given the explicit ptohibition of 73D2. > If I "knew" North, he gets a PP. Some people in their eighties tend to be prone to the occasional lapse of concentration... > > We were taught in Torino (and before) not to give a > player a clear doubl-shot in cases when it's clear cut, > that the "offender" could not have any problems with his > decision of what card to play. > This is especially in cases of a singleton or a special > (searched) card, when the possible alternative play > would unnecessarily expose the critical card. Mostly > when the play is small towards a tenace and when > there is no obvious reason to raise or unblock. Quite - but remember that Torino was about directing at international level. A good player would never convince me he was fooled so 73F2 would not apply - but this declarer was. Would this be a case to apply the "irrational wild or gambling" provision of the CoP against West? Petrus > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Mar 19 19:22:09 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun Mar 19 19:22:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:24:40 +0100, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > >> From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >> To: "blml@amsterdamned.org" >> Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? >> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:26:20 +0100 >> >> West (a mediocre player of several years' experience) was declarer in 1 >> NT on the following layout: >> >> Q54 >> K976 >> A752 >> 53 >> >> T6 AJ832 >> Q432 A >> 63 K84 >> A9842 QJ76 >> >> K97 >> JT85 >> QJT9 >> KT >> >> >> Having won the H lead in dummy, he played on clubs: >> Q - K - A - 5 >> 4 - 3 - ? >> >> North allegedly hesitated some seconds before playing C3, and declarer >> finessed the C10 for one down. >> North (an elderly gentleman) claims he had not noticed any hesitation >> on his part, but later conceded that he might not have been distracted >> and so given the impression of a hesitation. >> When I asked West what he thought North might have been thinking about >> (playing the 10 from 10-3 would be irrational), he replied that after >> a hesitation North had to have 10-3 because with a singleton 3 he >> would have been obliged to play immediately. >> >> Now, L73D2 specifically prohibits hesitating with a singleton, and >> 73F2 applies: This particular declarer had drawn a false, if >> unwarranted, inference from the hesitation, North could have known etc. >> But somehow, it feels wrong to protect a declarer in such a case, >> where there can be no bridge reason for a defender to hesitate with >> either 10-3 or 3 singleton. >> >> What do you make of it? >> Regards, >> Petrus > > > The N player does not know the number of clubs that his partner has > started with. Holding Tx it may well be necessary to play the T to > maximize the number of defensive tricks. > > L73 admonishes players to exercise care to avoid variations [inadvertent > and intentional] that could improperly deceive opponents. W has some > entitlement to rely on this admonishment. As W can know that the only > club outstanding is the T and that N?s variation must mean there was a > decision between clubs then the only logical conclusion is the > inference that N holds the missing C. Whether or not the variation was > intentional, if there was something to be gotten wrong it would be > gotten wrong once the improper variation occurred. > Agreed. But should it be gotten wrong? > If W claims he was damaged via the variation it is appropriate to so > find. Imo, the time to call the TD and make such a claim is prior to > playing to the next trick so as to establish in a timely manner his > reasoning for acting as he did and provide evidence upon which to make > judgment. He called me immediately the C10 appeared from South. The whole room noticed. Regards, Petrus > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Mar 19 19:57:17 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Sun Mar 19 19:57:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? Message-ID: <1FL35Z-26z3Ng0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Hi Ed, > > If I ?"knew" North, he gets a PP. > > I trust you mean "knew" in something other than > the Biblical ?sense. :-) If you mean that you are > aware that this player has done ?this before, has > received warning(s) about it, and has persisted in ? > doing it, then I agree. exactly ;-) > > We were taught in Torino (and before) not to give a > > player a clear doubl-shot in cases when it's clear cut, > > that the "offender" could not have any problems with his > > decision of what card to play. > > I've never been to Torino, so perhaps that's > why I don't see a ?"double shot" here. How is it such? The double shot is, that declarer stopps playing bridge. He only plays for the hesitation. If the finesse works, fine, if not, he calls for the TD and complains about the hesitation which deceived him. Typical doubl shot. > > This is especially in cases of a singleton or a special > > (searched) card, when the possible alternative play > > would unnecessarily expose the critical card. Mostly > > when the play is small towards a tenace and when > > there is no obvious reason to raise or unblock. > > I don't understand this, so I don't understand > what relevance it has ?to this case. Explain, please. If you hold AJxx (in hand) vs KTxx (on dummy) and play low towards the dummy you will never expect someone to show you the Queen voluntarily. So, whether LHO hesitates or not, it will have no relevance according to the posession of the Queen. But, if you play the Jack instead, LHO might have a problem, if he has not worked it out already. Now, a hesitation without the Queen will be regarded as a breach of L 73 D2. Another example: You bid a slam, have lost 1 trick and in the end you play from two small spades in dummy to your AQ in the hand (you are missing only K and small). RHO hesitates before he plays the 5 of spades. Do you really play him for the K for that ? Do you expect him to hold to K, because he hesitated. Certainly not. But, again: If you have the strong feeling, that the opponent did this on purpose, you reduce his score thru a heavy PP. And another: The less the level of experience of the players the more lenient you might be with the declarer and against the offender. Regards Peter From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 19 20:48:17 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Mar 19 20:48:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >To: blml@amsterdamned.org >Subject: Re: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? >Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:22:09 +0100 > >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:24:40 +0100, Roger Pewick >wrote: >>>From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >>>To: "blml@amsterdamned.org" >>>Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? >>>Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:26:20 +0100 >>> >>>West (a mediocre player of several years' experience) was declarer in 1 >>>NT on the following layout: >>> >>> Q54 >>> K976 >>> A752 >>> 53 >>> >>>T6 AJ832 >>>Q432 A >>>63 K84 >>>A9842 QJ76 >>> >>> K97 >>> JT85 >>> QJT9 >>> KT >>> >>> >>>Having won the H lead in dummy, he played on clubs: >>>Q - K - A - 5 >>>4 - 3 - ? >>> >>>North allegedly hesitated some seconds before playing C3, and declarer >>>finessed the C10 for one down. >>>North (an elderly gentleman) claims he had not noticed any hesitation on >>> his part, but later conceded that he might not have been distracted >>>and so given the impression of a hesitation. >>>When I asked West what he thought North might have been thinking about >>>(playing the 10 from 10-3 would be irrational), he replied that after a >>>hesitation North had to have 10-3 because with a singleton 3 he would >>>have been obliged to play immediately. >>> >>>Now, L73D2 specifically prohibits hesitating with a singleton, and 73F2 >>>applies: This particular declarer had drawn a false, if unwarranted, >>>inference from the hesitation, North could have known etc. >>>But somehow, it feels wrong to protect a declarer in such a case, where >>>there can be no bridge reason for a defender to hesitate with either >>>10-3 or 3 singleton. >>> >>>What do you make of it? >>>Regards, >>>Petrus >> >> >>The N player does not know the number of clubs that his partner has >>started with. Holding Tx it may well be necessary to play the T to >>maximize the number of defensive tricks. >> >>L73 admonishes players to exercise care to avoid variations [inadvertent >>and intentional] that could improperly deceive opponents. W has some >>entitlement to rely on this admonishment. As W can know that the only >>club outstanding is the T and that N’s variation must mean there was a >>decision between clubs then the only logical conclusion is the inference >>that N holds the missing C. Whether or not the variation was >>intentional, if there was something to be gotten wrong it would be gotten >>wrong once the improper variation occurred. >> >Agreed. But should it be gotten wrong? For some reason you went about asserting that a player with Tx would have no reason to hesitate and therefore wouldn’t, and the same for a N with a stiff x. I in turn went to some length to suggest that N could have a bridge reason to think holding Tx. And you concurred. Yet you wonder if W ought to ‘get it wrong’ after a hesitation. There is a legitimate reason for N to hesitate holding a stiff x- to cater for the possibility that partner has a stiff T and entice declarer to play N for it. It is just that it is not a legitimate bridge reason. It does seem that you are concerned with the necessary conditions to not adjust. As in W ought to have allowed that N was not thinking in anyway about the hand. I should think that there ought to be clear and convincing mitigating factors to consider not adjusting here. For instance, N claimed he was distracted. In and of itself distraction is not a valid reason to fail to be careful. At a minimum it ought to be clear to the entire table that N’s attention was elsewhere prior to the start of the trick up until the time he snaps out of it. I wasn’t listening to N but what on earth could cause his distraction? Unless W took an inordinate time leading to the next trick there is practically nothing that could induce N to be legitimately distracted. If N has played smoothly in the past that is convincing enough that failure to play promptly here was a breach. It is not a matter of N was incapable of being careful so do not indemnify the NOS; it is a matter of what N’s behavior constituted and deal with it accordingly. regards roger pewick >>If W claims he was damaged via the variation it is appropriate to so >>find. Imo, the time to call the TD and make such a claim is prior to >>playing to the next trick so as to establish in a timely manner his >>reasoning for acting as he did and provide evidence upon which to make >>judgment. > >He called me immediately the C10 appeared from South. The whole room >noticed. > >Regards, >Petrus From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sun Mar 19 21:56:25 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sun Mar 19 21:27:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441DC579.2030502@cs.elte.hu> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > West (a mediocre player of several years' experience) (...) > North allegedly hesitated some seconds before playing C3, and > declarer finessed the C10 for one down. > North (an elderly gentleman) claims he had not noticed any hesitation > on his part, but later conceded that he might not have been > distracted and so given the impression of a hesitation. It seems to me there were no hesitation, a little break in tempo only. If North was not a beginner (and not a cheater of course) then it's an easy tablepresence to play the Jack to capture South's Ten. A player who is holding the interresting card definetly knows that declarer has a problem, he is waiting for declarer's lead and he is playing as soon as he can. Without the searched card he may not realize declarer's problem and looking after his small cards just after declarer has led. I absolute agree Peter Eidt. 73D1 and warn North of course. regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 19 21:55:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Mar 19 21:56:04 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <004c01c64aeb$af922b80$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: John wrote: > Tim, you are unbelievably devious :) "You arrive at a table with no > bidding cards visible to be told pard is barred one round and thus > can deduce he POOTed and it wasn't accepted." Sheesh. There may (or may not) be a green bidding box card in front of your RHO. It is the lack of visible *playing* cards which enables one to eliminate L24 from the possibilities (and deduce a poot). I may be "devious" but that is not, of itself, illegal - but the question is one of "logic". Is there any UI involved in determining that pard has POOTed - and if not why am I forbidden from basing my bid on that determination (nb the laws don't actually say anywhere that either the laws or the TD's ruling are AI - but try running a game where they are not!)? > Anyway, given the random 16/17+ count that any competent player pots > 3NT on in this situation, what you do know is that pard has about 8 > points on average and thus 3NT is a reasonable shot. Given that the > inferred info is that the set of hands where pard has 12+ is excluded > from the set of all hands he could hold then, of the LA's (1NT and > 3NT normally), 3NT is the one you have to choose. Looking at a good 16/17 count the information that pard is 11- doesn't affect the odds much. Certainly on the example hand the consideration "It seems likely that if game is making other partnerships may be facing a decision as to strain and that some will play in the wrong game going off. I shall bid 1S or 1N and hope that getting a plus is enough." would far outweigh any inferences from "Pard is 11-". If we are playing a mini NT (and thus the pass indicates 9-) then the suggestive value of the UI (if UI it is) is significantly stronger. Playing 12+ openers a "cusp" hand might be something like KQT9xx,Axx,KJx,x (no real guess as to best strain). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Mar 19 21:55:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Mar 19 21:56:07 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441D1CF4.80804@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > But the regulation which in other countries reads "you are allowed to > use anything against conventional openings", has an addition ".. > except 4432 1Cl openings" in Belgium. > Sorry for using shorthand. NP - obviously that is exactly the sort of system regulation I meant and thus there is no problem at all in forbidding their methods in a non-BS event. It is slightly unclear what applies if opps play "D by 5 unless 4441" (ie 3442/4342 balanced also open 1C) but perhaps that style isn't played in Belgium. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Sun Mar 19 22:05:28 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Mar 19 22:05:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players References: <005101c64b5d$83da4780$309468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Gee I feel great! Last one to call me 'William' was my mother -- 40 years ago. As for my motivations, it is to welcome and learn from CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM -- of which the part of what to do better and how to is sorely missing in too many of the postings. A careful reading should show you that you are talking regulations and rules, and not Laws. The Laws need to provide authority to be diverse - not the details unique to any one small part of the millions of people who enjoy bridge throughout the world. As to others motivations, I need only ask you to read the latest BS (no, not brown sticker) from the so highly regarded Belgian. I though this was a "game" to be enjoyed - but then why do that when you can order people around? Must be great fun to play there! AS to 'surpressing views that are not my own' -- I answer questions on BLML on what the Laws say as they are presently constituted. These answers come from personal experience, WBFLC meetings and minutes, and well over 40 years of discussion with the authors of the laws as to the intent of particular items, and the daily users of these laws -the players and tournament directors. No more, no less. When I find someone getting ridiculous about the application of a word or phrase to prove an esoteric point that makes the written law laughable, then I do question the motivation, expertise in English, and sometimes even the intelligence of the poster. I leave the flights of fancy to have pet peeves assuaged and included in future laws to those who revel in displaying their egos and erudition. My persona does not need the public acclaim of BLML to exist. By the WBF President's direction I work as a committee member for the review mandated by the WBF Bylaws. Somehow your paragraph on not telling a director about subjective judgement does not follow as an 'example' of its meaning. And, as to having it all nicely bunched up, tied with a ribbon, and demanding no further work, application to local needs, searching, or understanding -- how would you like those "rules", "definitions" "regulations" and methods of talking to and handling players evidenced by Mr. De Wael's latest epic to be the guidance? Surely not I'm sure. -- But to believe that one place for everything is what we need demonstrates to me an abject lack of knowledge of the diversity of players throughout the world, the adaptability and viability that bridge offers, and the conceit that YOU got it right while all else are wrong. Just think, there are places on this earth where they play duplicate contract bridge without bidding boxes, verbal bidding, computers, screens, bidding trays, convention cards, etc., that far outnumber those nice little incestuous communities in Europe and the North Americas. And they produce world level players, contribute mightily to the development of the game, and in some cases far antedate the WBF, EBL, ACBL, and other administrative bodies. Just as a question: Since there is overwhelmingly more duplicate contract bridge played daily WITHOUT screens, -- why should the default position be for play WITH screens? And if that's too easy how about the controversies surrounding traveling versus pick-up score slips? Or the simple mess of Alerts? Systems? But, best regards and I'm happy to hear that at least some read my postings before using the 'delete' key. To those who are offended by my casting aspersions I leave but one word: INTROSPECTION (painful for some, I'd suppose). Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:59 AM Subject: [blml] Consultation with players > [Ed Reppert] > > I would prefer clear, unambiguous laws. > > .... If you want to start a separate thread > > discussing what's wrong with the laws > > involved here, and how to fix them, that's > > fine by me .... > > [nige1] > Several of us have made specific suggestions > intended to simplify and clarify the laws. Does > anybody ever argue for these changes to WBFLC, > even as a "Devil's Advocate"? > > Grattan Endicott takes proposals seriously - > although he rejects anything radical. > > William Schoder seems to spurn constructive > criticism; he also attacks critics personally; and > casts aspersions on their motives. > > William is naturally keen to suppress views in > conflict with his own; but even his reaction is > much better than no reaction at all. > > The WBFLC talks about "soliciting players views". > Do they poll the views of rank and file players? > Or do they consult only with fellow directors and > administrators in the hope that the consultation > task may be safely delegated to them? > > For example, do you expect the average player to > tell a director that he would prefer less > subjective laws because he distrusts directors' > judgement? > > More fundamentally, do law-makers really believe > that players would prefer to be kept in enforced > ignorance of the game they want to play -by > maintaining the unnecessary fragmentation and > complexity of its rules? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 19 22:07:29 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Mar 19 22:07:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: <1FL35Z-26z3Ng0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> References: <1FL35Z-26z3Ng0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:57 PM, PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: > The double shot is, that declarer stopps playing bridge. > He only plays for the hesitation. If the finesse works, fine, > if not, he calls for the TD and complains about the > hesitation which deceived him. Typical doubl shot. Maybe it is, but I don't see how it makes any difference. If I were declarer in this situation, I *know* that unless the BIT was deliberate, I infer from it at my own risk. I might call the director anyway, on the theory that *if* the BIT was deliberate, the TD is the right person to determine that, and take appropriate action accordingly. IOW, I would *not* be looking for a double shot. But if TDs are going to routinely rule that I am (or that any player in this situation would be) doing so, then how in the Hell are we ever going to prevent the offender from getting away with his illegal BIT?* Leniency when dealing with inexperienced players I do understand. :-) *Hm. Thinking about this a bit further, it occurs to me that perhaps the whole concept of the double shot is outside the law. In the situation I cite above, if I were the director whom I called , I might well rule that defender's BIT was not deliberate, and that therefore my (declarer's) inference was "at my own risk" and I was "damaged" because *I* got it wrong, which is not an infraction of law. If, OTOH, I determine that defender's BIT *was* deliberate, I would rule accordingly. But I would *not* say to me "you were obviously trying for a double shot, so I'm not going to bother checking the facts, I'm just going to rule against you" - which as I understand the laws is (a) not within their spirit and (b) not a prerogative of the TD to do. If I rule that the BIT was deliberate (will any director, particularly below international level, ever do this, absent a clear admission of guilt from the perpetrator?) and also have reason to believe that the declarer was in fact looking for the double shot (I can't think of a reason, other than (a) he admitted it or (b) he's been known (not just assumed) to have done it before) then I suppose I'm going to have to invoke the law that says one must "continue to play bridge". Which law is that, please? :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Mar 19 22:34:04 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Mar 19 22:34:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaks in Tempo Message-ID: Suppose a player has extraneous information from his partner - say from an alert or failure to alert. Say that after this information is transmitted, the player's RHO bids in his normal tempo of 2-3 seconds. If the player's normal tempo is also 2-3 seconds, and he breaks that tempo (either by bidding more quickly or by bidding more slowly) does this BIT necessarily convey information to his partner? Particularly in the case of bidding more slowly, might he not simply be considering how the EI *he* has should affect his next call? And if so, is that BIT not "due", and thus not constraining on his *partner's* next call? Or must we, willy-nilly, always rule that BITs convey UI? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 20 01:25:50 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon Mar 20 01:27:08 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <009201c64bb5$3e9d0740$a3e5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 11:33 AM Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations > > Sadly, I had to put them straight. Belgian system regulations > are different from dutch ones, in that the 2-card 1Cl opener > is NOT considered conventional, so special defences against > it remain brown sticker, and hence not allowed in the saturday > tournament. > +=+ First, the power to regulate special defences arises from the fact that those defences are conventional, not from any question whether the opening bid is conventional. Second, no NBO can declare opening bids of 1C which may be made on a 2-card suit to be 'natural'. Such bids are defined as conventional in the laws. The fact that they are conventional is not an obstacle to regulations barring some or all conventional defences against them. The sponsoring organisation, not the TD, is given powers to make regulations. The duty of the TD is to apply the laws and the regulations of the SO. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 20 03:08:45 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Mar 20 03:09:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >>Basically, I'm of the opinion that the law isn't addressing >>deliberate scheduling but the fairly common (in pre-computer >>dealt days) occurrence of (usually in about the 4th round) a >>player saying "Ooh, I recognise this - it's the same board 12 >>as we played last Tuesday". Richard M. Nixon (explaining his interpretation of executive privilege; transcript of David Frost-Nixon interview, N.Y. Times, May 20, 1977, at A16): >Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not >illegal. Richard J. Hills: Well, when a sponsoring organisation does it (deliberately infracts Law 6), that means that it is not illegal? :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Mon Mar 20 08:38:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon Mar 20 08:39:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaks in Tempo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FLEyn-1ytD7o0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> Hi, Ed Reppert wrote: > Suppose a player has extraneous information from his partner - say > from an alert or failure to alert. Say that after this information is > transmitted, the player's RHO bids in his normal tempo of 2-3 > seconds. If the player's normal tempo is also 2-3 seconds, and he > breaks that tempo (either by bidding more quickly or by bidding more > slowly) does this BIT necessarily convey information to his partner? > Particularly in the case of bidding more slowly, might he not simply > be considering how the EI *he* has should affect his next call? And > if so, is that BIT not "due", and thus not constraining on his > *partner's* next call? Or must we, willy-nilly, always rule that BITs > convey UI? 1. TD has to judge every case on its own merits, so you can have a standard procedure, but not an standard outcome 2. Yes, every BIT conveys EI (Law 16 A) 3. The EI has to suggest a play or call to become UI (same law) Your example above does not really fit, because a player, who 'sends' EI while alerting (or not alerting) partners call, won't recognize this action as UI, because if he does, he will call TD to reveal his error just happened. And in the other example, where a player 'sends' UI with a BIT, we all know, that the fact that partner now only bids 100% tolerable bids (because he knows Law 16A) is UI for the player himself. So, this player will have a problem, whether partner BITs or not. Peter From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 09:11:11 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 09:08:33 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441E639F.3060502@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>But the regulation which in other countries reads "you are allowed to >>use anything against conventional openings", has an addition ".. >>except 4432 1Cl openings" in Belgium. >>Sorry for using shorthand. > > > NP - obviously that is exactly the sort of system regulation I meant and I don't recall anything like this. Someone stated that 2-card club openings are conventional. That was not under discussion, but not important, since the Belgian regulations do not refer to "conventional" alone. > thus there is no problem at all in forbidding their methods in a non-BS > event. Which is precisely what I did on saturday - but not on sunday, when BS were permitted. > It is slightly unclear what applies if opps play "D by 5 unless > 4441" (ie 3442/4342 balanced also open 1C) but perhaps that style isn't > played in Belgium. > It is not, indeed. And the regulation only states that a 1Cl opening that can be made on 2-cards in a 5-card major system, non-forcing, is considered natural. > 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: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 09:18:21 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 09:15:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441E654D.1090003@hdw.be> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:24:40 +0100, Roger Pewick > wrote: > >> Whether or not the variation was intentional, if there was something >> to be gotten wrong it would be gotten wrong once the improper >> variation occurred. >> > Agreed. But should it be gotten wrong? > I believe that when a player has compelling evidence that a particular card is not singleton, he should be allowed to stop thinking about the rest of the possibilities and play according to this. At the precise moment he has to decide what to play from dummy, there are still 2 possibilities: the ten could be in North or South. Norht has just misled him into believing it is in North. The player should not suffer the indignation of being told by the Director: "there was a 90% probability that it was in South, you should have played for the drop." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 09:25:38 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 09:23:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: <1FL35Z-26z3Ng0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> References: <1FL35Z-26z3Ng0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <441E6702.9020101@hdw.be> PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: > > The double shot is, that declarer stopps playing bridge. > He only plays for the hesitation. If the finesse works, fine, > if not, he calls for the TD and complains about the > hesitation which deceived him. Typical doubl shot. > There are indeed many players who play for the hesitation. Usually, they also perceive hesitations that are not there. If their opponent vehemently protests against him having hesitated, I them read L73D1. But when the opponent admits to having thought (usually they say over something else), I will adjust. > >>>This is especially in cases of a singleton or a special >>>(searched) card, when the possible alternative play >>>would unnecessarily expose the critical card. Mostly >>>when the play is small towards a tenace and when >>>there is no obvious reason to raise or unblock. >> >>I don't understand this, so I don't understand >>what relevance it has to this case. Explain, please. > > > If you hold AJxx (in hand) vs KTxx (on dummy) and > play low towards the dummy you will never expect > someone to show you the Queen voluntarily. > So, whether LHO hesitates or not, it will have no > relevance according to the posession of the Queen. > This case is not clear enough. You may not expect him to show it, but he might have reasons of his own (perhaps because he's a beginner) for playing the queen. So if he's thinking, what about? > But, if you play the Jack instead, LHO might have a > problem, if he has not worked it out already. > Now, a hesitation without the Queen will be regarded > as a breach of L 73 D2. > > Another example: > You bid a slam, have lost 1 trick and in the end > you play from two small spades in dummy to your > AQ in the hand (you are missing only K and small). Again, not good enough example. Put the AQ on the table and you've made your point. > RHO hesitates before he plays the 5 of spades. > Do you really play him for the K for that ? > Do you expect him to hold to K, because he hesitated. > Certainly not. > Now you have a valid point. But I don't believe this last example is what happened in the original. > But, again: > If you have the strong feeling, that the opponent > did this on purpose, you reduce his score thru a > heavy PP. > > And another: > The less the level of experience of the players the > more lenient you might be with the declarer and > against the offender. > > Regards > Peter > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 20 09:54:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 20 09:55:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard J. Hills wrote: > Well, when a sponsoring organisation does it (deliberately > infracts Law 6), that means that it is not illegal? No, it means the SO *believes* it to be legal. As I understand things dealing machines break the "one card at a time" rule by dealing consecutive cards into the same hand without most SOs finding this a problem. There are "strict" interpretations of Law6 that make various Sims, PwEs, variable starting times etc illegal. There is a "loose" interpretation of L6 that makes these planned events legal. If one doesn't like one's SO/NBO using the "loose" intepretation one may lobby for change (or otherwise attempt to force them along the path of light). The laws would, of course, benefit from the removal of such ambiguity. Tim From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Mar 20 10:50:26 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Mar 20 10:50:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Brighton Congress 11-20 Aug In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c64c03$b787a1d0$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Hi all I can't find a schedule of events, costs etc for the Brighton congress 11-20 August 2006. Anyone lend a hand ?? Karel From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 20 12:16:09 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Mar 20 12:12:49 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320121144.027d5e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:50 18/03/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >But it is a small one. Surely even they realize that a 1-club opening, >even when _possible_ on 4432, contains 3 cards clubs more than 95% of the >time (or an even larger number). So if they want to use a method against >that kind of opening, why not against every opening that can contain only >3 clubs? IBTD. Many players who use 2+ clubs use them on all NT hands outside 1NT range, which makes a 2-card club suit fairly common. You can't force a player to use the same defense against Acol 1H and 5cM 1H, do you ? (BTW, I do use different defenses). You can't force a player to use the same defense against 14-16 NT and against 13-16 NT, do you? (BTW, I do use different defenses) And in a country where BSC vs NT do exist, I would be playing BSC vs 14-16 only. I Isn't this the same situation ? Best regards, Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 20 12:20:47 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Mar 20 12:17:20 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: <441D1CF4.80804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320121928.027d35f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:55 19/03/2006 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > But the regulation which in other countries reads "you are allowed to > > use anything against conventional openings", has an addition ".. > > except 4432 1Cl openings" in Belgium. > > Sorry for using shorthand. > >NP - obviously that is exactly the sort of system regulation I meant and >thus there is no problem at all in forbidding their methods in a non-BS >event. It is slightly unclear what applies if opps play "D by 5 unless >4441" (ie 3442/4342 balanced also open 1C) but perhaps that style isn't >played in Belgium. It is, and widely so, so that Herman's assertion about 2-card clubs being very uncommon doesn't seem right to me. BTA Herman doesn't play often enough in Liege, where this is standard. From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 13:04:57 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 13:02:23 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320121144.027d5e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060320121144.027d5e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <441E9A69.4040606@hdw.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:50 18/03/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> But it is a small one. Surely even they realize that a 1-club opening, >> even when _possible_ on 4432, contains 3 cards clubs more than 95% of >> the time (or an even larger number). So if they want to use a method >> against that kind of opening, why not against every opening that can >> contain only 3 clubs? > > > IBTD. Many players who use 2+ clubs use them on all NT hands outside 1NT > range, which makes a 2-card club suit fairly common. > And those players would be using a system against which BS conventions would not be BS. > You can't force a player to use the same defense against Acol 1H and 5cM > 1H, do you ? > (BTW, I do use different defenses). > > You can't force a player to use the same defense against 14-16 NT and > against 13-16 NT, do you? (BTW, I do use different defenses) And in a > country where BSC vs NT do exist, I would be playing BSC vs 14-16 only. > I > Isn't this the same situation ? > Not exactly. This pair was using a highly complex defence against 1Cl, and a very simple one against 1Di. Because that is what they are allowed in Holland. I'm sure they would want to use a complex defence against 1Di also, if it were allowed. I'm equally sure they would want to use a complex defence against 3-card 1Cl if it were allowed, and quite possibly the same defence as the one against 1Cl(2-card). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 20 13:33:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 20 13:33:31 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441E639F.3060502@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > >>But the regulation which in other countries reads "you are allowed > to >>use anything against conventional openings", has an addition ".. > >>except 4432 1Cl openings" in Belgium. > >>Sorry for using shorthand. > > > > NP - obviously that is exactly the sort of system regulation I > > meant and > > I don't recall anything like this. Someone stated that 2-card club > openings are conventional. That was not under discussion, but not > important, since the Belgian regulations do not refer to > "conventional" alone. You originally said "2 card 1C openers aren't considered conventional". I said they *were*, by definition, conventional and that "If system regs permit "any defence" to "conventional" 1C openers then it's allowed whether brown sticker or not. If the system regs permit "any defence" to a strong and forcing 1C but limit the defences played to a 2+ card 1C then their defence isn't allowed. In your reply to me you stated that that was the Belgian system regs actually *did* so I then replied that that was the sort of regulation I meant. But now you say > And the regulation only states that a 1Cl opening that can be made on > 2-cards in a 5-card major system, non-forcing, is considered natural. So I'm confused again. A 2-card club opening can't be "considered natural" because it *is* conventional. It can be non-alertable (since alerts don't depend on conventionality) and it can be exempted from the imposition of "special defences". The ambiguity around "4432" arises from the fact that sometimes that notation denotes precisely 4S,4H,3D,2C and sometimes it used to denote "any hand with 4432 pattern regardless of suit order". In other words is "any defence" allowed against *my* 1C=either opening values with C or any 4432, 15-19(20) HCP. The context of which is a 5cM, normally 5D, weak NT system. NB, the answer isn't that important to me since I doubt I will ever be playing this particular system at a Belgian event. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 20 13:58:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 20 13:59:02 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441E9A69.4040606@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Not exactly. This pair was using a highly complex defence against > 1Cl, and a very simple one against 1Di. Because that is what they > are allowed in Holland. I'm sure they would want to use a complex > defence against 1Di also, if it were allowed. I'm equally sure they > would want to use a complex defence against 3-card 1Cl if it were > allowed, and quite possibly the same defence as the one against > 1Cl(2-card). Which is fine, as far as it goes. I can imagine a conversation like: HdW: You do realise that in this event you can play the same defence against *any* 1C opening? Dutch Student 1: Can we? Does it work against 3+C suit pard? Dutch Student 2 : Oh, yes, just as effective HdW: Very well - I order you to play it against all 2+/3+ 1C openers because that way I'll get fewer complaints about unfairness. I don't think any of us would have a problem with your "order" in those circumstances. We *would* have a problem if you ordered them to play the convention vs 3+C openers *against* their will unless you had a basis in system regulation for so doing. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 14:01:37 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 13:59:05 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441E9A69.4040606@hdw.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060320121144.027d5e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441E9A69.4040606@hdw.be> Message-ID: <441EA7B1.3040502@hdw.be> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> IBTD. Many players who use 2+ clubs use them on all NT hands outside >> 1NT range, which makes a 2-card club suit fairly common. >> > > And those players would be using a system against which BS conventions > would not be BS. > correction: WOULD be BS! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 14:05:28 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 14:02:52 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441EA898.9060403@hdw.be> Just to clarify: In Belgium, as in many countries, defences which would normally be considered BS are not BS if they are used against conventional 1Cl openings. But in Belgium, and solely for the purpose of this regulation, a 1Cl opening which can be made on 2-cards in an otherwise natural system, as with 4S,4H,3D,2C, and which is not forcing, is not considered "conventional" - BS defences remain BS and are not allowed in most tournaments. Tim West-Meads wrote: -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 14:08:33 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 14:06:03 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441EA951.1010401@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Not exactly. This pair was using a highly complex defence against >>1Cl, and a very simple one against 1Di. Because that is what they >>are allowed in Holland. I'm sure they would want to use a complex >>defence against 1Di also, if it were allowed. I'm equally sure they >>would want to use a complex defence against 3-card 1Cl if it were >>allowed, and quite possibly the same defence as the one against >>1Cl(2-card). > > > Which is fine, as far as it goes. I can imagine a conversation like: > HdW: You do realise that in this event you can play the same defence > against *any* 1C opening? > Dutch Student 1: Can we? Does it work against 3+C suit pard? > Dutch Student 2 : Oh, yes, just as effective > HdW: Very well - I order you to play it against all 2+/3+ > 1C openers because that way I'll get fewer complaints about > unfairness. > > I don't think any of us would have a problem with your "order" in those > circumstances. We *would* have a problem if you ordered them to play the > convention vs 3+C openers *against* their will unless you had a basis in > system regulation for so doing. > Very well, that came very close to the actual conversation. If they had objected, it would have been very to convince them to do something which would amount to the same thing: I would issue an order that their opponents be allowed to change from diamonds-4 to better minor after hearing their different treatment of their defences AND I would impose on them the onus of informing their opponents of this ruling and that possibility. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 20 15:44:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 20 15:45:16 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441EA951.1010401@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Very well, that came very close to the actual conversation. Thought it might have :). The Dutch were willing accomplices in your "plot" rather than reluctant guinea-pigs in some whimsical TD experiment. > If they > had objected, it would have been very to convince them to do > something which would amount to the same thing: I would issue an > order that their opponents be allowed to change from diamonds-4 to > better minor after hearing their different treatment of their > defences AND I would impose on them the onus of informing their > opponents of this ruling and that possibility. I haven't read the Belgian system regs but WBF/EBL regs allow for the possibility of varying one's opening bids against pairs playing a BS system and I don't have any problems with the principle of that instruction. The important thing is that if the defence is "flawed" against a 3+ club opener the choice properly rests with the players. Tim From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 20 15:49:04 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Mar 20 15:49:17 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations References: <441BF01F.9060304@hdw.be><2da24b8e0603181925h220860c4q2958ae26c5920f52@mail.gmail.com> <441D1EE3.1020408@hdw.be> Message-ID: <008901c64c2d$6ee74f50$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations >I consider this post to be a very polite way of saying some very hurtful >things. > It does not merit any more attention, other than to ask others who feel > this is totally unwarranted to react. I'm up for disliking an "order". i'm happy if it were a "suggestion". John > > richard willey wrote: > >> I have VERY big problems with a director ordering a pair to change > .. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 20 15:56:22 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Mar 20 15:56:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? References: Message-ID: <009e01c64c2e$74097020$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" To: Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:24:40 +0100, Roger Pewick > wrote: > >> >> >> >>> From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" >>> To: "blml@amsterdamned.org" >>> Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? >>> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:26:20 +0100 >>> >>> West (a mediocre player of several years' experience) was declarer in 1 >>> NT on the following layout: >>> >>> Q54 >>> K976 >>> A752 >>> 53 >>> >>> T6 AJ832 >>> Q432 A >>> 63 K84 >>> A9842 QJ76 >>> >>> K97 >>> JT85 >>> QJT9 >>> KT without the hesitation he'd have played for the drop. that's evidenced by the immediate summoning of the NYPD. ... so heitating has gained, and it is a "could have known". i adjust immediately. No question and bollock the 80 year old for not concentrating a bit better. No question of a fine though. if i were a cheat I'd hesitate hoping to get mediocre LHO to go wrong. cheers John >>> >>> >>> Having won the H lead in dummy, he played on clubs: >>> Q - K - A - 5 >>> 4 - 3 - ? >>> >>> North allegedly hesitated some seconds before playing C3, and declarer >>> finessed the C10 for one down. >>> North (an elderly gentleman) claims he had not noticed any hesitation >>> on his part, but later conceded that he might not have been distracted >>> and so given the impression of a hesitation. >>> When I asked West what he thought North might have been thinking about >>> (playing the 10 from 10-3 would be irrational), he replied that after a >>> hesitation North had to have 10-3 because with a singleton 3 he would >>> have been obliged to play immediately. >>> >>> Now, L73D2 specifically prohibits hesitating with a singleton, and 73F2 >>> applies: This particular declarer had drawn a false, if unwarranted, >>> inference from the hesitation, North could have known etc. >>> But somehow, it feels wrong to protect a declarer in such a case, where >>> there can be no bridge reason for a defender to hesitate with either >>> 10-3 or 3 singleton. >>> >>> What do you make of it? >>> Regards, >>> Petrus >> >> >> The N player does not know the number of clubs that his partner has >> started with. Holding Tx it may well be necessary to play the T to >> maximize the number of defensive tricks. >> >> L73 admonishes players to exercise care to avoid variations [inadvertent >> and intentional] that could improperly deceive opponents. W has some >> entitlement to rely on this admonishment. As W can know that the only >> club outstanding is the T and that N's variation must mean there was a >> decision between clubs then the only logical conclusion is the >> inference that N holds the missing C. Whether or not the variation was >> intentional, if there was something to be gotten wrong it would be >> gotten wrong once the improper variation occurred. >> > Agreed. But should it be gotten wrong? > >> If W claims he was damaged via the variation it is appropriate to so >> find. Imo, the time to call the TD and make such a claim is prior to >> playing to the next trick so as to establish in a timely manner his >> reasoning for acting as he did and provide evidence upon which to make >> judgment. > > He called me immediately the C10 appeared from South. The whole room > noticed. > > Regards, > Petrus >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 20 16:00:51 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Mar 20 16:01:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? References: <1FL35Z-26z3Ng0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <00a301c64c2f$146b7b80$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? > Hi Ed, > >> > If I "knew" North, he gets a PP. >> >> I trust you mean "knew" in something other than >> the Biblical sense. :-) If you mean that you are >> aware that this player has done this before, has >> received warning(s) about it, and has persisted in >> doing it, then I agree. > > exactly ;-) > >> > We were taught in Torino (and before) not to give a >> > player a clear doubl-shot in cases when it's clear cut, >> > that the "offender" could not have any problems with his >> > decision of what card to play. ok, I'd hesitate against Peter as well just to amuse him.(We won the pairs in Torino,so Peter can at least follow suit) How are you playing the suit Peter? Would you expect ME to adjust if YOU finessed and it lost? What if Herman (a self-confessed palooka) finessed? cheers john >> >> I've never been to Torino, so perhaps that's >> why I don't see a "double shot" here. How is it such? > > The double shot is, that declarer stopps playing bridge. > He only plays for the hesitation. If the finesse works, fine, > if not, he calls for the TD and complains about the > hesitation which deceived him. Typical doubl shot. > >> > This is especially in cases of a singleton or a special >> > (searched) card, when the possible alternative play >> > would unnecessarily expose the critical card. Mostly >> > when the play is small towards a tenace and when >> > there is no obvious reason to raise or unblock. >> >> I don't understand this, so I don't understand >> what relevance it has to this case. Explain, please. > > If you hold AJxx (in hand) vs KTxx (on dummy) and > play low towards the dummy you will never expect > someone to show you the Queen voluntarily. > So, whether LHO hesitates or not, it will have no > relevance according to the posession of the Queen. > > But, if you play the Jack instead, LHO might have a > problem, if he has not worked it out already. > Now, a hesitation without the Queen will be regarded > as a breach of L 73 D2. > > Another example: > You bid a slam, have lost 1 trick and in the end > you play from two small spades in dummy to your > AQ in the hand (you are missing only K and small). > RHO hesitates before he plays the 5 of spades. > Do you really play him for the K for that ? > Do you expect him to hold to K, because he hesitated. > Certainly not. > > But, again: > If you have the strong feeling, that the opponent > did this on purpose, you reduce his score thru a > heavy PP. > > And another: > The less the level of experience of the players the > more lenient you might be with the declarer and > against the offender. > > Regards > Peter > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 20 16:18:39 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Mar 20 16:18:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Brighton Congress 11-20 Aug References: <001401c64c03$b787a1d0$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <00c601c64c31$90d6e9f0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 9:50 AM Subject: [blml] Brighton Congress 11-20 Aug > > Hi all > > I can't find a schedule of events, costs etc for the Brighton congress > 11-20 > August 2006. Anyone lend a hand ?? off the top of my head. Fri-Sun Swiss pairs 14 rounds Sun eve multi teams or random pairs midweek seniors congress OR Mon - Thu afternoon ko teams or random pairs Mon - Thur evening special events, Mixed pairs, play with an expert, Ch pairs etc, one per evening Fri evening-Sun Swiss teams (top 16 on Sat evening creamed off into 2 8 table finals, (disadvantage is 11 am start if you do) Sun evening, seriously drunk pairs. Don't play in this, it can be a bit unpleasant unless you have a sense of humoUr. Costs, c 100+ quid for each weekend (bit more for the pairs) c 40 quid for midweek (9 sessions) probably 220 for all sessions. You can pay single session entry fees if you like. midnight games Fri Sat both weekends and Wed, free entry (always full of cheating Belgians and drunken Germans :) <- this is a JOKE. John > Karel > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 20 16:33:37 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Mar 20 16:32:57 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> At 08:50 AM 3/18/06, Herman wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>At 12:33 18/03/2006 +0100, you wrote: >> >>>BUT, I said, If you want to play this system, and you do so in >>>Holland only over 2-card clubs, because it would be brown otherwise, >>>then logically, if brown systems are allowed, you should be wanting >>>to do it against any clubs. >>> >>>So I _ordered_ them to play the same defences against 2-card clubs >>>AND 3-card clubs. >> >>I don't see why. If they play "better minor " (especially if they >>don't systematically open 1C on 33, but genuine "better" minor), you >>won't be eager to show various hand types including clubs. There is >>an objective difference. > >But it is a small one. Surely even they realize that a 1-club opening, >even when _possible_ on 4432, contains 3 cards clubs more than 95% of >the time (or an even larger number). So if they want to use a method >against that kind of opening, why not against every opening that can >contain only 3 clubs? Playing D4/C2 as opposed to better minor you will not only open 1C on 4-4-3-2 hands, but on a much larger percentage of 4-3-3-3 and 3-4-3-3 hands. So the chance that a 1C opening contains four or more clubs is much smaller. It is not at all unreasonable for a partnership to want to have methods that allow them to show clubs when playing against the former but believe they have better uses for those bids against the latter. You may allow those methods or not, but I see no rationale for allowing them only if they are used against a broader range of opponents' methods than the partnership wishes. In short, I don't understand how a TD's opinion that a pair "logically... should be wanting to do it against" (whatever) can justify his requiring them to use the methods *he* thinks they should want to. Where I play, it's not uncommon for partnerships to agree to treat a better minor 1C as natural but to employ their special defense against an artificial 1C when 1C can show two clubs. I, like Herman, would consider that to be a bad decision on their part, but it would never occur to me as a TD to prohibit them from doing so just because I disagree with their reasoning. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 16:42:06 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 16:39:31 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441ECD4E.7080109@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > I haven't read the Belgian system regs but WBF/EBL regs allow for the > possibility of varying one's opening bids against pairs playing a BS > system and I don't have any problems with the principle of that > instruction. The important thing is that if the defence is "flawed" > against a 3+ club opener the choice properly rests with the players. > I don't think "varying" is the correct word here. "Changing" would be better. If I see people playing complex systems against my 1Cl because it is allowed because of the nature of my 1Cl then I might consider changing my 1Cl to one against such complex methods are not permitted. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 16:53:17 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 16:50:46 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <441ECFED.2070102@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Where I play, it's not uncommon for partnerships to agree to treat a > better minor 1C as natural but to employ their special defense against > an artificial 1C when 1C can show two clubs. I, like Herman, would > consider that to be a bad decision on their part, but it would never > occur to me as a TD to prohibit them from doing so just because I > disagree with their reasoning. > Quite true and interesting. However, that is a pair that knows the local regulations and has decided to play that way. Mine was a pair that had decided to play thusly because of regulations in some other country, not applicable to the tournament in question. Anyway, we have decided to say that I "suggested" rather than "ordered" them to change their methods. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 16:58:18 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon Mar 20 16:58:33 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441ECFED.2070102@hdw.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <441ECFED.2070102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0603200758q1c97aae4j6805f6ce862ea3f1@mail.gmail.com> > Quite true and interesting. > However, that is a pair that knows the local regulations and has > decided to play that way. > Mine was a pair that had decided to play thusly because of regulations > in some other country, not applicable to the tournament in question. > > Anyway, we have decided to say that I "suggested" rather than > "ordered" them to change their methods... Who is "we" and how was this "decided"? More importantly, will you limit yourself to making suggestions in the future? From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 20 17:14:59 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Mar 20 17:17:36 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441ECFED.2070102@hdw.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <441ECFED.2070102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3skt12ts60hk9tbhjgfg49i6oo7v83f69r@4ax.com> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:53:17 +0100, Herman wrote: > >Anyway, we have decided to say that I "suggested" rather than >"ordered" them to change their methods. > Which obviously sounds a whole lot better - but as you said _ordered_ (your emphasis) when you made your original post, you shouldn't really be surprised when some folks take your post at face value. Brian. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Mar 20 17:50:48 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Mon Mar 20 17:51:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: <00a301c64c2f$146b7b80$9700a8c0@john> References: <1FL35Z-26z3Ng0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <00a301c64c2f$146b7b80$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <1FLNai-23AIGu0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Hi John, > ok, I'd hesitate against Peter as well just to amuse him. > (We won the pairs in Torino,so Peter can at least follow suit) > > How are you playing the suit Peter? catch question; no answer ;-) > Would you expect ME to adjust if YOU finessed and it lost? Probably as a player at the table I would tend to call the TD with the expectation of gaining the lost trick. But thinking just a little, I hope you would teach me Law 73 D1 and the fact that I'm not entitled to get any reaction from the opponents. And if I get one, I'm not entitled to any insurance regarding the consistence of my impression about the reaction. > What if Herman (a self-confessed palooka) finessed? ask him ;-) cheers Peter From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 20 18:04:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 20 18:04:55 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <3skt12ts60hk9tbhjgfg49i6oo7v83f69r@4ax.com> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > Which obviously sounds a whole lot better - but as you said > _ordered_ (your emphasis) when you made your original post, you > shouldn't really be surprised when some folks take your post at > face value. I think we can attribute Herman's original formulation to "Belgian humour". I think we can attribute the level of (mis)understanding to it being the world's first ever example of "Belgian humour". Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 20 18:39:02 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Mar 20 18:39:21 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <0A95EEED-743F-4D7F-915B-872BA25335DB@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Playing D4/C2 as opposed to better minor you will not only open 1C > on 4-4-3-2 hands, but on a much larger percentage of 4-3-3-3 and > 3-4-3-3 hands. 21.55% of all hands will have 4-4-3-2 distribution*. 25% of those, or 5.39% of all hands, will have 2 clubs, and 1/3 of *those*, or 1.8% of all hands will be 4=4=3=2. 10.54% of all hands will have 4-3-3-3 distribution*. 25% of those will have 3 clubs, and 1/3 of *those* will also have 3 diamonds. That works out to about 0.9%. Either my math is flawed, or when you open 1C playing "short club" and 5 card majors you are twice as likely to be 4=4=3=2 as to be (4-3)=3=3. If I'm wrong, show me how, please. * Source: Vivaldi and Barracho, "Probabilities and Alternatives in Bridge". From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 18:45:09 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon Mar 20 18:45:23 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <0A95EEED-743F-4D7F-915B-872BA25335DB@rochester.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <0A95EEED-743F-4D7F-915B-872BA25335DB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0603200945o5b624889xae4479faa1583a22@mail.gmail.com> >If I'm wrong, show me how, please. > 10.54% of all hands will have 4-3-3-3 distribution*. 25% of those will have 3 clubs, > and 1/3 of *those* will also have 3 diamonds. I suspect that there is an error in the assumption that 25% of all 4-3-3-3 hands have 3 clubs... -- 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 20 19:00:53 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Mar 20 19:01:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaks in Tempo In-Reply-To: <1FLEyn-1ytD7o0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> References: <1FLEyn-1ytD7o0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <7775EA13-CF33-43AB-BB50-C15C6CC73C43@rochester.rr.com> Hello, Peter. Thanks for the reply. On Mar 20, 2006, at 2:38 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > Hi, > > Ed Reppert wrote: >> Suppose a player has extraneous information from his partner - say >> from an alert or failure to alert. Say that after this information is >> transmitted, the player's RHO bids in his normal tempo of 2-3 >> seconds. If the player's normal tempo is also 2-3 seconds, and he >> breaks that tempo (either by bidding more quickly or by bidding more >> slowly) does this BIT necessarily convey information to his partner? >> Particularly in the case of bidding more slowly, might he not simply >> be considering how the EI *he* has should affect his next call? And >> if so, is that BIT not "due", and thus not constraining on his >> *partner's* next call? Or must we, willy-nilly, always rule that BITs >> convey UI? > > 1. TD has to judge every case on its own merits, so you can have a > standard procedure, but not an standard outcome > 2. Yes, every BIT conveys EI (Law 16 A) Assuming the BIT conveys any information at all, yes. > 3. The EI has to suggest a play or call to become UI (same law) If the list in the first paragraph of law 16 is exhaustive (...authorized...legal calls and plays and mannerisms of opponents...) then *all* EI is UI. It has to suggest a call or play, etc, in order for use of it to be illegal, but that's a different kettle of fish. Mere semantics, perhaps, but it helps to ensure we're all on the same page. > Your example above does not really fit, because a player, who 'sends' > EI while alerting (or not alerting) partners call, won't recognize > this action as UI, because if he does, he will call TD to reveal > his error just happened. I don't understand. Please explain. > And in the other example, where a player 'sends' UI with a BIT, we all > know, that the fact that partner now only bids 100% tolerable bids > (because he knows Law 16A) is UI for the player himself. Is it? Some have said that knowledge of the Laws is AI. If they're wrong, then as they have pointed out, that opens a huge can of worms. If they're right, then the logic chain "I made a BIT, partner knows it, and partner knows the laws, so his call(s) will be constrained by knowing that I made a BIT" is legal, not UI, and *that* means that not all EI is UI - which means that the list in the first paragraph of law 16 is *not* exhaustive. You see now why I'm confused? :-) > So, this player will have a problem, whether partner BITs or not. Perhaps. But it may be a problem of his own making, rather than one created by the laws. If you see Edgar Kaplan, apparently the architect of my confusion, please shoot him and put him out of my misery. :-) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 20 19:09:02 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Mar 20 19:04:00 2006 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320190809.027b2690@pop.ulb.ac.be> > >At 15:00 20/03/2006 +0000, John Probst wrote: > >>ok, I'd hesitate against Peter as well just to amuse him.(We won the pairs >>in Torino,so Peter can at least follow suit) >> >>How are you playing the suit Peter? >> >>Would you expect ME to adjust if YOU finessed and it lost? >> >> What if Herman (a self-confessed palooka) finessed? >I'm a self-confessed statistician and tetratrichotomist (and pleonasm buff >;-), and feel there is som?thing wrong in what has been said about that >case up to now. > >Yes, the normal play is to go for the drop. >But what seems to have been missed is that probabilities have been changed >by LHO's tempo, if there was one. If the tempo is honest, it is 100% to >finesse. > >And if it isn't ? Then adjust. L73 gives you that right, er, duty. > >Tell me what's wrong with that. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 20 19:24:50 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Mar 20 19:19:49 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <0A95EEED-743F-4D7F-915B-872BA25335DB@rochester.rr.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320191005.027b29d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:39 20/03/2006 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>Playing D4/C2 as opposed to better minor you will not only open 1C >>on 4-4-3-2 hands, but on a much larger percentage of 4-3-3-3 and >>3-4-3-3 hands. > >21.55% of all hands will have 4-4-3-2 distribution*. 25% of those, or >5.39% of all hands, will have 2 clubs, and 1/3 of *those*, or 1.8% of >all hands will be 4=4=3=2. 10.54% of all hands will have 4-3-3-3 >distribution*. 25% of those will have 3 clubs, and 1/3 of *those* >will also have 3 diamonds. That works out to about 0.9%. Either my >math is flawed, or when you open 1C playing "short club" and 5 card >majors you are twice as likely to be 4=4=3=2 as to be (4-3)=3=3. If >I'm wrong, show me how, please. 75% of 4333 hands have 3 clubs. Balanced hands account for about 48% of hands, 40% if you delete 5M-332. Start with those 40%. Among those, you have about 10,5% 4333, 21,5% 4432, and 8% 5m-332. You will have the following amount of clubs : 5 clubs : 4% (never longer or equally long diamonds) 4 clubs : 13 % (equally long diamonds about 3,5 %) 3 clubs : 16,5 % (about 8% 4333, about 3% 5D332, about 5,5% 4432) (among those : less than 6% have equal length in the minors ; less than 2% have more clubs ; about 9% have more diamonds) 2 clubs : 6,5 % (always longer diamonds) The classical theory (open 1D with 44, 1C with 33, longest else) means that balanced 1C openings will hold : 5 clubs : 4% 4 clubs : 9,5 % 3 clubs : 7,5 % 2 clubs : never The '4 card diamond theory' yields the same + less than 2% 2-card. To this, add about 11-14% natural, unbalanced club openings (depending on your rules on 5S5C, 5M6C, 4D5C and 4441). From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Mar 20 19:42:37 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Mon Mar 20 19:43:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaks in Tempo In-Reply-To: <7775EA13-CF33-43AB-BB50-C15C6CC73C43@rochester.rr.com> References: <1FLEyn-1ytD7o0@fwd31.sul.t-online.de> <7775EA13-CF33-43AB-BB50-C15C6CC73C43@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <1FLPKv-1a1w000@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> > Hello, Peter. Thanks for the reply. always with pleasure ... >> Ed Reppert made an example: >>> Suppose a player has extraneous information from his partner - say >>> from an alert or failure to alert. [...] >>> If the player's normal tempo is also 2-3 seconds, and he >>> breaks that tempo (either by bidding more quickly or by bidding more >>> slowly) does this BIT necessarily convey information to his partner? >>> Particularly in the case of bidding more slowly, might he not simply >>> be considering how the EI *he* has should affect his next call? >> >> Your example above does not really fit, because a player, who 'sends' >> EI while alerting (or not alerting) partners call, won't recognize >> this action as UI, because if he does, he will call TD to reveal >> his error just happened. > > I don't understand. Please explain. You have a player (X) and a partner (Y). If Y make EI available for X in alerting (or not alerting) a call from X, then Y is not aware of this fact. Simply because, if it were normal (or appropriate) to alert (or not alert), than it would be no EI (or better: no UI). So, in this example Y would not be aware of the fact, that X has a problem and therefore the example is as good as my example are (normally) ;-) If, on the other hand, Y becomes aware of the fact, that he forgot an alert (or should have alerted), he is forced by Law 75 D1 to immediately call for the sheriff. cheers Peter From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Mar 20 19:47:25 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Mar 20 19:45:01 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320191005.027b29d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060320191005.027b29d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <441EF8BD.30905@hdw.be> The main question is: how often does a 1Cl opener have only 2 of them. Using Alain's numbers we get: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 12:39 20/03/2006 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Playing D4/C2 as opposed to better minor you will not only open 1C >>> on 4-4-3-2 hands, but on a much larger percentage of 4-3-3-3 and >>> 3-4-3-3 hands. >> >> >> 21.55% of all hands will have 4-4-3-2 distribution*. 25% of those, or >> 5.39% of all hands, will have 2 clubs, and 1/3 of *those*, or 1.8% of >> all hands will be 4=4=3=2. 10.54% of all hands will have 4-3-3-3 >> distribution*. 25% of those will have 3 clubs, and 1/3 of *those* >> will also have 3 diamonds. That works out to about 0.9%. Either my >> math is flawed, or when you open 1C playing "short club" and 5 card >> majors you are twice as likely to be 4=4=3=2 as to be (4-3)=3=3. If >> I'm wrong, show me how, please. > > > 75% of 4333 hands have 3 clubs. > > Balanced hands account for about 48% of hands, 40% if you delete 5M-332. > Start with those 40%. > Among those, you have about 10,5% 4333, 21,5% 4432, and 8% 5m-332. > 10.5 + 21.5 + 8 is indeed 40. > You will have the following amount of clubs : > 5 clubs : 4% (never longer or equally long diamonds) > 4 clubs : 13 % (equally long diamonds about 3,5 %) > 3 clubs : 16,5 % (about 8% 4333, about 3% 5D332, about 5,5% 4432) > (among those : less than 6% have equal length in the minors ; less than > 2% have more clubs ; > about 9% have more diamonds) > 2 clubs : 6,5 % (always longer diamonds) > > The classical theory (open 1D with 44, 1C with 33, longest else) means > that balanced 1C openings will hold : > 5 clubs : 4% > 4 clubs : 9,5 % > 3 clubs : 7,5 % > 2 clubs : never > So in this system, 21% of all hands are opened 1 club. 19% of those 21 contain 5 clubs, 45% contain 4 clubs, and 36% contain 3 clubs. > The '4 card diamond theory' yields the same + less than 2% 2-card. > Which means that 23% of all hands will be opened 1 club. 17% of those have 5 cards, 41% have 4 cards, 33% have 3 cards, and 9% have only 2 cards. > To this, add about 11-14% natural, unbalanced club openings (depending > on your rules on 5S5C, 5M6C, 4D5C and 4441). > Let's not do that, but conclude that the 2 systems are not very different, and let's be fairly certain that it did not matter if I ordered the dutch pair or suggested something which I knew they would follow. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 19:52:16 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon Mar 20 19:52:31 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441EF8BD.30905@hdw.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060320191005.027b29d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441EF8BD.30905@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0603201052w70e0ade1m86ba645a7f1e730f@mail.gmail.com> > Let's not do that, but conclude that the 2 systems are not very > different, and let's be fairly certain that it did not matter if I > ordered the dutch pair or suggested something which I knew they would > follow. Comment 1: As noted several times earlier, there is a big difference between sugeesting and ordering. I appreciate your desire to "retcon" your use of the word ordering, however, its disingenuous to do so. Comment 2: Abuse of Power is inherent in the actions that you chose as a director, NOT in whether it had an impact on the pair of question. If I grab a high power rifle and start taking shots at pedestrians I am going to get locked up regardless of whether or not I hit any one. -- 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 21 00:31:24 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 21 00:31:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >>if I were the director whom I called , I >>might well rule that defender's BIT was not >>deliberate, and that therefore my (declarer's) >>inference was "at my own risk" and I was >>"damaged" because *I* got it wrong, which is >>not an infraction of law. If, OTOH, I determine >>that defender's BIT *was* deliberate, I would >>rule accordingly. [snip] Law 73D2: >When a violation of the Proprieties described in >this law results in damage to an innocent >opponent, if the Director determines that an >innocent player has drawn a false inference from >a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an >opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason >for the action, and who could have known, at the >time of the action, that the action could work to >his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted >score (see Law 12C), Richard Hills: The word "deliberate" does not appear in Law 73F2; rather, the relevant phrase is "could have known". The "at own risk" quote from Law 73D1 has been taken out of context; Law 73D1 reads in full: >It is desirable, though not always required, for >players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying >manner. However, players should be particularly >careful in positions in which variations may work >to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, >inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in >which a call or play is made does not in itself >constitute a violation of propriety, but >inferences from such variation may appropriately >be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own >risk. Because of the Kaplanesque over-succinct word "Otherwise", the third sentence of Law 73D1 is subordinate to the second sentence of Law 73D1. However, the ACBL LC has stated in its minutes that it wishes to water down and/or abolish Law 73F2 in the next edition of the Laws, so in 2008 Ed Reppert's hypothetical ruling may then be legal. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue Mar 21 03:48:23 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue Mar 21 03:19:19 2006 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320190809.027b2690@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320190809.027b2690@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <441F6977.6050706@cs.elte.hu> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> >> Yes, the normal play is to go for the drop. >> But what seems to have been missed is that probabilities have been >> changed by LHO's tempo, if there was one. If the tempo is honest, it >> is 100% to finesse. >> No, just the opposite. Normal play is very close decision, depends on the circumstances, but after LHO's tempo break 100% for drop. It's bridge regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 21 04:10:53 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 21 04:11:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL In-Reply-To: <200603131516.k2DFG1QI010551@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603131516.k2DFG1QI010551@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <441F6EBD.5070805@cfa.harvard.edu> Thanks to all those who pointed out L6D2 to me. I did look at L6 but somehow couldn't find that bit. Too much wine with dinner, perhaps. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I believe that tournaments based on replaying hands > dealt in earlier tournaments are considered to be within > the scope of Duplicate Contract Bridge. It seems odd to me to consider something the Laws explicitly prohibit to be within the scope of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Not that I object to "instant matchpoint" contests if they are properly advertised -- I just don't consider them "real bridge." > The object, > of course, is that any random distribution of 52 cards into > four hands of thirteen cards each, randomly juxtaposed to > each other, may occur. I agree, and it wouldn't hurt for the Laws to spell out that this is the objective. SO's who want to run different types of contest -- par deals, teaching deals, instant matchpoints, "play against the experts" -- are free to do so, of course, but players should be told what they are getting. > If I recall the numbers correctly > the potential variations are the product of the calculation > 635013559600 x 4 x 8122425444 x 3 x 10400600 x 2. The number of bridge deals is just under 2^96, an important number if you want to use a computer to generate them. On that topic, I highly recommend http://www.xs4all.nl/~sater/doc.html , which is a first rate discussion of requirements for dealing programs. (Quick summary: it's harder than you think but possible with a little thought and care.) From: "Tim West-Meads" > It's an EBU Sim night, play starts on schedule (7.00pm) at the Acol and > by 7.08 all odd-numbered boards have been played once. Sadly the start > was delayed until 7.10 at the YC (or maybe scheduled for 7.15), no > result may stand on those boards The definition of a session -- at least within a single contest -- is up to the SO. Of course sensible SOs will be mindful of security issues. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 21 04:19:19 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 21 04:19:29 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <200603171544.k2HFioCL006101@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603171544.k2HFioCL006101@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <441F70B7.7040604@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Grabiner" > Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. You have the > AI that partner is barred for one round, but you also have the UI that > partner has less than an opening bid and thus 4S is less likely to make. David's post has generated lots of discussion. I just want to comment that there are two separate issues here. The first is whether the information from the POOT -- that partner has less than an opening bid and no preempt -- is AI or UI. Despite Tim's clever deduction > The only (other) infraction for which a 1 round bar is the penalty is a > POOT. and Ed's doubts about "withdrawn" versus "cancelled," I think L16C2 was intended to make the information UI. I seem to recall a related WBFLC minute stating that "and another substituted" is not a required condition, but I don't think the LC has directly addressed the specific issue of what happens when information can be deduced strictly from the application of Law. (Penalty cards are another example. There's a WBFLC interpretation for that, but it makes no sense at all to me.) The second issue is what restrictions the UI (if it is UI) imposes. For that, let's imagine that the player in third position looks at his cards, sighs, and says "Yet another hand without an opening bid!" We all agree the remark is UI and restricts dealer's options. Whatever those restrictions are, the POOT imposes the same ones (again provided you agree that the information from the POOT is UI). Tim also wrote: > My belief is that penalties which combine mechanical and UI restrictions > are a total nightmare. Looks as though I have one convert to the view I've expressed here too many times. :-) Don't worry, Tim; in another few decades, I'm sure we'll be in the majority. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Mar 21 04:21:18 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Mar 21 04:21:25 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <200603202004.k2KK4jma016064@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603202004.k2KK4jma016064@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <441F712E.1050305@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > If I see people playing complex systems against my 1Cl because > it is allowed because of the nature of my 1Cl then I might consider > changing my 1Cl to one against such complex methods are not permitted. In the ACBL, you could do that only between sessions, not within a single session. At least that's my reading of the rules. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 21 04:31:55 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Mar 21 04:32:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 20, 2006, at 6:31 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Ed Reppert: > > [snip] > >>> if I were the director whom I called , I >>> might well rule that defender's BIT was not >>> deliberate, and that therefore my (declarer's) >>> inference was "at my own risk" and I was >>> "damaged" because *I* got it wrong, which is >>> not an infraction of law. If, OTOH, I determine >>> that defender's BIT *was* deliberate, I would >>> rule accordingly. > > [snip] > > Law 73D2: > >> When a violation of the Proprieties described in >> this law results in damage to an innocent >> opponent, if the Director determines that an >> innocent player has drawn a false inference from >> a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an >> opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason >> for the action, and who could have known, at the >> time of the action, that the action could work to >> his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted >> score (see Law 12C), As the D and F keys are right next to each other on the keyboard, I rule that Richard's typing D instead of F was a mispull rather than a lapse of reason; so I rule that he may change "73D2" to "73F2" above without penalty. :-) > > Richard Hills: > > The word "deliberate" does not appear in Law 73F2; > rather, the relevant phrase is "could have known". Heh. Okay, perhaps "deliberate" was a poor choice. But "could have known" has a *very* broad range, taken literally. Where do you draw the line? > The "at own risk" quote from Law 73D1 has been > taken out of context; Law 73D1 reads in full: > >> It is desirable, though not always required, for >> players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying >> manner. However, players should be particularly >> careful in positions in which variations may work >> to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, >> inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in >> which a call or play is made does not in itself >> constitute a violation of propriety, but >> inferences from such variation may appropriately >> be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own >> risk. > > Because of the Kaplanesque over-succinct word > "Otherwise", the third sentence of Law 73D1 is > subordinate to the second sentence of Law 73D1. I suppose what those two sentences mean is that if the player *tried* to be careful, yet still managed to break tempo, he should be okay. But you appear to be saying he's not. He broke tempo in a situation in which he should have been "careful". Therefore, you seem to say, we assume he was not careful enough if an opponent draws a wrong inference and is thereby damaged. Again, where do you draw the line? I think you're going too far in one direction, you think I'm going too far in the other. I would *hope* the answer lies somewhere in the middle. > However, the ACBL LC has stated in its minutes > that it wishes to water down and/or abolish Law > 73F2 in the next edition of the Laws, so in 2008 > Ed Reppert's hypothetical ruling may then be legal. Not relevant. I don't really care what *might* happen in 2008 (or, more likely 2009 is my guess). I want to know how to rule *now*. And to do that I need to know where "could have known" sits, and I don't. Enlighten me, please. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 21 05:54:57 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 21 05:55:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook (was ... is this what is intended?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <441F70B7.7040604@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: One important and hopefully non-controversial change in the format of the 2008 Lawbook would be to remove synonyms. Some years ago blml had a debate on whether there is a meaningful effective difference between the Law 40 "understandings" and the Law 75 "agreements". Now blml is having a debate on whether there is a meaningful effective difference between the Law 16C2 "withdrawn" calls and the Law 29B "cancelled" calls. Unnecessary ambiguity could be easily removed if the 2008 Lawbook consistently repeated identical words for identical meanings. Another anomaly is "infraction" and "irregularity". The word "irregularity" is defined in Chapter 1, but the word "infraction" is not. If there is a meaningful effective difference intended between the two words "infraction" and "irregularity", then "infraction" should be defined in Chapter 1. If there is not any meaningful effective difference intended, then "irregularity" should replace "infraction" throughout the 2008 Lawbook. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 21 06:14:44 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 21 06:17:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >He broke tempo in a situation in which he should have >been "careful". Therefore, you seem to say, we assume >he was not careful enough if an opponent draws a wrong >inference and is thereby damaged. Again, where do you >draw the line? > >I think you're going too far in one direction, you >think I'm going too far in the other. I would *hope* >the answer lies somewhere in the middle. [snip] Richard Hills: My middle-of-the-road interpretation of Law 73D1 is: (a) it is an infraction to carelessly deceive an opponent (eg by carelessly hesitating with a singleton), but, (b) it is not an infraction to inadvertently provide UI to partner (eg by inadvertently hesitating with a real bridge problem). Of course, if I honestly hesitate with a real bridge problem, while I have not committed an infraction, it is my _partner_ who must now be "careful" to obey the constraints of Law 73C and Law 16 when selecting amongst their logical alternatives. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 21 08:57:26 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 21 08:54:56 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441F712E.1050305@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603202004.k2KK4jma016064@cfa.harvard.edu> <441F712E.1050305@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <441FB1E6.5010308@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> If I see people playing complex systems against my 1Cl because >> it is allowed because of the nature of my 1Cl then I might consider >> changing my 1Cl to one against such complex methods are not permitted. > > > In the ACBL, you could do that only between sessions, not within a > single session. At least that's my reading of the rules. > I would agree that such a regulation, if it does not exist in every country, is a good one. But then we have a problem. Unbeknownst to my Belgian pairs, there is a Dutch pair in the room which wishes to treat diamonds-four and better minor very differently, to such an extent that the small difference it makes for the pair playing it becomes a huge difference once we know what they are playing against it. In Holland, that difference is well known, and a pair that wishes to play diamonds-4 knows what it can expect. But in Belgium, that is not the case. So I fully stand behind my decision to level the playing field for the Belgian pairs, by whichever method I can. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17/03/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 21 09:43:18 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Mar 21 09:38:28 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441EF8BD.30905@hdw.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060320191005.027b29d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060318130307.0210e260@pop.ulb.ac.be> <441C1035.9000604@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060320101322.02b11a70@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060320191005.027b29d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060321094108.0200dbb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:47 20/03/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >So in this system, 21% of all hands are opened 1 club. About 33%, because there are also unbalanced hands. >Let's not do that, but conclude that the 2 systems are not very different, >and let's be fairly certain that it did not matter if I ordered the dutch >pair or suggested something which I knew they would follow. Right. What would be different is a 2-card club that could include 4-card diamonds, as is often the case in the Netherlands. Their system was coined for playing against that, I assume ; they were wanting to use it against "M5-D4" too, or perhaps they encountered Belgian pairs that played the dutch way (several in Antwerp do this), or perhaps they didn't know Belgians played differently. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 21 12:56:57 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Mar 21 13:00:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Correction and apology. References: <003301c648df$909dded0$8a9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4419CD5A.40804@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <00f801c64cdf$149e3b50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > But I imagine, as in the past, any 'solutions' that > >the examiners were unhappy with would not count against > >the examinees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > I'm quite sure in it. My quetion is not about the examination but a > ruling problem --- which currently was in the final test in Telecitta. > Anyway thanks all the comments on the blml to my question but I have > still not got the anwser. :( > Laci > I am not sure about the question but the following might include an answer. You might be surprised but we knew about the Alcatraz coup in this problem. The three of us: Maurizio, Max and I discussed this question (as all others). And we came to the conclusion that south did not have a logical alternative for his play of the ace. Hearing the auction there was no other way to beat the contract. Something similar must have been written as the answer. There remains one question. Should we ask from a TD to decide such a thing on his own or is this expert play and should we either let the TD consult top players or decide in favor of the non offenders instead of making this decision himself? I am willing to accept the remark that we were more foccussed on the right (final technical) answer than on the TD-decision to be made. ton From zecurado at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 05:05:29 2006 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Tue Mar 21 14:42:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Correction and apology. In-Reply-To: <4419CD5A.40804@cs.elte.hu> References: <003301c648df$909dded0$8a9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4419CD5A.40804@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: I do not care about the marks given or taken on this particular question, although I, very much like Herman, could not find a lot of people agreeing with the official answer amongst a very competent bunch of European TD's. But my mother's son would still rule this as an Alcatraz... Giving the benefit of the doubt to the OS is something that I have very strong feelings against... Maybe I am stuburn... Maybe I have been directing some very naughty players in very strange tournments, but my question remains very much in John Probst's line: "What would a cheat do?". The answer IMHO is very clear cut: That! Wouldn't you find at least strange that a player that failed to cash the DK, made this particular mistake at this particular critical point? Most of the German speaking TD's thought that they recognized the hand... I, for one, would like to know if this was *the* original hand or if there are any *slight* but important differences... On 3/16/06, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > But I imagine, as in the past, any 'solutions' that > >the examiners were unhappy with would not count against > >the examinees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > I'm quite sure in it. My quetion is not about the examination but a > ruling problem --- which currently was in the final test in Telecitta. > Anyway thanks all the comments on the blml to my question but I have > still not got the anwser. :( > Laci > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a > FreeStarttol > Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060317/45babff4/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 08:17:01 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue Mar 21 14:42:23 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <008601c6495b$a2356e20$6400a8c0@rota> References: <008601c6495b$a2356e20$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: On 17/03/06, David Grabiner wrote: > > As dealer, you hold QJTxx AKx Ax Qxx, and drop the SQ on the table, > barring > partner for one round, what is your call? Both 1S and 4S are logical > alternatives, and you might choose either. (If you don't agree that both > are logical alternatives, add or subtract a few points as appropriate.) I'd probably bid 3NT ten times out of ten. That't the most likely game to make. Now, you hold the same hand, and partner passes out of turn. You have the > AI that partner is barred for one round, but you also have the UI that > partner has less than an opening bid and thus 4S is less likely to make. > Must you bid 4S? > > This seems to be an unusually harsh penalty because of Law 16C; not only > are > you forced to guess the correct bid, but you are not allowed to make the > most likely correct guess. I'd still bid 3NT. The knowledge that partner is barred is AI, that he's not got the values for an opening bid is UI. What's so harsh about that - you make mistakes, you normally have to pay. Anyway, in both circumstances you might get lucky and make a game not otherwise bid or made. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060317/82f79595/attachment.htm From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Mar 21 15:23:01 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue Mar 21 15:43:52 2006 Subject: Alcatraz Coup question on EBL exam; was RE: [blml] Correction and apology. Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C9A8@hotel.npl.ad.local> A very similar hand is http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=846 originally posted by Gerben Dirksen in November 2004. Robin -----Original Message----- From: Jos? J?lio Curado [mailto:zecurado@gmail.com] Sent: 17 March 2006 04:05 To: Laszlo Hegedus Cc: blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Correction and apology. I do not care about the marks given or taken on this particular question, although I, very much like Herman, could not find a lot of people agreeing with the official answer amongst a very competent bunch of European TD's. But my mother's son would still rule this as an Alcatraz... Giving the benefit of the doubt to the OS is something that I have very strong feelings against... Maybe I am stuburn... Maybe I have been directing some very naughty players in very strange tournments, but my question remains very much in John Probst's line: "What would a cheat do?". The answer IMHO is very clear cut: That! Wouldn't you find at least strange that a player that failed to cash the DK, made this particular mistake at this particular critical point? Most of the German speaking TD's thought that they recognized the hand... I, for one, would like to know if this was *the* original hand or if there are any *slight* but important differences... On 3/16/06, Laszlo Hegedus < hegelaci@cs.elte.hu > wrote: Grattan Endicott wrote: > > But I imagine, as in the past, any 'solutions' that >the examiners were unhappy with would not count against >the examinees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I'm quite sure in it. My quetion is not about the examination but a ruling problem --- which currently was in the final test in Telecitta. Anyway thanks all the comments on the blml to my question but I have still not got the anwser. :( Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060321/6fe72790/attachment.htm From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 21 15:42:38 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Mar 21 15:47:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook (was ... is this what is intended?)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005601c64cf5$b3fc6940$079868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > One important and hopefully non-controversial > change in the format of the 2008 Lawbook would > be to remove synonyms. > ...L40 "understandings" L75 "agreements". > ...L16C2 "withdrawn" L29B "cancelled" calls. > ...Ch1 "infraction" and "irregularity". [nige1] Richard is right on all counts. FWIW IMO, as far as players are concerned, there *is* a difference between "infraction" = Rule-breaking. For example a player exposing a card. and "irregularity", which includes events outside the rules (as well as rule-breaking). For example the table collapsing resulting in an exposed card) Of course, all such terms need rigorous definition, preferably with examples. From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Mar 21 16:01:21 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Mar 21 15:58:56 2006 Subject: Alcatraz Coup question on EBL exam; was RE: [blml] Correction and apology. In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C9A8@hotel.npl.ad.local> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C9A8@hotel.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <44201541.3010209@hdw.be> Robin Barker wrote: > A very similar hand is http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=846 > originally posted by Gerben Dirksen in November 2004. > Having read that one, the original question and official answer seem even stranger. In this version, South explains that he knows partner has only 2 diamonds. He also explains that the heart was among his own diamonds all the time. This provides us with a reason why South did not play the King of diamonds in trick 2 - he has a full count of the hand. It also provides us with a reason why he should discover the revoke: declarer shows up with a card south knows he cannot have! Now suddenly everything becomes clear. In such a case, we can choose to believe South, and then we can investigate why he would have no logical alternative but to play the king. After all, he has a correct count. But in the exam question, no such explanation is given. There, we don't know why South did not play the king at trick 2. We are even provided with an alternative answer to that: South cannot tell from the opening lead whether North has 2 or 3 diamonds. Also we don't know why South revoked (and are left with the possibility of the Alcatraz reason). Finally we don't know why South would not play his King after all. I find the exam question a feeble duplicate of this case. The original is easy: we shall rule for South. The changed version is (IMO) also easy: Alcatraz coup and slam made. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/286 - Release Date: 20/03/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 21 16:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 21 16:10:39 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? In-Reply-To: <441F70B7.7040604@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Tim also wrote: > > My belief is that penalties which combine mechanical and UI > > restrictions are a total nightmare. > > Looks as though I have one convert to the view I've expressed here > too many times. :-) Steve!!!! I have long regarded *you* as an early convert to *my* way of thinking on this issue. While history may relate which of us expounded that belief here first it might take a lot of research to discover. I suggest we agree to a parallel evolution compromise. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 21 16:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 21 16:10:42 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441F712E.1050305@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > If I see people playing complex systems against my 1Cl because > > it is allowed because of the nature of my 1Cl then I might consider > > changing my 1Cl to one against such complex methods are not > > permitted. > > In the ACBL, you could do that only between sessions, not within a > single session. At least that's my reading of the rules. The EBU leaves quite a lot of discretion to TDs. We have a "two system" rule which, in certain events, would prevent playing "Precision in 1st/2nd, Acol in 3rd/4th" but, for example, "Mini NT in 1st/2nd, SNT in 3rd/4th" is *not* considered a breach of that rule. IMO "D by 4 in 1st/2nd, Better minor in 3rd/4th" would also be OK. (and thus I'd also allow players to switch in Herman's example). I also think I recall (from somewhere, but can't find it) that players may change system "mid-session" with the TD's permission. Under WBF regs I'd rule (perhaps wrongly) that varying the 1c/1d in order to prevent the deployment of a "BS defence" was legit. Obviously regs vary from SO to SO and that would affect what was allowed. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 21 16:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 21 16:10:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Correction and apology. In-Reply-To: <00f801c64cdf$149e3b50$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > I am not sure about the question but the following might include an > answer. > > You might be surprised but we knew about the Alcatraz coup in this > problem. The three of us: Maurizio, Max and I discussed this > question (as all others). > And we came to the conclusion that south did not have a logical > alternative for his play of the ace. Hearing the auction there was > no other way to beat the contract. > > Something similar must have been written as the answer. > There remains one question. Should we ask from a TD to decide such a > thing on his own or is this expert play and should we either let the > TD consult top players or decide in favor of the non offenders > instead of making this decision himself? I'm a little confused by this. The decision about LAs/Could have known is *surely* a judgement call. Were I marking the exam I'd deduct points from any TD who did *not* mention consulting (either with top players or TDs who are top players in their own right). Either "I'd consult but IMO there is no LA..." or "I'd consult but IMO there is an LA because.." could be "technically correct". The "top player" issue is also interesting. It isn't just revoker's calibre that would drive my ruling but revoker's likely assessment of declarer's calibre. There is no doubt in my mind that if declarer can be considered "relatively weak" the Aclatraz provides tremendous insurance against the hand having been misplayed. I haven't actually seen the auction (although obviously it was flawed) so I'm not actually in a position to make that judgement. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Mar 21 16:18:23 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Mar 21 16:18:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook (was ... is this what is intended?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <418FD8B4-C8E3-4F92-95A4-A2EFDEFF860B@rochester.rr.com> On Mar 20, 2006, at 11:54 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Unnecessary ambiguity could be easily removed if the 2008 > Lawbook consistently repeated identical words for identical > meanings. Maybe. But I note that the word "renege" has not been in the laws for many years, if it ever was. Yet I still get calls from players who tell me "he/she/I reneged". :-) From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Mar 21 17:10:34 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue Mar 21 17:11:17 2006 Subject: Alcatraz Coup question on EBL exam; was RE: [blml] Correction and apology. In-Reply-To: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C9A8@hotel.npl.ad.local> References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C9A8@hotel.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <4420257A.4070603@t-online.de> Hi folks, Robin Barker wrote: > A very similar hand is > http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=846 > originally posted by Gerben Dirksen in November 2004. > > Robin this is the hand I mentioned in Torino to some of you. It is from the German Pairs Championship 2003. Gerben has all his facts correct. I was one of the directors, Matthias Sch?ller was another one, Kurt Lang was the dummy, so 3 people actually involved in the original case were in Torino. I offered to name all players and directors for extra points in the exam but this was refused.... :-) Curiously Maurizio seems to have no knowledge of this case, as far as I know he got the problem from the Australian Directors Forum or some such, where it had already been changed from the hand as played. I do not know who put it there. We ruled the slam made, N/S appealed but later retracted the appeal when it became clear that they had won the event in any case. I believe South`s story about habing a heart in with his diamonds. This guy would not lie to a mere director, it`s beneath him. This did not make me rule for him, it`s an Alcatraz situation, so that`s that. At least for me. The Torino hand is different in that there is no way to beat the contract if West has a singleton diamond, but that already was the case at trick two. My main objection to questions like this one is not the difficulty or whatever, but rhat this type of examination goes against everything you have learned to do as a director: you have to solve a lot of judgement cases (most problems were of this type) in an average time of 9 minutes apiece all on your own, while in practical life you would consult colleagues, poll players and zake the necessary time to get to the right ruling. Hans van Stavereb told me that one of the Dutch world champions (the professor :-) ) would probably fold up his cards, stare at the ceiling and probably not play a card for the next 20 minutes, and we have to decide in 9. Seeing all the cards only makes the problem more difficult, it destroys one`s focus. Best regards Matthias From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Mar 21 18:32:33 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue Mar 21 18:32:51 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <442038B1.7000904@meteo.fr> Tim West-Meads a ?crit: > Steve wrote: > >>> If I see people playing complex systems against my 1Cl because >>>it is allowed because of the nature of my 1Cl then I might consider >>>changing my 1Cl to one against such complex methods are not >>>permitted. >> >>In the ACBL, you could do that only between sessions, not within a >>single session. At least that's my reading of the rules. > > > The EBU leaves quite a lot of discretion to TDs. We have a "two system" > rule which, in certain events, would prevent playing "Precision in > 1st/2nd, Acol in 3rd/4th" but, for example, "Mini NT in 1st/2nd, SNT in > 3rd/4th" is *not* considered a breach of that rule. > IMO "D by 4 in 1st/2nd, Better minor in 3rd/4th" would also be OK. > (and thus I'd also allow players to switch in Herman's example). > > I also think I recall (from somewhere, but can't find it) that players > may change system "mid-session" with the TD's permission. > > Under WBF regs I'd rule (perhaps wrongly) that varying the 1c/1d in > order to prevent the deployment of a "BS defence" was legit. i think this would be an ill-advised regulation. it's preferable to have pairs devising their systems in chronological order: first they choose their opening bids; next their overcalls which may vary according to opponents' opening bids; next responder's bids and so on. otherwise how could you resolve the paradox when you are called to a table where one pair has agreed to use defense A if opponents open 4-card K and defense B if better minor, and the other pair has agreed to open K-4 if opponents overcall B and better minor if they overcall A? same kind of difficulty occured when people used to play the "yours" system: NS had a CC written "same system as EW" and EW: "same system as NS". jpr > > Obviously regs vary from SO to SO and that would affect what was allowed. > > Tim > -- _______________________________________________ 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 twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 21 21:01:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 21 21:01:36 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <442038B1.7000904@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Jean-pierre wrote: > > Under WBF regs I'd rule (perhaps wrongly) that varying the 1c/1d in > > order to prevent the deployment of a "BS defence" was legit. > > i think this would be an ill-advised regulation. it's preferable to > have pairs devising their systems in chronological order: first they > choose their opening bids; next their overcalls which may vary > according to opponents' opening bids; next responder's bids and so on. > otherwise how could you resolve the paradox when you are called to > a table where one pair has agreed to use defense A if opponents open In this instance there is no chronological paradox. In a WBF cat3 event, if a pair states that during the round they will be playing "better minor" their opponents don't get a choice about their defence since the "special" defence to 1C would be illegal. If it is a Cat 1/2 event (and I have understood the regs correctly) the pair which chooses to use a BS defence over certain openings but not others must have provided that defence well in advance in order to provide for just such adjustments. I may have misunderstood the wording/spirit/intent of the BS regs. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 22 06:54:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Mar 22 06:54:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaks in Tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Suppose a player has extraneous information from his partner - say >from an alert or failure to alert. Say that after this information >is transmitted, the player's RHO bids in his normal tempo of 2-3 >seconds. If the player's normal tempo is also 2-3 seconds, and he >breaks that tempo (either by bidding more quickly or by bidding >more slowly) does this BIT necessarily convey information to his >partner? Particularly in the case of bidding more slowly, might he >not simply be considering how the EI *he* has should affect his >next call? And if so, is that BIT not "due", and thus not >constraining on his *partner's* next call? Or must we, willy-nilly, >always rule that BITs convey UI? Richard Hills: Some years ago, in the Aussie summer nationals, North gave UI to South, and South then broke tempo in order to consider which of South's logical alternatives remained legal. West misinterpreted the reason for South's BIT, so East-West were consequently damaged. The TD ruled that it was not a "bridge reason" to take time to decide that the only legal logical alternative was indeed the only legal logical alternative. The TD therefore used Law 73F2 to adjust the score in favour of East-West. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 22 07:07:10 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Mar 22 07:07:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaks in Tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:54 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Some years ago, in the Aussie summer nationals, North gave UI to > South, and South then broke tempo in order to consider which of > South's logical alternatives remained legal. West misinterpreted > the reason for South's BIT, so East-West were consequently damaged. > > The TD ruled that it was not a "bridge reason" to take time to > decide that the only legal logical alternative was indeed the only > legal logical alternative. The TD therefore used Law 73F2 to adjust > the score in favour of East-West. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :( From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Mar 22 15:48:50 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Mar 22 15:49:21 2006 Subject: Alcatraz Coup question on EBL exam; was RE: [blml] Correctionand apology. References: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D90849C9A8@hotel.npl.ad.local> <4420257A.4070603@t-online.de> Message-ID: <007a01c64dbf$bd375450$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > Hans van Staveren told me that one of the Dutch world champions (the > professor :-) ) would probably fold up his cards, stare at the ceiling > and probably not play a card for the next 20 minutes, and we have to > decide in 9. Seeing all the cards only makes the problem more difficult, > it destroys one`s focus. > > Best regards > Matthias That must be Bauke Muller, indeed worldchampion in Chili 1993. We (I ) have noted your feelings about what happened in the final examination. ton From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 22 15:51:44 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 22 15:50:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060322094334.02b698e0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:31 PM 3/20/06, Ed wrote: >Heh. Okay, perhaps "deliberate" was a poor choice. But "could have >known" has a *very* broad range, taken literally. Where do you draw >the line? Ed is right on target here. "Could have known" covers pretty much anything a player might do. But "deliberate" requires compelling evidence of intent, which we won't usually have even in relatively clear-cut cases. So we need to find a middle ground somewhere. I think that middle ground lies somewhere in the vicinity of "might have known". That allows us to find an infraction when we think the action might have been deliberate but can't prove it, but to find no infraction when we're sure it was done entirely innocently. In my experience, "might have known" pretty much approximates the way directors and committees (at least in the ACBL) seem to interpret L73F2 in real-life situations. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 22 16:07:14 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 22 16:06:22 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <441FB1E6.5010308@hdw.be> References: <200603202004.k2KK4jma016064@cfa.harvard.edu> <441F712E.1050305@cfa.harvard.edu> <441FB1E6.5010308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060322095529.02b530c0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:57 AM 3/21/06, Herman wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >>>From: Herman De Wael >>> If I see people playing complex systems against my 1Cl because >>>it is allowed because of the nature of my 1Cl then I might consider >>>changing my 1Cl to one against such complex methods are not permitted. >> >>In the ACBL, you could do that only between sessions, not within a >>single session. At least that's my reading of the rules. > >I would agree that such a regulation, if it does not exist in every >country, is a good one. > >But then we have a problem. Unbeknownst to my Belgian pairs, there is >a Dutch pair in the room which wishes to treat diamonds-four and >better minor very differently, to such an extent that the small >difference it makes for the pair playing it becomes a huge difference >once we know what they are playing against it. >In Holland, that difference is well known, and a pair that wishes to >play diamonds-4 knows what it can expect. But in Belgium, that is not >the case. > >So I fully stand behind my decision to level the playing field for the >Belgian pairs, by whichever method I can. When it comes to the use of methods, it is the job of the SO, not the director, to determine how far they wish to go in "level[ing] the playing field". If the TD were entitled to make such rulings in the name of "leveling the playing field", he would be equally entitled to carry this policy to its logical conclusion, which would be to require that everyone play the same methods in all situations throughout. The TD's job is to make sure that no one pair is specifically disadvataged "at the table". Here that criterion isn't met. If the defenses the Dutch pair wants to play against 4D/2C are legal in the event, the situation faced by a pair playing 4D/2C is not affected at the table by whether or not their opponents use the same defenses against better minor. If Herman can "level the playing field" with a suggestion, as might any other player, rather than with a directive, acting in his capacity as the TD, I have no problem with that, provided he takes care to insure that the recipients of his "suggestion" understand that it is only that. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 23 00:20:56 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 23 00:21:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060322094334.02b698e0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>Heh. Okay, perhaps "deliberate" was a poor choice. But "could have >>known" has a *very* broad range, taken literally. Where do you draw >>the line? Eric Landau: >Ed is right on target here. "Could have known" covers pretty much >anything a player might do. But "deliberate" requires compelling >evidence of intent, which we won't usually have even in relatively >clear-cut cases. So we need to find a middle ground somewhere. > >I think that middle ground lies somewhere in the vicinity of "might >have known". That allows us to find an infraction when we think the >action might have been deliberate but can't prove it, but to find no >infraction when we're sure it was done entirely innocently. > >In my experience, "might have known" pretty much approximates the way >directors and committees (at least in the ACBL) seem to interpret >L73F2 in real-life situations. Richard Hills: To my untutored ear, "could have known", "might have known" or "may have known" are synonymous. In my opinion, it is the associated phrase "at the time of his irregularity" (Law 72B1 & Law 23) or "at the time of the action" (Law 73F2) which narrows the very broad range. I also have qualms about Eric drawing the line at "we're sure it was done entirely innocently". Suppose that during a session the TD is twice called to rule on a possible Alcatraz Coup on board 23, and in both cases the facts are identical. The TD applies Law 72B1 against expert player A, but does not apply Law 72B1 against expert player B, because A is Richard Nixon and B is the surely entirely innocent Dwight Eisenhower. Richard Nixon then sues the ACBL for a zillion dollars because of the TD's inconsistently biased rulings. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 23 01:05:29 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Mar 23 01:05:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook (was ... is this what is intended?)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <418FD8B4-C8E3-4F92-95A4-A2EFDEFF860B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001401c64e0d$ac0555d0$f1c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Grattan's notebook (was ... is this what is intended?)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Maybe. But I note that the word "renege" has not been in the > laws for many years, if it ever was. Yet I still get calls from > players who tell me "he/she/I reneged". :-) > +=+ Words not otherwise defined have their dictionary meanings. I quote: 'Renege' or 'renegue', at cards, other words for revoke. ---------------------------------------------------------------- But the point is understood. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 23 10:09:39 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Mar 23 10:04:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73D2? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060322094334.02b698e0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060323100344.0200e8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:20 23/03/2006 +1100, you wrote: >Suppose that during a session the TD is twice called to rule on a >possible Alcatraz Coup on board 23, and in both cases the facts are >identical. The TD applies Law 72B1 against expert player A, but does >not apply Law 72B1 against expert player B, because A is Richard Nixon >and B is the surely entirely innocent Dwight Eisenhower. Richard >Nixon then sues the ACBL for a zillion dollars because of the TD's >inconsistently biased rulings. I don't see anything wrong about that (except for the sue). The same psyche would be ruled differently if is was the first occurrence for one pair and a repeated occurrence for another. TFLB takes a player's level into account when assessing redresses. In the same way, I would decide it was Alcatraz after all, with more conviction if it wasn't the first time he did it. (But, in the present case, I would do it against anybody. I mean, I don't consider it borderline) Best regards, Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 23 10:00:45 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 23 10:07:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players References: <005101c64b5d$83da4780$309468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <006901c64e58$81abdb10$e89e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ +=+ Comment interspersed. +=+ ....................................................................... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: [blml] Consultation with players > > [nige1] > Several of us have made specific suggestions > intended to simplify and clarify the laws. Does > anybody ever argue for these changes to WBFLC, > even as a "Devil's Advocate"? > > Grattan Endicott takes proposals seriously - > although he rejects anything radical. > +=+ Amusing. My drafting colleagues have found my ideas too radical. (They are not necessarily to the taste of readers here, but they start with an urge to simplify.) +=+ < > William Schoder seems to spurn constructive > criticism; he also attacks critics personally; and > casts aspersions on their motives. > > William is naturally keen to suppress views in > conflict with his own; but even his reaction is > much better than no reaction at all. > +=+ I think you misjudge Kojak. He is very secure in his knowledge of the operation of the 1997 laws. He finds it difficult to reconcile that security with the problems of lesser TDs, and particularly those who do not enjoy close local support in matters of interpretation and application. He is impatient with anyone who fails to recognize how few, in his mind, are the problems with the language of the 1997 law book. His reactions can be explosive, and we take him or leave him as he is - an honest, simple man who wears his opinions on his sleeve. +=+ < > The WBFLC talks about "soliciting players views". > Do they poll the views of rank and file players? > Or do they consult only with fellow directors and > administrators in the hope that the consultation > task may be safely delegated to them? > > For example, do you expect the average player to > tell a director that he would prefer less > subjective laws because he distrusts directors' > judgement? > > More fundamentally, do law-makers really believe > that players would prefer to be kept in enforced > ignorance of the game they want to play -by > maintaining the unnecessary fragmentation and > complexity of its rules? > +=+ About four years ago we asked NBOs and Zones to synthesize the views of their members and we invited them to submit comment and proposals via their Zones. We received a lot of comment, all of which was presented to the drafting subcommittee and considered. There were conflicts of view, not susprisingly, and it still remains to be seen what our resolutions will be. The intention has been expressed of putting our conclusions to NBOs before they are set in stone - at which time elements of wording would still be capable of change and any 'holes' could be noticed by the NBOs' directors and reported. We resolved early to bring together as far as we could all law relating to a given subject. It is too early as yet to judge how far we will succeed in this early aim; we are trying not to forget it. Apart from 'William' and myself, ton kooijman and Joan Gerard of the drafting subcommittee also receive blml. +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Mar 23 11:39:50 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu Mar 23 11:40:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players References: <005101c64b5d$83da4780$309468d5@jeushtlj> <006901c64e58$81abdb10$e89e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <005101c64e66$1e226880$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > Apart from 'William' and myself, ton kooijman > and Joan Gerard of the drafting subcommittee also > receive blml. +=+ I do, and I even read most of it. Be sure that I use all experience, opinions, whatever, when considering a rewrite of the laws. But the contribution of blml on that list is not impressive. ton From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Mar 23 12:17:10 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Mar 23 12:22:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players References: <005101c64b5d$83da4780$309468d5@jeushtlj><006901c64e58$81abdb10$e89e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <005101c64e66$1e226880$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <005401c64e6b$55220d40$109868d5@jeushtlj> [Ton Kooijman] > I do, and I even read most of it. Be sure that > I use all experience, opinions, whatever, > when considering a rewrite of the laws. > But the contribution of blml on that list is > not impressive. [nige1] Thank you Ton. Fair enough. I suppose we can console ourselves that it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 23 13:08:55 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 23 13:14:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Answer received Message-ID: <001501c64e72$92b595d0$14a087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ +=+ This is the answer I received from the EBU to a question put: "The information that you require is on pp 47-49 of the current EBU diary. Normal practice is to publish the information on the web-site simultaneously with the publication of the brochure so that any changes that occur after the printing of the diary are published at the same time. The brochure is awaiting approval from Max at the moment and I shall forward one as soon as it is available." ~ G ~ +=+ From joanandron at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 23 13:54:17 2006 From: joanandron at worldnet.att.net (JOAN GERARD) Date: Thu Mar 23 13:54:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players References: <005101c64b5d$83da4780$309468d5@jeushtlj><006901c64e58$81abdb10$e89e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <005101c64e66$1e226880$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <002901c64e78$ed08b250$c1224c0c@valuedqe19ks6r> Hi All, Just for record keeping. Grattan is quite correct. I, too, am a subscriber to blml and indeed read almost all that come through. Many thoughts that are discussed here are brought up in the Laws Drafting meetings that take place. Between the 4 of us, we make certain that the ideas from blml are not ignored. Take care. Joan Gerard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "BLML" Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Consultation with players > > > Apart from 'William' and myself, ton kooijman > > and Joan Gerard of the drafting subcommittee also > > receive blml. +=+ > > > > I do, and I even read most of it. > Be sure that I use all experience, opinions, whatever, when considering a > rewrite of the laws. > But the contribution of blml on that list is not impressive. > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Thu Mar 23 22:25:48 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Mar 23 22:26:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players References: <005101c64b5d$83da4780$309468d5@jeushtlj> <006901c64e58$81abdb10$e89e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: I'm glad to read that I'm an honest and simple man. I'm particularly interested in Grattan's damning me with faint praise by describing me as "simple" -- particularly from someone who perhaps knows more about me than any other person on BLML. If 'simple' is to mean direct, uncomplicated, and possessing the ability to clear away the cobwebs of convoluted, tortured, wordy proposals, and self-glorifying spouting, then I'm beholden to him for the accuracy of his diagnosis. If it is to describe my abilities, attainments, and diversity of interests and greatly satisfying varied life, then I can only suggest medical intervention to repair memory. As to wearing my opinions on my sleeve -- I'm always leery of those who present their opinions as immutable facts, particularly from insular and limited knowledge of how bridge is played throughout the world. The game is too exciting, loved, adaptable, and happily entrenched to be hogtied by wannabe gurus or savants. So, by the way, is the English language. Kojak, a.k.a. "William" P.S. I read opinions on BLML that I do not agree with, and have studied them to help me better perform as a member of the drafting committee. It's what "simple" people do. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Consultation with players > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************* > "We but teach bloody instructions, > which, being taught, return, to plague > the inventor." > ['Macbeth'] > ------------------------------------------------ > +=+ Comment interspersed. +=+ > ....................................................................... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:59 PM > Subject: [blml] Consultation with players > > > > > > [nige1] > > Several of us have made specific suggestions > > intended to simplify and clarify the laws. Does > > anybody ever argue for these changes to WBFLC, > > even as a "Devil's Advocate"? > > > > Grattan Endicott takes proposals seriously - > > although he rejects anything radical. > > > +=+ Amusing. My drafting colleagues have found > my ideas too radical. (They are not necessarily to > the taste of readers here, but they start with an > urge to simplify.) +=+ > < > > William Schoder seems to spurn constructive > > criticism; he also attacks critics personally; and > > casts aspersions on their motives. > > > > William is naturally keen to suppress views in > > conflict with his own; but even his reaction is > > much better than no reaction at all. > > > +=+ I think you misjudge Kojak. He is very > secure in his knowledge of the operation of > the 1997 laws. He finds it difficult to reconcile > that security with the problems of lesser TDs, > and particularly those who do not enjoy close > local support in matters of interpretation and > application. He is impatient with anyone who > fails to recognize how few, in his mind, are the > problems with the language of the 1997 law > book. His reactions can be explosive, and we > take him or leave him as he is - an honest, simple > man who wears his opinions on his sleeve. +=+ > < > > The WBFLC talks about "soliciting players views". > > Do they poll the views of rank and file players? > > Or do they consult only with fellow directors and > > administrators in the hope that the consultation > > task may be safely delegated to them? > > > > For example, do you expect the average player to > > tell a director that he would prefer less > > subjective laws because he distrusts directors' > > judgement? > > > > More fundamentally, do law-makers really believe > > that players would prefer to be kept in enforced > > ignorance of the game they want to play -by > > maintaining the unnecessary fragmentation and > > complexity of its rules? > > > +=+ About four years ago we asked NBOs and > Zones to synthesize the views of their members > and we invited them to submit comment and > proposals via their Zones. We received a lot of > comment, all of which was presented to the > drafting subcommittee and considered. There > were conflicts of view, not susprisingly, and it > still remains to be seen what our resolutions will > be. > The intention has been expressed of putting > our conclusions to NBOs before they are set in > stone - at which time elements of wording would > still be capable of change and any 'holes' could > be noticed by the NBOs' directors and reported. > We resolved early to bring together as far as we > could all law relating to a given subject. It is too > early as yet to judge how far we will succeed in > this early aim; we are trying not to forget it. > Apart from 'William' and myself, ton kooijman > and Joan Gerard of the drafting subcommittee also > receive blml. +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 24 02:20:25 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 24 02:20:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006901c64e58$81abdb10$e89e87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >The intention has been expressed of putting >our conclusions to NBOs before they are set in >stone - at which time elements of wording would >still be capable of change and any 'holes' could >be noticed by the NBOs' directors and reported. [snip] >Apart from 'William' and myself, ton kooijman >and Joan Gerard of the drafting subcommittee >also receive blml. +=+ Richard Hills: I agree with "William" that blml's signal to noise ratio is heavily weighted in favour of noise. On the other hand, some current or former blmlers (including but not limited to Eric Landau, Steve Willner, Ed Reppert, David Burn, David Stevenson and Marvin French) have frequently highlighted elements of wording which could be improved, or "holes" which could be fixed. Therefore, I humbly suggest that it should not just be NBOs which receive the penultimate draft, but that the penultimate draft should also be published on the WBF website so that _any_ person could analyse a "hole" and/or ambiguous wording while the penultimate draft is still capable of change. I note that the ABF, when revising its alert regs and system regs, published the penultimate drafts of those regs on the ABF website three months before the final version of those regs was due to take effect. Feedback from the general Aussie bridge public helped the ABF fill some minor "holes", and clarify some ambiguous wording. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 24 03:46:09 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Mar 24 03:46:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: Alcatraz Coup question on EBL exam In-Reply-To: <200603211518.k2LFIIrx001502@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603211518.k2LFIIrx001502@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44235D71.7000109@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ton Kooijman > You might be surprised but we knew about the Alcatraz coup in this problem. > The three of us: Maurizio, Max and I discussed this question (as all > others). > And we came to the conclusion that south did not have a logical alternative > for his play of the ace. Hearing the auction there was no other way to beat > the contract. I'm a little surprised by this. LA's come into the question when considering L16C2, which of course the TD is obliged to do. It seems to me the TD should also consider L72B1, in which LA's play no part. (Also, in considering LA's, the "peers" of the player in question are those who didn't cash the ace at trick 2.) Robin Barker wrote: >> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=846 >> originally posted by Gerben Dirksen in November 2004. From: Herman De Wael > In this version, South explains that he knows... ... > But in the exam question, no such explanation is given. > The original is easy: we shall rule for [revoker]. The changed version is (IMO) also > easy: Alcatraz coup and slam made. What's the difference between the two cases except for the subjective, self serving, and wholly unverifiable story about why the revoke occurred? From: Eric Landau > "Could have known" covers pretty much > anything a player might do. But "deliberate" requires compelling > evidence of intent, which we won't usually have even in relatively > clear-cut cases. So we need to find a middle ground somewhere. I think L72B1 gives us the "middle ground" we need. We often use a bit of shorthand here on BLML, but let's not forget what the text actually 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... The key word here is "likely." Would a cheat, _at the time of the irregularity_, reasonably _expect_ to gain? Alcatraz coup is the classic example. Sure, most of the time it was an accident, and the offender will often have a plausible story, but the TD should adjust the score nonetheless. If there's any reason to believe intent was involved, the matter should in addition be referred to the appropriate disciplinary body. For most infractions, even those few that end up gaining, there's no way a cheat could have _expected_ to gain from them. Bar partner, guess 3NT, lucky make: good for you! Unless you somehow could have _expected_ such a result. L72B1 deals with those rare cases. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 24 03:47:59 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Mar 24 03:48:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaks in Tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200603221506.k2MF6vLD026445@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603221506.k2MF6vLD026445@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44235DDF.5050909@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The TD ruled that it was not a "bridge reason" to take time to > decide that the only legal logical alternative was indeed the only > legal logical alternative. The TD therefore used Law 73F2 to adjust > the score in favour of East-West. Does anyone besides me find that a very strange ruling? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Mar 24 03:57:13 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Mar 24 03:57:29 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <200603211537.k2LFbYT1003920@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603211537.k2LFbYT1003920@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44236009.7080208@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > Under WBF regs I'd rule (perhaps wrongly) that varying the 1c/1d in > order to prevent the deployment of a "BS defence" was legit. Is this right? In other words, can a defense to opponents' conventions really fall under the brown sticker regulations? In the rather restrictive ACBL, once the opponents have used any convention, it's pretty much "anything goes." (There are a few restrictions almost never important in practice.) > Obviously regs vary from SO to SO and that would affect what was allowed. Indeed so. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 24 06:25:52 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 24 06:25:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: Alcatraz Coup question on EBL exam [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44235D71.7000109@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >LA's come into the question when considering L16C2, which >of course the TD is obliged to do. It seems to me the TD >should also consider L72B1, in which LA's play no part. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the application of Law 16C2 or Law 72B1 should lead to an identical score adjustment or score non- adjustment when considering a possible Alcatraz Coup. If a particular play is considered to be the only logical alternative, how has the mandatory Law 72B1 criterion "gained an advantage" been satisfied? Steve Willner: >(Also, in considering LA's, the "peers" of the player in >question are those who didn't cash the ace at trick 2.) Richard Hills: With that I agree. Perhaps "logical alternatives" should be changed to "normal choices" in the next edition of the Lawbook, with a footnote stating that: "'Normal choices' includes careless or inferior choices, but not absurd choices, for the class of player involved". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 24 06:47:02 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 24 06:54:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: George Bernard Shaw: >>England and America are two countries divided by a common >>language. Kojak: >damning me with faint praise by describing me as "simple" [snip] >The game is too exciting, loved, adaptable, and happily >entrenched to be hogtied by wannabe gurus or savants. So, >by the way, is the English language. Richard Hills: In the Aussie and British dialects of the English language, "simple" has connotations of "straightfoward". In the American dialect of the English language, "simple" has connotations of "simpleton". This "simple" misunderstanding between Grattan and Kojak itself demonstrates Grattan's point that the wording of the next edition of the Lawbook should be "straightforward". :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 24 08:31:20 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 24 08:28:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: Alcatraz Coup question on EBL exam In-Reply-To: <44235D71.7000109@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200603211518.k2LFIIrx001502@cfa.harvard.edu> <44235D71.7000109@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4423A048.3000205@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > >> In this version, South explains that he knows... > > ... > >> But in the exam question, no such explanation is given. > > >> The original is easy: we shall rule for [revoker]. The changed version >> is (IMO) also easy: Alcatraz coup and slam made. > > > What's the difference between the two cases except for the subjective, > self serving, and wholly unverifiable story about why the revoke occurred? > Simply the fact that such an explanation is given. OK, it may be unverifiable, but I would not call it subjective or self serving. If it is true, then there is nothing self serving about expressing the fact. If it is true, then it is not subjective. To ascertain if it is true, we always allow directors and Appeal Committees to listen to the player and form an opinion as to whether they are telling the truth. We don't rule as an absolute fact that anything unverifiable is inadmissable as evidence. Personally, when a story has no internal inconsistencies, I tend to believe it. The original sounds very plausible, and I will give that player the benefit of the doubt. That being said, it must be clear that there are big differences between the original and the exam question. In the original, South knew North held 2 diamonds, and he did not cash his King because he thought he had 4 of them himself. In the exam question, South did not know if North held 2 or 3 diamonds, and he did not cash his king because he ... yes, why not? In the original, South discovered his revoke when he saw the 13h diamond from declarer and the 14th(?!?) from his partner. In the exam question, South discovered his revoke for no reason whatsoever - possibly because he knew he had revoked all along? In the original, we may believe South when he says that once he realizes he had only 3 diamonds to start with, he also knows that declarer has one more. He does not need the UI of the shown cards to tell him that. In the exam question, we have to rely on a player re-examining the bidding at trick 5, when that same player has already shown he was not able to perform that same analysis at trick 2. I'd say those are big differences. Of course only if we decide to believe the unverifiable story about the original mistake. However: having now written this analysis, something else strikes me. When South realizes that he has revoked, he can easily deduce that declarer has another diamond. But South knows he has revoked because he has seen the 14th diamond from partner! This is UI to him and maybe for that reason we should rule the slam made in the original! All in all - far too complex to be posing as an exam question. But I'm not complaining - 't was the same for everyone. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/288 - Release Date: 22/03/2006 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 24 09:36:20 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Mar 24 09:49:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005d01c64f1f$ce4d22e0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > Richard Hills: > This "simple" misunderstanding between Grattan and Kojak > itself demonstrates Grattan's point that the wording of > the next edition of the Lawbook should be "straightforward". Does it? Grattan must have had the impression that his description about William's qualities was straightforward, don't you think? Well, it didn't work. ton From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 24 11:56:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Mar 24 11:56:45 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <44236009.7080208@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > Under WBF regs I'd rule (perhaps wrongly) that varying the 1c/1d in > > order to prevent the deployment of a "BS defence" was legit. > > Is this right? In other words, can a defense to opponents' > conventions really fall under the brown sticker regulations? Not really. There are defences which may be used against a 2+ card C which would be BS defences if employed against a 3+ Club. Assuming the event doesn't permit BS defences I'd allow a pair to vary (from round to round) their SNT,5cM system between their "normal" Dby4 and Better Minor depending on the defence opps were playing to the 2C club. Alternatively, if the event permits BS defences, I'd allow a pair who normally play better minor to switch to Dby4 against opps who use a BS defence to all 3+minor bids but natural vs 4+ minor bids. (thus meaning they only have to consider the complex defence after 1C openers). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Mar 24 11:56:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Mar 24 11:56:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaks in Tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44235DDF.5050909@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > The TD ruled that it was not a "bridge reason" to take time to > > decide that the only legal logical alternative was indeed the only > > legal logical alternative. The TD therefore used Law 73F2 to adjust > > the score in favour of East-West. > > Does anyone besides me find that a very strange ruling? Not sure. If the TD is ruling that the only LA was "so bleeding obvious" that the thinker should have known a hesitation would likely mislead opponents then the ruling falls within the bounds of "normal". If the TD ruled that although there was a need to consider LAs that doesn't constitute a "bridge problem" then "strange" is an inadequate description of the awfulness of the ruling IMO. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Mar 24 13:03:27 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Mar 24 13:00:56 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4423E00F.8020105@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > >>>From: "Tim West-Meads" >>>Under WBF regs I'd rule (perhaps wrongly) that varying the 1c/1d in >>>order to prevent the deployment of a "BS defence" was legit. >> >>Is this right? In other words, can a defense to opponents' >>conventions really fall under the brown sticker regulations? > > > Not really. There are defences which may be used against a 2+ card C > which would be BS defences if employed against a 3+ Club. Assuming the > event doesn't permit BS defences I'd allow a pair to vary (from round to > round) their SNT,5cM system between their "normal" Dby4 and Better Minor > depending on the defence opps were playing to the 2C club. > Actually, I would not allow this. Apart from anything else, it triggers an infinite loop. When enough pairs realize that they will not have to face "BS" defences if they play better minor, they will all start playing better minor, so the complex defences will disappear, so the same pairs that wanted to play D4 in the first place can now do so, ... > Alternatively, if the event permits BS defences, I'd allow a pair who > normally play better minor to switch to Dby4 against opps who use a BS > defence to all 3+minor bids but natural vs 4+ minor bids. (thus meaning > they only have to consider the complex defence after 1C openers). > I would allow this before the tournament. If you know you are going to meet BS defences no matter what you choose, you choose what suits you best. You don't change mid-tournament because a pair does not use BS's. Mind you, that was not the situation in the Belgian tournament. There, BS were allowed, but a pair was going to play them only against Cl2, not realizing they could also play it against Cl3. I suggested they should also do so. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.0/290 - Release Date: 23/03/2006 From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 15:23:43 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri Mar 24 15:24:02 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations In-Reply-To: <4423E00F.8020105@hdw.be> References: <4423E00F.8020105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0603240623na00b9a6lf6ee8b2224c2da06@mail.gmail.com> > Mind you, that was not the situation in the Belgian tournament. There, > BS were allowed, but a pair was going to play them only against Cl2, > not realizing they could also play it against Cl3. I suggested they > should also do so. I could have sworn that when you originally described the event in question you ORDERED the pair to change their methods. I understand that you are loath to admit any kind of mistake in this matter, however, I don't understand the purpose of lying about events that took place. You can't escape one ethical lapse by committing another. You consistently seem to operate under the belief that you are some modern Raskolnikov; Your superior knowledge and intellect places you above and beyond the Laws that constrain mere mortals. Your inability to publically admit that you made a mistake and your need to create a new reality in which you didn't commit an proceedural mistake says ever bit as much as the original lapse in judgement. -- 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 schoderb at msn.com Fri Mar 24 15:55:07 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Mar 24 15:55:29 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations References: <4423E00F.8020105@hdw.be> <2da24b8e0603240623na00b9a6lf6ee8b2224c2da06@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Couldn't have said it better! Except publically = publicly proceedural = procedural and I like judgement with an "e" though my spelling checker always tells me I'm wrong regardless of how I spell it. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations > Mind you, that was not the situation in the Belgian tournament. There, > BS were allowed, but a pair was going to play them only against Cl2, > not realizing they could also play it against Cl3. I suggested they > should also do so. I could have sworn that when you originally described the event in question you ORDERED the pair to change their methods. I understand that you are loath to admit any kind of mistake in this matter, however, I don't understand the purpose of lying about events that took place. You can't escape one ethical lapse by committing another. You consistently seem to operate under the belief that you are some modern Raskolnikov; Your superior knowledge and intellect places you above and beyond the Laws that constrain mere mortals. Your inability to publically admit that you made a mistake and your need to create a new reality in which you didn't commit an proceedural mistake says ever bit as much as the original lapse in judgement. -- 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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Mar 24 19:42:28 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri Mar 24 19:45:51 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations References: <4423E00F.8020105@hdw.be> <2da24b8e0603240623na00b9a6lf6ee8b2224c2da06@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002c01c64f72$b56e2b40$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > Couldn't have said it better! > > Except publically = publicly > proceedural = procedural Better to change such things when replying rather than comment on them. E-mail spelling should not be subject to the same scrutiny as that of other types of communication, since the typing is often hurried and not passed through a spell-checker. Netiquette says to ignore such mistakes. Of course it is good for the ego to point out one's superiority in such matters. > and I like judgement with an "e" though my spelling checker always tells me I'm wrong regardless of how I spell it. I've never come across a spell checker that would mark either as an error, as they are both correct, the choice depending on the custom of the country in which, or for which, one is writing. The English include the "e," American standard does not, as confirmed by the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, the US Government Printing Office Style Manual, and the Associated Press Stylebook. Including it seems so rational that many Americans use the English versioon, even though it gives the impression of spelling illiteracy to some readers. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From schoderb at msn.com Sat Mar 25 01:29:08 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Mar 25 01:29:28 2006 Subject: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations References: <4423E00F.8020105@hdw.be><2da24b8e0603240623na00b9a6lf6ee8b2224c2da06@mail.gmail.com> <002c01c64f72$b56e2b40$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Dear Marvin, Please excuse my feeble attempt at humor. My spellchecker on MSN Mail underlines each word it thinks is wrong, going out or coming in. Just like it did with your posting of 'judgement' and 'versioon' and 'Marv' "BLML" and 'schoder' (it even picked up the 'L." in your name!) See there it goes again! I've never had an e-mail account that didn't include a spell checker. Best regards, hope you lighten up a bit. Netiquette may say to ignore, but I can assure you that attending to correct spelling is not an ego trip - it's respect for the people who have to read your posting, and shows that you care enough about them to do it right. Purposeful or sloppy illiteracy is best left to Foxworthy and his great comedy show. Kojak P.S. Yep, it picked up both "Foxworthy" and "kojak" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a special ruling about system regulations > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > > > Couldn't have said it better! > > > > Except publically = publicly > > proceedural = procedural > > Better to change such things when replying rather than comment on them. > E-mail > spelling should not be subject to the same scrutiny as that of other > types of > communication, since the typing is often hurried and not passed through a > spell-checker. Netiquette says to ignore such mistakes. Of course it is > good > for the ego to point out one's superiority in such matters. > > > and I like judgement with an "e" though my spelling checker always tells > > me > I'm wrong regardless of how I spell it. > > I've never come across a spell checker that would mark either as an error, > as > they are both correct, the choice depending on the custom of the country > in > which, or for which, one is writing. The English include the "e," American > standard does not, as confirmed by the New York Times Manual of Style and > Usage, the US Government Printing Office Style Manual, and the Associated > Press Stylebook. Including it seems so rational that many Americans use > the > English versioon, even though it gives the impression of spelling > illiteracy > to some readers. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 25 20:06:39 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat Mar 25 20:09:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001301c6503f$da3f96c0$e0e2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott > > In the Aussie and British dialects of the English language, > "simple" has connotations of "straightfoward". In the > American dialect of the English language, "simple" has > connotations of "simpleton". > > This "simple" misunderstanding between Grattan and Kojak > itself demonstrates Grattan's point that the wording of > the next edition of the Lawbook should be "straightforward". > > :-) > +=+ What to expect of me but the Queen's English, with the prenominal 'simple' in the sense of simpleton listed as archaic? ~ G ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sun Mar 26 01:04:15 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Mar 26 01:04:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001301c6503f$da3f96c0$e0e2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Atta Boy, Grattan! To answer your question - a lot more than your glib answer. As your heading indicates, may you be judged by the grace you exhibit. You weren't aware of the other connotations of the word when you chose it, of course....... using 'straightforward' instead which avoids the chance of misunderstanding, never occurred to you. You are always very careful in what you write. As a master of the Queen's English you were not aware of pejorative connotations. You were very surprised that I would react the way I did to 'simple.' It was just a misunderstanding on my part, and again of course.....there is not even the hint of an apology. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > "the world is judged by grace" > [Mishnah] > ============================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > > > > In the Aussie and British dialects of the English language, > > "simple" has connotations of "straightfoward". In the > > American dialect of the English language, "simple" has > > connotations of "simpleton". > > > > This "simple" misunderstanding between Grattan and Kojak > > itself demonstrates Grattan's point that the wording of > > the next edition of the Lawbook should be "straightforward". > > > > :-) > > > +=+ What to expect of me but the Queen's English, with > the prenominal 'simple' in the sense of simpleton listed as > archaic? > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Mar 26 05:09:42 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun Mar 26 05:13:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Denver NABC Appeals Casebook Message-ID: <004e01c65082$bb9f7d00$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> The NABC appeals casebooks are in the form of a "discussion forum" now, starting with the Denver NABC. To get to the casebook page quickly, go to my web site, click on Bridge Laws & Regulations, then click on Appeals at NABCs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 27 01:24:55 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 27 01:25:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003a01c6512c$7dd26870$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Richard J. Hills wrote: > > > Well, when a sponsoring organisation does it (deliberately > > infracts Law 6), that means that it is not illegal? > > No, it means the SO *believes* it to be legal. As I understand things > dealing machines break the "one card at a time" rule by dealing > consecutive cards into the same hand without most SOs finding this a > problem. There are "strict" interpretations of Law6 that make various > Sims, PwEs, variable starting times etc illegal. There is a "loose" > interpretation of L6 that makes these planned events legal. > > If one doesn't like one's SO/NBO using the "loose" intepretation one may > lobby for change (or otherwise attempt to force them along the path of > light). > > The laws would, of course, benefit from the removal of such ambiguity. What ambiguity? Has Law 6E and in particular 6E4 been completely forgotten? Sven From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Mar 27 02:51:25 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Mar 27 02:51:42 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion In-Reply-To: <003a01c6512c$7dd26870$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Case 1 S Qxx H Qx D Txx C A9xxx Bidding proceeds 2S 2NT P 3C P 3H P ?? 2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? ---------------------------------- Case 2 North S JTxx H AJ87xx D QJ C x S - S Qxxx H KTxxx H Q9 D xx D xxxx C KT9xxx C QJx S AK98x H - D AK9xx C Axx Bidding S N 1S 3H* P P Dbl all pass Result 3H-2* for 300 3H is not alerted. 3H actually shows 5+H's and 5+C's. N claims with the proper alert , his hand improves (diamonds working with pd's probable fit, ruffing club values, 4 trumps, no heart loser) and he will bid 4S's after which they will get to 6S's making +1. E/W claim N/S's defence in 3H's* was abysmal and that as N had passed for peno's he was likely to do the same and the result should stand. K. From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Mon Mar 27 04:13:06 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Mon Mar 27 03:43:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #2 Message-ID: <44274A32.1000207@cs.elte.hu> The responsibility of the two side when L75C (and L20F, L40C, L40E, alerting policy) is apllied. In board 12 at the exercise part of the TD course in Telecitta, 2006, the problem was the following: NS had agreed the spade as trump suit, South had bidden rkc and partner promised the Q of trumps as well. North did not have the Q of trump, but had two more spades than he promised. South told West, partner promised the Q but said nothing about the possibility of the additional trumplength instead of the Q. So West chose te "passive" trump lead which solved declarer's only problem in the board: finding the Q of trump in a 9 card fit. As director in this problem I decided result stands, cos explanation was correct. "... he need not disdose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience". The official result on the paper was just the opposite and one of our groupleaders said, that in some part of the Earth --- for example in the Neetherlands --- the judgement would be the same as mine, in other countries --- like USA --- this explanation would be insufficient. Some friends of mine told me the conclusion in their groups and We realized that the opinions are quite different and both view are acceptable. The only thing I do not know: what's the WBF/EBL ruling in situations like that. In this situation the question is: "promising the Q with additional length insted of it is an agreement or bridge decision?". In other cases specifiing the agreement is the main problem. Imagine that North opens 1diamond and they tell to EW that this is a minimun 2 card suit. North (or South) does not say more, opponents do not ask more. N-S playing precision club in their own style: 1club is 16 or more; 1notrump is 10-12; and they bid 1diamond instead of 2clubs even with 2227 if the club suit is not strong enough. During this board East is doing something unsuccesfull based on this "misinformation". Who are responsible for that? In L75C the following is written: "... a player shall disdose all special information conveyed to him through partnership experience..."; and in L20F1: "...[any player ] may request a full explanation of the opponents auction (question may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); ..." The explanation is clearly not full this time. But EW surely know the fact it isn't: Cannot belive: opps are playing a system in which the 1 diamond open means 0 to 40 points, any distribution but minimum 2 diamonds. So they could have asked for more. Another example: In suit contract declarer asks one of his opps about their opening lead conventions. The anwser is something like: "count". It's not a full explanation but many pair leads against suit contract "count", which means: small from odd, hi from even --- or lowest from odd 3rd best from even higher from dubleton, which is closely the same. So no more requiery... And later, when the first strange thing happens the defenders anwsers to declarer's another question that "count" means small from even, hi from odd. TD! Who is responsible? And what's the correct method by a player, who is asked about his or partner's call? For example 1 club in my style, what's the correct anwser? A, ---Can be dubleton. At this time it's enough for the 92% of the opponents. And of course if opponents requires more, we give them a full explanation. B, ---Can be doubleton, if you prefer i can give you a full explanation. It seems to be absolutely correct and do not need so much time, but unimaginable that most of the players following this method. C, ---Can be doubleton. Opening strength with quite agresive opening style if unbalanced. 14-19 points if balanced. With 4333 always one club, even if diamond is the four card suit. With 4432 we usually open 1 club except diamond is a really good four card suit (like KJ9x or more, but we have a free choice if the strength is close to that). Cannot be 4441, except of singleton diamond. Quasi denies 5 card major or diamond (tipically open with the higher ranked suit from 56, but we have free choice here as well). I think that's correct, but I'm sure noone wants players to say something like that, when asked about a simple bid. The main question, what happens if the anwser is A, and opps do not guess there are more informations. The another problem is the alerting. The WBF alerting policy is a quite short text which do not override the EBL alerting policy, which is exactly the same :) (WBF and EBL homepages). In the WBF alerting policy We can read: "conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not". That's really logic. But what are the non-conventional --- natural --- meaning of a call? Perhaps something like that: Bidding a suit on a level is natural when: - suggests it as trump suit; - promises some length in this suit. Bidding no trump on a level is natural when: - suggests to play no trump contract; - shows balanced or semi-balanced hand; A "pass" is natural when: - suggests the last call bidden to be the contract and do not suggests the double/redouble of that; - shows uninterresting hand. A "double" is natural when: - suggests the last call bidden to be a doubled contract; - promises some strength or length in the doubled suit. A "redouble" is natural when: - suggest the last call bidden --- which surely has been doubled by one opponent --- to be a redoubled contract; - promises some strength or length in the suit. Of course these are not the exact definitions, but not far from them. So look at the following problem: East opens 2diamonds (alerted: weak to in a Major); South doubles; West passes (which promises diamonds , suggests the 2 diamonds doubled as contract, not alerted). Is it an infraction? Surely it is a natural bid if we look at the first point of the definition of the natural pass above, but we can see the pass can have minimum three different "natural" definitions: 1. Uninterresting hand, waiting for partner to bid his Major. (2H/2S would be NAT from West). 2. Diamond suit, requires partner's pass if he can tolerate it. 3. Diamond suit, requires partner's pass in almost every case (except if void in diamonds and has a really good own suit). What does the policy say about this situation? We should alert none of the cases above, opponents should ask if they are interested in it? Or we should alert two of these possibilities and define one of them as default in EBL/WBF competitions? Anyway we know, that for an average or novice player --- who is not familiar with this situation --- the first option is the default in his mind, althought it's a stupid convention. And of course there are lots of situations like that: A bid can have two, three or more different "natural" definitions. Is any of them should be alerted? What is the general principle of the WBF and EBL to choose the default? Is there a list of the default natural bid in the most common situations? An artifical bid can have two, three or more different type of definitions which is consistent with the usual short explanation. Should the explaining player sign that he can say more specific informations? Is there any of these definitions which can be default? What is the general principle of the WBF and EBL to choose the default meaning of a shortly explained conventional call? Is there a list of the default conventional meaning of a shortly explained bid in the most common situations? regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Mon Mar 27 05:07:06 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Mon Mar 27 05:07:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #2 References: <44274A32.1000207@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <000401c6514b$88c49720$0c540d52@AnnesComputer> "... he need not disdose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience". This is the bit that is not true :-) http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laszlo Hegedus" To: Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:13 AM Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #2 > The responsibility of the two side when L75C (and L20F, L40C, L40E, > alerting policy) is apllied. > > In board 12 at the exercise part of the TD course in Telecitta, 2006, the > problem was the following: > NS had agreed the spade as trump suit, South had bidden rkc and partner > promised the Q of trumps as well. North did not have the Q of trump, but > had two more spades than he promised. South told West, partner promised > the Q but said nothing about the possibility of the additional trumplength > instead of the Q. So West chose te "passive" trump lead which solved > declarer's only problem in the board: finding the Q of trump in a 9 card > fit. > > As director in this problem I decided result stands, cos explanation was > correct. "... he need not disdose inferences drawn from his general > knowledge and experience". The official result on the paper was just the > opposite and one of our groupleaders said, that in some part of the > Earth --- for example in the Neetherlands --- the judgement would be the > same as mine, in other countries --- like USA --- this explanation would > be insufficient. Some friends of mine told me the conclusion in their > groups and We realized that the opinions are quite different and both view > are acceptable. The only thing I do not know: what's the WBF/EBL ruling in > situations like that. > > In this situation the question is: "promising the Q with additional length > insted of it is an agreement or bridge decision?". In other cases > specifiing the agreement is the main problem. Imagine that North opens > 1diamond and they tell to EW that this is a minimun 2 card suit. North > (or South) does not say more, opponents do not ask more. > N-S playing precision club in their own style: 1club is 16 or more; > 1notrump is 10-12; and they bid 1diamond instead of 2clubs even with 2227 > if the club suit is not strong enough. > > During this board East is doing something unsuccesfull based on this > "misinformation". Who are responsible for that? > > In L75C the following is written: > "... a player shall disdose all special information conveyed to him > through partnership experience..."; > and in L20F1: > "...[any player ] may request a full explanation of the opponents auction > (question may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls > available but not made); ..." > > The explanation is clearly not full this time. But EW surely know the fact > it isn't: Cannot belive: opps are playing a system in which the 1 diamond > open means 0 to 40 points, any distribution but minimum 2 diamonds. So > they could have asked for more. > > Another example: > In suit contract declarer asks one of his opps about their opening lead > conventions. The anwser is something like: "count". It's not a full > explanation but many pair leads against suit contract "count", which > means: small from odd, hi from even --- or lowest from odd 3rd best from > even higher from dubleton, which is closely the same. So no more > requiery... And later, when the first strange thing happens the defenders > anwsers to declarer's another question that "count" means small from even, > hi from odd. TD! > Who is responsible? > > And what's the correct method by a player, who is asked about his or > partner's call? For example 1 club in my style, what's the correct anwser? > A, ---Can be dubleton. > At this time it's enough for the 92% of the opponents. And of course if > opponents requires more, we give them a full explanation. > B, ---Can be doubleton, if you prefer i can give you a full explanation. > It seems to be absolutely correct and do not need so much time, but > unimaginable that most of the players following this method. > C, ---Can be doubleton. Opening strength with quite agresive opening style > if unbalanced. 14-19 points if balanced. With 4333 always one club, even > if diamond is the four card suit. With 4432 we usually open 1 club except > diamond is a really good four card suit (like KJ9x or more, but we have a > free choice if the strength is close to that). Cannot be 4441, except of > singleton diamond. Quasi denies 5 card major or diamond (tipically open > with the higher ranked suit from 56, but we have free choice here as > well). > I think that's correct, but I'm sure noone wants players to say > something like that, when asked about a simple bid. > > The main question, what happens if the anwser is A, and opps do not guess > there are more informations. > > The another problem is the alerting. The WBF alerting policy is a quite > short text which do not override the EBL alerting policy, which is exactly > the same :) (WBF and EBL homepages). > In the WBF alerting policy We can read: > "conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not". > That's really logic. But what are the non-conventional --- natural --- > meaning of a call? > > Perhaps something like that: > Bidding a suit on a level is natural when: > - suggests it as trump suit; > - promises some length in this suit. > Bidding no trump on a level is natural when: > - suggests to play no trump contract; > - shows balanced or semi-balanced hand; > A "pass" is natural when: > - suggests the last call bidden to be the contract and do not suggests the > double/redouble of that; > - shows uninterresting hand. > A "double" is natural when: > - suggests the last call bidden to be a doubled contract; > - promises some strength or length in the doubled suit. > A "redouble" is natural when: > - suggest the last call bidden --- which surely has been doubled by one > opponent --- to be a redoubled contract; > - promises some strength or length in the suit. > > Of course these are not the exact definitions, but not far from them. > > So look at the following problem: East opens 2diamonds (alerted: weak to > in a Major); South doubles; West passes (which promises diamonds , > suggests the 2 diamonds doubled as contract, not alerted). Is it an > infraction? > Surely it is a natural bid if we look at the first point of the definition > of the natural pass above, but we can see the pass can have minimum three > different "natural" definitions: > 1. Uninterresting hand, waiting for partner to bid his Major. (2H/2S would > be NAT from West). > 2. Diamond suit, requires partner's pass if he can tolerate it. > 3. Diamond suit, requires partner's pass in almost every case (except if > void in diamonds and has a really good own suit). > What does the policy say about this situation? We should alert none of the > cases above, opponents should ask if they are interested in it? Or we > should alert two of these possibilities and define one of them as default > in EBL/WBF competitions? > Anyway we know, that for an average or novice player --- who is not > familiar with this situation --- the first option is the default in his > mind, althought it's a stupid convention. > > And of course there are lots of situations like that: > A bid can have two, three or more different "natural" definitions. Is any > of them should be alerted? What is the general principle of the WBF and > EBL to choose the default? Is there a list of the default natural bid in > the most common situations? > An artifical bid can have two, three or more different type of definitions > which is consistent with the usual short explanation. Should the > explaining player sign that he can say more specific informations? Is > there any of these definitions which can be default? What is the general > principle of the WBF and EBL to choose the default meaning of a shortly > explained conventional call? Is there a list of the default conventional > meaning of a shortly explained bid in the most common situations? > > regards > Laci > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a > FreeStarttol > Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 27 06:37:54 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Mar 27 06:38:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00dd01c65158$37011eb0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > George Bernard Shaw: > >>>England and America are two countries divided by a common >>>language. > > Kojak: > >>damning me with faint praise by describing me as "simple" > > [snip] > >>The game is too exciting, loved, adaptable, and happily >>entrenched to be hogtied by wannabe gurus or savants. So, >>by the way, is the English language. > > Richard Hills: > > In the Aussie and British dialects of the English language, > "simple" has connotations of "straightfoward". In the > American dialect of the English language, "simple" has > connotations of "simpleton". > > This "simple" misunderstanding between Grattan and Kojak > itself demonstrates Grattan's point that the wording of > the next edition of the Lawbook should be "straightforward". lexicological masterworks are to be denigrated. john > > :-) > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Mar 27 11:36:21 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Mar 27 11:42:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001301c6503f$da3f96c0$e0e2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000701c65181$fb231810$a0ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Endicott Grattan" Cc: "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Atta Boy, Grattan! To answer your question - a lot more than > your glib answer. As your heading indicates, may you be judged > by the grace you exhibit. > > You weren't aware of the other connotations of the word when > you chose it, of course....... using 'straightforward' instead which > avoids the chance of misunderstanding, never occurred to you. > You are always very careful in what you write. As a master of > the Queen's English you were not aware of pejorative connotations. > You were very surprised that I would react the way I did to 'simple.' > It was just a misunderstanding on my part, and again of course > .....there is not even the hint of an apology. > Kojak > +=+ When a third party has explained to you the nature of the compliment I was paying you in my language, your continued rant merely causes me to grieve for you. Enough. Indeed, too much. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 27 12:05:32 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 27 12:05:54 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one In-Reply-To: <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <000201c65185$fcf62d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel > Case 1 > > S Qxx > H Qx > D Txx > C A9xxx > > Bidding proceeds > > 2S 2NT P 3C > P 3H P ?? > > 2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. > Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? What would have been your (?) call without any alert? That is the call you are supposed to make now. Regards Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Mar 27 12:58:52 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon Mar 27 13:01:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c65181$fb231810$a0ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001301c6503f$da3f96c0$e0e2403e@Mildred> <000701c65181$fb231810$a0ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:36:21 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ When a third party has explained to you >the nature of the compliment I was paying you >in my language, your continued rant merely >causes me to grieve for you. > Enough. Indeed, too much. As someone who spent the first four decades of his life on one side of the pond, followed by most of a fifth on the other, I learned *very* quickly about a lot of expressions whose meanings had changed as much as had my location. The use of "simple" in the sense in which Kojak obviously took it is not exactly unknown in the U.K., even if it has been classified as an archaic usage. Given that the WBFLC seems to have a more than a sprinkling of Americans, I'm surprised that the concept of trying to avoid the use of words or phrases which could be misinterpreted by an American (or Australian, Kiwi, etc...) audience seems to have eluded someone with your language skills. BLML seems to be sinking fast, at least in my opinion. Maybe DWS was right after all. Brian. From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Mar 27 13:35:16 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Mar 27 13:35:37 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one Message-ID: <4427cdf4.48b5.0@esatclear.ie> ++ well thats the point lets say 3NT is called and it makes. The opps call the TD and say 3C was to play and should have been passed out. Even as it went 3H's is now to play (5 hearts, Cxx or maybe an off beat C singleton honour) and should also be passed (your initial 3C's expressed the view you didn't want to play 3nt). How many players 1st off would bid 3C's to play (and have that agreement) and having done so how many would pass 3H's ?? I'd have passed or bid 3NT 1st time. As a result I find it extremely hard to put myself in the mind set of someone who bids 3C's. Now pd bids 3H's. My SQxx is again wrong sided, I have the HQx. 3NT doesn't improve the SQxx position but there is a chance now of 5H's, 1/2S's, 1C + probably a trick in D's comming to a probable 9 tricks, pretty much the same as 3H's. Having said all that the opps argument that someone who by the 3C call has strongly suggested no wish to be in 3NT may very well now pass 3H's and 3NT has been strongly suggested by the ui. So what do you rule ? K. >> On Behalf Of Karel >> Case 1 >> >> S Qxx >> H Qx >> D Txx >> C A9xxx >> >> Bidding proceeds >> >> 2S 2NT P 3C >> P 3H P ?? >> >> 2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. >> Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? > >What would have been your (?) call without any alert? >That is the call you are supposed to make now. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR20 per month! Always-on internet & wireless option - find out more at http://www.btireland.ie/broadband From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 27 14:20:18 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Mar 27 14:15:13 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one In-Reply-To: <000201c65185$fcf62d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060327141737.0201c010@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:05 27/03/2006 +0200, you wrote: > > On Behalf Of Karel > > Case 1 > > > > S Qxx > > H Qx > > D Txx > > C A9xxx > > > > Bidding proceeds > > > > 2S 2NT P 3C > > P 3H P ?? > > > > 2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. > > Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? > >What would have been your (?) call without any alert? >That is the call you are supposed to make now. That's strange. 3C to play with that hand facing a strong overcall ? If it is, however, partner is showing a strong (ca 18) 4522 hand or the like, and playing in 3NT seems automatical to me. So WTP ? From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 27 14:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 27 14:57:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 6B in ACBL [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01c6512c$7dd26870$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > The laws would, of course, benefit from the removal of such > > ambiguity. > > What ambiguity? Has Law 6E and in particular 6E4 been completely > forgotten? It is not clear, at least to me, that the authority granted to the TD by L6e4 is sufficient to override all the restrictions in L6D. While I'm happy with the interpretation that L6D is subordinate to L6E the laws themselves do not say that. Tim From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 27 15:06:14 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon Mar 27 15:06:43 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one References: <000201c65185$fcf62d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000a01c6519f$3e2eeb30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 12:05 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one > > On Behalf Of Karel > > Case 1 > > > > S Qxx > > H Qx > > D Txx > > C A9xxx > > > > Bidding proceeds > > > > 2S 2NT P 3C > > P 3H P ?? > > > > 2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. > > Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? > > What would have been your (?) call without any alert? > That is the call you are supposed to make now. > > Regards Sven > That is not the answer the laws prescribe. Normally you are more accurate, try again. ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 27 15:25:54 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Mar 27 15:20:47 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one In-Reply-To: <4427cdf4.48b5.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060327145939.0200f2c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:35 27/03/2006 +0100, Karel wrote: >Having said all that the opps argument that someone who by the 3C call has >strongly >suggested no wish to be in 3NT may very well now pass 3H's and 3NT has been >strongly suggested by the ui. When I make a signoff with a fair hand -some, including you and me, consider 3C an underbid- and partner bids once again, he strongly syggests that we play game nevertheless, doesn't he ? You wouldn't bid 3H merely because you happen to have a singleton honor in clubs (surely a possibility) ; you should also have an absolute maximum. Partner expects me to have 0-7 HCP and 5-6 clubs. Yet he bids 3H. Will he do that on a mere 16 count ? No, he won't. Give him the expected : AJ10x - AK10xx - Kxx - K and see whether you want to play anything else than 3NT. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Mar 27 15:22:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Mar 27 15:23:10 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one In-Reply-To: <4427cdf4.48b5.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > > ++ well thats the point lets say 3NT is called and it makes. > > The opps call the TD and say 3C was to play and should have been > passed out. Too bad. 3H bidder didn't have UI and can bid whatever he wants. > Even as it went 3H's is now to play (5 hearts, Cxx or maybe an off > beat C singleton honour) and should also be passed (your initial > 3C's expressed the view you didn't want to play 3nt). > > How many players 1st off would bid 3C's to play (and have that > agreement) I have the agreement that 3C is constructive, natural and non-forcing. This hand is fine for that (albeit I might just punt 3N at teams depending on the range of 2N). > and having done so how many would pass 3H's ?? Not in a million years. Partner must have a non-minimum 2N to have made a move over 3C. Indeed even if we are playing that 3C could just be very weak with long C my hand is better than it might be and 3N now is clear. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 27 16:19:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Mar 27 16:20:21 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one In-Reply-To: <4427cdf4.48b5.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000701c651a9$87c0f310$6400a8c0@WINXP> Initially a comment to Ton: Yes, I deliberately gave a simplified answer which in my experience is an answer that is easily grasped by players. To Karel: Please look further down for my comments > On Behalf Of Karel > ++ well thats the point lets say 3NT is called and it makes. > > The opps call the TD and say 3C was to play and should have been passed > out. > Even as it went 3H's is now to play (5 hearts, Cxx or maybe an off beat C > singleton > honour) and should also be passed (your initial 3C's expressed the view > you > didn't want to play 3nt). Too right, but in spite of an expectation that pd should pass 3C he bids 3H. You are supposed to interpret this call in the absence of any alert and explanation. His 2NT bid is natural (a contract he is prepared to play), and must therefore show at least something like 15 HCP and not too many hearts. (If he has a fair heart suit and this strength then why did he not double 2S rather than bid 2NT?) What intention can he have with the 3H bid? IMO this bid (absent any alert and explanation to the contrary) ought to be a strong invitation to which pass is normally no logical alternative for you. Thus I would probably say that 3NT is your only logical alternative. Do the alert and 3H call alter this picture? Yes of course: Now you "know" that pd has (only?) 4 hearts, not necessarily with much strength, and assumes you to be in command of this auction. How does this altered picture possibly influence what calls you have available? It introduces 4C as an interesting bid. Where are your partner's decent suits if not in minors with just some stoppers in the majors? But even so can 4C hardly be any real alternative to 3NT. And IMO 3NT remains a legal logical alternative as much as it is without the UI. > > How many players 1st off would bid 3C's to play (and have that agreement) > and > having done so how many would pass 3H's ?? > > I'd have passed or bid 3NT 1st time. As a result I find it extremely hard > to > put myself in the mind set of someone who bids 3C's. Now pd bids 3H's. > My > SQxx is again wrong sided, I have the HQx. 3NT doesn't improve the SQxx > position > but there is a chance now of 5H's, 1/2S's, 1C + probably a trick in D's > comming > to a probable 9 tricks, pretty much the same as 3H's. > > Having said all that the opps argument that someone who by the 3C call has > strongly > suggested no wish to be in 3NT may very well now pass 3H's and 3NT has > been > strongly suggested by the ui. > > So what do you rule ? I follow you a long way here but do not accept opponents' argumentation, so (after consulting with other competent players) I shall probably tend to rule that 3NT is available. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 27 16:53:35 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Mar 27 16:52:40 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion In-Reply-To: <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> References: <003a01c6512c$7dd26870$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060327093227.02bab470@pop.starpower.net> At 07:51 PM 3/26/06, Karel wrote: >Case 1 > >S Qxx >H Qx >D Txx >C A9xxx > >Bidding proceeds > >2S 2NT P 3C >P 3H P ?? > >2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. >Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? 3NT is a fairly obvious call; the questions to be asked are (a) are there LAs to 3NT, and, if so, (b) did the UI suggest 3NT over any of those LAs. While the UI does suggest bidding 3NT is more likely to be successful than passing, I would argue that pass is not an LA here. Partner could have overcalled 2S with 3H, but instead chose to bid 2NT. Even treating 3H as purely natural, rather than as simply showing a four-card suit, partner chose to suggest NT rather than hearts originally, and the hand is certainly better suited for NT. Even under the relatively stringent ACBL standards as to what constitutes an LA, I would allow 3NT here. >Case 2 > > North > S JTxx > H AJ87xx > D QJ > C x > >S - S Qxxx >H KTxxx H Q9 >D xx D xxxx >C KT9xxx C QJx > > S AK98x > H - > D AK9xx > C Axx > >Bidding > >S N >1S 3H* P P >Dbl all pass > >Result 3H-2* for 300 > > >3H is not alerted. 3H actually shows 5+H's and 5+C's. N claims with the >proper alert >, his hand improves (diamonds working with pd's probable fit, ruffing club >values, 4 trumps, no heart loser) and he will bid 4S's after which >they will >get to 6S's making +1. E/W claim N/S's defence in 3H's* was abysmal and >that as N had passed for peno's he was likely to do the same and the >result >should stand. I'm inclined to let the score stand, but I'd want to hear from the players before ruling. N is going to have a hard time convincing me that he would not pass 3HX holding H AJ87xx with a correct alert. He might be fully expecting to bid 4S after E corrects to 4C, but when that doesn't happen he's likely to think that his opponents' misunderstanding has brought Christmas early. The argument that he would so much appreciate "diamonds working with pd's probable fit" merely because he knows that W has clubs along with his hearts that he would not want to defend 3HX with that holding strikes me as awfully thin, but I would owe him a chance to convince me otherwise. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 27 17:47:41 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Mar 27 17:47:58 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one References: <4427cdf4.48b5.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <002c01c651b5$c7e9da40$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 12:35 PM Subject: RE: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one > ++ well thats the point lets say 3NT is called and it makes. > > The opps call the TD and say 3C was to play and should have been passed > out. > Even as it went 3H's is now to play (5 hearts, Cxx or maybe an off beat C > singleton > honour) and should also be passed (your initial 3C's expressed the view > you > didn't want to play 3nt). > > How many players 1st off would bid 3C's to play (and have that agreement) > and > having done so how many would pass 3H's ?? > > I'd have passed or bid 3NT 1st time. As a result I find it extremely hard > to > put myself in the mind set of someone who bids 3C's. Now pd bids 3H's. > My > SQxx is again wrong sided, I have the HQx. 3NT doesn't improve the SQxx > position > but there is a chance now of 5H's, 1/2S's, 1C + probably a trick in D's > comming > to a probable 9 tricks, pretty much the same as 3H's. > > Having said all that the opps argument that someone who by the 3C call has > strongly > suggested no wish to be in 3NT may very well now pass 3H's and 3NT has > been > strongly suggested by the ui. > > So what do you rule ? Behind screens you'd think "dozy b****r, he's forgotten again", and bid 3N in sleep . If the DB moves over that you'll need to start thinking. Never mind the UI, the AI is that partner's a DB :) I have a strong inclination to allow it. john > > K. > >>> On Behalf Of Karel >>> Case 1 >>> >>> S Qxx >>> H Qx >>> D Txx >>> C A9xxx >>> >>> Bidding proceeds >>> >>> 2S 2NT P 3C >>> P 3H P ?? >>> >>> 2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. >>> Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? >> >>What would have been your (?) call without any alert? >>That is the call you are supposed to make now. >> >>Regards Sven >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** > Get BT Broadband from only EUR20 per month! Always-on internet > & wireless option - find out more at http://www.btireland.ie/broadband > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 27 22:01:42 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Mar 27 22:02:15 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one In-Reply-To: <000201c65185$fcf62d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c65185$fcf62d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mar 27, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > What would have been your (?) call without any alert? > That is the call you are supposed to make now. Is it? Even if that is the call suggested by UI, and there is a logical alternative? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Mar 27 22:08:21 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Mar 27 22:08:56 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one In-Reply-To: <000701c651a9$87c0f310$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c651a9$87c0f310$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Initially a comment to Ton: Yes, I deliberately gave a simplified > answer > which in my experience is an answer that is easily grasped by players. > To Karel: Please look further down for my comments Giving players a wrong answer is a bad move, even if it is easily grasped. Give them the right answer. If they can't understand it, explain it to them until they do - or until you decide they never will. "Put your computer back in the box, and take it back to the store where you bought it." "What should I tell them?" "Tell them you're too stupid to own a computer." From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Mar 27 19:26:39 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Mar 28 01:33:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001301c6503f$da3f96c0$e0e2403e@Mildred><000701c65181$fb231810$a0ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000201c651f5$f6b2fb00$019868d5@jeushtlj> [Brian Meadows] > BLML seems to be sinking fast, at least in > my opinion. Maybe DWS was right after all. [nige1] For years, this has is been a recurring theme. Judging by the volume of recent posts, BLML seems buoyant enough to survive a little longer. Grattan Endicott remains polite in the face of gratuitous rudeness. I seem to remember that he once called me an honest journeyman. IMO, a flattering image: a simple plodder trying to make the game more enjoyable for players. There are always one of two people who descend to ad hominem attacks when losing an argument. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 28 05:00:23 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue Mar 28 05:00:56 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion References: <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <007501c65213$c2d800f0$6400a8c0@rota> Karel writes: > Case 2 > > North > S JTxx > H AJ87xx > D QJ > C x > > S - S Qxxx > H KTxxx H Q9 > D xx D xxxx > C KT9xxx C QJx > > S AK98x > H - > D AK9xx > C Axx > > Bidding > > S N > 1S 3H* P P > Dbl all pass > > Result 3H-2* for 300 > > > 3H is not alerted. 3H actually shows 5+H's and 5+C's. N claims with the > proper alert > , his hand improves (diamonds working with pd's probable fit, ruffing club > values, 4 trumps, no heart loser) and he will bid 4S's after which they > will > get to 6S's making +1. If North had a proper explanation of 3H, he wouldn't wait for a penalty double (since East is surely about to bid some number of clubs), and 4S looks like the normal bid on his hand. There is no way South will stop short of 6S after that raise, and I don't see a likely route to seven unless N/S have the agreement that 4C shows a raise with a singleton club. Thus I accept North's claim that N/S would get to 6S, making seven, had he been properly informed. Now, should North have raised spades anyway, given the known fit? I don't think it was a clear error to pass 3H. With South likely to double, North has a good chance at collecting more against 3H than the value of the game even if it does make, or of collecting a number against 3H when 4S is going down. Thus I rule that North was damaged by MI, and would have scored +1010 (or +1460; you didn't give the vulnerability) with proper information. > E/W claim N/S's defence in 3H's* was abysmal It may have been, but I would have to see the play; 3H looks to me like it should go down five. If the N/S defense was egregious, but a non-egregious defense would have beaten 3H by, say, four tricks, then N/S should lose that part of the adjustment which was caused by their own bad defense. That is, N/S should only receive an adjustment equal to the score difference between the +800 they should have earned after the MI and the +1010 they could have earned without the MI. (E/W get the full score for -1010 in this case.) > and > that as N had passed for peno's he was likely to do the same and the > result > should stand. I disagree with the second claim; North wouldn't have passed the first time, so what he would do over the reopening double is irrelevant. From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 28 05:24:57 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Mar 28 05:25:18 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:53:35 EST." <6.1.1.1.0.20060327093227.02bab470@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200603280321.TAA17384@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > >Case 2 > > > > North > > S JTxx > > H AJ87xx > > D QJ > > C x > > > >S - S Qxxx > >H KTxxx H Q9 > >D xx D xxxx > >C KT9xxx C QJx > > > > S AK98x > > H - > > D AK9xx > > C Axx > > > >Bidding > > > >S N > >1S 3H* P P > >Dbl all pass > > > >Result 3H-2* for 300 > > > > > >3H is not alerted. 3H actually shows 5+H's and 5+C's. N claims with the > >proper alert > >, his hand improves (diamonds working with pd's probable fit, ruffing club > >values, 4 trumps, no heart loser) and he will bid 4S's after which > >they will > >get to 6S's making +1. E/W claim N/S's defence in 3H's* was abysmal and > >that as N had passed for peno's he was likely to do the same and the > >result > >should stand. > > I'm inclined to let the score stand, but I'd want to hear from the > players before ruling. N is going to have a hard time convincing me > that he would not pass 3HX holding H AJ87xx with a correct alert. I don't think he'd have that hard a time convincing me, if I were director. Sure, he has a super holding in the opponents' suit, but he also has a good fit for partner. So for a good player, I think this should make the decision close between passing and showing support immediately. Maybe for lesser players, it wouldn't be that close---for some, the thrill of extracting a huge amount of blood from the opponents would just be too tempting, and then there are those players who think they have a better chance defending than in giving partner the opportunity to murder yet another contract. But IMHO, a better player would think this is not an easy decision, and knowing that RHO has a club suit may well tip the scales in the other direction. So I don't find it at all far-fetched to think that North would make a different decision if given the correct explanation. In any case, my tendency would be to rule against the offenders if in doubt, especially offenders who screw up the explanation of a 2-suited bid since that seems to cause so many problems in parts of the world where such overcalls are popular. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 28 08:16:18 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Mar 28 08:17:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Ruling questions #2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44274A32.1000207@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laszlo Hegedus: [big snip] >A bid can have two, three or more different "natural" >definitions. Is any of them should be alerted? What is >the general principle of the WBF and EBL to choose the >default? Is there a list of the default natural bid in >the most common situations? > >An artificial bid can have two, three or more different >type of definitions which is consistent with the usual >short explanation. Should the explaining player sign >that he can say more specific informations? > >Is there any of these definitions which can be default? >What is the general principle of the WBF and EBL to >choose the default meaning of a shortly explained >conventional call? Is there a list of the default >conventional meaning of a shortly explained bid in the >most common situations? > >regards >Laci Richard Hills: In my opinion, the general principle of the WBF Alerting Policy is summarised by these two extracts from it: "The following classes of calls should be alerted: ... 2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners." and "Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter." For a more "straightforward" explanation of the spirit of an alerting policy, the preface to the ABF Alerting Policy states: "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may not have secret agreements with partner, either in the bidding or card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to your opponents. ... Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can." In my opinion, similar "straightforward" language about disclosure could be usefully included in the 2008 edition of the Lawbook. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Tue Mar 28 09:12:36 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue Mar 28 09:12:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Is it a case for Law 73 D 2? Message-ID: <004901c65236$fda37f20$69a2ec51@admin> I don?t understand how you could play the 10 from 10 3. Partner might have K 9 doubleton and declarer went for clubs after all. How many clubs has he got then? From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 28 10:15:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 28 10:15:44 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion In-Reply-To: <007501c65213$c2d800f0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: David Grabiner wrote: > > E/W claim N/S's defence in 3H's* was abysmal > > It may have been, but I would have to see the play; 3H looks to me > like it should go down five. Agreed. But what concerns me is that the defence also appears to based on the MI. IE there was no correction after the final pass, no TD call, no offer of a change of call to N. Thus if NS were nv I'm adjusting to EW-1100/NS+1100 anyway. If NS were vul I'm probably going to adjust to x% of 1100, y% of 1460 but I'd want to talk to the players before getting values for x and y. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 28 10:44:13 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Mar 28 10:39:05 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060327093227.02bab470@pop.starpower.net> References: <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> <003a01c6512c$7dd26870$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060328103321.0201a990@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:53 27/03/2006 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>Case 2 >> >> North >> S JTxx >> H AJ87xx >> D QJ >> C x >> >>S - S Qxxx >>H KTxxx H Q9 >>D xx D xxxx >>C KT9xxx C QJx >> >> S AK98x >> H - >> D AK9xx >> C Axx >> >>Bidding >> >>S N >>1S 3H* P P >>Dbl all pass >> >>Result 3H-2* for 300 >> >> >>3H is not alerted. 3H actually shows 5+H's and 5+C's. N claims with the >>proper alert >>, his hand improves (diamonds working with pd's probable fit, ruffing club >>values, 4 trumps, no heart loser) and he will bid 4S's after which they will >>get to 6S's making +1. E/W claim N/S's defence in 3H's* was abysmal and >>that as N had passed for peno's he was likely to do the same and the result >>should stand. > >I'm inclined to let the score stand, but I'd want to hear from the players >before ruling. N is going to have a hard time convincing me that he would >not pass 3HX holding H AJ87xx with a correct alert. I agree with Eric. From North's point of view, and given the explanation, if East passes over 3HX, he holds at least as many hearts as clubs, and that is only 2. Therefore, partner has at least 4 clubs (clubs being dealt 4612 or 5512), and there is no fit in diamonds : East holds half of them. Try convincing me of the contrary. (here, of course, East forgot his agreements, and that is why he passed 3HX) Another way to put it : either South does hold one heart, and a high level butchery is about to happen, or he doesn't, and North's HA is as good (bad) as wasted (what do you discard ? Partner's ruffable clubs ?). Also, the argument that N/S's defence was very poor is right : to let West escape for -2, they unquestionably "failed to play bridge". Even crashing North's diamond honors should still yield -3. Regards, Alain From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Mar 28 11:43:08 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue Mar 28 11:43:30 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion Message-ID: <4429052c.33be.0@esatclear.ie> Ok so ruling wise E/W should be given -1460 (N/S were vul, E/W were not) ?? The AC did poll a few players the majority of which with the correct information bid 4S's. N/S then get some L12C3 adjustment of x% of 3H*-whatever and y% of 6S+1 ?? And is it x% of 3H*-2 or 3H*-5 ?? The AC did actually rule N/S defence was egregious (I'd find it hard to rule otherwise - infact it's a good problem in logic to find a sequence of play which lets you away with -2. Lead was the SJ) They also used L12C3 to adjust the score. How does one at this stage arrive at the x% and y% ?? For the record 6S+1 was worth about 65% and there was almost no one in 3H* minus a few. If I were on the AC I'd like to penalise E/W for the MI which "could" have resulted in a bad result for N/S but given the deporable defence and the close decision between passing (which is likely to beat any spade games and bidding on looking for the spade slam) I don't want to award N/S with 6S+1. This sounds like some L12C3 adjustment ? Btw passing actually allows you 2 shots at the cherry. If it goes P P dbl P P 4C ... or P 4C dbl P ... now you can try for the spade game/slam as now your hand does improve with the presumed 9+ card club fit with the opps. If they pass, you only lose if the spade slam is on for N/S. There are ALOT of hands were 6S will not be on and 4H's dbled will rake in the mps, so passing has alot going for it. Karel >> Case 2 >> >> North >> S JTxx >> H AJ87xx >> D QJ >> C x >> >> S - S Qxxx >> H KTxxx H Q9 >> D xx D xxxx >> C KT9xxx C QJx >> >> S AK98x >> H - >> D AK9xx >> C Axx >> >> Bidding >> >> S N >> 1S 3H* P P >> Dbl all pass >> >> Result 3H-2* for 300 >> >> >> 3H is not alerted. 3H actually shows 5+H's and 5+C's. N claims with the >> proper alert >> , his hand improves (diamonds working with pd's probable fit, ruffing club >> values, 4 trumps, no heart loser) and he will bid 4S's after which they >> will >> get to 6S's making +1. > *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR20 per month! Always-on internet & wireless option - find out more at http://www.btireland.ie/broadband From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 28 11:41:35 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Mar 28 11:48:32 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion, answer to one References: <000201c65185$fcf62d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000a01c6519f$3e2eeb30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <004401c6524b$e62d6f80$259868d5@jeushtlj> >>> [Karel] >>> Case 1 S:Qxx H:Qx D:Txx C:A9xxx >>> 2S 2NT P 3C >>> P 3H P ?? >>> 2S=weak, 2NT=nat. 3C=to play ! >>> 3C is alerted as stayman. [Sven Pran] >> What would have been your (?) call >> without any alert? That is the call >> you are supposed to make now. [Ton Kooijman] > That is not the answer the laws prescribe. > Normally you are more accurate, try again. [nige1] With the proviso that you should choose a call, not suggested by the unauthorised information, I agree with Sven. Responder may argue that 3N is the only logical possibility -- because HQ should solidify partner's suit; and because 3H will run into spade ruffs. A realistic and cruel director may point our that 3H shows a good five or six card suit, so passing 3H or bidding 4H must be logical alternatives for a player, daft enough to imagine that this hand is a 3C sign-off. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Mar 28 12:07:00 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Mar 28 12:13:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001301c6503f$da3f96c0$e0e2403e@Mildred><000701c65181$fb231810$a0ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000201c651f5$f6b2fb00$019868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001f01c6524f$77e57be0$1a9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "We but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return, to plague the inventor." ['Macbeth'] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Brian Meadows] > > BLML seems to be sinking fast, at least in > > my opinion. Maybe DWS was right after all. > > [nige1] > For years, this has is been a recurring theme. > Judging by the volume of recent posts, BLML seems > buoyant enough to survive a little longer. > > Grattan Endicott remains polite in the face > of gratuitous rudeness. I seem to remember that he > once called me an honest journeyman. IMO, a > flattering image: a simple plodder trying to make > the game more enjoyable for players. > > There are always one of two people who descend to > ad hominem attacks when losing an argument. > +=+ Rather more than a plodder, Nigel. A journeyman is a trained worker. He has skills and puts them daily to good use. ~ G ~ +=+ From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Mar 28 12:15:29 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue Mar 28 12:15:50 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion Message-ID: <44290cc1.358c.0@esatclear.ie> >Case 1 > >S Qxx >H Qx >D Txx >C A9xxx > >Bidding proceeds > >2S 2NT P 3C >P 3H P ?? > >2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. >Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? > > ---------------------------------- >Case 1 > >S Qxx >H Qx >D Txx >C A9xxx > >Bidding proceeds > >2S 2NT P 3C >P 3H P ?? > >2S weak, 2NT nat. 3C is to play ! 3C is alerted as stayman. >Is 3NT now a LA or is it barred by the UI ?? > > ---------------------------------- +++ Imo this case isnt quite so clear cut as the panel thinks. We have someone who plays 3C's as constructive which makes 3NT fairly clearcut as now 3H's is probably GF looking for best strain. We have various maximum hands with hearts. We have a fit bid interpretation for 3H's. Let me throw in another one S Kxx H AKJTx D Qx C Qx It's mps and while pass over 3C's would be normal the lure of 140 is enticing. But all of the above I think suffer from a case of intelligence transfer. The actual player with S Qxx H Qx D xxx C A98xx evaluated this hand as a NF passable 3C bid. It was not constructive. It was to play period. I can actually see some logic in this move as it right sides the queens and opposite the normal 15-17 NT you are not by any means certain of making 9 or even 8 tricks in NT. It was also evident that this pair had no idea what 3H's over a NF 3C bid meant, but it was deemed (by questioning) natural and 5 card, NF. So it isn't really relevant what you or I would bid with our normal partners. You have to get into someones mind who bids 3C to play (could have a zero count 6C's etc), figure out what they would make of a 3H bid and then ask was 3NT suggested by the UI or is it a clearcut bid for THIS person. And now imo there is alot going for not allowing the 3NT. I'm not saying I'd rule that way but I think the case has alot more merit and is not as clearcut as the responses to date suggest. K. *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR20 per month! Always-on internet & wireless option - find out more at http://www.btireland.ie/broadband From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 28 12:18:57 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Mar 28 12:25:15 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion References: <001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200><003a01c6512c$7dd26870$6400a8c0@WINXP><001f01c65138$936c3b00$2301a8c0@Karel3200> <5.1.0.14.0.20060328103321.0201a990@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <009601c65251$06dfd9c0$259868d5@jeushtlj> [Karen] > Case 2 > North S:JTxx H:AJ87xx D:QJ C:x > South S:AK98x H- D:AK9xx C:Axx > 1S (3H*) P (P) > X AP > Result 3H-2* for 300 > 3H (not alerted) = 5+H's and 5+C's. [nige1] IMO the TD should reject North's claim of 6S+1 and award 7S= instead (surely a quite possible result). With the right information, a lot of North's would directly raise spades. Hence, manifestly, North-South were damaged by the misinformation. Does their misere defence to 3HX affect the ruling. Morally it should not. IMO, here, in law, it should not. North-South would quickly realise that they had missed a vulnerable slam --- probably a grand -- and were unlikely to get adequate compensation from a non-vulnerable doubled partscore; so you can hardly blame them for taking their eye off the ball. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Mar 28 15:12:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Mar 28 15:13:23 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060328122357.020164d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > IOW, South might hold up his Ace baceause of the wrong information > (apparently, West didn't think about correcting the information > before card play), but even then 300 NS seems ridiculous. > A pair that defends that bad won't be able to extract 1100 given the > right explanation. Likewise IBTD. Knowing declarer to be 5/5+ then HA + another is fairly easy to find, as is rising CA on first round. No further thought in defence is required and 4 trump tricks are the limit. Besides, declarer didn't correct when he should have - I'm going to make damn sure he doesn't benefit and opps don't suffer. Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 18:05:00 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Mar 28 18:05:23 2006 Subject: [blml] That pot thing... Message-ID: <2da24b8e0603280805q30ae50f5udee354636369e703@mail.gmail.com> As I noted past on far too many occasions, I believe that the future of bridge rests in the realm ethereal. The physical game of pushing around pieces of pasteboard will give way to the electronic playing environment. I recognize that this is a controversial assertion that not everyone agrees with. Regardless of whether my assumption is right or wrong, I think that the World Bridge Federation needs to be investing some resources studying this issue. From my perspective, the best way to do so would be for the WBF to delegate one or more directors as a liaison to the online community. The first point of engagement should be an electronic forum that online directors can use to post questions about rulings and get feedback from qualified directors. There are a few web sites and email lists that currently address this need (rec.games.bridge, the Bridge Laws Mailing List, David Stevenson's Bridge Talk Forums, the BBO forums) Unfortunately, none of these sites are directly associated with the WBF which seems problematic. My purpose in making this suggestion has less to do with providing online Directors with quality advice, but rather to provide the WBF with appropriate information that they can use to understand the unique issues that characterize the electronic playing environment. For whats its worth, I don't think that the WBF needs to create an addition forum. It would be more than sufficient to have directors actively participating on the Bridge Talk forum or the BBO TD forum. Long term, I'd like to see the WBF start to consider some of the thornier issues associated with electronic bridge. In particular, I think that some consideration needs to be given regarding sponsoring organizations/regulatory authorities. Its unclear whether large online bridge sites will evolve into a separate and distinct sponsoring authorities, or, alternatively, are best viewed as infrastructure providers that existing sponsoring authorities will use to conduct games. -- 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 guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Mar 28 19:10:28 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Mar 28 19:16:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Consultation with players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001301c6503f$da3f96c0$e0e2403e@Mildred><000701c65181$fb231810$a0ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000201c651f5$f6b2fb00$019868d5@jeushtlj> <001f01c6524f$77e57be0$1a9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00fa01c6528a$8470fe80$259868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Rather more than a plodder, Nigel. A > journeyman is a trained worker. He has skills > and puts them daily to good use. ~ G ~ +=+ [nige1] You HUM it.. Oops! Dropped my cheese again. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 29 00:02:55 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 29 00:02:07 2006 Subject: [blml] That pot thing... In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0603280805q30ae50f5udee354636369e703@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2da24b8e0603280805q30ae50f5udee354636369e703@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060328170043.02bd3eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:05 AM 3/28/06, richard wrote: ... I'm mildly surprised that Richard's subject line made it through my ISP's content filters. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 29 01:22:07 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Mar 29 01:21:32 2006 Subject: [blml] UI and penalty; is this what is intended? References: <008601c6495b$a2356e20$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <004e01c652be$9152e2b0$a3e4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <20060329094855.34693.qmail@web30408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Tim West-Meads wrote: > Alain wrote: > > > IOW, South might hold up his Ace baceause of the > wrong information > > (apparently, West didn't think about correcting > the information > > before card play), but even then 300 NS seems > ridiculous. > > A pair that defends that bad won't be able to > extract 1100 given the > > right explanation. > > Likewise IBTD. Knowing declarer to be 5/5+ then HA > + another is fairly > easy to find, as is rising CA on first round. No > further thought in > defence is required and 4 trump tricks are the > limit. Besides, declarer > didn't correct when he should have - I'm going to > make damn sure he > doesn't benefit and opps don't suffer. > > Tim > > I was talking to the 3H bidder about this hand after the event and he did bring the opponents attention to the correct meaning of 3H so the defense had the correct information before the opening lead was made. Not sure if the director was called at that point. Regards, Ciaran __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 29 12:51:38 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Mar 29 12:52:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping Message-ID: <20060329105138.0D7F423358E@poczta.interia.pl> Hi gang, Suppose that in the last round of the tourney I meet my friends who are still in contention while I am not. Suppose I intentionally bid 7NTxx minus a lot in order to give my friends a lot of IMPs. Where is it exactly written in TFLB the I cannot do this? There is L91B but it is too general for my taste. I'd prefer something more specific and less open to interpretation. Can anyone help? __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Samochod zwany EOS... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f191c From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 29 12:52:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 29 12:53:18 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion In-Reply-To: <20060329094855.34693.qmail@web30408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > I was talking to the 3H bidder about this hand after > the event and he did bring the opponents attention to > the correct meaning of 3H so the defense had the > correct information before the opening lead was made. > > Not sure if the director was called at that point. The 3H bidder should have called the TD before correcting the explanation (if he didn't I'll stick with my ruling in order that he learn the need for so doing) albeit I'm tempted to relegate my assessment of the defence from "poor" to "egregious". Assuming he did and the TD failed to re-open the auction we are dealing with a case of TD error (NS+1460, EW-300). If the TD did reopen the auction but N failed to take advantage I lose much sympathy with his arguments about bidding on - result stands. Now please stop changing "the facts" and I might (possibly) get the ruling right :)) Tim From henk at ripe.net Wed Mar 29 13:38:28 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Mar 29 13:38:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <20060329105138.0D7F423358E@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20060329105138.0D7F423358E@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060329133618.0350e820@ripe.net> Hi, > Suppose that in the last round of the tourney I meet >my friends who are still in contention while I am not. >Suppose I intentionally bid 7NTxx minus a lot in order to give >my friends a lot of IMPs. > Where is it exactly written in TFLB the I cannot do this? I don't think it is in the TFLB. Otherwise, one would not have to make anti-dumping rules as some NCBO's have done. 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 twm at cix.co.uk Wed Mar 29 14:02:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Mar 29 14:02:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <20060329105138.0D7F423358E@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad wrote: > > Suppose that in the last round of the tourney I meet > my friends who are still in contention while I am not. > Suppose I intentionally bid 7NTxx minus a lot in order to give > my friends a lot of IMPs. > Where is it exactly written in TFLB the I cannot do this? It isn't exactly (AFAIK). Anti-dumping *may* be covered by NBO/SO regulation, it may not. Personally I would use L74A2. "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." And then adjust under L12. Normally this regulation is for "non-bridge" actions, but then, IMO, the 7NT bid and XX are "non-bridge" actions. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 29 14:18:39 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 29 14:19:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060329133618.0350e820@ripe.net> Message-ID: <001001c6532a$ea3e4880$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: 29. mars 2006 13:38 > To: Konrad Ciborowski; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > > Hi, > > > > Suppose that in the last round of the tourney I meet > >my friends who are still in contention while I am not. > >Suppose I intentionally bid 7NTxx minus a lot in order to give > >my friends a lot of IMPs. > > Where is it exactly written in TFLB the I cannot do this? > > I don't think it is in the TFLB. Otherwise, one would not have to > make anti-dumping rules as some NCBO's have done. > > Henk There is to my knowledge no law that directly addresses this question. However I would use Law 74A2 for all it is worth (and maybe even a bit more) in a case like this. This law can of course not be used to "restore equity" by taking away from the "friends" their unjust gain, but it can indeed be used to take disciplinary actions against a player making such a call. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Mar 29 15:11:12 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Mar 29 15:17:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <20060329105138.0D7F423358E@poczta.interia.pl> <7.0.1.0.2.20060329133618.0350e820@ripe.net> Message-ID: <004a01c65332$552e5d90$969187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************* "Take away that pudding - it has no theme." [Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" ; Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > Hi, > > > > Suppose that in the last round of the tourney I meet > >my friends who are still in contention while I am not. > >Suppose I intentionally bid 7NTxx minus a lot in order to give > >my friends a lot of IMPs. > > Where is it exactly written in TFLB the I cannot do this? > > I don't think it is in the TFLB. Otherwise, one would not have to > make anti-dumping rules as some NCBO's have done. > > Henk > +=+ I think it may be said to be an action that "might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". (Law 74A2). ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Mar 29 15:20:08 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Mar 29 15:20:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Appeal booklets References: Message-ID: David asked me to post this: Begin forwarded message: > From: David Stevenson > Date: March 29, 2006 7:46:12 AM EST > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > It's that time of year again! The EBU and WBU appeal booklets > are being compiled, and again we are seeking commentators both from > England/Wales and elsewhere. > > The only real rules are that we do not want people to be too long- > winded - generally one paragraph per appeal - nor too cruel - we > prefer people to suggest the decision was ill-judged, rather than > call the AC a load of morons. > > This year there are about 15 or 20 appeals. Would you like to > help? If so you will receive our undying gratitude. > > Offers to David Stevenson please. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 29 16:29:02 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Mar 29 16:24:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <004a01c65332$552e5d90$969187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20060329105138.0D7F423358E@poczta.interia.pl> <7.0.1.0.2.20060329133618.0350e820@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060329162522.0200eb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:11 29/03/2006 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ I think it may be said to be an action that "might cause >annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere >with the enjoyment of the game". (Law 74A2). ~ G ~ +=+ If the beneficiary of the dumping isn't in cahoots with the dumper, then use L74A2, as he will surely be annoyed when he realizes what happens. If he is, the case is covered by anti-cheating laws. >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 29 16:53:53 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 29 16:52:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <004a01c65332$552e5d90$969187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20060329105138.0D7F423358E@poczta.interia.pl> <7.0.1.0.2.20060329133618.0350e820@ripe.net> <004a01c65332$552e5d90$969187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060329092139.02a26150@pop.starpower.net> At 08:11 AM 3/29/06, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > > > > Suppose that in the last round of the tourney I meet > > >my friends who are still in contention while I am not. > > >Suppose I intentionally bid 7NTxx minus a lot in order to give > > >my friends a lot of IMPs. > > > Where is it exactly written in TFLB the I cannot do this? > > > > I don't think it is in the TFLB. Otherwise, one would not have to > > make anti-dumping rules as some NCBO's have done. > >+=+ I think it may be said to be an action that "might cause >annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere >with the enjoyment of the game". (Law 74A2). ~ G ~ +=+ That sounds like quite a stretch. Such action may "annoy" the pairs who slip one place in the rankings as a result, but no more so than any unintentional disaster or anything else that creates an extreme result. And the only people likely to be "embarrassed" by such an action are the perpetrators themselves. ISTM that L74A2, which deals with "Etiquette of Word and Action", is directed at non-bridge actions, and could not have been intended to apply to the actual bids made or the actual cards played regardless of intentionality. (It should and does, of course, apply to the *manner* in which the bids are made or the cards are played, but we can assume that Konrad's friends dumped the board quietly and politely.) I cannot imagine that the authors of TFLB made a conscious decision that dumping should be illegal, but then decided not to mention it solely on the grounds that doing so would be redundant to L74A2. So I think Henk is absolutely correct. The ACBL agrees with me; it has passed an anti-dumping regulation which was clearly intended to be a regulation made by the ACBL per L80F, not an interpretation of some law already in TFLB. Edgar Kaplan seems to have agreed with me as well, having editorialized several times (as the Bridge World continues to do) against the ACBL regulation on the grounds that it is ill-advised, without ever suggesting that the issue of the legitimacy of dumping involved anything other than the regulation in question. Mr. Kaplan, though, might well have approved of Grattan's position, but only as a proponent of "decide what you want to do first, then go hunt up some law to justify it". While nobody, including Mr. Kaplan, would approve of a pair dumping a board just to help their friends, he was quite convinced of the legimacy of dumping a board for the purpose of achieving some gain thereby (as, for example, in a qualifying session where a lower score might result in an easier draw in a subsequent round), and would be horrified (or at least rather surprised) at the notion that TFLB would require it to be considered illegal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 29 18:54:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Mar 29 18:55:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060329092139.02a26150@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001401c65351$7e8bb7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > > Suppose that in the last round of the tourney I meet > > > >my friends who are still in contention while I am not. > > > >Suppose I intentionally bid 7NTxx minus a lot in order to give > > > >my friends a lot of IMPs. > > > > Where is it exactly written in TFLB the I cannot do this? > > > > > > I don't think it is in the TFLB. Otherwise, one would not have to > > > make anti-dumping rules as some NCBO's have done. > > > >+=+ I think it may be said to be an action that "might cause > >annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere > >with the enjoyment of the game". (Law 74A2). ~ G ~ +=+ > > That sounds like quite a stretch. Such action may "annoy" the pairs > who slip one place in the rankings as a result, but no more so than any > unintentional disaster or anything else that creates an extreme > result. And the only people likely to be "embarrassed" by such an > action are the perpetrators themselves. ISTM that L74A2, which deals > with "Etiquette of Word and Action", is directed at non-bridge actions, > and could not have been intended to apply to the actual bids made or > the actual cards played regardless of intentionality. (It should and > does, of course, apply to the *manner* in which the bids are made or > the cards are played, but we can assume that Konrad's friends dumped > the board quietly and politely.) I cannot imagine that the authors of > TFLB made a conscious decision that dumping should be illegal, but then > decided not to mention it solely on the grounds that doing so would be > redundant to L74A2. So I think Henk is absolutely correct. > > The ACBL agrees with me; it has passed an anti-dumping regulation which > was clearly intended to be a regulation made by the ACBL per L80F, not > an interpretation of some law already in TFLB. Edgar Kaplan seems to > have agreed with me as well, having editorialized several times (as the > Bridge World continues to do) against the ACBL regulation on the > grounds that it is ill-advised, without ever suggesting that the issue > of the legitimacy of dumping involved anything other than the > regulation in question. Mr. Kaplan, though, might well have approved > of Grattan's position, but only as a proponent of "decide what you want > to do first, then go hunt up some law to justify it". > > While nobody, including Mr. Kaplan, would approve of a pair dumping a > board just to help their friends, he was quite convinced of the > legimacy of dumping a board for the purpose of achieving some gain > thereby (as, for example, in a qualifying session where a lower score > might result in an easier draw in a subsequent round), and would be > horrified (or at least rather surprised) at the notion that TFLB would > require it to be considered illegal. A similar question was discussed in Norway back in the eighties (before Law 7 was amended in 1987 to the effect that a player _must_ inspect the face of his cards before making a call). The question was: How shall we rule if a player towards the end of a tournament in which he no longer has any chance for a good result bids 7NT without looking at his cards? And the answer was that the player shall be considered having made a psychic call (legal) and immediately informed his partner that the call was indeed a psyche (illegal). This ruling is of course not relevant in the case described in this thread, but we also agreed upon a further reaction against that player: He should be held in contempt of the game and be subject to appropriate disciplinary actions, the limit of which would be a ban from all bridge events for a certain period of time. And I do indeed consider this further ruling relevant (under Law 74A2) also in the current case. Regards Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 29 19:45:23 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Mar 29 19:48:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Denver NABC Appeals References: Message-ID: <005a01c65358$90141320$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> I have finished commenting on all the Denver appeals, and am very surprised to see that I appear to be the only one commenting in the Forum established for that purpose.. I would put some of the more interesting cases on BLML, but don't know how to get the deals in an e-mail and typing them out is too laborious. The appeals are most easily reached via my web site. Click on Bridge Laws and Regulations, then on Appeals at NABCs. In a separate post I summarized my findings, scoring each TD, AC, and TD Panel with 0, 1/2, or 1. Looking at just the cases scored with a 0 for the AC or Panel will save the trouble of reading some uninteresting cases. I make no claim of being 100% right and would welcome disagreements with my opinions. I'm off to the Dallas NABC tomorrow, so am unsubscribing for about 10 days. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From schoderb at msn.com Wed Mar 29 23:10:07 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Mar 29 23:10:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <20060329105138.0D7F423358E@poczta.interia.pl><7.0.1.0.2.20060329133618.0350e820@ripe.net><004a01c65332$552e5d90$969187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060329092139.02a26150@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: I think we are putting apples and oranges in the same basket. I believe that purposefully playing losing bridge to benefit my opponents is reprehensible and should be outlawed. In WBF there is much attention in seeding events to have co-nationals, etc., play early so as to reduce the attraction of 'helping out a friend', though it does not always work that way. However, to play less than the best in any trick, hand, session, or stage of an event, WHEN IT IS TO MY BENEFIT toward winning the event is, to me, as it was to Edgar Kaplan, part of the game. Sure, it would always be best that the conditions of contest were such that it could not happen, and when it does it is the fault of the Sponsoring Organization's failure to write conditions which make it impossible. However, by lumping both these situations into one, and publishing such things as 'all players must always play to win on every hand under all conditions' is, to me, silly. As to the legality of dumping, I don't find it in the Laws, and citing Law 74A2 (which deals with Conduct and Etiquette) as a prohibition is sophistry. Alluding to Law 80F is much better and puts the onus where it belongs - the Sponsoring Organization. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > At 08:11 AM 3/29/06, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > > > > > > Suppose that in the last round of the tourney I meet > > > >my friends who are still in contention while I am not. > > > >Suppose I intentionally bid 7NTxx minus a lot in order to give > > > >my friends a lot of IMPs. > > > > Where is it exactly written in TFLB the I cannot do this? > > > > > > I don't think it is in the TFLB. Otherwise, one would not have to > > > make anti-dumping rules as some NCBO's have done. > > > >+=+ I think it may be said to be an action that "might cause > >annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere > >with the enjoyment of the game". (Law 74A2). ~ G ~ +=+ > > That sounds like quite a stretch. Such action may "annoy" the pairs > who slip one place in the rankings as a result, but no more so than any > unintentional disaster or anything else that creates an extreme > result. And the only people likely to be "embarrassed" by such an > action are the perpetrators themselves. ISTM that L74A2, which deals > with "Etiquette of Word and Action", is directed at non-bridge actions, > and could not have been intended to apply to the actual bids made or > the actual cards played regardless of intentionality. (It should and > does, of course, apply to the *manner* in which the bids are made or > the cards are played, but we can assume that Konrad's friends dumped > the board quietly and politely.) I cannot imagine that the authors of > TFLB made a conscious decision that dumping should be illegal, but then > decided not to mention it solely on the grounds that doing so would be > redundant to L74A2. So I think Henk is absolutely correct. > > The ACBL agrees with me; it has passed an anti-dumping regulation which > was clearly intended to be a regulation made by the ACBL per L80F, not > an interpretation of some law already in TFLB. Edgar Kaplan seems to > have agreed with me as well, having editorialized several times (as the > Bridge World continues to do) against the ACBL regulation on the > grounds that it is ill-advised, without ever suggesting that the issue > of the legitimacy of dumping involved anything other than the > regulation in question. Mr. Kaplan, though, might well have approved > of Grattan's position, but only as a proponent of "decide what you want > to do first, then go hunt up some law to justify it". > > While nobody, including Mr. Kaplan, would approve of a pair dumping a > board just to help their friends, he was quite convinced of the > legimacy of dumping a board for the purpose of achieving some gain > thereby (as, for example, in a qualifying session where a lower score > might result in an easier draw in a subsequent round), and would be > horrified (or at least rather surprised) at the notion that TFLB would > require it to be considered illegal. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 29 23:38:39 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Mar 29 23:37:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <001401c65351$7e8bb7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060329092139.02a26150@pop.starpower.net> <001401c65351$7e8bb7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060329160648.02b3c4f0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:54 AM 3/29/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > > >+=+ I think it may be said to be an action that "might cause > > >annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere > > >with the enjoyment of the game". (Law 74A2). ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > That sounds like quite a stretch. Such action may "annoy" the pairs > > who slip one place in the rankings as a result, but no more so than any > > unintentional disaster or anything else that creates an extreme > > result. And the only people likely to be "embarrassed" by such an > > action are the perpetrators themselves. ISTM that L74A2, which deals > > with "Etiquette of Word and Action", is directed at non-bridge actions, > > and could not have been intended to apply to the actual bids made or > > the actual cards played regardless of intentionality. (It should and > > does, of course, apply to the *manner* in which the bids are made or > > the cards are played, but we can assume that Konrad's friends dumped > > the board quietly and politely.) I cannot imagine that the authors of > > TFLB made a conscious decision that dumping should be illegal, but then > > decided not to mention it solely on the grounds that doing so would be > > redundant to L74A2. So I think Henk is absolutely correct. > > > > The ACBL agrees with me; it has passed an anti-dumping regulation which > > was clearly intended to be a regulation made by the ACBL per L80F, not > > an interpretation of some law already in TFLB. Edgar Kaplan seems to > > have agreed with me as well, having editorialized several times (as the > > Bridge World continues to do) against the ACBL regulation on the > > grounds that it is ill-advised, without ever suggesting that the issue > > of the legitimacy of dumping involved anything other than the > > regulation in question. Mr. Kaplan, though, might well have approved > > of Grattan's position, but only as a proponent of "decide what you want > > to do first, then go hunt up some law to justify it". > > > > While nobody, including Mr. Kaplan, would approve of a pair dumping a > > board just to help their friends, he was quite convinced of the > > legimacy of dumping a board for the purpose of achieving some gain > > thereby (as, for example, in a qualifying session where a lower score > > might result in an easier draw in a subsequent round), and would be > > horrified (or at least rather surprised) at the notion that TFLB would > > require it to be considered illegal. > >A similar question was discussed in Norway back in the eighties >(before Law >7 was amended in 1987 to the effect that a player _must_ inspect the >face of >his cards before making a call). > >The question was: How shall we rule if a player towards the end of a >tournament in which he no longer has any chance for a good result bids 7NT >without looking at his cards? > >And the answer was that the player shall be considered having made a >psychic >call (legal) and immediately informed his partner that the call was >indeed a >psyche (illegal). > >This ruling is of course not relevant in the case described in this >thread, >but we also agreed upon a further reaction against that player: He >should be >held in contempt of the game and be subject to appropriate disciplinary >actions, the limit of which would be a ban from all bridge events for a >certain period of time. > >And I do indeed consider this further ruling relevant (under Law 74A2) >also >in the current case. The same issue arose at about the same time where I live. After considerable discussion, it was decided that it was legal under the then-current laws, provided that it was done without prearrangement and in such a manner that partner could not tell -- IOW, you had to "make a show" of looking at your cards even if you didn't actually do so, just as we now require after a skip-bid warning -- and that there was no sufficient prior history of such behavior as to put partner "on guard" against the possibility -- IOW, no implicit understanding, which would be considered "prearrangement". In practice, that's a lot closer to the Norwegian view than it sounds -- we (the governing boards and DICs of two local ACBL "units", which are the SOs for our Sectional tournaments; I was not personally involved) would treat it, in effect, as a form of psych -- except for our inability to find anything preventing a player from being thus "contempt[uous] of the game". That view was never tested in practice, since the real problem we were having was with *pairs* agreeing to play "no-peek" towards the end of a hopeless session, which was determined to be a non-permissible partnership agreement; we never actually had a case where a single player "no-peeked" on his own without partner's knowledge. Word got around, and the practice stopped forthwith. I do seem to recall, however, that not long afterwards the ACBL passed a regulation requiring players to inspect their cards, and, of course, as Sven points out, that was no longer needed when such a law was added to TFLB in 1987. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 30 00:42:50 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Mar 30 00:43:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak: [snip] >However, to play less than the best in any trick, hand, session, or >stage of an event, WHEN IT IS TO MY BENEFIT toward winning the event >is, to me, as it was to Edgar Kaplan, part of the game. [snip] >As to the legality of dumping, I don't find it in the Laws, and >citing Law 74A2 (which deals with Conduct and Etiquette) as a >prohibition is sophistry. [snip] WBF Laws Committee minutes, 28 October 2001, section 6: >>There was a discussion concerning the situation under Law 15C when >>the correct pair is seated and one of them makes a call for which >>no bridge reason can be perceived. It was agreed that such action >>is not acceptable and a Director who forms the opinion that there >>is no demonstrable bridge reason for a call by the incoming pair is >>authorised to treat this as a violation of Law 74A2. >> >>[Secretary's note: the committee was aware of debate concerning a >>pair who might open 7NT when substituted at the table for an >>incorrect pair, with the implication that the purpose was to avoid >>playing the board.] >> >>The Secretary stated his view that the law can act unfairly to the >>side that remains seated when it requires them to repeat the same >>calls against different opponents. The committee referred this >>question to the Laws Drafting Subcommittee. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 30 October 2001, section 1(a): >>The committee wished to remove from Section 6 any requirement to >>judge the intention of the player. It was agreed that the Director >>should apply Law 74A2 if he is of the opinion that there is no >>satisfactory bridge reason for a call made by an incoming player. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From schoderb at msn.com Thu Mar 30 03:25:49 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Mar 30 03:26:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: So? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Kojak: > > [snip] > > >However, to play less than the best in any trick, hand, session, or > >stage of an event, WHEN IT IS TO MY BENEFIT toward winning the event > >is, to me, as it was to Edgar Kaplan, part of the game. > > [snip] > > >As to the legality of dumping, I don't find it in the Laws, and > >citing Law 74A2 (which deals with Conduct and Etiquette) as a > >prohibition is sophistry. > > [snip] > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 28 October 2001, section 6: > > >>There was a discussion concerning the situation under Law 15C when > >>the correct pair is seated and one of them makes a call for which > >>no bridge reason can be perceived. It was agreed that such action > >>is not acceptable and a Director who forms the opinion that there > >>is no demonstrable bridge reason for a call by the incoming pair is > >>authorised to treat this as a violation of Law 74A2. > >> > >>[Secretary's note: the committee was aware of debate concerning a > >>pair who might open 7NT when substituted at the table for an > >>incorrect pair, with the implication that the purpose was to avoid > >>playing the board.] > >> > >>The Secretary stated his view that the law can act unfairly to the > >>side that remains seated when it requires them to repeat the same > >>calls against different opponents. The committee referred this > >>question to the Laws Drafting Subcommittee. > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 30 October 2001, section 1(a): > > >>The committee wished to remove from Section 6 any requirement to > >>judge the intention of the player. It was agreed that the Director > >>should apply Law 74A2 if he is of the opinion that there is no > >>satisfactory bridge reason for a call made by an incoming player. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 30 03:31:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 30 03:31:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > As to the legality of dumping, I don't find it in the Laws, and > citing Law 74A2 (which deals with Conduct and Etiquette) as a > prohibition is sophistry. Alluding to Law 80F is much better and puts > the onus where it belongs - the Sponsoring Organization. The onus may belong with the SO, the issue is how a TD wishes to deal with the situation when the SO has done nothing. I agree with Kojak about the apples and oranges but I regard orange dumping (a pair not in contention deliberately trying to deprive a pair in contention of victory by abandoning all pretence of playing bridge) as a conduct issue. As a TD I don't need a detailed list in order to decide what is/is not acceptable conduct in the games I run. Tim From adam at irvine.com Thu Mar 30 03:34:26 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Mar 30 03:34:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:31:00 +0100." Message-ID: <200603300130.RAA02535@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > I agree with Kojak about the apples and oranges but I regard orange > dumping (a pair not in contention deliberately trying to deprive a > pair in contention of victory by abandoning all pretence of playing > bridge) as a conduct issue. What does the Orange Book have to say about this? ;) -- Adam From schoderb at msn.com Thu Mar 30 03:35:11 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Mar 30 03:35:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: Message-ID: Bravo! And if you are always willing to put your judgement (with an e) on the line, bravo again. I've never found it difficult to determine what was going on, but then I'm one of those guys who ask questions. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > Kojak wrote: > > > As to the legality of dumping, I don't find it in the Laws, and > > citing Law 74A2 (which deals with Conduct and Etiquette) as a > > prohibition is sophistry. Alluding to Law 80F is much better and puts > > the onus where it belongs - the Sponsoring Organization. > > The onus may belong with the SO, the issue is how a TD wishes to deal > with the situation when the SO has done nothing. I agree with Kojak > about the apples and oranges but I regard orange dumping (a pair not in > contention deliberately trying to deprive a pair in contention of > victory by abandoning all pretence of playing bridge) as a conduct > issue. As a TD I don't need a detailed list in order to decide what > is/is not acceptable conduct in the games I run. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Mar 30 09:45:01 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Mar 30 09:51:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060329092139.02a26150@pop.starpower.net><001401c65351$7e8bb7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20060329160648.02b3c4f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006201c653cd$ef9e06f0$499d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics." [Earl Warren] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:38 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Intentional dumping > . > Edgar Kaplan seems to > > > have agreed with me as well, having editorialized > . > (as the Bridge World continues to do) against the > > > ACBL regulation on the grounds that it is ill-advised, > > > without ever suggesting that the issue of the legitimacy > > > of dumping involved anything other than the regulation > > > in question. Mr. Kaplan, though, might well have > > > approved of Grattan's position, but only as a proponent > > > of "decide what you want to do first, then go hunt up > > > some law to justify it". > > > +=+ You may be right, Eric, in this last respect - Edgar was a member (? chair) of the WBF Appeals Committee that found a Polish pair in a World Championships to have violated the laws of the game by deliberately attempting to dump a match to opponents in order that a third team would fail to qualify for the KO stages - something that the Polish team were said to have considered would provide them with an easier passage to the final. The Polish team was severely penalized. As I recall that was in Yokohama. The WBF introduced the following amendments of its regulations into its General Conditions of Contest in the aftermath of that incident: 7. "Ethics and Deportment All contestants in World Bridge Championships are required to conform at all times to the highest standards of ethics and deportment. The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. All contestants (including non-playing captains) are also expected to accept the decisions of the Tournament Appeals Committee in a sportsmanlike manner. (See also section 31.3)" and "31.3 Team requirements The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. While a team may rest its players and make other decisions for strategic reasons, it is not permissible for a partnership to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of its opponents, and the (Tournament Appeals) Committee shall have the authority to determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether a partnership has done so. Any such finding will constitute grounds for such penalties as may be imposed by the Committee, which shall also be empowered to recommend that the Executive Council disqualify or suspend the offending contestant." [The paragraph numbers are those in the copy of the Cs of C that I have in front of me. These and the WBFLC minutes that have been quoted constitute the WBF's stance on the subject. It condemns dumping as unethical in all circumstances.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 30 11:58:34 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Mar 30 11:59:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping Message-ID: <20060330095834.823A73C2E3@poczta.interia.pl> > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************ > "In civilized life, law floats in > a sea of ethics." > [Earl Warren] > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:38 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Intentional dumping > > > . > Edgar Kaplan seems to > > > > have agreed with me as well, having editorialized > > . > (as the Bridge World continues to do) against the > > > > ACBL regulation on the grounds that it is ill-advised, > > > > without ever suggesting that the issue of the legitimacy > > > > of dumping involved anything other than the regulation > > > > in question. Mr. Kaplan, though, might well have > > > > approved of Grattan's position, but only as a proponent > > > > of "decide what you want to do first, then go hunt up > > > > some law to justify it". > > > > > +=+ You may be right, Eric, in this last respect - Edgar was > a member (? chair) of the WBF Appeals Committee that > found a Polish pair in a World Championships to have > violated the laws of the game by deliberately attempting to > dump a match to opponents in order that a third team would > fail to qualify for the KO stages - something that the Polish > team were said to have considered would provide them with > an easier passage to the final. The Polish team was severely > penalized. > As I recall that was in Yokohama. This is incorrect. I know the Yokohama case very well, I investigated it thouroughly when I once wrote an article for Polish "Brydz" about cases of intentional dumping in bridge (but to help friends but to achieve some long term gain). The match was between Poland and USA 2. Both teams were sure to qualify, Poland was 3rd and USA 2 4th in their group. Hongkong, sitting 5th, was out of the picture. In the other group Iceland was locked up for 1st place and Great Britain was for second. Per the conditions of contest the winner of each group would play #4 team from another one. Both teams wanted to avoid Great Britain (the European champion) and preferred to play Iceland instead. The players in question were Martens - Szymanowski. A few examples of their bridge in this match (they were East - West): Q KJ9742 K82 QJ7 A98 J105432 Q102 65 A109763 QJ 6 1084 K76 A8 54 AK9532 W N E S 1D 1H 1S 2C 2S 3C 4S x xx p p p -1000 A10853 Q4 Q1052 KJ96 AK 108652 42 Q10 1S - 4S 6S - p -2 AK1042 QJ73 KQ952 J103 J9 AQ4 5 KQ3 1S - pass 200 AKJ84 753 QJ9 104 A4 KQ1098 AK3 J97 1S - 4S 4NT - 5C 6S - pass -100 I talked to Martens the other day and he said that every time Ferro - Ornstein, playing North - South, attempted to play some below-par bridge then they (M - S) would wave a finger in the air, say "No, gentelmen" and do something even more idiotic. "We wanted to lose this match", Martens told me, "but we wanted to show that we were going to lose it not because we were a worse team but for tactical reasons". Poland played the whole match is this style dumping boards left and right. And of course Poland won easily 21 - 9 VP because the American pair in the other room (can't recall their names) was even better at this line of work. I never heard that either team had been penalized. Ironically Poland virtually blew Great Britain off the field in the quarterfinal while USA 2 were crushed by Iceland they had wanted so much to play. Poland finally got to play Iceland in the final and of course lost, too. So in retrospect both countries went out of their way to face a team that ended up as a Bermuda Bowl champion. You cannot be sure of anything these days. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seksualna edukacja... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f191b From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 30 12:01:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 30 12:01:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <200603300130.RAA02535@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam asked: > > I agree with Kojak about the apples and oranges but I regard orange > > dumping (a pair not in contention deliberately trying to deprive a > > pair in contention of victory by abandoning all pretence of playing > > bridge) as a conduct issue. > > What does the Orange Book have to say about this? Peripherally: 6.1.5:Frivolous psyching, suggesting you have lost interest in the competition or are enjoying yourself at the expense of others, is a breach of the Laws. (Law 74A2, 74B1, 74C6) The White Book section 75.2 starts: In England it is not, of itself, improper to attempt to influence the results of an event, or part of an event, so as to try to increase one's own success in the event. If a sponsoring organisation wishes to prevent such tactics then it should design the competition accordingly. Thus "apple dumping" is explicitly legal in most EBU events. "Orange dumping" is not directly addressed (AFAIK) but by implication "improper" and/or illegally frivolous. The decision/adjustment/punishment is left to the TD in fairly unrestricted fashion. I know I won't often catch subtle dumping (or at least I believe I could easily give oppos a couple of 80%+ boards without arousing a TD's suspicion) but I'm happy to take strong action against obvious offences. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 30 12:01:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 30 12:01:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <006201c653cd$ef9e06f0$499d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > The WBF expects all teams and > partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. Which is fine, but doesn't seem to address the issue of tactical dumping. If one is trying to ease one's passage to the final there is no question that one is trying to win the event. Indeed if winning the last RR match would bring one up against a team which has a huge carryover against one it would be "dumping" to try and win that match. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 30 13:22:39 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Mar 30 13:17:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: References: <006201c653cd$ef9e06f0$499d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060330131835.02015cb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:01 30/03/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Which is fine, but doesn't seem to address the issue of tactical >dumping. If one is trying to ease one's passage to the final there is >no question that one is trying to win the event. Indeed if winning the >last RR match would bring one up against a team which has a huge >carryover against one it would be "dumping" to try and win that match. Indeed. And it means you can't escape dumping something, which may "cause inconvenience or discomfort to players". So, perhaps pre-set elimination rounds are a bad idea ; the other obvious idea, letting both 1st place teams choose their opponents (but not the other 1st place) and arranging other matches, has much for it. (in the case on only one RR group, it is even easier). Does anybody know why this easy, fair (to those who had a good RR) and dumping-proof solution isn't systematically used ? Best regards Alain From schoderb at msn.com Thu Mar 30 14:14:06 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Mar 30 14:14:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <20060330095834.823A73C2E3@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad's posting sure casts a different light on the Yokohama case, and includes some interesting details. I'd like to know what the severe punishment WBF decreed for Poland per Grattan's posting was - since I was the Chief TD at the time it would have been nice for the AC to let me know their decision. As I remember it, the subject was turned over to the European Bridge League for their action, or is this another case where facts change as time goes by? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************ > "In civilized life, law floats in > a sea of ethics." > [Earl Warren] > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:38 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Intentional dumping > > > . > Edgar Kaplan seems to > > > > have agreed with me as well, having editorialized > > . > (as the Bridge World continues to do) against the > > > > ACBL regulation on the grounds that it is ill-advised, > > > > without ever suggesting that the issue of the legitimacy > > > > of dumping involved anything other than the regulation > > > > in question. Mr. Kaplan, though, might well have > > > > approved of Grattan's position, but only as a proponent > > > > of "decide what you want to do first, then go hunt up > > > > some law to justify it". > > > > > +=+ You may be right, Eric, in this last respect - Edgar was > a member (? chair) of the WBF Appeals Committee that > found a Polish pair in a World Championships to have > violated the laws of the game by deliberately attempting to > dump a match to opponents in order that a third team would > fail to qualify for the KO stages - something that the Polish > team were said to have considered would provide them with > an easier passage to the final. The Polish team was severely > penalized. > As I recall that was in Yokohama. This is incorrect. I know the Yokohama case very well, I investigated it thouroughly when I once wrote an article for Polish "Brydz" about cases of intentional dumping in bridge (but to help friends but to achieve some long term gain). The match was between Poland and USA 2. Both teams were sure to qualify, Poland was 3rd and USA 2 4th in their group. Hongkong, sitting 5th, was out of the picture. In the other group Iceland was locked up for 1st place and Great Britain was for second. Per the conditions of contest the winner of each group would play #4 team from another one. Both teams wanted to avoid Great Britain (the European champion) and preferred to play Iceland instead. The players in question were Martens - Szymanowski. A few examples of their bridge in this match (they were East - West): Q KJ9742 K82 QJ7 A98 J105432 Q102 65 A109763 QJ 6 1084 K76 A8 54 AK9532 W N E S 1D 1H 1S 2C 2S 3C 4S x xx p p p -1000 A10853 Q4 Q1052 KJ96 AK 108652 42 Q10 1S - 4S 6S - p -2 AK1042 QJ73 KQ952 J103 J9 AQ4 5 KQ3 1S - pass 200 AKJ84 753 QJ9 104 A4 KQ1098 AK3 J97 1S - 4S 4NT - 5C 6S - pass -100 I talked to Martens the other day and he said that every time Ferro - Ornstein, playing North - South, attempted to play some below-par bridge then they (M - S) would wave a finger in the air, say "No, gentelmen" and do something even more idiotic. "We wanted to lose this match", Martens told me, "but we wanted to show that we were going to lose it not because we were a worse team but for tactical reasons". Poland played the whole match is this style dumping boards left and right. And of course Poland won easily 21 - 9 VP because the American pair in the other room (can't recall their names) was even better at this line of work. I never heard that either team had been penalized. Ironically Poland virtually blew Great Britain off the field in the quarterfinal while USA 2 were crushed by Iceland they had wanted so much to play. Poland finally got to play Iceland in the final and of course lost, too. So in retrospect both countries went out of their way to face a team that ended up as a Bermuda Bowl champion. You cannot be sure of anything these days. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seksualna edukacja... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f191b _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Mar 30 14:40:39 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Thu Mar 30 14:41:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FOwS7-20Vr1c0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> > Grattan wrote: > The WBF expects all teams and > partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. > Tim wrote: > Which is fine, but doesn't seem to address the issue of tactical > dumping. ?If one is trying to ease one's passage to the final there is > no question that one is trying to win the event. ?Indeed if winning the > last RR match would bring one up against a team which has a huge > carryover against one it would be "dumping" to try and win that match. > Grattan wrote: > The WBF expects all teams and > partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. > Grattan wrote: > The WBF expects all teams and > partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. What do you expect the meaning of "at all times" to be ?? At all times or in the end ??? Peter From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 30 15:00:24 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Mar 30 14:55:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <1FOwS7-20Vr1c0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060330145630.02014ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:40 30/03/2006 +0200, PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: >What do you expect the meaning of "at all times" to be ?? >At all times or in the end ??? It has been said before : if you feel like losing some IMPs at the beginning of a long match, to give opps a false feeling of easyness, nobody can nor may disallow it, so "at all times" is an overbid. Not to mention the fact that it might be self-incompatible in some of those dumping situations (long-term and short-term wins incompatible). If somebody expects you to do something that is proven impossible, there could be a slight problem ? From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Mar 30 15:07:33 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Mar 30 15:07:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping Message-ID: <20060330130733.C4B5CEB339@poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad's posting sure casts a different light on the Yokohama case, and > includes some interesting details. I'd like to know what the severe > punishment WBF decreed for Poland per Grattan's posting was - since I was > the Chief TD at the time it would have been nice for the AC to let me > know > their decision. I don't think of any penalties were imposed on anyone. I think probably Grattan confused cases. I am pretty to sure any penalties would have been mentioned by Brian Senior and Eric Kokish in a book issued shortly after Yokohama and I am sure Martens would have mentioned them to me (the conversation we had took place shortly after he returned to Poland). And of course penalties would have been imposed on both teams because the Americans were doing the same even to a larger extent (Poland won the match convincingly). I think I would have found a mention somewhere if this were the case. Another clue - the Senior/Kokish book mentions other incidents like an accusation made by the Polish captain Ostrowski against the Branco - Chagas pair (Chagas failed to make what Ostrowski thought was a 100% re-opening double and on this deal it was a good move because Branco was devoid of any values; Ostrowski claimed that the tempo of passing the tray might have had something to do with it) or a suspension of Balicki - Zmudzinski for one session unil they got their CC right (a similar case to the one they had in Albuquerque). So I am pretty sure any penalties on Poland and USA 2 would have been mentioned in the book. > As I remember it, the subject was turned over to the > European Bridge League for their action, or is this another case where > facts > change as time goes by? > Brian Senior's (or Eric Kokish's, cannot be 100% sure) comment in their book was that a team has the right to do anything that is in its long-term interest. I don't rememeber the exact wording but it was along the lines "if it bothers some of us purists - so be it". __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 30 16:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 30 16:20:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <1FOwS7-20Vr1c0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > The WBF expects all teams and > > partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. > > What do you expect the meaning of "at all times" to be ?? > At all times or in the end ??? I'd expect "play to win at all times" to mean - try as hard as possible to win the event. (Or if winning is no longer possible try to place as highly as possible). Of course if the event is a qualifier of some sort I don't expect a pair to take big risks to try and win the event if in so doing they risk missing qualification. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Thu Mar 30 16:33:53 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu Mar 30 16:34:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <20060330130733.C4B5CEB339@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: When organizations construct a system where exactly who plays whom in the KO portion is decided before the round robin even begins, then it is easy to understand that players and captains would try to place themselves in what they believe to be the best position to win the event. If this runs head on into the ethics so loudly touted by some, then fix the conditions. Taking some sort of moral high ground while not addressing the real problem, shows a lack of understanding as well as a lack of concern for the participants. The intricate diagrams presently used by some make nice art work, but don't do the job. To deny participants the use of elements of tactics and strategy by insisting, under threat of severe punishment, that they can't use them is, to me, anathema. Kojak Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > Konrad's posting sure casts a different light on the Yokohama case, and > includes some interesting details. I'd like to know what the severe > punishment WBF decreed for Poland per Grattan's posting was - since I was > the Chief TD at the time it would have been nice for the AC to let me > know > their decision. I don't think of any penalties were imposed on anyone. I think probably Grattan confused cases. I am pretty to sure any penalties would have been mentioned by Brian Senior and Eric Kokish in a book issued shortly after Yokohama and I am sure Martens would have mentioned them to me (the conversation we had took place shortly after he returned to Poland). And of course penalties would have been imposed on both teams because the Americans were doing the same even to a larger extent (Poland won the match convincingly). I think I would have found a mention somewhere if this were the case. Another clue - the Senior/Kokish book mentions other incidents like an accusation made by the Polish captain Ostrowski against the Branco - Chagas pair (Chagas failed to make what Ostrowski thought was a 100% re-opening double and on this deal it was a good move because Branco was devoid of any values; Ostrowski claimed that the tempo of passing the tray might have had something to do with it) or a suspension of Balicki - Zmudzinski for one session unil they got their CC right (a similar case to the one they had in Albuquerque). So I am pretty sure any penalties on Poland and USA 2 would have been mentioned in the book. > As I remember it, the subject was turned over to the > European Bridge League for their action, or is this another case where > facts > change as time goes by? > Brian Senior's (or Eric Kokish's, cannot be 100% sure) comment in their book was that a team has the right to do anything that is in its long-term interest. I don't rememeber the exact wording but it was along the lines "if it bothers some of us purists - so be it". __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 30 16:38:09 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Mar 30 16:37:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060330131835.02015cb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <006201c653cd$ef9e06f0$499d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <5.1.0.14.0.20060330131835.02015cb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060330092956.02bd58b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:22 AM 3/30/06, Alain wrote: >At 11:01 30/03/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>Which is fine, but doesn't seem to address the issue of tactical >>dumping. If one is trying to ease one's passage to the final there is >>no question that one is trying to win the event. Indeed if winning the >>last RR match would bring one up against a team which has a huge >>carryover against one it would be "dumping" to try and win that match. > >Indeed. And it means you can't escape dumping something, which may >"cause inconvenience or discomfort to players". >So, perhaps pre-set elimination rounds are a bad idea ; the other >obvious idea, letting both 1st place teams choose their opponents (but >not the other 1st place) and arranging other matches, has much for it. >(in the case on only one RR group, it is even easier). > >Does anybody know why this easy, fair (to those who had a good RR) and >dumping-proof solution isn't systematically used ? Perhaps because it is far from "dumping-proof". It does avoid the particular case that Tim cited as an example, but there are others. Consider, for example, a team that, in the late stages of a qualifying RR, is sure to qualify, and faces a team they are confident they can beat that is contending for the last qualifying position with one against which they would not be so confident. By dumping the match, they assure that their current opponents will advance to the next stage, and they will not risk having to face the team they'd prefer not to play. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Mar 30 18:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Mar 30 18:28:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak wrote: > To deny participants the use of elements of tactics and strategy > by insisting, under threat of severe punishment, that they can't use > them is, to me, anathema. And to all, I would hope. The right CoC can minimise the opportunities for such tactics but I don't believe they can remove them altogether (perceptions being what they are some captains will sometimes see an advantage in losing a particular match). And it isn't just about trying to lose. If one decides to rest the two strongest/most tired players (from different partnerships) and instruct the remaining (scratch) partnerships not to overtire themselves one clearly *isn't* trying to win the RR match but, equally clearly, is trying to optimise ones chances of winning the event. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 31 03:30:51 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri Mar 31 03:30:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: Message-ID: <000f01c65462$e815aa60$cbe8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > Kojak wrote: > >> To deny participants the use of elements of tactics and strategy >> by insisting, under threat of severe punishment, that they can't use >> them is, to me, anathema. > > And to all, I would hope. The right CoC can minimise the opportunities > for such tactics but I don't believe they can remove them altogether > (perceptions being what they are some captains will sometimes see an > advantage in losing a particular match). > > And it isn't just about trying to lose. If one decides to rest the two > strongest/most tired players (from different partnerships) and instruct > the remaining (scratch) partnerships not to overtire themselves one > clearly *isn't* trying to win the RR match but, equally clearly, is > trying to optimise ones chances of winning the event. > > Tim > +=+ Evidently I was wrong about any penalty in Yokohama. I was among those consulted subsequently concerning the format of the regulation that would be instituted to inhibit any recurrence of intentional dumping, this being considered improper. A key provision is the prohibition of playing by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of the opponents. Whilst I recognize there are other opinions, the stance of the WBF in the matter is crystal clear. In case you missed it, I repeat the relevant section of the WBF General Conditions of Contest (now numbered 32.3 - previously I quoted 31.3 taken from the 2001 regulations which were to hand). "32.3 Team requirements The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. While a team may rest its players and make other decisions for strategic reasons, it is not permissible for a partnership to play by design to obtain a session score inferior to that of its opponents, and the (Tournament Appeals) Committee shall have the authority to determine on such evidence as it considers sufficient whether a partnership has done so. Any such finding will constitute grounds for such penalties as may be imposed by the Committee, which shall also be empowered to recommend that the Executive Council disqualify or suspend the offending contestant." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 31 09:28:11 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Mar 31 09:28:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Denver NABC Appeals - case 24 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005a01c65358$90141320$6601a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: When not riding his hobby-horse of Convention Disruption, Bobby Wolff also has some strong views on what the Lawbook should require when declarer has made a faulty claim and the defenders later wish to withdraw their acquiescence. Bobby Wolff: >The directors must realize that when someone claims, it is >polite to think that he is justified and sometimes reason goes >out the window and manners take over to allow it. Since that >is a human fault, much greater latitude should be given an >acquiesce and irrational should be strictly interpreted to >allow justice to win > >Why is that so hard to understand? It is so clear to anyone >who has been around a few years that our laws, while mostly >adequate, could have been written so much better to allow >justice to usually be done. For the ACBL to not allow 12C3 (of >course the WBF uses it), not to be used, has resulted from >Edgar Kaplan's total distrust of allowing any responsibility >in the hands of the director. > >I hope times have changed and the current group of directors, >together with their consulting, are able to handle it and if >not, after the criticism that would result, they would soon >learn how to handle it or look for another job. Richard Hills: >From discussions I have had with a senior Aussie director, it seems that a small number of "grey ethics" pseudo-experts specialise in dodgy claims. The Law 69B anomaly that there is a reversal of the onus of proof if a claim is belatedly disputed gives an incentive for these "grey ethics" pseudo-experts to continue to ignore the spirit of Law 72A2. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From adam at tameware.com Wed Mar 29 22:09:07 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Mar 31 15:12:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Denver NABC Appeals Message-ID: Here' s the direct link to the cases: http://acbl.forumexperts.com/bforum.php?thisforum=67&module=index&mode=all&row=0 Originally the cases were posted without panelist comments. Now they include four comments from "official" panelists, and anyone can weigh in as Marvin has done. My summary, as usual, is posted here: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html Unfortunately the numbering scheme was changed after I submitted my comments, so the numbers of the Regional cases (I think) won't match up. I'll fix that when I get a chance. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060329/9d299185/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 31 16:26:21 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Mar 31 16:25:20 2006 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060331092439.02b50540@pop.starpower.net> Originally mis-sent only to Peter; my apologies. >At 07:40 AM 3/30/06, PeterEidt wrote: > >> > Grattan wrote: >> > The WBF expects all teams and >> > partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. >> >> > Tim wrote: >> > Which is fine, but doesn't seem to address the issue of tactical >> > dumping. If one is trying to ease one's passage to the final there is >> >> > no question that one is trying to win the event. Indeed if winning >>the >> > last RR match would bring one up against a team which has a huge >> > carryover against one it would be "dumping" to try and win that match. >> >> > Grattan wrote: >> > The WBF expects all teams and >> > partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. >> >> > Grattan wrote: >> > The WBF expects all teams and >> > partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. >> >>What do you expect the meaning of "at all times" to be ?? >>At all times or in the end ??? > >Wrong question. The right question is, "'Expects all teams and >partnerships to play to win' what?" The deal? The session? The >event? The next world championship? What do you do when playing to >win one of those choices requires playing to lose another of them? If >all choices led to the same action, there would be no problem and we >wouldn't be having this discussion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607