From henk at amsterdamned.org Sat Apr 1 01:01:00 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat Apr 1 01:01:02 2006 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 3 15:07:52 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Apr 3 15:14:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060331092439.02b50540@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000d01c6571f$b2ba14e0$cc9987d9@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: Friday, March 31, 2006 3:26 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > >> > >> > 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. > +=+ I believe, Eric, the answer to this question crossed with your message. The WBF considers it improper for a partnership to play to lose a session or a match. A team may play its weakest line-up but the pairs that sit down to play must play to beat their current opponents. It was remarked to me in New York by ACBL Laws Commission members that it is fair to throw an early board in a match as a sprat to catch a mackerel, when the object is to win the current match. I have not heard a corporate WBF view on this last point. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 3 15:37:09 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Apr 3 15:31:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <000d01c6571f$b2ba14e0$cc9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060331092439.02b50540@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060403152740.031d0460@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:07 3/04/2006 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ I believe, Eric, the answer to this question crossed >with your message. The WBF considers it improper for >a partnership to play to lose a session or a match. What's the WBF position when losing a session will make one win a tournament, and vice versa ? You are a crook in both cases, aren't you ? Maybe (or more than maybe) it is improper for WBF and other organizing institutions to make this possible. And ... I forgot to say ... the "throwing" displayed by Poland and USA2, as recently mentioned, was a bit na?ve. They could have misplayed, erred in their system, revoked, etc. with more subtlety ;-) If I'm so tired that I don't see my partner's TOX on the tray, what can officials say ? (especially as it has happened before, in a match that I didn't want to lose) >A team may play its weakest line-up but the pairs that sit down to >play must play to beat their current opponents. It was >remarked to me in New York by ACBL Laws Commission >members that it is fair to throw an early board in a match as >a sprat to catch a mackerel, Like that one, all the more because in French a mackerel is a pimp ;-) Best regards, Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Apr 3 16:23:54 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon Apr 3 16:24:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping Message-ID: <20060403142354.D642A2078E7@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: Friday, March 31, 2006 3:26 PM > Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > > > > >> > > >> > 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. > > > +=+ I believe, Eric, the answer to this question crossed > with your message. The WBF considers it improper for > a partnership to play to lose a session or a match. A team > may play its weakest line-up but the pairs that sit down to > play must play to beat their current opponents. Then the regulation is sheer nonsense. If by trying to beat my current opponents I diminish my chances of winning the whole event then why should I do that? The effect of this regulation will be taking the pressure off organizers to write good CoC. Look - this regulation was not in place in Yokohama. Everybody was emabarressed by the show made by USA 2 and Poland, both teams so openly trying to dump the match and, as a result, the CoC were fixed. Had this regulation been in place at that time both teams couldn't have done their dumping so openly and I am 100% sure no one would have noticed. And the flawed CoC would still be in place today. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pan pozna Pania. Czeka... ;-) >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1922 From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 3 16:36:43 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 3 16:37:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <000d01c6571f$b2ba14e0$cc9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001c01c6572c$077eb600$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > From: "Eric Landau" > > >> > 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. > > > +=+ I believe, Eric, the answer to this question crossed > with your message. The WBF considers it improper for > a partnership to play to lose a session or a match. A team > may play its weakest line-up but the pairs that sit down to > play must play to beat their current opponents. It was > remarked to me in New York by ACBL Laws Commission > members that it is fair to throw an early board in a match as > a sprat to catch a mackerel, when the object is to win the > current match. I have not heard a corporate WBF view on > this last point. I think that Eric has raised a very valid point here. Any contestant has a goal; this goal will usually be to win a competition. If the conditions of a competition should happen to be such that a winning strategy (to win the competition) includes deliberately losing a round or a session (or even multiple rounds or sessions) then there can be no reason for criticizing any contestant that applies such strategy. Instead there is every reason to criticize a sponsoring organization that establishes such CoC. As far as I can remember, what started this thread was a contestant who with no further interest in the competition deliberately made a joke of his own participation and thereby destroyed the enjoyment of the game for other contestants. This is an entirely different question. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 3 18:09:21 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Apr 3 18:04:06 2006 Subject: [blml] choose your flight, was : Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <20060403142354.D642A2078E7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060403175906.031de6b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:23 3/04/2006 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > If by trying to >beat my current opponents I diminish my chances >of winning the whole event then why should I do that? > >The effect of this regulation will be taking the pressure off >organizers to write good CoC. And Sven wrote : > Any contestant has a goal; this goal will usually be to win a competition This raises another interesting question. Say the field is cut in two or more parts, and you know you're out of contention, and your goal is to win money (why not ?), and there is a carryover into flight sessions (as is often the case in European tournaments). So, if you're near the bottom of flight B, you're out for ever. But if you're a little bit lower, near the top of flight C, your hopes for a prize are high. Are you allowed to practice dumping in the last deals, in order to maximize your chances to catch a prize in the lower flight ? BTW, my partner achieved this on the last deal of session 3 in Deauville two years ago, and we finished 2nd in flight C, but he swears it was unintentional. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 3 22:34:01 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 3 22:34:34 2006 Subject: [blml] choose your flight, was : Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060403175906.031de6b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c6575d$f1f83b30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > And Sven wrote : > > > Any contestant has a goal; this goal will usually be to win a > competition > > > This raises another interesting question. > Say the field is cut in two or more parts, and you know you're out of > contention, and your goal is to win money (why not ?), and there is a > carryover into flight sessions (as is often the case in European > tournaments). > > So, if you're near the bottom of flight B, you're out for ever. But if > you're a little bit lower, near the top of flight C, your hopes for a > prize > are high. > > Are you allowed to practice dumping in the last deals, in order to > maximize > your chances to catch a prize in the lower flight ? Yes, of course! (You describe a very questionable CoC!) Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 4 02:04:55 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Apr 4 02:13:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <20060403142354.D642A2078E7@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000201c6577b$acda0100$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> [Konrad Ciborski] Then the regulation is sheer nonsense. If by tryin g to beat my current opponents I diminish my chanc es of winning the whole event then why should I do that? The effect of this [WBF] regulation will be taking the pressure off organisers to write good CoC. Look - this regulati on was not in place in Yokohama. Everybody was emb arrassed by the show made by USA 2 and Poland, bot h teams so openly trying to dump the match and, as a result, the CoC were fixed. Had this regulation been in place at that time bot h teams couldn't have done their dumping so openly and I am 100% sure no one would have noticed. And the flawed CoC would still be in place today. [nige1] This is another Bridge rule that encourages sloppy legal administration and law-breaking. Konrad is always right. And, for once, Edgar Kaplan was also right: Only masochists will strive to win a match when that is against the interests of their team. The administrators should change the daft conditio ns of contest. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 4 15:55:57 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Apr 4 16:02:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <20060403142354.D642A2078E7@poczta.interia.pl> <000201c6577b$acda0100$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001001c657ef$968337e0$a8ca87d9@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: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > [nige1] > This is another Bridge rule that encourages sloppy > legal administration and law-breaking. Konrad is > always right. And, for once, Edgar Kaplan was also > right: Only masochists will strive to win a match > when that is against the interests of their team. > The administrators should change the daft conditio > ns of contest. > +=+ I cannot say about Edgar. He was prominent among those preparing this regulation - but he did tend to wear a different hat in the WBF from the one he wore at home. Janus was quite often found to face in the right direction. ~ G ~ +=+ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Apr 4 19:15:21 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue Apr 4 19:20:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping In-Reply-To: <001001c657ef$968337e0$a8ca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <200604041715.k34HFLMg010612@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Grattan Endicott writes: > > > 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: "Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1:04 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > > > > [nige1] > > This is another Bridge rule that encourages sloppy > > legal administration and law-breaking. Konrad is > > always right. And, for once, Edgar Kaplan was also > > right: Only masochists will strive to win a match > > when that is against the interests of their team. > > The administrators should change the daft conditio > > ns of contest. > > > +=+ I cannot say about Edgar. He was prominent > among those preparing this regulation - but he did > tend to wear a different hat in the WBF from the > one he wore at home. Janus was quite often found > to face in the right direction. I can't locate my copy of the article on the first Rosenblum but it has a very interesting discussion of the issue of dumping. Two scenarios were discussed. I forget the details of the first, but Kaplan's comment was something along the lines of, if conditions of contest make it in a player's best interest to lose, surely the fault lies with the idiots who drew up the conditions (with a parenthetical note that he was the idiot in chief) and promised his support at any (inevitable) hearing on the matter. Now that I think about it, I'm fairly sure it was a swiss gambit question. I distinctly recall the second question he got on the issue. Neither team had any chance of qualifying without a blitz. What would happen if they agreed to pass out the boards at one table, play rubber bridge at the other with the team ahead going into the last board being given 7NT redoubled, claimed and conceded. Kaplan promised that the teams would *not* have his support at any inevitable hearing. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 5 11:46:53 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Apr 5 12:24:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <200604041715.k34HFLMg010612@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000c01c6589a$439601b0$999687d9@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: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > > > I can't locate my copy of the article on the first > Rosenblum but it has a very interesting discussion > of the issue of dumping. Two scenarios were discussed. > I forget the details of the first, but Kaplan's comment > was something along the lines of, if conditions of contest > make it in a player's best interest to lose, surely the fault > lies with the idiots who drew up the conditions (with a > parenthetical note that he was the idiot in chief) and > promised his support at any (inevitable) hearing on the > matter. Now that I think about it, I'm fairly sure it was > a swiss gambit question. > +=+ In correspondence between Edgar and myself, as Chair and Vice-Chair of the WBFLC, Edgar made this point to me - that it was the desirable route to achieve the objective - and in principle I agreed. However when it came to the crunch it proved too big a mountain to move, change of the design of the competition for the purpose was not to be achieved. So we came to the conclusion that a regulation placing the judgment in the hands of the TAC was the next best solution. Edgar did not argue that the objective of the regulation was undesirable and, since it was evidently ingrained in the ethos of the parent body, neither did I. Like Edgar I believe that the nature of a game is defined by its rules and they are set by those who devise it and from time to time changed by those who promote it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 5 15:12:30 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 5 15:13:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? Message-ID: <001d01c658b2$98df6cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> I opened 1C (natural) and my LHO bid 2D. Pd and RHO passed. No CC in use so I just asked confirmation from RHO that they used weak jump overcalls and then I balanced. Given another chance my LHO forced to game that was cold, it was clarified afterwards that their agreement was indeed strong jump overcalls. This is a rather informal small club so nothing more was done, but it got me thinking: Was I "damaged" because with the correct information I would of course not have balanced and they would have made 11 tricks in 2D for just 150, or was I not "damaged" because with RHO giving the correct information _he_ would of course have bid and they would have reached game anyway? Opinions please? Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 5 15:30:03 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed Apr 5 15:30:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060331092439.02b50540@pop.starpower.net> <000d01c6571f$b2ba14e0$cc9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <005a01c658b5$0bb194b0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:07 PM Subject: Re: 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: Friday, March 31, 2006 3:26 PM > Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > > >> >> >> >> > 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. >> > +=+ I believe, Eric, the answer to this question crossed > with your message. The WBF considers it improper for > a partnership to play to lose a session or a match. A team > may play its weakest line-up but the pairs that sit down to > play must play to beat their current opponents. Can we cut for partners and play "opponent's card"? Should cost us 50 imps or so. If I need to lose more than that perhaps we could play modified Gurr. (yes there is such a system) Unenforceable regulations make the law look even more of an ass than it currently does. cheers john It was > remarked to me in New York by ACBL Laws Commission > members that it is fair to throw an early board in a match as > a sprat to catch a mackerel, when the object is to win the > current match. I have not heard a corporate WBF view on > this last point. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tzimnoch at comcast.net Wed Apr 5 15:37:11 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Apr 5 15:37:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <001d01c658b2$98df6cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001d01c658b2$98df6cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4433C807.3070201@comcast.net> Sven Pran wrote: > Was I "damaged" because with the correct information I would of course not > have balanced and they would have made 11 tricks in 2D for just 150, or was > I not "damaged" because with RHO giving the correct information _he_ would > of course have bid and they would have reached game anyway? > > Opinions please? Damage is currently considered at the moment of the infraction, which was when you asked, which was after RHO had already passed his partner's strong 2D bid. -Todd From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Wed Apr 5 15:58:14 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed Apr 5 15:58:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205010A8080@rama.Micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 15:13 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? > > I opened 1C (natural) and my LHO bid 2D. Pd and RHO passed. > > No CC in use so I just asked confirmation from RHO that they used weak > jump > overcalls and then I balanced. > > Given another chance my LHO forced to game that was cold, it was clarified > afterwards that their agreement was indeed strong jump overcalls. > > This is a rather informal small club so nothing more was done, but it got > me > thinking: > > Was I "damaged" because with the correct information I would of course not > have balanced and they would have made 11 tricks in 2D for just 150, or > was > I not "damaged" because with RHO giving the correct information _he_ would > of course have bid and they would have reached game anyway? > > Opinions please? You were damaged, and thus entitled to 2D+3. We have indeed a paradoxal situation here: RHO should tell that 2D is strong, yet act as if he thinks that 2D is weak. The way out of this paradox is that you are entitled to correct information, but nowhere is it specified how that information should reach you. It is probably best explained with internet bridge: LHO explains his own 2D correctly as strong (invisible for RHO), but RHO, thinking that 2D is weak, passes. With screens it works the same if you are on the same side as LHO. -- Martin Sinot From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 5 16:15:24 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Wed Apr 5 16:16:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? Message-ID: <1FR8n6-0UwYE40@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Hi Sven, I'm surprised to read this question from you ... Aside from the possible suggestive question regarding the 2 D-bid ("I asked confirmation ...") I see two infractions from your opponents. 1. Of course this is a classic MI case. In such cases opps were bound to their own misunderstandings whereas the non-offending side will get all the correct informations they are entitled to. You get the info of strong jump overcalls and RHO sticks to the weak JO. 2. Most likely we have an additional UI case regarding LHO. The fact, that his partner classified his strong jump as weak is UI to him. So, normally he is not allowed to force to game any longer; neither is he allowed to bid the game by his own. In his (LHO) view he has (more or less) told partner most about his hand with his first bid. Unless he has 11 tricks on his own hand and unless this partnership plays 'non-passable strong overcalls', he has to assume, that partner is so weak that he has no bid after is strong jump. kind regards Peter Sven Pran wrote: > I opened 1C (natural) and my LHO bid 2D. > Pd and RHO passed. > > No CC in use so I just asked confirmation from RHO > that they used weak jump overcalls and then I balanced. > > Given another chance my LHO forced to game that > was cold, it was clarified afterwards that their agreement > was indeed strong jump overcalls. > > This is a rather informal small club so nothing more > was done, but it got me thinking: > > Was I "damaged" because with the correct information > I would of course not have balanced and they would > have made 11 tricks in 2D for just 150, or was I not > "damaged" because with RHO giving the correct > information _he_ would of course have bid and they > would have reached game anyway? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 5 16:26:11 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Apr 5 16:20:59 2006 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060405162607.020181d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:53:36 +0200 >To: "Sven Pran" >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? > >At 15:12 5/04/2006 +0200, you wrote: >>I opened 1C (natural) and my LHO bid 2D. Pd and RHO passed. >> >>No CC in use so I just asked confirmation from RHO that they used weak jump >>overcalls and then I balanced. >> >>Given another chance my LHO forced to game that was cold, it was clarified >>afterwards that their agreement was indeed strong jump overcalls. >> >>This is a rather informal small club so nothing more was done, but it got me >>thinking: >> >>Was I "damaged" because with the correct information I would of course not >>have balanced and they would have made 11 tricks in 2D for just 150, or was >>I not "damaged" because with RHO giving the correct information _he_ would >>of course have bid and they would have reached game anyway? > > >You were damaged, because West arguably used UI that his partner believed >him to hold a weak hand. Why else would he have bid once again, having >given full weight of his hand ? > >You weren't damaged by your balancing because West could have less and >East have more, your hand being the same. BTW, I don't think it is safer >to balance after WJO than after SJO, so your argument is moot. > >But I'd still adjust to 2D making 5, given the first point. > >(yes, an AC has the right to decide in favor of the plaintiff, using >arguments that the latter didn't put forward) From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 5 17:14:55 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 5 17:18:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <001d01c658b2$98df6cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001d01c658b2$98df6cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4433DEEF.6080403@hdw.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > I opened 1C (natural) and my LHO bid 2D. Pd and RHO passed. > > No CC in use so I just asked confirmation from RHO that they used weak jump > overcalls and then I balanced. > > Given another chance my LHO forced to game that was cold, it was clarified > afterwards that their agreement was indeed strong jump overcalls. > > This is a rather informal small club so nothing more was done, but it got me > thinking: > > Was I "damaged" because with the correct information I would of course not > have balanced and they would have made 11 tricks in 2D for just 150, or was > I not "damaged" because with RHO giving the correct information _he_ would > of course have bid and they would have reached game anyway? > There is of course the case for UI against your LHO hearing partner passing over a presumed weak bid, but let's assume that your LHO has his bid. You are at all times entitled to the knowledge of your opponents' system. So you should have been told that your LHO is strong. But you are not entitled to know that your RHO has misunderstood his parnter's bid. So when we place you in the hypothetical situation of you knowing that LHO is strong, we must put you at the same time in the hypothetical that RHO is so weak he cannot continue. We should know the cards, and the situation is not always clear, but when you have balanced over a presumed point situation of (LHO:9 - part:9 - RHO:9) we should judge what you would do if the presumption is (LHO:16 - part:9 - RHO:2). It is very likely that the TD will judge that you would balance again. So in most cases I would judge you are not damaged. > Opinions please? > > 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: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/301 - Release Date: 4/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Apr 5 17:17:19 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed Apr 5 17:18:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205010A8080@rama.Micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205010A8080@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <4433DF7F.6020704@hdw.be> Sinot Martin wrote: >> >>Opinions please? > > > You were damaged, and thus entitled to 2D+3. We have indeed a paradoxal > situation here: RHO should tell that 2D is strong, yet act as if he > thinks that 2D is weak. The way out of this paradox is that you are > entitled to correct information, but nowhere is it specified how that > information should reach you. It is probably best explained with > internet bridge: LHO explains his own 2D correctly as strong (invisible > for RHO), but RHO, thinking that 2D is weak, passes. With screens it > works the same if you are on the same side as LHO. Both examples illustrate one other point: you are not entitled to know that RHO has more than the 2HCP he promises with his pass over a strong overcall. In both those cases you will not normally find that information. In on-line bridge, LHO will self-explain, but RHO will say nothing and pass. With screens, you just have the pass and nothing more from RHO. -- 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: 268.3.5/301 - Release Date: 4/04/2006 From ac342 at freenet.carleton.ca Wed Apr 5 17:35:14 2006 From: ac342 at freenet.carleton.ca (Tony Edwards) Date: Wed Apr 5 17:37:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060331092439.02b50540@pop.starpower.net> <000d01c6571f$b2ba14e0$cc9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <005a01c658b5$0bb194b0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000f01c658c6$992d75a0$9dcafea9@ac342> > > It was > > remarked to me in New York by ACBL Laws Commission > > members that it is fair to throw an early board in a match as > > a sprat to catch a mackerel, when the object is to win the > > current match. I have not heard a corporate WBF view on > > this last point. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > CCGEN.052(page 3) "5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest." From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 5 18:12:02 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Apr 5 18:06:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <4433DEEF.6080403@hdw.be> References: <001d01c658b2$98df6cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001d01c658b2$98df6cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060405180710.026e1b00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:14 5/04/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >There is of course the case for UI against your LHO hearing partner >passing over a presumed weak bid, but let's assume that your LHO has his bid. > >We should know the cards, and the situation is not always clear, but when >you have balanced over a presumed point situation of (LHO:9 - part:9 - >RHO:9) we should judge what you would do if the presumption is (LHO:16 - >part:9 - RHO:2). >It is very likely that the TD will judge that you would balance again. I'm with Herman up to now. >So in most cases I would judge you are not damaged. But not here ; a SJO is fairly narrowly defined, whence LHO will seldom have his second bid (expect with a freak). So, I would judge damage is quite probable. As always, there will be no benefit of doubt when assessing whteher LHO has an obvious second bid. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 5 18:22:33 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Apr 5 18:17:17 2006 Subject: [blml] online, was : Odd Misinformation situation In-Reply-To: <4433DF7F.6020704@hdw.be> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205010A8080@rama.Micronas.com> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205010A8080@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060405181414.026e04a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:17 5/04/2006 +0200, you wrote: >In both those cases you will not normally find that information. In >on-line bridge, LHO will self-explain, but RHO will say nothing and pass. >With screens, you just have the pass and nothing more from RHO. I like imagining screens, determining what would happen, then removing the "screens" and letting these plausible events dictate what equity is, but I wouldn't do the same using online bridge situations. Online bridge is quite different from usual bridge. I'd say it's another game altogether. Those who have some table feel will probably agree. Would you let minibridge or gulash guide you in your decisions ? Yet IMOBO online bridge is as far away from bridge as those two are (not meaning, of course, that it is of less interest). Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 5 21:44:02 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 5 21:44:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <4433C807.3070201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <002601c658e9$4b246b20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Todd M. Zimnoch > Sven Pran wrote: > > Was I "damaged" because with the correct information I would > > of course not have balanced and they would have made 11 tricks > > in 2D for just 150, or was I not "damaged" because with RHO > > giving the correct information _he_ would of course have bid > > and they would have reached game anyway? > > > > Opinions please? > > Damage is currently considered at the moment of the > infraction, which was when you asked, which was after RHO > had already passed his partner's strong 2D bid. I have read all the comments so far with great interest, in particular in the fact that nobody seems to follow the logic that I was not damaged because with correct information from RHO he would obviously have acted. (As we use negative doubles pass was no LA to me holding only a single Diamond). The line generally adopted is IMO best stated by Todd here: The case must be judged from its state at the moment after RHO made his call and confirmed to me his understanding that they used weak jump overcalls. (It is interesting to note that if RHO at the time of my question had realized his error he could still have saved that board for a maximum 3 IMP loss and changed his call under Law 25B2b2!) A few facts: LHO had a freak with sufficient playing strength to act again ignoring whatever UI he might have from hearing his partner's misinformation. They exchanged a few more bids on their way to the final contract which without any discussion resulted in "equity". At the table I told my opponents (friendly) that they in a more serious event probably would find their result adjusted back to 2D with 11 tricks (something they fully understood). Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 5 23:27:25 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed Apr 5 23:27:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Intentional dumping References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060331092439.02b50540@pop.starpower.net><000d01c6571f$b2ba14e0$cc9987d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><005a01c658b5$0bb194b0$9700a8c0@john> <000f01c658c6$992d75a0$9dcafea9@ac342> Message-ID: <002f01c658f7$e907b280$42e4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "bridge law mailing list" Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Intentional dumping > >> > CCGEN.052(page 3) > "5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. > No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the > contestant's best long-term interest." > +=+ Quelle surprise! There were three members of the Laws Commission (among fifteen or so), nameless they shall be, who challenged a comment I made about Law/Regulation of this subject - not accepting my reference to 'a board' for the reason given. No committee view was stated, so I cannot speak to that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 6 01:27:28 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 6 01:28:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4433DF7F.6020704@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Both examples illustrate one other point: you are not >entitled to know that RHO has more than the 2HCP he >promises with his pass over a strong overcall. Richard Hills: I disagree. Under Laws 40 and 75 you are entitled to know the opponents' partnership agreements. Under Law 16 an opponent's mannerism (in this case a misexplanation) is authorised information. Therefore, in my opinion, you are both entitled to know that the agreed meaning for LHO's jump overcall is strong, *and* also entitled to the authorised information that RHO is under the misapprehension that LHO's jump overcall is weak. In my opinion, the legal position is that of Edgar Kaplan's analogy - you hear RHO's explanation, then check RHO's explanation against a hypothetical computer printout of the opponents' agreements. In real life, after hearing RHO's explanation, you might also glance at the opponents' convention card and observe an inconsistency. Of course, if in real life you decide to pass out LHO's overcall, on the assumption that the opponents have had a partnership debacle, you do so at your own risk. It is possible that RHO's *misexplanation* of the jump overcall as weak might coincidentally correspond with LHO's *misbid* with a weak hand. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 6 03:31:43 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu Apr 6 03:32:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002701c6591a$1d153a30$ae06e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > In my opinion, the legal position is that of Edgar > Kaplan's analogy - you hear RHO's explanation, then > check RHO's explanation against a hypothetical > computer printout of the opponents' agreements. In > real life, after hearing RHO's explanation, you > might also glance at the opponents' convention card > and observe an inconsistency. > > Of course, if in real life you decide to pass out > LHO's overcall, on the assumption that the opponents > have had a partnership debacle, you do so at your > own risk. It is possible that RHO's *misexplanation* > of the jump overcall as weak might coincidentally > correspond with LHO's *misbid* with a weak hand. > +=+ I join those who note that your LHO has used UI in bidding as he did opposite a partner whom he must understand to have passed his strong bid. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Apr 6 08:09:32 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Thu Apr 6 08:10:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <002601c658e9$4b246b20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <002601c658e9$4b246b20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1FRNgS-1rP2ZM0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Sven Pran wrote: > (It is interesting to note that if RHO at the time of > my question had realized his error he could still > have saved that board for a maximum 3 IMP loss > and changed his call under Law 25B2b2!) VETO !! Minute of the WBFLC (Bermuda, 2000-01-20): "In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of any other player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that current turn." Peter From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 6 09:05:35 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 6 09:06:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <1FRNgS-1rP2ZM0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000101c65948$808d9e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of PeterEidt@t-online.de > Sven Pran wrote: > > (It is interesting to note that if RHO at the time of > > my question had realized his error he could still > > have saved that board for a maximum 3 IMP loss > > and changed his call under Law 25B2b2!) > > VETO !! > > Minute of the WBFLC (Bermuda, 2000-01-20): > "In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded > its decision that information received from the action > of any other player after a call is made is not > authorized for use in deciding to change the call. > Such information is unauthorized to the player for > that current turn." Acknowledged, I overlooked that one. But I think we are on very thin ice here; if RHO apparently never intended to pass and discovers his mistake from my question he is undoubtedly entitled to change his call under law 25A. So I am not completely convinced that my question alone cancels his option to use L25B2b2. However, I am indeed convinced that this is another example why L25B2b2 should never have been written. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 6 09:19:51 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 6 09:20:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4434C117.1020809@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > >>Both examples illustrate one other point: you are not >>entitled to know that RHO has more than the 2HCP he >>promises with his pass over a strong overcall. > > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree. > Which is your right, but you would be wrong. > Under Laws 40 and 75 you are entitled to know the > opponents' partnership agreements. > > Under Law 16 an opponent's mannerism (in this case a > misexplanation) is authorised information. > Indeed, but there is a difference between the two: the first you are entitled to, the second you may use but you are not entitled to it. > Therefore, in my opinion, you are both entitled to > know that the agreed meaning for LHO's jump overcall > is strong, *and* also entitled to the authorised > information that RHO is under the misapprehension > that LHO's jump overcall is weak. > and you are wrong - you are *not* entitled to know that RHO is under a misapprehension. If you know it, then you are allowed to use it, but if you do not know it, you cannot ask for it to be known. > In my opinion, the legal position is that of Edgar > Kaplan's analogy - you hear RHO's explanation, then > check RHO's explanation against a hypothetical > computer printout of the opponents' agreements. In > real life, after hearing RHO's explanation, you > might also glance at the opponents' convention card > and observe an inconsistency. > That is true, but we should not be urging people to always double check. They should use one source of information, and then rely on that source alone. > Of course, if in real life you decide to pass out > LHO's overcall, on the assumption that the opponents > have had a partnership debacle, you do so at your > own risk. It is possible that RHO's *misexplanation* > of the jump overcall as weak might coincidentally > correspond with LHO's *misbid* with a weak hand. > > :-) > Totally irrelevant to the discussion, of course. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > -- 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: 268.3.5/301 - Release Date: 4/04/2006 From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Apr 6 09:43:37 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Thu Apr 6 09:44:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <000101c65948$808d9e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c65948$808d9e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1FRP9V-2FBDlI0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Sven Pran suggested: > But I think we are on very thin ice here; > if RHO apparently never intended to pass and > discovers his mistake from my question he is undoubtedly > entitled to change his call under law 25A. You will never (ever) persuade me - as the TD - that RHO wanted to bid - say - 2 Spades and inadvertently pulled out the pass-card. So, I can't believe 25A coming into my ruling in this case. On the other side I agree, that - if RHO has made an inadvertent call and discovers this thru my question, there might be very well a case of 25A. Peter From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 6 09:56:40 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 6 10:11:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? References: <002601c658e9$4b246b20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005701c65950$e4790530$929687d9@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: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? A few facts: LHO had a freak with sufficient playing strength to act again ignoring whatever UI he might have from hearing his partner's misinformation. They exchanged a few more bids on their way to the final contract which without any discussion resulted in "equity". +=+ I am sceptical. The UI is of considerable assistance in a decision to bid again. He has to justify that 'pass' is not a logical alternative when partner has passed his strong overcall - and has not conveyed UI. Did he suggest that his bid was game forcing? And if he did, was the director persuaded of it? Is his hand outside of the parameters for his overcall? How does he justify his action? Without seeing the hand a judgment as to a logical alternative is inferential but the strong presumption is that 'pass' will be adjudged a logical alternative.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 6 10:28:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 6 10:28:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <1FRNgS-1rP2ZM0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter wrote: > Minute of the WBFLC (Bermuda, 2000-01-20): > "In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded > its decision that information received from the action > of any other player after a call is made is not > authorized for use in deciding to change the call. > Such information is unauthorized to the player for > that current turn." Is realising one has forgotten the system or made a stupid bid "information received from the action of any other player"? I thought the WBF minute was intended to prevent e.g changing one's 4S bid to a pass of 3S on seeing LHO reach for the red card but that it would be still be OK to correct a pass of Blackwood after getting a *look* from LHO. There is almost always some sort of reaction from LHO in these situations so L25b2 would almost never be applicable (and OK, perhaps that was indeed the committee's intent!). IE the UI is only "information about that player's hand". Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 6 10:45:29 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 6 10:46:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4434C117.1020809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Herman De Wael: > > > > > >>Both examples illustrate one other point: you are not > >>entitled to know that RHO has more than the 2HCP he > >>promises with his pass over a strong overcall. > > > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > I disagree. > > > > Which is your right, but you would be wrong. > > > Under Laws 40 and 75 you are entitled to know the > > opponents' partnership agreements. > > > > Under Law 16 an opponent's mannerism (in this case a > > misexplanation) is authorised information. > > > > Indeed, but there is a difference between the two: the first you are > entitled to, the second you may use but you are not entitled to it. Frankly I do not see the difference? You have authorized information (the answer from RHO to your question), and your inference that there is a misunderstanding is also authorized regardless of how or when you draw such inference (however of course at your own risk). If a CC is provided and you notice a discrepancy between his explanation and this CC you are even entitled to clarify that discrepancy by follow-up questions (if you care!). > > Therefore, in my opinion, you are both entitled to > > know that the agreed meaning for LHO's jump overcall > > is strong, *and* also entitled to the authorised > > information that RHO is under the misapprehension > > that LHO's jump overcall is weak. > > > > and you are wrong - you are *not* entitled to know that RHO is under a > misapprehension. If you know it, then you are allowed to use it, but > if you do not know it, you cannot ask for it to be known. > > > In my opinion, the legal position is that of Edgar > > Kaplan's analogy - you hear RHO's explanation, then > > check RHO's explanation against a hypothetical > > computer printout of the opponents' agreements. In > > real life, after hearing RHO's explanation, you > > might also glance at the opponents' convention card > > and observe an inconsistency. > > > > That is true, but we should not be urging people to always double > check. They should use one source of information, and then rely on > that source alone. It is perfectly proper for any player to ask his opponents and also to inspect their CC. No player is limited to just one source of information on opponents' agreements. > > > Of course, if in real life you decide to pass out > > LHO's overcall, on the assumption that the opponents > > have had a partnership debacle, you do so at your > > own risk. It is possible that RHO's *misexplanation* > > of the jump overcall as weak might coincidentally > > correspond with LHO's *misbid* with a weak hand. > > > > :-) > > > > Totally irrelevant to the discussion, of course. Irrelevant? That was precisely my dilemma in the case I referred. My partner's pass yelled for a double from me as we use negative doubles in this position (I held just a single diamond). If I had been given the correct information then certainly I would have let my opponents play in 2D for whatever score they could obtain (playing at IMPs). So please don't try the argument that this is irrelevant on me. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 6 10:52:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 6 10:53:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <1FRP9V-2FBDlI0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000301c65957$7b194bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of PeterEidt@t-online.de > Sven Pran suggested: > > But I think we are on very thin ice here; > > if RHO apparently never intended to pass and > > discovers his mistake from my question he is undoubtedly > > entitled to change his call under law 25A. > > You will never (ever) persuade me - as the TD - > that RHO wanted to bid - say - 2 Spades and > inadvertently pulled out the pass-card. > So, I can't believe 25A coming into my ruling in > this case. Well, not long ago I had a player who inadvertently pulled the pass card instead of correcting partner's transfer bid to the desired denomination. In his mind he was already at the desired contract. > On the other side I agree, that - if RHO has made > an inadvertent call and discovers this thru my > question, there might be very well a case of 25A. And this was precisely my point! So why should there be this difference between what may trigger a change of call under L25A versus L25B2b2? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 6 11:06:29 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 6 11:07:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <005701c65950$e4790530$929687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000401c65959$64835d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > From: "Sven Pran" > A few facts: LHO had a freak with sufficient > playing strength to act again ignoring whatever > UI he might have from hearing his partner's > misinformation. They exchanged a few more > bids on their way to the final contract which > without any discussion resulted in "equity". > > +=+ I am sceptical. The UI is of considerable > assistance in a decision to bid again. He has to > justify that 'pass' is not a logical alternative when > partner has passed his strong overcall - and has > not conveyed UI. Did he suggest that his bid > was game forcing? And if he did, was the > director persuaded of it? Is his hand outside of > the parameters for his overcall? How does he > justify his action? > Without seeing the hand a judgment as to > a logical alternative is inferential but the strong > presumption is that 'pass' will be adjudged a > logical alternative.. With (I seem to recall) something like 8 diamonds and more than 20 HCP? (I must admit I do not remember whether it was my LHO or my RHO who reopened the auction after my balancing double; I believe it was LHO. However, this is IMO not essential for the main question in this case.) Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 6 11:28:57 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 6 11:29:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Indeed, but there is a difference between the two: the first you are >>entitled to, the second you may use but you are not entitled to it. > > > Frankly I do not see the difference? You have authorized information (the > answer from RHO to your question), and your inference that there is a > misunderstanding is also authorized regardless of how or when you draw such > inference (however of course at your own risk). > Yes, but when we put you into the "correct" situation, you will have "entitled" knowledge about their system, but no longer the "additional" information about their misunderstanding. I've said this thousands of times, and I'm not going to argue about it. If the WBFLC thinks this is wrong, then they should say so - the rest of you should simply believe me: You are entitled to the right explanation of the bid, you are NOT entitled to the knowledge that the partner has misunderstood. > If a CC is provided and you notice a discrepancy between his explanation and > this CC you are even entitled to clarify that discrepancy by follow-up > questions (if you care!). > > >>>Therefore, in my opinion, you are both entitled to >>>know that the agreed meaning for LHO's jump overcall >>>is strong, *and* also entitled to the authorised >>>information that RHO is under the misapprehension >>>that LHO's jump overcall is weak. >>> >> >>and you are wrong - you are *not* entitled to know that RHO is under a >>misapprehension. If you know it, then you are allowed to use it, but >>if you do not know it, you cannot ask for it to be known. >> >> >>>In my opinion, the legal position is that of Edgar >>>Kaplan's analogy - you hear RHO's explanation, then >>>check RHO's explanation against a hypothetical >>>computer printout of the opponents' agreements. In >>>real life, after hearing RHO's explanation, you >>>might also glance at the opponents' convention card >>>and observe an inconsistency. >>> >> >>That is true, but we should not be urging people to always double >>check. They should use one source of information, and then rely on >>that source alone. > > > It is perfectly proper for any player to ask his opponents and also to > inspect their CC. No player is limited to just one source of information on > opponents' agreements. > Well, he should be. I hate it when people look at my CC and also ask me what it means. I tell them: "you've just read it, if you want clarification, ask me, but don't ask me to reveal that I don't know my system". > >>>Of course, if in real life you decide to pass out >>>LHO's overcall, on the assumption that the opponents >>>have had a partnership debacle, you do so at your >>>own risk. It is possible that RHO's *misexplanation* >>>of the jump overcall as weak might coincidentally >>>correspond with LHO's *misbid* with a weak hand. >>> >>>:-) >>> >> >>Totally irrelevant to the discussion, of course. > > > Irrelevant? > read it again and you'll see what I mean. -- 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: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 6 11:52:55 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu Apr 6 11:53:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? References: <000101c65948$808d9e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1FRP9V-2FBDlI0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000c01c6595f$e0b26270$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Peter says: > You will never (ever) persuade me - as the TD - > that RHO wanted to bid - say - 2 Spades and > inadvertently pulled out the pass-card. > So, I can't believe 25A coming into my ruling in > this case. You are not old enough. It really is possible to decide to bid 2S and then out of control putting the pass card on the table. Don't ask me how to convince the TD, but do not ignore that possibility. The case itself put forward by Sven is clear and the answers were clear too. Let me ask you the following, because I was surprised myself by opinions given by top TD's and top appeal committees. We have a similar case as described by Sven but now we play with screens. East explains a call from his partner wrongly and continues to understand it that way, with a catastrophic auction continuing. In my opinion North, screenmate of the player giving wrong information, is entitled to know the real meaning and then also knows that East-West are running into a disaster. The TD should award an adjusted score based on this disaster, assuming a double by North if that score is better than a contract bid by NS themselves had they received the right information. This is not the common approach and when I challenge this the only answer I get is that they just don't do it. What is your opinion? ton From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 6 13:24:57 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 6 13:35:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4434C117.1020809@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c6596d$65569c00$689487d9@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: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > Under Law 16 an opponent's mannerism > > (in this case a misexplanation) is authorised > > information. > > > +=+ No. I do not know who wrote this but a misexplanation is not a mannerism. "Mannerism" = a constant sameness of manner; stiltedness; a marked peculiarity or trick of style or manner. "Peculiarity" = singular; that which is found in one and no other; something that distinguishes anything from others; oddity. A mannerism is behavioural and is peculiar to an individual, idiosyncratic, so that one may read it if tuned in. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Apr 6 13:44:20 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Thu Apr 6 13:44:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <000301c65957$7b194bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c65957$7b194bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1FRSuS-0RoxnM0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> >From Sven: > Well, not long ago I had a player who inadvertently > pulled the pass card instead of correcting partner's > transfer bid to the desired denomination. > In his mind he was already at the desired contract. _That_ is the real point: This player wanted to pass, because in his _mind_ he was at the desired contract. So, this player did not pass inadvertently but purposefully. It was an error (of mind) but not an error of doing. As he realized he changed his mind. Exactly that is the crucial point between 25A and 25B. > > On the other side I agree, that - if RHO has made > > an inadvertent call and discovers this thru my > > question, there might be very well a case of 25A. > > And this was precisely my point! > > So why should there be this difference between > what may trigger a change of call under L25A > versus L25B2b2? It is very important, because the intent of the two parts of Law 25 is totally different. 25A deals with calls that were made without the prior intent to make them; the laws want those 'slips' to be free from penalties; the laws want them to be corrected whenever possible - as long as partner hasn't called - because those slips don't carry any UI. 25B deals with purposeful and/or delayed changes of a call. In any case the player made a change of mind, which was not allowed before 1997 and which the lawmakers in 1997 did not want to introduce (for free). The intention thatdays was to handle 'stupid' errors as passing question-bids or playing below game when the player decided not to play slam, etc. The intent was to get _bridge_-results at the table and not lottery-results when a player has to guess the right contract allone. As we all know the implementation of this item was .... As the laws were written, 25B was applicable to far more situations than intended. When the WBFLC realized this development, they made restrictions to the appliance of 25B saying, that the player himself has to become aware of his error (and only by his own). After any other (classified as UI for this _round_) extrenous information the appliance of 25B was cut off. Peter From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 6 13:52:15 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 6 13:58:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@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: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > Yes, but when we put you into the "correct" situation, you will have > "entitled" knowledge about their system, but no longer the > "additional" information about their misunderstanding. > > I've said this thousands of times, and I'm not going to argue about > it. If the WBFLC thinks this is wrong, then they should say so - the > rest of you should simply believe me: > > You are entitled to the right explanation of the bid, you are NOT > entitled to the knowledge that the partner has misunderstood. > +=+ Minute 2, WBFLC, Monaco, 9th November 2003. "The committee considered the proposition that when there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. It was observed that if given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." As I understood the discussion, by "if given the correct information" the Committee was saying 'in place of the incorrect information' when that was given. Otherwise the 'might or might not' question would not arise. A player would have to know it from the legal auction correctly interpreted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Thu Apr 6 14:30:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu Apr 6 14:31:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <000c01c6595f$e0b26270$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000101c65948$808d9e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1FRP9V-2FBDlI0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> <000c01c6595f$e0b26270$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <1FRTd7-1i51lY0@fwd32.sul.t-online.de> Ton Kooijman asked: > Let me ask you the following, because I was surprised > myself by opinions given by top TD's and top > appeal committees. > > We have a similar case as described by Sven but now > we play with screens. East explains a call from his > partner wrongly and continues to understand it > that way, with a catastrophic auction continuing. > > In my opinion North, screenmate of the player giving > wrong information, is entitled to know the real meaning > and then also knows that East-West are running into a > disaster. The TD should award an adjusted score based on > this disaster, assuming a double by North if that score > is better than a contract bid by NS themselves had they > received the right information. > This is not the common approach and when I challenge this > the only answer I get is that they just don't do it. > > What is your opinion? If have much sympathy for this approach. Assume the following scenario: Opponents discuss their defense against our system in advance at the table and they agree to a certain defense. One makes a suggestion and the other says "fine, let's play that". A couple of boards later "my" opponent (who at another time passed inadvertently after he decided to bid 2 spades ;-)) tells me in exact the appropriate situation something different. Now I know (whether intitled or not) that opponents have a misunderstanding and it is certainly likely that I may decide to wait for the coming disaster (as long as the bidding is not expected to stopp suddenly) and to double the final disastrous contract. And as long, as the mistaken opponent will not be aware _thru_ my double of the mess and then tries to rescue the situation, this possible (end-)contract has to be taken into consideration when judging about possible damage and adjusted scores. Whether I take this stragety (of letting my opponent running against the wall) or try to get a good result by my own (no case of doubl-shot or the like), the chaos- contract might be one of the likely scores mentioned in Law 12C2. Peter From PeterEidt at T-Online.de Thu Apr 6 14:45:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at T-Online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu Apr 6 14:46:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? Message-ID: <1FRTri-0oUOlE0@fwd33.sul.t-online.de> Tim wrote: > Is realising one has forgotten the system or made a stupid bid > "information received from the action of any other player"? No, of course not ! ... as long, as this realization is not initialized by any other player. In the same way as a offender (of MI) isn't allowed to 'remember' the correct agreement, when partner gives any UI regarding this error (mannerism, objection, etc), a player isn't allowed to remember his system or see his stupid call, when any other source makes him aware of it. > I thought the WBF minute was intended to prevent e.g changing > one's 4S bid to a pass of 3S on seeing LHO reach for the red > card but that it would be still be OK to correct a pass of > Blackwood after getting a *look* from LHO. The law was intended to minimize the stupid contracts after stupid bids and to minimize the free topscores for the non- offending side. Normally the NOS isn't touched by the change of the call, so they should get, what they earn ;-) The penalty for the offender is given thru Avg- (at best). > There is almost always some sort of reaction from LHO > in these situations so L25b2 would almost never be applicable > (and OK, perhaps that was indeed the committee's intent!). indeed > IE the UI is only "information about that player's hand". Peter From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 6 14:56:30 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 6 14:57:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <44350FFE.9070706@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>Yes, but when we put you into the "correct" situation, you will have >>"entitled" knowledge about their system, but no longer the >>"additional" information about their misunderstanding. >> >>I've said this thousands of times, and I'm not going to argue about >>it. If the WBFLC thinks this is wrong, then they should say so - the >>rest of you should simply believe me: >> >>You are entitled to the right explanation of the bid, you are NOT >>entitled to the knowledge that the partner has misunderstood. >> > > +=+ Minute 2, WBFLC, Monaco, 9th November 2003. > > "The committee considered the proposition that when > there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive > an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the > non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding > and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. > The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed > on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. It was > observed that if given the correct information the partnership might > or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, > depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of > backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation > as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." > > As I understood the discussion, by "if given the correct information" > the Committee was saying 'in place of the incorrect information' > when that was given. Otherwise the 'might or might not' question > would not arise. A player would have to know it from the legal > auction correctly interpreted. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The wording could be called "Gratannese" but I consider this an affirmation of my position. In the Norwegian case, that means that we have to consider Sven's auction if he had received correct information about the system (LHO is strong) but without receiving the additional information (RHO thinks his partner is weak). The logical conclusion (opponents have far more points than is warranted) is then not available to Sven, and his decision to balance should be viewed within the only slightly differing points distribution around the table. It is quite possible that he would balance anyway and the table result may well be allowed to stand. -- 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: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 6 15:10:45 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 6 15:13:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <4434C117.1020809@hdw.be> <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060406090013.02b80a60@pop.starpower.net> At 04:45 AM 4/6/06, Sven wrote: > > > Herman De Wael: > > > > > >>Both examples illustrate one other point: you are not > > >>entitled to know that RHO has more than the 2HCP he > > >>promises with his pass over a strong overcall. > > > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > > Under Laws 40 and 75 you are entitled to know the > > > opponents' partnership agreements. > > > > > > Under Law 16 an opponent's mannerism (in this case a > > > misexplanation) is authorised information. > > > > Indeed, but there is a difference between the two: the first you are > > entitled to, the second you may use but you are not entitled to it. > >Frankly I do not see the difference? You have authorized information (the >answer from RHO to your question), and your inference that there is a >misunderstanding is also authorized regardless of how or when you draw >such >inference (however of course at your own risk). The difference is that if you are "entitled" to the information you may ask for it; "may use" means that you may use it if it comes your way, but does not necessarily mean that you have the right to obtain it otherwise. If you know what an opponent's call means, is it ethically appropriate to ask his partner for an explanation solely for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are having a bidding misunderstanding? Regardless of the answer, for the question to be meaningful there must be a difference between "may use it" and "are entitled to it". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 6 15:20:48 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Apr 6 15:22:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <000301c65957$7b194bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <1FRP9V-2FBDlI0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> <000301c65957$7b194bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060406091452.02b7e2c0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:52 AM 4/6/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of PeterEidt@t-online.de > > Sven Pran suggested: > > > But I think we are on very thin ice here; > > > if RHO apparently never intended to pass and > > > discovers his mistake from my question he is undoubtedly > > > entitled to change his call under law 25A. > > > > You will never (ever) persuade me - as the TD - > > that RHO wanted to bid - say - 2 Spades and > > inadvertently pulled out the pass-card. > > So, I can't believe 25A coming into my ruling in > > this case. > >Well, not long ago I had a player who inadvertently pulled the pass card >instead of correcting partner's transfer bid to the desired >denomination. In >his mind he was already at the desired contract. > > > On the other side I agree, that - if RHO has made > > an inadvertent call and discovers this thru my > > question, there might be very well a case of 25A. > >And this was precisely my point! > >So why should there be this difference between what may trigger a >change of >call under L25A versus L25B2b2? L25A covers purely mechanical errors: "slips of the tongue" or mispulls of bidding cards. If the bid was made as a result of what was "in his mind... already", it is *not* considered "inadvertant" in the sense the term is used in L25A. L25B was written to give players an "out" in cases exactly like the one which Sven cites, where the original bid was the result of a "mental inadvertancy" rather than a "physical" one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 6 16:05:03 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 6 16:05:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <1FRTd7-1i51lY0@fwd32.sul.t-online.de> References: <000101c65948$808d9e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1FRP9V-2FBDlI0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> <000c01c6595f$e0b26270$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <1FRTd7-1i51lY0@fwd32.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4435200F.6070802@hdw.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > Ton Kooijman asked: > >>Let me ask you the following, because I was surprised >>myself by opinions given by top TD's and top >>appeal committees. >> >>We have a similar case as described by Sven but now >>we play with screens. East explains a call from his >>partner wrongly and continues to understand it >>that way, with a catastrophic auction continuing. >> >>In my opinion North, screenmate of the player giving >>wrong information, is entitled to know the real meaning >>and then also knows that East-West are running into a >>disaster. The TD should award an adjusted score based on >>this disaster, assuming a double by North if that score >>is better than a contract bid by NS themselves had they >>received the right information. >>This is not the common approach and when I challenge this >>the only answer I get is that they just don't do it. >> >>What is your opinion? > > > If have much sympathy for this approach. > Assume the following scenario: Opponents discuss their defense > against our system in advance at the table and they agree to > a certain defense. One makes a suggestion and the other says > "fine, let's play that". > A couple of boards later "my" opponent (who at another > time passed inadvertently after he decided to bid 2 spades ;-)) > tells me in exact the appropriate situation something different. > Now I know (whether intitled or not) that opponents have a > misunderstanding and it is certainly likely that I may > decide to wait for the coming disaster (as long as the bidding > is not expected to stopp suddenly) and to double the final > disastrous contract. > And as long, as the mistaken opponent will not be aware > _thru_ my double of the mess and then tries to rescue the > situation, this possible (end-)contract has to be taken > into consideration when judging about possible damage and > adjusted scores. > Whether I take this stragety (of letting my opponent > running against the wall) or try to get a good result by > my own (no case of doubl-shot or the like), the chaos- > contract might be one of the likely scores mentioned in Law 12C2. > > Peter > I don't agree - it's not how I think Bridge is played. Many of the laws concerning full disclosure are put in the passive voice. "Opponents are entitled to know the system" not "you are obliged to tell them the system". The "Kaplan computer" is a good theoretical basis: it's as if a player has full access to all the information about opponents' system. All our methods of giving disclosure are mere imperfect reflections of this. We have alerts, pre-alerts, announcements, answers to questions, usually by partners but also by the player himelf behind screens or on-line, we have system notes, convention cards and coloured stickers on those. All this is just to try to provide the ideal of full disclosure. And sometimes it fails. And then we have to imagine what would happen with correct information. But we need to replace the wrong information with the right one. So we must ask "what would happen if RHO had explained strong in stead of weak AND he had passed nevertheless". I know that sometimes a player at the table knows more than this ideal. When he looks at the CC (or if he remembered the system) and he hears a different explanation, then he has more knowledge, and he is allowed to act upon this. But that does not mean this additional knowledge is "entitled". -- 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: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 6 16:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 6 16:43:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <1FRTri-0oUOlE0@fwd33.sul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter wrote: > > Is realising one has forgotten the system or made a stupid bid > > "information received from the action of any other player"? > > No, of course not ! ... as long, as this realization is not > initialized by any other player. Which is rather pointless. The realisation *will* be initiated by another player (or it simply won't happen in time). If nothing else the LHO can say that he broke tempo slightly out of surprise (thus drawing attention) and prevent any correction and thereby gain from the windfall just created. The WBF could have decided to abolish L25b2 [they'd have my support], they could have used words like "does not apply if attention is drawn by another player" but they did neither. How the heck are TDs (even those aware of the minutes) supposed to get these rulings right (let alone convince the players they have done so)? The EBU county TD course last year did not even address the issue. > In the same way as a offender (of MI) isn't allowed to 'remember' > the correct agreement, when partner gives any UI regarding > this error (mannerism, objection, etc), a player isn't allowed > to remember his system or see his stupid call, when any other > source makes him aware of it. But that isn't what the minute says. An analogous L25a situation would be partner going into the tank after your inadvertent error, you looking at your own bid and realising it wasn't what you intended. Despite the fact that it was partner's action which drew attention we still permit a L25 change of call (if attempted immediately on the realisation). Tim From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Apr 6 17:58:27 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu Apr 6 17:58:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > > > > Yes, but when we put you into the "correct" situation, you will have > > "entitled" knowledge about their system, but no longer the > > "additional" information about their misunderstanding. > > > > I've said this thousands of times, and I'm not going to argue about > > it. If the WBFLC thinks this is wrong, then they should say so - the > > rest of you should simply believe me: They better don't. In what position are you to suggest that you know what should be done? > > You are entitled to the right explanation of the bid, you are NOT > > entitled to the knowledge that the partner has misunderstood. Good statement but completely useless. I am not entitled to know that partner misunderstood. I just know it, because he told me so. Let me proof my postion. And stop talking nonsense but try to think about it. case A: I get misinformation and feel damaged. According to your opinion the TD adjusts the score by answering the question what the result would have been had I received the right information. case B: Two rounds later, the bidding has gone crazy, my screenmate realizes that he misexplainedand tells me. Now I have the opportunity to take the right action for a very good score. No TD involved, my opponents of course accept their disaster. Your approach leads to the conclusion that player B is punished by doing what the laws tell him to do. That is an impossible position don't you think? > > > +=+ Minute 2, WBFLC, Monaco, 9th November 2003. > > "The committee considered the proposition that when > there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive > an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the > non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding > and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. > The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed > on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. It was > observed that if given the correct information the partnership might > or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, > depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of > backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation > as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." > > As I understood the discussion, by "if given the correct information" > the Committee was saying 'in place of the incorrect information' > when that was given. Otherwise the 'might or might not' question > would not arise. A player would have to know it from the legal > auction correctly interpreted. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This is another example of this famous Grattanian language which is supposed to be clear but isn't. For Grattan: Why don't you just read the first four lines? The non-offending side is entitled to draw logical conclusions using the information it received and knowing the partnership understanding. The adjusted score should be based on this approach. I don't know why the rest is added, nothing wrong is said. If a player gets the right information he not necessarily will be aware of a misunderstanding. Right so. But your conclusion has nothing to do with it. ton From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 6 19:23:34 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Apr 6 19:24:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? References: <000301c65957$7b194bc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003701c6599e$d584e8c0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:52 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? >> On Behalf Of PeterEidt@t-online.de >> Sven Pran suggested: >> > But I think we are on very thin ice here; >> > if RHO apparently never intended to pass and >> > discovers his mistake from my question he is undoubtedly >> > entitled to change his call under law 25A. >> >> You will never (ever) persuade me - as the TD - >> that RHO wanted to bid - say - 2 Spades and >> inadvertently pulled out the pass-card. >> So, I can't believe 25A coming into my ruling in >> this case. > > Well, not long ago I had a player who inadvertently pulled the pass card > instead of correcting partner's transfer bid to the desired denomination. > In > his mind he was already at the desired contract. In that case he intended to pass. John > >> On the other side I agree, that - if RHO has made >> an inadvertent call and discovers this thru my >> question, there might be very well a case of 25A. > > And this was precisely my point! > > So why should there be this difference between what may trigger a change > of > call under L25A versus L25B2b2? > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 6 19:29:36 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 6 19:36:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@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: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > +=+ Minute 2, WBFLC, Monaco, 9th November 2003. > > > > "The committee considered the proposition that when > > there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive > > an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the > > non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding > > and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. > > The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed > > on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. It was > > observed that if given the correct information the partnership might > > or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, > > depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of > > backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation > > as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." > > > > As I understood the discussion, by "if given the correct information" > > the Committee was saying 'in place of the incorrect information' > > when that was given. Otherwise the 'might or might not' question > > would not arise. A player would have to know it from the legal > > auction correctly interpreted. > > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > This is another example of this famous Grattanian language which is supposed > to be clear but isn't. > > For Grattan: > Why don't you just read the first four lines? The non-offending side is > entitled to draw logical conclusions using the information it received > and knowing the partnership understanding. The adjusted score should be > based on this approach. > > I don't know why the rest is added, nothing wrong is said. If a player gets > the right information he not necessarily will be aware of a > misunderstanding. Right so. > But your conclusion has nothing to do with it. > > ton > +=+ For Ton, First, the wording after "It was observed..." reports in precise terms what was said by the member who made this point (which the committee accepted, but I believe not you as proponent of the other point of view). I recall that quite deliberately I used the words as spoken and noted down in order to avoid dispute as to what was intended. Second, before the minute was sent to the Executive for ratification its wording was reviewed by the chairman of the meeting. The prior wording reports fairly the proposition put to the committee. No member of the committee has subsequently questioned the minute. As to my conclusion it has at least as much justification as yours for the reason I have stated. It also conforms, in my experience, to appeals committee practice in the WBF and EBL. There would be reason to suspect that the same practice is probably adopted in Zone 2 appeals. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Apr 6 19:49:21 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu Apr 6 19:50:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <443554A1.60701@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: >>>Yes, but when we put you into the "correct" situation, you will have >>>"entitled" knowledge about their system, but no longer the >>>"additional" information about their misunderstanding. >>> >>>I've said this thousands of times, and I'm not going to argue about >>>it. If the WBFLC thinks this is wrong, then they should say so - the >>>rest of you should simply believe me: > > > They better don't. > In what position are you to suggest that you know what should be done? > In the position of one who has been around for over a decade, has ruled on the highest level and has not changed his views on this subject. I would imagine that if I had said something in the past which you did not approve of, you would have said so. In that sense, I try to speak with some authority. If you wish to whistle me back, then please do so - I bow to your superior knowledge and closer touch with WBF views, but I will not sit around and say that while the WBF remains silent, my views amount to nothing. That being said - does the WBF wish to change anything to what I have written? > > > > >>>You are entitled to the right explanation of the bid, you are NOT >>>entitled to the knowledge that the partner has misunderstood. > > > > Good statement but completely useless. I am not entitled to know that > partner misunderstood. I just know it, because he told me so. > Not my partner - theirs! > Let me proof my postion. And stop talking nonsense but try to think about > it. > > case A: > I get misinformation and feel damaged. According to your opinion the TD > adjusts the score by answering the question what the result would have been > had I received the right information. > > case B: > Two rounds later, the bidding has gone crazy, my screenmate realizes that he > misexplainedand tells me. Now I have the opportunity to take the right > action for a very good score. No TD involved, my opponents of course accept > their disaster. > > Your approach leads to the conclusion that player B is punished by doing > what the laws tell him to do. That is an impossible position don't you > think? > > No it is not. It is just one of those strange conclusions of the laws. > > > >>+=+ Minute 2, WBFLC, Monaco, 9th November 2003. >> >> "The committee considered the proposition that when >>there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive >>an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the >>non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding >>and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. >>The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed >>on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. It was >>observed that if given the correct information the partnership might >>or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, >>depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of >>backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation >>as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." >> >> As I understood the discussion, by "if given the correct information" >>the Committee was saying 'in place of the incorrect information' >>when that was given. Otherwise the 'might or might not' question >>would not arise. A player would have to know it from the legal >>auction correctly interpreted. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > This is another example of this famous Grattanian language which is supposed > to be clear but isn't. > > For Grattan: > Why don't you just read the first four lines? The non-offending side is > entitled to draw logical conclusions using the information it received > and knowing the partnership understanding. The adjusted score should be > based on this approach. > > I don't know why the rest is added, nothing wrong is said. If a player gets > the right information he not necessarily will be aware of a > misunderstanding. Right so. > But your conclusion has nothing to do with it. > Well, then apparently Gratannese still sounds different to you and me. That's your problem - it's your text (or at least the text from your committee) How do you propose to have the world rule the same way if two (permit me to call us this) top directors read the same WBF text and come up with totally different interpretions. An official WBF minute at that? I'm sorry Ton, I may be wrong, but please don't criticize me for it, if this is the best the WBF can do. > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Apr 6 19:50:04 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Apr 6 19:51:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <000101c65948$808d9e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c65948$808d9e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4A3D3471-66B4-4B2D-B2A4-2C82E21531A6@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 6, 2006, at 3:05 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of PeterEidt@t-online.de >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> (It is interesting to note that if RHO at the time of >>> my question had realized his error he could still >>> have saved that board for a maximum 3 IMP loss >>> and changed his call under Law 25B2b2!) >> >> VETO !! >> >> Minute of the WBFLC (Bermuda, 2000-01-20): >> "In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded >> its decision that information received from the action >> of any other player after a call is made is not >> authorized for use in deciding to change the call. >> Such information is unauthorized to the player for >> that current turn." > > Acknowledged, I overlooked that one. > > But I think we are on very thin ice here; if RHO apparently never > intended > to pass and discovers his mistake from my question he is undoubtedly > entitled to change his call under law 25A. > > So I am not completely convinced that my question alone cancels his > option > to use L25B2b2. However, I am indeed convinced that this is another > example > why L25B2b2 should never have been written. The minutes refers to "information received from the action of another player". An opponent asks a question about a call, and you realize from the existence of the question that you have erred. It is not "information received from the action of another player", IMO, that told you you screwed up, it was the action itself. So the minute does not apply. Else the minute is supposed to be interpreted that when you err in this way, you may not change your call after any player does *anything* - which is not what Law 25B, flawed though it is, says. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 7 00:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 7 00:10:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <443554A1.60701@hdw.be> Message-ID: Accepting Sven's opinion that there was no LA to the player in possession of UI we are only looking at damge attributable to the MI. If we conclude that Sven would have bid the same absent any MI then we accept there is no damage. In making that judgement we will consult with a number of Sven's peers in order to gauge what he might have done. It seems we can present them with two different scenarios in order to get their opinions: a) 1S-(3D)-P-(P)-?. 3D is a strong jump overcall, what do you bid? OR b) 1S-(3D)-P-(P)-?. 3D is a strong jump overcall, described as weak by advancer, what do you bid? It seems obvious to me that those questions will likely generate different answers so it *should* be a simple matter to decide which we ask. My own inclination would be to ask question a). Is the official WBF opinion that we should be asking b) ? Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 7 03:05:35 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 7 03:06:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >Accepting Sven's opinion that there was no LA to the player in >possession of UI we are only looking at damage attributable to the MI. > >If we conclude that Sven would have bid the same absent any MI then we >accept there is no damage. In making that judgement we will consult >with a number of Sven's peers in order to gauge what he might have >done. > >It seems we can present them with two different scenarios in order to >get their opinions: > >a) 1S-(3D)-P-(P)-?. 3D is a strong jump overcall, what do you bid? OR > >b) 1S-(3D)-P-(P)-?. 3D is a strong jump overcall, described as weak by >advancer, what do you bid? > >It seems obvious to me that those questions will likely generate >different answers so it *should* be a simple matter to decide which we >ask. My own inclination would be to ask question a). Is the official >WBF opinion that we should be asking b) ? Richard Hills: It seems from the WBF LC minute that Grattan quoted that the official WBF question would be question a). However, Ton and I prefer question b). This is because we believe that the current official WBF opinion is logically inconsistent with the requirements of Law 75D1: "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)." Scenario 1: West North East South 1S 3D Pass(1) Pass ?(2) (1) East enquires about the meaning of 3D, South incorrectly explains 3D as weak, thus infracting Law 75C. (2) While West is considering their call, South realises their mistake. South is an honest player, and immediately corrects their misinformation in accordance with Law 75D1. Since West now has authorised information about a North-South misunderstanding, West passes and 3D scores +150. Scenario 2: West North East South 1S 3D Pass(1) Pass X(2) Pass(3) 3S 5D(4) (1) East enquires about the meaning of 3D, South incorrectly explains 3D as weak, thus infracting Law 75C. (2) While West is considering their call, South realises their mistake. South is a dishonest player, and keeps schtum, infracting Law 75D1. (3) North is an honest player, eschewing use of South's UI. (4) South belatedly obeys Law 75D1. The director permits East to withdraw their 3S call if they so desire, but East declines (having no logical alternative to 3S with a 4333 yarborough). 5D scores +600. A Grattanic TD rules that West would have balanced with a double if South had not infracted Law 75C, and had described 3D as strong, so the Grattanic TD does not adjust the score. But a Tonic TD rules that South could have known that belated obedience to Law 75D1 would damage the non-offending side, so the Tonic TD adjusts the score to 3D +150. The problem is, of course, a question of how two related but separate infractions should be resolved, when it is to the advantage of the non- offending side that only the second infraction should be corrected. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From schoderb at msn.com Fri Apr 7 03:30:50 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Apr 7 03:31:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP><4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <443554A1.60701@hdw.be> Message-ID: I couldn't pass up the opportunity to question Mr. De Wael's "... has ruled at the highest level..." Did someone sneak him into the staff of a world championships without my knowledge during the 15 years I was the CTD, or has Max now put him of staff? Or does he think his role in EBU qualifies for the caveat of "highest level"? Being around "for over a decade" is a reference to longevity, not authority. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > >>>Yes, but when we put you into the "correct" situation, you will have > >>>"entitled" knowledge about their system, but no longer the > >>>"additional" information about their misunderstanding. > >>> > >>>I've said this thousands of times, and I'm not going to argue about > >>>it. If the WBFLC thinks this is wrong, then they should say so - the > >>>rest of you should simply believe me: > > > > > > They better don't. > > In what position are you to suggest that you know what should be done? > > > > In the position of one who has been around for over a decade, has > ruled on the highest level and has not changed his views on this subject. > I would imagine that if I had said something in the past which you did > not approve of, you would have said so. > In that sense, I try to speak with some authority. If you wish to > whistle me back, then please do so - I bow to your superior knowledge > and closer touch with WBF views, but I will not sit around and say > that while the WBF remains silent, my views amount to nothing. > > That being said - does the WBF wish to change anything to what I have > written? > > > > > > > > > > >>>You are entitled to the right explanation of the bid, you are NOT > >>>entitled to the knowledge that the partner has misunderstood. > > > > > > > > Good statement but completely useless. I am not entitled to know that > > partner misunderstood. I just know it, because he told me so. > > > > Not my partner - theirs! > > > Let me proof my postion. And stop talking nonsense but try to think > > about > > it. > > > > case A: > > I get misinformation and feel damaged. According to your opinion the TD > > adjusts the score by answering the question what the result would have > > been > > had I received the right information. > > > > case B: > > Two rounds later, the bidding has gone crazy, my screenmate realizes > > that he > > misexplainedand tells me. Now I have the opportunity to take the right > > action for a very good score. No TD involved, my opponents of course > > accept > > their disaster. > > > > Your approach leads to the conclusion that player B is punished by doing > > what the laws tell him to do. That is an impossible position don't you > > think? > > > > > > No it is not. > It is just one of those strange conclusions of the laws. > > > > > > > > >>+=+ Minute 2, WBFLC, Monaco, 9th November 2003. > >> > >> "The committee considered the proposition that when > >>there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive > >>an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the > >>non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding > >>and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. > >>The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed > >>on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. It was > >>observed that if given the correct information the partnership might > >>or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, > >>depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of > >>backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation > >>as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." > >> > >> As I understood the discussion, by "if given the correct information" > >>the Committee was saying 'in place of the incorrect information' > >>when that was given. Otherwise the 'might or might not' question > >>would not arise. A player would have to know it from the legal > >>auction correctly interpreted. > >> > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > This is another example of this famous Grattanian language which is > > supposed > > to be clear but isn't. > > > > For Grattan: > > Why don't you just read the first four lines? The non-offending side is > > entitled to draw logical conclusions using the information it received > > and knowing the partnership understanding. The adjusted score should be > > based on this approach. > > > > I don't know why the rest is added, nothing wrong is said. If a player > > gets > > the right information he not necessarily will be aware of a > > misunderstanding. Right so. > > But your conclusion has nothing to do with it. > > > > Well, then apparently Gratannese still sounds different to you and me. > That's your problem - it's your text (or at least the text from your > committee) > > How do you propose to have the world rule the same way if two (permit > me to call us this) top directors read the same WBF text and come up > with totally different interpretions. An official WBF minute at that? > > I'm sorry Ton, I may be wrong, but please don't criticize me for it, > if this is the best the WBF can do. > > > ton > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 7 03:45:22 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Apr 7 03:45:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <200604061347.k36DlWLU027733@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200604061347.k36DlWLU027733@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4435C432.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ton Kooijman > In my opinion North, screenmate of the player giving wrong information, is > entitled to know the real meaning and then also knows that East-West are > running into a disaster. This may be a fine approach, but it seems contrary to the language of L12C2. According to that law, for the NOS, the adjustment must be based on "had the irregularity not occurred." Here the irregularity is the wrong explanation. Had it not occurred, the NOS would have no way to know that the OS were having a misunderstanding. It appears to be legal to adjust the OS score for the worst case, where they have the misunderstanding _and_ the opponents are aware and take full advantage. I'm not sure why one would wish to apply a split score for such a case, but there doesn't seem to be a rule against it. From schoderb at msn.com Fri Apr 7 04:29:30 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Apr 7 04:30:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be><000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: My, My! The Recorder of the WBFLC telling the Chairman how it really is! Is there a cart and horse in this scenario? I find the recorder's postings to be his opinions couched as WBF interpretation of the Laws. "As I understood the discussion" does not belong in any WBFLC Minute. Beyond the first sentence this postings is a personal opinion. Are we so juvenile that we post what are called the WBFLC minutes as below, and then enter into an internecine argument about what they mean? Did the WBFLC really never arrive on a decision, position, argument, or manner addressed by the problem? I don't believe so, and speaking as one of those who 'was there' I object to departure from proper procedure for the WBFLC to make its decisions know. It would be interesting what a voice recorder of the discussion really showed - ".... it was observed...." by whom? Is there someone who looks down on the WBFLC from a position of virtue and omnipotence? I'm certain that what was alluded to would not be found in any complete recordings of the proceedings. May I again remind everyone, that Edgar is no longer with us and there is NO EDGAR REPLACEMENT at this time, no matter how strongly anyone wishes to be so recognized. I strongly abhor "choke points" in the establishment of laws for our game -- be they players, administrators, observers, commentators and self-styled gurus, or even well meaning individuals who are convinced that they know "...the right way..." I'm glad to listen to all of these, but reserve the right to determine procedure and law to be the task of the WBFLC. I further would request that the Recorder desist from his gratuitous historical quotes as headings for his postings when taking it upon himself to speak for the WBFLC. They are always to his benefit, seldom complete, sometimes very insulting to those who are not "British" (or is it now "English"?), and irritating to those of us who are interested in doing our assigned tasks without attack by thinly veiled nasty allusions to our capacities buried in supposed arcane misunderstandings of English words. I expect more from international participants. I trust the above has no statements that can be misinterpreted by reference to any English Language dictionary. If so, I'd be glad to explain. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" > > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > > > > +=+ Minute 2, WBFLC, Monaco, 9th November 2003. > > > > > > "The committee considered the proposition that when > > > there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive > > > an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the > > > non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding > > > and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. > > > The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed > > > on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. It was > > > observed that if given the correct information the partnership might > > > or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, > > > depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of > > > backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation > > > as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." > > > > > > As I understood the discussion, by "if given the correct information" > > > the Committee was saying 'in place of the incorrect information' > > > when that was given. Otherwise the 'might or might not' question > > > would not arise. A player would have to know it from the legal > > > auction correctly interpreted. > > > > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > This is another example of this famous Grattanian language which is > supposed > > to be clear but isn't. > > > > For Grattan: > > Why don't you just read the first four lines? The non-offending side is > > entitled to draw logical conclusions using the information it received > > and knowing the partnership understanding. The adjusted score should be > > based on this approach. > > > > I don't know why the rest is added, nothing wrong is said. If a player > gets > > the right information he not necessarily will be aware of a > > misunderstanding. Right so. > > But your conclusion has nothing to do with it. > > > > ton > > > +=+ For Ton, > First, the wording after "It was observed..." reports in precise > terms > what was said by the member who made this point (which the committee > accepted, but I believe not you as proponent of the other point of view). > I recall that quite deliberately I used the words as spoken and noted down > in order to avoid dispute as to what was intended. Second, before the > minute was sent to the Executive for ratification its wording was reviewed > by the chairman of the meeting. The prior wording reports fairly the > proposition put to the committee. No member of the committee has > subsequently questioned the minute. > As to my conclusion it has at least as much justification as yours > for > the reason I have stated. It also conforms, in my experience, to appeals > committee practice in the WBF and EBL. There would be reason to > suspect that the same practice is probably adopted in Zone 2 appeals. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 7 05:42:07 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Apr 7 05:48:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP><4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be><000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00df01c659f5$3f15f120$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> [Kojak] > My, My! The Recorder of the WBFLC telling the > Chairman how it really is! Is there a cart > and horse in this scenario? I find the > recorder's postings to be his opinions > couched as WBF interpretation of the Laws. > "As I understood the discussion" does not > belong in any WBFLC Minute. Beyond the first > sentence this postings is a personal opinion. > Are we so juvenile that we post what are > called the WBFLC minutes as below, and then > enter into an internecine argument about what > they mean? Did the WBFLC really never arrive > on a decision, position, argument, or manner > addressed by the problem? I don't believe > so, and speaking as one of those who 'was > there' I object to departure from proper > procedure for the WBFLC to make its decisions > know. It would be interesting what a voice > recorder of the discussion really showed - > ".... it was observed...." by whom? Is there > someone who looks down on the WBFLC from a > position of virtue and omnipotence? I'm > certain that what was alluded to would not > be found in any complete recordings of the > proceedings. May I again remind everyone, > that Edgar is no longer with us and there is > NO EDGAR REPLACEMENT at this time, no matter > how strongly anyone wishes to be so > recognized. I strongly abhor "choke points" > in the establishment of laws for our game -- > be they players, administrators, observers, > commentators and self-styled gurus, or even > well meaning individuals who are convinced > that they know "...the right way..." I'm > glad to listen to all of these, but reserve > the right to determine procedure and law to > be the task of the WBFLC. I further would > request that the Recorder desist from his > gratuitous historical quotes as headings for > his postings when taking it upon himself to > speak for the WBFLC. They are always to his > benefit, seldom complete, sometimes very > insulting to those who are not "British" > (or is it now "English"?), and irritating to > those of us who are interested in doing our > assigned tasks without attack by thinly > veiled nasty allusions to our capacities > buried in supposed arcane misunderstandings > of English words. I expect more from > international participants. > I trust the above has no statements that can > be misinterpreted by reference to any English > Language dictionary. If so, I'd be glad to > explain. [nige1] Kojak's general opinions of our status, our arguments and our motives come across loud and clear; we are grateful for his offer to explain the finer points of his idioms. For example, what are "choke-points"? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 7 06:45:09 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 7 06:45:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Joseph Addison (1672-1719): "In all thy humours, whether grave or mellow, Thou'rt such a touchy, testy, pleasant fellow; Hast so much wit, and mirth, and spleen about thee, There is no living with thee, nor without thee." Kojak: [snip] >I further would request that the Recorder desist from his >gratuitous historical quotes as headings for his postings >when taking it upon himself to speak for the WBFLC. They >are always to his benefit, seldom complete, sometimes >very insulting [snip] Alexander Pope (1688-1744), epigram describing Addison: "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." Richard Hills: Surely describing a colleague's historical quotes as "gratuitous" and "always to his benefit" is in and of itself "very insulting". Surely it is possible for colleagues to have honest differences in policy without resorting to actual (or perceived) personal insults. And surely it is possible for colleagues to mutually apologise when vigorous debate on policy oversteps the mark into actual (or perceived) personal insults. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 08:37:19 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 08:38:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be><000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <4436089F.5080707@hdw.be> Mister Schoder, I am very sorry to have to bother you again, but when I read posts like this I simply have to answer. Here we are, in a very unimportant forum, but in the presence of three austere figures who were present at a meeting in november 2003. One of you, austere members, has the audacity to quote minutes of said meeting. Those minutes are not very clear, and one minuscule member of this unimportant forum (me) has the temirity to state that those minutes substantiate the point he was trying to make. Next I hear another one of, austere members, tell me off for reading something which isn't there. I have often asked for clear messages from the WBF and then when one of such messages is provided, I am told that I have misread this message. But the first austere member springs to my defence, stating that the second AM was in a minority at that meeting and that the minute reflects what had been said. I am saddened to see that your austere committee cannot arrive at a consensus position, nor manage to reflect that there are opposing views in the committee. And now a third member of this committee speaks out. At last we're going to hear the real facts. No, sadly, we are again disappointed. Because said third AM goes not further than stating that the minute does not reflect what had been said. He does not tell us that when he read the minute, he reacted to have it changed, nor does he tell us what his position on the matter is, and which one of the two was the majority or minority opinion. Please tell us in straight language Kojak, do you think I am right, or it Ton's view to be preferred. How would you have ruled on the Norwegian case, which I will summarize: -East has given a wrong explanation -South has balanced with the wrong explanation -West has continued the bidding but is not deemed to have broken UI Laws -South would also have balanced with the right explanation -if South is allowed to know that East has misunderstood, passing is the obvious choice Would you allow the result to stand or not? Please Kojak, I think I have covered all bases - consider these things accepted by the Directors or the AC, just answer us: is the knowledge of a misunderstanding a basis in deciding the ruling? WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > My, My! The Recorder of the WBFLC telling the Chairman how it really is! Is > there a cart and horse in this scenario? I find the recorder's postings to > be his opinions couched as WBF interpretation of the Laws. "As I understood > the discussion" does not belong in any WBFLC Minute. Beyond the first > sentence this postings is a personal opinion. Are we so juvenile that we > post what are called the WBFLC minutes as below, and then enter into an > internecine argument about what they mean? Did the WBFLC really never arrive > on a decision, position, argument, or manner addressed by the problem? I > don't believe so, and speaking as one of those who 'was there' I object to > departure from proper procedure for the WBFLC to make its decisions know. > It would be interesting what a voice recorder of the discussion really > showed - ".... it was observed...." by whom? Is there someone who looks down > on the WBFLC from a position of virtue and omnipotence? I'm certain that > what was alluded to would not be found in any complete recordings of the > proceedings. > > May I again remind everyone, that Edgar is no longer with us and there is NO > EDGAR REPLACEMENT at this time, no matter how strongly anyone wishes to be > so recognized. I strongly abhor "choke points" in the establishment of laws > for our game -- be they players, administrators, observers, commentators and > self-styled gurus, or even well meaning individuals who are convinced that > they know "...the right way..." I'm glad to listen to all of these, but > reserve the right to determine procedure and law to be the task of the > WBFLC. > > I further would request that the Recorder desist from his gratuitous > historical > quotes as headings for his postings when taking it upon himself to speak for > the WBFLC. They are always to his benefit, seldom complete, sometimes very > insulting to those who are not "British" (or is it now "English"?), and > irritating to those of us who are interested in doing our assigned tasks > without attack by thinly veiled nasty allusions to our capacities buried in > supposed arcane misunderstandings of English words. I expect more from > international participants. > > I trust the above has no statements that can be misinterpreted by reference > to any English Language dictionary. If so, I'd be glad to explain. > > Kojak > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 7 08:42:25 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 7 08:43:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>It is perfectly proper for any player to ask his >>opponents and also to inspect their CC. No player >>is limited to just one source of information on >>opponents' agreements. Herman De Wael: >Well, he should be. I hate it when people look at >my CC and also ask me what it means. I tell them: >"you've just read it, if you want clarification, >ask me, but don't ask me to reveal that I don't >know my system". WBF LC minutes 1st September 1998, item 15: >>>It is held illegal to ask a question in order >>>that partner may be aware of the information in >>>the reply. Richard Hills: In my opinion, both Sven and Herman are partially correct. If a player already knows the meaning of a partnership agreement of the opponents, it would be illegal to ask a question to again enquire about the meaning of that partnership agreement of the opponents. On the other hand, it seems to me to be legal to _firstly_ use Law 20F to ask an opponent a question, then _secondly_ to use Law 40E2 to check the answer by examining the opponents' convention card. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 08:42:34 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 08:43:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP><4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <443554A1.60701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <443609DA.2060405@hdw.be> It may be useful to note that I have been on approximately 200 appeals committees at EBL championships over the past 8 years, and a few world championship ones besides. Apart from that, I have now been to 3 European Director Courses where I have received the second highest degree on merit all three times. If ruling only applies to actual directing, then two European Youth Championships will be it. It does not become you to belittle others, Kojak. WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I couldn't pass up the opportunity to question Mr. De Wael's "... has ruled > at the highest level..." Did someone sneak him into the staff of a world > championships without my knowledge during the 15 years I was the CTD, or has > Max now put him of staff? Or does he think his role in EBU qualifies for > the caveat of "highest level"? Being around "for over a decade" is a > reference to longevity, not authority. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? > [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >>Ton Kooijman wrote: >> >> >>>>>Yes, but when we put you into the "correct" situation, you will have >>>>>"entitled" knowledge about their system, but no longer the >>>>>"additional" information about their misunderstanding. >>>>> >>>>>I've said this thousands of times, and I'm not going to argue about >>>>>it. If the WBFLC thinks this is wrong, then they should say so - the >>>>>rest of you should simply believe me: >>> >>> >>>They better don't. >>>In what position are you to suggest that you know what should be done? >>> >> >>In the position of one who has been around for over a decade, has >>ruled on the highest level and has not changed his views on this subject. >>I would imagine that if I had said something in the past which you did >>not approve of, you would have said so. >>In that sense, I try to speak with some authority. If you wish to >>whistle me back, then please do so - I bow to your superior knowledge >>and closer touch with WBF views, but I will not sit around and say >>that while the WBF remains silent, my views amount to nothing. >> >>That being said - does the WBF wish to change anything to what I have >>written? >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>You are entitled to the right explanation of the bid, you are NOT >>>>>entitled to the knowledge that the partner has misunderstood. >>> >>> >>> >>>Good statement but completely useless. I am not entitled to know that >>>partner misunderstood. I just know it, because he told me so. >>> >> >>Not my partner - theirs! >> >> >>>Let me proof my postion. And stop talking nonsense but try to think >>>about >>>it. >>> >>>case A: >>>I get misinformation and feel damaged. According to your opinion the TD >>>adjusts the score by answering the question what the result would have >>>been >>>had I received the right information. >>> >>>case B: >>>Two rounds later, the bidding has gone crazy, my screenmate realizes >>>that he >>>misexplainedand tells me. Now I have the opportunity to take the right >>>action for a very good score. No TD involved, my opponents of course >>>accept >>>their disaster. >>> >>>Your approach leads to the conclusion that player B is punished by doing >>>what the laws tell him to do. That is an impossible position don't you >>>think? >>> >>> >> >>No it is not. >>It is just one of those strange conclusions of the laws. >> >> >>> >>> >>>>+=+ Minute 2, WBFLC, Monaco, 9th November 2003. >>>> >>>> "The committee considered the proposition that when >>>>there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive >>>>an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the >>>>non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding >>>>and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. >>>>The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed >>>>on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. It was >>>>observed that if given the correct information the partnership might >>>>or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, >>>>depending on the situation. There is, of course, the possibility of >>>>backing up the auction if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation >>>>as Law 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." >>>> >>>>As I understood the discussion, by "if given the correct information" >>>>the Committee was saying 'in place of the incorrect information' >>>>when that was given. Otherwise the 'might or might not' question >>>>would not arise. A player would have to know it from the legal >>>>auction correctly interpreted. >>>> >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >>> >>> >>>This is another example of this famous Grattanian language which is >>>supposed >>>to be clear but isn't. >>> >>>For Grattan: >>>Why don't you just read the first four lines? The non-offending side is >>>entitled to draw logical conclusions using the information it received >>>and knowing the partnership understanding. The adjusted score should be >>>based on this approach. >>> >>>I don't know why the rest is added, nothing wrong is said. If a player >>>gets >>>the right information he not necessarily will be aware of a >>>misunderstanding. Right so. >>>But your conclusion has nothing to do with it. >>> >> >>Well, then apparently Gratannese still sounds different to you and me. >>That's your problem - it's your text (or at least the text from your >>committee) >> >>How do you propose to have the world rule the same way if two (permit >>me to call us this) top directors read the same WBF text and come up >>with totally different interpretions. An official WBF minute at that? >> >>I'm sorry Ton, I may be wrong, but please don't criticize me for it, >>if this is the best the WBF can do. >> >> >>>ton >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 08:55:45 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 08:56:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44360CF1.80404@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > It seems from the WBF LC minute that Grattan quoted that the official > WBF question would be question a). > > However, Ton and I prefer question b). This is because we believe that > the current official WBF opinion is logically inconsistent with the > requirements of Law 75D1: > > "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was > erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who > will apply Law 21 or Law 40C)." > > Scenario 1: > > West North East South > 1S 3D Pass(1) Pass > ?(2) > > (1) East enquires about the meaning of 3D, South incorrectly explains > 3D as weak, thus infracting Law 75C. > > (2) While West is considering their call, South realises their mistake. > South is an honest player, and immediately corrects their misinformation > in accordance with Law 75D1. Since West now has authorised information > about a North-South misunderstanding, West passes and 3D scores +150. > > Scenario 2: > > West North East South > 1S 3D Pass(1) Pass > X(2) Pass(3) 3S 5D(4) > > (1) East enquires about the meaning of 3D, South incorrectly explains > 3D as weak, thus infracting Law 75C. > > (2) While West is considering their call, South realises their mistake. > South is a dishonest player, and keeps schtum, infracting Law 75D1. > > (3) North is an honest player, eschewing use of South's UI. > > (4) South belatedly obeys Law 75D1. The director permits East to > withdraw their 3S call if they so desire, but East declines (having no > logical alternative to 3S with a 4333 yarborough). 5D scores +600. > > A Grattanic TD rules that West would have balanced with a double if > South had not infracted Law 75C, and had described 3D as strong, so > the Grattanic TD does not adjust the score. > > But a Tonic TD rules that South could have known that belated obedience > to Law 75D1 would damage the non-offending side, so the Tonic TD adjusts > the score to 3D +150. > > The problem is, of course, a question of how two related but separate > infractions should be resolved, when it is to the advantage of the non- > offending side that only the second infraction should be corrected. > Richard presents a good case for the Tonic approach. Allow me to present a case for the Grattanic one. 5 tables are playing the same board. At all 5 the bidding goes West North East South 1S 3D Pass(1) Pass ?(2) At table one, screens are in use. North and West are together and North correctly explains his bid as strong. West decides to balance. At table two, West looks at the convention card, which correctly describes the overcall. West decides to balance. Table three is an online game. North explains his bid to east and west. West has correct information and decides to double. At table four South states that he is not certain of the meaning, and he asks the Director to take him off the table while North explains. West has a correct explanation and decides that he is going to trust South and not gamble on a misunderstanding. He balances. At table five South explains the bid as weak. West decides to balance. When we are judging South's actions at table five, should we not let him be in the same position as the other four? If we rule according to Ton, then we are opening the gate to a South player who will refuse to answer the question, merely stating "look at our CC, it's all there". Do not forget that this is also a correct reply - indeed the opponents have all the information they are entitled to. By answering the polite question in a polite way, South is actually telling West two things: A) "our system is that 3D is weak" B) "I believe my partner is weak and I bid according to that belief" While A is information that West is entitled to, B is not. When we change A into something else, do we really want to punish South by having him reveal B), something which he is not obliged to do? I believe that the laws on full disclosure are an ideal, and our ways of insuring that opponents receive the information they are entitled to, are just imperfect reflections of that ideal. -- 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: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Apr 7 10:08:42 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Apr 7 10:09:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? References: <200604061347.k36DlWLU027733@cfa.harvard.edu> <4435C432.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <007401c65a1a$7cd57010$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > > From: Ton Kooijman > > In my opinion North, screenmate of the player giving wrong information, is > > entitled to know the real meaning and then also knows that East-West are > > running into a disaster. > Steve: > This may be a fine approach, but it seems contrary to the language of > L12C2. According to that law, for the NOS, the adjustment must be based > on "had the irregularity not occurred." Here the irregularity is the > wrong explanation. Had it not occurred, the NOS would have no way to > know that the OS were having a misunderstanding. > > It appears to be legal to adjust the OS score for the worst case, where > they have the misunderstanding _and_ the opponents are aware and take > full advantage. I'm not sure why one would wish to apply a split score > for such a case, but there doesn't seem to be a rule against it. You have a point, the first law content oriented reaction on my question. Thank you. This might have been the reason to discuss this problem in Monaco. And then we produced the following lines: > > "The committee considered the proposition that when > > there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive > > an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the > > non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding > > and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. > > The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed > > on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. Doesn't it just say that the adjusted score should be based on the outcome of a thinking process by a player who received misinformation and is entitled to have the right information ? That approach is consistent with the case where a player received both: wrong and right info from his screenmate, who became aware of his mistake and abiding by the laws told so. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Apr 7 10:27:44 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Apr 7 10:28:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <4436089F.5080707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <007f01c65a1d$26e94110$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> I agree, misty minutes. Sorry for that, my responsibility. Now why. I think I read the first lines and understood those well. > "The committee considered the proposition that when > > there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive > > an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the > > non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding > > and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. > > The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed > > on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. They were in agreement with the outcome of the discussion. Is it possible to read those in your way? And then some people use the next line to support a contradictory opinion: > > It was > > observed that if given the correct information the partnership might > > or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, > > depending on the situation. How can they? This is a true statement, which always is the case when 'might or might not' is used, but completely useless. When I read it for the first time I didn't think it could harm in any way. Apparently wrong. May I tell what is happening in this discussion? You and Grattan, involved in appeals and TD's involved in decsions, don't want to think of the possibility that many decisions might have been taken with wrong assumptions. So better stick to their old view. And regarding your Norwegian ruling. The facts seem wrong to me. We only once had the situation that East and South were screenmates and I don'tbelieve this to be that event. So try to a better description first. ton > > Please tell us in straight language Kojak, do you think I am right, or > it Ton's view to be preferred. How would you have ruled on the > Norwegian case, which I will summarize: > -East has given a wrong explanation > -South has balanced with the wrong explanation > -West has continued the bidding but is not deemed to have broken UI Laws > -South would also have balanced with the right explanation > -if South is allowed to know that East has misunderstood, passing is > the obvious choice > Would you allow the result to stand or not? > Please Kojak, I think I have covered all bases - consider these things > accepted by the Directors or the AC, just answer us: is the knowledge > of a misunderstanding a basis in deciding the ruling? > > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > My, My! The Recorder of the WBFLC telling the Chairman how it really is! Is > > there a cart and horse in this scenario? I find the recorder's postings to > > be his opinions couched as WBF interpretation of the Laws. "As I understood > > the discussion" does not belong in any WBFLC Minute. Beyond the first > > sentence this postings is a personal opinion. Are we so juvenile that we > > post what are called the WBFLC minutes as below, and then enter into an > > internecine argument about what they mean? Did the WBFLC really never arrive > > on a decision, position, argument, or manner addressed by the problem? I > > don't believe so, and speaking as one of those who 'was there' I object to > > departure from proper procedure for the WBFLC to make its decisions know. > > It would be interesting what a voice recorder of the discussion really > > showed - ".... it was observed...." by whom? Is there someone who looks down > > on the WBFLC from a position of virtue and omnipotence? I'm certain that > > what was alluded to would not be found in any complete recordings of the > > proceedings. > > > > May I again remind everyone, that Edgar is no longer with us and there is NO > > EDGAR REPLACEMENT at this time, no matter how strongly anyone wishes to be > > so recognized. I strongly abhor "choke points" in the establishment of laws > > for our game -- be they players, administrators, observers, commentators and > > self-styled gurus, or even well meaning individuals who are convinced that > > they know "...the right way..." I'm glad to listen to all of these, but > > reserve the right to determine procedure and law to be the task of the > > WBFLC. > > > > I further would request that the Recorder desist from his gratuitous > > historical > > quotes as headings for his postings when taking it upon himself to speak for > > the WBFLC. They are always to his benefit, seldom complete, sometimes very > > insulting to those who are not "British" (or is it now "English"?), and > > irritating to those of us who are interested in doing our assigned tasks > > without attack by thinly veiled nasty allusions to our capacities buried in > > supposed arcane misunderstandings of English words. I expect more from > > international participants. > > > > I trust the above has no statements that can be misinterpreted by reference > > to any English Language dictionary. If so, I'd be glad to explain. > > > > Kojak > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release Date: 5/04/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 7 10:28:35 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 7 10:29:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44360CF1.80404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > Richard presents a good case for the Tonic approach. Allow me to > present a case for the Grattanic one. > > 5 tables are playing the same board. At all 5 the bidding goes > > West North East South > 1S 3D Pass(1) Pass > ?(2) Not that it really matters, but in my OP the opening bid was 1C and the overcall was 2D. What does matter is that with a weak overcall I balance (with a double as suggested by our system; partner did not present a negative double), but if I know that the overcall is strong I pass with my minimum strength opening hand! And of course if I in addition have the information that there was a misunderstanding between opponents I would not even dream of giving LHO another chance. > At table one, screens are in use. North and West are together and > North correctly explains his bid as strong. West decides to balance. Why? > > At table two, West looks at the convention card, which correctly > describes the overcall. West decides to balance. Why? > > Table three is an online game. North explains his bid to east and > west. West has correct information and decides to double. Why? > > At table four South states that he is not certain of the meaning, and > he asks the Director to take him off the table while North explains. > West has a correct explanation and decides that he is going to trust > South and not gamble on a misunderstanding. He balances. WHY on earth should he do that????? > > At table five South explains the bid as weak. West decides to balance. Of course he will. (?) > When we are judging South's actions at table five, should we not let > him be in the same position as the other four? I don't see why, this is the only table where West has any reason to balance. (Remember we are playing IMP score). A friend of mine has a saying: "If you try to create points on a board you always succeed - and your opponents receive the points". > > If we rule according to Ton, then we are opening the gate to a South > player who will refuse to answer the question, merely stating "look at > our CC, it's all there". Do not forget that this is also a correct > reply - indeed the opponents have all the information they are > entitled to. This is definitely not a correct, nor an acceptable reply. We have discussed this before (on blml I believe) and as far as I can remember the consensus was that a player who demands a verbal explanation is entitled to a verbal explanation regardless of any CC presented. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 7 10:37:01 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 7 10:37:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c65a1e$70fb8b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >>It is perfectly proper for any player to ask his > >>opponents and also to inspect their CC. No player > >>is limited to just one source of information on > >>opponents' agreements. > > Herman De Wael: > > >Well, he should be. I hate it when people look at > >my CC and also ask me what it means. I tell them: > >"you've just read it, if you want clarification, > >ask me, but don't ask me to reveal that I don't > >know my system". > > WBF LC minutes 1st September 1998, item 15: > > >>>It is held illegal to ask a question in order > >>>that partner may be aware of the information in > >>>the reply. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, both Sven and Herman are partially > correct. > > If a player already knows the meaning of a > partnership agreement of the opponents, it would > be illegal to ask a question to again enquire > about the meaning of that partnership agreement of > the opponents. > > On the other hand, it seems to me to be legal to > _firstly_ use Law 20F to ask an opponent a > question, then _secondly_ to use Law 40E2 to > check the answer by examining the opponents' > convention card. This is IMO unnecessary splitting hairs. Any player asking questions must be aware that his questioning can create UI to his partner. The quoted WBFLC minute simply emphasizes the obvious consequence from this fact, but it is never illegal for a player (at his own turn to call) to request an explanation of opponents' auction. If suspicion is raised that a player asked a question in order to alert his partner then it is the duty of TD to judge whether the player had any bridge reason to ask this question and to rule according to his findings. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 7 11:29:06 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 7 11:29:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <4436089F.5080707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. Please let me correct a few misconceptions that have sneaked into this thread: > Please tell us in straight language Kojak, do you think I am right, or > it Ton's view to be preferred. How would you have ruled on the > Norwegian case, which I will summarize: > -East has given a wrong explanation > -South has balanced with the wrong explanation > -West has continued the bidding but is not deemed to have broken UI Laws > -South would also have balanced with the right explanation No, being South in the actual situation I would definitely NOT have balanced with the correct information! We were playing IMPs and I had no intention of fighting against a probable score in the range -80 to -150 for a possible score in the range +130 (at the best) through -800 (or even worse at the worst)! I was even in doubt now with my minimum strength opening bid, the decisive factor was my stiff jack in Diamonds (the overcall denomination). > -if South is allowed to know that East has misunderstood, passing is > the obvious choice > Would you allow the result to stand or not? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 7 11:48:57 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 7 11:49:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c65a1e$70fb8b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c65a28$7dbb5ae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Further to my comment: ............. > > WBF LC minutes 1st September 1998, item 15: > > > > >>>It is held illegal to ask a question in order > > >>>that partner may be aware of the information in > > >>>the reply. I assume we all agree that giving an incorrect explanation of an auction (commonly designated "misinformation") is an "irregularity" as defined in chapter 1 of the laws? If a player knows opponents agreements sufficiently well to understand that an opponent has given misinformation is he then not protected by Law 9A1 when he "calls attention to this irregularity" by asking clarifying questions even in the case that the sole purpose of such questions appears to be to alert partner? I am not particularly comfortable being prohibited from protecting my own and my partner's interests by ensuring that partner (as well as I am) is aware of opponents' true agreements. After all my side is NOS in such cases. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Apr 7 11:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Apr 7 11:58:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > (2) While West is considering their call, South realises their > mistake. South is an honest player, and immediately corrects their > misinformation in accordance with Law 75D1. Does not this South also make a correction under L25b? Is not the final contract likely to be be the same? Thus there will be no damage to EW. In ruling on the NS score we take into account the relative likelihood of L25b1/b2 corrections. > (3) North is an honest player, eschewing use of South's UI. This is totally irrelevant to the original case where North had his subsequent bid despite the UI. (Indeed UI is irrelevant to whether damage was caused by UI - where necessary we can rule "no damage from MI, adjustment for UI". > (2) While West is considering their call, South realises their > mistake. South is a dishonest player, and keeps schtum, infracting > Law 75D1. In this scenario we are not adjusting for the original MI offence but for a subsequent offence of failure to correct promptly. I agree such adjustments may, at times, be in order but don't think they are in any way mandatory. It is up to the TD at the table to judge the facts. My inclination would be to rule that South could not have known that EW were the type of a**eholes who would insist on a L25b2 correction rather than allowing the correction under L25b1. Tim From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Apr 7 11:47:38 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri Apr 7 12:36:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001f01c65a2f$120136b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Part of an answer from Herman: > If we rule according to Ton, then we are opening the gate to a South > player who will refuse to answer the question, merely stating "look at > our CC, it's all there". Do not forget that this is also a correct > reply - indeed the opponents have all the information they are > entitled to. This is definitely not a correct, nor an acceptable reply. We have discussed this before (on blml I believe) and as far as I can remember the consensus was that a player who demands a verbal explanation is entitled to a verbal explanation regardless of any CC presented. Regards Sven %%%%%% Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, using this kind of false arguments to support his case. furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are agreements not to be found on the CC? ton %%%%%% From schoderb at msn.com Fri Apr 7 14:31:56 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Apr 7 14:32:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Excellent suggestion and taken to heart. I'm reminded and understand that when there is a personal insult - intentional or not - it serves little useful purpose to allow myself retribution. I offer my public apology to all and anyone hurt by my rhetoric and will carefully edit any future postings to remove such action on my part. Best wishes, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Joseph Addison (1672-1719): > > "In all thy humours, whether grave or mellow, > Thou'rt such a touchy, testy, pleasant fellow; > Hast so much wit, and mirth, and spleen about thee, > There is no living with thee, nor without thee." > > Kojak: > > [snip] > > >I further would request that the Recorder desist from his > >gratuitous historical quotes as headings for his postings > >when taking it upon himself to speak for the WBFLC. They > >are always to his benefit, seldom complete, sometimes > >very insulting > > [snip] > > Alexander Pope (1688-1744), epigram describing Addison: > > "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, > And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." > > Richard Hills: > > Surely describing a colleague's historical quotes as > "gratuitous" and "always to his benefit" is in and of > itself "very insulting". > > Surely it is possible for colleagues to have honest > differences in policy without resorting to actual (or > perceived) personal insults. > > And surely it is possible for colleagues to mutually > apologise when vigorous debate on policy oversteps the > mark into actual (or perceived) personal insults. > > > 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 Fri Apr 7 14:38:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Apr 7 14:44:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be><000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><4436089F.5080707@hdw.be> <007f01c65a1d$26e94110$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <002601c65a40$3d7125b0$9faf87d9@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: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC > > > > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > > > My, My! The Recorder of the WBFLC telling the Chairman how it really is! > +=+ The WBFLC has a Chairman, two Vice-Chairmen and a Secretary. None of these, nor any other member, is entitled to pronounce the view of the Committee outside of what is stated in its minutes. We have a minute of the committee to remind us of this. I quoted the 1993 minute together with my personal opinion of what it the latter part of it appeared to say. No decision was taken on the proposition that the Chairman had put forward; I recorded verbatim the observation made by a member of the committee because I thought the subject would be likely to return (although not here). I judge it unlikely the proposition would succeed if put again because determination of equity is a matter for the appeals committee, as the Code of Practice asserts, and not for the laws committee. I think the WBFLC has sympathy for, and seeks to abide by, the plea from Bill Schoder in its minutes that the WBFLC should not enter upon the domains of others. The tournament appeals committees and standing appeals committees in which I serve, or have served, have consistently related equity to the position that would be reached in auction and play absent any irregularity. If they judged that indemnity for a violation should embrace the extended view that Ton advocates I would suggest the present laws provide authority enough to make adjustments on that basis. I repeat my belief that what the member was saying in his comment on Ton's proposition was that it might or might not be apparent from the legal auction and correct explanations that opponents have gone astray. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 14:45:10 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 14:45:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> Sven, you asked the question because the answer would have been interesting. Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > Please let me correct a few misconceptions that have sneaked into this > thread: > > >>Please tell us in straight language Kojak, do you think I am right, or >>it Ton's view to be preferred. How would you have ruled on the >>Norwegian case, which I will summarize: >>-East has given a wrong explanation >>-South has balanced with the wrong explanation >>-West has continued the bidding but is not deemed to have broken UI Laws >>-South would also have balanced with the right explanation > > > No, being South in the actual situation I would definitely NOT have balanced > with the correct information! We were playing IMPs and I had no intention of > fighting against a probable score in the range -80 to -150 for a possible > score in the range +130 (at the best) through -800 (or even worse at the > worst)! > This case is only interesting if the TD and AC were to decide that you would also have balanced with the right information, but without the extra information that there is a misunderstanding. It is clear that you will pass if you also know about the misunderstanding. I am trying to get a clear answer on a practical matter, so if your case does no longer match this hypothetical one, let's concentrate on the hypothetical one, please. OK, Sven? > I was even in doubt now with my minimum strength opening bid, the decisive > factor was my stiff jack in Diamonds (the overcall denomination). > > >>-if South is allowed to know that East has misunderstood, passing is >>the obvious choice >>Would you allow the result to stand or not? > > > 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: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 14:46:35 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 14:47:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44365F2B.9030308@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > In my opinion, both Sven and Herman are partially > correct. > > If a player already knows the meaning of a > partnership agreement of the opponents, it would > be illegal to ask a question to again enquire > about the meaning of that partnership agreement of > the opponents. > > On the other hand, it seems to me to be legal to > _firstly_ use Law 20F to ask an opponent a > question, then _secondly_ to use Law 40E2 to > check the answer by examining the opponents' > convention card. > You would find it legal to first ask and then look but illegal to first look and then ask? I think that is a strange position and somewhat untenable. -- 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: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 15:19:19 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 15:19:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001f01c65a2f$120136b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001f01c65a2f$120136b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <443666D7.9010906@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > Part of an answer from Herman: > > >>If we rule according to Ton, then we are opening the gate to a South >>player who will refuse to answer the question, merely stating "look at >>our CC, it's all there". Do not forget that this is also a correct >>reply - indeed the opponents have all the information they are >>entitled to. > > > This is definitely not a correct, nor an acceptable reply. We have discussed > this before (on blml I believe) and as far as I can remember the consensus > was that a player who demands a verbal explanation is entitled to a verbal > explanation regardless of any CC presented. > > Regards Sven > > %%%%%% > > Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, using this kind of false > arguments to support his case. > furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are agreements not to be > found on the CC? > I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the meanings, not about answering the questions. I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the convention cards. And of course I will answer follow-up questions regarding things not to be found on the CC. But my point is this: since I do not feel damaged when the Gratanic interpretation is applied, I will answer questions, because I am a nice guy, not because I have to. Under the Tonic interpretation, I might reconsider. -- 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: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 15:21:01 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 15:21:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4436673D.3060600@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >>At table one, screens are in use. North and West are together and >>North correctly explains his bid as strong. West decides to balance. > > > Why? > Because it is my story, and I tell you that he does. Probably because he has a hand that merits that call. -- 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: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 From schoderb at msn.com Fri Apr 7 15:40:33 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Apr 7 15:41:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP><4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be><000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <00df01c659f5$3f15f120$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: See, there I go into using a dialect! Sorry. Choke-points are restrictions which clog free flow, usually selective in what is passed through, and which interfere with progress in an established routine. As an example statements like "....I don't care what the Law says, I will....." Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC > [Kojak] > > My, My! The Recorder of the WBFLC telling the > > Chairman how it really is! Is there a cart > > and horse in this scenario? I find the > > recorder's postings to be his opinions > > couched as WBF interpretation of the Laws. > > "As I understood the discussion" does not > > belong in any WBFLC Minute. Beyond the first > > sentence this postings is a personal opinion. > > Are we so juvenile that we post what are > > called the WBFLC minutes as below, and then > > enter into an internecine argument about what > > they mean? Did the WBFLC really never arrive > > on a decision, position, argument, or manner > > addressed by the problem? I don't believe > > so, and speaking as one of those who 'was > > there' I object to departure from proper > > procedure for the WBFLC to make its decisions > > know. It would be interesting what a voice > > recorder of the discussion really showed - > > ".... it was observed...." by whom? Is there > > someone who looks down on the WBFLC from a > > position of virtue and omnipotence? I'm > > certain that what was alluded to would not > > be found in any complete recordings of the > > proceedings. May I again remind everyone, > > that Edgar is no longer with us and there is > > NO EDGAR REPLACEMENT at this time, no matter > > how strongly anyone wishes to be so > > recognized. I strongly abhor "choke points" > > in the establishment of laws for our game -- > > be they players, administrators, observers, > > commentators and self-styled gurus, or even > > well meaning individuals who are convinced > > that they know "...the right way..." I'm > > glad to listen to all of these, but reserve > > the right to determine procedure and law to > > be the task of the WBFLC. I further would > > request that the Recorder desist from his > > gratuitous historical quotes as headings for > > his postings when taking it upon himself to > > speak for the WBFLC. They are always to his > > benefit, seldom complete, sometimes very > > insulting to those who are not "British" > > (or is it now "English"?), and irritating to > > those of us who are interested in doing our > > assigned tasks without attack by thinly > > veiled nasty allusions to our capacities > > buried in supposed arcane misunderstandings > > of English words. I expect more from > > international participants. > > I trust the above has no statements that can > > be misinterpreted by reference to any English > > Language dictionary. If so, I'd be glad to > > explain. > [nige1] > Kojak's general opinions of our status, our > arguments and our motives come across loud and > clear; we are grateful for his offer to explain > the finer points of his idioms. For example, what > are "choke-points"? > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 5 17:45:04 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Apr 7 15:44:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:37:11 EDT." <4433C807.3070201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <200604051540.IAA28872@mailhub.irvine.com> Todd wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > > Was I "damaged" because with the correct information I would of course not > > have balanced and they would have made 11 tricks in 2D for just 150, or was > > I not "damaged" because with RHO giving the correct information _he_ would > > of course have bid and they would have reached game anyway? > > > > Opinions please? > > Damage is currently considered at the moment of the > infraction, which was when you asked, which was after RHO > had already passed his partner's strong 2D bid. But I believe the calculation of damage would be the same if Sven's *partner* had asked about the bid, was told it was weak, and then Sven (who heard the explanation given to his partner) balanced after two passes. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 5 17:43:07 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Apr 7 15:44:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:12:30 +0200." <001d01c658b2$98df6cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200604051538.IAA28829@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > I opened 1C (natural) and my LHO bid 2D. Pd and RHO passed. > > No CC in use so I just asked confirmation from RHO that they used weak jump > overcalls and then I balanced. > > Given another chance my LHO forced to game that was cold, it was clarified > afterwards that their agreement was indeed strong jump overcalls. > > This is a rather informal small club so nothing more was done, but it got me > thinking: > > Was I "damaged" because with the correct information I would of course not > have balanced and they would have made 11 tricks in 2D for just 150, or was > I not "damaged" because with RHO giving the correct information _he_ would > of course have bid and they would have reached game anyway? > > Opinions please? This is an issue I've been involved with in BLML discussions in the past. At first, I would have thought that you were not damaged. However, David Stevenson and others convinced me that this was the wrong position. As I now see it, to determine what would have happened without the infraction (under Law 12C2), we do indeed have to assume that RHO has given you the correct information (i.e. strong jump overcalls), and then RHO went back to sleep and forgot the agreement again and bid as if they were playing weak jump overcalls. Or, if you like, you can determine what would have happened if a little bird had given you and your partner the correct information without anyone else hearing it. Neither of these would have actually happened at the table, of course, but I do believe that we should apply the Laws as if they did. -- Adam From schoderb at msn.com Fri Apr 7 15:46:45 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Apr 7 15:47:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman, I think we are getting beyond the application of Law when we make assumptions as to what a player would have done - in direct disregard of his statement - had he been given the correct information. When the whole thing ends up in a mess of infractions, etc., it has been accepted practice that we go back to the first infraction (misinformation of what the opponents calls are agreed to mean) to see what we are going to do. I am not an advocate of the idea that ACs, TDs, or others should be applying their bridge judgement into arriving at what is loosely called "equity" in these situations. Until someone can define 'equity' in terms of for whom, when, why, and how, I like to steer clear. To me this case does not have the intricacy it has been given by hypothetical suppositions. Perhaps I am missing something, but for example to start unraveling the problem by allowing the 3 spade call to be retracted is wrong to me. I see it as 3 diamonds making 5 because of the mistake made by East in misstating his partnership agreement. That's where the trouble started. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC > Sven, you asked the question because the answer would have been > interesting. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > > ............. > > Please let me correct a few misconceptions that have sneaked into this > > thread: > > > > > >>Please tell us in straight language Kojak, do you think I am right, or > >>it Ton's view to be preferred. How would you have ruled on the > >>Norwegian case, which I will summarize: > >>-East has given a wrong explanation > >>-South has balanced with the wrong explanation > >>-West has continued the bidding but is not deemed to have broken UI Laws > >>-South would also have balanced with the right explanation > > > > > > No, being South in the actual situation I would definitely NOT have > > balanced > > with the correct information! We were playing IMPs and I had no > > intention of > > fighting against a probable score in the range -80 to -150 for a > > possible > > score in the range +130 (at the best) through -800 (or even worse at the > > worst)! > > > > This case is only interesting if the TD and AC were to decide that you > would also have balanced with the right information, but without the > extra information that there is a misunderstanding. > It is clear that you will pass if you also know about the > misunderstanding. > > I am trying to get a clear answer on a practical matter, so if your > case does no longer match this hypothetical one, let's concentrate on > the hypothetical one, please. > OK, Sven? > > > > I was even in doubt now with my minimum strength opening bid, the > > decisive > > factor was my stiff jack in Diamonds (the overcall denomination). > > > > > >>-if South is allowed to know that East has misunderstood, passing is > >>the obvious choice > >>Would you allow the result to stand or not? > > > > > > 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: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 7 15:53:24 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 7 15:55:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? In-Reply-To: <000901c65a1e$70fb8b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c65a1e$70fb8b90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060407094254.02b9bdd0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:37 AM 4/7/06, Sven wrote: >This is IMO unnecessary splitting hairs. Any player asking questions >must be >aware that his questioning can create UI to his partner. The quoted WBFLC >minute simply emphasizes the obvious consequence from this fact, but it is >never illegal for a player (at his own turn to call) to request an >explanation of opponents' auction. > >If suspicion is raised that a player asked a question in order to >alert his >partner then it is the duty of TD to judge whether the player had any >bridge >reason to ask this question and to rule according to his findings. These two paragraphs seem to contradict one another. Either it is "never illegal for a player... to request an explanation" or it is legal only if "the player had any bridge reason to ask"; these cannot both be true. There is nothing in TFLB that addresses the specific issue of asking questions for partner's benefit. By deeming that illegal, we accept the latter interpretation: a player may ask for an explanation only if he has a valid "bridge reason" for doing so. If this is the case, it's not much of a stretch at all to argue that if the information a player (who is sighted and literate) seeks is clearly available from the opponents' CC, he does not have a valid bridge reason for requesting a verbal explanation. That would seem just as applicable to asking for the purpose of determining whether the opponents are having a misunderstanding as to asking for the purpose of informing partner. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 7 15:39:32 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Apr 7 15:55:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? References: <200604061347.k36DlWLU027733@cfa.harvard.edu><4435C432.3000608@cfa.harvard.edu> <007401c65a1a$7cd57010$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Steve Willner" ; Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? > > >> > From: Ton Kooijman >> > In my opinion North, screenmate of the player giving wrong >> > information, > is >> > entitled to know the real meaning and then also knows that East-West >> > are >> > running into a disaster. >> > > Steve: > >> This may be a fine approach, but it seems contrary to the language of >> L12C2. According to that law, for the NOS, the adjustment must be based >> on "had the irregularity not occurred." Here the irregularity is the >> wrong explanation. Had it not occurred, the NOS would have no way to >> know that the OS were having a misunderstanding. >> >> It appears to be legal to adjust the OS score for the worst case, where >> they have the misunderstanding _and_ the opponents are aware and take >> full advantage. I'm not sure why one would wish to apply a split score >> for such a case, but there doesn't seem to be a rule against it. > > > > You have a point, the first law content oriented reaction on my question. > Thank you. > This might have been the reason to discuss this problem in Monaco. And > then > we produced the following lines: > > >> > "The committee considered the proposition that when >> > there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive >> > an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the >> > non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding >> > and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received. >> > The adjusted score, the Chairman suggested, should be assessed >> > on the action likely to be undertaken in the circumstances. > > Doesn't it just say that the adjusted score should be based on the > outcome > of a thinking process by a player who > received misinformation and is entitled to have the right information ? I am pretty sure that I concur with this translation. I suspect that Steve also concurs. > That approach is consistent with the case where a player received both: > wrong and right info from his screenmate, > who became aware of his mistake and abiding by the laws told so. I am also pretty sure that I concur and also I suspect that Steve also concurs. Which was the point I suspect that Steve was making. Since such a ruling would be in direct contravention of L12. regards roger pewick > ton From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 16:16:58 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri Apr 7 16:17:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <00df01c659f5$3f15f120$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <00df01c659f5$3f15f120$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0604070716o46dee3fela021c48578cf12b2@mail.gmail.com> > Kojak's general opinions of our status, our > arguments and our motives come across loud and > clear; we are grateful for his offer to explain > the finer points of his idioms. For example, what > are "choke-points"? The expression "choke-point" is somewhat similar to a "bottleneck". A choke-point is an area in which a broad flow has been contracted. The primary difference between a choke-point and a bottle-neck is that of control. When people use the expression bottleneck, they normally describe some kind of blockage that restricts operations and creates inefficiencies. When people use the expression choke-point they are typically describing a situation where an entity has identified a high leverage position and is using this to control a flow. The expression choke-point is often used in a military settings. For example, NATO military planners often discussed the Fulda Gap as a potential choke point. -- 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 svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 7 16:32:16 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 7 16:32:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000c01c65a50$11932fa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven, you asked the question because the answer would have been > interesting. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > > ............. > > Please let me correct a few misconceptions that have sneaked into this > > thread: > > > > > >>Please tell us in straight language Kojak, do you think I am right, or > >>it Ton's view to be preferred. How would you have ruled on the > >>Norwegian case, which I will summarize: > >>-East has given a wrong explanation > >>-South has balanced with the wrong explanation > >>-West has continued the bidding but is not deemed to have broken UI Laws > >>-South would also have balanced with the right explanation > > > > > > No, being South in the actual situation I would definitely > > NOT have balanced with the correct information! > > We were playing IMPs and I had no intention of fighting > > against a probable score in the range -80 to -150 for a > > possible score in the range +130 (at the best) through > > -800 (or even worse at the worst)! > > > > This case is only interesting if the TD and AC were to decide that you > would also have balanced with the right information, but without the > extra information that there is a misunderstanding. > It is clear that you will pass if you also know about the > misunderstanding. > > I am trying to get a clear answer on a practical matter, so if your > case does no longer match this hypothetical one, let's concentrate on > the hypothetical one, please. > OK, Sven? This logic extends far beyond my capability (and I am not that novice!) I balanced even with my minimum strength opening hand and little defensive values because: 1: I was told that the 2D jump overcall was weak, 2: partner passed in a position where we use negative double, 3: I had just a single diamond, and 4: RHO also passed. Had I known that the 2D overcall was strong I would never have doubled (or bid) regardless of what call my RHO had provided, the danger that opponents is in for a better score than by playing in 2D is just too great. Therefore I felt being in a position (if this had been a more serious event) to claim damage from MI because opponents now made 400 or 600 rather than just the 150 they would have made had I passed. Acknowledged they would have made game anyway had RHO not been mistaken on their agreements because then he would have contributed with some bid rather than pass. It has been interesting to note that nobody here on blml has used this line of logic to suggest that the table result should stand. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 7 16:36:16 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Apr 7 16:43:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002901c65a50$ba511f80$799587d9@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] ------------------------------------------------ +=+ In pursuit of, and accord with, this emollient theme I will of course apologise to anyone to whom I may have inadvertently caused pain. ~ G ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "blml" ; "Hills Richard" Cc: "Endicott Grattan" Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Excellent suggestion and taken to heart. I'm reminded > and understand that when there is a personal insult - > intentional or not - it serves little useful purpose to > allow myself retribution. I offer my public apology to > all and anyone hurt by my rhetoric and will carefully > edit any future postings to remove such action on my > part. > > Best wishes, > > Kojak > From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Apr 7 16:45:05 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Fri Apr 7 16:45:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? Message-ID: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> < Ton wrote: > > Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, > > using this kind of false arguments to support his case. > > furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are > > agreements not to be found on the CC? > Herman tried: > I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. > L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the > meanings, not about answering the questions. > I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the > convention cards. FWIW, perhaps you read Law 20 ... Peter From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 16:55:36 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 16:56:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <44367D68.4040202@hdw.be> Sorry Kojak, this is absolutely nothing new to me: WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Herman, I think we are getting beyond the application of Law when we make > assumptions as to what a player would have done - in direct disregard of his > statement - had he been given the correct information. Kojak, I was stating a (hypothetical) case, which I believed to be interesting. I asked you to give a ruling on this one, not on the original Norwegian one. > When the whole thing > ends up in a mess of infractions, etc., it has been accepted practice that > we go back to the first infraction (misinformation of what the opponents > calls are agreed to mean) to see what we are going to do. Which is of course correct. > I am not an > advocate of the idea that ACs, TDs, or others should be applying their > bridge judgement into arriving at what is loosely called "equity" in these > situations. When a TD or AC applies bridge judgment to decide what a bridge player "would have done", isn't that part of his job? I believe that's what we're here for. > Until someone can define 'equity' in terms of for whom, when, > why, and how, I like to steer clear. To me this case does not have the > intricacy it has been given by hypothetical suppositions. Perhaps I am > missing something, but for example to start unraveling the problem by > allowing the 3 > spade call to be retracted is wrong to me. I see it as 3 diamonds making 5 > because of the mistake made by East in misstating his partnership agreement. > That's where the trouble started. > So please, do you rule like this because South will receive the two pieces of information : "West is strong" and "east believes west is weak"? Because as I told you, the TD has ruled that South would also balance if he had only received the one piece of statement "west is strong". Don't go criticizing this judgment please - you know very well that this is the kind of judgments that directors have to make sometimes. Just imagine that this is what he decided. If you would in fact rule against this west, then you believe in what has been termed the Tonic interpretation. Can we establish that and move on? -- 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: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 16:59:23 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 17:00:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1FRsAf-1W6IfQ0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> References: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001f01c65a2f$120136b0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <443666D7.9010906@hdw.be> <1FRsAf-1W6IfQ0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <44367E4B.5020102@hdw.be> PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: > > Herman tried: > >>I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. >>L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the >>meanings, not about answering the questions. >>I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the >>convention cards. > > > FWIW, perhaps you read Law 20 ... > L20 tells us that players are allowed to request explanations. It does not state that the reply should be made by the spoken word. In fact, written replies would be acceptable. I think that referring to the CC would also contitute a valid answer. > 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: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Apr 7 17:02:26 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Apr 7 17:03:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <200604071423.k37ENcrS012025@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200604071423.k37ENcrS012025@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44367F02.1060906@hdw.be> I did in fact mean august. Don't know where I got the austere from. Some people might correctly feel insulted if that were the word I meant. I apologize for the misuse and ask to be given an adjusted score of 3 august members. Thanks for pointing my mistake out in such a gracious manner, Steve. Steve Willner wrote: > Hi, Herman. I share your frustration with this topic. I wish Schoder > would write more about rulings and less about personalities. > > I can't help with that, but I can point out what I think is only the > second mistake of English I've seen you make. I'm trying to be helpful > here; I wouldn't bother if your English weren't so nearly perfect. > > >>Here we are, in a very unimportant forum, but in the presence of three >>austere figures who were present at a meeting in november 2003. > > > I think you mean 'august', not 'austere'. Or perhaps it's my mistake > about what you meant. > > Anyway, while I don't agree with you about everything, I very much > appreciate your contributions to BLML. > > Cheers. > > > > -- 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: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 7 18:05:12 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Apr 7 18:12:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? References: <200604051538.IAA28829@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003f01c65a5d$0e4fb180$149468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > I opened 1C (natural), LHO bid 2D, Pd and > RHO passed. No CC in use so I just asked > confirmation from RHO that they used weak > jump overcalls and then I balanced. Given > another chance my LHO forced to game that > was cold. It was clarified afterwards that > their agreement was indeed strong jump > overcalls. This is a rather informal small > club... [nige1] Does what happened imply that attention drawn to an irregularity? If so I feel the director should rule. If the director rules that an infraction occurred, the NOS can still ask the director to waive the penalty and he will usually comply. IMO you should stick to this protocol even when director and claimant wear the same hat. [Sven] > Was I "damaged" because with the correct > information I would of course not have > balanced and they would have made 11 tricks > in 2D for just 150, [nige1] As a mere player, my view is that the score should be adjusted to 2D+3 =150. IMO, for once, Morality and Law reach the same conclusion. [Sven] > or was I not "damaged" because with RHO > giving the correct information _he_ would > of course have bid and they would have > reached game anyway? [nige1] No. Because you are entitled to correct information from *any authorised source* [A] With screens, LHO could have been your screen mate. [B] The director must rule as if you could access comprehensive system notes - but here opponents did not even provide a card. [C] These are mere quibbles. The central point is that you are entitled to know opponents methods and RHO would pass unless he made use of unauthorised information. The moral of this fable is: To play a game properly, *players* need to know the rules. It's insufficient that some *law-makers* and *directors* imagine that they are privy to their true meaning. The rules of bridge need drastic simplification and clarification. All rules must be incorporated into one rule-book with illustrative examples and a glossary. That should be the *only* source of written law. Having served their purpose, all superseded minutes and other documents can be archived for private consultation by the next drafting committee. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 7 18:25:41 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Apr 7 18:32:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000b01c65a28$7dbb5ae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006301c65a5f$ea092a60$149468d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > I am not particularly comfortable being > prohibited from protecting my own and my > partner's interests by ensuring that partner > (as well as I am) is aware of opponents' > true agreements. After all my side is NOS > in such cases. [nige1] The "professional question" ban is another silly and virtually unenforceable law. Edgar Kaplan claimed that he openly and routinely broke that law but IMO that was wrong. You should abide by rules however daft they are, provided that you have democratic ways of changing them. Unfortunately, judging from the scorn poured on suggested reforms, we can anticipate a long wait. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 7 20:06:18 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 7 20:07:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <36F44329-3BF8-4F76-9922-54453DA360F9@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > We have discussed this before (on blml I believe) and as far as I > can remember the consensus was that a player who demands a verbal > explanation is entitled to a verbal explanation regardless of any > CC presented. Was there a consensus? There is a point at which this can no longer be acceptable. Case in point: playing with a novice, and easily intimidated, partner some time ago, I was dummy when my experienced LHO asked a question of my partner about the bidding. Partner fumbled, clearly did not know the answer. LHO pressed. Partner got more flustered. LHO pressed some more. I suggested to LHO that she look at the CC, since I knew that the answer to the question was clearly printed thereon. LHO's rather supercilious response was "I don't look at convention cards; I ask questions." I called the director, who informed me that "dummy is not allowed to call the director", and walked away. :-( The director's error aside, this player was not, IMO, "entitled" to a verbal explanation once it became clear that my partner did not know the answer to the question. Rather, the criterion should be, IMO, that when a proper question is asked, the person asked should, as a matter of courtesy (see law 74) give the best answer he can. Questioner may then (see Law 20) ask for clarifying information if necessary, but *must* *not* be discourteous in doing so. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 7 20:08:31 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Apr 7 20:15:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be><000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><00df01c659f5$3f15f120$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> <2da24b8e0604070716o46dee3fela021c48578cf12b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00de01c65a6e$47a5fa00$149468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard Willey] > The expression "choke-point" is somewhat > similar to a "bottleneck". A choke-point > is an area in which a broad flow has been > contracted. The primary difference between > choke-point and a bottle-neck is that of > control. When people use the expression > bottleneck, they normally describe some > kind of blockage that restricts operations > and creates inefficiencies. When people use > the expression choke-point they are > typically describing a situation where an > entity has identified a high leverage > position and is using this to control a flow. > The expression choke-point is often used in > a military settings. For example, NATO > military planners often discussed the Fulda > Gap as a potential choke point. [Kojak] >> See, there I go into using a dialect! >> Sorry. Choke-points are restrictions which >> clog free flow, usually selective in what >> is passed through, and which interfere >> with progress in an established routine. >> As an example statements like "....I don't >> care what the Law says, I will....." {nige1] Thank you both. Now I see how that metaphor might apply to the powerful decision-makers on the drafting committee but I balk at the analogy with ordinary puny BLML members. Even if it aptly reflects Kojak's view of some of us ... [Kojak] >>> I strongly abhor "choke points" in the >>> establishment of laws for our game -- >>> be they players, administrators, observers, >>> commentators and self-styled gurus, or even >>> well meaning individuals who are convinced >>> that they know "...the right way..." From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 7 20:16:27 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 7 20:17:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0604070716o46dee3fela021c48578cf12b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <000201c65956$757b4430$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4434DF59.4000402@hdw.be> <000c01c65970$a3d851f0$689487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c65992$f11b6700$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <002101c6599f$c605f870$afa487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <00df01c659f5$3f15f120$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> <2da24b8e0604070716o46dee3fela021c48578cf12b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6179BF74-8C1A-44CA-83C5-FB5446B11A1E@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 7, 2006, at 10:16 AM, richard willey wrote: > The expression choke-point is often used in a military settings. For > example, NATO military planners often discussed the Fulda Gap as a > potential choke point. Fulda Gap, Straits of Gibraltar (in fact, just about any strait). The bridge at Remagen. Examples are legion. In war, chokepoints are prime candidates for mines. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 7 20:20:07 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 7 20:21:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <200604051540.IAA28872@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200604051540.IAA28872@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > But I believe the calculation of damage would be the same if Sven's > *partner* had asked about the bid, was told it was weak, and then Sven > (who heard the explanation given to his partner) balanced after two > passes. We are dealing with a specific situation. What might have happened in other situations, except for "absent the irregularity", is hardly pertinent. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 7 20:25:51 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 7 20:27:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c65a28$7dbb5ae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c65a28$7dbb5ae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If a player knows opponents agreements sufficiently well to > understand that > an opponent has given misinformation is he then not protected by > Law 9A1 > when he "calls attention to this irregularity" by asking clarifying > questions even in the case that the sole purpose of such questions > appears > to be to alert partner? > > I am not particularly comfortable being prohibited from protecting > my own > and my partner's interests by ensuring that partner (as well as I > am) is > aware of opponents' true agreements. After all my side is NOS in > such cases. Nor am I. But I think the proper way to handle the situation where you know or suspect that a misexplanation (an irregularity) has occurred is to call the director, inform him of your suspicion, and let him take it from there. From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 7 20:28:52 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Apr 7 20:29:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:20:07 EDT." Message-ID: <200604071824.LAA16114@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > But I believe the calculation of damage would be the same if Sven's > > *partner* had asked about the bid, was told it was weak, and then Sven > > (who heard the explanation given to his partner) balanced after two > > passes. > > We are dealing with a specific situation. What might have happened in > other situations, except for "absent the irregularity", is hardly > pertinent. No, I think Sven was asking about a more general principle, not just one specific situation; and I think this question of principle applies just as much to the different scenario I presented, although Todd's response does not. That's why I brought it up. This reminds me of the Steven Wright line: "I went to a general store, but they wouldn't let me buy anything specific". Now *that's* hardly pertinent. But it's one of my favorite of his jokes, so I figured I'd take the opportunity to sneak it in. Hope this helps clarify things. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 7 21:24:26 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 7 21:25:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <36F44329-3BF8-4F76-9922-54453DA360F9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c65a78$e233aa90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Apr 7, 2006, at 4:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > We have discussed this before (on blml I believe) and as far as I > > can remember the consensus was that a player who demands a verbal > > explanation is entitled to a verbal explanation regardless of any > > CC presented. > > Was there a consensus? "As far as I can remember" - YES! > There is a point at which this can no longer be acceptable. Case in > point: playing with a novice, and easily intimidated, partner some > time ago, I was dummy when my experienced LHO asked a question of my > partner about the bidding. Partner fumbled, clearly did not know the > answer. LHO pressed. Partner got more flustered. LHO pressed some > more. I suggested to LHO that she look at the CC, since I knew that > the answer to the question was clearly printed thereon. LHO's rather > supercilious response was "I don't look at convention cards; I ask > questions." I called the director, who informed me that "dummy is not > allowed to call the director", and walked away. :-( > > The director's error aside, this player was not, IMO, "entitled" to a > verbal explanation once it became clear that my partner did not know > the answer to the question. Rather, the criterion should be, IMO, > that when a proper question is asked, the person asked should, as a > matter of courtesy (see law 74) give the best answer he can. > Questioner may then (see Law 20) ask for clarifying information if > necessary, but *must* *not* be discourteous in doing so. Also this player was entitled to a verbal answer, but he should not violate Law 74A2. And whenever I direct I let Law 74 take precedence over any other law in the book, especially when the "victim" is a novice or similarly inexperienced player. Besides, I never reject being called by dummy when the matter is Law 74. Once an irregularity has been called attention to dummy has as much right and duty as any other player around that table to call the director. In Law 74 cases the irregularity is "established" (called attention to) by the very nature of the episode. IMO your director made at least two very serious errors (rejecting your right to summon him and refusing to protect the enjoyment of the game for your partner). Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 7 21:27:29 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Apr 7 21:28:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c65a79$4fb8c690$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > If a player knows opponents agreements sufficiently well to > > understand that > > an opponent has given misinformation is he then not protected by > > Law 9A1 > > when he "calls attention to this irregularity" by asking clarifying > > questions even in the case that the sole purpose of such questions > > appears > > to be to alert partner? > > > > I am not particularly comfortable being prohibited from protecting > > my own > > and my partner's interests by ensuring that partner (as well as I > > am) is > > aware of opponents' true agreements. After all my side is NOS in > > such cases. > > Nor am I. But I think the proper way to handle the situation where > you know or suspect that a misexplanation (an irregularity) has > occurred is to call the director, inform him of your suspicion, and > let him take it from there. Technically absolutely, but hardly practical? Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 7 23:48:51 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 7 23:49:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c65a78$e233aa90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c65a78$e233aa90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <33C3CAAE-C368-47E1-8EE8-894C758890CD@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > IMO your director made at least two very serious errors (rejecting > your > right to summon him and refusing to protect the enjoyment of the > game for > your partner). I agree. But he'll never admit it. :-\ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 7 23:52:58 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 7 23:54:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c65a79$4fb8c690$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000f01c65a79$4fb8c690$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7E18D196-53CD-4D11-8FD6-66831BAB1BE3@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Technically absolutely, but hardly practical? Why not? Oh, I agree that if everyone called the TD every time the laws suggested it, he'd been worn to a frazzle, especially in a club game, but given a choice between potentially being taken to have asked a question for partner's benefit (IOW, given that I know that's illegal, being deemed to have cheated), and having the TD determine whether a possible MI infraction has actually occurred, the latter seems eminently practical to me. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 7 23:58:16 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 7 23:59:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation- youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <36F44329-3BF8-4F76-9922-54453DA360F9@rochester.rr.com> References: <000801c65a1d$449a4470$6400a8c0@WINXP> <36F44329-3BF8-4F76-9922-54453DA360F9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > There is a point at which this can no longer be acceptable. Case in > point: playing with a novice, and easily intimidated, partner some > time ago, I was dummy when my experienced LHO asked a question of > my partner about the bidding. Partner fumbled, clearly did not know > the answer. LHO pressed. Partner got more flustered. LHO pressed > some more. I suggested to LHO that she look at the CC, since I knew > that the answer to the question was clearly printed thereon. LHO's > rather supercilious response was "I don't look at convention cards; > I ask questions." I called the director, who informed me that > "dummy is not allowed to call the director", and walked away. :-( > > The director's error aside, this player was not, IMO, "entitled" to > a verbal explanation once it became clear that my partner did not > know the answer to the question. Rather, the criterion should be, > IMO, that when a proper question is asked, the person asked should, > as a matter of courtesy (see law 74) give the best answer he can. > Questioner may then (see Law 20) ask for clarifying information if > necessary, but *must* *not* be discourteous in doing so. Hm. Would it perhaps have been proper in this instance for *me* to have answered the question? After all, my doing so could hardly convey any useful UI, nor could it, IMO, have suggested to partner any line of play (either in the particular case or more generally - I can't see it ever doing so). Had I done so, though, I wonder if (a) LHO might have called the TD and (b) this TD, if not another, might have censured me for speaking up. I guess the more general question is "Is it ever proper for dummy to answer a question about his side's auction"? From schoderb at msn.com Sat Apr 8 01:40:43 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Apr 8 01:41:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> <44367D68.4040202@hdw.be> Message-ID: Sorry Herman, this is nothing new to me either. Except for your play with words where you have now established "Tonic" and "Grattanic" interpretations of the laws. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC > Sorry Kojak, this is absolutely nothing new to me: > > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > Herman, I think we are getting beyond the application of Law when we > > make > > assumptions as to what a player would have done - in direct disregard of > > his > > statement - had he been given the correct information. > > Kojak, I was stating a (hypothetical) case, which I believed to be > interesting. I asked you to give a ruling on this one, not on the > original Norwegian one. > > > When the whole thing > > ends up in a mess of infractions, etc., it has been accepted practice > > that > > we go back to the first infraction (misinformation of what the opponents > > calls are agreed to mean) to see what we are going to do. > > Which is of course correct. > > > I am not an > > advocate of the idea that ACs, TDs, or others should be applying their > > bridge judgement into arriving at what is loosely called "equity" in > > these > > situations. > > When a TD or AC applies bridge judgment to decide what a bridge player > "would have done", isn't that part of his job? I believe that's what > we're here for. > > > Until someone can define 'equity' in terms of for whom, when, > > why, and how, I like to steer clear. To me this case does not have the > > intricacy it has been given by hypothetical suppositions. Perhaps I am > > missing something, but for example to start unraveling the problem by > > allowing the 3 > > spade call to be retracted is wrong to me. I see it as 3 diamonds making > > 5 > > because of the mistake made by East in misstating his partnership > > agreement. > > That's where the trouble started. > > > > So please, do you rule like this because South will receive the two > pieces of information : "West is strong" and "east believes west is weak"? > Because as I told you, the TD has ruled that South would also balance > if he had only received the one piece of statement "west is strong". > Don't go criticizing this judgment please - you know very well that > this is the kind of judgments that directors have to make sometimes. > Just imagine that this is what he decided. > > If you would in fact rule against this west, then you believe in what > has been termed the Tonic interpretation. Can we establish that and > move on? > > -- > 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: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ljtrent at adelphia.net Sat Apr 8 02:05:45 2006 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Sat Apr 8 02:06:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <000c01c6595f$e0b26270$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Here is a case where I think 25B should apply: I was kibitizing my husband on the third day of the Blue Ribbon Pairs when this auction occurred: RHO Him LHO Pard 1H 1S 2H 3H Pass (into the tank) I was actually enjoying this deal -- I had decided in my mind I would not accept the game try and was interested in how and why he was deciding -- and, of course, out came the Pass card *sigh* This was just before 25B came into being -- a brain disconnection across 4 sections was gigantic for the opponents and of course this was the kind of situation 25B was intended for. I would certainly have been convinced that 3S was intended and would have allowed 25B -- I know there are many ways opponents get the result of stupid mistakes but their proper result in this situation was whatever a 3S contract would have yielded. A percent or few makes a huge difference in this usually outstandingly strong neck-to-neck field. I would not want to win by the donation of this kind of top and I bet there are more than a few people out there who would allow a bid change in this type of situation without even calling the director if the opponent who made the error reacted immediately. He didn't even know about 25A and he wasn't even sure if he realized what he had done would have been soon enough as it took a few seconds for his LHO to pass, sorta in shock as to what had happened. Linda From tzimnoch at comcast.net Sat Apr 8 03:27:07 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat Apr 8 03:27:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <200604071824.LAA16114@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200604071824.LAA16114@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4437116B.3080906@comcast.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > No, I think Sven was asking about a more general principle, not just > one specific situation; and I think this question of principle applies > just as much to the different scenario I presented, although Todd's > response does not. That's why I brought it up. I believe those situations would be different. Damage from misinformation begins there. There's still time for RHO to receive a glare from LHO and 'recover'. Damage from UI would begin then. Assuming that doesn't happen, the player in balancing seat is still damaged by the misinformation despite two passes between the infraction and damage. -Todd From adam at irvine.com Sat Apr 8 03:35:06 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Sat Apr 8 03:35:36 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:27:07 EDT." <4437116B.3080906@comcast.net> Message-ID: <200604080130.SAA19247@mailhub.irvine.com> Todd wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > No, I think Sven was asking about a more general principle, not just > > one specific situation; and I think this question of principle applies > > just as much to the different scenario I presented, although Todd's > > response does not. That's why I brought it up. > > I believe those situations would be different. Damage from > misinformation begins there. There's still time for RHO to > receive a glare from LHO and 'recover'. Damage from UI > would begin then. Assuming that doesn't happen, the player > in balancing seat is still damaged by the misinformation > despite two passes between the infraction and damage. But I'm afraid we're getting off the main question, or at least what I saw as the main question. The main thing Sven was asking is: When adjusting for a MI case, we're called on to imagine what would have happened without the MI infraction (to determine whether there was damage, and then to adjust if there was). When doing so, should we or should we not assume that if RHO had given the correct information, he would also have *bid* as if he had known the correct information? That's the general principle I was talking about, and I believe it was what Sven was trying to ask about. In the particular example Sven gave, the question about this principle is the same regardless of whether the MI was given in response to opener's or to partner's question, and I believe the answer should be the same. Unfortunately, I think this issue has been obscured, e.g. by discussions about whether RHO acted on UI in the actual case. Either that, or I'm totally confused and misunderstood what Sven was getting at. -- Adam From tzimnoch at comcast.net Sat Apr 8 05:18:30 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat Apr 8 05:19:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <200604080130.SAA19247@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200604080130.SAA19247@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <44372B86.5070704@comcast.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > damage, and then to adjust if there was). When doing so, should we or > should we not assume that if RHO had given the correct information, he > would also have *bid* as if he had known the correct information? We're not supposed to ask what happens when RHO has or gives correct information, only what happens when RHO's opponents have correct information. RHO's misinformation has damaged both himself and opponents, but only opponents are entitled to redress under current law. -Todd From hermandw at hdw.be Sat Apr 8 11:06:39 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat Apr 8 11:07:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <002501c65a74$f88ffd10$ab65cd18@DFYXB361> References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> <44367D68.4040202@hdw.be> <002501c65a74$f88ffd10$ab65cd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <44377D1F.80009@hdw.be> raija wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > I don't want to participate on the blml since I am not a TD and my > opinions do not really matter. > Just checking that I have not misunderstood what you wrote. > > Quoting one sentence from you. Herman said: > QUOTE BEGIN > Because as I told you, the TD has ruled that South would also balance > if he had only received the one piece of statement "west is strong". > QUOTE END > > My opinion: > No South player in their right senses would balance if he were told that > "West is strong". It seems illegal or wrong to me, if TD has the right > to _rule_ that South must balance whether West is strong or weak. > I beg to differ, but if you are right then this is maybe not a good candidate for a case over which to have the present discussion. The point I am trying to make is that South has to interpret East's pass in the light of the information he has received, namely that West is weak/strong, but without the information that East thinks his partner is weak. If my LHO makes a strong overcall, and my RHO passes, then RHO must be very weak, and my partner must have something. If OTOH my LHO makes a weak overcall, and my partner passes, and so does my RHO, then the points are probably equally divided among the three of them. If I balance in the second case, could I not also balance in the first? But again, maybe this case is not a good one to have this discussion about. Anyway, the discussion is only interesting if we, as TD, determine that South would also balance sith the right information but without the knowledge of a misunderstanding. So that is what I assumed. If it is implausible, than please bear with me. > Rgs > Raija Davis > -- 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: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 6/04/2006 From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 8 12:06:24 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Apr 8 12:07:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <44377D1F.80009@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c65af4$183c4180$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > raija wrote: > > My opinion: > > No South player in their right senses would balance if he were told that > > "West is strong". It seems illegal or wrong to me, if TD has the right > > to _rule_ that South must balance whether West is strong or weak. > > > > I beg to differ, but if you are right then this is maybe not a good > candidate for a case over which to have the present discussion. > The point I am trying to make is that South has to interpret East's > pass in the light of the information he has received, namely that West > is weak/strong, but without the information that East thinks his > partner is weak. > If my LHO makes a strong overcall, and my RHO passes, then RHO must be > very weak, and my partner must have something. If OTOH my LHO makes a > weak overcall, and my partner passes, and so does my RHO, then the > points are probably equally divided among the three of them. If I > balance in the second case, could I not also balance in the first? As this matter keeps popping up I beg to clarify what I felt was the kernel question when I originally presented the case: We were playing IMPs so I consider it next to insane fighting over scores in the order of 100 - 150 at the significant risk of paying out 800 or more. Consequently there was no question of balancing if I knew that LHO had a strong hand and would have to play in 2D if I passed. I had MI from my RHO telling me that the overcall was weak, and now the odds are changed significantly. My partner can have a hand suitable for a penalty double (he did not make a negative double and I had only one diamond in my own hand) and there is very little risk of paying out more than say 180 for a 3 IMP score if 2DX makes. The kernel question is whether or not I was "damaged" by the misinformation. Without the misinformation we must assume that RHO would have remembered that the jump overcall was strong and they would have reached (and made) game anyway (without any "help" from me). So if we compare the table result to this alternative then I was not damaged. But if we compare the table result to my obvious action with correct information (pass) while we still bind RHO to his pass (because of his misunderstanding) _then_ there is damage. And I understand the majority of opinions on this thread (even consensus?) that such damage should be ruled. Actually this matches my own understanding of the laws, but in these days when "equity" seems to have become the major keyword you can never tell. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Apr 8 17:12:24 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Apr 8 17:43:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000001c65af4$183c4180$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 5:06 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > raija wrote: > > My opinion: > > No South player in their right senses would balance if he were told that > > "West is strong". It seems illegal or wrong to me, if TD has the right > > to _rule_ that South must balance whether West is strong or weak. > > > > I beg to differ, but if you are right then this is maybe not a good > candidate for a case over which to have the present discussion. > The point I am trying to make is that South has to interpret East's > pass in the light of the information he has received, namely that West > is weak/strong, but without the information that East thinks his > partner is weak. > If my LHO makes a strong overcall, and my RHO passes, then RHO must be > very weak, and my partner must have something. If OTOH my LHO makes a > weak overcall, and my partner passes, and so does my RHO, then the > points are probably equally divided among the three of them. If I > balance in the second case, could I not also balance in the first? As this matter keeps popping up I beg to clarify what I felt was the kernel question when I originally presented the case: We were playing IMPs so I consider it next to insane fighting over scores in the order of 100 - 150 at the significant risk of paying out 800 or more. Consequently there was no question of balancing if I knew that LHO had a strong hand and would have to play in 2D if I passed. I had MI from my RHO telling me that the overcall was weak, and now the odds are changed significantly. My partner can have a hand suitable for a penalty double (he did not make a negative double and I had only one diamond in my own hand) and there is very little risk of paying out more than say 180 for a 3 IMP score if 2DX makes. The kernel question is whether or not I was "damaged" by the misinformation. +++ Fundamentally, damage occurred if the player was induced by MI to act differently. Here are some illustrations. Irrespective of the agreement to a call the player would do X; the player was misinformed and did Y. the player was not damaged because something other than MI induced him to do Y instead of X. [it is a matter of the player's moral compass that he refrain from lying.] A player is induced to do Y by MI when he would have done X without MI [or having been given correct information]. He was damaged. When X yields -800 and Y yields -110 the player should feel lucky if he did not assert he was damaged. That the LC chooses to ignore the fundamental attributes of damage is an error imo.+ Without the misinformation we must assume that RHO would have remembered that the jump overcall was strong and they would have reached (and made) game anyway (without any "help" from me). So if we compare the table result to this alternative then I was not damaged. +++ I can understand the attractiveness of fabricating the Gordian Knot. It is fascinatingly complex and provides for a wide range of outcomes- worthy of instigating endless debate. As such there is attractiveness to the argument that had E explained accurately then EW would have scored a game [like the rest of the room???] since to have explained accurately then E would also have bid accurately! And since the effect of the MI was to score a game then there was no damage [under the 'Sven' view of the LC]. However, that is a misapplication of the Principle of Appearances. But it needs to be realized that providing explanations is extraneous to the game of bridge- not withstanding that explanations are given during the game. The normal condition should be that there are no questions during the hand- CC should be the device of choice. The relevant condition is that S had been made aware of the correct agreement in substitution of the MI- not the condition that MI was given by voice. Therefore when adjusting the score it is not incongruous [but not a necessary condition] that E misbid and S has correct information. regards roger pewick+ But if we compare the table result to my obvious action with correct information (pass) while we still bind RHO to his pass (because of his misunderstanding) _then_ there is damage. And I understand the majority of opinions on this thread (even consensus?) that such damage should be ruled. Actually this matches my own understanding of the laws, but in these days when "equity" seems to have become the major keyword you can never tell. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Apr 8 18:55:27 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat Apr 8 18:57:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <44377D1F.80009@hdw.be> References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> <44367D68.4040202@hdw.be> <002501c65a74$f88ffd10$ab65cd18@DFYXB361> <44377D1F.80009@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060408123108.02c63b70@pop.starpower.net> At 05:06 AM 4/8/06, Herman wrote: >The point I am trying to make is that South has to interpret East's >pass in the light of the information he has received, namely that West >is weak/strong, but without the information that East thinks his >partner is weak. That is correct. The unachievable ideal of full disclosure works like this: Imagine that each opponent had a complete set of system notes explaining the partnership agreement (or lack thereof) for every conceivable auction. When an opponent wished to know the meaning of the auction, he would consult those notes. There would never be a need to ask for an explanation of any sequence, which would presumably not be permitted. There would be no such thing as MI. When we rule on an MI situation, we seek to provide the result that would have obtained given those ideal conditions. We therefore do not "allow" the questioner the retrospective benefit of knowing both the correct explanation *and* the inferences that can be drawn from the incorrect reply to his question. We determine what he might have done had he obtained a correct explanation of the opponents' auction from an outside source, with the opponents neither "overhearing" it nor saying anything. In short, we rule as though the questioner had obtained the correct information instead of the MI, not in addition to it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Apr 9 15:21:50 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun Apr 9 15:51:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > < Ton wrote: > > > Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, > > > using this kind of false arguments to support his case. > > > furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are > > > agreements not to be found on the CC? > > > > Herman tried: > > I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. > > L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the > > meanings, not about answering the questions. > > I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the > > convention cards. > > FWIW, perhaps you read Law 20 ... > > Peter To Herman, Well, I have to accept that you are not desperate, but you are still wrong. And what conclusion is left then? Grattan nor Herman have satisfying answers on my questions. Let me try again. Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West explains a call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at the end of the auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent South. South now understands that the auction got crazy and places a profitable double. This leads to a shared top on the board with the other four tables. At table number 6 West doesn't say anything and the double from South is not obvious at all. In fact can only be made by a player in possession of the wrong and the right information. According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair at this table is not entitled to receive that same top by a TD-decision. Do I understand this well. If possible just 'yes' or 'no' please. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Apr 9 15:53:03 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun Apr 9 15:53:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> <44367D68.4040202@hdw.be> <002501c65a74$f88ffd10$ab65cd18@DFYXB361> <44377D1F.80009@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060408123108.02c63b70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <008b01c65bdc$ebf061d0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > > In short, we rule as though the questioner had obtained the correct > information instead of the MI, not in addition to it. > > > Eric Landau I still think this to be a wrong approach. It damages the player who correctly informs his opponents about his previous wrong explanation. In the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of information become available. And it invites players to check the CC after having received a spoken explanation, which is a frustating procedure. ton From schoderb at msn.com Sun Apr 9 17:30:58 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun Apr 9 17:31:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: To start: Ton -- Yes. This is a perfect example of what happens when hypothetical situations are created to fit spurious argument. Apparently there were screens. If not, was Law 75 D 1 and 2 obeyed at ALL the subject tables? I can't see anywhere that in real life table 6 would not be given the opportunity to get the same result as at the other 5 tables, even if I had to go the Law 12 A 1 to do so, since screens inhibit the smooth use of Law 75. To deny the opponents a result which would have been obtained with possession of the proper information makes no sense to me. (I can see Edgar from his position in the hereafter shaking his head and saying "Now, now Kojak, you know how I hate Law 12 A 1.") Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "BLML" ; Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > > > > < Ton wrote: > > > > Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, > > > > using this kind of false arguments to support his case. > > > > furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are > > > > agreements not to be found on the CC? > > > > > > > Herman tried: > > > I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. > > > L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the > > > meanings, not about answering the questions. > > > I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the > > > convention cards. > > > > > > FWIW, perhaps you read Law 20 ... > > > > Peter > > > To Herman, > > Well, I have to accept that you are not desperate, but you are still > wrong. > And what conclusion is left then? > > Grattan nor Herman have satisfying answers on my questions. > > Let me try again. > > Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West explains a > call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at the end of the > auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent South. South now > understands that the auction got crazy and places a profitable double. > This > leads to a shared top on the board with the other four tables. At table > number 6 West doesn't say anything and the double from South is not > obvious > at all. In fact can only be made by a player > in possession of the wrong and the right information. > > According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair at > this > table is not entitled to receive that same top by a TD-decision. > > Do I understand this well. If possible just 'yes' or 'no' please. > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 9 18:10:17 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 9 18:11:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <008b01c65bdc$ebf061d0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> <44367D68.4040202@hdw.be> <002501c65a74$f88ffd10$ab65cd18@DFYXB361> <44377D1F.80009@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060408123108.02c63b70@pop.starpower.net> <008b01c65bdc$ebf061d0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <443931E9.8030607@hdw.be> One correct argument and one wrong one, Ton: Ton Kooijman wrote: >>In short, we rule as though the questioner had obtained the correct >>information instead of the MI, not in addition to it. >> >> >>Eric Landau > > > > I still think this to be a wrong approach. It damages the player who > correctly informs his opponents about his previous wrong explanation. In > the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of information become > available. This is a correct argument. We must see how it weighs up to the other arguments against this approach. > And it invites players to check the CC after having received a spoken > explanation, which is a frustating procedure. > This one is the wrong argument. In your opinion, a player is entitled to both the correct explanation (of course he is) AND the idea that the opponent has. So in your interpretation, the player just asks and gets both the answer and the correct explanation. No need to check the CC. In our opinion, a player is only entitled to the correct explanation. That means that in order for him to get also the misexplanation, he needs to do 2 things: ask AND look at the CC. So indeed, it is good for him to check both. Which is something we do not call frustrating but rather unwanted and even forbidden. If you are going to look at the CC anyway, then don't ask. Then, if we root out the players who try to look for misexplanation by checking both a verbal and a written answer, we are left with a just two players: those that ask and those that look up. Now Ton, in your interpretation, the player that asks gets 2 answers: the real one and the mistaken explanation. Whereas in our interpretation, every player gets only one answer: the correct one. Which is why, under your interpretation, it is better to ask than to look up. I don't think that is what we want. I'm returning to your previous sentence: > In the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of > information become available. Should you not rather say: "in my opinion the laws should ..."? Your interpretation is by no means globally accepted, not even within the Committee you chair and for which you so often decline to speak (most of the time with far less reason than today - I've often asked you to speak out with authority some more) > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 9 18:24:27 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 9 18:25:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <4439353B.3030008@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > >>< Ton wrote: >> >>>>Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, >>>>using this kind of false arguments to support his case. >>>>furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are >>>>agreements not to be found on the CC? >>> >>Herman tried: >> >>>I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. >>>L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the >>>meanings, not about answering the questions. >>>I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the >>>convention cards. > > > >>FWIW, perhaps you read Law 20 ... >> >>Peter > > > > To Herman, > > Well, I have to accept that you are not desperate, but you are still wrong. > And what conclusion is left then? > > Grattan nor Herman have satisfying answers on my questions. > > Let me try again. > > Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West explains a > call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at the end of the > auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent South. South now > understands that the auction got crazy and places a profitable double. This > leads to a shared top on the board with the other four tables. At table > number 6 West doesn't say anything and the double from South is not obvious > at all. In fact can only be made by a player > in possession of the wrong and the right information. > > According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair at this > table is not entitled to receive that same top by a TD-decision. > > Do I understand this well. If possible just 'yes' or 'no' please. > Indeed, yes. This NS was damaged by the second infraction of EW. Not by the first, but by the second one. And yes, this is indeed hard to stop, since we can almost never prove that W suddenly remembered and then said nothing. But I happen to believe that this is an uncommon situation. You mention 6 pairs who misunderstand, misexplain, and later on remember. In order for this to happen, should there not be a bigger set of misunderstanders who never recover? If there are 36 pairs who misremember, there will be 18 who are asked and give a wrong reply. 6 of them will remember, 5 will tell their opponents, who get a top. In our interpretation, the sixth will indeed end up with the same score as all others, and there will be 5 bottoms, 31 bad scores (they did misremember, didn't they?) and 564 averages. In Ton's interpretation, the sixth one (the bad guy who did not tell) will also receive the bottom that he deserved. But Ton will also rule the same way on the 12 who never remembered. Ton will end up with 18 bottoms, 18 bad scores, and 564 averages. What I find wrong with Ton's approach is that he does not deal in the same way with the 18 pairs who misexplained as with the 18 pairs who were not asked at all. After all, if it is such a complex auction, there's really no point in asking, is there? -- 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: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 9 19:04:45 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 9 19:05:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <443931E9.8030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c65bf7$b3a36f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. I am puzzled by the logic in the argumentation below. Do I understand you correct that a player who has received correct information is not entitled to also have the information that an opponent had mistaken something about his partnership agreements? The following situation is NOT hypothetic: At some point during the auction a player misinforms his opponent(s). A round or two later, while still within the auction period, he summons the Director because he realizes that he has made a wrong explanation and wants to offer his opponents the correct explanation. Are you claiming that from this moment the information that he originally was mistaken is unauthorized to his opponents (NOS)? Sven > In our opinion, a player is only entitled to the correct explanation. > That means that in order for him to get also the misexplanation, he > needs to do 2 things: ask AND look at the CC. So indeed, it is good > for him to check both. Which is something we do not call frustrating > but rather unwanted and even forbidden. If you are going to look at > the CC anyway, then don't ask. > > Then, if we root out the players who try to look for misexplanation by > checking both a verbal and a written answer, we are left with a just > two players: those that ask and those that look up. > > Now Ton, in your interpretation, the player that asks gets 2 answers: > the real one and the mistaken explanation. > Whereas in our interpretation, every player gets only one answer: the > correct one. > > Which is why, under your interpretation, it is better to ask than to > look up. I don't think that is what we want. > > I'm returning to your previous sentence: > > > In the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of > > information become available. > > Should you not rather say: "in my opinion the laws should ..."? Your > interpretation is by no means globally accepted, not even within the > Committee you chair and for which you so often decline to speak (most > of the time with far less reason than today - I've often asked you to > speak out with authority some more) > > > ton > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 9 19:37:45 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 9 19:38:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000801c65bf7$b3a36f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c65bf7$b3a36f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <44394669.4050705@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > I am puzzled by the logic in the argumentation below. Do I understand you > correct that a player who has received correct information is not entitled > to also have the information that an opponent had mistaken something about > his partnership agreements? > You understand me correctly. I may remind you that this interpretation may well be a majority one, but that the minority in that case includes the WBFLC chairman. > The following situation is NOT hypothetic: > > At some point during the auction a player misinforms his opponent(s). > > A round or two later, while still within the auction period, he summons the > Director because he realizes that he has made a wrong explanation and wants > to offer his opponents the correct explanation. > > Are you claiming that from this moment the information that he originally > was mistaken is unauthorized to his opponents (NOS)? > No that is not what I am claiming. And yes, that introduces the possibility for a player to cheat by not admitting that he remembers. But I consider that possibility to be remote. Anyway, all this is not very important. When the player now realizes his mistake, he has the chance also to correct it. And his opponents are not able to take full advantage (like by passing over a forgotten transfer). > Sven > > >>In our opinion, a player is only entitled to the correct explanation. >>That means that in order for him to get also the misexplanation, he >>needs to do 2 things: ask AND look at the CC. So indeed, it is good >>for him to check both. Which is something we do not call frustrating >>but rather unwanted and even forbidden. If you are going to look at >>the CC anyway, then don't ask. >> >>Then, if we root out the players who try to look for misexplanation by >>checking both a verbal and a written answer, we are left with a just >>two players: those that ask and those that look up. >> >>Now Ton, in your interpretation, the player that asks gets 2 answers: >>the real one and the mistaken explanation. >>Whereas in our interpretation, every player gets only one answer: the >>correct one. >> >>Which is why, under your interpretation, it is better to ask than to >>look up. I don't think that is what we want. >> >>I'm returning to your previous sentence: >> >> > In the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of >> > information become available. >> >>Should you not rather say: "in my opinion the laws should ..."? Your >>interpretation is by no means globally accepted, not even within the >>Committee you chair and for which you so often decline to speak (most >>of the time with far less reason than today - I've often asked you to >>speak out with authority some more) >> >> >>>ton >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- 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: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Sun Apr 9 19:46:44 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun Apr 9 19:47:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation Message-ID: <44394884.7090506@hdw.be> In order to bring this discussion back down to earth, let me try and create an example which should prove why I believe my interpretation should prevail. N E S W 1C 1NT 2C 2H 3C pass pass pass 2H is alerted, and before the opening lead, West corrects this. He has hearts, and 2H is natural. East concedes that this is indeed their system and that he had forgotten. North now claims that he would not have bid 3C if he had known this. His hand is something like 52 52 AK2 AK6543. If you think this hand is too close or too far from a 3Cl bit, then change the minor suit holdings as you wish. Anyway, whether west has spades or hearts does not matter. Apparently North wishes to compete on the 3-level and to him it does not matter whether this is over hearts or spades. It turns out that 3C goes 1 down (-50). 2H would be made (-110) but 3H, where they would end up after a presumed 2S from east, would be one down (+50). North wants his -50 changed into +50. Do you really believe that North has this right, when his only argument is "if I had known they had a misunderstanding, I would have let them play there". I honestly don't think 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: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Apr 9 20:12:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Apr 9 20:13:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West > explains a call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at > the end of the auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent > South. South now understands that the auction got crazy and places a > profitable double. This leads to a shared top on the board with the > other four tables. At table number 6 West doesn't say anything and > the double from South is not obvious at all. In fact can only be > made by a player in possession of the wrong and the right information. > According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair > at this table is not entitled to receive that same top by a > TD-decision. He may well be. If 5 tables issued the late correction the TD may form the opinion that the player at the sixth table should have worked out that his earlier explanation was incorrect and so we adjust - no problem. But perhaps the auction was different at the 6th table and the TD judges that misexplainer would have had no reason to realise his earlier mistake - so we don't adjust - again no problem. This differs from a case like Sven's where a player issuing an immediate correction would be within time to change his own call under L25b - preventing us from basing damage on both an immediate correction *and* and an unchanged call by OS. It's really not a case of trying to have a one rule fits all situations. We take the circumstances of each situation on merit and consider the likelihood of possible developments. We adjust to whatever is most favourable to NOS based on our assessment of the possibilities. Tim From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sun Apr 9 20:54:43 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Sun Apr 9 20:55:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation In-Reply-To: <44394884.7090506@hdw.be> References: <44394884.7090506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <1FSf3b-0hxLii0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> > N E S W > 1C 1NT 2C 2H > 3C pass pass pass > > 2H is alerted, and before the opening lead, West corrects this. He has > hearts, and 2H is natural. East concedes that this is indeed their > system and that he had forgotten. Herman, your examples are (at least) as bad than mine are usually. The statement from West came out of season according Law 75 D2, so North was not entitled to know ... Peter From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 9 21:12:14 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 9 21:12:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <44394669.4050705@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000901c65c09$82aa55a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > .............. > > I am puzzled by the logic in the argumentation below. > > Do I understand you correct that a player who has > > received correct information is not entitled to also > > have the information that an opponent had mistaken > > something about his partnership agreements? > > > > You understand me correctly. I may remind you that this > interpretation may well be a majority one, but that the > minority in that case includes the WBFLC chairman. > > > > The following situation is NOT hypothetic: > > > > At some point during the auction a player misinforms > > his opponent(s). > > A round or two later, while still within the auction > > period, he summons the Director because he realizes > > that he has made a wrong explanation and wants to offer > > his opponents the correct explanation. > > > > Are you claiming that from this moment the information > > that he originally was mistaken is unauthorized to his > > opponents (NOS)? > > > > No that is not what I am claiming. You cannot both eat your cake and have it; you cannot have it both ways. The information is either authorized or unauthorized. > And yes, that introduces the possibility for a player to cheat > by not admitting that he remembers. As a Director I could not care less whether he remembers or not. I rule according to what I find is the true agreements and the facts at the table. > But I consider that possibility to be remote. > > Anyway, all this is not very important. When the player now realizes > his mistake, he has the chance also to correct it. And his opponents > are not able to take full advantage (like by passing over a forgotten > transfer). OK: In the following auction (Dealer North, zone North/South): 2NT - pass - 3D - pass pass - double North: Director! "I forgot to alert partner's 3D - it is a transfer bid" My ruling will now be that North is bound by his pass (Law 21A and 25B) and East may (after hearing the correct description of the call) without any penalty retract his double and replace it with a pass. (Law 21B1). Remember also that the retracted double is AI to West who has the lead against 3D! With the knowledge that there was a misunderstanding East with his nine diamonds to the Ace Jack Ten is most interested in forcing opponents to play in 3D rather than giving NS a chance to escape disaster. AI or UI? And by the way, if the misunderstanding had been revealed later I would anyway have awarded an assigned adjusted score based on the likely result for NS in 3D. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 21:18:21 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun Apr 9 21:18:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de><008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "BLML" ; ; "Ton Kooijman" Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > To start: Ton -- Yes. > > This is a perfect example of what happens when hypothetical situations are > created to fit spurious argument. Apparently there were screens. If not, > was Law 75 D 1 and 2 obeyed at ALL the subject tables? > > I can't see anywhere that in real life table 6 would not be given the > opportunity to get the same result as at the other 5 tables, even if I had > to go the Law 12 A 1 to do so, since screens inhibit the smooth use of Law > 75. To deny the opponents a result which would have been obtained with > possession of the proper information makes no sense to me. (I can see > Edgar from his position in the hereafter shaking his head and saying "Now, > now Kojak, you know how I hate Law 12 A 1.") > > Kojak I am reminded of the reporting of rulings from a series of appeals courts. It sounds like side A prevailed when actually side B prevailed. And it may be only after reading several hundred pages of brief and keeping track of the whereas'es, and ifs, and buts that the ruling might be understood correctly. When Ton applies the law [as written] the outcome is X and when Herman applies the law the outcome is Y. I am not quite sure what X is and I am not quite sure what Y is. And apparently Herman and Kojak may not be so sure either. Both say yes which supposedly means they are referring to the same outcome; yet when they continue on with clarification it sounds like they are referring to different outcomes. I believe that it is the gravest error in judgment that players have the unilateral right to ask questions. Questions may well be necessary but the wisest course is that such right is conditional. There are several things which require little effort that players can and should do to minimize the creation of UI and MI and it is through misguided ignorance that they do not. And to do them disadvantages no one and advantages all- certainly the most visible benefit is avoiding the creation of so many contentious rulings. regards roger pewick > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "BLML" ; > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:21 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > > >> >> >> > < Ton wrote: >> > > > Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, >> > > > using this kind of false arguments to support his case. >> > > > furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are >> > > > agreements not to be found on the CC? >> > > >> > >> > Herman tried: >> > > I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. >> > > L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the >> > > meanings, not about answering the questions. >> > > I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the >> > > convention cards. >> >> >> > >> > FWIW, perhaps you read Law 20 ... >> > >> > Peter >> >> >> To Herman, >> >> Well, I have to accept that you are not desperate, but you are still >> wrong. >> And what conclusion is left then? >> >> Grattan nor Herman have satisfying answers on my questions. >> >> Let me try again. >> >> Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West explains a >> call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at the end of the >> auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent South. South now >> understands that the auction got crazy and places a profitable double. >> This >> leads to a shared top on the board with the other four tables. At table >> number 6 West doesn't say anything and the double from South is not >> obvious >> at all. In fact can only be made by a player >> in possession of the wrong and the right information. >> >> According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair at >> this >> table is not entitled to receive that same top by a TD-decision. >> >> Do I understand this well. If possible just 'yes' or 'no' please. >> >> ton From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 9 21:36:11 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 9 21:36:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation In-Reply-To: <44394884.7090506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000a01c65c0c$db37d4b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 9. april 2006 19:47 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation > > In order to bring this discussion back down to earth, let me try and > create an example which should prove why I believe my interpretation > should prevail. > > N E S W > 1C 1NT 2C 2H > 3C pass pass pass > > 2H is alerted, and before the opening lead, West corrects this. He has > hearts, and 2H is natural. East concedes that this is indeed their > system and that he had forgotten. > > North now claims that he would not have bid 3C if he had known this. > > His hand is something like 52 52 AK2 AK6543. If you think this hand is > too close or too far from a 3Cl bit, then change the minor suit > holdings as you wish. > Anyway, whether west has spades or hearts does not matter. Apparently > North wishes to compete on the 3-level and to him it does not matter > whether this is over hearts or spades. > > It turns out that 3C goes 1 down (-50). 2H would be made (-110) but > 3H, where they would end up after a presumed 2S from east, would be > one down (+50). North wants his -50 changed into +50. > > Do you really believe that North has this right, when his only > argument is "if I had known they had a misunderstanding, I would have > let them play there". > > I honestly don't think so. When ruling cases like this the Director has the duty to resolve all doubtful questions in favor of NOS. The Director must find a convincing reason for not accepting claims from NOS on what action they would have taken with correct information. The Director must NOT inspect North's hand in order to rule whether he shall allow North to retract his 3C bid. (This question has already been discussed; such inspection must be delayed to a time when North's hand is known to the other players). And to your question: Yes, I think North has that right. Whether I would sustain his claim is a separate matter which I cannot answer here. But if North is given the opportunity to change his call when there is still time (Law 21B1) he must make his choice there and then, I shall not accept any later claim on what he would have done with correct information. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 9 21:49:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 9 21:50:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation In-Reply-To: <1FSf3b-0hxLii0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000b01c65c0e$c2728360$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of PeterEidt@t-online.de > > N E S W > > 1C 1NT 2C 2H > > 3C pass pass pass > > > > 2H is alerted, and before the opening lead, West corrects this. He has > > hearts, and 2H is natural. East concedes that this is indeed their > > system and that he had forgotten. > > Herman, > > your examples are (at least) as bad than mine are usually. > The statement from West came out of season according > Law 75 D2, so North was not entitled to know ... And NS is entitled to be heard on any reasonable claim on what they would have done with correct information. Unless their claim is obviously a lie the Director shall adjust the result accordingly (if improving for NS). Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Apr 9 23:06:35 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Apr 9 23:07:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <008b01c65bdc$ebf061d0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP> <44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> <44367D68.4040202@hdw.be> <002501c65a74$f88ffd10$ab65cd18@DFYXB361> <44377D1F.80009@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060408123108.02c63b70@pop.starpower.net> <008b01c65bdc$ebf061d0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <078728AA-3677-4169-901F-F539F431DA89@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 9, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> In short, we rule as though the questioner had obtained the correct >> information instead of the MI, not in addition to it. > I still think this to be a wrong approach. It damages the player who > correctly informs his opponents about his previous wrong explanation. So? He screwed up. He is obligated to fix it, if he becomes aware of it. If an opponent is damaged because he took (or did not take) some particular action because of the MI and before the explanation is corrected, *that* player is due redress, regardless whether the explanation is corrected. This is not "damage" to the player who misexplained. If, OTOH, the NOS were *not* damaged by the MI, not having taken or avoided some action because of it, they are due no redress. The question is, how much damage was done, and so how much redress is appropriate? To answer this, we *have* to rule as Eric suggests - considering the possible results had the irregularity not occurred, as Law 12C2 specifically requires. > In the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of > information become > available. We do? > And it invites players to check the CC after having received a > spoken explanation, which is a frustating procedure. It's frustrating because people don't fill the damn thing out properly. The solution to that is education, not hoping the problem won't come up. From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 00:34:47 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 00:35:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <078728AA-3677-4169-901F-F539F431DA89@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c65c25$ced66420$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert .......... > So? He screwed up. He is obligated to fix it, if he becomes aware of > it. If an opponent is damaged because he took (or did not take) some > particular action because of the MI and before the explanation is > corrected, *that* player is due redress, regardless whether the > explanation is corrected. This is not "damage" to the player who > misexplained. If, OTOH, the NOS were *not* damaged by the MI, not > having taken or avoided some action because of it, they are due no > redress. The question is, how much damage was done, and so how much > redress is appropriate? To answer this, we *have* to rule as Eric > suggests - considering the possible results had the irregularity not > occurred, as Law 12C2 specifically requires. > > > In the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of > > information become > > available. > > We do? > > > And it invites players to check the CC after having received a > > spoken explanation, which is a frustating procedure. > > It's frustrating because people don't fill the damn thing out > properly. The solution to that is education, not hoping the problem > won't come up. I think the main point is that if a player receives misinformation and in addition receives the correct information then both pieces of information are authorized for him including the fact that the player giving misinformation apparently has been mistaken on his partnership agreements. In this situation it must be completely irrelevant _how_ that player receives the various pieces of information; verbally, by looking at a CC or by being told that a previous explanation was incorrect. He is free to draw his own inferences from all such information and act thereupon, but at his own risk. Can anybody show me a law in the book that makes any of the information that can be derived from an action by an offending side in connection with an irregularity (e.g. misinformation) unauthorized for the non-offending side? When ruling possible damage from misinformation the Director must take into account what opportunities the player has had to avoid such damage (e.g. correcting a call under Law 21B1) and also consider the possibility that the player apparently has attempted a double-shot. Redress for damage should be ruled if the table result is worse for NOS than what should be expected with no misinformation unless NOS should have been able to avoid such damage. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 10 02:32:29 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Apr 10 02:33:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC References: <000a01c65a25$b7de5950$6400a8c0@WINXP><44365ED6.2040105@hdw.be> <44367D68.4040202@hdw.be> <002501c65a74$f88ffd10$ab65cd18@DFYXB361> <44377D1F.80009@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060408123108.02c63b70@pop.starpower.net> <008b01c65bdc$ebf061d0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <443931E9.8030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005c01c65c36$3fa8bc10$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC > One correct argument and one wrong one, Ton: > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > >>>In short, we rule as though the questioner had obtained the correct >>>information instead of the MI, not in addition to it. >>> >>> >>>Eric Landau >> >> >> >> I still think this to be a wrong approach. It damages the player who >> correctly informs his opponents about his previous wrong explanation. In >> the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of information become >> available. > > This is a correct argument. We must see how it weighs up to the other > arguments against this approach. > >> And it invites players to check the CC after having received a spoken >> explanation, which is a frustating procedure. None of this makes any difference Herman. Once the Probst cheat gives the lying, cheating and intentionally misleading information he deserves the same death by 1000 cuts that the ethically correct does. The ethically correct just corrects and suffers. The cheat lies, doesn't correct and suffers the same punishment. I hope you're not thinking of letting him off with a simple bastinado? I wrote a simple reply to Sven at the beginning of this thread predicting it would run for ages but that the fundamental is simple. "The NOS are entitled to the correct explanation. The OS continue with their misapprehension." ... and by implication it's an "adjust unless a re-opening double is completely clear cut" To Sven who's muttering about equity, this IS an equity ruling: The equity is the equity in the hand just before you took your double. "What would you have done with correct info?" and "at your own risk take into account RHO's pass but I'll smack you with IWOG if you're double-shotting" cheers John >> > > This one is the wrong argument. > In your opinion, a player is entitled to both the correct explanation (of > course he is) AND the idea that the opponent has. So in your > interpretation, the player just asks and gets both the answer and the > correct explanation. No need to check the CC. > > In our opinion, a player is only entitled to the correct explanation. That > means that in order for him to get also the misexplanation, he needs to do > 2 things: ask AND look at the CC. So indeed, it is good for him to check > both. Which is something we do not call frustrating but rather unwanted > and even forbidden. If you are going to look at the CC anyway, then don't > ask. > > Then, if we root out the players who try to look for misexplanation by > checking both a verbal and a written answer, we are left with a just two > players: those that ask and those that look up. > > Now Ton, in your interpretation, the player that asks gets 2 answers: the > real one and the mistaken explanation. > Whereas in our interpretation, every player gets only one answer: the > correct one. > > Which is why, under your interpretation, it is better to ask than to look > up. I don't think that is what we want. > > I'm returning to your previous sentence: > > > In the laws we strive for a situation where both kinds of > > information become available. > > Should you not rather say: "in my opinion the laws should ..."? Your > interpretation is by no means globally accepted, not even within the > Committee you chair and for which you so often decline to speak (most of > the time with far less reason than today - I've often asked you to speak > out with authority some more) > >> ton >> > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 10 02:35:49 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Apr 10 02:36:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation References: <44394884.7090506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006701c65c36$b6e30b00$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" <> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation > In order to bring this discussion back down to earth, let me try and > create an example which should prove why I believe my interpretation > should prevail. > > N E S W > 1C 1NT 2C 2H > 3C pass pass pass > > 2H is alerted, and before the opening lead, West corrects this. He has > hearts, and 2H is natural. East concedes that this is indeed their system > and that he had forgotten. "I am happy to adjust from -50 to -110 in your opponents favour if you wish" :) cheers John > > North now claims that he would not have bid 3C if he had known this. > > His hand is something like 52 52 AK2 AK6543. If you think this hand is too > close or too far from a 3Cl bit, then change the minor suit holdings as > you wish. > Anyway, whether west has spades or hearts does not matter. Apparently > North wishes to compete on the 3-level and to him it does not matter > whether this is over hearts or spades. > > It turns out that 3C goes 1 down (-50). 2H would be made (-110) but 3H, > where they would end up after a presumed 2S from east, would be one down > (+50). North wants his -50 changed into +50. > > Do you really believe that North has this right, when his only argument is > "if I had known they had a misunderstanding, I would have let them play > there". > > I honestly don't think 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: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 10 02:40:28 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Apr 10 02:41:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: Message-ID: <006c01c65c37$5d6d2af0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > Ton wrote: > >> Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West >> explains a call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at >> the end of the auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent >> South. South now understands that the auction got crazy and places a >> profitable double. This leads to a shared top on the board with the >> other four tables. At table number 6 West doesn't say anything and >> the double from South is not obvious at all. In fact can only be >> made by a player in possession of the wrong and the right information. > >> According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair >> at this table is not entitled to receive that same top by a >> TD-decision. > > He may well be. If 5 tables issued the late correction the TD may form > the opinion that the player at the sixth table should have worked out > that his earlier explanation was incorrect and so we adjust - no > problem. But perhaps the auction was different at the 6th table and the > TD judges that misexplainer would have had no reason to realise his > earlier mistake - so we don't adjust - again no problem. > > This differs from a case like Sven's where a player issuing an immediate > correction would be within time to change his own call under L25b - > preventing us from basing damage on both an immediate correction *and* > and an unchanged call by OS. Tim we can get round the 25B by getting next player to call before the offending player corrects. Lets ignore th 25B implications of this mess, we can always get round that one with this little shuffle. Going back to Sven's equity problem, it's probably the equity in the hand just after you have made the re-opening double (and RHO till owes you a correction). A correction at this point would cancel the double without allowing a 25B correction. cheers John > > It's really not a case of trying to have a one rule fits all > situations. We take the circumstances of each situation on merit and > consider the likelihood of possible developments. We adjust to whatever > is most favourable to NOS based on our assessment of the possibilities. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 03:03:45 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 03:04:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <005c01c65c36$3fa8bc10$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000001c65c3a$9e0ba660$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John Probst ............ > I wrote a simple reply to Sven at the beginning of this thread > predicting it would run for ages but that the fundamental is > simple. Indeed! > "The NOS are entitled to the correct explanation. The OS continue > with their misapprehension." > > ... and by implication it's an "adjust unless a re-opening double is > completely clear cut" > > To Sven who's muttering about equity, this IS an equity ruling: > > The equity is the equity in the hand just before you took your double. > "What would you have done with correct info?" and "at your own risk > take into account RHO's pass but I'll smack you with IWOG if you're > double-shotting" And I believe it should be evident by now that this has been my favorite solution all the time? (I deliberately hid my opinion when originally presenting the case in order not to establish any bias). I also have a feeling that the blml majority (including WBFLC authorities) sustain this solution? Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 10 08:57:02 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 10 08:57:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000901c65c09$82aa55a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c65c09$82aa55a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <443A01BE.6090502@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>Are you claiming that from this moment the information >>>that he originally was mistaken is unauthorized to his >>>opponents (NOS)? >>> >> >>No that is not what I am claiming. > > > You cannot both eat your cake and have it; you cannot have it both ways. The > information is either authorized or unauthorized. > I have replied: it is not unauthorized. I was only saying that he is not "entitled" to have it, so when we judge his alternatives for an adjusted score, we do not take the knowledge into account. -- 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: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 10 09:08:55 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 10 09:09:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000901c65c09$82aa55a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c65c09$82aa55a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <443A0487.7080000@hdw.be> After a short answer to your first remark in this post, here is a longer reply to the second: Sven Pran wrote: > > OK: In the following auction (Dealer North, zone North/South): > > 2NT - pass - 3D - pass > pass - double > > North: Director! > "I forgot to alert partner's 3D - it is a transfer bid" > > My ruling will now be that North is bound by his pass (Law 21A and 25B) and > East may (after hearing the correct description of the call) without any > penalty retract his double and replace it with a pass. (Law 21B1). Remember > also that the retracted double is AI to West who has the lead against 3D! > > With the knowledge that there was a misunderstanding East with his nine > diamonds to the Ace Jack Ten is most interested in forcing opponents to play > in 3D rather than giving NS a chance to escape disaster. > Your ruling would be correct. > AI or UI? > AI, of course. > And by the way, if the misunderstanding had been revealed later I would > anyway have awarded an assigned adjusted score based on the likely result > for NS in 3D. > And there you would be wrong. > 2NT - pass - 3D - pass > pass - double > > North: Director! > "I forgot to alert partner's 3D - it is a transfer bid" OK, we change the case: North does not call the director, either because he doesn't remember, or because he's a cheat (yes, I know, we won't be able to distinguish between the two). South now bids 3H and the same story happens. Since west has not called, east has a chance to change the bid he made in this round. (which leads us to an interesting discussion quite similar to the one we are having: is East allowed to change his call?) So your example is flawed in that sense. But why would you be so interested in having the pair play in 3D? The story you are telling is just the same as this one: 2NT pass 3D pass, no alert, then an alert, then a pass, then "oh shit, can I change that to 3H please?" then L25B. (I think L25B would still be possible in your case above too). If people are going to give AI away, then they should bear the consequences. BTW, it seems to me that your hypothetical east with 10 diamonds did a bad thing by doubling - he does not need norths subsequent realization to know that 3D was a transfer. Anyway, without a real life case, it is very difficult to know which of the interpretation is the more equitable one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 10 09:15:41 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 10 09:16:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation In-Reply-To: <000a01c65c0c$db37d4b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c65c0c$db37d4b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <443A061D.1080907@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> N E S W >> 1C 1NT 2C 2H >> 3C pass pass pass >> > > The Director must NOT inspect North's hand in order to rule whether he shall > allow North to retract his 3C bid. (This question has already been > discussed; such inspection must be delayed to a time when North's hand is > known to the other players). > South has already passed - North cannot retract his 3Cl bid. And FWIW, the laws state that North can only retract if it is likely he made the call based on misinformation. How can you judge that without looking at North's hand? > And to your question: Yes, I think North has that right. Whether I would > sustain his claim is a separate matter which I cannot answer here. > > But if North is given the opportunity to change his call when there is still > time (Law 21B1) he must make his choice there and then, I shall not accept > any later claim on what he would have done with correct information. > It is too late for L21. Now how do you rule? -- 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: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 10 09:40:56 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon Apr 10 09:41:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <003401c65c72$1a791d90$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > To start: Ton -- Yes. 'Yes' means: no redress for pair number 6 And then you give them this redress. Could you clarify your position? (be aware that giving this 6th pair an adjusted score as well, means that I don't need the other 5 cases anymore) In the answer Herman gives he does not give this 6th pair the same score. Which is ridiculous. I am sorry, I don't have another word for it. (to be honest that part of his answer is the only thing I understand, for the rest of it I am lost) ton > > This is a perfect example of what happens when hypothetical situations are > created to fit spurious argument. Apparently there were screens. If not, > was Law 75 D 1 and 2 obeyed at ALL the subject tables? > > I can't see anywhere that in real life table 6 would not be given the > opportunity to get the same result as at the other 5 tables, even if I had > to go the Law 12 A 1 to do so, since screens inhibit the smooth use of Law > 75. To deny the opponents a result which would have been obtained with > possession of the proper information makes no sense to me. (I can see > Edgar from his position in the hereafter shaking his head and saying "Now, > now Kojak, you know how I hate Law 12 A 1.") > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "BLML" ; > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:21 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > > > > > > > > > < Ton wrote: > > > > > Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, > > > > > using this kind of false arguments to support his case. > > > > > furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are > > > > > agreements not to be found on the CC? > > > > > > > > > > Herman tried: > > > > I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. > > > > L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the > > > > meanings, not about answering the questions. > > > > I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the > > > > convention cards. > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, perhaps you read Law 20 ... > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > To Herman, > > > > Well, I have to accept that you are not desperate, but you are still > > wrong. > > And what conclusion is left then? > > > > Grattan nor Herman have satisfying answers on my questions. > > > > Let me try again. > > > > Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West explains a > > call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at the end of the > > auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent South. South now > > understands that the auction got crazy and places a profitable double. > > This > > leads to a shared top on the board with the other four tables. At table > > number 6 West doesn't say anything and the double from South is not > > obvious > > at all. In fact can only be made by a player > > in possession of the wrong and the right information. > > > > According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair at > > this > > table is not entitled to receive that same top by a TD-decision. > > > > Do I understand this well. If possible just 'yes' or 'no' please. > > > > ton > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 10 09:57:28 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon Apr 10 10:11:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: Message-ID: <005f01c65c76$4baf16e0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> ? > It's really not a case of trying to have a one rule fits all > situations. We take the circumstances of each situation on merit and > consider the likelihood of possible developments. We adjust to whatever > is most favourable to NOS based on our assessment of the possibilities. > > Tim > I consider this answer as another endeavour to escape from the inevitable conclusion. ton From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 10:29:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 10:30:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000901c65c09$82aa55a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > My ruling will now be that North is bound by his pass (Law 21A and > 25B) and East may (after hearing the correct description of the call) > without any penalty retract his double Fine, but surely immediately following that retraction East has not yet called and North may correct his own call under L25b. Mind you I'm not sure why the lack of alert makes any difference - 3D is normally forcing over 2N whether or not it's a transfer (it would be alertable if either non-forcing or a tfr in EBUland) and I'd conclude the 2N was a psych if my opps managed this auction at the table. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 10:29:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 10:30:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <006c01c65c37$5d6d2af0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: John wrote: > Going back to Sven's > equity problem, it's probably the equity in the hand just after you > have made the re-opening double (and RHO till owes you a correction). > A correction at this point would cancel the double without allowing a > 25B correction. At the moment the double is cancelled Law25b may be applied - since LHO has not yet called and there is no information from the withdrawn double that suggests the 3D bid was strong. If LHO would not have re-opened based purely on the knowledge that 3D was strong we, of course, adjust. But there is, IMO, no likely result more favourable than EW +600 if the reopening double would only have been withdrawn had offender corrected his explanation (thus revealing the misunderstanding). You may, if you wish, apply the "cheat" test. The only possible upside to not issuing an immediate correction (thus bringing into play a cancellation and L25b change) is if the player assumes his opponent is the sort of total prat who will insist on a correction under L25b2 rather than simply allow one under L25b1. The situation would be different again if 2D was "strong and forcing" - now NOS could have readily diagnosed from the correct info + auction that there had been a misunderstanding and would not make a reopening double on many hands which would have done so over a strong 2D. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 10:34:38 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 10:35:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation In-Reply-To: <443A061D.1080907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c65c79$9beac390$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> > >> N E S W > >> 1C 1NT 2C 2H > >> 3C pass pass pass > >> > > > > The Director must NOT inspect North's hand in order to rule > > whether he shall allow North to retract his 3C bid. > > (This question has already been discussed; such inspection > > must be delayed to a time when North's hand is known to > > the other players). > > > > South has already passed - North cannot retract his 3Cl bid. Exactly. > And FWIW, the laws state that North can only retract if it is likely > he made the call based on misinformation. How can you judge that > without looking at North's hand? You must take North's word for it when he claims the privilege of a Law 21B1 change of call. > > > And to your question: Yes, I think North has that right. Whether I would > > sustain his claim is a separate matter which I cannot answer here. > > > > But if North is given the opportunity to change his call when there is > > still time (Law 21B1) he must make his choice there and then, I shall > > not accept any later claim on what he would have done with correct > > information. > > > It is too late for L21. Now how do you rule? In favour of North unless there is overwhelming evidence that he would have bid 3C anyway. I believe we have a mix-up between the terms "retracting" the 3C bid (L21B1) and "adjusting" the result as if North had called pass instead of 3C (L12C2). The Director must never look at any hand before allowing a Law 21B1 change of call. He must obviously inspect all hands when considering a Law 12C2 adjustment. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 11:04:05 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 11:04:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <443A0487.7080000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c65c7d$b8db6050$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > After a short answer to your first remark in this post, here is a > longer reply to the second: > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > OK: In the following auction (Dealer North, zone North/South): > > > > 2NT - pass - 3D - pass > > pass - double > > > > North: Director! > > "I forgot to alert partner's 3D - it is a transfer bid" > > > > My ruling will now be that North is bound by his pass > > (Law 21A and 25B) and East may (after hearing the correct > > description of the call) without any penalty retract his > > double and replace it with a pass. (Law 21B1). Remember > > also that the retracted double is AI to West who has the > > lead against 3D! > > > > With the knowledge that there was a misunderstanding East > > with his nine diamonds to the Ace Jack Ten is most > > interested in forcing opponents to play in 3D rather than > > giving NS a chance to escape disaster. > > > > Your ruling would be correct. > > > AI or UI? > > > > AI, of course. > > > And by the way, if the misunderstanding had been revealed > > later I would anyway have awarded an assigned adjusted score > > based on the likely result for NS in 3D. > > > And there you would be wrong. > > > 2NT - pass - 3D - pass > > pass - double > > > > North: Director! > > "I forgot to alert partner's 3D - it is a transfer bid" > > OK, we change the case: North does not call the director, either > because he doesn't remember, or because he's a cheat (yes, I know, > we won't be able to distinguish between the two). > > South now bids 3H and the same story happens. Since west has not > called, east has a chance to change the bid he made in this round. > (which leads us to an interesting discussion quite similar to the one > we are having: is East allowed to change his call?) Yes, of course! Are you unaware that L21B1 applies for East until West subsequently calls? When East hears (or sees) South correcting to 3H he may ask: "Is there a missing alert in this auction?" and when confirmed ("yes, 3D is conventional") he is free to claim that because 3D was not alerted he wants to change his own call from a double to a pass. The Director should accept this change of call under Law 21B1. North/South is still the offending side and East is free to take advantage of the fact that South did not leave it to North to avoid disaster. > > So your example is flawed in that sense. > > But why would you be so interested in having the pair play in 3D? Because I consider +400 instead of anything from -100 to -600 a big reward. > The story you are telling is just the same as this one: > > 2NT pass 3D pass, no alert, then an alert, then a pass, then "oh shit, > can I change that to 3H please?" then L25B. True. > (I think L25B would still > be possible in your case above too). If people are going to give AI > away, then they should bear the consequences. You surprise me. Are you unaware that L25B is never available after LHO has called? > > BTW, it seems to me that your hypothetical east with 10 diamonds did a > bad thing by doubling - he does not need norths subsequent realization > to know that 3D was a transfer. Nine, not ten diamonds. This argument is completely irrelevant. East is free to make any call he wants and free to take advantage of opponents' irregularities as he sees fit (L72A4). > > Anyway, without a real life case, it is very difficult to know which > of the interpretation is the more equitable one. This is not a matter of equity; this is a matter of applying the laws on misinformation. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 10 11:16:31 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 10 11:17:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation In-Reply-To: <000001c65c79$9beac390$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c65c79$9beac390$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <443A226F.6010308@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>It is too late for L21. Now how do you rule? > > > In favour of North unless there is overwhelming evidence that he would have > bid 3C anyway. > But that is just the point Sven. You write "anyway". What "any" way? Anyway is a shortcut for : "if he had received the right information" or for "if he had received the right information AND the info that the players were having a misunderstanding". It seems clear to me that in the first case, he would have bid 3C "anyway". After all, an explanation that 2H shows spades is no different (to him, with 52 in both majors) than an explanation that it shows hearts, does it? It is equally clear that in the second case, he would not have bid 3C, since he can expect that they are not going to stop in 2H but go to 3H (at least), or play in 2S which must be bad for them. So your sentence has no meaning within our discussion. Are you adjusting or not? > I believe we have a mix-up between the terms "retracting" the 3C bid (L21B1) > and "adjusting" the result as if North had called pass instead of 3C > (L12C2). > > The Director must never look at any hand before allowing a Law 21B1 change > of call. He must obviously inspect all hands when considering a Law 12C2 > adjustment. > I don't agree with you on that first sentence but let's leave that for a different thread. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 9/04/2006 From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 11:17:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 11:18:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c65c7f$a2dfb650$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > My ruling will now be that North is bound by his pass (Law 21A and > > 25B) and East may (after hearing the correct description of the call) > > without any penalty retract his double > > Fine, but surely immediately following that retraction East has not yet > called and North may correct his own call under L25b. Sure, East has called and with his call closed the door for Law 25B. Retracting this call for the purpose of replacing it with another call according to Law 21B1 does not reverse the clock, so the door to L25B remains closed. > Mind you I'm not > sure why the lack of alert makes any difference - 3D is normally forcing > over 2N whether or not it's a transfer (it would be alertable if either > non-forcing or a tfr in EBUland) and I'd conclude the 2N was a psych if > my opps managed this auction at the table. The lack of alert is explicitly deemed misinformation according to Law 21B1. Incidentally, 3D is not alertable in Norway if it is for play or is forcing or invitational with Diamonds. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 10 11:19:10 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 10 11:19:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <005f01c65c76$4baf16e0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <005f01c65c76$4baf16e0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <443A230E.4040501@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > ? > > > >>It's really not a case of trying to have a one rule fits all >>situations. We take the circumstances of each situation on merit and >>consider the likelihood of possible developments. We adjust to whatever >>is most favourable to NOS based on our assessment of the possibilities. >> >>Tim >> > > > > I consider this answer as another endeavour to escape from the inevitable > conclusion. > I agree that this answer is not the most clear one, but I wonder what inevitable conclusion Ton has in mind. Perhaps that his view should be the correct one, even when faced with a WBFLC minute from a meeting in which he attended and which seems to show a differing point of view by at least two members (the anonymous person who said it originally and Grattan who has said so on this list). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 9/04/2006 From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 12:09:04 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 12:09:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation In-Reply-To: <443A226F.6010308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c65c86$cd04e160$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >>It is too late for L21. Now how do you rule? > > In favour of North unless there is overwhelming evidence > > that he would have bid 3C anyway. > > > > But that is just the point Sven. You write "anyway". What "any" way? > Anyway is a shortcut for : > "if he had received the right information" > or for > "if he had received the right information AND the info that the > players were having a misunderstanding". This is a case of post mortem analysis for the possible application of Law 12C2. In such analysis there is no way I would overrule a claim from NOS if there is the least reasonable possibility that his selected action could have been influenced by the information he received or did not receive. The Director must be very careful not to protect an offending side at the expense of the non-offending side in such situations. > It seems clear to me that in the first case, he would have bid 3C > "anyway". After all, an explanation that 2H shows spades is no > different (to him, with 52 in both majors) than an explanation that it > shows hearts, does it? > It is equally clear that in the second case, he would not have bid 3C, > since he can expect that they are not going to stop in 2H but go to 3H > (at least), or play in 2S which must be bad for them. > > So your sentence has no meaning within our discussion. > Are you adjusting or not? If when looking at the cards I find that NOS had no logical alternative other than the action he selected I shall not adjust. An example is a player who passed with a flat Yarborough. He shall need some good reason to claim that he in a particular situation would have bid or doubled, but if he can show cause then I would even accept that. And in your case, yes I would probably adjust. > > > I believe we have a mix-up between the terms "retracting" the 3C bid > (L21B1) > > and "adjusting" the result as if North had called pass instead of 3C > > (L12C2). > > > > The Director must never look at any hand before allowing a Law 21B1 > change > > of call. He must obviously inspect all hands when considering a Law 12C2 > > adjustment. > > > > I don't agree with you on that first sentence but let's leave that for > a different thread. If a Director during the auction or play looks at any closed hand at my table and then announces a ruling before end of the play period I shall normally demand a Law 82C ruling on the ground that the Director has improperly given away important information about that hand to the other players around the table. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 10 13:27:29 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Apr 10 13:28:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > John wrote: > >> Going back to Sven's >> equity problem, it's probably the equity in the hand just after you >> have made the re-opening double (and RHO till owes you a correction). >> A correction at this point would cancel the double without allowing a >> 25B correction. > > At the moment the double is cancelled Law25b may be applied - since LHO > has not yet called and there is no information from the withdrawn double > that suggests the 3D bid was strong. One of the downsides to drawing conclusions from a false premise is that the conclusion is likely to be wrong, as is the case here. The fact that a call was canceled requires the fact that it has been made. The conditional requirement for changing a call as provided by 25B is 'until LHO has called'. The canceling of a call does not remove the fact that it was made. regards roger pewick > If LHO would not have re-opened based purely on the knowledge that 3D > was strong we, of course, adjust. But there is, IMO, no likely result > more favourable than EW +600 if the reopening double would only have > been withdrawn had offender corrected his explanation (thus revealing > the misunderstanding). > > You may, if you wish, apply the "cheat" test. The only possible upside > to not issuing an immediate correction (thus bringing into play a > cancellation and L25b change) is if the player assumes his opponent is > the sort of total prat who will insist on a correction under L25b2 > rather than simply allow one under L25b1. > > The situation would be different again if 2D was "strong and forcing" - > now NOS could have readily diagnosed from the correct info + auction > that there had been a misunderstanding and would not make a reopening > double on many hands which would have done so over a strong 2D. > > Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 13:42:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 13:43:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <005f01c65c76$4baf16e0$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > I consider this answer as another endeavour to escape from the > inevitable conclusion. I don't think there is an "inevitable conclusion" on the paucity of facts you gave us. My ruling at the 6th table might be to give NOS the advantage of the double *and* impose an additional PP on OS for failure to issue a timely correction. It might be to give the advantage of the double to NOS and simply explain to OS their duty to correct in those circumstances. It might be to let the result stand. It might be a L12c3 split score. My ruling will be based on investigating what actually happened at that table and why. It will *not* be based on "I'll just give the same score as happened at the other 5 tables". And yes, I'm willing to back *my* judgement over those who try to take a mechanical approach without bothering to investigate. If the TD doesn't investigate properly (and give a reasoned judgement based on his findings) there are automatic grounds for appeal and the AC would be out of order to give an AWM ruling. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 13:42:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 13:43:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000201c65c7f$a2dfb650$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Retracting this call for the purpose of replacing it with another call > according to Law 21B1 does not reverse the clock, so the door to L25B > remains closed. The first call is withdrawn, the clock is indeed reversed, the door opens again. Indeed not only is the first call cancelled but the very fact of that call is UI to OS. Law 25b permits a change. > > Mind you I'm not sure why the lack of alert makes any difference - > > 3D is normally forcing over 2N whether or not it's a transfer (it > > would be alertable if either non-forcing or a tfr in EBUland) and > > I'd conclude the 2N was a psych if my opps managed this auction at > > the table. > > The lack of alert is explicitly deemed misinformation according to > Law 21B1. I know, but I really doubt I care. Unless 3D non-forcing (totally unheard of where I play) is moderately common in Norway I consider it should be obvious to NOS that something odd is going on regardless of the alert. Despite receiving MI players are still expected to protect themselves. This would not be the case after 1N-2D where some people do indeed play it as natural and non-forcing. > Incidentally, 3D is not alertable in Norway if it is for play or is > forcing or invitational with Diamonds. OK - but does anyone actually play it as non-forcing? Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 14:26:45 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 14:27:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c65c9a$08a444a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Retracting this call for the purpose of replacing it with another call > > according to Law 21B1 does not reverse the clock, so the door to L25B > > remains closed. > > The first call is withdrawn, the clock is indeed reversed, the door > opens again. Indeed not only is the first call cancelled but the very > fact of that call is UI to OS. Law 25b permits a change. I believe the following note from WBFLC (together with numerous minutes) may clarify the situation: Note concerning Law 25B Note In pursuance of paragraph 7 of the minutes of 11th January 2000, the committee agrees that under Law 25B changes of call are allowed in the case of a misjudgement when the first call was made. The player himself decides that he has misbid. A player is not entitled to change because of his inference as to the probable next call by LHO, nor change his first call as a reaction to an irregularity occurring after his first call. Examples: 1. North opens 1H, East passes, South bids 4H. West comments "I am certainly not passing this". South is not allowed to substitute 2H. 2. South opens 2D (Multi). North passes out of turn. The pass not being accepted, it is West's turn to call; South is not allowed to anticipate North's forced pass by changing his call and naming his suit. End quote. So I think we might agree that the clock is NOT reversed. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 14:42:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 14:43:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > One of the downsides to drawing conclusions from a false premise is > that the conclusion is likely to be wrong, as is the case here. The > fact that a call was canceled requires the fact that it has been > made. The conditional requirement for changing a call as provided by > 25B is 'until LHO has called'. The canceling of a call does not > remove the fact that it was made. One of the downsides of drawing a conclusion from a false premise is that it may be wrong. When a call is cancelled/withdrawn the auction is indeed returned to the point at which offender's LHO has not yet called. Of course this depends on how one interprets words like cancelled/withdrawn, what one thinks constitutes the legal auction etc, etc. There is nothing in the laws to prevent L25b being used in this scenario. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 15:18:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 15:19:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000601c65c9a$08a444a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Note In pursuance of paragraph 7 of the minutes of 11th January 2000, > the committee agrees that under Law 25B changes of call are allowed > in the case of a misjudgement when the first call was made. The > player himself decides that he has misbid. A player is not entitled > to change because of his inference as to the probable next call by > LHO, nor change his first call as a reaction to an irregularity > occurring after his first call. No problem with that - but it's not relevant to the case. Both the paragraph and accompanying examples deal with UI from another player. There is nothing comparable in the reopening double scenario. Offender doesn't want to use L25b because the double was withdrawn - he wants to use it because he has just realised he forgot the system - exactly as he would if correcting the MI before LHO had done anything. And it's not the clock which is reversed, it's the auction. Obviously if offender has UI suggesting a change of call when not changing is an LA we do not allow a change. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Apr 10 13:13:40 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Apr 10 15:33:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de><008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <003401c65c72$1a791d90$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000c01c65ca2$8b391870$959b87d9@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: "Ton Kooijman" Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > > > > According to the position Grattan and Herman have > taken, the NS pair at this table is not entitled to receive > that same top by a TD-decision. > > Do I understand this well. If possible just 'yes' or 'no' please. > +=+ The 'position' I have taken is to recite a WBFLC minute on a subject where no conclusion was reached but one member of the committee made a comment that was, in my opinion, at odds with the position that Ton was asking the committee to adopt. I have observed that I think it unlikely the committee would take up Ton's argument in a subject (adjustment to give redress) that appears to lie within the domain of appeals committees. I have also reported my experience that international appeals committees do not follow Ton's line when they determine what provides 'indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent' (sic). This 'position' has to do with the opinions and practices of others, not with argument made by me, although through an involvement since the middle 1970's I have been conditioned to believe these constitute normal and proper opinion and practice. What we are to consider is where the legal auction has arrived and potential developments thereafter in an irregularity-free environment - inclusive of the possibility/probability/certainty that the NOS was heading for a top. I agree with Probst that if reminded by another of his misexplanation the offender will continue to act in ignorance until he can show that his error is manifest from the auction or play. As for Ton's hypothesis of five tables at which the Director is called and the player elects to double, a sixth table where it falls within Law 21E, I do not see why the Director/AC would award a 21E score on any basis other than what he believes would have ooccurred if the Director had been called in time and had rolled back the auction. The legal auction taken with the correct explanation would expose an inconsistency. ~ G ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 10 15:41:53 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon Apr 10 15:42:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: Message-ID: <00f301c65ca4$86c3d210$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > Ton wrote: > > > I consider this answer as another endeavour to escape from the > > inevitable conclusion. > > I don't think there is an "inevitable conclusion" on the paucity of > facts you gave us. My ruling at the 6th table might be to give NOS the > advantage of the double *and* impose an additional PP on OS for failure > to issue a timely correction. It might be to give the advantage of the > double to NOS and simply explain to OS their duty to correct in those > circumstances. It might be to let the result stand. > It might be a L12c3 split score. My ruling will be based on > investigating what actually happened at that table and why. It will > *not* be based on "I'll just give the same score as happened at the other > 5 tables". And yes, I'm willing to back *my* judgement over those who > try to take a mechanical approach without bothering to investigate. If > the TD doesn't investigate properly (and give a reasoned judgement based > on his findings) there are automatic grounds for appeal and the AC would > be out of order to give an AWM ruling. > > Tim > Dear Tim, Are you really so innocent? I think that you could have known that I constructed a situation with 6 cases that were identical but for one aspect. A timely correction by a player who misexplained a previous call in 5 cases and no such correction in the 6th. This is the well known blml way to frustrate discussions and to never cone to a well considered decision. Thank you. ton From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 10 15:41:20 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 10 15:43:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060410091626.02a2cd10@pop.starpower.net> At 09:21 AM 4/9/06, Ton wrote: >Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West explains a >call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at the end of the >auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent South. South now >understands that the auction got crazy and places a profitable double. >This >leads to a shared top on the board with the other four tables. At table >number 6 West doesn't say anything and the double from South is not >obvious >at all. In fact can only be made by a player >in possession of the wrong and the right information. > >According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair >at this >table is not entitled to receive that same top by a TD-decision. It depends. We know that "at 5 tables West... realises his mistake". So he is now entitled to use that knowledge to try to recover as best he can in what auction remains. L75D1 exists to insure that disclosure is satisfied, by requiring him to share his newly-regained knowledge with his opponents. What about West at table 6? Did he "realize[] his mistake"? If he has not, he will continue to bid under his extant misinterpretation. He is in a very different circumstance from the Wests at tables 1-5. To "allow" his opponents the benefit of the knowing the correct agreement *in addition to* their knowing that West is unaware of it is to give them a far greater advantage than was given to the N-S pairs at tables 1-5. Why should the opponents at table 6 get the benefit of a windfall that wasn't available to their counterparts at tables 1-5? Their situations are far from equivalent. If he has, he has violated L75D1, for which "the[] Laws do not provide indemnity". In that circumstance, his opponents may well be, as Ton says, "entitled to receive that same top by TD-decision". Fortunately, we have L12A1, which seems to have been written to cover exactly such situations, and have no problem awarding them the score to which they are entitled. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 10 16:09:44 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 10 16:10:36 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <443A6728.70700@hdw.be> You're not helping Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Ton wrote: > > >>I consider this answer as another endeavour to escape from the >>inevitable conclusion. > > > I don't think there is an "inevitable conclusion" on the paucity of > facts you gave us. My ruling at the 6th table might be to give NOS the > advantage of the double *and* impose an additional PP on OS for failure > to issue a timely correction. It might be to give the advantage of the > double to NOS and simply explain to OS their duty to correct in those > circumstances. It might be to let the result stand. > It might be a L12c3 split score. My ruling will be based on > investigating what actually happened at that table and why. It will > *not* be based on "I'll just give the same score as happened at the other > 5 tables". And yes, I'm willing to back *my* judgement over those who > try to take a mechanical approach without bothering to investigate. If > the TD doesn't investigate properly (and give a reasoned judgement based > on his findings) there are automatic grounds for appeal and the AC would > be out of order to give an AWM ruling. > Your ruling will be based on the facts you get from the table, you say. Of course they will. But at some point during your decision making process you will have to ask yourself the question "what do I believe the NOS will do if they had received ...". OK? Now the whole issue here is not the answer to that question, but rather the continuation of the sentence. If the question you are asking yourself continues "... received the correct information, WITH the knowledge of the misunderstanding" then the answer will be obvious to everyone - he will let the OS stay in their silly contract. And if the question you are asking yourself is "... WITHOUT ... the added knwoledge of there being a misunderstanding" then such an answer is only interesting if it is different from the one above. So let's assume it's a different answer and tell us if you believe you should ask the first question (the Tonic interpretation) or the second one (the Gratanic interpretation). > 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: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 9/04/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 10 16:16:22 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 10 16:18:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000801c65bf7$b3a36f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <443931E9.8030607@hdw.be> <000801c65bf7$b3a36f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060410094717.02a2dd60@pop.starpower.net> At 01:04 PM 4/9/06, Sven wrote: >I am puzzled by the logic in the argumentation below. Do I understand you >correct that a player who has received correct information is not entitled >to also have the information that an opponent had mistaken something about >his partnership agreements? > >The following situation is NOT hypothetic: > >At some point during the auction a player misinforms his opponent(s). > >A round or two later, while still within the auction period, he >summons the >Director because he realizes that he has made a wrong explanation and >wants >to offer his opponents the correct explanation. > >Are you claiming that from this moment the information that he originally >was mistaken is unauthorized to his opponents (NOS)? That information is clearly authorized. After all, he is aware that he originally was mistaken, and can use this knowledge in selecting his calls for the remainder of the auction. Since he has knowledge on which he is potentially basing his actions, he is obligated to disclose it to his opponents. But if he is *not* aware that he originally was mistaken, he has met his obligation to disclose everything he knows that might pertain to his choice of actions. His opponents are entitled by L75C to know everything (relevant) *that he knows*. In addition, L75A positively entitles his opponents to know the actual partnership agreement, whether or not he is aware of it. But, if he isn't, there is no analogous law that entitles his opponents to the knowledge that he was mistaken in his explanation in the absense of his own awareness of that fact. In short, a player who has received (or, more precisely, been given the retrospective benefit of by adjudication) correct information about his opponents' agreements is also entitled to the benefit of any other relevant knowledge his opponent may have had, which may or may not include the knowledge that he had been originally mistaken in his recollection of those agreements. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 17:55:24 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 17:56:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c65cb7$2dfb1cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Note In pursuance of paragraph 7 of the minutes of 11th January 2000, > > the committee agrees that under Law 25B changes of call are allowed > > in the case of a misjudgement when the first call was made. The > > player himself decides that he has misbid. A player is not entitled > > to change because of his inference as to the probable next call by > > LHO, nor change his first call as a reaction to an irregularity > > occurring after his first call. > > No problem with that - but it's not relevant to the case. Both the > paragraph and accompanying examples deal with UI from another player. You are unable to see the wood for all the trees, or are you just plain stupid stubborn? (Sorry, but this discussion ......) The note makes it clear that no player may use L25B when he may have become aware of his mistake from any action or irregularity at the table. West has not made any call in example 1 and his remark causes no UI to South but it still closes the door for South to use L25B. North has committed an irregularity in example 2 and the turn to call is returned to West. Again the door has been closed for South to use L25B. You should note of course that the given examples are just examples; they are not exhaustive. In our present case we have an irregularity in the form of MI subsequent to the call in question. Again the door is closed for using L25B. > There is nothing comparable in the reopening double scenario. > Offender doesn't want to use L25b because the double was withdrawn - he > wants to use it because he has just realised he forgot the system - > exactly as he would if correcting the MI before LHO had done anything. And he became aware of his mistake from the double by his LHO and his partner's subsequent rescue action into 3H. If this isn't UI I do not know UI when I see it. (Remember that the player who could want to use L25B is OS, not that it really matters). Please Tim save us from this hopeless argumentation and face the realities. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 18:09:57 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 18:10:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060410094717.02a2dd60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000c01c65cb9$363e3730$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > At 01:04 PM 4/9/06, Sven wrote: > > >I am puzzled by the logic in the argumentation below. Do I understand you > >correct that a player who has received correct information is not > entitled > >to also have the information that an opponent had mistaken something > about > >his partnership agreements? > > > >The following situation is NOT hypothetic: > > > >At some point during the auction a player misinforms his opponent(s). > > > >A round or two later, while still within the auction period, he > >summons the > >Director because he realizes that he has made a wrong explanation and > >wants > >to offer his opponents the correct explanation. > > > >Are you claiming that from this moment the information that he originally > >was mistaken is unauthorized to his opponents (NOS)? > > That information is clearly authorized. I'd say "of course it is authorized". But in order to keep things straight let us establish a reference to know which player we are talking about so from now on we say that the player who misinformed his opponents and subsequently corrected his information is South: > After all, he (South) is aware that he > originally was mistaken, and can use this knowledge in selecting his > calls for the remainder of the auction. But be aware that this information (while AI to East/West) is UI to North! > Since he (South) has knowledge on > which he is potentially basing his actions, he (South) is obligated > to disclose it to his opponents. Except that this can hardly be part of any partnership agreements; it must by its nature fall within the category "general bridge knowledge and experience". And what he in case discloses to his opponents is UI to North! > > But if he is *not* aware that he originally was mistaken, he has met > his obligation to disclose everything he knows that might pertain to > his choice of actions. In that case we have left my case which was based upon the event that South realized his error, summoned the Director and offered a correction. > His opponents are entitled by L75C to know > everything (relevant) *that he knows*. In addition, L75A positively > entitles his opponents to know the actual partnership agreement, > whether or not he is aware of it. But, if he isn't, there is no > analogous law that entitles his opponents to the knowledge that he was > mistaken in his explanation in the absense of his own awareness of that > fact. > > In short, a player (East/West) who has received (or, more precisely, > been given the > retrospective benefit of by adjudication) correct information about his > opponents' (North/South) agreements is also entitled to the benefit of > any other > relevant knowledge his opponent may have had, which may or may not > include the knowledge that he (South) had been originally mistaken in his > recollection of those agreements. And here we agree completely. Regards sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 18:24:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 18:25:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <00f301c65ca4$86c3d210$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > I think that you could have known that I constructed a situation with > 6 cases that were identical but for one aspect. A timely correction > by a player who misexplained a previous call in 5 cases and no such > correction in the 6th. Was the 6th player of same calibre as the others? Could he have been expected to work out that he had misexplained earlier? Would I expect that player to be aware of his legal obligations to correct? I know the 6th case is not identical to the first five - because something different happened. The ruling depends on *why* something different happened. If I suspect knowing concealment I'm issuing a penalty on top of any adjustment for the double. If player 6 is sufficiently clueless I'll let the table result stand. If the NOS don't accept my judgement that their opponent simply wasn't good enough to have worked out that he had misexplained earlier they can appeal my decision. The most probable result is that offender will tell me he realised he had made a mistake but didn't know he was meant to correct it during the hand, that I'll believe him, tell him what to do in future, and adjust the score. But so what? The most probable result is not the only possible result and it is up to TD's judgement to determine the *right* result. This isn't something where you can have a single book ruling answer however much you want a well considered decision because offender could be: a) a "cheat" trying to avoid discolsure he knew he should provide b) a decent (and ethical) player who doesn't know the law very well c) a hopeless player who did all that could be expected of a hopeless player in the circumstances. Were I the floor TD I'd *know* which of a/b/c I was dealing with - it's my job to find out - and I'd give an appropriate ruling. So please don't tell me I should be giving the same one size doesn't fit all ruling in the three cases. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 10 18:38:55 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 10 18:40:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060410094717.02a2dd60@pop.starpower.net> References: <443931E9.8030607@hdw.be> <000801c65bf7$b3a36f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20060410094717.02a2dd60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <443A8A1F.7010305@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 01:04 PM 4/9/06, Sven wrote: > > > But if he is *not* aware that he originally was mistaken, he has met his > obligation to disclose everything he knows that might pertain to his > choice of actions. His opponents are entitled by L75C to know > everything (relevant) *that he knows*. In addition, L75A positively > entitles his opponents to know the actual partnership agreement, whether > or not he is aware of it. But, if he isn't, there is no analogous law > that entitles his opponents to the knowledge that he was mistaken in his > explanation in the absense of his own awareness of that fact. > L75C does not say that he must tell opponents what he thinks the agreement is, only all that he knows about such an agreement. I don't buy that L75C can be used to say that opponents are entitled to know about misunderstandings. That would mean the same is true behind screens. Even if seated with North, by your reasoning I should be entitled to know what South thinks the agreement is? > In short, a player who has received (or, more precisely, been given the > retrospective benefit of by adjudication) correct information about his > opponents' agreements is also entitled to the benefit of any other > relevant knowledge his opponent may have had, which may or may not > include the knowledge that he had been originally mistaken in his > recollection of those agreements. > The way you say this you mean it in general, also behind screens and on-line. Well, that basically covers one of my reasons for not wanting this interpretation: Ton is making two games instead of one (different situations ande entitlements behind screens and not). You are again making it one game. But a very different one! > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 9/04/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 19:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 19:30:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000b01c65cb7$2dfb1cc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > The note makes it clear that no player may use L25B when he may have > become aware of his mistake from any action or irregularity at the > table. No it doesn't. It forbids him from changing his call based on unauthorised information from others at the table - not the same thing. For example LHO asks "um, did you mean to pass that cue bid." We allow a change under L25b (assume it's the textbook L25b type change where the guy passed the cue-bid because he decided not to make a slam try). Even if a change *was* forbidden when awareness of his mistake may have been externally created would you please explain to me how the double of 2D may have created such awareness. > West has not made any call in example 1 and his remark causes no UI > to South but it still closes the door for South to use L25B. West's remark has created UI to South because the note says that such remarks are UI to South for the purposes of L25b. The remark does not "close the door" to L25b it prohibits the use of inferences from the remark. Let's say that the remark causes South to notice that all of his hearts have strangely pointy tops and for *that* reason he wishes to change his call - the L25b door is still open. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 10 20:52:01 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Apr 10 20:52:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c65ccf$da629fc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > The note makes it clear that no player may use L25B when he may have > > become aware of his mistake from any action or irregularity at the > > table. > > No it doesn't. It forbids him from changing his call based on > unauthorised information from others at the table - not the same thing. > For example LHO asks "um, did you mean to pass that cue bid." > We allow a change under L25b (assume it's the textbook L25b type change > where the guy passed the cue-bid because he decided not to make a slam > try). > > Even if a change *was* forbidden when awareness of his mistake may have > been externally created would you please explain to me how the double of > 2D may have created such awareness. > > > West has not made any call in example 1 and his remark causes no UI > > to South but it still closes the door for South to use L25B. > > West's remark has created UI to South because the note says that such > remarks are UI to South for the purposes of L25b. The remark does not > "close the door" to L25b it prohibits the use of inferences from the > remark. Let's say that the remark causes South to notice that all of > his hearts have strangely pointy tops and for *that* reason he wishes to > change his call - the L25b door is still open. For your convenience, the relevant minutes: Lille September 1st 1998: 4. The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful corrections of call under Law 25B. The Chairman drew attention to the effect of Law 25B. It was agreed that the intention of the Committee in drafting this Law was to permit the correction of a "stupid mistake" (e.g. passing a cue bid after thinking whether to bid game or slam). It is not the intention that the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the player's judgement. As the intention of the Committee this statement of intention constitutes an interpretation of the Law. 5. It was also decided that should a player's partner call out of turn following the player's bid, cancellation of the out-of-turn call does not re-open the door to a Law 25B purposeful correction; Law 29 now applies. Bermuda January 11th 2000: 3. Mr. Schoder asked the committee to consider the effect of the WBF Code of Practice in relation to Law 25B when screens are in use. In his view the Code provides that where an inadvertent or a deliberate bid is changed before the tray is passed to the other side of the screen, the effect of the Code is to provide that the players who then receive the tray will not be told anything about the change and there will be no penalty by way of limitation of score. The Chairman expressed his strong disagreement with this interpretation. Mr. Wignall confirmed that Mr. Schoder is applying the Code of Practice as its authors had intended. Mr. Martel, who joined the committee during the discussion, was inclined to the opinion of the Chairman. On a vote being taken five votes were cast in favour of Mr. Schoder's treatment of the question and three to the contrary. 6. Mr. Schoder had indicated a desire to see Law 25B removed from the laws. He asked the committee to consider the question. Mr. Martel said that in its current form Law 25B had been devised as a solution to a particular problem, but in the outcome "the cure is worse than the disease". There was considered to be a difficulty in finding suitable words to express this in the laws. The Chairman asked for a show of hands to express the balance on the subject amongst those present. The result was an opinion overwhelmingly in favour of not allowing a player to change a call deliberately made. The Secretary was asked to hold the item in his list of matters for further consideration when a major review of the laws is undertaken. 7. Paragraph 4 of the committee's minutes of 1st September 1998 was revisited. The Chairman did not think this actually said what the committee had intended to say. He and the Secretary were asked to draft a fresh statement for the committee to consider. (See Schedule 3). Schedule 3 from the Minutes of 11 January 2000 Note concerning Law 25B Note In pursuance of paragraph 7 of the minutes of 11th January 2000, the committee agrees that under Law 25B changes of call are allowed in the case of a misjudgement when the first call was made. The player himself decides that he has misbid. A player is not entitled to change because of his inference as to the probable next call by LHO, nor change his first call as a reaction to an irregularity occurring after his first call. Examples: 1. North opens 1H, East passes, South bids 4H. West comments "I am certainly not passing this". South is not allowed to substitute 2H. 2. South opens 2D (Multi). North passes out of turn. The pass not being accepted, it is West's turn to call; South is not allowed to anticipate North's forced pass by changing his call and naming his suit. 3. North opens 1H and East passes; South bids 2H and then discovers he only has twelve cards. The card being found, South is allowed to change his call if he wishes under Law 25B. Bermuda January 20th 2000: 2 Considering the minutes of the meeting of January 12th, paragraph 6, Mr. Martel wished to clarify that he was referring to the motivation for writing the law; but the law as now written does not allow of the distinction between reasons for changing the call that the Committee is desirous of making. A question was asked as to how many rulings based on Law 25B had been given in the current tournament. The Chief Director replied that there had been at least six. The Chairman reminded the committee that it had been agreed to put consideration of the subject back to the major review of the laws, envisaged to occur in the period 2002-2005. The Secretary recorded his reservation that he did not consider it in the best interests of bridge that the committee, having an overwhelming balance of opinion that Law 25B is seriously flawed and needs to be deleted or radically altered, should do nothing about it until the year 2005. 3 In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of any other player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that current turn. (See Schedule 3 to minutes of 11th January.) Maastricht August 30th 2000: 2. The Chief Tournament Director asked that the Committee expand upon its interpretation of Law 25B (see Section 3 of the minutes of 20th January 2000). The Committee ruled that until LHO calls it is authorized information that the player may use if the player sees a call on the tray that he has not previously observed, the tray not having fully passed under the screen. End quotes. I think that these minutes together reveal three important facts: 1: Law 25B was never intended the way it has actually been written. 2: An absolute condition for allowing L25B change of call is that the player who wants to change his call does so solely and demonstrably at his own initiative and definitely not as a result of any action (including remarks) by another player at the table. 3: Once the door is closed for L25B change of a particular call, typically because of a call by LHO, there is no way the door can be opened again for that call, not even if LHO's call is retracted (regardless of the reason). I am sorry for the length of this post; I had never anticipated the need for going into details like this. And before jumping to conclusions from a particular minute be aware that several of the minutes have been amended by later minutes! Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Apr 10 21:19:45 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Mon Apr 10 21:20:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FT1vN-0ma9jM0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Tim was - not the first time - wrong in the following: > For example LHO asks "um, did you mean to pass that cue bid." > We allow a change under L25b (assume it's the textbook L25b type > change where the guy passed the cue-bid because he decided not to make > a slam try). No, no no no no no no - arghhhhh .... We do _not_ allow any change under Law 25B in this context. The WBFLC did forbit this explicitly and we (BLML) did tell you this a couple of times before ... Peter From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 10 22:49:03 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 10 22:50:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000901c65c09$82aa55a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <44394669.4050705@hdw.be> <000901c65c09$82aa55a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060410163205.0327f7a0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:12 PM 4/9/06, Sven wrote: >OK: In the following auction (Dealer North, zone North/South): > >2NT - pass - 3D - pass >pass - double > >North: Director! >"I forgot to alert partner's 3D - it is a transfer bid" > >My ruling will now be that North is bound by his pass (Law 21A and >25B) and >East may (after hearing the correct description of the call) without any >penalty retract his double and replace it with a pass. (Law 21B1). >Remember >also that the retracted double is AI to West who has the lead against 3D! > >With the knowledge that there was a misunderstanding East with his nine >diamonds to the Ace Jack Ten is most interested in forcing opponents >to play >in 3D rather than giving NS a chance to escape disaster. > >AI or UI? He has no positive entitlement to know that the opponents are having a misunderstanding, hence the literal answer is "UI". But he is, of course, allowed to *deduce* the misunderstanding without using the positive knowledge he actually got from North's original failure to alert, and holding D AJ10xxxxxx, he would seem likely to be able to do that (at least when given "the benefit of the doubt"). See last paragraph below. >And by the way, if the misunderstanding had been revealed later I would >anyway have awarded an assigned adjusted score based on the likely result >for NS in 3D. Of course; we all would(*). Because he would unquestionably pass holding nine diamonds to the AJ10 *even if* what he knew was that North passed 3D knowing that it was a transfer. (*)Or would we? In truth, many of us might decide that doubling with D AJ10xxxxxx, even with the presumption that 3D was natural, was sufficiently "egregious" to break the connection between the MI and the damage. But Sven's example is really quite silly. In real life, is a player ever going to be misled into thinking his opponents *aren't* having a bidding misunderstanding holding a nine-card suit to three honors, regardless of how much or what kind of misinformation has been conveyed? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 10 22:55:55 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Apr 10 22:57:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd misinformation In-Reply-To: <000a01c65c0c$db37d4b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <44394884.7090506@hdw.be> <000a01c65c0c$db37d4b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060410165050.0327f180@pop.starpower.net> At 03:36 PM 4/9/06, Sven wrote: >When ruling cases like this the Director has the duty to resolve all >doubtful questions in favor of NOS. The Director must find a convincing >reason for not accepting claims from NOS on what action they would have >taken with correct information. But that's not what TFLB says. What is required is that "the director must find a convincing reason for not accpeting claims from NOS on what action they would have taken with correct information" *about the OS's agreements*. There is nothing in TFLB to suggest that they are additionally entitled to correct information about what's going on in the OS's minds. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 23:14:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 23:15:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <1FT1vN-0ma9jM0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter wrote: > We do _not_ allow any change under Law 25B in this context. > The WBFLC did forbit this explicitly and we (BLML) did tell > you this a couple of times before ... I can only suggest you read the minute again. It does not say "if attention is drawn by another player" It does say "because of his inference as to the probable next call by LHO". There is a clear difference of meaning between those two phrases so please don't give me any rubbish about them meaning the same thing. If the WBF intended the former but nevertheless wrote the latter it is not *my* problem. If the difference in meaning isn't clear after translation into German or Norwegian it isn't my problem either. Tell me twice, tell me a thousand times it makes not one whit of difference - I can read the minute perfectly well and I know what it actually says. It is not ambiguous. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 10 23:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 10 23:28:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Of interest to BLML and members of the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000e01c65ccf$da629fc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > For your convenience, the relevant minutes: > Lille September 1st 1998: > 4. The Committee considered the situation in regard to purposeful > corrections of call under Law 25B. The Chairman drew attention to the > effect of Law 25B. It was agreed that the intention of the Committee > in drafting this Law was to permit the correction of a "stupid > mistake" (e.g. passing a cue bid after thinking whether to bid game > or slam). It is not the intention > that the Law should be used to allow of rectification of the player's > judgement. As the intention of the Committee this statement of > intention constitutes an interpretation of the Law. No problem. A player noticing, after a comment by LHO, that what he thought were hearts were in fact diamonds is not a rectification of judgement. > 5. It was also decided that should a player's partner call out > of turn following the player's bid, cancellation of the out-of-turn > call does not re-open the door to a Law 25B purposeful correction; Again no problem. He has UI from partner's cancelled call, he has information regarding subsequent penalties on his side. It's a totally different issue to the cancellation of LHO's call. I have already addressed the 2000 minutes Schedule 3 in a separate EMail. I'm completely in agreement with the bit about the "cure being worse than the disease" though. However, until the cure is expunged TD's are supposed to apply it as it is written (or least the minutes as they are written). Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 11 00:34:52 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Apr 11 00:35:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de><008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <003401c65c72$1a791d90$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "BLML" ; Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 2:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > >> To start: Ton -- Yes. > > > 'Yes' means: no redress for pair number 6 > > And then you give them this redress. > > Could you clarify your position? > > (be aware that giving this 6th pair an adjusted score as well, means that > I > don't need the other 5 cases anymore) > > In the answer Herman gives he does not give this 6th pair the same score. > Which is ridiculous. I am sorry, I don't have another word for it. > (to be honest that part of his answer is the only thing I understand, for > the rest of it I am lost) > > ton My, my folks are saying an elephant is a goat. And because they call an elephant a goat they treat it like a goat. Quite a few are outraged that a big time offender [BTO] may well achieve a better position after applying the remedy provided by than his counterpart LTO who played by the rules. The outrage is so great that they intend to apply the provisions of 12A1 to indemnify the opponents or just rule against the law altogether. But indemnify them against what? The opponnent's infraction? Hardly. The indemnity they are after is against unfair law. And the last time I looked, the law is not an infraction- it is the remedy. And it is the remedy that gave the opponents the short end. For those who are outraged, it should be the law that is the object of your fury, and not the player. However, I will suggest that the law is wrong, yet not in the way you believe. If it weren't so hilarious it would be funny. regards roger pewick Ps Ton provides 6 tables, implying, if not asserting that the ruling at T6 should be affected by the outcome of the other five. By what absurd principle? Try eliminating the first five tables- what then is the appropriate ruling? Is it Probst's kill the filthy cheaters? or is it in accordance with law? >> This is a perfect example of what happens when hypothetical situations >> are >> created to fit spurious argument. Apparently there were screens. If not, >> was Law 75 D 1 and 2 obeyed at ALL the subject tables? >> >> I can't see anywhere that in real life table 6 would not be given the >> opportunity to get the same result as at the other 5 tables, even if I >> had >> to go the Law 12 A 1 to do so, since screens inhibit the smooth use of >> Law >> 75. To deny the opponents a result which would have been obtained with >> possession of the proper information makes no sense to me. (I can see >> Edgar from his position in the hereafter shaking his head and saying >> "Now, >> now Kojak, you know how I hate Law 12 A 1.") >> >> Kojak >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ton Kooijman" >> To: "BLML" ; >> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:21 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? >> > > < Ton wrote: >> > > > > Sven is right of course. Herman must be desperate, >> > > > > using this kind of false arguments to support his case. >> > > > > furthermore: did it ever occur to him that there are >> > > > > agreements not to be found on the CC? >> > > Herman tried: >> > > > I don't consider it a false argument, and I'm not desperate. >> > > > L40A B and C only talk about opponents knowing the >> > > > meanings, not about answering the questions. >> > > > I believe I would be in my full rights to just refer to the >> > > > convention cards. >> > > FWIW, perhaps you read Law 20 ... >> > > >> > > Peter >> > To Herman, >> > >> > Well, I have to accept that you are not desperate, but you are still >> > wrong. >> > And what conclusion is left then? >> > >> > Grattan nor Herman have satisfying answers on my questions. >> > >> > Let me try again. >> > >> > Big pairs event with a very difficult board. At 6 tables West explains >> > a >> > call from his partner wrongly. At 5 tables West almost at the end of >> > the >> > auction realises his mistake and informs his opponent South. South now >> > understands that the auction got crazy and places a profitable double. >> > This >> > leads to a shared top on the board with the other four tables. At >> > table >> > number 6 West doesn't say anything and the double from South is not >> > obvious >> > at all. In fact can only be made by a player >> > in possession of the wrong and the right information. >> > >> > According to the position Grattan and Herman have taken, the NS pair at >> > this >> > table is not entitled to receive that same top by a TD-decision. >> > >> > Do I understand this well. If possible just 'yes' or 'no' please. >> > >> > ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Apr 11 09:30:45 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Apr 11 09:31:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <003401c65c72$1a791d90$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <001a01c65d39$d8e5b690$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> > > Ps Ton provides 6 tables, implying, if not asserting that the ruling at T6 > should be affected by the outcome of the other five. By what absurd > principle? Try eliminating the first five tables- what then is the > appropriate ruling? Is it Probst's kill the filthy cheaters? or is it in > accordance with law? > It is not so difficult to make things ridiculous if you don't follow or don't understand what is happenening and said. It is my conviction that a player having received wrong information should be allowed to base his decisions on the interpretations he can make using both: the wrong information he received and the right information he is entitled to. I accept that L12C seems to say that such position is wrong (as I humbly admitted). Therefore I created the situation where a player after having given wrong information realises his mistake and restores it. This brings his opponent in this favorable position I would like to be the default one. And it goes further: if offenders become the declaring side the defenders should become aware of the mistake at a stage where it is still possible to take action by one of them. To convince others about my opinion I introduced other tables where the offender restores his mistake which leads to a better score for the opponents. I thought that to be convincing enough. And in a way it was, since now some of us introduced L12A to restore equity. Kind of a unwanted trap that was. Because, as I said in a message to Kojak and blml, once accepted that we needed this equity approach we do not need the other tables anymore. The AS should be given according to my approach anyway. What I don't understand is that there are opinions saying (Herman and others) that the AS at a table where the offenders do not restore there mistake is different from that at a table where they do. That simply is an approach which I can't accept. And then, dear Roger, some of those try to escape by telling that no cases are the same so each decision should have its own approach. B... S... . This is my last contribution on this issue, ton From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Apr 11 10:59:04 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue Apr 11 10:59:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <001a01c65d39$d8e5b690$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> <008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <003401c65c72$1a791d90$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <001a01c65d39$d8e5b690$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <443B6FD8.8080804@hdw.be> Hello Ton, this is really more important than we think. It is fundamental about how we think about the sport of bridge. Let me insert some thoughts into your last post: Ton Kooijman wrote: > > It is not so difficult to make things ridiculous if you don't follow or > don't understand what is happenening and said. > I have always understood your point perfectly, and you have one very valid argument. I hope you understand that I believe there to be valid arguments also for the opposite interpretation and we should arrive at a consensus. If not here, then by a WBFLC diktat. > It is my conviction that a player having received wrong information should > be allowed to base his decisions on > the interpretations he can make using both: the wrong information he > received and the right information he is entitled to. > And it is my conviction that when applying L12C we only give him the benefit of the knowledge he is entitled to, not also the knowledge he would have received through some twisted set of circumstances. > I accept that L12C seems to say that such position is wrong (as I humbly > admitted). > > Therefore I created the situation where a player after having given wrong > information realises his mistake and restores it. > This brings his opponent in this favorable position I would like to be the > default one. > And it goes further: if offenders become the declaring side the defenders > should become aware of the mistake at a stage > where it is still possible to take action by one of them. > > To convince others about my opinion I introduced other tables where the > offender restores his mistake which leads to > a better score for the opponents. I thought that to be convincing enough. > And in a way it was, since now some of us > introduced L12A to restore equity. > > Kind of a unwanted trap that was. Because, as I said in a message to Kojak > and blml, once accepted that we needed > this equity approach we do not need the other tables anymore. The AS should > be given according to my approach anyway. > > What I don't understand is that there are opinions saying (Herman and > others) that the AS at a table where the offenders do > not restore there mistake is different from that at a table where they do. > I don't understand what you are attributing to me here. At a table where the OS do correct their mistake we might see the situation where an opponent can take advantage of his (AI) knowledge that his opponents were having a bidding misunderstanding. At a table where the OS do not realize their mistake, my interpretation would indeed be to not allow the AS to reflect the knowledge of the misunderstanding. At the table you talk of, where the OS realize their mistake but do not correct it, there are 2 possibilities: either the TD can guess that the OS did something wrong, and he can rule on that specific error - giving an AS that includes the knowledge of misunderstanding; or the player gets away scot-free, which is too bad but then the laws are not always perfect. It is my opinion that this third case is very rare. In any event, the OS will not be able to rescue themselves, for fear of revealing that he realized, and the score will be the same than the one where the player did not realize. My main argument _against_ your interpretation is that is creates two differences: - between bridge with screens and without - between players who read the CC and players who ask for explanations I don't think it is a good thing to be creating such differences. > That simply is an approach which I can't accept. And then, dear Roger, some > of those try to escape by telling that no cases > are the same so each decision should have its own approach. B... S... . > > > This is my last contribution on this issue, > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/04/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 11 11:54:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 11 11:55:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <443A6728.70700@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman, It is not an absolute matter of "with" or "without". For example if the auction (dealer South) goes 1C-(2D)-P-(P)-P with 2D having been described as "strong" but actually weak, not corrected by the 2D bidder I;m going to adjust on the basis of South knowing both the actual meaning *and* that there has been a misunderstanding. If the auction is more complex I'll judge whether misexplainer should have known to correct the MI at some stage and adjust on the basis of South becoming aware *at that time* of the misunderstanding. (Or, if simply having had no MI earlier would have been even more favourable despite not realising there had been a misunderstanding then adjust to that). What I'm not going to do is adjust on the basis of South being informed of the misunderstanding at the most opportune (for him) moment when I consider there's almost no chance of that having happened (despite all the players being ethical). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 11 11:54:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 11 11:55:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? In-Reply-To: <001a01c65d39$d8e5b690$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > It is my conviction that a player having received wrong information > should be allowed to base his decisions on the interpretations he > can make using both: the wrong information he received and the right > information he is entitled to. This is undoubtedly true. If a player at the table receives both right and wrong information he may indeed use both to make his decision. > I accept that L12C seems to say that such position is wrong (as I > humbly admitted). The current law assesses damage based on would/might things have gone differently had NOS received the correct information. This is equity based (and together with corresponding UI protection) should ensure that NOS are not damaged. Changing the law to say we should assess damage based on a player having both correct info and the knowledge of a misunderstanding would not be "wrong" but it would result more "windfall" scores to the NOS and more frequent adjustments against OS. It wouldn't be my choice to move the laws in that direction but nor would it be unreasonable. > Therefore I created the situation where a player after having given > wrong information realises his mistake and restores it. > This brings his opponent in this favorable position I would like to > be the default one. Ok, but the way I (and others) read the situation under current law was that you created a scenario where NOS had clearly not been damaged by the MI (opps got to a silly contract) but then there was a *possible* second MI infraction of failure to correct promptly in contravention of the requirements of L75d1. I'm sorry if my earlier posts didn't make clear that I was trying to rule under current law based on two separate infractions (or rather one infraction and one possible infraction) and that the second infraction required investigation of detail before ruling. I wasn't trying to suggest different approaches to similar cases but that a single approach would lead to different rulings depending on the results of the TD's investigation. > And it goes further: if offenders become the declaring side the > defenders should become aware of the mistake at a stage > where it is still possible to take action by one of them. And, of course, that should always happen under current law. But again, it is not the original MI infraction which would lead us there but a subsequent infraction of L75d2. I'd even agree that some TD's don't *look* beyond the simple MI to check for subsequent UI/L75D issues but that doesn't make the current approach wrong. Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 11 14:37:14 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Apr 11 14:37:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de><008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><003401c65c72$1a791d90$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <001a01c65d39$d8e5b690$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Roger Pewick" ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > > >> Ps Ton provides 6 tables, implying, if not asserting that the ruling at > T6 >> should be affected by the outcome of the other five. By what absurd >> principle? Try eliminating the first five tables- what then is the >> appropriate ruling? Is it Probst's kill the filthy cheaters? or is it in >> accordance with law? >> > > > > It is not so difficult to make things ridiculous if you don't follow or > don't understand what is happenening and said. Perhaps I understand the position far better than most. Ideally, the remedy when MI is created ought to be restoring the condition prior to MI. however, TFLB provides an entirely different remedy- it does not restrict the corrective action available to the player [should the player have the opportunity]. I can visualize valid reasoning for such an approach: [a] telling the player he may change his action to exactly the one he would have taken had he known the correct agreement only- may be as close to restoring the condition of the board thast is possible. [b] but such instruction invokes the necessity of the thought police, and, is beyond the capabilities of policing; the compulsion to utilize to advantage the extraneous information is too difficult to avoid. [c] It is happenstance that he has extraneous information and such may be considered to be poetic justice for the victim. [However, it is wrong to consider it an entitlement.] [d] it is a matter of convenience that players are not admonished by law to avoid gaining from extraneous information (for the above mentioned reasoning). But failure to so admonish players should not mean that it is ingrained in law that they are entitled to receive such extraneous information in the event they have not yet received it. > It is my conviction that a player having received wrong information should > be allowed to base his decisions on > the interpretations he can make using both: the wrong information he > received and the right information he is entitled to. > > I accept that L12C seems to say that such position is wrong (as I humbly > admitted). > > Therefore I created the situation where a player after having given wrong > information realises his mistake and restores it. > This brings his opponent in this favorable position I would like to be the > default one. > And it goes further: if offenders become the declaring side the defenders > should become aware of the mistake at a stage > where it is still possible to take action by one of them. > > To convince others about my opinion I introduced other tables where the > offender restores his mistake which leads to > a better score for the opponents. I thought that to be convincing enough. > And in a way it was, since now some of us > introduced L12A to restore equity. > > Kind of a unwanted trap that was. Because, as I said in a message to Kojak > and blml, once accepted that we needed > this equity approach we do not need the other tables anymore. The AS > should > be given according to my approach anyway. > > What I don't understand is that there are opinions saying (Herman and > others) that the AS at a table where the offenders do > not restore there mistake is different from that at a table where they do. Now, consider that the purpose of L12C is maximum punishment on the presumption that the offenders are stupid and the NOS is brilliant. That is what 'least favcorable' and 'most favorable' have come to mean. So. When T6 is punished by 12C2 they have already paid dearly for their sin. Yet, they have yet not paid enough????? That is what is ridiculous. regards roger pewick > That simply is an approach which I can't accept. And then, dear Roger, > some > of those try to escape by telling that no cases > are the same so each decision should have its own approach. B... S... . > > > This is my last contribution on this issue, > > ton From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Apr 11 16:10:42 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Apr 11 16:11:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Mechanics Message-ID: <2da24b8e0604110710l7591ae0di4773d5cf29bd3feb@mail.gmail.com> I have a quick question regarding the mechanics behind adjusted scores. Assume for the moment that you need to assign an adjusted score in a 24 board MP tournament. For whatever reason, you need to assign a given pair an "average". Traditionally, an "average" has been defined as a score of 50%. This seems a bit strange. Assume that a pair is significantly stronger (or weaker) than the majority of the field. In this case, assigning a score of 50% will distort that pairs results. If I'm running a 65% game, assigning me a 50% will decrease my final score. >From my perspective, it seems a lot more equitable to simply cancel the board. The pair that recieved an "average" would have their final score calculated based on the 23 boards that they completely successfully. In a similar fashion, the board would be masterpointed based on the 11 tables that really played the board. I'm curious why this type of system is not used... -- 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 11 17:19:20 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Apr 11 17:33:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de><008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><003401c65c72$1a791d90$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><001a01c65d39$d8e5b690$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000201c65d7c$61cb5040$2eb887d9@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: "Roger Pewick" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > > [b] but such instruction invokes the necessity of the thought police, and, > is beyond the capabilities of policing; the compulsion to utilize to > advantage the extraneous information is too difficult to avoid. > +=+ An alternative view is that, whilst an action may be beyond the capabilities of policing, its improper nature should be stated so that in circumstances where its occurrence is thrown into relief authority has a basis for dealing with it. +=+ > ----------------- \x/ ---------------------- > > > > Now, consider that the purpose of L12C is maximum punishment > on the presumption that the offenders are stupid and the NOS is > brilliant. That is what 'least favorable' and 'most favorable' have > come to mean. > +=+ In 12C2 the wording is clear enough that the 'most favourable result' must be reached through an auction without irregularity; the source of 'the most unfavourable result' is not so restricted and may be reached in an auction proceeding by way of the infraction. As I have said before, the EBL has consistently maintained that score adjustment is to give redress for damage and damage may occur when the serenity of the auction is disturbed by an irregularity, so that the object of adjustment is not to punish but, as nearly as may be, to reinstate the probabilities of outcome existing prior to the violation of law. That is why we insisted on 12C3 and its precursor footnote - in 1985 we considered the ACBL drafting committee was departing from the primary objective set down in the 'Scope and Interpretation of the Laws' by introducing an obligatory element of retribution into score adjustment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 11 17:57:06 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Apr 11 17:51:46 2006 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Mechanics Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060411175703.02de3bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:47:57 +0200 >To: "richard willey" >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [blml] Mechanics > >At 10:10 11/04/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >> >From my perspective, it seems a lot more equitable to simply cancel >>the board. The pair that recieved an "average" would have their final >>score calculated based on the 23 boards that they completely >>successfully. In a similar fashion, the board would be masterpointed >>based on the 11 tables that really played the board. >> >>I'm curious why this type of system is not used... > >WAG : an arbitral average is only given when the pair is slightly at >fault. This means giving them "enough" isn't the main concern. It's a >penalty, after all. >When you aren't responsible for the arbitral score, your score is 60% or >your session average, whichever is greater, which caters for the problem >you mention. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 11 18:23:33 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Apr 11 18:24:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: <1FRsCv-2G3OOe0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de><008a01c65bdc$8fc9fd30$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><003401c65c72$1a791d90$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx><001a01c65d39$d8e5b690$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000201c65d7c$61cb5040$2eb887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > > 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: "Roger Pewick" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 1:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > > >> >> [b] but such instruction invokes the necessity of the thought police, >> and, >> is beyond the capabilities of policing; the compulsion to utilize to >> advantage the extraneous information is too difficult to avoid. >> > +=+ An alternative view is that, whilst an action may be beyond > the capabilities of policing, its improper nature should be stated so > that in circumstances where its occurrence is thrown into relief > authority has a basis for dealing with it. +=+ >> ----------------- \x/ ---------------------- >> > >> >> Now, consider that the purpose of L12C is maximum punishment >> on the presumption that the offenders are stupid and the NOS is >> brilliant. That is what 'least favorable' and 'most favorable' have >> come to mean. >> > +=+ In 12C2 the wording is clear enough that the 'most favourable > result' must be reached through an auction without irregularity; the > source of 'the most unfavourable result' is not so restricted and may > be reached in an auction proceeding by way of the infraction. Thereby prescribing the maximum punishment. > As I > have said before, the EBL has consistently maintained that score > adjustment is to give redress for damage and damage may occur > when the serenity of the auction is disturbed by an irregularity, so > that the object of adjustment is not to punish but, as nearly as may > be, to reinstate the probabilities of outcome existing prior to the > violation of law. That is why we insisted on 12C3 and its precursor > footnote - in 1985 we considered the ACBL drafting committee > was departing from the primary objective set down in the 'Scope > and Interpretation of the Laws' by introducing an obligatory > element of retribution into score adjustment. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Which supports the assertion that there are people 'calling elephants goats, and then treating them as goats'. regards roger pewick From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 11 19:53:04 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Apr 11 19:57:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Mechanics References: <2da24b8e0604110710l7591ae0di4773d5cf29bd3feb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003d01c65d90$c9aefcc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "richard willey" I have a quick question regarding the mechanics behind adjusted scores. Assume for the moment that you need to assign an adjusted score in a 24 board MP tournament. For whatever reason, you need to assign a given pair an "average". Traditionally, an "average" has been defined as a score of 50%. This seems a bit strange. Assume that a pair is significantly stronger (or weaker) than the majority of the field. In this case, assigning a score of 50% will distort that pairs results. If I'm running a 65% game, assigning me a 50% will decrease my final score. >From my perspective, it seems a lot more equitable to simply cancel the board. The pair that recieved an "average" would have their final score calculated based on the 23 boards that they completely successfully. In a similar fashion, the board would be masterpointed based on the 11 tables that really played the board. I'm curious why this type of system is not used... ##### It is used. If a pair doesn't play a board they should have played and they are faultless, they get average-plus, which is defined as 60% or their average on the other boards, whichever is greater. The only time a pair gets an average 50% is when they are partly, not entirely, to blame for the score adjustment. Pairs who are entirely at fault get anywhere from a zero to average-minus, which is 40% At the Dallas NABC, Open Pairs 1st qual, two boards that had been played the night before were not duplicated. The mistake was found when a pair recognized the deals. The two pairs held responsible received zeros, players who had played the boards the night before (the computer knew them) received average-plus, while pairs who had not seen the deals had their table results scored normally except for the necessary Neuberg adjustment toward the normal top of 25 (two sections scored across-the-field). As I told the TD in charge of the event, this was illegal. Law 6D2 says "no result may stand" in such a case, and all the results on the board should have been discarded, with the usual factoring up of scores for players who had "no result" on the two boards (no average-plus in this case, I believe). Of course this particular TD doesn't listen to me, even when I cite a law. He's just too busy after a session to bother with a seeming crackpot. As to the offenders, I believe their scores are factored up also, but then 50 matchpoints are deducted. Someone may want to correct me on this point. There was quite a bit of controversy concerning the extreme penalty handed out, the supposed culprits saying it was more the TD's fault than theirs. One player claimed the hand records were not on the table when they sat down (late, no doubt), and he assumed the duplication had been done. Another said she saw the hand records on the table, so who knows? The moral is: Get to the table on time! There are too many late arrivals. CTD Rick Beye and one of his TDs had to fill in at my table for a pair who arrived a very long time after the first round started. I hope they had a good excuse. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 12 04:31:14 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 12 04:31:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation In-Reply-To: <200604071529.k37FT0nL019911@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200604071529.k37FT0nL019911@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <443C6672.2040706@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > If a player knows opponents agreements sufficiently well to understand that > an opponent has given misinformation is he then not protected by Law 9A1 > when he "calls attention to this irregularity" by asking clarifying > questions even in the case that the sole purpose of such questions appears > to be to alert partner? This is the "Kaplan question," and I think it should be legal. The WBFLC, however, disagrees. I think the statement is in the Lille minutes, but it could have been a later meeting. (The "pro question" is different; I think there's much wider agreement that it should be illegal. L73B1 comes to mind.) > The Director must never look at any hand before allowing a Law 21B1 change > of call. He must obviously inspect all hands when considering a Law 12C2 > adjustment. Indeed. It's the latter we are considering here. While I'm happy to give strong weight to the misled player's testimony "With correct information, of course I would have (picked the winning action)," I think the TD still needs to evaluate whether this testimony is reasonable. This is a judgment matter, and if the answer is not obvious -- maybe even if it is -- the TD needs to consult. Tim was asking the right question. When the TD consults, what question does he ask: > a) 1S-(3D)-P-(P)-?. 3D is a strong jump overcall, what do you bid? OR > b) 1S-(3D)-P-(P)-?. 3D is a strong jump overcall, described as weak by > advancer, what do you bid? Grattan tells us the past practice has been a). Ton argues for b) based on catching a villain who might remember but be less than scrupulous about his L75D1 obligation. If this is considered important, there are laws changes that could be made to deal with the issue. (Yes, and avoid mind reading!) From: Ed Reppert > I guess the more general question is "Is it ever proper for dummy to > answer a question about his side's auction"? That's an easy one! When (presumed) declarer has given MI, dummy _must_ correct before the opening lead (L75D2). And in general, if defenders ask about the declaring side's understandings, I don't see that it matters who answers except in the rare case where the auction is reopened because of MI. But if that happens, there is bound to be a huge UI problem no matter what. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Apr 12 04:38:45 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed Apr 12 04:39:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Mechanics In-Reply-To: <200604111521.k3BFLJUk029804@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200604111521.k3BFLJUk029804@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <443C6835.6000601@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "richard willey" > For whatever reason, you need to assign a > given pair an "average". Traditionally, an "average" has been defined > as a score of 50%. It is explicit in L12C1. > This seems a bit strange. Assume that a pair is significantly > stronger (or weaker) than the majority of the field. In this case, > assigning a score of 50% will distort that pairs results. If I'm > running a 65% game, assigning me a 50% will decrease my final score. You are partly at fault, so there should be a penalty element. But you do have a point: the size of the penalty depends on how well the pair in question are doing. It will be 15% for Richard's 65% pair but only 5% for a 55% pair. The "penalty" might even be a bonus if applied to a below-average pair. (This could matter in a "stratified" event, where different flights play and are scored together, but lower flights are ranked only within their own group.) A way around this would be to give "session average" as the score, then deduct a penalty of 10% of a top. This doesn't appear to be strictly legal, but I suppose it's no worse than other things some SO's do. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 12 09:26:52 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 12 09:27:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c6596d$65569c00$689487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (blowing hot): >>Under Law 16 an opponent's mannerism (in this >>case a misexplanation) is authorised >>information. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ No. I do not know who wrote this but >a misexplanation is not a mannerism. > "Mannerism" = a constant sameness of >manner; stiltedness; a marked peculiarity or >trick of style or manner. > "Peculiarity" = singular; that which >is found in one and no other; something that >distinguishes anything from others; oddity. > A mannerism is behavioural and is >peculiar to an individual, idiosyncratic, so >that one may read it if tuned in. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 16B: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorised information about a board he is playing ..... as by ..... overhearing ..... remarks....." Richard Hills (blowing cold): Under Law 16B, an opponent's remark (such as an opponent saying, "Oh no; I misunderstood my pard's jump overcall as weak when it was actually strong!") is unauthorised information to both sides. :-) Richard Hills (blowing hot): >>But a Tonic TD rules that South could >>have known that belated obedience to Law >>75D1 would damage the non-offending side Law 75D1: "If a player **subsequently realises** that his own explanation was erroneous ..... Law 72B1: "..... could have known at the time of his irregularity ....." Richard Hills (blowing cold): It is not an infraction of Law 75D1 for one to fail to realise at a **particular** time. It is only an infraction to fail to correct a misexplanation **after realising** one's previous error. Therefore Law 72B1 cannot be used to rule that a realisation and consequent correction of a misexplanation should have occurred at a **particular** time. It is the more stringent requirements of Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) which must be used to determine whether or not Law 75D1 has been infracted. Ergo, if Law 85 is not satisfied, then the non-offending side does not have any entitlement to deduce that the offending side has had a misunderstanding. Unless, of course, the offending side's bidding is inconsistent with the offending side's partnership agreements. 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 grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Apr 12 14:24:33 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Apr 12 16:17:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000401c65e3b$00205c40$43ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics." [Earl Warren] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > --------------- \x/ ------------- > It is the more stringent requirements of > Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) which > must be used to determine whether or not > Law 75D1 has been infracted. > > Ergo, if Law 85 is not satisfied, then the > non-offending side does not have any > entitlement to deduce that the offending > side has had a misunderstanding. Unless, > of course, the offending side's bidding is > inconsistent with the offending side's > partnership agreements. > +=+ That is the traditional stance to which I am well accustomed - and believe to be the intention of the law. But of course failure to disclose correctly, even if it is the result of amnesia, invokes Law 40C - while 84D sets the standard for adjustment at restoration of equity. For equality of treatment adjustment under Law 85 should conform to the same standard. Pace Roger, the retributory aspects of 12C2 are not in line with the aim of equity specified elsewhere in the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 12 17:58:19 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed Apr 12 17:58:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? References: Message-ID: <005501c65e49$ead41930$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Odd Misinformationsituation - your opinions? > Ton wrote: >> It is my conviction that a player having received wrong information >> should be allowed to base his decisions on the interpretations he >> can make using both: the wrong information he received and the right > > information he is entitled to. > > This is undoubtedly true. If a player at the table receives both right > and wrong information he may indeed use both to make his decision. I think it goes a bit further. The correct information is a "given". The inferences from the wrong information and susequent actions would be subject to a IWOG ruling, as I'm trying to avoid the double-shot. As for "filthy cheaters", that's an overstatement of my position, but I think blml understands where I'm coming from when I use the (to coin a phrase) "Probst cheat" [to clarify] I eject cheats from the game. I have never ejected a person from a game because I thought they were cheating, but one of my tests is based on those who I would eject.. >> I accept that L12C seems to say that such position is wrong (as I >> humbly admitted). > > The current law assesses damage based on would/might things have gone > differently had NOS received the correct information. This is equity > based (and together with corresponding UI protection) should ensure that > NOS are not damaged. Changing the law to say we should assess damage > based on a player having both correct info and the knowledge of a > misunderstanding would not be "wrong" but it would result more > "windfall" scores to the NOS and more frequent adjustments against OS. > It wouldn't be my choice to move the laws in that direction but nor > would it be unreasonable. > >> Therefore I created the situation where a player after having given >> wrong information realises his mistake and restores it. >> This brings his opponent in this favorable position I would like to >> be the default one. > > Ok, but the way I (and others) read the situation under current law was > that you created a scenario where NOS had clearly not been damaged by > the MI (opps got to a silly contract) but then there was a *possible* > second MI infraction of failure to correct promptly in contravention of > the requirements of L75d1. > > I'm sorry if my earlier posts didn't make clear that I was trying to > rule under current law based on two separate infractions (or rather one > infraction and one possible infraction) and that the second infraction > required investigation of detail before ruling. > I wasn't trying to suggest different approaches to similar cases but > that a single approach would lead to different rulings depending on the > results of the TD's investigation. > >> And it goes further: if offenders become the declaring side the >> defenders should become aware of the mistake at a stage >> where it is still possible to take action by one of them. > > And, of course, that should always happen under current law. But again, > it is not the original MI infraction which would lead us there but a > subsequent infraction of L75d2. > > I'd even agree that some TD's don't *look* beyond the simple MI to check > for subsequent UI/L75D issues but that doesn't make the current approach > wrong. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 16 17:57:33 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Apr 16 17:58:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Mechanics In-Reply-To: <003d01c65d90$c9aefcc0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001301c6616e$792d5a30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French ............. > ##### > It is used. If a pair doesn't play a board they should have played > and they are faultless, they get average-plus, which is defined as > 60% or their average on the other boards, whichever is greater. > > The only time a pair gets an average 50% is when they are partly, > not entirely, to blame for the score adjustment. Pairs who are > entirely at fault get anywhere from a zero to average-minus, which > is 40% > > At the Dallas NABC, Open Pairs 1st qual, two boards that had been > played the night before were not duplicated. The mistake was found > when a pair recognized the deals. The two pairs held responsible > received zeros, players who had played the boards the night before > (the computer knew them) received average-plus, while pairs who had > not seen the deals had their table results scored normally except > for the necessary Neuberg adjustment toward the normal top of 25 > (two sections scored across-the-field). > > As I told the TD in charge of the event, this was illegal. Law 6D2 > says "no result may stand" in such a case, and all the results on > the board should have been discarded, with the usual factoring up of > scores for players who had "no result" on the two boards (no > average-plus in this case, I believe). Of course this particular TD > doesn't listen to me, even when I cite a law. He's just too busy > after a session to bother with a seeming crackpot. No pairs should receive a "no result" on that board; they were all scheduled to play the board but could not due to a fault not at all their responsibility. So actually all the pairs should have received A+ (except of course those who were directly responsible for the error which should have received A- , not zero!). However, if the TD felt sufficiently for it he could award a PP in addition to the A-. > As to the offenders, I believe their scores are factored up also, > but then 50 matchpoints are deducted. Someone may want to correct me > on this point. I do not know your scoring program, but when a score is directly assigned in percent (for instance A- = 40%) it should never be factored. > There was quite a bit of controversy concerning the extreme penalty > handed out, the supposed culprits saying it was more the TD's fault > than theirs. One player claimed the hand records were not on the > table when they sat down (late, no doubt), and he assumed the > duplication had been done. Another said she saw the hand records on > the table, so who knows? The moral is: Get to the table on time! > > There are too many late arrivals. CTD Rick Beye and one of his TDs > had to fill in at my table for a pair who arrived a very long time > after the first round started. I hope they had a good excuse. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 18 05:58:37 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Apr 18 06:00:07 2006 Subject: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion References: <4429052c.33be.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <009c01c6629c$5fa35e00$029468d5@jeushtlj> [Karel] > Case 2 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 - in fact 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. [nige1] Kare1, please, may I post this case to RGB to solicit the opinions of ordinary players? What exactly was the TD & AC ruling -- for NS and for EW. I was amazed at the number of BLMLers who would deny redress to NS. I am usually a minority of one on BLML; but, I hope that my views may merit some support from RGBers. [A] I hate the "wild and gambling rule". Why must the traumatized victims of a blatant infraction meet externally judged standards of subsequent bidding and play in order to merit redress. This rule adds no value to the laws. It is unfair, unjust and completely superfluous. [B} Especially in this case. NS are vulnerable. After a few tricks, they realize that they have a certain small and probable grand slam. They know that they'll earn few matchpoints, defending a doubled non-vulnerable partscore. Only a secretary-bid would realize the necessity to waste time and adrenalin, fighting for valueless undertricks. [C] 7S= was a quite likely result. Although NS only claimed 1460, shouldn't the AC award them 2210, the most favourable result that was at all likely? Even if the AC deny the victims full redress, shouldn't that be the result for offenders? Why O why does 71C3 enter the picture? BTW, 71C3 seems like another daft and superfluous law. It gives TDs the power to decide events by fine-tuning the mix -- with little possibility of successful appeal. From piv+blml at iki.fi Tue Apr 18 07:22:34 2006 From: piv+blml at iki.fi (Pekka Viitasalo) Date: Tue Apr 18 07:23:17 2006 Subject: [blml] TD woes Message-ID: <4444779A.6010605@iki.fi> The following two cases took place in the same congress. Both times the same TD was involved. Case 1. TD is called to table where South had opened 1S after which East had passed (OOT). TD arrived without TFLB and ruled that East had to pass when next it is his turn to call. The auction continued X by West and three passess followed. The result was -200. EW had 26 hcp, but could no make any game. Cold zero for NS (as would have been 1S undoubled, BTW). After a couple of rounds a friend of South's came to kibitz and South asked about the ruling. The friend read the correct ruling from his LB. South did not want to pursuit the matter further as he was doing quite badly in the tournament. The friend went to the TD and discreetly told about the misruling. The TD ignored the matter and made no effort to utilize L82C. Case 2. The tournament format was Danish/Swiss with four board matches and duplicated boards. There was a duplication error in one of the boards. However, in many of the matches the same physical board was played at both tables making the results on the board comparable in many matches. (The duplication error was easy to note and remember: the red suits were swapped.) The TD cancelled the board in all matches without further investigation. One of the contestants, whose team did remarkably well on the board, (both tables having played an identical board) went to the TD and told that he wanted to appeal the cancellation decision. "OK", said the TD, "appeal received, processed and rejected". Any opinions about the TD's [in]competence and attitude? Any suggestions how Case 1 should have been handled after the misruling? Any suggestions in Case 2 how the contestant could have get the board scored? (NB, the TD was the chief TD of the tournament and had set no appeals committee.) br, Pekka Viitasalo -- http://www.iki.fi/~piv "It is more complicated than you think." - RFC1925 From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 18 08:46:36 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 18 08:47:21 2006 Subject: [blml] TD woes In-Reply-To: <4444779A.6010605@iki.fi> Message-ID: <000101c662b3$d6e52f90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Pekka Viitasalo > The following two cases took place in the same congress. Both > times the same TD was involved. > > Case 1. > > TD is called to table where South had opened 1S after which > East had passed (OOT). TD arrived without TFLB and ruled that > East had to pass when next it is his turn to call. The auction > continued X by West and three passess followed. The result was -200. > EW had 26 hcp, but could no make any game. Cold zero for NS (as would > have been 1S undoubled, BTW). > > After a couple of rounds a friend of South's came to kibitz and > South asked about the ruling. The friend read the correct ruling > from his LB. South did not want to pursuit the matter further as > he was doing quite badly in the tournament. The friend went to the > TD and discreetly told about the misruling. The TD ignored the > matter and made no effort to utilize L82C. > > Case 2. > > The tournament format was Danish/Swiss with four board matches and > duplicated boards. There was a duplication error in one of the boards. > However, in many of the matches the same physical board was played at > both tables making the results on the board comparable in many matches. > (The duplication error was easy to note and remember: the red suits > were swapped.) > > The TD cancelled the board in all matches without further investigation. > One of the contestants, whose team did remarkably well on the board, > (both tables having played an identical board) went to the TD and > told that he wanted to appeal the cancellation decision. > "OK", said the TD, "appeal received, processed and rejected". > > Any opinions about the TD's [in]competence and attitude? Any suggestions > how Case 1 should have been handled after the misruling? Any suggestions > in Case 2 how the contestant could have get the board scored? (NB, the TD > was the chief TD of the tournament and had set no appeals committee.) Case 1: The Director can "hide" behind law 76B and refuse to change his ruling. I do not accept the TD handling of this case (I use to say that even with my 26 years of experience as a licensed TD I never make any ruling on calls out of turn without consulting the laws). IMO a report to the national authority is in order. Case 2: The contestant should by all means use Law 93C and take a further appeal to the national authority. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 18 13:59:26 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Apr 18 14:37:54 2006 Subject: [blml] TD woes References: <000101c662b3$d6e52f90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:46 AM Subject: RE: [blml] TD woes > On Behalf Of Pekka Viitasalo > The following two cases took place in the same congress. Both > times the same TD was involved. > > Case 1. > > TD is called to table where South had opened 1S after which > East had passed (OOT). TD arrived without TFLB and ruled that > East had to pass when next it is his turn to call. The auction > continued X by West and three passess followed. The result was -200. > EW had 26 hcp, but could no make any game. Cold zero for NS (as would > have been 1S undoubled, BTW). > > After a couple of rounds a friend of South's came to kibitz and > South asked about the ruling. The friend read the correct ruling > from his LB. South did not want to pursuit the matter further as > he was doing quite badly in the tournament. The friend went to the > TD and discreetly told about the misruling. The TD ignored the > matter and made no effort to utilize L82C. > Any opinions about the TD's [in]competence and attitude? Any suggestions > how Case 1 should have been handled after the misruling? Any suggestions > in Case 2 how the contestant could have get the board scored? (NB, the TD > was the chief TD of the tournament and had set no appeals committee.) Case 1: The Director can "hide" behind law 76B and refuse to change his ruling. I do not accept the TD handling of this case (I use to say that even with my 26 years of experience as a licensed TD I never make any ruling on calls out of turn without consulting the laws). IMO a report to the national authority is in order. Regards Sven I am now a bit curious. At the time of the ruling was there a spectator? No. So, if the status of the person was not a spectator of the events and since the law does not specify 'only the involved players may speak on a question of fact on their own initiative' [and if that is what was meant then without a doubt would indeed so specify], would it not be correct to act on the report of TD error? Also, as to hiding behind L76B, does 76B really specify that the TD is not to act on information of a spectator? I see no such provision. It says that it is improper to give unsolicited facts. I do see provision of 82A that it is the TD duty to rectify errors of procedure. As to L11B1, it was a player that drew attention to the infraction, not the spectator. I should think that the irregularities that the TD might not penalize via L11 are solely the irregularities of players [as distinct from the irregularities of the TD]. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Tue Apr 18 23:23:28 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Apr 18 23:24:14 2006 Subject: [blml] TD woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c6632e$5682b590$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Pekka Viitasalo > > The following two cases took place in the same congress. Both > > times the same TD was involved. > > > > Case 1. > > > > TD is called to table where South had opened 1S after which > > East had passed (OOT). TD arrived without TFLB and ruled that > > East had to pass when next it is his turn to call. The auction > > continued X by West and three passess followed. The result was -200. > > EW had 26 hcp, but could no make any game. Cold zero for NS (as would > > have been 1S undoubled, BTW). > > > > After a couple of rounds a friend of South's came to kibitz and > > South asked about the ruling. The friend read the correct ruling > > from his LB. South did not want to pursuit the matter further as > > he was doing quite badly in the tournament. The friend went to the > > TD and discreetly told about the misruling. The TD ignored the > > matter and made no effort to utilize L82C. > > > Any opinions about the TD's [in]competence and attitude? Any suggestions > > how Case 1 should have been handled after the misruling? Any suggestions > > in Case 2 how the contestant could have get the board scored? (NB, the > TD > > was the chief TD of the tournament and had set no appeals committee.) > > Case 1: The Director can "hide" behind law 76B and refuse to change his > ruling. I do not accept the TD handling of this case (I use to say that > even > with my 26 years of experience as a licensed TD I never make any ruling on > calls out of turn without consulting the laws). > IMO a report to the national authority is in order. > > > Regards Sven > > I am now a bit curious. At the time of the ruling was there a spectator? > No. > > So, if the status of the person was not a spectator of the events and > since > the law does not specify 'only the involved players may speak on a > question > of fact on their own initiative' [and if that is what was meant then > without > a doubt would indeed so specify], would it not be correct to act on the > report of TD error? > > Also, as to hiding behind L76B, does 76B really specify that the TD is > not > to act on information of a spectator? I see no such provision. It says > that it is improper to give unsolicited facts. I do see provision of 82A > that it is the TD duty to rectify errors of procedure. > > As to L11B1, it was a player that drew attention to the infraction, not > the > spectator. I should think that the irregularities that the TD might not > penalize via L11 are solely the irregularities of players [as distinct > from > the irregularities of the TD]. The relevant law in this case (a claim that TD has given an incorrect ruling) is Law 92. Only an affected contestant or his Captain may appeal for a review. Any person other than the contestants and the officials for the event that is present in the rooms whether or not he is actually kibitzing is considered to be a spectator and has as such no right to address the Director on any alleged irregularity. The Director may elect to listen to him but has no duty to do so. ("Spectators" even include contestants while they have sit-out rounds). Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 19 00:35:38 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 19 00:36:29 2006 Subject: [blml] TD woes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pekka Viitasalo: [snip] >>The friend read the correct ruling from his LB. South did not >>want to pursuit the matter further as he was doing quite >>badly in the tournament. The friend went to the TD and >>discreetly told about the misruling. The TD ignored the >>matter [snip] Roger Pewick: [snip] >the law does not specify 'only the involved players may speak >on a question of fact on their own initiative' [snip] Richard Hills: But a semi-official interpretation of Law, the WBF Code of Practice, does specify (page 4): "An appeal against a ruling may only be made by a side present at the table where the ruling was given. No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants in the outcome." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 19 01:11:52 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Apr 19 01:12:56 2006 Subject: [blml] TD woes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c6632e$5682b590$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >considered to be a spectator and has as such no right >to address the Director on any alleged irregularity. >The Director may elect to listen to him but has no >duty to do so. > >("Spectators" even include contestants while they have >sit-out rounds). Chapter 1 Definitions: >>Contestant - In an individual event, a player; in a >>pair event, two players playing as partners throughout >>the event; in a team event, four or more players >>playing as team-mates. >>Event - A contest of one or more sessions. >>Session - An extended period of play during which a >>number of boards, specified by the sponsoring >>organisation, is scheduled to be played. Richard Hills: It seems to me that a sit-out round is part of a session's extended period of play. Therefore a contestant in an event remains a contestant, not a spectator, during that sit-out round. Ergo, if a contestant sitting out draws the director's attention to that director's error, then it seems to me that a highly relevant Law is Law 81C6: >>The Director's duties and powers normally include the >>following: to rectify an error or irregularity of >>which he becomes aware in any manner, within the >>correction period established in accordance with Law >>79C. Richard Hills: In my opinion, if the Law 81C6 word "normally" is read in conjunction with the Law 76B prohibition on spectators drawing attention to irregularities or mistakes, then Sven's main point is correct - the director has no duty to listen to an abnormal and illegal comment from a spectator. But in my opinion, a _contestant_ drawing attention to an irregularity cannot be defined as abnormal (unless it is a premature director call infracting Law 75D2). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 19 09:51:11 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 19 09:51:57 2006 Subject: [blml] TD woes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c66386$076dc640$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >considered to be a spectator and has as such no right > >to address the Director on any alleged irregularity. > >The Director may elect to listen to him but has no > >duty to do so. > > > >("Spectators" even include contestants while they have > >sit-out rounds). > > Chapter 1 Definitions: > > >>Contestant - In an individual event, a player; in a > >>pair event, two players playing as partners throughout > >>the event; in a team event, four or more players > >>playing as team-mates. > > >>Event - A contest of one or more sessions. > > >>Session - An extended period of play during which a > >>number of boards, specified by the sponsoring > >>organisation, is scheduled to be played. > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that a sit-out round is part of a > session's extended period of play. Therefore a > contestant in an event remains a contestant, not a > spectator, during that sit-out round. > > Ergo, if a contestant sitting out draws the director's > attention to that director's error, then it seems to me > that a highly relevant Law is Law 81C6: > > >>The Director's duties and powers normally include the > >>following: to rectify an error or irregularity of > >>which he becomes aware in any manner, within the > >>correction period established in accordance with Law > >>79C. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, if the Law 81C6 word "normally" is read > in conjunction with the Law 76B prohibition on > spectators drawing attention to irregularities or > mistakes, then Sven's main point is correct - the > director has no duty to listen to an abnormal and > illegal comment from a spectator. > > But in my opinion, a _contestant_ drawing attention to > an irregularity cannot be defined as abnormal (unless > it is a premature director call infracting Law 75D2). Richards's comments are very relevant in events where they play with some type of Mitchell or Howell movements and therefore must confine their interest to their own table. I must apologize for automatically considering only the most common way of arranging events in Norway (and in fact in Scandinavia as far as I know): Barometer events where a sit-out contestant is free to kibitz at any other table because the same boards are played at all tables during the same round. My comment is however IMO also relevant in other parts of the world when a sit-out contestant may kibitz at a table where they play boards which the sit-out contestant has already played or is not scheduled to play at all. In short I consider even contestants to be "spectators" when they in any way observe "things" that happen at a table other than their own. Regards Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 12:31:59 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed Apr 19 12:32:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Screen regulations Message-ID: <2a1c3a560604190331t733fad4jc0a23975db5f775d@mail.gmail.com> What is the meaning of this regulation? "Law 16 - During the auction, when playing with screens, a breach of tempo may be identified by the slowness or speed with which the tray is returned. The players who receive the tray are the ones who can speak to any abnormality. Consequently it is an infraction if a player on the side of the screen where the breach occurred is the first to draw attention to it and the player forfeits for his side its nonoffending status. It is not considered that a delay of some 20 seconds is sufficient to convey unauthorized information." WBF General Conditions of Contest. In particular is there any point at which it is not an infraction for the player on the same side of the screen as the hesitator to draw attention to it? For example is it ok after the hand has been completed? TIA Wayne From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 19 13:44:57 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed Apr 19 13:45:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Screen regulations References: <2a1c3a560604190331t733fad4jc0a23975db5f775d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002d01c663a6$af1d93f0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:31 AM Subject: [blml] Screen regulations > What is the meaning of this regulation? > > "Law 16 - During the auction, when playing with screens, a breach of > tempo may be identified by the slowness or speed with which the > tray is returned. The players who receive the tray are the ones who > can speak to any abnormality. Consequently it is an infraction if a > player on the side of the screen where the breach occurred is the > first to draw attention to it and the player forfeits for his side its > nonoffending > status. It is not considered that a delay of some 20 > seconds is sufficient to convey unauthorized information." WBF > General Conditions of Contest. > > In particular is there any point at which it is not an infraction for > the player on the same side of the screen as the hesitator to draw > attention to it? For example is it ok after the hand has been > completed? I can't see why. After all if the other side has not noticed (or at least not moaned about it), what UI is available? We're now getting paranoid about the hesitation - so what? it's the use of the tempo break which is illegal, not the tempo break itself. I get so much s**t form players with "He hesitated in the passout seat before passing and then led to trick 1" "Great, so friggin what?" (ok use of the UI during play is a possibility but that's not the issue we're addressing.) John > > TIA > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 19 16:32:24 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Apr 19 17:03:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Screen regulations References: <2a1c3a560604190331t733fad4jc0a23975db5f775d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002501c663c2$50761900$6401a8c0@kooijmaniqk5lx> What is the meaning of this regulation? "Law 16 - During the auction, when playing with screens, a breach of tempo may be identified by the slowness or speed with which the tray is returned. The players who receive the tray are the ones who can speak to any abnormality. Consequently it is an infraction if a player on the side of the screen where the breach occurred is the first to draw attention to it and the player forfeits for his side ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^just to show how difficult language is: we use twice 'side' in one sentence and they have different meanings, which makes this statement easily understood ^^^^wrongly. ^^^^^^^^ its nonoffending status. It is not considered that a delay of some 20 seconds is sufficient to convey unauthorized information." WBF General Conditions of Contest. In particular is there any point at which it is not an infraction for the player on the same side of the screen as the hesitator to draw attention to it? For example is it ok after the hand has been completed? ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^the answer is probably 'yes, that is ok'. But it won't do any good anymore, since apparently the other side wasn't aware of the hesitation, otherwise it should ^^^^have informed the TD itself. ton ^^^^^^^^ Wayne _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From raycrowe at woosh.co.nz Thu Apr 20 07:26:24 2006 From: raycrowe at woosh.co.nz (Ray Crowe) Date: Thu Apr 20 07:27:26 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion Message-ID: <002801c6643a$f87e8600$9b44d3cb@Crowe> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Crowe" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:23 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Crowe" > To: "Guthrie" > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:15 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Guthrie" >> To: "BLML" >> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:58 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] 2 cases like an opinion >> >> >>> [Karel] >>>> Case 2 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 - in fact 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. >>> [nige1] >>> Kare1, please, may I post this case to RGB to >>> solicit the opinions of ordinary players? >>> >>> What exactly was the TD & AC ruling -- for NS >>> and for EW. >>> >>> I was amazed at the number of BLMLers who would >>> deny redress to NS. I am usually a minority of one >>> on BLML; but, I hope that my views may merit some >>> support from RGBers. >>> >>> [A] I hate the "wild and gambling rule". Why must >>> the traumatized victims of a blatant infraction >>> meet externally judged standards of subsequent >>> bidding and play in order to merit redress. This >>> rule adds no value to the laws. It is unfair, >>> unjust and completely superfluous. >> >> In like situations, I agree whole heartedly. Once the NOS is landed with >> misinformation, they are not bidding/playing/defending the same hand any >> more, so how can they be judged on their subsequent actions? >> Law 12C2 says "the score is, for the NOS, the most favourable result that >> was likely had the irregularity not occurred". >> To me, that seems to eliminate all subsequent actions of the NOS, after >> the infraction, when awarding redress for damage. >>> >>> [B} Especially in this case. NS are vulnerable. >>> After a few tricks, they realize that they have a >>> certain small and probable grand slam. They know >>> that they'll earn few matchpoints, defending a >>> doubled non-vulnerable partscore. Only a >>> secretary-bid would realize the necessity to waste >>> time and adrenalin, fighting for valueless >>> undertricks. >>> >>> [C] 7S= was a quite likely result. Although NS >>> only claimed 1460, shouldn't the AC award them >>> 2210, the most favourable result that was at all >>> likely? Even if the AC deny the victims full >>> redress, shouldn't that be the result for >>> offenders? Why O why does 71C3 enter the picture? >>> >>> BTW, 71C3 seems like another daft and superfluous >>> law. >>> It gives TDs the power to decide events by >>> fine-tuning the mix -- with little possibility of >>> successful appeal. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml@amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> > From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Mon Apr 24 13:26:49 2006 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Mon Apr 24 13:28:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation Message-ID: <023901c66791$fb3c7500$0cb89951@e8m4u6> Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer North hand 5 -- Q109632 QJ9842 Bidding N E S W Pass 1H Pass 4C* 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass 7C Dble ALL PASS * Alerted ** Agreed hesitation Result -3 EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. I rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had a right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling and a deposit was forfeited. NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? Ken From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 24 14:30:18 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Apr 24 14:24:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <023901c66791$fb3c7500$0cb89951@e8m4u6> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060424142111.0204aac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:26 24/04/2006 +0100, you wrote: >Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer > > North hand > > 5 > -- > Q109632 > QJ9842 > > > Bidding > >N E S W > > Pass 1H Pass 4C* > 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass > 7C Dble ALL PASS > > * Alerted > ** Agreed hesitation > > Result -3 > > EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. I > rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had a > right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling >and a deposit was > forfeited. > > NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? They're right. You're allowed to wash your hands of the whole thing and put the matter in front of an AC, but the AC's decision is one of the worst I've seen. A tempo is requested after any skip bid. How can it be incorrect to observe it ? And since it is requested, no UI can be deemed to arise from its existence. To the contrary, a quick pass would create strong UI. Keeping the deposit is contemptuous. It would be a horse of another color if the hesitation was several minutes long, but you don't seem to tell this. Regards Alain From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Mon Apr 24 14:32:06 2006 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Mon Apr 24 14:34:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) Message-ID: <027301c6679b$1ca36560$0cb89951@e8m4u6> Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer North hand 5 -- Q109632 QJ9842 Bidding N E S W Pass 1H Pass 4C* 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass 6NT Pass 7C Dble ALL PASS * Alerted ** Agreed long hesitation Result -3 EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. I rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had a right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling and a deposit was forfeited. NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? Ken From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Apr 24 14:35:15 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Apr 24 14:36:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <023901c66791$fb3c7500$0cb89951@e8m4u6> References: <023901c66791$fb3c7500$0cb89951@e8m4u6> Message-ID: <444CC603.9080501@hdw.be> Ken Johnston wrote: > > Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer > > North hand > > 5 > -- > Q109632 > QJ9842 > > > Bidding > > N E S W > > Pass 1H Pass 4C* > 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass > 7C Dble ALL PASS > > * Alerted > ** Agreed hesitation > > Result -3 > > EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. I > rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had a > right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling > and a deposit was > forfeited. > > NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? > It seems to me that there is a real possibility that South was thinking about doubling rather than sacrificing. That means that it is quite unclear what the action is that "demonstrably could have been suggested". Of course, that being said, if South really was thinking about doubling, and decided against it, North has no reason whatsoever to believe the contract is going down, and a sacrifice is a suggested option. But then again, if South does not double 6H, isn't 7C the only logical alternative remaining? > Ken > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 268.4.5/322 - Release Date: 22/04/2006 From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Mon Apr 24 15:02:18 2006 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Mon Apr 24 16:01:45 2006 Subject: [blml] from Vitold Message-ID: <4716838893.20060424160218@yandex.ru> test From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Apr 24 17:17:27 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon Apr 24 17:22:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) In-Reply-To: <027301c6679b$1ca36560$0cb89951@e8m4u6> Message-ID: <200604241517.k3OFHRAQ027137@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ken Johnston writes: > > Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer > > North hand > > 5 > -- > Q109632 > QJ9842 > > > Bidding > > N E S W > > Pass 1H Pass 4C* > 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass > 6NT Pass 7C Dble > ALL PASS > > * Alerted > ** Agreed long hesitation > > Result -3 > > EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. I > rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had a > right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling > and a deposit was forfeited. > > NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? N/S argue in effect that there were no logical alternatives to a unilateral seven level sacrifice. Not surprisingly the director and AC didn't agree. Actually I have little doubt that North didn't phrase it that way -- that he made the old argument that the hesitation didn't affect his choice of calls -- that he was never going to defend with his collection. And North probably believes it. I've suggested in the past that governing bodies have a "thinking of appealing a hesitation ruling?" pamphlet available. I believe Grattan pointed out that the EBU had printouts of the laws in this area. That's useful, but I think it could be improved upon (because there's so much bad advice out there. In particular players need to understand that in a UI situation it's not good enough to "ignore the UI and do what you were going to do") From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Apr 24 18:37:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Apr 24 18:38:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) In-Reply-To: <200604241517.k3OFHRAQ027137@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote: > N/S argue in effect that there were no logical alternatives to a > unilateral seven level sacrifice. Hardly "unilateral" - partner has told you that he does not have two defensive tricks. There are two decisions, firstly does the hesitation suggest bidding on. This is close IMO, partner might have 1 and a bit defensive tricks and/or relatively short minors and have been considering a double. Secondly (assuming we decide the BIT suggests bidding) is there an LA. Again this is close. One is at favourable, partner has denied defence, you have no defence, it is extremely unlikely a minor suit contract will fail by more than 6 tricks regardless of partner's tempo. I assume from Ken's EMail address that this is an EBU problem, and thus subject to the 30% rule for LAs. My opinion is that I would struggle to find even 1 in 5 decent players who would pass here let alone 3 in 10. Obviously I would consult were I the TD - as the AC I'd only keep the deposit if TD had not only consulted widely amongst appropriate players, found near unanimity with regards to both the BIT suggesting a sacrifice *and* to pass being an LA but also explained the scope, and results, of his consultation to OS. Tim From con.holzscherer at philips.com Mon Apr 24 18:52:19 2006 From: con.holzscherer at philips.com (Con Holzscherer) Date: Mon Apr 24 18:54:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) In-Reply-To: <027301c6679b$1ca36560$0cb89951@e8m4u6> Message-ID: Ken Johnston wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer North hand 5 -- Q109632 QJ9842 Bidding N E S W Pass 1H Pass 4C* 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass 6NT Pass 7C Dble ALL PASS * Alerted ** Agreed long hesitation Result -3 EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. I rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had a right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling and a deposit was forfeited. NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that saving with this 6-6 without any defense is absolutely obligatory. Partner has had the chance to double 6 Hearts and he hasn't, so you can be approximately 100% sure that 6 hearts will make. So, the information that partner was not sure what to do is irrelevant. Anyhow, I would think that possibly the hesitation is about doubling, so it is a contra-indication for saving. I can understand that the TD in the misguided belief that he should always rule in favor of the non-hesitating party, ruled as he did, but I am completely appalled by the decision of the AC! Con Holzscherer From adam at irvine.com Mon Apr 24 19:06:28 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Apr 24 19:07:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:26:49 BST." <023901c66791$fb3c7500$0cb89951@e8m4u6> Message-ID: <200604241700.KAA23914@mailhub.irvine.com> Ken wrote: > Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer > > North hand > > 5 > -- > Q109632 > QJ9842 > > > Bidding > > N E S W > > Pass 1H Pass 4C* > 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass > 7C Dble ALL PASS > > * Alerted > ** Agreed hesitation [significantly longer than a normal hesitation > after a skip bid, I gather] > > Result -3 > > EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. I > rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had a > right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling > and a deposit was > forfeited. > > NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? The two main issues are, (1) Did the hesitation suggest bidding on? and (2) Was passing a logical alternative to 7C? (1) I think the hesitation does suggest bidding on. It's possible that South was thinking of doubling. However, it's unlikely on this auction that South would have a hand that would beat the contract more than one---and at IMPs, there's certainly not much reason to double just to convert +100 to +200, particularly when this sort of double could help declarer play the trump suit correctly. South will be on lead so he can't have been thinking of making a lead-directing double. So it appears to me to be a lot more likely that the hesitation does suggest bidding on. (2) As to whether passing as a logical alternative: My intuition, based on my playing experience, tells me that (a) if I have a two-suited distributional freak, partner is more likely to have a misfitting freak than the laws of probability say he should [note that the hesitation suggests that he *doesn't* have this]; and (b) wimping out and not saving against a slam has cost me a fair number of IMPs. So I think it's close. If I'm very confident they're making, then it seems clear to save (I'll probably take several tricks with small cards in the minor suit we don't declare in). If I think there's a fair chance they're going down, then I might not save figuring that if partner is 5=4=2=2 (not at all unlikely) and we go for -1400 or -1700 when they weren't making, this will be a disaster if our teammates only get to game. I'd really have to be at the table to know how good my opponents are, how brave they are, and how confident they seemed when they bid this slam. Unfortunately, it's hard to take this into account when the TD or AC determines what the logical alternatives are. My judgment is that passing could be right in some circumstances, so I'm inclined to rule that passing is a logical alternative (and therefore the score should be adjusted to EW +1430). But if NS made some sort of argument for 7C similar to what I was trying to make, then I'd think NS had a good enough case that I wouldn't rule that the deposit should be forfeited. On the other hand, if NS just gave them old "I was always going to bid 7C" with no better explanation than that, then the deposit forfeiture is at least understandable. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Mon Apr 24 19:14:42 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Apr 24 19:15:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:52:19 +0200." Message-ID: <200604241708.KAA24003@mailhub.irvine.com> Con Holzscherer wrote: > Ken Johnston wrote: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer > > North hand > > 5 > -- > Q109632 > QJ9842 > > > Bidding > > N E S W > > Pass 1H Pass 4C* > 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass > 6NT Pass 7C Dble > ALL PASS > > * Alerted > ** Agreed long hesitation > > Result -3 > > EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. > I > rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had > a > right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling > and a deposit was forfeited. > > NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I believe that saving with this 6-6 without any defense is absolutely > obligatory. Partner has had the chance to double 6 Hearts and he > hasn't, so you can be approximately 100% sure that 6 hearts will make. You and Tim have said the same thing, but this is the part I don't understand. Once you've bid 4NT, why would partner need to double to warn you away from saving? Once you've bid 4NT, doesn't that normally make it partner's decision whether to save or not, since (from partner's point of view) you've pretty well described your hand? I'm not an expert; perhaps there's some aspect of bidding theory that has eluded me here. -- Adam From tzimnoch at comcast.net Mon Apr 24 21:03:54 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon Apr 24 21:04:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) In-Reply-To: <200604241708.KAA24003@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200604241708.KAA24003@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <444D211A.5060006@comcast.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > You and Tim have said the same thing, but this is the part I don't > understand. Once you've bid 4NT, why would partner need to double to > warn you away from saving? Once you've bid 4NT, doesn't that normally > make it partner's decision whether to save or not, since (from > partner's point of view) you've pretty well described your hand? I'm > not an expert; perhaps there's some aspect of bidding theory that has > eluded me here. Would you call 4NT on less distributional hands, 2155 perhaps? I expect partner to double slams that aren't making to prevent me from taking a phantom sac. I too often take the bait. -Todd From adam at irvine.com Mon Apr 24 21:15:15 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Apr 24 21:16:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:03:54 EDT." <444D211A.5060006@comcast.net> Message-ID: <200604241909.MAA24758@mailhub.irvine.com> Todd wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > You and Tim have said the same thing, but this is the part I don't > > understand. Once you've bid 4NT, why would partner need to double to > > warn you away from saving? Once you've bid 4NT, doesn't that normally > > make it partner's decision whether to save or not, since (from > > partner's point of view) you've pretty well described your hand? I'm > > not an expert; perhaps there's some aspect of bidding theory that has > > eluded me here. > > Would you call 4NT on less distributional hands, 2155 perhaps? Maybe. > I expect partner to double slams that aren't making to > prevent me from taking a phantom sac. I too often take the > bait. However, I thought the general principle was that someone who bids 4NT in this situation is normally not supposed to venture out on his own again (similar to the "rule" that a preemptor isn't supposed to raise his own preempt). Perhaps, in your partnership, you expect partner to double slams that aren't making so that partner won't take a save on his own with a more extreme distribution than he promised (i.e. the 4NT bidder had better not bid again with just 5-5, but partner should double just in case partner has 6-6 or 7-6 or something). Maybe that's how decent players are supposed to play. I don't know. The problem with the "partner is supposed to double slams that aren't making" theory is, what is partner supposed to do with slams that may or may not make? Or slams with a trump holding that will probably set declarer if he isn't tipped off? (If the 4NT bidder could have 2=1=5=5, then declarer may play for a 3-1 break but could be tipped off to play for a 4-0 break if doubled.) Anything you do may work or may backfire. Bridge is a hard game. At the table, I wouldn't have this problem as North since I have already opened 2D or 3D. That's not acceptable in all partnerships, of course. -- Adam From jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon Apr 24 22:14:28 2006 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Mon Apr 24 22:15:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) Message-ID: <30485087.1145909669111.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Adam Beneschan > > >Con Holzscherer wrote: > >> Ken Johnston wrote: >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer >> >> North hand >> >> 5 >> -- >> Q109632 >> QJ9842 >> >> >> Bidding >> >> N E S W >> >> Pass 1H Pass 4C* >> 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass >> 6NT Pass 7C Dble >> ALL PASS >> >> * Alerted >> ** Agreed long hesitation >> >> Result -3 >> >> EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. >> I >> rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they had >> a >> right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's ruling >> and a deposit was forfeited. >> >> NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I believe that saving with this 6-6 without any defense is absolutely >> obligatory. Partner has had the chance to double 6 Hearts and he >> hasn't, so you can be approximately 100% sure that 6 hearts will make. > >You and Tim have said the same thing, but this is the part I don't >understand. Once you've bid 4NT, why would partner need to double to >warn you away from saving? Once you've bid 4NT, doesn't that normally >make it partner's decision whether to save or not, since (from >partner's point of view) you've pretty well described your hand? I'm >not an expert; perhaps there's some aspect of bidding theory that has >eluded me here. I agree with this, except I think Adam's modesty is misplaced here. 4N shows 6-6 at least; I've got 6-6 and slow values; why am I bidding now to give the opponents a fielder's choice after I already described my hand? What should partner have done with 85 QJT7 5432 943? He can't have that? I'm not watching the spots, so OK. But he can have basically this hand. And he should not double. And they've guessed at 6H. Won't it be charming to go: 6N-P-7C-P (I have first round control)/P-7H (Great!). Rebidding after the 4N bid is high-level criminality with this. I'd be exceedingly unhappy with a partner who bid that way; I consider it grossly anti-partnership. --JRM From jrmayne at mindspring.com Tue Apr 25 00:31:14 2006 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue Apr 25 00:32:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) Message-ID: <26412160.1145917874415.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: "John R. Mayne" > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Adam Beneschan >> >> >>Con Holzscherer wrote: >> >>> Ken Johnston wrote: >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer >>> >>> North hand >>> >>> 5 >>> -- >>> Q109632 >>> QJ9842 >>> >>> >>> Bidding >>> >>> N E S W >>> >>> Pass 1H Pass 4C* >>> 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass >>> 6NT Pass 7C Dble >>> ALL PASS >>> >>> * Alerted >>> ** Agreed long hesitation >>> >>> Result -3 >>> >>> EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after play. >>> I [snip] > >I agree with this, except I think Adam's modesty is misplaced here. 4N shows 6-6 at least; D'oh! That's not right. I think it shows at least 6-5 on this descriptive sequence, but it doesn't have to be 6-6. (I stand by the statement that re-sacrificing at the seven-level unilaterally is anti-partnership and wrong, but I just wanted to make clear I'm not quite so reactionary as to require 6-6 on this sequence.) --JRM From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 25 00:50:11 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Apr 25 00:52:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban Message-ID: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> As far as I remember, weak twos were banned for a long time by the EBU. When I made this claim on RGB, David Stevenson accused me of lying. For once, I'm worried because I can't consult the documents to which David has access. Can any BLMLer say whether weak twos were banned, and, if so, between which dates? I'm keen admit my error, if, in fact, I'm mistaken. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 25 01:18:13 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Apr 25 01:20:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) References: <027301c6679b$1ca36560$0cb89951@e8m4u6> Message-ID: <002b01c667f5$5c58a6c0$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> [Ken Johnston] > Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer > S:5 H- D:Q109632 D:QJ9842 > P (1H) P (4C*) > 4N* (6H) P...(P) > 6N (P) 7C (X) AP > * Alerted > ... Agreed long hesitation > Result -3 > EW reserved their rights at end of auction > and called me back after play. I rolled the > contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW > and told NS they had a right to appeal. > This they did and appeals panel upheld > Director's ruling and a deposit was forfeited. [nige1] Seems automatic. The message of 4N is: "we probably have a save in a minor suit; but I'm leaving the decision to you." The message of 4N is certainly *not*: "Please double if you think they may go down to prevent me from taking some daft flier at the seven level." Partner's hesitation is likely to be over a possible sacrifice rather than a possible penalty double. Hence [A] 6N was suggested by partner's hesitation. [B] Pass is the LA that would be chosen by disciplined experts. [C] The non-offenders were damaged by being deprived of their slam. QED. From schoderb at msn.com Tue Apr 25 02:09:08 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Apr 25 02:10:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) References: <30485087.1145909669111.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I greatly appreciate the bridge arguments put forth for sacrificing or not. They are cogent, interesting, good explanations of partnership understandings, good/bad bridge, etc. However, I can't help but in my 'simple and honest' mind to focus this problem on a point of law. Are there logical alternatives available to the call of 6NT? Does the hesitation suggest an alternative that "...could have demonstrably been suggested over another...."? If not, then a player can do what he wants to without penalty. If so, then Law 16A mandates a rectification. To me the strongest argument against allowing 6NT is that this player has already indicated a strong desire to sacrifice and his partner has declined to do so. To me it is analogous to my asking for aces, getting a response, hesitating while stopping at game, and then my partner with no demonstrable bridge reason -- such as a mistake in his response, or values not yet disclosed which complement our bidding -- then goes on to slam. Kojak P.S. Yeah, I know, analogies never are 100% the same. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Mayne" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Adam Beneschan > > > > > >Con Holzscherer wrote: > > > >> Ken Johnston wrote: > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer > >> > >> North hand > >> > >> 5 > >> -- > >> Q109632 > >> QJ9842 > >> > >> > >> Bidding > >> > >> N E S W > >> > >> Pass 1H Pass 4C* > >> 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass > >> 6NT Pass 7C Dble > >> ALL PASS > >> > >> * Alerted > >> ** Agreed long hesitation > >> > >> Result -3 > >> > >> EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after > >> play. > >> I > >> rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they > >> had > >> a > >> right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's > >> ruling > >> and a deposit was forfeited. > >> > >> NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> I believe that saving with this 6-6 without any defense is absolutely > >> obligatory. Partner has had the chance to double 6 Hearts and he > >> hasn't, so you can be approximately 100% sure that 6 hearts will make. > > > >You and Tim have said the same thing, but this is the part I don't > >understand. Once you've bid 4NT, why would partner need to double to > >warn you away from saving? Once you've bid 4NT, doesn't that normally > >make it partner's decision whether to save or not, since (from > >partner's point of view) you've pretty well described your hand? I'm > >not an expert; perhaps there's some aspect of bidding theory that has > >eluded me here. > > I agree with this, except I think Adam's modesty is misplaced here. 4N > shows 6-6 at least; I've got 6-6 and slow values; why am I bidding now to > give the opponents a fielder's choice after I already described my hand? > What should partner have done with 85 QJT7 5432 943? He can't have that? > I'm not watching the spots, so OK. But he can have basically this hand. > And he should not double. > > And they've guessed at 6H. Won't it be charming to go: 6N-P-7C-P (I have > first round control)/P-7H (Great!). > > Rebidding after the 4N bid is high-level criminality with this. I'd be > exceedingly unhappy with a partner who bid that way; I consider it grossly > anti-partnership. > > --JRM > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Apr 25 02:19:36 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue Apr 25 02:20:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Not in the last 30 years. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:50 PM Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban > As far as I remember, weak twos were banned for a > long time by the EBU. When I made this claim on > RGB, David Stevenson accused me of lying. For > once, I'm worried because I can't consult the > documents to which David has access. Can any > BLMLer say whether weak twos were banned, and, if > so, between which dates? I'm keen admit my error, > if, in fact, I'm mistaken. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Apr 25 02:23:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Apr 25 02:24:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) In-Reply-To: <200604241708.KAA24003@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: > You and Tim have said the same thing, but this is the part I don't > understand. Once you've bid 4NT, why would partner need to double to > warn you away from saving? 4N does not preclude holding a defensive trick and indeed does not preclude a hand looking for a minor slam. Absent special agreements pard doubles with 2 sure tricks because a) it can mean an extra 100-500 if opps have got it wrong and b) alerts you to the fact that his values ain't working for you. Of course one may have different agreements (e.g double showing precisely one defensive trick) but I'd expect to be told about those. Obviously if pard is not certain of his two tricks he may spend some time thinking. The above seems simple, but Adam is a better player than me so there must be something I've missed. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 25 03:38:32 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Apr 25 03:40:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> [Anne Jones] > Not in the last 30 years. [nige1] Thank you Anne. My memory is not what it was; and I only started playing Bridge after the War; but I seem to remember that, for decades, only certain *systems* (not *conventions*) were licensed and that none of those systems included weak twos (although I believe that weak twos became popular in America). From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Apr 25 12:16:42 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue Apr 25 12:17:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) Message-ID: <444df70a.1a8e.0@esatclear.ie> Are there logical alternatives available to the call of 6NT? +++ was pd thinking of doubling ?? Could well be after all they made 1430 so pd presumably had a trick - and maybe a close 2nd. Maybe pd is thinking of bidding but is afraid of pushing them to 7. I think the pause is not clear as to its meaning. It would seem pd maybe had a trick (they only made 12 tricks) some club support and was trying to guess would 6H's make and if 7C doubled would go off too many to make it a decent gamble. Are there LA's - of course there are. Pass, 7C's Does the hesitation suggest an alternative that "...could have demonstrably been suggested over another...."? +++ This is pretty hairy ground and regardless of the arguments I'm about to make, the decision is close and I would abide by the consulted players poll. As for losing the deposit well thats nonsense. No one so far has looked at the splinter bid implications. That 4C bid has markedly improved the likelihood of a club fit in pd's hand. The odds of 3+ clubs in the south hand are very good. The jump to 6H's will in a huge amount of cases be based on trump length 6+ minimum and good ones. Yes it is concievable pd has a trump trick or even QJTx but its extremely unlikely. It is way more likely pd has a spade trick. A splinter normally shows 4 card support so again south will have 3 hearts at most increasing the odds of a club fit. I don't know who E/W were or who N/S were ... but ... who I'm playing against on an auction like this would influence my bid dramatically. Good players will not punt to 6H's vul at imps unless they are close to certain to making it. The 4NT bid does not promise 6/6. Could be 6/5 or 7/5. There are alot of different 6/6 type hands. This one has no defense others may contain a K or may even hold 1 trump and a spade void. "Agreed hestitation". How long was it ?? It is widely accepted that the higher the auction or the more unusual the bid that the normal 10 seconds is not sufficient (infact maybe some note to that effect in the laws might be an idea). Lastly score wise. I have to disagree with 1400/1700 estimates. -5 on a bad day, -4 normally and -3 on a good day are much more likely. If -4 or -3 the cost/gain is not going to be significant against a vul game and is probably worth the risk. It is only the -5 case u need worry about and well thats bridge. So depending on numerous factors the 7C bid has alot going for it. I think you'd need to see all 4 hands, poll peers and talk to the players in question. If this was done, then I'll abide by the AC's decision. I must say though the forfiet of the deposit would give me grave concern that this case was "a if it pauses, shoot it" decision. Karel >> >> North hand >> >> >> >> 5 >> >> -- >> >> Q109632 >> >> QJ9842 >> >> >> >> >> >> Bidding >> >> >> >> N E S W >> >> >> >> Pass 1H Pass 4C* >> >> 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass >> >> 6NT Pass 7C Dble >> >> ALL PASS >> >> >> >> * Alerted >> >> ** Agreed long hesitation >> >> >> >> Result -3 >> >> *************************** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************** Get BT Broadband from only EUR20 per month! Always-on internet & wireless option - find out more at http://www.btireland.ie/broadband From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Apr 25 14:52:10 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Apr 25 14:59:36 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> <008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "I was on this ground a year ago and I have kept it in my pocket ever since." [Wellington, positioning his troops at Waterloo] ------------------------------------------------ +=+ I played Weak Twos from around 1949/50 onwards in duplicate bridge, switching to these methods at about that time. I had played against such methods for a couple of years before that. I did not hear of any earlier 'ban'. I believe they originated among US players whose systems had a strong 2C opener. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Weak 2 ban > [Anne Jones] > > Not in the last 30 years. > > [nige1] > Thank you Anne. My memory is not what it was; and > I only started playing Bridge after the War; but I > seem to remember that, for decades, only certain > *systems* (not *conventions*) were licensed and > that none of those systems included weak twos > (although I believe that weak twos became popular > in America). > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Apr 25 19:37:59 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Apr 25 19:41:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> <008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002201c6688f$001ab480$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" < > ------------------------------------------------ > +=+ I played Weak Twos from around 1949/50 > onwards in duplicate bridge, switching to these > methods at about that time. I had played against > such methods for a couple of years before that. > I did not hear of any earlier 'ban'. I believe they > originated among US players whose systems > had a strong 2C opener. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I remember when weak twos were first played here in the western US about 1950-51. Young players including Bill Hanna and the Steen brothers caused a lot of comment by using them (legally) at Los Angeles Bridge Week. And yes, they played an artificial strong 2C opener. Their weak two could be based on a major two-suited hand, and could have light opening-bid strength. The ACBL then decided to limit the strength to 11 HCP to make sure they were weak. At one of the first NABCs in the west (maybe the first, in nearby Coronado) Johnny Crawford opened a weak two with something like AKQJxx and an outside queen. His elderly opponents, Colonel Metcalfe and wife, called the TD and were given avg+ to go with Crawford's avg- (or worse, I don't remember for sure). Probably as a result of that the upper HCP limit was first increased to 12 and later dropped altogether, with a range limit substituted. I don't remember that weak twos were ever outlawed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Apr 25 19:46:11 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Apr 25 19:48:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> <008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ I played Weak Twos from around 1949/50 > onwards in duplicate bridge, switching to > these methods at about that time. I had > played against such methods for a couple > of years before that. I did not hear of any > earlier 'ban'. I believe they originated > among US players whose systems had a strong > 2C opener. [nige1] Thank you Grattan. I fear that you are right. I cannot get it out of my fuddled head, however, that... [A] the EBU used to license *systems* (like Acol and Nottingham Club) rather than *conventions*; and that... [B] Initially and for a long time, weak twos were banned because no permitted system included them. I have a (?false?) memory of complaints that "a weak two is the ultimate natural bid"; and I have a vague recollection of speculation that the reason for the ban was that Rixi Markus and Terence Reese thought weak twos were rubbish. Grattan is one of several players who have played weak twos continuously for a long time, and I am sure they are law-abiding, so reluctantly I accept that I'm likely to be wrong. It seems that I shall have to eat humble pie :(sigh): but I shall postpone grovelling to RGB for a little while, in case anyone else can come up with any mitigating evidence of a "systems policy" with dates. Anyway, Grattan, Thanks again. From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Apr 25 21:17:41 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue Apr 25 21:21:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban In-Reply-To: <002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> <008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:46:11 +0100, Nigel wrote: >Thank you Grattan. I fear that you are right. I >cannot get it out of my fuddled head, however, >that... > >[A] the EBU used to license *systems* (like Acol >and Nottingham Club) rather than *conventions*; >and that... > >[B] Initially and for a long time, weak twos were >banned because no permitted system included them. > I don't know how far back you're trying to go, Nigel, but you're certainly right that the EBU used to licence systems, only it was in addition to conventions, at least when I started playing. AFAIR, there was a two quid fee for a convention, 15 quid for a system. I do have a recollection that some gadgets were only licenced as part of a specific system (something about a Baron double?) but I don't remember that applying to weak twos, and of course you'd have to go back before Nottingham Club if [B] is to be true. Brian. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 26 01:06:59 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 26 01:08:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban In-Reply-To: <002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> <008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <3BE4DB3B-E6E7-4CC6-86EF-63ACF212611A@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 25, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [A] the EBU used to license *systems* (like Acol and Nottingham > Club) rather than *conventions* This much, at least, is true. As I recall, it was the case when I arrived in England in February of 1990 - but the EBU changed to a "conventions" approach with, iirc, the next OB. At any rate, it was before I left in early 1993. From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Wed Apr 26 03:16:22 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Wed Apr 26 03:17:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer><008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> <3BE4DB3B-E6E7-4CC6-86EF-63ACF212611A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002901c668cf$09578f10$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Orange book?? Wow - we are way before OB here - it was pale geen booklet and pale yellow booklet as I recall :-))) Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Weak 2 ban > > On Apr 25, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Guthrie wrote: > >> [A] the EBU used to license *systems* (like Acol and Nottingham Club) >> rather than *conventions* > > This much, at least, is true. As I recall, it was the case when I arrived > in England in February of 1990 - but the EBU changed to a "conventions" > approach with, iirc, the next OB. At any rate, it was before I left in > early 1993. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 26 03:59:33 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Apr 26 04:01:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer><008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002301c668d5$112e2f40$019468d5@jeushtlj> {Brian Meadows] > Of course you'd have to go back before > Nottingham Club if [B] is to be true. [Nige1] I played Nottingham Club but as far as I can remember, we could not employ weak twos. In "The Nottingham Club System of Contract Bridge", Margery Burns specified: 2D = artificial game force. 2C/H/S = natural 11-15 stronger than a one bid. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 26 04:08:12 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Apr 26 04:10:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer><008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj><3BE4DB3B-E6E7-4CC6-86EF-63ACF212611A@rochester.rr.com> <002901c668cf$09578f10$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <003101c668d6$45ceab20$019468d5@jeushtlj> [Anne Jones] > Orange book?? Wow - we are way before OB > here - it was pale geen booklet and > pale yellow booklet as I recall :-))) [nige1] Yes, the Orange Book is quite a recent. Does anybody have copies of older documents? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 26 07:23:25 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 26 07:24:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban In-Reply-To: <002901c668cf$09578f10$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> <008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> <3BE4DB3B-E6E7-4CC6-86EF-63ACF212611A@rochester.rr.com> <002901c668cf$09578f10$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <982751E7-939B-4B64-8697-E981248A2E32@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Anne Jones wrote: > Orange book?? Wow - we are way before OB here - it was pale geen > booklet and pale yellow booklet as I recall :-))) I have a copy of the 1993 OB. The first sentence in the introduction says "This book replaces the Yellow Book and the Green Book", so I guess it was the first OB. Most of the "licensing" sections speak to licensing of conventions, not systems, except that several systems are licensed under the "experimental" section - mostly forcing pass systems. I remember reading somewhere that "the EBU no longer licenses systems, but instead licenses conventions", or something like that. It's not in this OB - I think it may have been in the preceding (and last, I guess) Green or Yellow Book, both of which I had at one time, but cannot find at the moment. From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Apr 26 10:51:10 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed Apr 26 10:55:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban In-Reply-To: <002301c668d5$112e2f40$019468d5@jeushtlj> References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer><008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj> <002301c668d5$112e2f40$019468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:59:33 +0100, Nigel wrote: >{Brian Meadows] >> Of course you'd have to go back before >> Nottingham Club if [B] is to be true. > >[Nige1] >I played Nottingham Club but as far as I can >remember, we could not employ weak twos. > >In "The Nottingham Club System of Contract >Bridge", Margery Burns specified: >2D = artificial game force. >2C/H/S = natural 11-15 stronger than a one bid. > The Nottingham Club that I was taught must have been a later version, either that or the pard that suggested it (as a compromise system) had tweaked it a little by making 2H and 2S into weak twos. I know it was at UCW Aberystwyth, so that makes it 1977-78 when I played the system. I haven't read Margery Burns' book, but the Encyclopedia of Bridge specifies the 2H and 2S as 8+ playing tricks while still limited to 11-15 HCP, so I could certainly understand a switch to weak twos on grounds of frequency, if for no other reason. You're undoubtedly right about the original version of the system, though. Oh well, learn something every day... Brian. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 25 20:03:49 2006 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed Apr 26 11:21:42 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E Message-ID: <008401c66892$9aff14c0$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> Hello, After a wrong review of biddings uncorrected, L20E said you can give an artificial score according to L12C1, but sometimes you want to give an assigned score - said depending of lead, score is 100%/0% against a slam whitch is only bid once - upon L12C2. Any idea about that? Olivier *** L12 C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus ( at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs ) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. 2. Assigned Score When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. *** L20 ... E. Correction of Error in Review All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage). *** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060425/f786827c/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 26 12:37:20 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Apr 26 12:31:58 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426110704.02710ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, It has been said before on blml, that it could be deemed incorrect to ask about the meaning of a declaration while you know the answer, especially in the hope of awakening partner to the unexpected meaning. But there might be other reasons for doing so. One plausible reason could be feigning interest about a skip bid, the same way that you try to look concerned while taking your 10 seconds. Another reason appeared yesterday afternoon : E S W N(YT) 1C (a) 1D (b) X (c) p 1H (d) p 2D (e) p 2H (d) p 2S (e) p 2N (d) p 3D (e) X 4H p p X (a) strong, or normal opener with 5+ spades (b) weak overcall in any major, usually 5+ long (c) 4-7 (d) relay (e) shows pattern. At the point W bids 3D, he describes 4243 or 4342. When 2D came to me, I enquired about X, 1H and 2D (partner already has asked about 1C before overcalling). I know their system well, having participated to its elaboration. So I knew all they had to say. However, my hand was unexpectedly strong, and I suspected something had happened. When LHO told me 1D showed 7+, it was easy : 1) to infer that East forced to game (2H) with too little in hand 2) to double 3D for the lead, then 4H because my hand made it obvious *hearts* were partner's suit. What's more, LHO played the hand upside down, because of the double. 800 against nothing is heavy in a 7-deal match. Do you agree with the questions ? Is it enough to have "a bridge reason" (my strong hand) to check for signification ? Or is this supersede dby the principle "when you know, don't ask" ? BTA, partner knowing that I know their system inside out, can one pretend there was strong UI in the mere fact that I ask ? (not that it was relevant here) Thank you for your opinions. Best regards. Alain. From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 26 12:41:37 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 26 12:42:27 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <008401c66892$9aff14c0$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <000901c6691d$febec100$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain After a wrong review of biddings uncorrected, L20E said you can give an artificial score according to L12C1, but sometimes you want to give an assigned score - said depending of lead, score is 100%/0% against a slam whitch is only bid once - upon L12C2. ? Any idea about that? ? Olivier I am not comfortable with the reference explicitly to L12C1 here: Was no result obtained on the board and could no result be obtained because of the incorrect review? If the fact that a review is incorrect is established before the end of the play period I would normally request the auction and play to continue. (Law 72B1) Regardless of when the irregularity was discovered I would after the play is ended award an adjusted score if I consider that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. Thus I feel free to (preferably) apply L12C2 rather than L12C1 in cases of L20E violations unless the board is definitely destroyed by the irregularity to the extent that no result can be obtained (an L12C1 prerequisite!). Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 26 13:37:05 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Wed Apr 26 13:38:06 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <008401c66892$9aff14c0$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> References: <008401c66892$9aff14c0$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <1FYiKP-0L3LA80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> From: "olivier.beauvillain" > After a wrong review of biddings uncorrected, L20E > said ?you can give an artificial score according to > L12C1, but sometimes you want to give an assigned > score - said ?depending of lead, score is 100%/0% > against a slam whitch is only bid once - ?upon > L12C2. ? > Any idea about that? ? Sorry, but Law 20E does _not_ say "... you _can_ give an artificial score ..." but it rather says an equivalent to "... you _must_ give an artificial score, if damage occurs". Otherwise the Authors of the Laws had not mentioned expressly Law 12C1 but rather said something about adjusted scores. Peter From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 26 14:42:54 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Apr 26 14:37:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation In-Reply-To: <200604241700.KAA23914@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426143907.02713690@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:06 24/04/2006 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: >My judgment is that passing could be right in some circumstances, so >I'm inclined to rule that passing is a logical alternative (and >therefore the score should be adjusted to EW +1430). But if NS made >some sort of argument for 7C similar to what I was trying to make, >then I'd think NS had a good enough case that I wouldn't rule that the >deposit should be forfeited. On the other hand, if NS just gave them >old "I was always going to bid 7C" with no better explanation than >that, then the deposit forfeiture is at least understandable. I pretend it is not. Some of us say defending is normal ; some say it's close. To keep the deposit, the appeal must have been frivolous, i.e. it would be clearly inferior to sacrifice in normal circumstances and the effect of UI is IOTTMCO. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 26 14:54:41 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Wed Apr 26 14:55:56 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <000901c6691d$febec100$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c6691d$febec100$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1FYjXV-0YQgfQ0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Sven wrote: > I am not comfortable with the reference explicitly to L12C1 here: > Was no result obtained on the board and could no result be obtained > because of the incorrect review? > > If the fact that a review is incorrect is established before the end > of the play period I would normally request the auction and play to > continue. (Law 72B1) > > Regardless of when the irregularity was discovered I would after the > play is ended award an adjusted score if I consider that the offending > side gained an advantage through the irregularity. > > Thus I feel free to (preferably) apply L12C2 rather than L12C1 in > cases of L20E violations unless the board is definitely destroyed by > the irregularity to the extent that no result can be obtained (an > L12C1 prerequisite!). ... hello ... Earth to Sven ... hello ... Law 20E (quotation): "All players, including dummy or a play required by ly law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage)." So you feel free to (preferably) make a decision in direct contradiction to the words (and obviously the intent) of the Laws. hmmm ;-( Peter From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 26 15:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 26 15:28:30 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <000901c6691d$febec100$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I am not comfortable with the reference explicitly to L12C1 here: I believe L12c1 is used because the most significant offence is viewed as the breach of L20E. Both sides are OS in that context and thus should be held "partially at fault". Nevertheless I believe we can (where deemed appropriate) apply L72b1 (and thus adjust under L12c2) to the first infraction of the failure to properly restate the auction. This would be very rare IMO - but legal. For those who wonder why this may be necessary consider the "cheat" who, in "restating" the auction "psychs" a cue-bid by his own hand in the hope that, even if corrected, the impression of a control will avert a dangerous lead. Tim. From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 26 16:44:25 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 26 16:45:16 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c6693f$ea0fd4c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: 26. april 2006 15:27 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] L20E > > Sven wrote: > > > I am not comfortable with the reference explicitly to L12C1 here: > > I believe L12c1 is used because the most significant offence is viewed > as the breach of L20E. Both sides are OS in that context and thus > should be held "partially at fault". Nevertheless I believe we can > (where deemed appropriate) apply L72b1 (and thus adjust under L12c2) to > the first infraction of the failure to properly restate the auction. > This would be very rare IMO - but legal. > > For those who wonder why this may be necessary consider the "cheat" who, > in "restating" the auction "psychs" a cue-bid by his own hand in the > hope that, even if corrected, the impression of a control will avert a > dangerous lead. Precisely. Rather than be "forced" by Law 12C1 to automatically award 50% to each side ("partially at fault") I shall reserve (for the Director) the right to consider all aspects of the situation and make a 12C2 or 12C3 adjustment as I find justified. And incidentally: If a result "can be obtained" on the board then L12C1 is disqualified by its own text. What is the "damage caused" (and for whom) as referred to in Law 20E? IMO this law should have contained the condition "if a normal result cannot be obtained because of the uncorrected review" rather than the present "... when an uncorrected review causes damage", or at least some elaboration on what is meant by "damage" in this context. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Apr 26 17:20:20 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Apr 26 17:21:26 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <1FYiKP-0L3LA80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> References: <008401c66892$9aff14c0$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> <1FYiKP-0L3LA80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D7587D-231B-4109-BA85-5176C616DA03@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 26, 2006, at 7:37 AM, PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: > Sorry, but Law 20E does _not_ say "... you _can_ give > an artificial score ..." but it rather says an equivalent to > "... you _must_ give an artificial score, if damage occurs". > > Otherwise the Authors of the Laws had not mentioned > expressly Law 12C1 but rather said something about > adjusted scores. And later: > So you feel free to (preferably) make a decision in direct > contradiction to the words (and obviously the intent) of the > Laws. Sorry, Peter, but no. The parenthetical expression in 20E says "see Law 12C1". It doesn't say you must use it. I see Law 12C1. It says "when, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained..." Clearly, if a result was obtained, this law does not apply. Sven's approach does not directly contradict the words in Law 20E. Yours directly contradicts the words in Law 12C1. I would be very careful about asserting the "obvious intent" of the Laws. Quite often, the intent is *not* as obvious as the reader may think. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 26 18:23:13 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Apr 26 18:17:37 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <48D7587D-231B-4109-BA85-5176C616DA03@rochester.rr.com> References: <1FYiKP-0L3LA80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> <008401c66892$9aff14c0$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> <1FYiKP-0L3LA80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426181821.02032b20@pop.ulb.ac.be> > >Sorry, Peter, but no. The parenthetical expression in 20E says "see >Law 12C1". It doesn't say you must use it. I see Law 12C1. It says >"when, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained..." >Clearly, if a result was obtained, this law does not apply. Agree with the result, but I'd formulate it another way. You *have* to use law 12C1 when directed to it. The first step in its use is to check whether some conditions are satisfied. They aren't. Go back to L20. This is consistent with a flowchart vision of TD's job, which has been put in black and white by several people, and helpfully so. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 26 19:05:57 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 26 19:06:48 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426181821.02032b20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01c66953$afd9b3c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >Sorry, Peter, but no. The parenthetical expression in 20E says "see > >Law 12C1". It doesn't say you must use it. I see Law 12C1. It says > >"when, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained..." > >Clearly, if a result was obtained, this law does not apply. > > Agree with the result, but I'd formulate it another way. > > You *have* to use law 12C1 when directed to it. > > The first step in its use is to check whether some conditions are > satisfied. > They aren't. > Go back to L20. > > This is consistent with a flowchart vision of TD's job, which has been put > in black and white by several people, and helpfully so. And what law do you apply then? (And why?) I should like to see an example where an uncorrected error in the review of an auction makes it impossible to obtain a result on the affected board. I must admit that I am unable to imagine such a situation. Even in the curious situation where they as a result of the incorrect review play the board in a contract different from the one actually reached during the auction a result will definitely be obtained? The Director may during his investigation end up with the conclusion that it is impossible to assess what assigned adjusted score to award and therefore decides to award an artificial adjusted score, but this is in no way obvious. Can we assume that the term "damage" as used in Law 20E refers to the board being damaged beyond repair and therefore being unplayable? At least this is an interpretation that could make sense to me although (as said) I cannot see how this could be the case. Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 26 19:48:43 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (PeterEidt@t-online.de) Date: Wed Apr 26 19:49:43 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <48D7587D-231B-4109-BA85-5176C616DA03@rochester.rr.com> References: <008401c66892$9aff14c0$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> <1FYiKP-0L3LA80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> <48D7587D-231B-4109-BA85-5176C616DA03@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <1FYo83-2A8I6a0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> From: Ed Reppert > On Apr 26, 2006, at 7:37 AM, PeterEidt@t-online.de wrote: > > > Sorry, but Law 20E does _not_ say "... you _can_ give > > an artificial score ..." but it rather says an equivalent to > > "... you _must_ give an artificial score, if damage occurs". > > > > Otherwise the Authors of the Laws had not mentioned > > expressly Law 12C1 but rather said something about > > adjusted scores. > > And later: > > > So you feel free to (preferably) make a decision in direct > > contradiction to the words (and obviously the intent) of the > > Laws. > > Sorry, Peter, but no. The parenthetical expression in 20E says "see ? > Law 12C1". It doesn't say you must use it. I see Law 12C1. It says ? > "when, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained..." ? > Clearly, if a result was obtained, this law does not apply. Ok, I add another sorry, but only to object ;-) Law 20E (I repeat for convenience): "All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage)." So what is damage supposed to be ? Well, although not (direct) part of the laws, the WBFLC gave us a hint within the CoP: Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, a side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction. So, to measure damage resp. to examine whether damage exists, you have to have a table result. Damage is no absolute but rather an relative value. Damage is not a fouled board !! And, although Law 12C1 has the provision of non-obtained table results, Law 20E directs us to this paragraph in case of damage (= table result obtained). BTW the direction to Law 12C1 in Law 20E is one of only two references in the total body of the laws. The other is our lovely Law 25 B2b2: "... The offending side may receive no score greater than average minus (see Law 12C1)" I think, we are in agreement, that this reference has nothing to do with 'no table score obtained' but rather with the definition of 'average minus'. Therefore I believe - and I will stay so, until one of our gurus will convert me - that the reference in Law 20E was only to show, that the TD should award artificial scores in case of damage caused and no assigned scores. Another BTW: An infraction of Law 20E results in both pairs at fault and not in 'partial at fault': "... all players ... are responsible ...". The infraction here is not the wrong repetition but the non-correction. So, all 50% discussions are lost. And to Alain: If you were directed to Law 12C1 only to detect that the provisions are no fulfilled and you believe to be sent back, why do you believe to have another obligation to adjust the score. Law 20E is over in this case, and there is no further basis to adjust, because the only basis is denied - in your view. > > Sven's approach does not directly contradict the words in Law 20E. ? > Yours directly contradicts the words in Law 12C1. Perhaps it were not the words in 12C1 but the intent of 20E ?? :) > > I would be very careful about asserting the "obvious intent" of the ? > Laws. Quite often, the intent is *not* as obvious as the reader may ? > think. I think, we are in total agreement, that we don't use the words "obvious intent" frivolously when talking about the Laws of Contract Bridge ;-) As I meant 'obviously' in Law 20E, then because it is written expressly and you can therefore read the intent (if that was the intent ;-)). Peter From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 26 19:54:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 26 19:55:08 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <000a01c6693f$ea0fd4c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Rather than be "forced" by Law 12C1 to automatically award 50% to > each side ("partially at fault") I shall reserve (for the Director) > the right to consider all aspects of the situation and make a 12C2 or > 12C3 adjustment as I find justified. We are "forced" to use L12c1 *IF* we judge that L20E is applicable. Ie we judge that the failure to correct, for which both sides are culpable was what actually caused the "damage", and that as a consequence no normal result can be obtained (or indeed assigned). I don't have a problem with this and prefer it to a L12c2/3 adjustment treating both sides as offending. However, we are not forced to use L20E in every case where the auction was mis-stated and not corrected. If, in the TD's judgement, the damage was attributable to the mis-statement (not the lack of correction) then there is only one NOS, one OS and L12c2/3 can be used. I hope the above preserves both the niceties of legality and the powers that Sven and I both want to apply to certain cases. > IMO this law should have contained the condition "if a normal result > cannot be obtained because of the uncorrected review" Well, that's how I interpret the existing law. The failure to correct might "damage" the restating side or the requesting side. I agree it could be better worded. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Apr 26 19:54:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Apr 26 19:55:11 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <000c01c66953$afd9b3c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I should like to see an example where an uncorrected error in the > review of an auction makes it impossible to obtain a result on the > affected board. I think one has to be using spoken bidding/bidding boards rather than boxes. Imagine West requests a review at his turn (North having just cue-bid 4D), South mis-states the auction by saying 4C. No correction, West (who had bid his own suit earlier) makes a lead-directing double. North wakes up and calls the TD. It's messy, but an artificial score feels right. I might go for 50/40 here though because I think NS are more to blame than EW. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 26 23:27:37 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Apr 26 23:28:29 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c66978$3df18bf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > I should like to see an example where an uncorrected error in the > > review of an auction makes it impossible to obtain a result on the > > affected board. > > I think one has to be using spoken bidding/bidding boards rather than > boxes. Imagine West requests a review at his turn (North having just > cue-bid 4D), South mis-states the auction by saying 4C. No correction, > West (who had bid his own suit earlier) makes a lead-directing double. > North wakes up and calls the TD. It's messy, but an artificial score > feels right. I might go for 50/40 here though because I think NS are > more to blame than EW. I have no idea why law 21 cannot be used in this situation? Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 27 00:06:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 27 00:07:13 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <000f01c66978$3df18bf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > I think one has to be using spoken bidding/bidding boards rather > > than boxes. Imagine West requests a review at his turn (North > > having just cue-bid 4D), South mis-states the auction by saying > > 4C. No correction, West (who had bid his own suit earlier) makes > > a lead-directing double. > > North wakes up and calls the TD. It's messy, but an artificial > > score feels right. I might go for 50/40 here though because I > > think NS are more to blame than EW. > > I have no idea why law 21 cannot be used in this situation? Firstly there is no misinformation so law 21 doesn't apply. Secondly EW are equally at fault with NS for failing to correct the review of the auction. Of course I'm an idiot who meant East and not West for the scenario to make sense. Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 27 01:12:45 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Apr 27 01:13:37 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c66986$edb739a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > > I think one has to be using spoken bidding/bidding boards rather > > > than boxes. Imagine West requests a review at his turn (North > > > having just cue-bid 4D), South mis-states the auction by saying > > > 4C. No correction, West (who had bid his own suit earlier) makes > > > a lead-directing double. > > > North wakes up and calls the TD. It's messy, but an artificial > > > score feels right. I might go for 50/40 here though because I > > > think NS are more to blame than EW. > > > > I have no idea why law 21 cannot be used in this situation? > > Firstly there is no misinformation so law 21 doesn't apply. > Secondly EW are equally at fault with NS for failing to correct the > review of the auction. Of course I'm an idiot who meant East and not > West for the scenario to make sense. > > Tim No problem, but where does it say that East, who requested a review, has not been misinformed by the erroneous review presumably (according to Law 20D) given by either North or South (South in this case as stated)? This is also "misinformation -" (on facts, not on agreements, but still misinformation) "- from an opponent". It is true that West has a duty (as well as North or South) to correct this misinformation, even East has such duty! (How does that make sense?) In fact the way I understand Law 20E, each of the four players at the table is primarily responsible for ensuring that the review is correct as far as their own calls are concerned, but only secondarily for calls made by their opponents. Now, once it has been established that East has made his call based on an incorrect review of the auction given by an opponent (South) he must be eligible to change his call under Law 21B, at least when the call in question was also made by an opponent (North). Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 27 08:20:38 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Apr 27 08:21:04 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426110704.02710ce0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asked: [snip] >Do you agree with the questions ? Is it enough to have "a bridge >reason" (my strong hand) to check for signification ? Or is this >superseded by the principle "when you know, don't ask" ? > >BTA, partner knowing that I know their system inside out, can >one pretend there was strong UI in the mere fact that I ask ? >(not that it was relevant here) Richard Hills: To summarise the scenario posed by Alain -> 1) Alain had assisted in the design of his opponents' bidding system, so Alain knew that the system meaning of RHO's double of 1D was 4-7. 2) Alain suspected that LHO's force to game might possibly be an error, due to authorised information from Alain's own strong hand. 3) Alain therefore (illegally?) asked LHO what the system meaning of RHO's double was. 4) Alain's suspicions of a bidding misunderstanding were confirmed when LHO erroneously stated that RHO's double showed 7+, thus permitting Alain a speculative lead-directing double of 3D followed by a speculative penalty double of 4H for +800. 5) Without Alain's (illegal?) question, neither speculative double would have been a logical alternative, since Alain's hand was not strong enough to _guarantee_ that LHO had erred. In the previous "Odd misinformation" thread, Eric Landau asked: >>The difference is that if you are "entitled" to the information >>you may ask for it; "may use" means that you may use it if it >>comes your way, but does not necessarily mean that you have the >>right to obtain it otherwise. If you know what an opponent's >>call means, is it ethically appropriate to ask his partner for >>an explanation solely for the purpose of ascertaining whether >>they are having a bidding misunderstanding? Regardless of the >>answer, for the question to be meaningful there must be a >>difference between "may use it" and "are entitled to it". Richard Hills: In my opinion, Alain's question was indeed an illegal cousin of the illegal "Kaplan question". I lost a slam swing last year when the opponents relayed to a 6C slam. As soon as dummy appeared, I knew that dummy had made a error in the Symmetric Relay system that I had taught the opponents. (Systemically, dummy should not have counted their singleton king of spades as a full control.) But my non-regular partner (who had never learnt the system) was blissfully unaware of dummy's bidding debacle, since I believed that I could not ask an illegal (in my opinion) "Alain question". So, pard expertly ducked his ace of diamonds when declarer led from dummy's JT9xx of diamonds towards the doubleton queen of diamonds in the closed hand, since pard naturally assumed that a confident relay auction would not reach a slam with two fast losers. Of course, I could have saved pard from himself by guessing to play second-hand high with my Kxx of diamonds. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 27 11:19:51 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Apr 27 11:20:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) References: <200604241708.KAA24003@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <00c201c669db$bd3d66f0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "blml" Cc: Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hesitation (Amended) > > Con Holzscherer wrote: > >> Ken Johnston wrote: >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Local Swiss Teams Board 9 EW Vul North Dealer >> >> North hand >> >> 5 >> -- >> Q109632 >> QJ9842 >> >> >> Bidding >> >> N E S W >> >> Pass 1H Pass 4C* >> 4NT * 6H Pass** Pass >> 6NT Pass 7C Dble >> ALL PASS >> >> * Alerted >> ** Agreed long hesitation >> >> Result -3 >> >> EW reserved their rights at end of auction and called me back after >> play. >> I >> rolled the contract back to 6H making for 1430 to EW and told NS they >> had >> a >> right to appeal. This they did and appeals panel upheld Director's >> ruling >> and a deposit was forfeited. >> >> NS still maintain this decision is incorrect - any comments? >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> It's blindingly obvious to me that 4NT says I have a good save against their game, and 6NT says i have a good save against their slam, so the second call is as necessary as the first. The 4NT does not suggest to pard to save against slam.. The guy who bid 6H can underwrite his vulnerable slam, he has no minor suit losers and may be worried about a spade loser. Blasting slam with a minor loser risks a ruff there. When someone says to me "I fancy 1430" and I hold this hand I'm not passing in a million years, nor is any decent player. It appears that the TD and the AC would have done. Find a TD who can play bridge, and an AC that knows the scoring table next time. cheers John >> I believe that saving with this 6-6 without any defense is absolutely >> obligatory. Partner has had the chance to double 6 Hearts and he >> hasn't, so you can be approximately 100% sure that 6 hearts will make. > > You and Tim have said the same thing, but this is the part I don't > understand. Once you've bid 4NT, why would partner need to double to > warn you away from saving? Once you've bid 4NT, doesn't that normally > make it partner's decision whether to save or not, since (from > partner's point of view) you've pretty well described your hand? I'm > not an expert; perhaps there's some aspect of bidding theory that has > eluded me here. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 27 11:49:11 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Apr 27 11:49:59 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E References: Message-ID: <011101c669df$d6243b40$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:06 PM Subject: RE: [blml] L20E > Sven wrote: So I decide to watch Wendy's legs while the auction is being restated to partner, since I know what the auction was. Am I responsible for not now hearing the restatement clearly. Particularly if I'd just got to thigh height? bah, nonsense. Yes, if I notice the restatement I should help sort out the mess, but why should I listen to the restatement? So how can my side be to blame. Maybe it's a genuine error by restator and the probst "cheat" is his partner (or equally has mentally undressed Wendy at the same time I did), or the restator is a Probst "cheat". One thing's for certain, the restator could have know at the time of the infraction he could stuff everyone else at the table (and probably Wendy too on a good day). 72B1 applies. It's ludicrous to suggest it doesn't. cheers john > >> > I think one has to be using spoken bidding/bidding boards rather >> > than boxes. Imagine West requests a review at his turn (North >> > having just cue-bid 4D), South mis-states the auction by saying >> > 4C. No correction, West (who had bid his own suit earlier) makes >> > a lead-directing double. >> > North wakes up and calls the TD. It's messy, but an artificial >> > score feels right. I might go for 50/40 here though because I >> > think NS are more to blame than EW. >> >> I have no idea why law 21 cannot be used in this situation? > > Firstly there is no misinformation so law 21 doesn't apply. > Secondly EW are equally at fault with NS for failing to correct the > review of the auction. Of course I'm an idiot who meant East and not > West for the scenario to make sense. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 27 13:02:13 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Apr 27 12:56:40 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060426110704.02710ce0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060427124632.02054c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:20 27/04/2006 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >4) Alain's suspicions of a bidding misunderstanding were confirmed > when LHO erroneously stated that RHO's double showed 7+, thus > permitting Alain a speculative lead-directing double of 3D > followed by a speculative penalty double of 4H for +800. Well, not too speculative. 3? honor tricks and partner's H overcall, you see ... It could be argued that partner could have in spades what he had in hearts (J10xxx and an outside queen), that declarer would then be void in spades and 4H an easy make, but it didn't match with his not making a slam try. > >>The difference is that if you are "entitled" to the information > >>you may ask for it; Several contributors have volunteered, in the past, the opinion that in some cases, both your opponents' agreements and their misunderstanding are AI. Since the fact that they erred can only be accessible from a question (and, usually, a correction), I'm not at ease with the fact that I may not ask. SMOff : some questions can look a bit strange. Playng against a pair of LOLs, one of which happened to be a man, we encountered the following uncontested sequence : 1S 2D 3S 4NT 5H 6S And the questions went : - 4NT, please - asks aces ; I showed two - is the spade king an Ace ? Apparently, this was not the right question to ask if I wished them to believe I was in my senses ;-) Best regards Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 27 13:45:41 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 27 13:53:27 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E References: <011101c669df$d6243b40$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <006801c669f0$3faeb6c0$97ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics." [Earl Warren] ------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:49 AM Subject: [blml] L20E > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:06 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] L20E > > > So I decide to watch Wendy's legs while the > auction is being restated to partner, since I know > what the auction was. Am I responsible for not > now hearing the restatement clearly. >>> +=+ I would have a reservation about crural distractions being a valid defence in Law. Or can a driver with a leggy passenger get away with crashing the car by such a plea? ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 27 14:37:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 27 14:38:32 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <011101c669df$d6243b40$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: Probst wrote: > So I decide to watch Wendy's legs while the auction is being restated > to partner, since I know what the auction was. Am I responsible for > not now hearing the restatement clearly. If you weren't listening you are responsible for failing to hear it - nobody else to blame (Wendy doesn't count). > Particularly if I'd just got > to thigh height? bah, nonsense. Yes, if I notice the restatement I > should help sort out the mess, but why should I listen to the > restatement? You should listen because L20E makes you partly responsible for the correctness of the restatement. > 72B1 applies. It's ludicrous to suggest it doesn't. It applies in the sense we should always consider it, often we will judge (for whatever reasons, assume good ones) that in a given scenario restater "could not have known" and thus have to rule under L20E. Tim. PS, I think Wendy left some time ago so should we not refocus our examples of inattention on Gordon's very nice leather-wrapped pins? From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Apr 27 14:37:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Apr 27 14:38:36 2006 Subject: [blml] L20E In-Reply-To: <001001c66986$edb739a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > This is also "misinformation -" (on facts, not on agreements, but > still misinformation) "- from an opponent". MI isn't actually in the "definitions". I agree I'd probably interpret this as MI were it not for Law20e. The problem here is that the infraction of Law20e means that EW are not an NOS. Perhaps West deliberately failed to correct in order to discover whether his pard wanted a club lead! As I said a while back, it's messy. L20e (like many others) isn't ideal but I can envisage situations where some combination of Av/Av- feels right just as easily as I can envisage times where I would use L72b1. As with many other rulings it would depend on my judgement of what was going on at the table. > In fact the way I understand Law 20E, each of the four players at the > table is primarily responsible for ensuring that the review is > correct as far as their own calls are concerned, but only > secondarily for calls made by their opponents. Which would, IMO, be a sensible thing for Law20e to say. Unfortunately I don't think that's quite what it says at the moment. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Apr 27 18:57:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Apr 27 19:04:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer><008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj><002301c668d5$112e2f40$019468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002401c66a1b$be1e5d00$848587d9@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: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Weak 2 ban > On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:59:33 +0100, Nigel wrote: > > >{Brian Meadows] > >> Of course you'd have to go back before > >> Nottingham Club if [B] is to be true. > > > >[Nige1] > >I played Nottingham Club but as far as I can > >remember, we could not employ weak twos. > > +=+ Nottingham Club players, some, changed to weak twos when they fancied what other players were doing with conventional strong 2C openers and weak twos in majors or in the other three suits. There was no prohibition. The 1990 Yellow Book referred to the concept of 'wide range openings' for 1NT and Weak Twos. "The normal range for a natural 1NT is considered by the Committee to be 3 or 4 points*, ............for Weak Twos 5 points, normal suit length six cards. Pairs are free to adopt greater ranges of point count and/or distribution and/or length of suit. Such practice is defined as 'wide range'. The players' convention card must state what to expect of such a bid .... with particular reference to .... etc. etc. In response to wide range bids partners are expected to explore game possibilities with values which may clearly justify a game contract opposite a near maximum." [synopsized] I had played wide-range Weak Twos (0-9 HCP) for years before Yellow and Green Books were introduced. During Dimmie Fleming's Secretaryship of the L&E they did not exist; regulation was mainly by way of committee minutes in those far off days, Yellow - and the addition later of Green - plagues were more developments during the 70's. If I search I might find some earlier than 1990. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ *some distributions also specified From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 28 01:34:05 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Apr 28 01:39:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer><008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj><002301c668d5$112e2f40$019468d5@jeushtlj> <002401c66a1b$be1e5d00$848587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001801c66a53$867ff380$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Nottingham Club players, some, changed > to weak twos when they fancied what other > players were doing with conventional strong > 2C openers and weak twos in majors or in the > other three suits. There was no prohibition. > The 1990 Yellow Book referred to the concept > of 'wide range openings' for 1NT and Weak > Twos. "The normal range for a natural 1NT > is considered by the Committee to be 3 or 4 > points*,............for Weak Twos 5 points, > normal suit length six cards. Pairs are free > to adopt greater ranges of point count and > /or distribution and/or length of suit. > Such practice is defined as 'wide range'. > The players' convention card must state > what to expect of such a bid .... with > particular reference to .... etc. etc. > In response to wide range bids partners > are expected to explore game possibilities > with values which may clearly justify a > game contract opposite a near maximum." > [synopsized] > I had played wide-range Weak Twos (0-9 HCP) > for years before Yellow and Green Books were > introduced. During Dimmie Fleming's > Secretaryship of the L&E they did not exist; > regulation was mainly by way of committee > minutes in those far off days, Yellow - and > the addition later of Green - plagues were > more developments during the 70's. If I > search I might find some earlier than 1990. [nige1] I know that I'm desperately grasping at straws but I would be grateful if you would check the documents before 1990, Grattan. Brian Meadows is right that, latterly, many Nottingham Clubbers adopted weak twos and Benjamin popularised them in an Acol context. (Until Grattan's reminiscences, I had thought that the weak two in diamonds was a relatively recent arrival in this country, although standard in America). I still can't get rid of the notion that the EBU *explicitly* banned weak twos; although I now accept that I'm almost certainly mistaken. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Apr 28 04:32:00 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri Apr 28 04:33:00 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200604271412.k3RECq91010733@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200604271412.k3RECq91010733@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44517EA0.8060406@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > To summarise the scenario posed by Alain -> > > 1) Alain had assisted in the design of his opponents' bidding > system, so Alain knew that the system meaning of RHO's double > of 1D was 4-7. > > 2) Alain suspected that LHO's force to game might possibly be an > error, due to authorised information from Alain's own strong > hand. > > 3) Alain therefore (illegally?) asked LHO what the system meaning > of RHO's double was. > > 4) Alain's suspicions of a bidding misunderstanding were confirmed > when LHO erroneously stated that RHO's double showed 7+, thus > permitting Alain a speculative lead-directing double of 3D > followed by a speculative penalty double of 4H for +800. > > 5) Without Alain's (illegal?) question, neither speculative > double would have been a logical alternative, since Alain's > hand was not strong enough to _guarantee_ that LHO had erred. > In my opinion, Alain's question was indeed an illegal cousin of > the illegal "Kaplan question". I don't see why the question should be illegal. L20F1 gives an _unconditional_ right to ask questions at one's own turn. The WBFLC minute limits this right (both as to the "Kaplan question" and the "pro question") if one is trying to give information to partner, but nothing of the sort is the case here. Alain himself needed the information and would have asked exactly the same question even behind screens, where his partner would have been unaware of both the asking and the answer. Of course it would only have done him any good if his LHO had been the one on the same side of the screen. > I lost a slam swing last year when the opponents relayed to a 6C > slam. As soon as dummy appeared, I knew that dummy had made a > error in the Symmetric Relay system that I had taught the > opponents. (Systemically, dummy should not have counted their > singleton king of spades as a full control.) > > But my non-regular partner (who had never learnt the system) was > blissfully unaware of dummy's bidding debacle, since I believed > that I could not ask an illegal (in my opinion) "Alain question". This would have been a "pro question," an entirely different matter. It was your partner, not you, who needed to know the answer. (Alternatively, if the opponents had given MI earlier, it would have been a "Kaplan question," but in that case you probably would have been due a normal MI adjustment.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 28 06:14:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Apr 28 06:15:05 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44517EA0.8060406@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >I don't see why the question should be illegal. L20F1 gives an >_unconditional_ right to ask questions at one's own turn. Richard Hills: I disagree with the word "unconditional". In the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws, it states that, "References from one Law to another have been made more explicit." In my opinion, that means that the Laws should be construed as a whole, with specific Laws over-riding more general Laws. And Law 73B1 states: "Partners shall not communicate ..... through questions asked or not asked of the opponents ....." Of course, it would be useful if Law 20F1 contained a specific cross-reference to Law 73B1. Steve Willner: >The WBFLC minute limits this right (both as to the "Kaplan >question" and the "pro question") if one is trying to give >information to partner, but nothing of the sort is the case here. Alain Gottcheiner: >>BTA, partner knowing that I know their system inside out, can one >>pretend there was strong UI in the mere fact that I ask ? >>(not that it was relevant here) Richard Hills: The fact that Alain asked an opponent a question gave UI to his partner, who already knew that Alain knew the opponents' system. Of course, because Alain's pard was unable to use the UI provided, the opponents were not damaged, but it seems to me that an infraction of Law 73B1 remains illegal whether or not subsequent damage accrues. Steve Willner: >Alain himself needed the information Richard Hills: True, but not relevant. My success rate in two-way finesses is only 25%, so I often _need_ information about the location of a missing queen. The entitlement granted by Law 75 is full information about the opponents' _agreements_. The footnote to Law 75 specifically states that there is not any entitlement to information that an opponent has _misbid_. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Apr 28 07:55:29 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Apr 28 07:56:39 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8F74CC88-D023-4884-8129-D2A8ADE0134A@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 28, 2006, at 12:14 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > And Law 73B1 states: > > "Partners shall not communicate ..... through questions asked or not > asked of the opponents ....." > > Of course, it would be useful if Law 20F1 contained a specific > cross-reference to Law 73B1. This line leads to the idea that alerting partner's call is a violation of 73B1. I don't buy that. If I do, then as far as i can see, the game is unplayable, and we should all switch to pinochle. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Apr 28 11:28:41 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Apr 28 11:36:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer><008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj><002301c668d5$112e2f40$019468d5@jeushtlj><002401c66a1b$be1e5d00$848587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001801c66a53$867ff380$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000d01c66aa6$3d47d130$adbe87d9@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: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Weak 2 ban > I still can't get rid of the notion that the EBU > *explicitly* banned weak twos; although I now > accept that I'm almost certainly mistaken. > +=+ A lot of clubs banned them in their domestic club duplicates. I do not think the EBU banned them - it is true that Geoffrey Fell and Harold Franklin found it hard to stomach the methods that I was playing with various partners during my earliest days. They thought we had something up our sleeves - our weak two was something they picked on and several times enquired about, because of our 0-9 range which they thought impractical. But what they mostly viewed with suspicion were the hands we passed on after opponents opened the bidding; we played a highly protective style and contentedly passed strong hands if we viewed them as defensive in nature. Our style was to overcall on shape rather than on point count - for which reason our overcalls were not lead directing: our opening leads ignored partner's overcalls - we made the leads we would make in an auction with our side silent. Our responses to overcalls were strong unless wholly pre-emptive; with what would normally be considered a simple raise we passed. In a world that had a narrow view of what was 'good bridge' they found it hard to come to terms with a revolution. . ~ Grattan ~ (enfant terrible of the day). +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 28 15:42:56 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Apr 28 15:44:21 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <44517EA0.8060406@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200604271412.k3RECq91010733@cfa.harvard.edu> <44517EA0.8060406@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060428092607.02c30760@pop.starpower.net> At 10:32 PM 4/27/06, Steve wrote: >>From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>To summarise the scenario posed by Alain -> >>1) Alain had assisted in the design of his opponents' bidding >> system, so Alain knew that the system meaning of RHO's double >> of 1D was 4-7. >>2) Alain suspected that LHO's force to game might possibly be an >> error, due to authorised information from Alain's own strong >> hand. >>3) Alain therefore (illegally?) asked LHO what the system meaning >> of RHO's double was. >>4) Alain's suspicions of a bidding misunderstanding were confirmed >> when LHO erroneously stated that RHO's double showed 7+, thus >> permitting Alain a speculative lead-directing double of 3D >> followed by a speculative penalty double of 4H for +800. >>5) Without Alain's (illegal?) question, neither speculative >> double would have been a logical alternative, since Alain's >> hand was not strong enough to _guarantee_ that LHO had erred. > > > In my opinion, Alain's question was indeed an illegal cousin of > > the illegal "Kaplan question". > >I don't see why the question should be illegal. L20F1 gives an >_unconditional_ right to ask questions at one's own turn. The WBFLC >minute limits this right (both as to the "Kaplan question" and the >"pro question") if one is trying to give information to partner, but >nothing of the sort is the case here. Alain himself needed the >information and would have asked exactly the same question even behind >screens, where his partner would have been unaware of both the asking >and the answer. Of course it would only have done him any good if his >LHO had been the one on the same side of the screen. I think Steve is correct here. I interpret the WBFLC minute as plugging the potential loophole whereby the right to ask questions given by L20F1, if taken to be genuinely "unconditional", would allow it to be used to evade the prohibition set forth in L73B1. In Alain's scenario, there is nothing to suggest that his question was in any way intended to "communicate" anything to his partner, so L73B is not involved. He is asking solely for his own benefit, thus retains his right under L20F1 to ask away. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 28 16:50:09 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Apr 28 16:44:33 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060428092607.02c30760@pop.starpower.net> References: <44517EA0.8060406@cfa.harvard.edu> <200604271412.k3RECq91010733@cfa.harvard.edu> <44517EA0.8060406@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060428164356.02050380@pop.ulb.ac.be> > In Alain's scenario, there is nothing to suggest that his question was > in any way intended to "communicate" anything to his partner, so L73B is > not involved. There wasn't. Partner was expected to pass my double of 4H, and lead diamonds because of the double, not because of the questions. There could be UI from the fact that I asked questions, i.e. Peter could have known the double was somewhat on the speculative side ; but looking at his hand, he knew I dnd't double on a trump stack (BTW, aginst complex systems, one shouldn't double on a trump stack, just in case they are in the wrong trump suit). Anyway, the defense was straightforward. I just wanted to mention that the popular shortcut assertion "you may not ask when you know" was oversimplifcative. Best regards, Alain. From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 28 22:03:30 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri Apr 28 22:04:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Weak 2 ban References: <000901c667f1$7313e220$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001a01c667fd$f054e480$ca590d52@AnnesComputer><008f01c66808$f6f7cd60$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><001701c66867$2a38e610$53a387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c66890$24f5b6a0$2b9868d5@jeushtlj><002301c668d5$112e2f40$019468d5@jeushtlj><002401c66a1b$be1e5d00$848587d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001801c66a53$867ff380$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> <000d01c66aa6$3d47d130$adbe87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <004201c66afe$d1d8ed90$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Guthrie" ; "BLML" Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Weak 2 ban > > 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: "Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 12:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Weak 2 ban > snip Not the only poacher turned gamekeper :) cheers John >> > +=+ A lot of clubs banned them in their domestic > club duplicates. I do not think the EBU banned > them - it is true that Geoffrey Fell and Harold > Franklin found it hard to stomach the methods > that I was playing with various partners during > my earliest days. They thought we had something > up our sleeves - our weak two was something > they picked on and several times enquired about, > because of our 0-9 range which they thought > impractical. But what they mostly viewed with > suspicion were the hands we passed on after > opponents opened the bidding; we played a > highly protective style and contentedly passed > strong hands if we viewed them as defensive in > nature. Our style was to overcall on shape > rather than on point count - for which reason our > overcalls were not lead directing: our opening > leads ignored partner's overcalls - we made the > leads we would make in an auction with our side > silent. Our responses to overcalls were strong > unless wholly pre-emptive; with what would > normally be considered a simple raise we passed. > In a world that had a narrow view of what was > 'good bridge' they found it hard to come to terms > with a revolution. . > ~ Grattan ~ (enfant terrible of the day). +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml