From henk at amsterdamned.org Mon May 1 01:01:00 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon May 1 01:01:01 2006 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 1 01:20:45 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 1 01:21:55 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8F74CC88-D023-4884-8129-D2A8ADE0134A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >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. Law 73B1: >>>Partners shall not communicate through the manner in >>>which calls or plays are made, through extraneous >>>remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not >>>asked of the opponents or through alerts and >>>explanations given or not given to them. Richard Hills: It seems to me that information from partner's alert or non-alert is always unauthorised information, but an alert is not necessarily a violation of Law 73B1. In my opinion, an alert would be an infraction of Law 73B1 if the alert given was an _unneccessary_ alert. (Such as an alert which the sponsoring organisation regulations did not require.) Likewise, it seems to me that information from partner's question is always unauthorised information, but a question is not necessarily a violation of Law 73B1. In my opinion, a question would be an infraction of Law 73B1 if the question asked was an _unnecessary_ question. (Such as a question asking for information about the opponents' agreements which the questioner already knew.) If one reads Law 21 in conjunction with Law 75, the reason that questioning opponents is conditionally permitted by the Laws is to gain information from the opponents. The "Alain question", on the other hand, was asked to gain _misinformation_ from the opponents, in order to confirm a suspicion that the opponents had had a bidding misunderstanding. WBFLC minutes, 19th October 1997 (as paraphrased in the EBU White Book): >>Is an action that is not mentioned in the Laws legal? >>Anything not mentioned is "extraneous". It may be >>considered illegal if information deriving from it is >>used. >> >>For example, the Laws permit a player to look at his >>opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or >>play. Some people have suggested that since the Laws >>do not mention anything about a player looking at his >>opponents' convention card at other players' turns then >>that is legal. But that is not so. It seems to me that the "Alain question" is extraneous to the Laws, as Law 75B states: >>> ... No player has the obligation to disclose to the >>>opponents that he has violated an announced agreement >>>and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as >>>through drawing a false inference from such violation, >>>they are not entitled to redress. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 1 02:02:35 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 1 02:03:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44365F2B.9030308@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 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. Herman De Wael: >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. Richard Hills: It is true that either asking the opponents a question or looking at the opponents' convention card gives UI to partner. However, looking at the convention cared often gives _less_ UI to pard, since pard often cannot deduce which specific information you are seeking on the convention card. For example, thoroughly scanning the opponents' convention card, then asking "Do you play strong NT in third seat?" is obviously illegal. But asking the opponents "Do you play strong NT in third seat?", then examining their convention card to discover whether the opponents also use lebensohl would be legal. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 1 04:54:31 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 1 04:54:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>asking the opponents "Do you play strong NT in >>third seat?", then examining their convention >>card to discover whether the opponents also use >>lebensohl would be legal. ..... >>However, looking at the convention card often >>gives _less_ UI to pard, since pard often cannot >>deduce which specific information you are >>seeking on the convention card. Kojak: >Doesn't, in real life, asking and looking at >about the same time send a clear message that >perhaps something is wrong with the information >you've gotten? Is that information legal to >convey to your partner? Richard Hills: Good point. I agree with Kojak that "often gives less UI" is not the same as "_always_ gives less UI". If a player has a habit of _never_ looking at an opponent's convention card _unless_ that player wants to signal to their partner that they hold sufficient values to indicate that an opponent has misbid, then such a look would be an infraction of Law 73B. See also the discussion on the parallel "why ask?" thread. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 1 05:21:43 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 1 05:21:56 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002201c66cc0$ba3b7fe0$6c690947@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Raija: >I don't relish arguing with Richard who is so knowledgeable >and good with words, but for TD to rule a question illegal >on the basis that questioner knows the answer, requires TD >to use ESP and rulings based on ESP are hard to make since >most people do not have ESP. What if the questioner >doesn't remember what the opponents play? What if the >opponents have tweaked their system in the mean time? Many >what if's. Richard Hills: A director often has to determine disputed facts, but ESP is not required. If a player has possibly asked an unnecessary question, the director simply uses Law 85 to weigh the available evidence to determine whether or not an illegal Ruritanian Asking Bid has been perpetrated. Raija: >IMO, it is not possible to rule a question "unnecessary >question" except some obvious cases, for example someone >answers "Stayman" and I ask "does it ask for a 4-card >major".... WBF LC minutes, 30 October 2001 (EBU White Book paraphrase): >>A question about the meaning of a call (even of an alerted >>call) may provide unauthorised information to partner. >> >>For example, suppose a Stayman 2C response to 1NT is >>alerted in accordance with the regulations for the >>tournament and a player then asks its meaning. A partner >>of the enquirer who subsequently leads a club against an >>ensuing 3NT may well be called upon to demonstrate that he >>has a hand from which very few players would choose an >>opening lead in a different suit. The point is that it is >>not safe to assume that a question provides no >>unauthorised information just because it is about an >>alerted call. Raija: >I would feel uncomfortable at the table if I legitimately >want to know, opponents did not include the detail I wanted >to know and I cannot ask for fear of my question being >ruled illegal because someone (TD?) thinks I *know* or >*should know* the answer. Richard Hills: On the other hand, I would feel uncomfortable if a TD automatically ruled against a complaint about a Ruritanian Asking Bid _solely_ because the putative offending player asserted, "I forgot the meaning of Stayman". :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 1 11:22:21 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 1 11:23:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4455D34D.7000902@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > 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. > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>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. > > > Richard Hills: > > It is true that either asking the opponents a > question or looking at the opponents' convention > card gives UI to partner. However, looking at the > convention cared often gives _less_ UI to pard, > since pard often cannot deduce which specific > information you are seeking on the convention card. > > For example, thoroughly scanning the opponents' > convention card, then asking "Do you play strong NT > in third seat?" is obviously illegal. But asking > the opponents "Do you play strong NT in third > seat?", then examining their convention card to > discover whether the opponents also use lebensohl > would be legal. > OK, I'll grant you that. But it's not really the problem we are talking about. Both scenarios could exist: you mention asking about the range then checking the CC to discover if they play Lebensohl. The reverse can also happen: checking the CC to see the range, and then asking if they play Lebensohl. In both cases, the player wants to know two things, and he uses one method for each for finding out. What I was talking about was the case where the player checked the CC to find the range, and then also asked about it, or vice versa. I think these should both be disallowed. You might disagree with that, but it should not matter in which order the player tries to get the same information twice. -- 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: 268.5.1/326 - Release Date: 27/04/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 1 16:28:06 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 1 16:29:30 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77FAA1B2-61FC-4ECD-BD38-8B562AD205D9@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 30, 2006, at 7:20 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The "Alain question", on the other hand, was > asked to gain _misinformation_ from the opponents, in > order to confirm a suspicion that the opponents had had a > bidding misunderstanding. > > WBFLC minutes, 19th October 1997 > (as paraphrased in the EBU White Book): > >>> Is an action that is not mentioned in the Laws legal? >>> Anything not mentioned is "extraneous". It may be >>> considered illegal if information deriving from it is >>> used. >>> >>> For example, the Laws permit a player to look at his >>> opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or >>> play. Some people have suggested that since the Laws >>> do not mention anything about a player looking at his >>> opponents' convention card at other players' turns then >>> that is legal. But that is not so. > > It seems to me that the "Alain question" is extraneous to > the Laws, as Law 75B states: > >>>> ... No player has the obligation to disclose to the >>>> opponents that he has violated an announced agreement >>>> and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as >>>> through drawing a false inference from such violation, >>>> they are not entitled to redress. This is all too bloody esoteric. The laws permit questions to be asked, but allow that UI *may* be conveyed thereby. Players are entitled to know their opponents' agreements and understandings, so if they do not know, they can and should ask, or look at the CC, or both, unless it cannot matter. If in the course of asking or looking, UI is conveyed - note "is", not "is assumed to be" - then that is not the questioner's problem, it's his partner's. And it's only a problem if (a) the information conveyed can be identified and (b) it *demonstrably* suggests some action over an LA. That is all a matter of judgment, and it's the TD's judgment, not the questioner's or his partner's, that matters. So the practical advice to players is, it seems to me, don't worry about giving UI, and do the best you can if you think you've received any from partner. As for opponents, don't ask for rulings just because you didn't get the best possible result on the board - ask only if you have good reason to believe that (a) they may have gotten their good score *because* they used UI - and the mere fact that UI may have existed is not good enough - and (b) you were really damaged by it. "Existence of UI" does not require a bad score for the side who has it. For the director: if you can't figure out what information was conveyed by a question ("there must have been some" won't cut it) then the score stands. Otherwise, use your best judgment - that's what you're getting paid to do. The practical player (or director) doesn't *care* how many angels can dance on the head of this pin. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 1 16:31:36 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 1 16:33:01 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95E5129E-DE3C-4A38-89EC-29F5C7437B43@rochester.rr.com> On Apr 30, 2006, at 11:21 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > On the other hand, I would feel uncomfortable if a TD > automatically ruled against a complaint about a Ruritanian > Asking Bid _solely_ because the putative offending player > asserted, "I forgot the meaning of Stayman". I cannot conceive of any situation in which I would believe a player who told me that - unless he also forgot to put his pants on before coming to the game. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon May 1 20:04:05 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon May 1 20:08:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4455D34D.7000902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <006701c66d49$a4364ca0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Herman De Wael" > you mention asking about the range then > checking the CC to discover if they play Lebensohl. The reverse can > also happen: checking the CC to see the range, and then asking if they > play Lebensohl. In both cases, the player wants to know two things, > and he uses one method for each for finding out. > The way to find out is to read the CC in either case, that's what it's for. Selective asking, common these days, tells partner whether you are interested in the auction. Routinely consulting the opposing CC tells partner nothing and avoids suspicion.. And what is the reason for checking whether they play Lebensohl? If so, you will find out after you take your action, and you can't change your methods (noted on the CC) in anticipation of countermeasures that might be used at least not in ACBL-land ("During a session of play, a system may not be varied.") Perhaps you have a counter to Lebensohl. If so, use it when a Lebensohl-related call is made (Alerted of course), no advance questioning is needed, other than to remind partner that you have such agreements. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com . From hermandw at hdw.be Mon May 1 21:23:23 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon May 1 21:24:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006701c66d49$a4364ca0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <4455D34D.7000902@hdw.be> <006701c66d49$a4364ca0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <4456602B.3000801@hdw.be> Marvin French wrote: > > Perhaps you have a counter to Lebensohl. If so, use it when a > Lebensohl-related call is made (Alerted of course), no advance > questioning is needed, other than to remind partner that you have > such agreements. > Perhaps you want to know before deciding whether it is interesting to overcall or not. If they can deal with it, it may be less effective than if they cannot. But that is totally beside the point in this thread. If youi don't like this example, then construct any of several in which someone might be interested in two separate pieces of the opponents' system. That person may elect to ask about the first and read the CC for the second, or vice versa. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/326 - Release Date: 27/04/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 2 13:02:25 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue May 2 12:56:44 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002201c66cc0$ba3b7fe0$6c690947@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060502125935.02057550@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:21 1/05/2006 +1000, you wrote: >On the other hand, I would feel uncomfortable if a TD >automatically ruled against a complaint about a Ruritanian >Asking Bid _solely_ because the putative offending player >asserted, "I forgot the meaning of Stayman". This could occasionally be a problem when the name is known in an area or country, but not in another, eg French players don't understand what Dutch players mean by "Niemeyer" (namely, Puppet Stayman with relays), and the latter have some difficulty exlpaining it without recalling the meaning of responses, and often find strange they have to explain it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 2 13:07:35 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue May 2 13:01:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006701c66d49$a4364ca0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <4455D34D.7000902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060502130528.02068ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:04 1/05/2006 -0700, you wrote: >And what is the reason for checking whether they play Lebensohl? If >so, you will find out after you take your action, and you can't >change your methods (noted on the CC) in anticipation of >countermeasures that might be used at least not in ACBL-land >("During a session of play, a system may not be varied.") Indeed. But I'm allowed to risk some overcalls knowing that a penalty double will be unavailable, that I wouldn't risk if they played penalty doubles. That's not variation in my system, it's maximizing my chances vs minimizing my risks, and that's all competitive bidding is about. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 2 13:10:16 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue May 2 13:04:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Odd Misinformation situation - youropinions?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4456602B.3000801@hdw.be> References: <006701c66d49$a4364ca0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <4455D34D.7000902@hdw.be> <006701c66d49$a4364ca0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060502130801.0205ed60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:23 1/05/2006 +0200, you wrote: >But that is totally beside the point in this thread. >If youi don't like this example, then construct any of several in which >someone might be interested in two separate pieces of the opponents' >system. That person may elect to ask about the first and read the CC for >the second, or vice versa. And there are cases where it is quicker and more practical, e.g. I check about NT range, then, discovering about it, I want to know about their escape mechanism, which will usually be easier to explain that to write down. (and, in this particular case, I don't know I want to know about their escape mechanism until I discover they're playing Weak). From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 2 18:02:52 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue May 2 17:59:45 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> Raija: > I don't relish arguing with Richard who is > so knowledgeable and good with words, but > for TD to rule a question illegal on the > basis that questioner knows the answer, > requires TD to use ESP and rulings based > on ESP are hard to make since most people > do not have ESP. [nige1] IMO Raija is right. The rule banning "Pro Questions" is completely unnecessary and should be dropped forthwith. Like several other rules it adds no value to game. Admittedly, as Raija says, it may allow directors to hone their extra sensory perception aka "judgement". Resulting rulings, however, are contentious and controversial at best, especially if they decide a major event. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue May 2 18:29:05 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue May 2 18:30:09 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060502125935.02057550@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <002201c66cc0$ba3b7fe0$6c690947@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20060502125935.02057550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On May 2, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > often find strange they have to explain it. Heh. even simple conventions can fall prey to that. Particularly when the asker is trying to ferret out subtle details. Example. P-1S-2C (uncontested auction). Now opponent asks what 2C means. Explanation: Drury. Now, in the ACBL, and in most other jurisdictions as well, AFAIK, naming a convention is not enough, so... next question: tell me more, please. Answer: Huh? It's Drury, wtp? Q: Explain what the bid means, please, don't just name it. A: Okay, he's showing a limit raise. Q: What would 3S mean? A: limit raise*. Q: so what's the difference between 2C and 3S? A: Director! This is harassment! Most novices (and I include in that people who've been playing in clubs for years, and never had it driven home that you *must* give a complete explanation of your agreements) do *not* understand how to explain things. And they get upset when they get called on it. * in many cases you get this answer because they haven't thought about it. They play it as a limit raise by an unpassed hand, so... If they "have" thought about it, maybe they think it should show a four card limit raise, and 2C shows three. Or maybe they think it should be weak. IAC, they probably haven't discussed it with partner, so they really don't *have* an agreement on the meaning of 3S. From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Wed May 3 05:00:21 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Wed May 3 04:29:08 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled Message-ID: <44581CC5.7030902@cs.elte.hu> MP pairs, no screen E/- T74 A643 AT62 A5 KQJ8 6532 KT98 2 73 J984 K86 QJT4 A9 QJ75 KQ5 9732 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH pass 1C DBL RDBL pass pass pass NS's system: -strong (15-17) 1NT; -5 card Major; -better minor; EW's system: -mini (10-13) 1NT; -5 card Major; -1club:2+; 1diamond:4+. The double was takeout. The redouble showed strength. East's second pass was alerted by west and defined as "he want's to defend against 1C**". After the play East told, that in his view his pass was "waiting". (TD!) No information about this on EW's convention card. The play has gone: 1. SK-4-6-9 2. SQ-7-5-A 3. HK-A-2-Q 4. D3-2-4-K 5. D7-6-8-Q 6. C6-DT-9-5 7. SQ-T-2-C2 8. C8-A-4-3 9. CK-DA-J-H5 10. HT-3-CT-H7 East claimed the rest (1 down). ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 3 09:20:27 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 3 09:21:56 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <77FAA1B2-61FC-4ECD-BD38-8B562AD205D9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >it's the TD's judgment, not the questioner's or his >partner's, that matters. [snip] >So the practical advice to players is, it seems to me, >don't worry about giving UI, [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, this Loohcs Leaw Ed advice goes too far. It seems to me that a player should not deliberately and/or recklessly infract those Laws which restrict the creation of UI because "it's the TD's judgement that matters" in rectifying such infractions. Deliberately infracting a Law is prohibited by Law 72B2: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." Recklessly infracting a Law is prohibited by Law 74B1: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From mustikka at charter.net Wed May 3 15:03:03 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed May 3 15:04:07 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000c01c66eb1$e9e82610$2910b618@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed Reppert: > > [snip] > >>it's the TD's judgment, not the questioner's or his >>partner's, that matters. > > [snip] > >>So the practical advice to players is, it seems to me, >>don't worry about giving UI, > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, this Loohcs Leaw Ed advice goes too far. > > It seems to me that a player should not deliberately > and/or recklessly infract those Laws which restrict the > creation of UI because "it's the TD's judgement that > matters" in rectifying such infractions. > > Deliberately infracting a Law is prohibited by Law 72B2: > > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if > there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." > > Recklessly infracting a Law is prohibited by Law 74B1: > > "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: > paying insufficient attention to the game." > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > A question: Is creating UI illegal? I know full well that using UI *is*, and it is also unethical (in my standards). I understand it is desirable not to create UI so as not to restrict partner's options or put him in temptation of using it, but my question is: Is creating UI illegal and, if Yes, by which Law? TIA. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 3 15:17:41 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 3 15:18:44 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c66eb1$e9e82610$2910b618@DFYXB361> References: <000c01c66eb1$e9e82610$2910b618@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2B2959EC-FA21-474E-8577-4A6266C9F280@rochester.rr.com> On May 3, 2006, at 9:03 AM, raija wrote: > Is creating UI illegal? I know full well that using UI *is*, and > it is also unethical (in my standards). I understand it is > desirable not to create UI so as not to restrict partner's options > or put him in temptation of using it, but my question is: Is > creating UI illegal and, if Yes, by which Law? Richard wants to dot every i and cross every t. At top level, that's fine. Below top level, it ain't gonna happen. *Deliberately* creating UI is illegal (73B, 73D2). Inadvertently (or when complying with law or regulations, eg, alerting) creating UI is not. Using UI is not, IMO, unethical unless done deliberately. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed May 3 15:30:16 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed May 3 15:31:19 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9E0B84AB-87E2-4D2F-B33D-DB74E2F7BD90@rochester.rr.com> On May 3, 2006, at 3:20 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In my opinion, this Loohcs Leaw Ed advice goes too far. > > It seems to me that a player should not deliberately > and/or recklessly infract those Laws which restrict the > creation of UI because "it's the TD's judgement that > matters" in rectifying such infractions. You have misinterpreted what I wrote. I did *not* say, nor did I intend to say, that a player should ignore his legal obligations regarding the creation of UI. I said, and will continue to say, that when a player is, at the table, unsure whether an action will give UI, he shouldn't worry about that - he should avoid compounding the problem by hesitating (agonizing?) over whether he will be creating UI. BLML has become, it seems, a place where the finer subtleties are of primary importance. Well, they're not of primary importance to *me* - nor, I think, to the majority of bridge players. I'm looking for practicality, and if an i doesn't get dotted or a t crossed, in general I can live with that. There is a significant difference between top level bridge and club and low level tournament bridge. At the former, perhaps every i *should* be dotted, and every t crossed. At the others, it won't happen. Nor should it. Which is not, before somebody misinterprets *that*, to say that low level players should not, from time to time, receive instruction on their legal obligations. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed May 3 15:52:49 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed May 3 15:58:25 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <44581CC5.7030902@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <200605031352.k43DqnIM022238@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Laszlo Hegedus writes: > > MP pairs, no screen > E/- > > > T74 > A643 > AT62 > A5 > KQJ8 6532 > KT98 2 > 73 J984 > K86 QJT4 > A9 > QJ75 > KQ5 > 9732 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > pass 1C > DBL RDBL pass pass > pass > > NS's system: > -strong (15-17) 1NT; > -5 card Major; > -better minor; > > EW's system: > -mini (10-13) 1NT; > -5 card Major; > -1club:2+; 1diamond:4+. > > The double was takeout. The redouble showed strength. East's second pass > was alerted by west and defined as "he want's to defend against 1C**". > After the play East told, that in his view his pass was "waiting". (TD!) > No information about this on EW's convention card. Probably (good faith) misinformation I'm inclined to believe (both from what information has been provided and my general knowledge of bridge players) that EW have no explicit agreement and that both were assuming that their proposed treatment is "standard" (In my experience, "floundering without agreement" is the standard treatment) That said, while I don't dispute that there was MI, I'm hard pressed to see any damage to NS. Surely the explanation makes playing 1C** substantially less attractive than otherwise. Result stands. Side note: While most pairs don't have explicit agreements as to what a pass over a redouble shows, I've seen a few rulings that have convinced me that any moderately serious pair should have them. > The play has gone: > 1. SK-4-6-9 > 2. SQ-7-5-A > 3. HK-A-2-Q > 4. D3-2-4-K > 5. D7-6-8-Q > 6. C6-DT-9-5 > 7. SQ-T-2-C2 > 8. C8-A-4-3 > 9. CK-DA-J-H5 > 10. HT-3-CT-H7 > > East claimed the rest (1 down). From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed May 3 16:15:23 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed May 3 16:20:57 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605031415.k43EFNxp022401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > > On May 2, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > often find strange they have to explain it. > > Heh. even simple conventions can fall prey to that. Particularly when > the asker is trying to ferret out subtle details. Example. P-1S-2C > (uncontested auction). Now opponent asks what 2C means. Explanation: > Drury. Funny thing is that for the novices you're talking about "Drury" *is* an accurate explanation of their agreements. (reading to the end of your post I see you making essentially the same point) They've agreed to play Drury without any further discussion and (In some cases they adopt conventions with a 10 word "explanation" from a fellow novice -- at game time.) have no awareness of the implications their choices have made. Now I agree they should be taught to explain more completely. I can generally peg the people whose agreements are "Drury" and those with more complete agreements but who are just bad at explaining. I'm prepared to (try to) drag the information from the latter. The former? I try to play it by ear -- generally speaking to the director informally. What's funny is that when I explain a call (going further than the name), the novices are often either puzzled that I don't use a single word explanation or are vaguely offended (thinking I think they don't know they know a particular convention) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 3 17:52:53 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed May 3 17:47:20 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <44581CC5.7030902@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503174403.0205c9b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:00 3/05/2006 +0200, you wrote: >MP pairs, no screen >E/- > > > T74 > A643 > AT62 > A5 >KQJ8 6532 >KT98 2 >73 J984 >K86 QJT4 > A9 > QJ75 > KQ5 > 9732 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > pass 1C >DBL RDBL pass pass >pass > > >The double was takeout. The redouble showed strength. East's second pass >was alerted by west and defined as "he want's to defend against 1C**". >After the play East told, that in his view his pass was "waiting". (TD!) >No information about this on EW's convention card. > >The play has gone: >1. SK-4-6-9 >2. SQ-7-5-A >3. HK-A-2-Q >4. D3-2-4-K >5. D7-6-8-Q >6. C6-DT-9-5 >7. SQ-T-2-C2 >8. C8-A-4-3 >9. CK-DA-J-H5 >10. HT-3-CT-H7 Now, what are the questions ? I'll try and ask them for you. 1) Is there misinformation ? Most probably, yes. Why East waiting-passed with this (4 spades) should be investigated. Most probably, the pass is in-between : showing no suit better than clubs and suggesting 1C** as a final contract rather than imposing it, and West obliged with his unexpectedly strong C holding. 2) Would N/S have bid otherwise, given the right explanation "waiting" ? Certainly not. South stood in 1C when penalty-passed, so he would surely have done so with the right explanation. 3) Was South damaged in the play ? This I leave open to better analysts, but I'd say no : 1C is going down anyway. It seems like a case of E/W being lucky. To cut a long story short : infraction yes, subsequent damage no. Result stands unless you convince me there is a reasonable way to make 7 tricks given the information that clubs are most probably 3-4 in E/W hands. Possible procedural penalty against E/W. Best regards Alain From con.holzscherer at philips.com Wed May 3 18:31:05 2006 From: con.holzscherer at philips.com (Con Holzscherer) Date: Wed May 3 18:33:03 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503174403.0205c9b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: T74 A643 AT62 A5 KQJ8 6532 KT98 2 73 J984 K86 QJT4 A9 QJ75 KQ5 9732 Alain Gottscheiner wrote: > Was South damaged in the play ? > I'd say no : 1C is going down anyway. I don't think so. After the first two tricks (spade king and spade queen to the ace), let's assume that declarer plays a club to the ace, ruffs a spade and plays another round of clubs. Depending on the defense, declarer makes 7 or 8 tricks that way. Regards, Con Holzscherer From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed May 3 19:41:59 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed May 3 19:47:37 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605031742.k43Hg02Q023952@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Con Holzscherer writes: > > T74 > A643 > AT62 > A5 > KQJ8 6532 > KT98 2 > 73 J984 > K86 QJT4 > A9 > QJ75 > KQ5 > 9732 > > Alain Gottscheiner wrote: > > > Was South damaged in the play ? > > I'd say no : 1C is going down anyway. > > I don't think so. After the first two tricks (spade king > and spade queen to the ace), let's assume that declarer > plays a club to the ace, ruffs a spade and plays another > round of clubs. Depending on the defense, declarer makes > 7 or 8 tricks that way. > Should at any rate. South can still go wrong but then so can East/West. But does the MI make that line of play less attractive? Regardless of how East's pass is explained I wouldn't be playing for a 4-3 trump split with the takeout doubler short in diamonds. I'm open to being convinced, but as far as I can tell any damage in play isn't rally related to the MI. And yes, I'm well aware that South shouldn't have to play perfectly -- or anything close -- to receive protection. That's why I'm open to being convinced. From con.holzscherer at philips.com Wed May 3 20:52:26 2006 From: con.holzscherer at philips.com (Con Holzscherer) Date: Wed May 3 20:54:25 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: Message-ID: DigiTech wrote: > Unless East gets himself end-played, it is difficult to see how declarer > avoids losing 2 spades, 3 clubs, a heart and a diamond.If East wins the > second trump lead and switches to a heart I believe the defense get their > 7 tricks. No, no , no. You should count declarers tricks. If east wins the second club and switches hearts for Q-K-A, then declarer plays a diamond to the king and third round of clubs. He effortlessly makes (at least) 3 diamonds, 3 aces and the spade ruff. And that requires that EW prevent South from making the J of hearts. R, C From con.holzscherer at philips.com Wed May 3 20:57:03 2006 From: con.holzscherer at philips.com (Con Holzscherer) Date: Wed May 3 20:59:01 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <200605031742.k43Hg02Q023952@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote: > But does the MI make that line of play less attractive? Good question. Possibly. If declarer expects the trumps to be 6-1 (or at least 5-2), there is not much point in 'drawing' trumps. If the trumps are 4-3 however there is a point, i.e. to prevent the opponents from making their trumps separately. In the real play, declarer went down because West ruffed twice, which declarer could have easily prevented. R, C From john at asimere.com Thu May 4 00:44:27 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu May 4 00:45:22 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Raija: >> I don't relish arguing with Richard who is >> so knowledgeable and good with words, but >> for TD to rule a question illegal on the >> basis that questioner knows the answer, >> requires TD to use ESP and rulings based >> on ESP are hard to make since most people >> do not have ESP. comme toujours, absoluement aucune idee :) > > [nige1] > IMO Raija is right. The rule banning "Pro > Questions" is completely unnecessary and should be > dropped forthwith. Like several other rules it > adds no value to game. Admittedly, as Raija says, > it may allow directors to hone their extra sensory > perception aka "judgement". Resulting rulings, > however, are contentious and controversial at > best, especially if they decide a major event. try asking him "did you know the answer before you asked?" "did you ask for your partner's benefit?" Is it so friggin' difficult? Sheesh Nigel, you're making even more of an idiot of yourself than usual. cheers john > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu May 4 00:47:41 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu May 4 00:48:43 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000c01c66eb1$e9e82610$2910b618@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <001901c66f03$96193fe0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > A question: > > Is creating UI illegal? I know full well that using UI *is*, and it is > also unethical (in my standards). I understand it is desirable not to > create UI so as not to restrict partner's options or put him in temptation > of using it, but my question is: Is creating UI illegal and, if Yes, by > which Law? > Of course not, we do it all the time. I bid or play out of tempo on most hands.; don't you? cheers john > TIA. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu May 4 05:33:01 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu May 4 05:34:07 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200605031415.k43EFNxp022401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200605031415.k43EFNxp022401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <5C42EBC1-F9AA-4EDE-BA5C-0D36D2CB92CF@rochester.rr.com> On May 3, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: > I'm prepared to (try to) drag the information from the latter. Heh. Team game tonight. Relatively experienced opponents. The auction, partner having dealt: 1D-(X)-P-(1H)-2D-(P)-P-(X)-P-2S-all pass. Before leading, I asked for an explanation of the auction. Declarer gave me a review. I thanked him and asked for an explanation of the auction. :-) I'm told "standard". I ask for further information. LHO says he doesn't understand what I'm asking. I said "I want to know what you know about your partner's hand, and what he knows about yours". LHO calls the director and asks "what am I supposed to tell him?" Director says "What did you tell him?" He says "that it was standard". Director says to me "it's standard, Ed." After a pause he says "what else do you want to know?" I gave up, and said "tell me about LHO's double." "He wants me to bid". Pfui. Much the same thing had happened earlier this evening, against another pair. From svenpran at online.no Thu May 4 09:31:01 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu May 4 09:32:01 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5C42EBC1-F9AA-4EDE-BA5C-0D36D2CB92CF@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c66f4c$b1d98ca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ........... > Heh. Team game tonight. Relatively experienced opponents. The > auction, partner having dealt: 1D-(X)-P-(1H)-2D-(P)-P-(X)-P-2S-all > pass. Before leading, I asked for an explanation of the auction. > Declarer gave me a review. I thanked him and asked for an explanation > of the auction. :-) I'm told "standard". I ask for further > information. LHO says he doesn't understand what I'm asking. I said > "I want to know what you know about your partner's hand, and what he > knows about yours". LHO calls the director and asks "what am I > supposed to tell him?" Director says "What did you tell him?" He says > "that it was standard". Director says to me "it's standard, Ed." > After a pause he says "what else do you want to know?" I gave up, and > said "tell me about LHO's double." "He wants me to bid". Pfui. > > Much the same thing had happened earlier this evening, against > another pair. My standard question in such cases (when I want explanations or clarifications) is not "please explain the auction" or similar. I invariably ask: "What are we entitled to know about your hands from this auction"? That usually makes the trick even against the most reluctant opponents. (Not bragging, just giving a recommendation to others) Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 4 15:35:55 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 4 15:37:05 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <5C42EBC1-F9AA-4EDE-BA5C-0D36D2CB92CF@rochester.rr.com> References: <200605031415.k43EFNxp022401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <5C42EBC1-F9AA-4EDE-BA5C-0D36D2CB92CF@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060504092740.02aec520@pop.starpower.net> At 11:33 PM 5/3/06, Ed wrote: >Heh. Team game tonight. Relatively experienced opponents. The >auction, partner having dealt: 1D-(X)-P-(1H)-2D-(P)-P-(X)-P-2S-all >pass. Before leading, I asked for an explanation of the auction. >Declarer gave me a review. I thanked him and asked for an explanation >of the auction. :-) I'm told "standard". I ask for further >information. LHO says he doesn't understand what I'm asking. I said >"I want to know what you know about your partner's hand, and what he >knows about yours". LHO calls the director and asks "what am I >supposed to tell him?" Director says "What did you tell him?" He says >"that it was standard". Director says to me "it's standard, Ed." >After a pause he says "what else do you want to know?" I gave up, and >said "tell me about LHO's double." "He wants me to bid". Pfui. Ed's opponents in this particular scenario may well have been failing to fully disclose their agreements, but I've certainly played against pairs for whom those responses -- "It's standard"; "He wants me to bid" -- genuinely represent the full extent of their partnership agreements (or lack thereof), and suspect we all have. In my experience, partnerships that go out of their way to evade their disclosure obligations are far outnumbered by partnerships that just don't have a clue what they're doing. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 4 17:06:19 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu May 4 17:00:38 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060504092740.02aec520@pop.starpower.net> References: <5C42EBC1-F9AA-4EDE-BA5C-0D36D2CB92CF@rochester.rr.com> <200605031415.k43EFNxp022401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <5C42EBC1-F9AA-4EDE-BA5C-0D36D2CB92CF@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504165917.020448a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:35 4/05/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: I gave up, and said "tell me about LHO's double." "He wants me to bid". Pfui. AG : IMHO, this is a valid explanation for an action double : "bid whatever you want, partner, but rather bid than pass". >In my experience, partnerships that go out of their way to evade their >disclosure obligations are far outnumbered by partnerships that just don't >have a clue what they're doing. AG : there is a third component, a large one : those who don't know what their disclosure obligations are. Even blmlists didn't agree, in some past threads, about the alertability of some basic sequences, like Walsh-type responses and rebids, wide-range prempts or nonforcing free bids after pass (yes, we all know the standard is nonforcing, but people who play nonforcing unpassed free bids usually have lower standards for PH free bids). So, how do you expect NDPs and KMs to do ? Against those, one more question (or tactful TD call) could be useful. Regards, Alain. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 4 21:43:45 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu May 4 21:44:59 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504165917.020448a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5C42EBC1-F9AA-4EDE-BA5C-0D36D2CB92CF@rochester.rr.com> <200605031415.k43EFNxp022401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <5C42EBC1-F9AA-4EDE-BA5C-0D36D2CB92CF@rochester.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504165917.020448a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060504153126.02af8eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:06 AM 5/4/06, Alain wrote: >At 09:35 4/05/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>In my experience, partnerships that go out of their way to evade >>their disclosure obligations are far outnumbered by partnerships that >>just don't have a clue what they're doing. > >AG : there is a third component, a large one : those who don't know >what their disclosure obligations are. >Even blmlists didn't agree, in some past threads, about the >alertability of some basic sequences, like Walsh-type responses and >rebids, wide-range prempts or nonforcing free bids after pass (yes, we >all know the standard is nonforcing, but people who play nonforcing >unpassed free bids usually have lower standards for PH free bids). So, >how do you expect NDPs and KMs to do ? >Against those, one more question (or tactful TD call) could be useful. We shouldn't conflate two different "disclosure obligations". The obligation to alert is confusing to the point of being ridiculous. There is no consistency among governing bodies as to what is alertable, which, IMO, is not a problem, but in some jurisdictions, including mine (ACBL), there is no consistency from year to year, which is. I'm not sure anyone really knows exactly what's alertable in the ACBL right now, and by the time one can figure it all out, it will have changed. It's hardly surprising that players are confused, or that BLMLers are as confused as everyone else. But the obligation to disclose in reply to an inquiry is very simple: be as open and forthcoming as you can, and take care to make sure your opponents understand what you're telling them. Unlike saying "alert", describing one's agreements when asked isn't something you must either do or not do depending on the local regs. We know what the objective is, and if you meet it you can be confident that you have acted legally and appropriately regardless of where you are or what year it is. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri May 5 02:50:09 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri May 5 02:18:52 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <200605031352.k43DqnIM022238@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200605031352.k43DqnIM022238@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <445AA141.4090506@cs.elte.hu> Ron Johnson wrote: > >Side note: While most pairs don't have explicit agreements >as to what a pass over a redouble shows, I've seen a few >rulings that have convinced me that any moderately >serious pair should have them. > > > I know very well that this EW DID HAVE an explicit agreement, that this pass was penalty. At the table East had forgotten that. If we belive them then it will be a misbid not a misinformation, but as TD we have no reason to belive them. regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri May 5 02:50:32 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri May 5 02:19:11 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503174403.0205c9b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503174403.0205c9b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <445AA158.4090604@cs.elte.hu> > > Now, what are the questions ? > > I'll try and ask them for you. > > 1) Is there misinformation ? Most probably, yes. Why East > waiting-passed with this (4 spades) should be investigated. Most > probably, the pass is in-between : showing no suit better than clubs > and suggesting 1C** as a final contract rather than imposing it, and > West obliged with his unexpectedly strong C holding. East had 4 diamonds and 4 spades and didnot want to play in a 4-3 spade fit instead of a 4-4 or 5-4 diamond fit. He planned to pass partner's 1D and correct partner's 1H to 1S. It was EW's luck that he had good clubs as well. > > 2) Would N/S have bid otherwise, given the right explanation "waiting" > ? Certainly not. South stood in 1C when penalty-passed, so he would > surely have done so with the right explanation. > > 3) Was South damaged in the play ? This I leave open to better > analysts, but I'd say no : 1C is going down anyway. It seems like a > case of E/W being lucky. > > To cut a long story short : Do not cut it, please! The problem is not ended. It just begins here. :) After the play South (member of the national women's team several times) told the TD that with correct information she would have lead another heart from dummy in trick 4 and make the contract easily. regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 5 02:36:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 5 02:38:04 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <44581CC5.7030902@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: When I asked West why he thought they had such an agreement what did he say? Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 5 04:15:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 5 04:16:32 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <445AA141.4090506@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: Laci wrote: > I know very well that this EW DID HAVE an explicit agreement, that > this pass was penalty. At the table East had forgotten that. If we > belive them then it will be a misbid not a misinformation, but as TD > we have no reason to belive them. Nor do we have any reason to disbelieve them. We ask questions, we hear their answers, then we weigh the evidence. West's pass of the redouble is strong evidence that (s)he believed they had such an agreement. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 5 15:24:16 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 5 15:25:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <20060504230028.69716.qmail@web60319.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060504230028.69716.qmail@web60319.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9529DFAD-49D5-4EBE-8554-1CD62223D786@rochester.rr.com> On May 4, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Christopher Upson wrote: > by absurd exaggeration, of course. We disagree. > The true nature of starfire is probably much closer > to the polar opposite of rock-paper-scissors; > 1.1 units of rock beats 1.0 units of paper in starfire. And scissors are irrelevant? Maybe you're right - I haven't fought a lot of battles - but I think you're the one who's exaggerating here. > rock-more rock-et cetera > is the name of the game here. So then, I guess your fleets are huge masses of whatever you think "rock" is. For deep space battles, I had thought "large LRW ships", but Marvin suggested the rock in that scenario is the swarm ship. So that's all you build, is it? > if you think that you can gain some telling advantage > somewhere by going back and building a fleet to > "counter" your opponent's fleet, i suggest humbly that > you are drastically mistaken. the initiative loss > inherent in the very concept is overwhelmingly more > costly than any advantage to be gained. I'm not stupid. And I never said anything about "going back". The essence of strategic military preparedness is to *anticipate* your need. If you decide all you need is "rock and more rock" and that's all you build, you may find yourself wishing you'd made some other decision if that one turns out to be wrong. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 5 19:20:22 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 5 19:21:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: In-Reply-To: <9529DFAD-49D5-4EBE-8554-1CD62223D786@rochester.rr.com> References: <20060504230028.69716.qmail@web60319.mail.yahoo.com> <9529DFAD-49D5-4EBE-8554-1CD62223D786@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <65CE24DE-EF54-4BC2-B2C8-58FFC1E2C760@rochester.rr.com> On May 5, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: A message that has nothing to do with blml. Sorry about that, folks. :-( From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 5 20:52:56 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri May 5 20:49:59 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> [John Probst] > try asking him "did you know the answer before you > asked?" "did you ask for your partner's benefit?" > Is it so friggin' difficult? Sheesh Nigel, you're > making even more of an idiot of yourself than > usual. [nige1] What John thinks of me doesn't affect whether such a rule is needed. I still claim it is not. [A} Such a rule adds no value; it adds only unnecessary complexity and subjectivity. {B] It gives even more power to directors to decide events on whim. Such decisions are hard to dispute but generate discontent. [C] Another pernicious effect is to punish honest players but reward deliberate liars and those who can rationalize untruths. You win a championship by 1 imp. But opponents protest about partner's alleged "Pro question" on the last board. John Probst asks your partner "Did you know the answer before you asked?" "Did you ask for your partner's benefit?" For a practised prevaricator the answers are "No" (a sane human being is sure of nothing); and "No" (we *both* want to win). In BLML, directors have advanced contradictory opinions on this issue. Some have claimed the right to break bridge rules that they don't like or don't understand. I don't advocate such behaviour: because you think a rule is unjust, unfair and even daft does not give you the right to break it. That is just my opinion, however. Unnecessary rules like this test any player's resolve. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 5 22:57:18 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 5 22:58:26 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:52 PM 5/5/06, Guthrie wrote: >What John thinks of me doesn't affect whether such >a rule is needed. I still claim it is not. > >[A} Such a rule adds no value; it adds only >unnecessary complexity and subjectivity. There is value in letting people know what's expected of them, even if such a rule merely establishes what correct behavior is but lacks any means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe it, but 99.999% of bridge players will follow the rules and do what is expected of them, provided they know what that is. >{B] It gives even more power to directors to >decide events on whim. Such decisions are hard to >dispute but generate discontent. In well over 40 years of playing organized duplicate, I've seen exactly one incident in which it is fair to say that a director (I make no comment on ACs) decided an event "on whim" (and that particular director is long deceased). >[C] Another pernicious effect is to punish honest >players but reward deliberate liars and those who >can rationalize untruths. > >You win a championship by 1 imp. But opponents >protest about partner's alleged "Pro question" on >the last board. John Probst asks your partner "Did >you know the answer before you asked?" "Did you >ask for your partner's benefit?" > >For a practised prevaricator the answers are "No" >(a sane human being is sure of nothing); and "No" >(we *both* want to win). A "practiced prevaricator" can get around just about any law in the book; directors and ACs do not use lie detectors or truth serums. Nigel may not believe it, but, luckily, there are very few practiced prevaricators using their talents to win bridge games; they have better use for all that practice. (Why play bridge when you could be putting your talent for prevarication to work doing something lucrative?) What's more, the practiced prevaricators who do ply their prevarication practice at the bridge table very quickly become well known in the area where they live, and do eventually get what's coming to them. >In BLML, directors have advanced contradictory >opinions on this issue. Some have claimed the >right to break bridge rules that they don't like >or don't understand. I don't recall anyone "claim[ing] the right to break bridge rules". BLML gets into debates about what a particular rule means. Laws, of any kind, are subject to interpretation, and different members of this forum have different interpretations of the laws in TFLB. Unfortunately, some of us are too quick to say that others are "break[ing] bridge rules" when what they are doing is enforcing their interpretation of some rule rather than the interpretation of the person accusing them. Such statements have the semantic value of, "I'm right; you're wrong; nyah-nyah." >I don't advocate such behaviour: because you think >a rule is unjust, unfair and even daft does not >give you the right to break it. That is just my >opinion, however. Nigel claims not to advocate such behavior, and I'm confident that he is in fact an honest and ethical player. But his unwillingness to mske that assumption about others can only lead us to wonder. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat May 6 00:48:41 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat May 6 00:45:44 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj><000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john><007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00af01c67096$0efb66c0$209468d5@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > Nigel claims not to advocate such behavior, > and I'm confident that he is in fact an honest > and ethical player. But his unwillingness to > make that assumption about others can only lead > us to wonder. [nige1] OW! Another blow below the belt :( Standards may be different in America. Here, in the UK, many people rationalize the breaking of rules that they dislike. They drop litter, falsify income tax returns, break speed limits, purloin stuff from work, break their marriage vows, take banned drugs, join paedophile rings, and so on. It is alleged that some politicians are corrupt :) Also, a near majority of the electorate in the UK (and rumour has it, in the US too) have awarded a second term to a leader knowing that he binned the Geneva convention so that hundreds of suspects could be tortured abroad. In the longer term, breaking other treaties and agreements (eg Kyoto) may also have dire consequences. History is full of examples involving whole communities: Persecutions, Witch hunts, Slavery, Ethnic cleansings (Holocaust, Cambodia, Turkey, Croatia). In my experience, at and away from the Bridge table, many rationalize rule-breaking; but few consider themselves dishonest. Bridge is a microcosm; players are just people - a mixture of good and evil - but many hypocrites :( From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat May 6 04:26:24 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat May 6 04:23:26 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj><000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john><007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001301c670b4$79217da0$059468d5@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > There is value in letting people know what's > expected of them, even if such a rule merely > establishes what correct behavior is but lacks > any means of enforcing it. Nigel may not believe > it, but 99.999% of bridge players will follow the > rules and do what is expected of them, provided > they know what that is. [nige1] How can a sensible player regard conformance with the "Pro Question" rule as "correct behaviour" except in the narrowest legal sense? Preventing such a question allows opponents to avoid full disclosure. Surely poor partner is *entitled by law* to information of which opponents have deprived him. If the effect of the "pro-question" is illicit communication rather than disclosure facilitation, then that is a completely different matter. Luckily there is a separate rule designed to deal specifically with that eventuality. Fewer than 1 in 100,000 players know the rules of Bridge so the rest of Eric's theory is difficult to test at the table. Nevertheless, Bridge players are just people. Do people disobey laws that they find inconvenient? Next time Eric is on a motorway, he can verify that fewer that 1 in 100,000 drivers exceed the speed-limit. *In other contexts*, however, I agree with Eric, that correct behaviour should be encouraged, even when legally unenforceable. Bridge etiquette for ladies and gentlemen should be separate from the rules proper. The old "proprieties section" of the laws admirably served that purpose. From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sun May 7 23:52:30 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sun May 7 23:21:37 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445E6C1E.9090603@cs.elte.hu> Tim West-Meads wrote: >When I asked West why he thought they had such an agreement what did he >say? > >Tim > > They have discussed several times, they play the same almost all the situation like that (but partner might go wrong as well), but this information is missing from their --- really well detailed --- cc. Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 8 09:51:12 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon May 8 09:45:24 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <001301c670b4$79217da0$059468d5@jeushtlj> References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060508095005.02046230@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 03:26 6/05/2006 +0100, Guthrie wrote: >Next time Eric is on a >motorway, he can verify that fewer than 1 in >100,000 drivers exceed the speed-limit. I don't know about the other side of the Pond, but in Western Europe, this would be read as massive irony. Regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Mon May 8 11:23:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon May 8 11:25:08 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <445E6C1E.9090603@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: Laci wrote: > They have discussed several times, they play the same almost all the > situation like that (but partner might go wrong as well), but this > information is missing from their --- really well detailed --- cc. Even a pretty detailed CC will not cover all situations, so that's no particular surprise. It seems likely that the testimony of offenders would provide sufficient evidence to rule that there is no MI. There is UI from the explanation of course, but I can't see that it affected the play. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 8 15:59:17 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 8 16:00:24 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <00a301c67095$45bd26e0$209468d5@jeushtlj> References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> <00a301c67095$45bd26e0$209468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060508094931.02f0e750@pop.starpower.net> At 06:43 PM 5/5/06, Guthrie wrote: >[Eric Landau] > > Nigel claims not to advocate such behavior, > > and I'm confident that he is in fact an honest > > and ethical player. But his unwillingness to > > make that assumption about others can only lead > > us to wonder. > >[nige1] >OW! Another blow below the belt :( > >I've not been to America and standards may be >different there. > >Here, in the UK, many people rationalize the >breaking of rules that they dislike. They drop >litter, falsify income tax returns, break speed >limits, purloin stuff from work, break their >marriage vows, join paedophile rings, and so on. > >It is alleged that some politicians are corrupt :) > >Also, a near majority of the electorate in the UK >(and rumour has it, in the US too) have awarded a >second term to a leader knowing that he binned the >Geneva convention so that hundreds of suspects >could be tortured abroad. In the longer term, >breaking other treaties and agreements (eg Kyoto) >may also have dire consequences. > >History is full of examples involving whole >communities: Persecutions, Witch hunts, Slavery, >Ethnic cleansings (Holocaust, Cambodia, Turkey, >Croatia). > >In my experience, at and away from the Bridge >table, >many rationalize rule-breaking; but few consider >themselves dishonest. > >Bridge is a microcosm and players are just >people - >a mixture of good and evil - but many hypocrites >:( Everything Nigel writes is true. But money, power and sex are serious business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we play for fun. If we can't maintain that distinction in the context of how we regulate the game, there seems little point in bothering to do so. Of course human beings lie, cheat and steal when there's something to be gained by doing so. But what does a duplicate-bridge cheater gain? Master points? What are they worth in real life? Pah! Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 8 16:40:11 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 8 16:41:13 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <001301c670b4$79217da0$059468d5@jeushtlj> References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> <001301c670b4$79217da0$059468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060508100719.02f23cb0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:26 PM 5/5/06, Guthrie wrote: >How can a sensible player regard conformance with >the "Pro Question" rule as "correct behaviour" >except in the narrowest legal sense? Preventing >such a question allows opponents to avoid full >disclosure. Surely poor partner is *entitled by >law* to information of which opponents have >deprived him. > >If the effect of the "pro-question" is illicit >communication rather than disclosure facilitation, >then that is a completely different matter. >Luckily there is a separate rule designed to deal >specifically with that eventuality. IIRC, the whole concept of "pro questions" was originally raised by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial, and Nigel's views conform to Mr. Kaplan's. The counter-argument, of course, is that regulating that moral position would require "pure mind-reading", since the difference between a question's being legitimate and illegitmate consists purely of the motivation of the questioner, so we must just either allow it or prohibit it. I'd allow it, since I'm not at all sure that illegitimate pro questions really exist. Kaplan's scenario is an interesting hypothetical, but it requires that the questioner ask a question for which he knows with certainty what the reply will be. Even if you know a particular method in excruciatingly complete detail, you know only what, in some sense, the answer to your question *should be*; you have no way to know that your opponents' familiarity with the details of the method is as complete or accurate as your own, and are entitled to find out. >Fewer than 1 in 100,000 players know the rules of >Bridge so the rest of Eric's theory is difficult >to test at the table. Nevertheless, Bridge players >are just people. Do people disobey laws that they >find inconvenient? Next time Eric is on a >motorway, he can verify that fewer that 1 in >100,000 drivers exceed the speed-limit. On some of the motorways around here, fewer than 1 in 100,000 obey the speed limit, or at least so it seems, and I certainly can't often claim to be one of them. I might even be tempted to cut a corner or two at the bridge table if I thought it would get me home from the game earlier or more safely (on some of our local highways, driving at the speed limit is literally driving too slowly for safety). But I don't feel any temptation to do so just to get me home from the game, at the same time as always, with an extra master point or two. I can't even sell the damned things on EBay! It's just a game, isn't it? Master points are just a way to keep score. They're not really worth anything, are they? Am I being unrealistically naive about this? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From tzimnoch at comcast.net Mon May 8 17:29:19 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Mon May 8 17:30:28 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060508100719.02f23cb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> <001301c670b4$79217da0$059468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060508100719.02f23cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <445F63CF.7070805@comcast.net> Eric Landau wrote: > It's just a game, isn't it? Master points are just a way to keep > score. They're not really worth anything, are they? Am I being > unrealistically naive about this? I think so. Aren't some pros paid to win these 'worthless' things for their clients? -Todd From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon May 8 17:23:15 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon May 8 17:31:18 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj><000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john><007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj><6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net><00a301c67095$45bd26e0$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060508094931.02f0e750@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002701c672b3$70fb55f0$6a8087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge." James Boswell, after Samuel Johnson. ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] why ask ? > > > > Everything Nigel writes is true. But money, power > and sex are serious business. Bridge, OTOH, is a > game we play for fun. > +=+ Personally I have always found money, power and sex to be fun as well. ~ G ~ +=+ From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon May 8 17:30:37 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon May 8 17:36:24 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060508100719.02f23cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200605081530.k48FUbkG024346@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Eric Landau writes: > > At 10:26 PM 5/5/06, Guthrie wrote: > > >How can a sensible player regard conformance with > >the "Pro Question" rule as "correct behaviour" > >except in the narrowest legal sense? Preventing > >such a question allows opponents to avoid full > >disclosure. Surely poor partner is *entitled by > >law* to information of which opponents have > >deprived him. > > > >If the effect of the "pro-question" is illicit > >communication rather than disclosure facilitation, > >then that is a completely different matter. > >Luckily there is a separate rule designed to deal > >specifically with that eventuality. > > IIRC, the whole concept of "pro questions" was originally raised by > Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial, and Nigel's views conform to > Mr. Kaplan's. What's more, Kaplan explicitly says in the editorial in question that he wrote the section of the proprieties. > The counter-argument, of course, is that regulating that > moral position would require "pure mind-reading", since the difference > between a question's being legitimate and illegitmate consists purely > of the motivation of the questioner, so we must just either allow it or > prohibit it. Don't see it that way myself. I'm with Nigel (Gods Nigel must surely be re-thinking his position!) If the question transmits UI we've got laws on the books to deal with it. > I'd allow it, since I'm not at all sure that illegitimate > pro questions really exist. I've never seen one either. Neither evidently has Nigel. I've personally been in situations where I could have asked Kaplan questions (playing with players with much less experience than I have) but haven't (while I disagree with the no Pro or Kaplan questions rulings, I'm not going to violate the rules) And yet it *must* have been a major issue in places. Marvin French for instance seems to have encountered them frequently. And I expect it was a major issue in at least some parts of the EBU. It's not hard for me to imagine the Pro question becoming a major problem. I'm not sure that the cure is worse than the disease though. (And to be clear I'm not sure that we'd be better off with Kaplan's views) > Kaplan's scenario is an interesting hypothetical, Wasn't hypothetical. He gave a specific example from play. >From the 1967 Bermuda Bowl final. Playing Roman and with no interference the auction went: 1D/1S/2C*/3C *"after considerable anguished hesitation" The 2C bid "promises" 5 clubs. However anybody who's ever played Roman (Kaplan had written a book about and played Roman with Belladonna when visiting him) knows that there's a system hole right here. Holding a minimum opener with 5 diamonds and 4 clubs, opener is forced to choose some sort of lie. Quoting from the editorial: So Kaplan asked Belladonna, "How many clubs does Walter promise?" "Five," Giorgio replied, accurately if not helpfully. "Could he bid that way with five weak diamonds, four clubs?" "Yes, that's an exception - Walter *could* have that." said he, repressing a smile (knowing absolutely that Walter did have that, and knowing that Kaplan knew). "Couldn't he bid one notrump with five-four?" "Yes, but only if he had 15 pts. or so," replied Giorgio, grinning infectuously. All four players laughed. As for waiting until after the hand and protesting if damaged. Again quoting: Even if the committee judged that Belladonna was responsible for volunteering an explanation of partner's huddle-club rebid (quite a novel proposition!), and even if the Americans were able to demonstrate to a committee specifically how the defense had been adversely affected by Kay's misapprehension (and this is hard to do), how on earth would Kaplan answer, when someone on the committee said to him. "*You* know the Roman System - how come you kept silent? Maybe you were after a double shot: a good result, otherwise a good protest"? He also suggests that he could have called the director before the opening lead to protest Belladonna's "infraction". In practical terms this rates to "work" no matter what the director rules. Kay rated to start asking for himself. (Can't see why this is any different than Kaplan asking the questions himself, and he clearly had the right to summon the director) With the side benefit of (perhaps) poisoning the atmosphere at the table. > but it requires that the questioner ask a question for > which he knows with certainty what the reply will be. Even if you know > a particular method in excruciatingly complete detail, you know only > what, in some sense, the answer to your question *should be*; you have > no way to know that your opponents' familiarity with the details of the > method is as complete or accurate as your own, and are entitled to find > out. True enough in general. Not in Kaplan's example case. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon May 8 18:12:20 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon May 8 18:18:05 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200605081612.k48GCKFG024601@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Eric Landau writes: > > At 02:52 PM 5/5/06, Guthrie wrote: > > >{B] It gives even more power to directors to > >decide events on whim. Such decisions are hard to > >dispute but generate discontent. > > In well over 40 years of playing organized duplicate, I've seen exactly > one incident in which it is fair to say that a director (I make no > comment on ACs) decided an event "on whim" (and that particular > director is long deceased). > I've only benn playing for about 35 years and while I've seen plenty of whimsical rulings at clubs, the director making the ruling wasn't citing any law. I've personally been involved in exactly two protests situations in a tournament situation, one of which involved an idiosyncratic ruling from a director. Resolved by the director in charge long before it hit an AC. (Knowing the director in charge, I'd love to have been present when the ruling was explained to him.) From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 8 22:23:59 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon May 8 22:25:03 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <445F63CF.7070805@comcast.net> References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> <001301c670b4$79217da0$059468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060508100719.02f23cb0@pop.starpower.net> <445F63CF.7070805@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060508154301.02b1ca10@pop.starpower.net> At 11:29 AM 5/8/06, Todd wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>It's just a game, isn't it? Master points are just a way to keep >>score. They're not really worth anything, are they? Am I being >>unrealistically naive about this? > > I think so. Aren't some pros paid to win these 'worthless' > things for their clients? I thought that practice was banned in the ACBL, specifically considered to be a violation of the same (admittedly regularly violated) regulation that forbids players from betting on the outcome. But, of course, it isn't necessary to Todd's point; even if the pro isn't paid anything extra for winning an event, doing so may well justify charging a higher fee next time, so it could still be worth significant money. And I guess there are pros out there who can count on receiving an "unsolicted bonus" from their clients if they win, although that takes an unethical client along with an unethical pro. When there's real money at stake, the rules need to be stricter, with enforcement measures that are much harder to evade. Still, the vast majority of ACBL players are amateurs, and do not want the sort of regulation that would be appropriate for professional, serious-money competition. This apparent conflict is, AFAIK, unique to bridge; other competitive sports have separate, clearly identified, amateur and professional events, each regulated appropriately. Does the relatively new money tournament circuit have a more serious problem with cheating than the master-point tournament circuit does? I would expect so, but have no evidence either way. If they don't, that would suggest that what seems obvious to me may need some serious rethinking. I'd argue that professional players should be required to subscribe to a more formalized, stricter code of ethics, with additional enforcement mechanisms, than the one in TFLB, which was written (originally as "the proprieties") for an amateur game, except that that approach was tried by the ACBL and failed. This was because by the time they got around to "legalizing" play-for-pay partnerships the practice, although theoretically banned, was already widespread. Their "compromise" regulations (they would have simply restated the ban already on the books if they thought it would have had any effect) called for paid pros to join a recognized professional organization; to be recognized, the organiation would be required to have its own, strict, code of ethics, and a mechanism to enforce it. Those regulations were as universally disregarded as the previous complete ban; I think one or two such professional organizations were actually formed, but never really got off the ground. Our events are attended by large numbers of amateurs along with relatively small numbers of professionals and their clients, so, given a choice between laws suitable for an all-amateur game and laws suitable for an all-pros-and-clients game, it seems natural that we should want, and do in fact have, the former. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 9 00:19:08 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 9 00:20:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Double squeeze [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Russell, Webb walk from gold mine Miners Todd Russell and Brant Webb have reached the surface of the Beaconsfield Gold mine, 14 days after being trapped by a rock fall. The "great escape" is how the Australian Workers Union has described the survival of the two men. Rescuers reached the men, who were nearly one kilometre underground, just before 5:00am AEST. They were taken to a special crib room before being brought to the surface. Rex Johnson, one of the rescuers and a friend of one of the men, says the men had a "few yeehahs" when they were freed. "They are in really good spirits ... we had them down in the crib room and we didn't think they'd get out, they wanted to pamper themselves up pretty well," Mr Johnson said. Mr Russell and Mr Webb raised their arms in triumph as they stepped out into the fresh air. They hugged family and friends and thanked their rescuers and many supporters before getting into waiting ambulances. The ambulances drove out of the mine gates with their doors open, so the crowds outside could see the miners for themselves. The Australian Workers Union's Bill Shorten says the men will be taken to hospital for full medical check-ups. "These people are going to speak for themselves but as I understand, they're in remarkably good shape," he said. Rescue effort The manager of the mine, Matthew Gill, says the rescue plan went well. "For once we actually had a bit going in our favour," he said. "The distance between us and Brant and Todd was a lot less and there wasn't the amount of rubble that we thought there might be." The head of the Minerals Council in Tasmania, Terry Long, says a hydraulic rock splitter was used in the final stages to reach the men. "It's like a big car jack and that breaks the rock away, they had the pilot hole they got through and [said] 'how you going guys?'" he said. "People were telling me early in the piece there had to be a relatively short time in the breakthrough and the rescue for Todd and Brant's own psychological health - it wouldn't be good for them to see the pilot hole come through and then have huge delays." 'Tough blokes' Prime Minister John Howard, who has been briefed on the operation, has paid tribute to the bravery of the men and miners in general. "It is a great tribute to them, they are fantastic, they're tough blokes," he said. "It's a hard job, it's grim, difficult, dangerous, dirty work mining, even in this era." Highs and lows The Minister of the Uniting Church at Beaconsfield, Frances Seen, says it is one of the most incredible stories ever. "All our prayers have been answered," she said. Local Mayor Barry Easther says it is great news for the families, the town of Beaconsfield and everyone involved in the rescue. But he says it is a day of highs and lows. The funeral of Larry Knight, who died in the rock fall that trapped Mr Russell and Mr Webb, is due to be held today. "It's a real emotional time and a time of mixed emotions for us and this community today," Mr Easther said. "We've got Larry's funeral ... later today and it's a sad day and yet it is such an exciting time to have these two lads brought back to the surface, [it] is just a dream come true." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue May 9 02:01:17 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue May 9 01:29:53 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445FDBCD.2070504@cs.elte.hu> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Laci wrote: > > > >>They have discussed several times, they play the same almost all the >>situation like that (but partner might go wrong as well), but this >>information is missing from their --- really well detailed --- cc. >> >> > >Even a pretty detailed CC will not cover all situations, so that's no >particular surprise. It seems likely that the testimony of offenders >would provide sufficient evidence to rule that there is no MI. > > Suppose, that West's explanation was wrong, he forgot, that in this situation the pass is not penalty. They know the rules, that a misinformation is much worse for them, then a misbid, so they tell TD, that it was a misbid. Why belive them? They are the offending side. Laci >There is UI from the explanation of course, but I can't see that it >affected the play. > >Tim > > ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 9 03:41:47 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 9 03:42:58 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <445FDBCD.2070504@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laszlo Hegedus: >Suppose, that West's explanation was wrong, he forgot, that in >this situation the pass is not penalty. They know the rules, >that a misinformation is much worse for them, then a misbid, >so they tell TD, that it was a misbid. > >Why believe them? They are the offending side. Richard Hills: No, a misbid is not (yet) an offence. So, Laci's argument is circular (begging the question, or petitio principii). In order for the TD to determine whether East-West are the offending side, the TD must _first_ determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, East-West should be believed. Unsupported self-serving evidence has little weight in the scales of justice, but it does not have _zero_ weight. On the other hand, in the particular case under discussion, there has been _zero_ contrary evidence presented suggesting that East- West have lied. Ergo, I join Tim West-Meads in using Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) to decide that misbid, not misexplanation, is deemed to be the facts of the case in accordance with the balance of probabilities. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue May 9 03:32:55 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue May 9 04:00:10 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj><000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john><007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj><6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net><001301c670b4$79217da0$059468d5@jeushtlj><6.1.1.1.0.20060508100719.02f23cb0@pop.starpower.net><445F63CF.7070805@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060508154301.02b1ca10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002901c6730c$b2ecc120$099468d5@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > It's just a game, isn't it? Master points are > just a way to keep score. They're not really > worth anything, are they? Am I being > unrealistically naive about this? [nige1] Eric is an innocent or I'm a cynic. I don't think rule-breaking need be remunerative to be attractive. Drivers don't need to be paid to break the speed-limit. If it's convenient and they can get away with it, people will break any rule at the bridge table or elsewhere. Most don't consider themselves "dishonest"; they certainly don't regard themselves as "cheats". Human beings easily rationalize almost anything from falsifying tax returns to ethnic cleansing. Another bridge example, suppose an opponent asks about a defensive signal and your decide to withhold information. Here are just a few of the possible rationalizations: [A] You've disclosed the essentials. More detail would slow up the game and you are already behind time. [B} More detail would just confuse them. [C] You are not absolutely sure and you must not guess. (no sane person is ever sure of anything). [D] It is general bridge knowledge. [E} If you tell the truth, you will handicap yourself compared with the field because few players tell the truth nowadays. BTW [B] [C] & [D] are often endorsed by BLMLers. The fact that hypocrites have [C] & [D] available is the fault of law-makers who have added unnecessary clauses in the rules. [E] will become more true the longer we cling to such rules Several times, I've had an evasive reply to such a question and subsequently overheard a discussion between opponents such as "Why did you ask for spades when a diamond continuation would be better." Does it really matter, however, how many bridge players are currently "at it"? Why have special rules that reward prevarication and increase their number? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue May 9 03:59:36 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue May 9 04:00:34 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <200605081526.k48FQ1wK022788@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200605081526.k48FQ1wK022788@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <445FF788.3070504@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > IIRC, the whole concept of "pro questions" was originally raised by > Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial... Could we please try to use consistent terminology? The "Kaplan question" is after the opponents have already given MI. In Kaplan's case, he decided to clear up the MI at the table rather than later asking for an adjustment (if needed). The "pro question" is one that partner could have asked for himself, but he didn't know enough to ask it. (A simple example is "What's your notrump range?" when you have looked at the opponents' convention card but partner hasn't.) The "informatory question" is intended to give information about the asker's cards. ("That doesn't show *clubs*, then?" Guess who has the suit!) This one is and always has been illegal, though widely practiced in some circles. New is the "Alain question," which is intended to confirm that opponents are having a mixup. It differs from the others because it doesn't matter whether partner hears the question and answer or not. These are four different things. Please make clear which one(s) you are addressing. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 9 09:52:58 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue May 9 10:00:16 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <445FDBCD.2070504@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060509094737.02053680@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:41 9/05/2006 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Ergo, I join Tim West-Meads in using Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed >Facts) to decide that misbid, not misexplanation, is deemed to >be the facts of the case in accordance with the balance of >probabilities. IBTD. When a pair disagrees, it is a priori 50/50 that one member or the other is right. So, let's turn to 'standard' bidding. When a pair has no agreement, the pass surely is neutral. Among those with a firm agreement, more play neutral pass than penalty pass. So, probabilities go the other way. West's pass isn't enough to reverse this, as we already know (from his explanation) that he believed the pass to be penalties. But there isn't any reason to think he knows better than his partner. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060509/60fe4857/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 9 10:07:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 9 10:08:49 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled In-Reply-To: <445FDBCD.2070504@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: Laci wrote: > > > Suppose, that West's explanation was wrong, he forgot, that in this > situation the pass is not penalty. They know the rules, that a > misinformation is much worse for them, then a misbid, so they tell > TD, that it was a misbid. You mean "they know the rules AND are dirty stinking cheats...". This tactic might work once or twice but if they arouse my suspicions they get on my blacklist and will be less likely to be believed in future. > Why belive them? I'm not suggesting believing them automatically just because they West says "I'm right". I'm suggesting that, given the way you describe the situation, West would tell me *enough* about his discussions, when they took place, related cases, etc that I would find his testimony convincing. The TD's job is to decide based on the evidence, which includes testimony provided in response to questions as well as the CC. He must collect the evidence properly and then analyse that evidence effectively. He may not abdicate responsibility by saying "it's not on the CC so I'm going to rule MI". OK, my assumption *in this case* that I'll find the evidence convincing is based on the way *you* have described their agreements. Had I been the floor TD (or an AC member) I might have found their actually testimony less convincing and ruled MI because West failed to disclose the actual level of ambiguity in their "agreements". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue May 9 11:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue May 9 11:12:09 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060509094737.02053680@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain > IBTD. When a pair disagrees, it is a priori 50/50 that one member or > the other is right. Actually there's a significant chance that neither is right. Talking about "a priori" chances is fairly meaningless though. For example if the pair is me and Emily the probabilities are about 85/5/10 (me right, her right, neither right). Of course in any specific case the TD may arrive at reasonable probabilities. > West's pass isn't enough to reverse this, as we already know (from > his explanation) that he believed the pass to be penalties. But there > isn't any reason to think he knows better than his partner. Well, there is what Laci has told us about the pair having discussed the situation. I agree that's only "hearsay" and may not be enough to balance the adverse probability identified above. One might get sufficient evidence from EW testimony, one might not, the important thing for the actual TD is to ensure he gets whatever evidence might be available. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 9 15:26:56 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 9 15:27:56 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <002901c6730c$b2ecc120$099468d5@jeushtlj> References: <005f01c66e01$deb27da0$179468d5@jeushtlj> <000e01c66f03$225d1b30$9700a8c0@john> <007801c67075$20388f60$209468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@pop.starpower.net> <001301c670b4$79217da0$059468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060508100719.02f23cb0@pop.starpower.net> <445F63CF.7070805@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060508154301.02b1ca10@pop.starpower.net> <002901c6730c$b2ecc120$099468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060509091552.02b24050@pop.starpower.net> At 09:32 PM 5/8/06, Guthrie wrote: >Does it really matter, however, how many bridge >players are currently "at it"? Why have special >rules that reward prevarication and increase their >number? Because (to echo Nigel's somewhat over-the-top language), the alternative is to have special rules that severly punish innocent minor procedural infractions. The problem is to strike an appropriate balance. How many severely punished procedural infractors will we discourage, perhaps to the point of losing them for life, for each instance in which we prevent someone from, or suitably punish someone for, prevaricating? In that context, it may be critical to finding an appropriate balance to have a pretty good idea of how many prevaricators are out there. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 9 16:40:52 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 9 16:41:53 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <445FF788.3070504@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200605081526.k48FQ1wK022788@cfa.harvard.edu> <445FF788.3070504@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060509102833.02b22e30@pop.starpower.net> At 09:59 PM 5/8/06, Steve wrote: >>From: Eric Landau >>IIRC, the whole concept of "pro questions" was originally raised by >>Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World editorial... > >Could we please try to use consistent terminology? A good idea! Steve makes the point that we're really talking about several different things here. By implication, he suggests that it would be misguided to try to regulate them as if they were all the same. >The "Kaplan question" is after the opponents have already given >MI. In Kaplan's case, he decided to clear up the MI at the table >rather than later asking for an adjustment (if needed). I can't see why this shouldn't be legal. An ounce of prevention... >The "pro question" is one that partner could have asked for himself, >but he didn't know enough to ask it. (A simple example is "What's >your notrump range?" when you have looked at the opponents' convention >card but partner hasn't.) This offends my sense of ethics, but I don't see regulating against it. If it is not obvious to the table that the questioner has already gleaned the answer from the CC, we have no way of establishing that he has, thus no evidence that he is in violation. If his perusal of the CC was obvious to all, it would already have passed the UI that partner might want to have a look as well, and the question merely reinforces the suggestion. >The "informatory question" is intended to give information about the >asker's cards. ("That doesn't show *clubs*, then?" Guess who has the >suit!) This one is and always has been illegal, though widely >practiced in some circles. Clearly illegal. As Steve says, always has been. >New is the "Alain question," which is intended to confirm that >opponents are having a mixup. It differs from the others because it >doesn't matter whether partner hears the question and answer or not. This one seems perfectly legitimate, unrelated to the others. You want to know, so you ask. Of course you may pass information to partner by so doing, but that's true of any legitimate request for explanation. >These are four different things. Please make clear which one(s) you >are addressing. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Wed May 10 02:47:02 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Wed May 10 02:17:31 2006 Subject: [blml] 1C redoubled [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44613806.1050800@cs.elte.hu> Tim West-Meads wrote: >Alain > > > >>IBTD. When a pair disagrees, it is a priori 50/50 that one member or >>the other is right. >> >> > >Actually there's a significant chance that neither is right. Talking >about "a priori" chances is fairly meaningless though. For example if >the pair is me and Emily the probabilities are about 85/5/10 (me right, >her right, neither right). Of course in any specific case the TD may >arrive at reasonable probabilities. > > > All the four player at the table are really good advanced (close to expert) players. So there are no more information, who was wrong. Of course all of them bid like his opinion about the bidding... ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From emu at fwi.net.au Sat May 13 08:03:09 2006 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sat May 13 08:04:23 2006 Subject: [blml] BLML Broken? In-Reply-To: <445AA141.4090506@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <001701c67652$e8f84b60$0401a8c0@DESKTOP> Is the Bridge Laws list broken? I've had no mail for a week... regards, Noel From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Sat May 13 09:39:27 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Sat May 13 09:40:37 2006 Subject: [blml] BLML Broken? References: <001701c67652$e8f84b60$0401a8c0@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <005001c67660$5e514440$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> I got one on 10th and several on 9th so supect all is OK :-) Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel & Pamela" To: Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 7:03 AM Subject: [blml] BLML Broken? > Is the Bridge Laws list broken? I've had no mail for a week... > > regards, > Noel > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From lumenco at canariastelecom.com Sat May 13 11:42:55 2006 From: lumenco at canariastelecom.com (Lucas Mendoza) Date: Sat May 13 11:43:59 2006 Subject: [blml] BLML Broken? References: <001701c67652$e8f84b60$0401a8c0@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <003201c67671$9d5fa170$43229b55@eduardo> One on 6th, one on 7th, ten messages on 8th, nine on 9th and one on 13th. Regards.Lucas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel & Pamela" To: Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 7:03 AM Subject: [blml] BLML Broken? Is the Bridge Laws list broken? I've had no mail for a week... regards, Noel From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun May 14 06:15:36 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun May 14 06:13:02 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? References: <200605081526.k48FQ1wK022788@cfa.harvard.edu> <445FF788.3070504@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00ab01c6770d$0def3ae0$059868d5@jeushtlj> [Steve Willner] > Could we please try to use consistent > terminology? > The "Kaplan question" is after the opponents > have already given MI. In Kaplan's case, he > decided to clear up the MI at the table rather > than later asking for an adjustment (if needed). > The "pro question" is one that partner could > have asked for himself, but he didn't know > enough to ask it. (A simple example is > "What's your notrump range?" when you have > looked at the opponents' convention card > but partner hasn't.) > > The "informatory question" is intended to give > information about the asker's cards. ("That > doesn't show *clubs*, then?" Guess who has the > suit!) This one is and always has been illegal, > though widely practiced in some circles. > > New is the "Alain question," which is intended > to confirm that opponents are having a mixup. > It differs from the others because it doesn't > matter whether partner hears the question and > answer or not. > > These are four different things. Please make > clear which one(s) you are addressing. [nige1] A director could then ask "Was your question "Pro", "Kaplan". "Alain" or "Informatory"? :) Most players can understand why "informatory" questions are illegal but the director may have trouble explaining the subtle distinctions among the others. The director will still need a shot of John Probst's truth serum to extract reliable answers :( From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Mon May 15 00:07:07 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sun May 14 23:35:42 2006 Subject: [blml] special fouled boards. Law 2. Message-ID: <4467AA0B.9030908@cs.elte.hu> MP pairs, two sections (A and B) 12 tables in ech sections, mitchell movement (3 boards per table). Before the tournament the organisers realise that board 31 and 32 are missing from the set of boards in section B. Some of them resourcefully replaces them with another two boards. The problem is that in the substitute 31 VUL: none and in the substitute 32 VUL: All. The organizers realises that problem, so they write "mans" and "bell" to the "North" and "South" label on both boards accordingly to the original voulnerability. During the session players tipically do not realize this not so visual change on the vulnerability untill a player who knows Law 2 arrives to this board. He tells partner and opps the problem, they realise the labels, so they play it with normal vulnerability. In board 31 EW makes a part score, in board 32 NS is going down 1 in 4S doubled. When they write the -100, they realise the results on the scoresheet: 4S*-1 -200 4S*-1 -200 4S = +620 3S = +140 The TD is called now. They look at the board 31's scoresheet and realises, there are two more part scores but NS is going down 1 for -50 at two tables. What to do now? regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From svenpran at online.no Mon May 15 05:40:32 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon May 15 05:41:49 2006 Subject: [blml] special fouled boards. Law 2. In-Reply-To: <4467AA0B.9030908@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <000101c677d1$516f80d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Laszlo Hegedus > MP pairs, two sections (A and B) 12 tables in ech sections, mitchell > movement (3 boards per table). Before the tournament the organisers > realise that board 31 and 32 are missing from the set of boards in > section B. Some of them resourcefully replaces them with another two > boards. The problem is that in the substitute 31 VUL: none and in the > substitute 32 VUL: All. The organizers realises that problem, so they > write "mans" and "bell" to the "North" and "South" label on both boards > accordingly to the original voulnerability. > During the session players tipically do not realize this not so visual > change on the vulnerability untill a player who knows Law 2 arrives to > this board. He tells partner and opps the problem, they realise the > labels, so they play it with normal vulnerability. In board 31 EW makes > a part score, in board 32 NS is going down 1 in 4S doubled. When they > write the -100, they realise the results on the scoresheet: > > 4S*-1 -200 > 4S*-1 -200 > 4S = +620 > 3S = +140 > > The TD is called now. They look at the board 31's scoresheet and > realises, there are two more part scores but NS is going down 1 for -50 > at two tables. > > What to do now? Apply Law 87! Although Law 87A literally defines a board as fouled (only?) when one or more cards were misplaced, the continuation: "in such manner that contestants who should have had a direct score comparison did not play the board in identical form" makes this definition applicable also to boards played with different dealer and/or vulnerabilities even when the corresponding hands as such were identical. So the answer is that the Director must apply Law 87B. Regards Sven From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue May 16 02:09:08 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue May 16 01:37:29 2006 Subject: AW: [blml] special fouled boards. Law 2. In-Reply-To: <000b01c677ec$f4d89660$15b2a8c0@imfgkxtzyx8g2m> References: <000b01c677ec$f4d89660$15b2a8c0@imfgkxtzyx8g2m> Message-ID: <44691824.8070800@cs.elte.hu> Josef Harsanyi wrote: >If there is an evidence, that everybody interpreted the originally - >actually false - vulnerability as valid, then evaluate the not regularly >marked boards in an other section. L 87 B (there is something to compare) > >If some players of the section belived to play the same board in love, >others in vul, then it is a real case of real mistake from TD and L 82 C is >to apply. > (there is nothing to compare) > >Understandable is, what the player do understand. ! ? > > Surely none of the pairs did understand on the first four tables. They did play the boards with the wrong vulnerability. The players at the fifth table and the whole other section of course played theese boards with the right vulnerability. What would you do with the board in the following rounds? Most of the pairs have not played them yet. regards Laci From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 16 08:50:36 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 16 08:51:53 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2B2959EC-FA21-474E-8577-4A6266C9F280@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >*Deliberately* creating UI is illegal (73B, 73D2). > >Inadvertently (or when complying with law or >regulations, eg, alerting) creating UI is not. WBF Code of Practice, page 7: >>A player who, without design, makes unauthorized >>information available to his partner does not >>commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is >>the use of that information that is a breach of >>the laws. Ed Reppert: >Using UI is not, IMO, unethical unless done >deliberately. WBF Code of Practice, page 7 (continued): >>If it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that a >>player has intended to act in a way that will >>give unauthorized information to his partner, >>the Chief Director should be consulted as to the >>provisions of Law 73B1. If it is proven that >>such action has been prearranged with partner >>the committee consults the Chief Director >>concerning Law 73B2. Ed Reppert: >Richard wants to dot every i and cross every t. At >top level, that's fine. Below top level, it ain't >gonna happen. Richard Hills: In my experience as a club TD, some unpleasant violations of courtesy have occurred at the table because a middle-level player has criticised an opponent for inadvertently creating UI, due to the middle-level player not knowing that such inadvertent creation of UI is both legal and ethical. Of course, both Ed and I agree that education of middle-level players (and middle-level TDs) about the underlying philosophy of Law 16 is desirable. And this may "gonna happen". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue May 16 11:23:40 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue May 16 11:31:51 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009301c678ca$829afc80$5ca687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge." James Boswell, after Samuel Johnson. ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Of course, both Ed and I agree that education of > middle-level players (and middle-level TDs) about > the underlying philosophy of Law 16 is desirable. > And this may "gonna happen". > +=+ I can offer no guarantee as to the content of a future Law 16. However, Law 16 is listed for in depth discussion in Verona and the subcommittee aims to draft a clearly stated law embodying its intentions, to be agreed, on the subject. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 18 00:23:12 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu May 18 00:24:19 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <200605091454.k49EsKCG017608@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200605091454.k49EsKCG017608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <446BA250.1070909@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau >>The "Kaplan question" is after the opponents have already given >>MI. In Kaplan's case, he decided to clear up the MI at the table >>rather than later asking for an adjustment (if needed). > I can't see why this shouldn't be legal. An ounce of prevention... I'm with Eric, but the WBFLC had a different view. >>The "pro question" is one that partner could have asked for himself, >>but he didn't know enough to ask it. (A simple example is "What's >>your notrump range?" when you have looked at the opponents' convention >>card but partner hasn't.) > This offends my sense of ethics, but I don't see regulating against > it. If it is not obvious to the table that the questioner has already > gleaned the answer from the CC, we have no way of establishing that he > has, thus no evidence that he is in violation. If his perusal of the > CC was obvious to all, it would already have passed the UI that partner > might want to have a look as well, and the question merely reinforces > the suggestion. Not UI, I think, but violation of L74C4 and maybe 73B1. (A subtle distinction.) I could have given a better example. Suppose the opponents' auction goes 1C-1D-1NT-AP. Now the pro asks whether opener could have a four-card major. Of course the client should ask for himself. but it may not occur to him to do so. Some clients may never have heard of anybody bypassing majors. The WBFLC is on record as saying the pro question is illegal, but I don't see how such a rule can possibly be enforced except perhaps in very special cases. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu May 18 00:38:32 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu May 18 00:39:32 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <200605091414.k49EES2D013090@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200605091414.k49EES2D013090@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <446BA5E8.5000300@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > But what prompts an "Alain question"? If the motivation for an "Alain > question" is due to the asker holding sufficient values to suspect a > mixup, then the fact that the question is asked is indeed informatory... But this is true of any question asked any time, unless the situation is such that a player would always ask regardless of his cards. Nothing special about the Alain question in that regard. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 18 01:34:01 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 18 01:35:41 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <446BA250.1070909@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Not UI, I think, but violation of L74C4 and maybe 73B1. (A >subtle distinction.) Law 74C4: >>The following are considered violations of procedure: >>commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to >>call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the >>number of tricks still required for success. Richard Hills: Steve's subtle distinction is too subtle for me. It seems to me that Law 74C4 prohibits the creation of particular types of UI. (Unless Steve idiosyncratically defines UI as always being inadvertent.) But I do agree with Steve that the "pro question" is clearly an infraction of Law 74C4. Steve Willner: >I could have given a better example. Suppose the >opponents' auction goes 1C-1D-1NT-AP. Now the pro asks >whether opener could have a four-card major. Of course >the client should ask for himself. but it may not occur to >him to do so. Some clients may never have heard of >anybody bypassing majors. Richard Hills: In my opinion, still a poor example. Because a bunny opponent may never have heard of anybody bypassing majors, in my Dorothy Acol partnership such a 1NT rebid is alerted. Most alert regulations around the world include a requirement that natural bids which have unexpected meanings should be alerted. Steve Willner: >The WBFLC is on record as saying the pro question is >illegal, but I don't see how such a rule can possibly be >enforced except perhaps in very special cases. Richard Hills: The point behind the WBF LC prohibition of the "pro question" and the "Kaplan question" is that two wrongs do not make a right. Illegal MI from one side is not any justification for a subsequent illegal creation of UI from the other side. As for enforcement of the prohibition, any pro repeatedly infracting Law 74C4 will soon be invited to attend a hearing of the local Conduct and Ethics Committee. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 18 12:09:42 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu May 18 12:03:46 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <446BA250.1070909@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200605091454.k49EsKCG017608@cfa.harvard.edu> <200605091454.k49EsKCG017608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060518120721.020640e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:23 17/05/2006 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >I could have given a better example. Suppose the opponents' auction goes >1C-1D-1NT-AP. Now the pro asks whether opener could have a four-card >major. Of course the client should ask for himself. but it may not occur >to him to do so. Some clients may never have heard of anybody bypassing >majors. That's why 1NT is alertable, and the Pro won't need the question. BTW, after the alert, the question won't be "may he hold a 4-card major ?", but "what about 1NT ?", which means UI doesn't exist. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu May 18 15:11:47 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu May 18 15:13:07 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060518120721.020640e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200605091454.k49EsKCG017608@cfa.harvard.edu> <200605091454.k49EsKCG017608@cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20060518120721.020640e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3ECA83C7-7E23-4B6B-BCBB-543EAB9E8718@rochester.rr.com> On May 18, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > That's why 1NT is alertable, and the Pro won't need the question. Not alertable in the ACBL. > BTW, after the alert, the question won't be "may he hold a 4-card > major ?", but "what about 1NT ?", which means UI doesn't exist. Actually, around here, that first one is much the more likely question. And the second question doesn't eliminate UI entirely. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 18 15:44:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 18 15:45:32 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Because a bunny opponent may never have heard of anybody > bypassing majors, in my Dorothy Acol partnership such a > 1NT rebid is alerted. Most alert regulations around the > world include a requirement that natural bids which have > unexpected meanings should be alerted. Why on earth would one alert 1N though? It would no more occur to me to alert a natural 1N here than it would to make a suit rebid on a balanced hand. Now I know that some pairs using artificial systems (such as 5cM) won't bypass a 4cM here and that some will so I see nothing wrong with asking a specific pair about their agreements before choosing a lead regardless of whether 1N is alerted or the system they are playing. Even if I *suspect* I know the answer I am allowed to check. Of course usual UI constraints apply to my amateurish question. Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri May 19 03:51:14 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri May 19 03:52:30 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <200605181812.k4IICtEd017589@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200605181812.k4IICtEd017589@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <446D2492.20006@cfa.harvard.edu> [1c-1d-1NT] > From: Alain Gottcheiner > That's why 1NT is alertable, and the Pro won't need the question. As others have written, not alertable in the ACBL. If it's alertable where you live, you'll just have to make up your own example. > BTW, after the alert, the question won't be "may he hold a 4-card major ?", > but "what about 1NT ?", which means UI doesn't exist. In case of the "pro question," UI isn't the issue. The client is fully entitled to know what opponents' agreements are -- provided he asks for himself. Alain's phrasing is better, no doubt, but the effect is the same. From: Eric Landau > The question can only be illegal, by anyone's standard, if the > pro already knows the answer. And what would lead anyone to presume > that to be the case (even if, on rare occasion, he actually did)? Exactly my point. In the rare case where you can prove the pro already knew the answer, you can catch him. Otherwise, the prohibition is unenforceable. But we've discussed this before. I don't suppose there will be universal agreement on what the rules should be, but at least let's use consistent terminology. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 19 09:20:29 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 19 09:20:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060505162548.02b027b0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>In BLML, directors have advanced contradictory >>>opinions on this issue. Some have claimed the >>>right to break bridge rules that they don't like >>>or don't understand. Eric Landau: >>I don't recall anyone "claim[ing] the right to >>break bridge rules". William Schoder, 27th August 2005: >Neither you nor I can stop some significant bridge >personalities, American or otherwise, from >continuing to ignore Laws, Rules, and Regulations >they don't agree with. Yet, I find it my duty and >pleasure to let them know that we are aware when >ego transcends professional performance. > >Best regards, > >Kojak Richard Hills: The problem with a director using their common sense to issue a ruling contrary to Law is that different directors have different opinions on what common sense is. If a Law is logically flawed, so that it violates _everybody's_ common sense, the solution is to amend or repeal that Law. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 19 10:38:03 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri May 19 10:32:35 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? In-Reply-To: <446D2492.20006@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200605181812.k4IICtEd017589@cfa.harvard.edu> <200605181812.k4IICtEd017589@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060519103221.02061ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:51 18/05/2006 -0400, you wrote: >Exactly my point. In the rare case where you can prove the pro already >knew the answer, you can catch him. Otherwise, the prohibition is >unenforceable. What would you answer to this argument : - Yes, I knew what they had been playing, but it could have changed, and I didn't want to fall under the provisions of ' failed to protect myself ' The truth is, there is jurisprudency that tells you you might lose some of your rights for not asking, especially if you're a good player. IMOBO, this is inconsistent with any penalty for asking in any situation (what partner will make of possible UI is another matter). Best regards Alain From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 19 15:58:31 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri May 19 15:56:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002201c67b4c$5162d3c0$199868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > The problem with a director using their common > sense to issue a ruling contrary to Law is that > different directors have different opinions on > what common sense is. > > If a Law is logically flawed, so that it violates > _everybody's_ common sense, the solution is to > amend or repeal that Law. [nige1] IMO there are many completely unnecessary rules. For example... [A} Forbidding kibitzers to report alleged infractions (even suspected cheating) to the director. [B] Permitting law-breaking experts to deny a victim redress by "adding insult to injury". That is, by persuading the director that a *subsequent* action by their victim was "egregiously bad" or "wild and gambling". [C] Actively encouraging nondisclosure by introducing spurious excuses for the prevaricator such as "General knowledge and experience" and "I'm not certain so I mustn't guess" [D] Equity rules and rules that allow calculated scores and other fudge rulings which tend to deprive the victim of adequate redress; and allow a director/committee to decide the result of an event on a whim, in a ruling against which it is almost impossible to appeal successfully. [E] Announcements. Arguably, you need announcements or alerts but not both. And if you want to deprive opponents of unauthorised information, you should be allowed to switch off both. Announcements also remove an advantage of using bidding boxes. (Bidding boxes make it harder for neighbouring tables to follow events at your table). There are weird lacunae that urgently need plugging for instance... [F] Permitting a player to lead to the next trick before the current trick is quitted, when that is likely to fluster declarer (and so perhaps win a Bermuda Bowl. [I claimed that this was against current law but was disillusioned by a deluge of BLML experts] [G] Some players play a card *face down*, to show that they are thinking about subsequent play rather than this trick (Obviously, they could achieve the same effect by playing the card *face up* and then thinking before quitting the trick). The face-down play isn't just discourteous. Obviously it is a "tempo variation" that may work to the player's advantage" because depriving opponents of the sight of the card played, delays opponents' access to information that you know and so deprives them of thinking time. Hence, it seems that it is against the law. Few directors are clear about this because many, themselves, indulge in this nasty practice. Obviously, if it isn't against he law, we need a new law. And there are rules that are just unnecessarily woolly, complex and subjective such as... [H] Claim law. [I] Is a card played that declarer deliberately brings in contact with the table; but then withdraws; all in one fluid motion (i.e. declarer firmly holds the card throughout; but never "stationary"). You get the idea. BLML legal gurus can come up with their own better examples. Of course, Richard is right: you should abide by rules that you dislike, but campaign for change. In practice, however, law-breaking seems to work better. As a controversial example, take [J] "EBU rule of x" for opening bid agreements. The Orange book is clear and unequivocal. There are no "judgement" exceptions. Nevertheless, some EBU directors claimed that they, themselves, used judgement because to do otherwise would not be "Bridge". A few players read the Orange book rule and a minority of those abided by it. Our masochism lost us matches. Directors must not be seen to break rules :{ The obvious solution is to change the rule :) That's what the EBU did. The new edition of the Orange book does allow judgement. There are more exceptions to "rule of x"; also, you may substitute "equivalent values". Not unreasonable. Except that few players understood the old rule. As far as I know, it was *never* enforced. The new one is more vague, complex and subjective. So who will pay attention to it? Arguably, like most Orange book rules, it adds little of value to the game and would be better dispensed with altogether. We have come back full circle. Sufficient unto the day :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 22 04:01:13 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 22 04:02:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002201c67b4c$5162d3c0$199868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >[D] Equity rules and rules that allow calculated >scores and other fudge rulings which tend to >deprive the victim of adequate redress; [snip] Richard Hills: Nigel's argument begs the question (petitio principii). If a player gets an equity ruling which rectifies the damage that they have suffered, how is that less than adequate? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 22 07:55:38 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon May 22 07:55:48 2006 Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200605170247.k4H2lZfI007399@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: South African Nationals Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006: >The Law in an Ass > >Revoke is a dirty 6 letter word. So unnecessary, >but happens so frequently. The law is quite >complex but let's start by outlining the >principles. > >1 The offender can never have tricks won prior >to the revoke taken away. > >2 There are two circumstances under which two >tricks are transferred to the non-offenders >(subject to the offenders winning any tricks >after the revoke). If the PLAYER who revoked >won the trick upon which the revoke took place, >or, if the player subsequently won a trick with >a card that could have legally been played when >the revoke took place. > >3 Under other circumstances one trick is >transferred to the non-offending pair. > >4 If the prescribed penalty does not fully >compensate the non-offenders, the TD will award >an adjusted score. > >Now the question is: At what stage is the >revoke established? > >Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end position >was: > > 96 > T > --- > --- >A K42 >K --- >Q --- >--- --- > 5 > --- > 73 > --- > >The lead was in dummy and the Heart 10 was >played. Now I know of several players who, >sitting West, might have claimed the remaining >3 tricks before any card was played. But not >our warrior. East played the Spade 2, South >(Declarer) the spade 5 and our warrior, who >was easily confused, saw so many spades being >played, "won" the trick with the Spade A, and >then claimed. When the dust had settled the TD >was summoned, the situation explained, and the >TD ruled thus. As the offender had not played >to the following trick, the revoke was not >established. The Spade A became a Major >Penalty Card, West had to play the Heart K and >won the rest of the tricks. > >Most people thought that reasonable and the >matter passed. Wrong! Tucked away in the depth >of the Laws [Law 63A3 and Law 63C - RJH] >mention is made of the consequences of >claiming. It does establish the revoke and the >trick should have been allowed to stand as >played. So dummy's Heart 10 won that trick and >a Spade was, perforce, played to the next >trick. East won that and had to play another >Spade, which was won in dummy. So NS won two of >the last 3 tricks, and, as a result of the >revoke, 1 trick was transferred to NS, so they >won all 3 of those last three. Tough eh! Maybe >the Law *is* an ass. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon May 22 12:36:18 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon May 22 12:34:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002501c67d8b$9004d600$109468d5@jeushtlj> > Nigel's argument begs the question (petitio > principii). > If a player gets an equity ruling which rectifies > the damage that they have suffered, how is that > less than adequate? [nige1] I baldly stated an opinion *without arguments*: equity rulings inadequately redress damage. I also feel that they deter insufficiently. I omitted the arguments because I've rehearsed them so often before. Incidentally, Richard provides us with the "begging the question" paradigm :) *If* equity rulings rectified the damage suffered from infractions *then* they would provide adequate redress. A tautology. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered such a case; but even if an exceptional equity ruling did provide adequate redress in an individual case, that isn't the end of the story... One problem, often mentioned, is that the director rules against only some of the infractions from which you suffer. Many infractions go undetected or unreported. The evidence for others doesn't convince the director. Thus, overall, habitual offenders are rewarded; while repeat victims suffer. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon May 22 13:54:15 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon May 22 14:26:28 2006 Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:55 AM Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > South African Nationals > Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006: > >>The Law in an Ass >>Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end position >>was: >> >> 96 >> T >> --- >> --- >>A K42 >>K --- >>Q --- >>--- --- >> 5 >> --- >> 73 >> --- >>The lead was in dummy and the Heart 10 was >>played. Now I know of several players who, >>sitting West, might have claimed the remaining >>3 tricks before any card was played. But not >>our warrior. East played the Spade 2, South >>(Declarer) the spade 5 and our warrior, who >>was easily confused, saw so many spades being >>played, "won" the trick with the Spade A.... >> It does establish the revoke and the >>trick should have been allowed to stand as >>played. So dummy's Heart 10 won that trick and >>a Spade was, perforce, played to the next >>trick. East won that and had to play another >>Spade, which was won in dummy. So NS won two of >>the last 3 tricks, and, as a result of the >>revoke, 1 trick was transferred to NS, so they >>won all 3 of those last three. Tough eh! Maybe >>the Law *is* an ass. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 I do not know from where this reference to the LIAA came from but it apparently is necessary to point out to our SA author that W had an opportunity win all the tricks: He had a turn which afforded him the chance to play by the rules and follow suit. As if that weren't enough, W then had an additional opportunity to win all the tricks- he had another turn at which he could have undone his faux pas- and he did neither. What he did was to play a card to a trick- a card that indeed could not win the trick, and it did not! regards roger pewick From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon May 22 23:04:51 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon May 22 23:06:15 2006 Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: West revoked. It cost him three tricks. Tough. The moral of the story is "don't revoke". The director got it wrong. If he'd read his ruling from the book (and checked law 63 to ensure his understanding of when a revoke is established was correct) he probably would have got it right. Is he an idiot? I don't know - people make mistakes. But this is a simple mistake, easily avoided. I hope he learned from it. OTOH, I'm not holding my breath. :-) From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue May 23 01:55:30 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue May 23 01:56:55 2006 Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > West revoked. It cost him three tricks. Tough. The moral of the story is > "don't revoke". > > The director got it wrong. If he'd read his ruling from the book (and > checked law 63 to ensure his understanding of when a revoke is > established was correct) he probably would have got it right. Is he an > idiot? I don't know - people make mistakes. But this is a simple mistake, > easily avoided. I hope he learned from it. OTOH, I'm not holding my > breath. :-) I'm not so sure that the ruling is of so much interest but that the writer gives the strongest impression he concurs with it. regards roger pewick From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue May 23 03:41:51 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue May 23 03:43:14 2006 Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 22, 2006, at 7:55 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > 'm not so sure that the ruling is of so much interest but that the > writer gives the strongest impression he concurs with it. Perhaps he does. If so, then he's wrong,too. :-) Maybe the law should be changed, but until that happens, it is what it is. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue May 23 04:06:36 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue May 23 05:00:17 2006 Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 8:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On May 22, 2006, at 7:55 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > >> 'm not so sure that the ruling is of so much interest but that the >> writer gives the strongest impression he concurs with it. > > Perhaps he does. If so, then he's wrong,too. :-) > > Maybe the law should be changed, but until that happens, it is what it > is. It occurred to me that I misspoke when I surmised that the author concurred with the ruling. The author clearly did not concur with the ruling. However, as Richard handily provided the provenance of the article I went to seek it out and did find it. The context of the article was a recurring column in the daily bulletin with the tongue in cheek title The LiaA [acronymn is mine] targeting player education. The author was Colin Pay, the Sec of the SABF and was NPC to the last two Olympiad teams. What did catch my attention was the concluding sentence "Maybe the Law *is* an ass." As no similar comment accompanied his other articles it would suggest that he Was Sympathetic of the ruling. Which was what I had intended to say. Regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 23 06:17:40 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 23 06:20:01 2006 Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills ("Breaking the Law" thread): >>>>If a Law is logically flawed, so that it >>>>violates _everybody's_ common sense, the >>>>solution is to amend or repeal that Law. Ed Reppert: >>>Maybe the law should be changed, but until >>>that happens, it is what it is. Scope of the Laws: >>The Laws are primarily designed not as >>punishment for irregularities, but rather as >>redress for damage. South African Nationals Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006: >Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end position >was: > > 96 > T > --- > --- >A K42 >K --- >Q --- >--- --- > 5 > --- > 73 > --- > >The lead was in dummy and the Heart 10 was >played. Richard Hills: Given any and all legal plays in the three- card ending result in zero tricks for North- South, then any irregularity by West could not conceivably damage South. Yet the current revoke laws gave an inconceivable three trick windfall to North-South as over-redress for the non-damage. W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado: "My object all sublime I shall achieve in time - To let the punishment fit the crime - The punishment fit the crime." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 23 07:18:57 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 23 07:20:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002501c67d8b$9004d600$109468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >One problem, often mentioned, is that the >director rules against only some of the >infractions from which you suffer. Many >infractions go undetected or unreported. The >evidence for others doesn't convince the >director. > >Thus, overall, habitual offenders are >rewarded; while repeat victims suffer. Richard Hills: Many years ago, in a Bridge World editorial, Edgar Kaplan discussed the apparent double- shot anomaly of an offending side seeming to get the worst of both worlds after a Hesitation Blackwood infraction. The offending side keep their -50 if the Hesitation Blackwood slam fails, but the offending side get their score reduced from -980 to -480 if the Hesitation Blackwood slam succeeds. Edgar used Nigel's argument of "equity on average" to justify this apparent double-shot treatment of the offending side, as Edgar claimed that it was a rough justice compensation for benefits accruing to the offending side in cases when their opponents were too timid to summon the director. Much as I admire Edgar Kaplan, I believe his reasoning was on the wrong track here. Edgar also used similar reasoning to deprecate another apparent double-shot in a 1960s article - reprinted in a recent Bridge World hagiography - where he argued that the non-offending side should lose its rights unless it *immediately* drew the director's attention to an opponent's break in tempo. Of course, in the years since Edgar wrote both of those articles, Law 73C has been officially reinterpreted to prohibit a player in receipt of UI from infracting Law 16. Ergo, it cannot be defined as a "double-shot" if any benefit an offending side might gain after a Hesitation Blackwood slam is removed from them, if they were never legally entitled to bid that Hesitation Blackwood slam in the first place. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 24 00:22:36 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 24 00:24:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Edgar also used similar reasoning to deprecate >>another apparent double-shot in a 1960s article >>- reprinted in a recent Bridge World hagiography >>- where he argued that the non-offending side >>should lose its rights unless it *immediately* >>drew the director's attention to an opponent's >>break in tempo. Bridge Master: The Best of Edgar Kaplan, "How the Game is Played" chapter, pages 236-238: >Journalist: For example: > >Matchpoints; both sides vulnerable > > QTx > JT9x > JT9x > AK >Kxxxx x >A8x KQxx >xxx AQx >xx QTxxx > AJ9x > xx > K8x > J9xx > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- --- 1NT Pass >Pass 2S Pass Pass >Double Pass Pass Pass > >North-South plus 1100. > >In this constructed deal, North opened with a >weak notrump, and East made it clear that he had >a terrible problem. He grabbed for the card, >studied it, and asked, "Is that a weak notrump?" >West had an "automatic" balance, of course, and >he bid two spades. South applied the axe, and >they carted West out in a wicker basket. [snip] >Kaplan: The time to call the director is right >at the moment that an opponent takes what may be >an unusual action after receiving illegal >information. In your example, call the director >when West bids two spades. If he has a seven- >card suit, or six-five shape, do not be >embarrassed. You have not accused him of >cheating; you have merely protected your rights. >In the example, the director is likely (at least >in New York) to disallow the overcall, let you >play in one notrump. and bar a spade lead. But >you cannot have it both ways, waiting to see how >you do against two spades before protesting. Of >course, if the director allows the action, you >may appeal his ruling when you see the deal >later. But you must, to protect your rights, >call the director when you suspect that a >violation has taken place. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 24 02:16:26 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 24 02:18:00 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060519103221.02061ac0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >What would you answer to this argument : > >- Yes, I knew what they had been playing, but >it could have changed, and I didn't want to >fall under the provisions of ' failed to >protect myself ' Richard Hills: "Yes, I knew the opponents have played Simple Stayman for twenty-four years, but they might have suddenly decided to adopt the Keri convention instead, so I had to protect myself by asking." :-) It seems to me that such a carefree question might infract this Law 73D1 clause: >>players should be particularly careful in >>positions in which variations may work to >>the benefit of their side. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 24 04:01:23 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 24 04:01:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002501c67d8b$9004d600$109468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Incidentally, Richard provides us with the >"begging the question" paradigm :) > >*If* equity rulings rectified the damage >suffered from infractions *then* they would >provide adequate redress. > >A tautology. Unfortunately, I haven't >encountered such a case; [snip] Richard Hills: *If* Nigel is asserting that all the TDs that he has encountered lack the competence to assess equity, *then* for such a sweeping assertion of uniform TD incompetence Nigel should provide some "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Wed May 24 06:05:02 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 24 06:06:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c67ee7$3b67a070$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > >>Edgar also used similar reasoning to deprecate > >>another apparent double-shot in a 1960s article > >>- reprinted in a recent Bridge World hagiography > >>- where he argued that the non-offending side > >>should lose its rights unless it *immediately* > >>drew the director's attention to an opponent's > >>break in tempo. > > Bridge Master: The Best of Edgar Kaplan, "How the > Game is Played" chapter, pages 236-238: > > >Journalist: For example: > > > >Matchpoints; both sides vulnerable > > > > QTx > > JT9x > > JT9x > > AK > >Kxxxx x > >A8x KQxx > >xxx AQx > >xx QTxxx > > AJ9x > > xx > > K8x > > J9xx > > > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > >--- --- 1NT Pass > >Pass 2S Pass Pass > >Double Pass Pass Pass > > > >North-South plus 1100. > > > >In this constructed deal, North opened with a > >weak notrump, and East made it clear that he had > >a terrible problem. He grabbed for the card, > >studied it, and asked, "Is that a weak notrump?" > >West had an "automatic" balance, of course, and > >he bid two spades. South applied the axe, and > >they carted West out in a wicker basket. > > [snip] > > >Kaplan: The time to call the director is right > >at the moment that an opponent takes what may be > >an unusual action after receiving illegal > >information. In your example, call the director > >when West bids two spades. If he has a seven- > >card suit, or six-five shape, do not be > >embarrassed. You have not accused him of > >cheating; you have merely protected your rights. > >In the example, the director is likely (at least > >in New York) to disallow the overcall, let you > >play in one notrump. and bar a spade lead. But > >you cannot have it both ways, waiting to see how > >you do against two spades before protesting. Of > >course, if the director allows the action, you > >may appeal his ruling when you see the deal > >later. But you must, to protect your rights, > >call the director when you suspect that a > >violation has taken place. In Norway any Director who disallowed the overcall and let North play in 1NT would be in serious danger of having his TD license revoked! How can TD make such a ruling during the auction without destroying the board by disclosing to all players at the table the essentials about West's hand? The only acceptable ruling here is (without looking at any hand!) to make a note of the situation and order the auction and play to continue, standing ready to award an adjusted score if he subsequently finds that N/S has been damaged by the irregularity. (Law 16A2) Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed May 24 06:34:02 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed May 24 06:32:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004d01c67eeb$4c0750c0$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard Hills] > *If* Nigel is asserting that all the TDs that > he has encountered lack the competence to > assess equity, *then* for such a sweeping > assertion of uniform TD incompetence Nigel > should provide some "merely corroborative > detail, intended to give artistic > verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and > unconvincing narrative". [nigel] Any conclusion follows from a false premise :) But, IMO, the fault is in equity law rather than in directors' attempts to apply it. But there is some truth in Richard's premise. I agree that a director would require the wisdom of Solomon to restore conditions to those preceding an infraction. Arguably, Solomon made the 1st equity ruling :( -- which also involved an artificial fudge score similar to those imposed today :( -- when he ruled that the baby be cut in two, so that each "mother" could have her fair share :( Solomon was a wise man, however: fortunately, he had no intention of implementing his equity ruling :) When she got her baby back, the true mother would appreciate that... [A] Without Solomon's wisdom, the false claimant had a 50% chance of ending up with her baby and... [B] The false claimant subjected her to a traumatic experience for which she deserves compensation; finally... [C] If covetous rivals go undeterred, she can expect similar future incidents. Solomon, however, wouldn't delude himself that the restoration of the baby to the real mother would leave her in the same state as before the dispute; or adequately compensate her; or deter false claims. Another apt paradigm :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 24 08:00:55 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 24 08:01:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004d01c67eeb$4c0750c0$0c9868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Any conclusion follows from a false premise :) > >But, IMO, the fault is in equity law rather than >in directors' attempts to apply it. [snip] >[C] If covetous rivals go undeterred, she can >expect similar future incidents. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, indeed any conclusion follows from a false premise. Nigel seems to be arguing that the only way to deter future infractions from an offending side is by giving a non-offending side an undeserved windfall of a better-than-equity score adjustment. Warnings, procedural penalties, disciplinary penalties, and ultimately suspensions or expulsions also have a measurable deterring effect upon those tempted to repeatedly infract the Laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 24 09:03:54 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 24 09:04:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002501c67d8b$9004d600$109468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>Many infractions go undetected or unreported. Richard Hills: But repeated deliberate infractions by cheats do _not_ go undetected or unreported. James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: >Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social >scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If >your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a >sense of how likely it is that your judgment is >correct. But experts are much more like normal >people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood >that they're right. > >A survey on the question of overconfidence by >economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, >nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and >investment bankers all believed that they knew more >than they did. Similarly, a recent study of >foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of >the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of >their exchange-rate predictions. In other words, >it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also >didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that >seems to be the rule among experts. The only >forecasters whose judgments are routinely well >calibrated are expert bridge players and >weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days >when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance >of rain. Richard Hills: Due to the nature of expert bridge, any anomalously calibrated pattern caused by cheating experts would be quickly detected by opponents and directors. Such as, for example, last year's disqualification of the now-banned Buratti - Lanzarotti partnership. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 24 09:13:05 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 24 09:13:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >But repeated deliberate infractions by cheats do >_not_ go undetected or unreported. Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable South holds: K874 A82 T86 985 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1S Pass Pass 2H 3S 3H(1) 3S 4H 4S Double Pass Pass Pass (1) Insufficient bid, accepted by West Result: N-S +200, a kiss-of-death equal top As TD, would you rule that South's insufficient bid satisfied the "could have known" criterion of Law 72B1? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed May 24 10:54:26 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed May 24 10:55:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44741F42.2090308@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>But repeated deliberate infractions by cheats do >>_not_ go undetected or unreported. > > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable > > South holds: > > K874 > A82 > T86 > 985 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1S Pass > Pass 2H 3S 3H(1) > 3S 4H 4S Double > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Insufficient bid, accepted by West > > Result: N-S +200, a kiss-of-death equal top > > As TD, would you rule that South's insufficient > bid satisfied the "could have known" criterion > of Law 72B1? > only in the sense that every bridge players knows that every action could end up in a contract which scores a "top". IOW, No, I don't think South could have known that his irregularity would be to his opponents' detriment. > > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 23/05/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 24 12:47:37 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed May 24 12:41:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44741F42.2090308@hdw.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524123647.02065e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:54 24/05/2006 +0200, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable >>South holds: >>K874 >>A82 >>T86 >>985 >>The bidding has gone: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- 1S Pass >>Pass 2H 3S 3H(1) >>3S 4H 4S Double >>Pass Pass Pass >>(1) Insufficient bid, accepted by West >>Result: N-S +200, a kiss-of-death equal top >>As TD, would you rule that South's insufficient >>bid satisfied the "could have known" criterion >>of Law 72B1? I fail to see why. Surely South couldn't guess the opponents were going to bid 4 after having stopped at the 1-level, with LHO not holding that much in spades. Even his 3H raise (over, say, 2S) is marginal at best, and, had West disallowed the bid, South would have faced the unenviable choise of playing in 4H doubled (most probably two down) and defending against 3NT with partner being disallowed a heart lead. West gambled that his giving a low-level raise would win ; he lost ; but that turn of events is quite unexpected. Contrast with the case of South holding 2155 pattern, and hoping that partner's being disallowed his heart lead vs. 3NT (much more plausible turn of events) would be beneficial to him. Best regards Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed May 24 13:21:54 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed May 24 13:30:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005e01c67f24$60b54340$539c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > Richard Hills: > > Due to the nature of expert bridge, any anomalously > calibrated pattern caused by cheating experts would > be quickly detected by opponents and directors. > > Such as, for example, last year's disqualification of > the now-banned .......... - .......... partnership. > +=+ I am not sure that the example does all that Richard claims of it. An opponent alleged that he had observed dummy signal with three fingers laid on his arm whereupon declarer had played for a 3-1 break with Q certainly third on his left.(and the position of the ten immaterial) when there was no evident reason to do so. In committee we reached a unanimous decision that declarer had failed to give an explanation of his reason for his play that made bridge sense, or perhaps more accurately that what he had said to the committee about his choice of play did not make bridge sense in an expert player. We concluded that it was to be inferred from the player's own statements that he had acted upon illegal information. The TAC's report made no statement concerning the source of the illegal information. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Wed May 24 13:33:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed May 24 13:34:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c67ee7$3b67a070$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > In Norway any Director who disallowed the overcall and let North play > in 1NT would be in serious danger of having his TD license revoked! One assumes the law was different back in 1960 when the book was written. Even today at money bridge it would be considered "legal" to roll the contract back to 1N (the 2S bid being UI to OS, AI to NOS) although personally I don't encourage such rulings. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed May 24 14:22:51 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 24 14:24:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c67f2c$c69722c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > In Norway any Director who disallowed the overcall and let North play > > in 1NT would be in serious danger of having his TD license revoked! > > One assumes the law was different back in 1960 when the book was written. > Even today at money bridge it would be considered "legal" to roll the > contract back to 1N (the 2S bid being UI to OS, AI to NOS) although > personally I don't encourage such rulings. The Law was essentially the same but the practice was different, also in Norway (for a while)! >From my 1949 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge: 20. If a player receives improper information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. The Director shall require that the board be played and scored normally, unless he considers the information gained of sufficient importance to interfere with normal play, in which case he may assign an adjusted score. Footnote: Examples of improper information: Information received ..... by partner's improper remark or improper gesture ..... The famous case still quoted when training directors is the Director who said to the players at the table after inspecting West's hand: "In my opinion his hand fully justifies his bid"! Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 24 14:26:21 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed May 24 15:02:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002201c67b4c$5162d3c0$199868d5@jeushtlj> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524141549.0206de80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:58 19/05/2006 +0100, Guthrie wrote: >[Richard James Hills] > > >IMO there are many completely unnecessary rules. >For example... >[ >[E] Announcements. Arguably, you need >announcements or alerts but not both. And if you >want to deprive opponents of unauthorised >information, you should be allowed to switch off >both. Announcements also remove an advantage of >using bidding boxes. (Bidding boxes make it harder >for neighbouring tables to follow events at your >table). IBTD. Announcements should take care of items that could reasonably be thought to necessitate counter-measures (unusual NT ranges, 2-suited or Multi-like openings, relay principle and nonforcing new suit responses, ...), while alerts and subsequent explanations are necessary to dot the i's. >[F] Permitting a player to lead to the next trick >before the current trick is quitted, when that is >likely to fluster declarer (and so perhaps win a >Bermuda Bowl. [I claimed that this was against >current law but was disillusioned by a deluge of >BLML experts] I'd say it is : playing with undue haste is to be avoided, says TFLB. Unless, of course, it is a form of claim (4th to play to the trick, I show the card that takes it and my long established suit). From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 24 15:13:52 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed May 24 15:07:50 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060519103221.02061ac0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524151100.020745c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:16 24/05/2006 +1000, you wrote: >Richard Hills: > >"Yes, I knew the opponents have played Simple >Stayman for twenty-four years, but they might >have suddenly decided to adopt the Keri >convention instead, so I had to protect >myself by asking." Gilles and YT have played relay Stayman for years, and we decided to switch to another convention (2C focusing about H and 2D about S) last week. So, you see, this happens. They'd better ask when 2C comes to them. I wouldn't want to take advantage of their imagining they knew ... or being afraid, because of some stupid restriction, to ask. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 24 15:15:31 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed May 24 15:16:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060524090458.02b3b310@pop.starpower.net> At 03:13 AM 5/24/06, richard.hills wrote: >Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable > >South holds: > >K874 >A82 >T86 >985 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1S Pass >Pass 2H 3S 3H(1) >3S 4H 4S Double >Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Insufficient bid, accepted by West > >Result: N-S +200, a kiss-of-death equal top > >As TD, would you rule that South's insufficient >bid satisfied the "could have known" criterion >of Law 72B1? No. If anything, it looks like S's 3H bid, as opposed, presumably, to 4H, made it less likely that E-W would bid 4S. And even if the opposite were true, how could S have known it? He could hardly anticipate W's accepting his IB. He presumably doesn't want to stop N from bidding 4H. And for all S knows, W could be waiting with an ax for his 4H correction. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 24 15:30:01 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed May 24 15:24:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000201c67ee7$3b67a070$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524152744.02069390@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:33 24/05/2006 +0100, you wrote: >One assumes the law was different back in 1960 when the book was written. >Even today at money bridge it would be considered "legal" to roll the >contract back to 1N (the 2S bid being UI to OS, AI to NOS) although >personally I don't encourage such rulings. And, at money bridge, who will decide whether the 2S bid was obvious, whence whether the contract should be rolled back into 1NT ? Surely there are cases where the bid should be allowed, 2-hour trance or not, at money as at any other form of bridge.. From john at asimere.com Wed May 24 22:24:49 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed May 24 22:26:06 2006 Subject: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001601c67f70$1b2804b0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] South African revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills ("Breaking the Law" thread): > >>>>>If a Law is logically flawed, so that it >>>>>violates _everybody's_ common sense, the >>>>>solution is to amend or repeal that Law. I might just have tried deeming that all 3 cards were simultaneously exposed :) cheers John > > Ed Reppert: > >>>>Maybe the law should be changed, but until >>>>that happens, it is what it is. > > Scope of the Laws: > >>>The Laws are primarily designed not as >>>punishment for irregularities, but rather as >>>redress for damage. > > South African Nationals > Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 16th May 2006: > >>Playing in No Trumps the 3 card end position >>was: >> >> 96 >> T >> --- >> --- >>A K42 >>K --- >>Q --- >>--- --- >> 5 >> --- >> 73 >> --- >> >>The lead was in dummy and the Heart 10 was >>played. > > Richard Hills: > > Given any and all legal plays in the three- > card ending result in zero tricks for North- > South, then any irregularity by West could > not conceivably damage South. Yet the current > revoke laws gave an inconceivable three trick > windfall to North-South as over-redress for > the non-damage. > > W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado: > > "My object all sublime > I shall achieve in time - > To let the punishment fit the crime - > The punishment fit the crime." > > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 25 01:20:21 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 25 01:21:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005e01c67f24$60b54340$539c87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am not sure that the example does all that Richard >claims of it. An opponent alleged that he had observed >dummy signal with three fingers laid on his arm whereupon >declarer had played for a 3-1 break with Q certainly third >on his left.(and the position of the ten immaterial) when >there was no evident reason to do so. In committee we >reached a unanimous decision that declarer had failed to >give an explanation of his reason for his play that made >bridge sense, or perhaps more accurately that what he >had said to the committee about his choice of play did >not make bridge sense in an expert player. We concluded >that it was to be inferred from the player's own statements >that he had acted upon illegal information. The TAC's >report made no statement concerning the source of the >illegal information. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: My intention in stating "anomalously calibrated pattern" corresponds with Grattan's "choice of play did not make bridge sense in an expert player". The expert in question had to play this trump suit for no losers: J8543 AK92 There was a choice of two lines of play: (a) Cash the ace and king of trumps. (b) Immediately run the jack of diamonds. "A priori" line (a) was a 53% chance, line (b) was a 44% chance. "A posteriori" - if trumps were known to be breaking 1-3 - line (a) was a 25% chance, line (b) was a 75% chance. Note that Grattan's comment "the position of the ten immaterial" is presumably a reference to the fact that line (b) works in both these layouts: J8543 T Q76 AK92 and J8543 x QTx AK92 But the missing ten was highly material to the reason that line (a) was a much better "a priori" choice: J8543 T76 Q AK92 Note also that the seven and six were highly material pips, since line (b) would fail against a 0-4 trump break: J8543 --- QT76 AK92 Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu May 25 04:14:27 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu May 25 04:12:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003f01c67fa0$f3c7f2a0$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > Nigel seems to be arguing that the only > way to deter future infractions from an offending > side is by giving a non-offending side an > undeserved windfall of a better-than-equity score > adjustment. [nige1] Thank you, Richard for replying my arguments -- even selectively -- but I don't like being misrepresented. Were my argument as Richard imputes, then that is what I would have written. Richard snipped this sentence out of context "[C] If covetous rivals go undeterred, she can expect similar future incidents." The sentence doesn't bear Richard's interpretation. On the contrary, IMO, Richard is right that... [Richard] > Warnings, procedural penalties, disciplinary > penalties, and ultimately suspensions or > expulsions also have a measurable deterring > effect upon those tempted to repeatedly infract > the Laws. Eventually, Richard's suggestion could become a practical reality: the WBF could maintain records of all infractions -- down to club level; then collate them internationally. A possible drawback to Richard's solution is that, unless the victim is in serious contention, there is already little incentive to report most infractions. Alleged law-breakers often regard a director-call as a personal affront. Reporting an infraction can be a traumatic experience. Only the most vindictive player would report an infraction if he could expect only token redress but might subject the law-breaker to a severe disciplinary penalty. Furthermore, unless the putative victims are in contention, there are even stronger disincentives (time, money, trauma, AWMW) to *appealing* a suspect ruling. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 25 04:48:43 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 25 04:48:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060524090458.02b3b310@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Matchpoint pairs, dealer East, both vulnerable >> >>South holds: >> >>K874 >>A82 >>T86 >>985 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- 1S Pass >>Pass 2H 3S 3H(1) >>3S 4H 4S Double >>Pass Pass Pass >> >>(1) Insufficient bid, accepted by West >> >>Result: N-S +200, a kiss-of-death equal top >> >>As TD, would you rule that South's insufficient >>bid satisfied the "could have known" criterion >>of Law 72B1? Eric Landau: >No. If anything, it looks like S's 3H bid, as >opposed, presumably, to 4H, made it less likely >that E-W would bid 4S. And even if the opposite >were true, how could S have known it? He could >hardly anticipate W's accepting his IB. He >presumably doesn't want to stop N from bidding >4H. And for all S knows, W could be waiting with >an ax for his 4H correction. Richard Hills: I am glad that blml respondents have unanimously assessed that South did not infract Law 72B1, since I was the lucky Rueful Rabbit in question. My only quibble is with Eric's final sentence; if my insufficient bid had not been accepted I would have corrected to a Pass, not 4H, deeming a lead penalty on pard more palatable than the ax. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 25 06:49:25 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 25 06:49:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003f01c67fa0$f3c7f2a0$0d9868d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Nigel seems to be arguing that the only way to >>deter future infractions from an offending side is >>by giving a non-offending side an undeserved >>windfall of a better-than-equity score adjustment. Nigel Guthrie: >Thank you, Richard for replying my arguments -- >even selectively -- but I don't like being >misrepresented. Were my argument as Richard >imputes, then that is what I would have written. >Richard snipped this sentence out of context Other Nigel Guthrie sentences snipped out of context: >equity rulings inadequately redress damage. I also >feel that they deter insufficiently. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "equity, n. Fairness; use of principles of justice to supplement law, system of law so developed." Is the basis of Nigel's argument a contradiction in terms? 1. It is not fair to inadequately redress damage. 2. Equity rulings inadequately redress damage. 3. Therefore, equity is not fair. Or is Nigel being misrepresented, yet again? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 25 09:40:12 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu May 25 09:40:24 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524151100.020745c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>"Yes, I knew the opponents have played Simple >>Stayman for twenty-four years, but they might >>have suddenly decided to adopt the Keri >>convention instead, so I had to protect >>myself by asking." Alain Gottcheiner: >Gilles and YT have played relay Stayman for >years, and we decided to switch to another >convention (2C focusing about H and 2D about >S) last week. So, you see, this happens. > >They'd better ask when 2C comes to them. I >wouldn't want to take advantage of their >imagining they knew ... or being afraid, >because of some stupid restriction, to ask. Richard Hills: "Better ask" and "stupid restriction" would be inaccurate if the event was played under Aussie regulations. The Scylla of Ruritanian Asking Bids, or the Charybdis of implicit misinformation about common 1NT - 2C sequences, is mitigated under ABF rules by the Aussie requirement to pre- alert frequent but unusual agreements before the round starts. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu May 25 10:07:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu May 25 10:08:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524152744.02069390@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain asked: > And, at money bridge, who will decide whether the 2S bid was obvious, > whence whether the contract should be rolled back into 1NT ? The manager/duty host or whatever the club calls him/her (in consultation where possible). Mostly the person giving the ruling will be at least as strong a player as any of those at the table - hosts who can't win at the table seldom last long in their job! Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 26 01:00:43 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 26 01:02:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c67ee7$3b67a070$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan (1960s version): [snip] >>the director is likely (at least in New York) >>to disallow the overcall, let you play in one >>notrump, and bar a spade lead. >> >>But you cannot have it both ways, waiting to >>see how you do against two spades before >>protesting. [snip] >>But you must, to protect your rights, call >>the director when you suspect that a >>violation has taken place. Sven Pran (2006 version): [snip] >The only acceptable ruling here is (without >looking at any hand!) to make a note of the >situation and order the auction and play to >continue, standing ready to award an adjusted >score if he subsequently finds that N/S has >been damaged by the irregularity. (Law 16A2) Richard Hills: The point being that under the current 2006 interpretation of Law, the non-offending side is _not_ "having it both ways" when an offending side has damaged itself by its own infraction. A useful consequence is that a potential offending side is deterred from using UI in the first place, since they know that using UI would be a "heads they lose, tails they break even" situation. While the flaw in the 1960s version of the Kaplan philosophy was that the offending side was much better off. If 2S was about to be -1100 for a bottom, the NOS might require the TD to roll back the contract to 1NT; and if 2S was about to be +110 for a top, the NOS might misguess and lose their rights by not asking the TD for an immediate roll back. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 26 05:22:33 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri May 26 05:20:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard James Hills] > Other Nigel Guthrie sentences snipped out of > context: > > >equity rulings inadequately redress damage. I also > >feel that they deter insufficiently. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > "equity, n. Fairness; use of principles of justice > to supplement law, system of law so developed." > > Is the basis of Nigel's argument a contradiction in > terms? > > 1. It is not fair to inadequately redress damage. > 2. Equity rulings inadequately redress damage. > 3. Therefore, equity is not fair. > > Or is Nigel being misrepresented, yet again? > > :-) [Nigel] :: As I've often written on BLML, we would all welcome "equity" in the dictionary sense. For once, I appear to have forgotten to put the word in inverted commas to indicate that I was using it in the restricted TFLB sense (e.g. L84D) of "restoring the status quo" with for example, a L12C3 ruling. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 26 05:54:23 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 26 05:55:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com> On May 25, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Guthrie wrote: > :: As I've often written on BLML, we would > all welcome "equity" in the dictionary sense. For > once, I appear to have forgotten to put the word > in inverted commas to indicate that I was using it > in the restricted TFLB sense (e.g. L84D) of > "restoring the status quo" with for example, a > L12C3 ruling. I'm curious - what would you consider more fair than "restoring the status quo"? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 26 07:54:42 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri May 26 07:52:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > I'm curious - what would you consider more > fair than "restoring the status quo"? [nige1] Compensating the victim for time wasted and trauma suffered; making some allowance for similar past infractions suffered by the victim but for which the evidence was insufficient to convince the director; attempting to alleviate the victim's heightened anxiety about similar future infractions; and so on. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 26 09:55:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 26 09:56:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel, I'm not sure how you would quantify the desirable level of "compensation". In a typical L12c3 scenario an infraction has led NOS to get to the wrong contract and go off. The "proper" OS contract would normally have gone 1 off but there is a 10% chance, at most, that it would have gone 2 off. The TD awards a score to NOS of 15% of +200, 85% of +100 reflecting the probabilities above with an additional 5% "sympathetic weighting" to NOS. Personally I'm happy with a compensation element in the 5-10% range. Anything much beyond that starts to feel like "windfall" rather than "fairness". What %ages would you consider "fair" or "equitable" (and I still don't think there's a difference) based on the above? Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 26 10:10:11 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri May 26 10:04:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060524090458.02b3b310@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060526100701.02072a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:48 25/05/2006 +1000, you wrote: >My only quibble is with Eric's final sentence; if >my insufficient bid had not been accepted I >would have corrected to a Pass, not 4H, deeming a >lead penalty on pard more palatable than the ax. This is your absolute right according to the Rules. If West gambled on 3NT (which is his right too), it isn't sure it would have been good for him, as *you* are allowed to switch to hearts at the moment you're in with SK. Color it LRR indeed. Regards alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 26 10:14:00 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri May 26 10:07:54 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524151100.020745c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060526101150.02079370@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:40 25/05/2006 +1000, you wrote: >The Scylla of Ruritanian Asking Bids, or the >Charybdis of implicit misinformation about >common 1NT - 2C sequences, is mitigated under >ABF rules by the Aussie requirement to pre- >alert frequent but unusual agreements before >the round starts. I agree heartily with this. We use this in some tournaments in Belgim too. However, we had some problems with the definition of "frequent", which is pretty subjective. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 26 11:43:35 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri May 26 11:41:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004e01c680a8$df108260$029468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim west Meads] > I'm not sure how you would quantify the desirable > level of "compensation". In a typical L12c3 > scenario an infraction has led NOS to get to the > wrong contract and go off. The "proper" OS > contract would normally have gone 1 off but > there is a 10% chance, at most, that it would > have gone 2 off. > The TD awards a score to NOS of 15% of +200, > 85% of +100 reflecting the probabilities above > with an additional 5% "sympathetic weighting" > to NOS. Personally I'm happy with a compensation > element in the 5-10% range. Anything much > beyond that starts to feel like "windfall" > rather than "fairness". > What %ages would you consider "fair" or > "equitable" (and I still don't think there's a > difference) based on the above? [nige1] I'm not a director. If I were and 200 was the best result at all likely, then I would prefer to award 200 to the victims and -200 to the law-breakers. In L12C3 terms, my preferred percentage split would be 0%:100%. I accept that colleagues would consider this to flout the spirit of the current law, and I would defer to their judgement. I would hate to give a fractional ruling and then find that a one percent difference would change the result of an event. If I was aware of this before I made my estimate, then I would feel worse. The director's rulings often do decide the outcomes of events. When the penalty is pre-determined then all the director need do is to decide whether there was an infraction. That is a difficult enough decision. Suppose the director rules that there has been an infraction and the two possible L12c3 scores are for a grand slam making and going one off. Then the whim of the director in assessing small changes to the percentage mix may have a dramatic effect. The poor director is forced to play God. A law-maker may regard this as fair. Also, a player who loses an event as a result of such an unnecessary subjective judgement will not waste his breath protesting; especially if he is told th at the appeals committee is unlikely to consider changing the interpolation. But the victim is unlikely to regard the outcome as fair. Especially if the actual winners are friends or compatriots of the director. Windfall awards to victims seem OK to me. For example A revoke in a grand slam can change the score a lot but players realize that Bridge is a game and the revoke law is the same for everybody. In that sense the revoke-law and resulting ruling are objectively equitable. You need fairly draconian deterrents to reduce the potential profits of those who might otherwise ratonalize the law-breaking that may go unreported or for which there may be insufficient evidence to convince the director. In principle, the director can deter by imposing harsh procedural penalties. In practice, this rarely happens because it would imply an element of moral censure which spoils the image that most players' have of our game. [The relevance of deterrence to redress is that victims worry about suffering from the same infraction again and again] Are the arguments unclear? Is the logic flawed? Or are all BLML directors and law makers in denial? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 26 09:20:45 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri May 26 12:31:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>I'm curious - what would you consider more >>fair than "restoring the status quo"? Nigel Guthrie: >Compensating the victim for time wasted and >trauma suffered; Richard Hills: (a) A player bids to an excellent 7H contract with only one minor flaw; the ace of trumps is offside. The opponents grossly violate the courtesy requirements of Law 74A2 with loud and prolonged criticisms of the victim's intellect, causing the victim to receive suffering and trauma. A nigellian TD would like to rule 7H making as compensation for the trauma, but a richardian TD provides more appropriate compensation by suspending the opponents pursuant to Law 91A. (b) A player bids to an excellent 7H contract with only one minor flaw; the ace of trumps is offside. The opponents trivially violate the revoke laws, causing the victim to receive zero suffering and even less trauma. A richardian TD hates the inappropriate ruling of 7H making as over-compensation for the non- trauma, but has no choice under the current logically inconsistent Lawbook. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri May 26 13:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri May 26 13:58:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c680a8$df108260$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > I'm not a director. If I were and 200 was the best > result at all likely, then I would prefer to award > 200 to the victims and -200 to the law-breakers. > In L12C3 terms, my preferred percentage split > would be 0%:100%. I accept that colleagues would > consider this to flout the spirit of the current > law, and I would defer to their judgement. But what would be the threshold for "at all likely"? 1%? 3%? 10%? It doesn't matter what value you choose some cases will be close to that borderline. > I would hate to give a fractional ruling and then > find that a one percent difference would change > the result of an event. If I was aware of this > before I made my estimate, then I would feel > worse. Now consider the impact of 100%/0% splits on cases close to whatever the border is. A fractional change in judgement has a *huge* effect on score. Law12c3, applied properly, ensures that minor differences in judgement have minor effects on the scores (albeit the frequency of such differences increases somewhat). > The director's rulings often do decide the > outcomes of events. When the penalty is > pre-determined then all the director need do is to > decide whether there was an infraction. That is a > difficult enough decision. And would be much harder if the Director was obliged to award a huge windfall to NOS for a trivial (and with high probability insignificant) infraction by their opponents. > But the victim is > unlikely to regard the outcome as fair. Especially > if the actual winners are friends or compatriots > of the director. If we are going to use unnecessarily emotive words like "victim" what of the "victim" who comes second in an event because the laws required the TD to give a windfall to the winners? Why should we care less about *that* victim than about the other one. > Windfall awards to victims seem OK to me. For > example A revoke in a grand slam can change the > score a lot but players realize that Bridge is a > game and the revoke law is the same for everybody. > In that sense the revoke-law and resulting ruling > are objectively equitable. And the revoke laws cause much unhappiness amongst players because many perceive taking away "sure tricks" because of a meaningless accidental revoke is "unfair". The revoke laws are equally unfair on everyone - but that doesn't begin to make them equitable. > Then the whim of the > director in assessing small changes to the > percentage mix may have a dramatic effect. The > poor director is forced to play God. If the director is basing his decisions on a whim then he is indeed a poor director. Hand analysis, consultations and judgements should be the basis for decisions. Of course TDs have to "play god", just like referees, umpires, touch judges, stewards and anybody else responsible for making interpretative decisions about a game. Excessive use of whip? Likely to interfere with play? Glove or sleeve? In or out? These are just run-of-the-mill decisions we expect officials to make. > You need fairly draconian deterrents to reduce the > potential profits of those who might otherwise > ratonalize the law-breaking that may go unreported > or for which there may be insufficient evidence to > convince the director. That's just b*ll*cks. All you need is a competent director who deals with problems fairly and impartially along with a culture which encourages people to seek the assistance of said TD. > n principle, the director can deter by imposing > harsh procedural penalties. In practice, this > rarely happens because it would imply an element > of moral censure which spoils the image that most > players' have of our game. If it rarely happens get a decent TD. If the TD isn't very good (or is biased) then it really doesn't matter *what* the laws say. > Are the arguments unclear? Is the logic flawed? Or > are all BLML directors and law makers in denial? I don't know. IMO the vast majority of non-BLML TDs aren't up to snuff when it comes to ruling/managing the game but then most players don't care enough to pay the rates such TDs should demand*. Law-makers can't do anything about inept TDs - whatever laws they write will require judgement in application. * My day job involves working as a specialist in Job Evaluation. If one considers the knowledge, people skills, analytical and decision making abilities etc a TD should have it's a reasonably senior role. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 26 14:50:49 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 26 14:52:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj> References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com> <001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On May 26, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Guthrie wrote: > Compensating the victim for time wasted and trauma > suffered; making some allowance for similar past > infractions suffered by the victim but for which > the evidence was insufficient to convince the > director; attempting to alleviate the victim's > heightened anxiety about similar future > infractions; and so on. My first reaction on reading this was "it's a GAME, fer crissake!" Piece by piece: time wasted: if we compensated, under the laws, every "victim" for all "time wasted" that's all directors - and players - would be doing. Good job, Nigel - if your goal is to kill the game. trauma suffered: bullshit. "similar past infractions": again, bullshit. Past infractions by someone other than the current putative offending side? No f'ing way. Even if it's the same OS, all you're saying here is "well, there was a similar case involving these guys last week, but they were found 'not guilty' then due to lack of evidence - so let's change that verdict retroactively". You're out of your mind on this one, Nigel. "heightened anxiety": more BS. Sorry, Nigel, but this idea of yours is just bonkers. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri May 26 14:55:06 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri May 26 14:53:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000d01c680c3$9d85af80$059868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard Hills] > (a) A player bids to an excellent 7H with > only one minor flaw; the ace of trumps is > offside. The opponents grossly violate the > courtesy requirements of Law 74A2 with loud > and prolonged criticisms of the victim's > intellect, causing the victim to receive > suffering and trauma. > > A nigellian TD would like to rule 7H making as > compensation for the trauma, but a richardian > TD provides more appropriate compensation by > suspending the opponents pursuant to Law 91A. [nige1] No Richard, you misrepresent me again. IMO procedural penalties are appropriate in such cases. I confirmed my opinion in a recent BLML reply to you. I also recently explained why, in other kinds of case, a procedural penalty isn't an appropriate deterrent. [richard] > (b) A player bids to an excellent 7H with > only one minor flaw; the ace of trumps is > offside. The opponents trivially violate the > revoke laws, causing the victim to receive zero > suffering and even less trauma. > > A richardian TD hates the inappropriate ruling > of 7H making as over-compensation for the non- > trauma, but has no choice under the current > logically inconsistent Lawbook. [nigel] In case (b) I agree that 7H= is overcompensation. But players can understand revoke law and it is the same for everybody. You need a severe deterrent because it is easy to revoke especially at a drunken game of rubber bridge and the profit may be huge. IMO revoke law should be simplified, rather than complicated. [A] The revoker loses the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks. [B] If your revoke twice on the same hand, you are liable to incur a swingeing procedural penalty. [C] You must report all infractions of which you become aware (including revokes) not just infractions to which attention has been drawn. I accept that [C] is unenforceable, so should be a "Propriety". However, if you report your own revoke, you may sometimes avoid [B]. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 26 15:15:29 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 26 15:16:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c680a8$df108260$029468d5@jeushtlj> References: <004e01c680a8$df108260$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <95127728-DB18-436E-8009-4CDEEA3D5337@rochester.rr.com> On May 26, 2006, at 5:43 AM, Guthrie wrote: > I'm not a director. If I were and 200 was the best > result at all likely, then I would prefer to award > 200 to the victims and -200 to the law-breakers. IOW, you want to rule under 12C2 rather than 12C3. Shall we do away with 12C3 then? > I would hate to give a fractional ruling and then > find that a one percent difference would change > the result of an event. If I was aware of this > before I made my estimate, then I would feel > worse. Well, I don't suppose you can help how you feel, but I think you ought to reconsider. The law *deliberately* treats infractions in isolation - considerations of the impact on "the field" or the final result are *not* involved. Nor, IMO, should they be. > The director's rulings often do decide the > outcomes of events. Well, my experience as a director is limited. Still, it's greater than yours. :-) I would say that "often" is an overbid. > When the penalty is pre-determined then all the > director need do is to decide whether there was an infraction. > That is a difficult enough decision. Suppose the director > rules that there has been an infraction and the > two possible L12c3 scores are for a grand slam > making and going one off. Then the whim of the > director in assessing small changes to the > percentage mix may have a dramatic effect. The > poor director is forced to play God. whim, noun, 1 : a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind One would hope that no director makes rulings on the basis of whim. We expect directors to use judgement, training and experience. If directors in your experience do seem to be making rulings on whim, then I suggest that either you are mistaken, or those directors are incompetent and ought to be either retrained or fired. > A law-maker may regard this as fair. Also, a > player who loses an event as a result of such an > unnecessary subjective judgement will not waste > his breath protesting; especially if he is told that > the appeals committee is unlikely to consider > changing the interpolation. But the victim is > unlikely to regard the outcome as fair. Especially > if the actual winners are friends or compatriots > of the director. So now what? "I happen to know some of the people involved in this tournament, therefore I must recuse myself from directing - hire someone else." Jesus, Nigel. :-( > Windfall awards to victims seem OK to me. For > example A revoke in a grand slam can change the > score a lot but players realize that Bridge is a > game and the revoke law is the same for everybody. Seems to me you just got through saying that the revoke law *isn't* the same for everybody. After all, some offenders are friends of the director, who rules on whim, so his whim will undoubtedly lead him to rule in favor of his friends, regardless what the law says. Aside from that, players who are "traumatized" by having to call the director at all are unlikely to be thinking rationally about the "fairness" of a ruling - except perhaps to think it's unfair if they don't come away with the feeling that the opponents have been drawn, quartered and hanged. And probably shot, too. > You need fairly draconian deterrents to reduce the > potential profits of those who might otherwise > ratonalize the law-breaking that may go unreported > or for which there may be insufficient evidence to > convince the director. > > In principle, the director can deter by imposing > harsh procedural penalties. In practice, this > rarely happens because it would imply an element > of moral censure which spoils the image that most > players' have of our game. No, it rarely happens because directors fear the reaction of players who would receive such penalties - at least at club level. > [The relevance of deterrence to redress is that > victims worry about suffering from the same > infraction again and again] Do they? Or is it just Nigel who suffers from this affliction? > Are the arguments unclear? Is the logic flawed? Or > are all BLML directors and law makers in denial? The arguments seem clear. The logic *is* flawed. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri May 26 15:20:24 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri May 26 15:21:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c680c3$9d85af80$059868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000d01c680c3$9d85af80$059868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <71A12322-1D2A-4892-94DC-E1010D250A3D@rochester.rr.com> On May 26, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Guthrie wrote: > But players can understand revoke law and it is > the same for everybody. You need a severe > deterrent because it is easy to revoke especially > at a drunken game of rubber bridge and the profit > may be huge. If a player is so stupid as to play cards for money while drunk, then IMHO he deserves whatever he gets. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 26 15:36:57 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri May 26 15:37:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <004e01c680a8$df108260$029468d5@jeushtlj> References: <004e01c680a8$df108260$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060526091421.02bd4b90@pop.starpower.net> At 05:43 AM 5/26/06, Guthrie wrote: >Windfall awards to victims seem OK to me. For >example A revoke in a grand slam can change the >score a lot but players realize that Bridge is a >game and the revoke law is the same for everybody. >In that sense the revoke-law and resulting ruling >are objectively equitable. Actually they are not, but they are fair. "Equity" and "fairness" are not the same thing. "Equity" means that an offender receives a punishment that, in some sense, "fits the crime"; in our world that means compensating the "victims" for whatever damage they might have suffered. "Fairness" means that an offender receives the same punishment as would anyone else who committed the same offense; whether or not the punishment is also "equitable" isn't relevant. The goals of equity and fairness can and do conflict; in some cases it may be impossible to achieve both. Nigel's argument highlights the inconsistency with which we choose our goal law by law. For revokes, for example, we sacrifice equity for fairness; for claims, OTOH, where rulings depend on "the class of [the] player" making the claim, we sacrifice fairness for equity. Nigel would revise the laws to make them as "fair" as possible; Jeff Rubens has editorialized in favor of revising the laws to make them as "equitable" as possible. Whether we favor one or the other, or prefer to continue to "muddle down the middle", we should understand the difference. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat May 27 19:02:38 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat May 27 19:00:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com><001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003f01c681af$5cb0fa40$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > My first reaction on reading this was "it's a GAME, > fer crissake!" > Piece by piece: > [trauma and ] time wasted: if we compensated, > under the laws, > every "victim" for all "time wasted" that's all > directors - and players - would be doing. Good > job, Nigel - if your goal is to kill the game. > trauma suffered: bullshit. > "similar past infractions": again, bullshit. > Past infractions by someone other than the > current putative offending side? No f'ing way. > Even if it's the same OS, all you're saying here > is "well, there was a similar case involving > these guys last week, but they were found > 'not guilty' then due to lack of evidence - so > let's change that verdict retroactively". You're > out of your mind on this one, Nigel. > "heightened anxiety": more BS. > Sorry, Nigel, but this idea of yours is just > bonkers. [nige1] Ed asked why restoring the status quo may be inadequate redress. I explained some of the reasons. Ed's refutation is a stream of profanity and denial. One arguments that Ed rejects bears repeating: A director call *is* a traumatic and time-wasting experience for some players, especially if the director disbelieves one side's version of events. In addition to those I mentioned, there are other arguments for ensuring adequate redress. For example, there should be some incentive to report an infraction over and above simply restoring the status quo. Of course the main argument for sensible redress is that it is a simple form of deterrence and ideally suited to a game. If deterrents are derisory (e.g. L12C3 rulings), then more players are likely to copy law-breakers to try to achieve a level playing field. Ed and Richard seem to think that the imposition of more procedural penalties is a better way to deter law-breakers without overcompensating victims. We are all in favour of procedural penalties when the ordinary law does not adequately deter. Thankfully, however, procedural penalties are still quite rare. Players regard them as offensive and insulting. Directors are loth to impose them. IMO procedural penalties should not be the main deterrent. Ed is right that Bridge *is* only a *game*. When you design a game, you don't worry much about "windfalls" especially if the alternative is a complex, subjective rule that is incomprehensible to players. Rubber Bridge even retains "honours" for fun. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat May 27 20:06:16 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat May 27 20:07:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003f01c681af$5cb0fa40$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> <86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com> <001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj> <003f01c681af$5cb0fa40$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <5C7DA3C1-E8ED-481C-AB0C-34DB99A16DA0@rochester.rr.com> On May 27, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Ed asked why restoring the status quo may be > inadequate redress. I explained some of the > reasons. You explained your opinions. We disagree as to the validity of those opinions. > Ed's refutation is a stream of profanity and > denial. Excuse me? The only profanity I used in that post is the phrase "fer crissakes" or "for Christ's sake". Obscenity is a different matter: I used the word "bullshit" twice. I did so because I consider it an apt description of the opinions you expressed, and to which I was replying. Sorry if that offends you, Nigel, but I'm not going to retract the word - if you can't stand the heat, well, stay out of the kitchen. As for denial, the only thing I'm denying is the validity of your opinions. > One arguments that Ed rejects bears repeating: > > A director call *is* a traumatic and time-wasting > experience for some players, especially if the > director disbelieves one side's version of events. Then let's do away with directors. While we're at it, let's toss the rule book, too. After all, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by actually making them follow *rules*, would we? > In addition to those I mentioned, there are other > arguments for ensuring adequate redress. For > example, there should be some incentive to report > an infraction over and above simply restoring the > status quo. What incentive? Why? > Of course the main argument for sensible redress > is that it is a simple form of deterrence and > ideally suited to a game. "Sensible redress" is just what the current laws offer, with a couple of rather well known exceptions - and those we have some expectation of seeing changed in the next laws revision. > If deterrents are derisory (e.g. L12C3 rulings), > then more players are likely to copy law-breakers > to try to achieve a level playing field. "Derisory" has two meanings: "expressing derision" and "worthy of derision". Since the first makes no sense to me in this context, I guess you mean the second. If you consider such rulings "an object of ridicule or scorn" perhaps you should examine more closely whether that opinion is based on reason or emotion - and if the latter, see if perhaps reason can change it for you. > Ed and Richard seem to think that the imposition > of more procedural penalties is a better way to > deter law-breakers without overcompensating > victims. The law provides for such penalties for a reason, or perhaps several reasons. You just stated one of them. > We are all in favour of procedural penalties when > the ordinary law does not adequately deter. > > Thankfully, however, procedural penalties are > still quite rare. Players regard them as offensive > and insulting. Directors are loth to impose them. > IMO procedural penalties should not be the main > deterrent. I don't think either Richard or I has expressed the opinion that PPs ought not to be "rare" - rather, we are (or at least I am) saying that they ought to be less rare than currently. I suppose the same players who consider PPs "offensive and insulting" consider speeding tickets in the same light. Be that as it may, perhaps the solution is *education* rather than a completely different approach to writing the rules of the game. As for "directors are loth to impose them", in clubs around here, that's true (whether it's true in clubs elsewhere, either in North America or on other continents, I don't know). The reason is fear - fear of loss of revenue, fear that players will go elsewhere, fear that their game will die out *because* (some) players have gone elsewhere. IMO, the fear is exaggerated. IMO, the main deterrent to infractions of law is, and ought to be, a player's sense of what is right according to those laws. *That* is a matter of education. > Ed is right that Bridge *is* only a *game*. When > you design a game, you don't worry much about > "windfalls" especially if the alternative is a > complex, subjective rule that is incomprehensible > to players. Rubber Bridge even retains "honours" > for fun. Non-sequitur. From john at asimere.com Sun May 28 02:13:17 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun May 28 02:14:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com><001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj><003f01c681af$5cb0fa40$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> <5C7DA3C1-E8ED-481C-AB0C-34DB99A16DA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <007101c681eb$85156f70$9700a8c0@john> . Rubber Bridge even retains "honours" >> for fun. It isn't for fun, it's an intrinsic part of the game. It's an interesting exercise to bid in such a way as to increase one's score by the inclusion of the honour bonus and enhances the game by adding a pseudo random element to what is already a complex subject. (and finesses are psudo random too, so i don't need more bullshit about that either). A Ax AJxxx AQxxx is an obvious 2NT opener just for example. As usual, Nigel has been speaking out of an orifice other than his mouth. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun May 28 05:45:32 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun May 28 05:43:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com><001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj><003f01c681af$5cb0fa40$0d9868d5@jeushtlj><5C7DA3C1-E8ED-481C-AB0C-34DB99A16DA0@rochester.rr.com> <007101c681eb$85156f70$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001c01c68209$2c5dd020$099868d5@jeushtlj> [nige1] >> Rubber Bridge even retains "honours" for fun. [John Probst] > It isn't for fun, it's an intrinsic part of > the game. It's an interesting exercise to bid > in such a way as to increase one's score by > the inclusion of the honour bonus and enhances > the game by adding a pseudo random element to > what is already a complex subject. (and > finesses are psudo random too, so i don't need > more bullshit about that either). > A Ax AJxxx AQxxx is an obvious 2NT opener just > for example. > As usual, Nigel has been speaking out of an > orifice other than his mouth. [nige2] IMO... S:A H:Ax D:AJxxx C:AQxxx, is better opened 1D than 2N because... [A] opposite some 6 card spade suits, 3N may score better than 4S. Also... [B] A minor suit slam is possible. At rubber bridge, 2N is more attractive with a singleton *minor* honour, for example... S:Axx H:AJxx D:A C:AQxxx From john at asimere.com Sun May 28 16:38:37 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun May 28 16:40:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com><001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj><003f01c681af$5cb0fa40$0d9868d5@jeushtlj><5C7DA3C1-E8ED-481C-AB0C-34DB99A16DA0@rochester.rr.com> <007101c681eb$85156f70$9700a8c0@john> <001c01c68209$2c5dd020$099868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002c01c68264$679c6100$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [nige1] >>> Rubber Bridge even retains "honours" for fun. > > [John Probst] >> It isn't for fun, it's an intrinsic part of >> the game. It's an interesting exercise to bid >> in such a way as to increase one's score by >> the inclusion of the honour bonus and enhances >> the game by adding a pseudo random element to >> what is already a complex subject. (and >> finesses are psudo random too, so i don't need >> more bullshit about that either). >> A Ax AJxxx AQxxx is an obvious 2NT opener just >> for example. >> As usual, Nigel has been speaking out of an >> orifice other than his mouth. > > [nige2] > IMO... > S:A H:Ax D:AJxxx C:AQxxx, is better opened 1D > than 2N because... > [A] opposite some 6 card spade suits, 3N may score > better than 4S. Also... > [B] A minor suit slam is possible. > At rubber bridge, 2N is more attractive with a > singleton *minor* honour, for example... > S:Axx H:AJxx D:A C:AQxxx I'll happily play 5 quid a hundred against you any day Nigel :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun May 28 19:28:40 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun May 28 19:27:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com><001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj><003f01c681af$5cb0fa40$0d9868d5@jeushtlj> <5C7DA3C1-E8ED-481C-AB0C-34DB99A16DA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <008e01c6827c$2a2d3840$189868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > Excuse me? The only profanity I used in that post > is the phrase "fer crissakes" or "for Christ's > sake". Obscenity is a different matter: I > used the word "bullshit" twice. {also No f'ing way] > I did so because I consider it an apt description > of the opinions you expressed, and to which I > was replying. Sorry if that offends you, Nigel, > but I'm not going to retract the word - if you > can't stand the heat, well, stay out of the > kitchen. [nige1] I'll stay out of your kitchen, Ed, because your arguments are too heated for me and their ingredients are not to my taste. IMO, fact and logic served cold is the argument recipe that we should all try to follow :) From schoderb at msn.com Tue May 30 02:26:46 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue May 30 09:08:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c68073$a183c680$0c9468d5@jeushtlj><86EBD390-72CE-4163-9988-E79D0083239C@rochester.rr.com><001701c68088$e2c35ec0$029468d5@jeushtlj><003f01c681af$5cb0fa40$0d9868d5@jeushtlj><5C7DA3C1-E8ED-481C-AB0C-34DB99A16DA0@rochester.rr.com> <008e01c6827c$2a2d3840$189868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Couldn't help but agree if we had "....fact and logic served cold...". Too often "fact" is what the writer wants it to be, and "logic" is what justifies personal bias. Some few do not like bridge as it exists: they want greater "fairness" and " equity", words often deftly personalized. In the real world hundreds of thousands of players enjoy the game we now play in tournaments, clubs, and homes. Yet some BLMLers pontificate, make up "facts", find any and all reasons to avoid accepting the obvious, and revel in trivia, inexactitude, and self-glorification. As long as their effect on management is minimal we can at least rest assured of the continued success of bridge as an international sport. Much of what I read on BLML reminds me of the wife of my golf partner -- " I didn't mean to hit it there" - Inadvertency; "they were talking while I was swinging" - Bidding; " I had the wrong club" - Bidding/Inadvertency; "its not fair that I get penalized for making a mistake I didn't mean to make" - Laws; "I didn't really move the ball in the rough" - Play; "after all no player of my caliber would ever make such a mistake" - Judgement; " the putt broke the other way for you" - Fairness; "clearly I'm entitled to a Mulligan after that crazy bounce" - More Fairness. "why should you win the hole, you didn't do anything spectacular?" - Equity; and of course the ubiquitous "I need new clubs, balls, glove, shoes, etc." Self-justification - it's not my fault. Yet golf survives, and there are even golfers who call penalties on themselves --can you imagine many bridge players doing that???? I agree that wording of the Laws -- and this applies equally to Rules and Regulations -- should be the clear intended meaning, and I'm happy to propose and accept changes which help. I'm strongly against sneaking pet changes into the structure of the game in the guise of clarifying the wording. I'm glad to learn from the bridge problems in bidding and play presented on BLML. However, much of what I read about the nature of the game is highly dubious and suspect to me from over 60 years of tournament and club directing. Maybe the title should be changed from BLML to BBML (you supply the second B or is it BS?). Don't get me wrong - I enjoy reading the sometimes silly house-of-cards within the game-of- cards and have long since given up urinating into the wind. Facing downwind puts me with the overwhelming number of people who like our game the way it is, and saves on cleaning bills. In decades of seminars, lectures, classes, etc., with tournament directors and players of all ranks throughout the world I find little grumbling about the structure of the game, -- most problems are in translation and unclear language. My experiences of cultures, nationalities, languages, and local "ways" reassure me that the game will survive even the most ardent manipulators. Acceptance of penalty for wrongdoing is almost universal -- in spite of trumpeting to the contrary by those who can't stand the heat in the kitchen. No competitive game worth its existence need cater to wimps. At the risk of incurring wrath --- get real! Kojak -- Original Message ----- From: Guthrie To: BLML Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Ed Reppert] > Excuse me? The only profanity I used in that post > is the phrase "fer crissakes" or "for Christ's > sake". Obscenity is a different matter: I > used the word "bullshit" twice. {also No f'ing way] > I did so because I consider it an apt description > of the opinions you expressed, and to which I > was replying. Sorry if that offends you, Nigel, > but I'm not going to retract the word - if you > can't stand the heat, well, stay out of the > kitchen. [nige1] I'll stay out of your kitchen, Ed, because your arguments are too heated for me and their ingredients are not to my taste. IMO, fact and logic served cold is the argument recipe that we should all try to follow :) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060530/a85d0870/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 30 09:27:32 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue May 30 09:28:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5C7DA3C1-E8ED-481C-AB0C-34DB99A16DA0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >I don't think either Richard or I has expressed the >opinion that PPs ought not to be "rare" - rather, >we are (or at least I am) saying that they ought to >be less rare than currently. I suppose the same >players who consider PPs "offensive and insulting" >consider speeding tickets in the same light. Be >that as it may, perhaps the solution is *education* >rather than a completely different approach to >writing the rules of the game. Richard Hills: I fully agree with the solution of *education* of inexperienced players. This is why, in my opinion, the best and most effective form of procedural penalty that a TD can issue is also the mildest form of procedural penalty - a warning. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue May 30 11:30:54 2006 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue May 30 11:39:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000601c683cb$c1323290$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Reminds me of the hand that I played in 1978 with a wise old bird in a cut in rubber. I led my singleton and he switched. What a pratt, I had my trump out ready to ruff !!!! We lost the rubber and he moved on. He explained to me in the bar after why he had done that, at considerable cost to himself I hasten to add. Probably the reason I am now a TD and the chair of Wales L&EC. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed Reppert: > >>I don't think either Richard or I has expressed the >>opinion that PPs ought not to be "rare" - rather, >>we are (or at least I am) saying that they ought to >>be less rare than currently. I suppose the same >>players who consider PPs "offensive and insulting" >>consider speeding tickets in the same light. Be >>that as it may, perhaps the solution is *education* >>rather than a completely different approach to >>writing the rules of the game. > > Richard Hills: > > I fully agree with the solution of *education* of > inexperienced players. This is why, in my opinion, > the best and most effective form of procedural > penalty that a TD can issue is also the mildest > form of procedural penalty - a warning. > > "Train up a child in the way he should go: and > when he is old, he will not depart from it." > (Proverbs 22:6) > > > 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 schoderb at msn.com Tue May 30 16:59:01 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue May 30 17:00:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Sorry for stating my opinions as a "reply" to Hills and Reppert. It was certainly not meant to be that.Their conversation triggered my desire to once again state what I think has become a great tempest-in-a-teapot. Re Hills: I fully agree with you when we are talking about training, novice programs, learning the structure and format of the game, etc. When we play "to win" there is nothing better than to play by all the laws. I believe that "flighting" is much preferable to "stratifying" but there are strong social reasons that reverse their frequency of use. Re Reppert: Right on. You remind me that there are those who want penalties to be one-sided and that windfalls for the NOS are bad. "Just give them 'equity' (take away any advantage they have gained by being in those seats at that moment) and then we (they) will always win by our superior skills". Balderdash. And if you don't believe me just try taking away their advantage when the windfall accrues to them! Or listen to them fighting for 1100 when they got an above average 200! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed Reppert: > > >I don't think either Richard or I has expressed the > >opinion that PPs ought not to be "rare" - rather, > >we are (or at least I am) saying that they ought to > >be less rare than currently. I suppose the same > >players who consider PPs "offensive and insulting" > >consider speeding tickets in the same light. Be > >that as it may, perhaps the solution is *education* > >rather than a completely different approach to > >writing the rules of the game. > > Richard Hills: > > I fully agree with the solution of *education* of > inexperienced players. This is why, in my opinion, > the best and most effective form of procedural > penalty that a TD can issue is also the mildest > form of procedural penalty - a warning. > > "Train up a child in the way he should go: and > when he is old, he will not depart from it." > (Proverbs 22:6) > > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 30 22:27:02 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue May 30 22:27:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Flighting vs stratifying (WAS Breaking the Law] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060530160934.02af7a60@pop.starpower.net> At 10:59 AM 5/30/06, WILLAIM wrote: >I believe that "flighting" is much preferable to "stratifying" but >there are >strong social reasons that reverse their frequency of use. Way off the original topic (hence my change to the subject line), but permit me to disagree. I, personally, prefer to play in flighted events, as do most players who are eligible for the top flight, but I would not argue that they are generally "preferable". Among lower-level players, those who prefer flighted events are the ones who cite "social reasons"; they feel that playing against their "peers" makes for a more "social" (less serious) game. Those who prefer stratified events are happy not to have to give up a reasonable chance of winning master points against their peers in order to derive the benefits of playing against much better players from whom they are far more likely to learn things that will help them improve their game, and are happy not to have to choose which objective to pursue. As I personally consider this to be the biggest attraction of bridge over other competitive activities (in what other game do inexperienced players get to routinely play against the best without paying significantly extra for the privilege?), I would argue that stratifying is preferable for the bridge community as a whole, if not for me personally (now). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 31 00:45:54 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed May 31 00:47:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder: [big snip] >Acceptance of penalty for wrongdoing is almost >universal -- in spite of trumpeting to the contrary >by those who can't stand the heat in the kitchen. No >competitive game worth its existence need cater to >wimps. Richard Hills: A good general rule, but the exception tests the rule. For example, suppose declarer leads from dummy when the lead is in hand, or suppose declarer leads from hand when the lead is in dummy. The penalty for that minor wrongdoing by declarer used to be the disproportionate penalty that declarer had to lead from the correct hand, but was required to lead the same suit. This sometimes gave defenders a bonus trick or tricks. Before the 1975 Laws were drafted, Edgar Kaplan suggested that the "same suit" penalty be deleted from the Laws. His suggestion was rejected at that time (perhaps because the members of the 1975 drafting committee did not want to cater for wimps), but was adopted in 1987 (perhaps because the members of the 1987 drafting committee were wimps). :-) Acceptance of the 1987 deletion of the "same suit" penalty for declarer's wrongdoing is almost universal. I have been a net loser of tricks since the 1987 change, since I am a non-wimp who hardly ever commits a mechanical irregularity, but I join others in believing that that 1987 change to the Laws made the game of bridge a fairer and more equitable game. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed May 31 03:03:16 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed May 31 03:04:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > William Schoder: > > [big snip] > >>Acceptance of penalty for wrongdoing is almost >>universal -- in spite of trumpeting to the contrary >>by those who can't stand the heat in the kitchen. No >>competitive game worth its existence need cater to >>wimps. > > Richard Hills: > > A good general rule, but the exception tests the rule. > > For example, suppose declarer leads from dummy when > the lead is in hand, or suppose declarer leads from > hand when the lead is in dummy. > > The penalty for that minor wrongdoing by declarer > used to be the disproportionate penalty that declarer > had to lead from the correct hand, but was required to > lead the same suit. This sometimes gave defenders a > bonus trick or tricks. > > Before the 1975 Laws were drafted, Edgar Kaplan > suggested that the "same suit" penalty be deleted from > the Laws. His suggestion was rejected at that time > (perhaps because the members of the 1975 drafting > committee did not want to cater for wimps), but was > adopted in 1987 (perhaps because the members of the > 1987 drafting committee were wimps). > > :-) > > Acceptance of the 1987 deletion of the "same suit" > penalty for declarer's wrongdoing is almost universal. > > I have been a net loser of tricks since the 1987 > change, since I am a non-wimp who hardly ever commits > a mechanical irregularity, but I join others in > believing that that 1987 change to the Laws made the > game of bridge a fairer and more equitable game. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Richard is asserting a false premise. What is the appropriate remedy for taking extra turns at play? When a defender does so the remedy includes offering declarer the option that the original card be a PC. The 1987 revision precluded such an option in any form when the offense was by the declaring side. I, for one, do not see that it is fair to indemnify declarer when he takes more turns than allotted; while subjecting defenders that take extra turns to penalties that can move a large number of tricks from defender to declarer. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Wed May 31 09:52:59 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 31 09:54:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001601c68487$3caf7160$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick .......... > What is the appropriate remedy for taking extra turns at play? When a > defender does so the remedy includes offering declarer the option that the > original card be a PC. No, the options offered to declarer are that the lead out of turn is accepted or rejected. It is the consequence of a rejected lead out of turn by a defender that the card becomes a (major) PC. > > The 1987 revision precluded such an option in any form when the offense > was by the declaring side. No, defenders have exactly the same options when the lead out ot turn is made by the declarer. The difference is that a declarer can never have any PC, a fact that the reason for which should be obvious to everybody. > > I, for one, do not see that it is fair to indemnify declarer when he takes > more turns than allotted; while subjecting defenders that take extra turns > to penalties that can move a large number of tricks from defender to > declarer. If declarer from his irregularity obtains information on a defender's hand such information is UI to him and the consequence is that TD may award an adjusted score. I cannot see any unfair consequences of these rules? Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed May 31 14:20:47 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed May 31 14:22:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001601c68487$3caf7160$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:52 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ......... > What is the appropriate remedy for taking extra turns at play? When a > defender does so the remedy includes offering declarer the option that the > original card be a PC. No, the options offered to declarer are that the lead out of turn is accepted or rejected. It is the consequence of a rejected lead out of turn by a defender that the card becomes a (major) PC. > > The 1987 revision precluded such an option in any form when the offense > was by the declaring side. No, defenders have exactly the same options when the lead out ot turn is made by the declarer. The difference is that a declarer can never have any PC, a fact that the reason for which should be obvious to everybody. ** What is so obvious? The issue is difference. Actually, where fairness is concerned, the case is stronger for the opposite- defenders have no PC. > I, for one, do not see that it is fair to indemnify declarer when he takes > more turns than allotted; while subjecting defenders that take extra turns > to penalties that can move a large number of tricks from defender to > declarer. If declarer from his irregularity obtains information on a defender's hand such information is UI to him and the consequence is that TD may award an adjusted score. I cannot see any unfair consequences of these rules? Regards Sven Declarer gets 40 turns to play 26 cards and the defenders get 26 turns. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Wed May 31 15:33:30 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 31 15:35:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002b01c684b6$cff5bae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ......... > > What is the appropriate remedy for taking extra turns at play? When a > > defender does so the remedy includes offering declarer the option that > the > > original card be a PC. > > No, the options offered to declarer are that the lead out of turn is > accepted or rejected. It is the consequence of a rejected lead out of turn > by a defender that the card becomes a (major) PC. > > > > The 1987 revision precluded such an option in any form when the offense > > was by the declaring side. > > No, defenders have exactly the same options when the lead out ot turn is > made by the declarer. The difference is that a declarer can never have any > PC, a fact that the reason for which should be obvious to everybody. > > ** What is so obvious? The issue is difference. Actually, where fairness > is concerned, the case is stronger for the opposite- defenders have no PC. It ought to be obvious because the defender has illegally exposed a card to his partner which is in a position to take advantage of that for advantage to the offending side. Declarer has also illegally exposed a card but he is in no way able to obtain any advantage of this irregularity (unless he thereby manages to obtain UI on any defender's hand) > > I, for one, do not see that it is fair to indemnify declarer when he > takes > > more turns than allotted; while subjecting defenders that take extra > turns > > to penalties that can move a large number of tricks from defender to > > declarer. > > If declarer from his irregularity obtains information on a defender's hand > such information is UI to him and the consequence is that TD may award an > adjusted score. I cannot see any unfair consequences of these rules? > > Regards Sven > > Declarer gets 40 turns to play 26 cards and the defenders get 26 turns. If declarer used 40 turns to play 26 cards he will long ago have received a PP from me as Director! Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 31 16:25:04 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed May 31 16:20:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c684b6$cff5bae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060531162215.0271e8b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:33 31/05/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Declarer has also illegally exposed a card but he is in no way able to >obtain any advantage of this irregularity (unless he thereby manages to >obtain UI on any defender's hand) Or unless we believe he could have deliberately tried to provoke careless following by an opponent, ie it is obvious the position is blocked. In this case, L72 "could have known" might apply. From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed May 31 16:19:49 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed May 31 16:21:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002b01c684b6$cff5bae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:33 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ......... > > What is the appropriate remedy for taking extra turns at play? When a > > defender does so the remedy includes offering declarer the option that > the > > original card be a PC. > > No, the options offered to declarer are that the lead out of turn is > accepted or rejected. It is the consequence of a rejected lead out of turn > by a defender that the card becomes a (major) PC. > > > > The 1987 revision precluded such an option in any form when the offense > > was by the declaring side. > > No, defenders have exactly the same options when the lead out ot turn is > made by the declarer. The difference is that a declarer can never have any > PC, a fact that the reason for which should be obvious to everybody. > > ** What is so obvious? The issue is difference. Actually, where fairness > is concerned, the case is stronger for the opposite- defenders have no PC. It ought to be obvious because the defender has illegally exposed a card to his partner which is in a position to take advantage of that for advantage to the offending side. Declarer has also illegally exposed a card but he is in no way able to obtain any advantage of this irregularity (unless he thereby manages to obtain UI on any defender's hand) > > I, for one, do not see that it is fair to indemnify declarer when he > takes > > more turns than allotted; while subjecting defenders that take extra > turns > > to penalties that can move a large number of tricks from defender to > > declarer. > > If declarer from his irregularity obtains information on a defender's hand > such information is UI to him and the consequence is that TD may award an > adjusted score. I cannot see any unfair consequences of these rules? > > Regards Sven > > Declarer gets 40 turns to play 26 cards and the defenders get 26 turns. If declarer used 40 turns to play 26 cards he will long ago have received a PP from me as Director! Sven While UI is an issue it is a non sequitar. When a player acts OOT two effects are immediate- his side has gained tempo and the other side has lost tempo. An illustration of the power of tempo is in order: some years ago I partnered a man visiting from out of town. I was not particularly fond of him- especially after he accelerated a slow moving auction from three to six- off two cashing aces and two cashing kings. Out of 52 cards in a deck they 'could have led any of 51 particular cards' and taken between 4-5 tricks. But he didn't so all the losers but the trump ace went away. That is the power of a single tempo. When one side gets extra tempo [thereby taking it away from the opponents] the playing field has been tilted heavily. As such, the disruption in the number of turns a player takes has serious consequences and therefore is serious [and complicated] business. And imo it is right for the remedy to strain to restore the balance of tempo within practicality. One solution that appears appropriate is the PC. It has the trait of the opponent has already taken a turn with it- and it is justice that that turn [the play of that particular card] be discharged sooner [next legal opportunity] rather than later thereby balancing the tempo as quickly as possible. It also has the trait that it can minimize if not take back the gained tempo when the partner next is on lead [as by requiring or prohibiting the lead]. I can think of no sensible reason to preclude PC from the declaring side. To say it better, the fair approach is to treat both sides the same as much as possible. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Wed May 31 16:27:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 31 16:29:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060531162215.0271e8b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003701c684be$66176620$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > At 15:33 31/05/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Declarer has also illegally exposed a card but he is in no way able to > >obtain any advantage of this irregularity (unless he thereby manages to > >obtain UI on any defender's hand) > > Or unless we believe he could have deliberately tried to provoke careless > following by an opponent, ie it is obvious the position is blocked. In > this case, L72 "could have known" might apply. Indeed, of course! Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed May 31 17:57:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 31 17:59:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003a01c684ca$f7e8b0c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > From: "Sven Pran" > > ......... > > > What is the appropriate remedy for taking extra turns at play? When a > > > defender does so the remedy includes offering declarer the option that > > the > > > original card be a PC. > > > > No, the options offered to declarer are that the lead out of turn is > > accepted or rejected. It is the consequence of a rejected lead out of > turn > > by a defender that the card becomes a (major) PC. > > > > > > The 1987 revision precluded such an option in any form when the > offense > > > was by the declaring side. > > > > No, defenders have exactly the same options when the lead out ot turn is > > made by the declarer. The difference is that a declarer can never have > any > > PC, a fact that the reason for which should be obvious to everybody. > > > > ** What is so obvious? The issue is difference. Actually, where > fairness > > is concerned, the case is stronger for the opposite- defenders have no > PC. > > It ought to be obvious because the defender has illegally exposed a card > to > his partner which is in a position to take advantage of that for advantage > to the offending side. > > Declarer has also illegally exposed a card but he is in no way able to > obtain any advantage of this irregularity (unless he thereby manages to > obtain UI on any defender's hand) > > > > I, for one, do not see that it is fair to indemnify declarer when he > > takes > > > more turns than allotted; while subjecting defenders that take extra > > turns > > > to penalties that can move a large number of tricks from defender to > > > declarer. > > > > If declarer from his irregularity obtains information on a defender's > hand > > such information is UI to him and the consequence is that TD may award > an > > adjusted score. I cannot see any unfair consequences of these rules? > > > > Regards Sven > > > > Declarer gets 40 turns to play 26 cards and the defenders get 26 turns. > > If declarer used 40 turns to play 26 cards he will long ago have received > a > PP from me as Director! > > Sven > > > > While UI is an issue it is a non sequitar. > > > > When a player acts OOT two effects are immediate- his side has gained > tempo > and the other side has lost tempo. An illustration of the power of tempo > is > in order: some years ago I partnered a man visiting from out of town. I > was not particularly fond of him- especially after he accelerated a slow > moving auction from three to six- off two cashing aces and two cashing > kings. Out of 52 cards in a deck they 'could have led any of 51 > particular > cards' and taken between 4-5 tricks. But he didn't so all the losers but > the trump ace went away. That is the power of a single tempo. When one > side gets extra tempo [thereby taking it away from the opponents] the > playing field has been tilted heavily. > > > > As such, the disruption in the number of turns a player takes has serious > consequences and therefore is serious [and complicated] business. > > > > And imo it is right for the remedy to strain to restore the balance of > tempo > within practicality. One solution that appears appropriate is the PC. It > has the trait of the opponent has already taken a turn with it- and it is > justice that that turn [the play of that particular card] be discharged > sooner [next legal opportunity] rather than later thereby balancing the > tempo as quickly as possible. It also has the trait that it can minimize > if > not take back the gained tempo when the partner next is on lead [as by > requiring or prohibiting the lead]. > > > > I can think of no sensible reason to preclude PC from the declaring side. > To say it better, the fair approach is to treat both sides the same as > much > as possible. I am sorry but I do not understand a single word of what you are expressing here? But IMO the laws on leads out of tempo are both clear, easily applied and fair. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed May 31 18:20:14 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed May 31 18:23:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003a01c684ca$f7e8b0c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:57 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > From: "Sven Pran" > > ......... > > > What is the appropriate remedy for taking extra turns at play? When a > > > defender does so the remedy includes offering declarer the option that > > the > > > original card be a PC. > > > > No, the options offered to declarer are that the lead out of turn is > > accepted or rejected. It is the consequence of a rejected lead out of > turn > > by a defender that the card becomes a (major) PC. > > > > > > The 1987 revision precluded such an option in any form when the > offense > > > was by the declaring side. > > > > No, defenders have exactly the same options when the lead out ot turn is > > made by the declarer. The difference is that a declarer can never have > any > > PC, a fact that the reason for which should be obvious to everybody. > > > > ** What is so obvious? The issue is difference. Actually, where > fairness > > is concerned, the case is stronger for the opposite- defenders have no > PC. > > It ought to be obvious because the defender has illegally exposed a card > to > his partner which is in a position to take advantage of that for advantage > to the offending side. > > Declarer has also illegally exposed a card but he is in no way able to > obtain any advantage of this irregularity (unless he thereby manages to > obtain UI on any defender's hand) > > > > I, for one, do not see that it is fair to indemnify declarer when he > > takes > > > more turns than allotted; while subjecting defenders that take extra > > turns > > > to penalties that can move a large number of tricks from defender to > > > declarer. > > > > If declarer from his irregularity obtains information on a defender's > hand > > such information is UI to him and the consequence is that TD may award > an > > adjusted score. I cannot see any unfair consequences of these rules? > > > > Regards Sven > > > > Declarer gets 40 turns to play 26 cards and the defenders get 26 turns. > > If declarer used 40 turns to play 26 cards he will long ago have received > a > PP from me as Director! > > Sven > > > > While UI is an issue it is a non sequitar. > > > > When a player acts OOT two effects are immediate- his side has gained > tempo > and the other side has lost tempo. An illustration of the power of tempo > is > in order: some years ago I partnered a man visiting from out of town. I > was not particularly fond of him- especially after he accelerated a slow > moving auction from three to six- off two cashing aces and two cashing > kings. Out of 52 cards in a deck they 'could have led any of 51 > particular > cards' and taken between 4-5 tricks. But he didn't so all the losers but > the trump ace went away. That is the power of a single tempo. When one > side gets extra tempo [thereby taking it away from the opponents] the > playing field has been tilted heavily. > > > > As such, the disruption in the number of turns a player takes has serious > consequences and therefore is serious [and complicated] business. > > > > And imo it is right for the remedy to strain to restore the balance of > tempo > within practicality. One solution that appears appropriate is the PC. It > has the trait of the opponent has already taken a turn with it- and it is > justice that that turn [the play of that particular card] be discharged > sooner [next legal opportunity] rather than later thereby balancing the > tempo as quickly as possible. It also has the trait that it can minimize > if > not take back the gained tempo when the partner next is on lead [as by > requiring or prohibiting the lead]. > > > > I can think of no sensible reason to preclude PC from the declaring side. > To say it better, the fair approach is to treat both sides the same as > much > as possible. I am sorry but I do not understand a single word of what you are expressing here? But IMO the laws on leads out of tempo are both clear, easily applied and fair. Sven Some have asserted that is fair to treat the same infraction differently depending upon who does the infracting. I assert that it tends to be less than fair [but mostly, unfair] to give different remedies to different players for the same infraction. In addition, to be considered fair, the remedy itself needs to satisfy the notion of fairness. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Wed May 31 19:41:59 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed May 31 19:43:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003b01c684d9$84cdd750$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick .......... > But IMO the laws on leads out of tempo are both clear, easily applied and > fair. > > Sven > > Some have asserted that is fair to treat the same infraction differently > depending upon who does the infracting. I assert that it tends to be less > than fair [but mostly, unfair] to give different remedies to different > players for the same infraction. In addition, to be considered fair, the > remedy itself needs to satisfy the notion of fairness. There is an extremely significant difference between a defender exposing a card and declarer exposing a card. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to treat these two "infractions" with the same penalty. (Actually, there is no infraction when declarer exposes a card although if he does so with an indication of intent to play that card he may be deemed to having played it.) Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 31 16:52:32 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu Jun 1 09:55:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000101c68550$f1aa8540$dfd2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > adopted in 1987 (perhaps because the members of the > 1987 drafting committee were wimps). > > :-) > > Acceptance of the 1987 deletion of the "same suit" > penalty for declarer's wrongdoing is almost universal. > > I have been a net loser of tricks since the 1987 > change, since I am a non-wimp who hardly ever commits > a mechanical irregularity, but I join others in > believing that that 1987 change to the Laws made the > game of bridge a fairer and more equitable game. > +=+ For comparison I wonder if Richard considers the change to the application of the law adopted in 1998 made the game "fairer and more equitable" ? - Viz: "There was a discussion of the procedure in awarding assigned adjusted scores following an irrularity. A change was made by the Committee in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score." ~ Grattan (wimp, 1987) ~ +=+