From henk at amsterdamned.org Thu Jun 1 01:01:01 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu Jun 1 01:01:02 2006 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From tOM at Abacurial.com Thu Jun 1 08:59:45 2006 From: tOM at Abacurial.com (tOM Trottier) Date: Thu Jun 1 09:01:16 2006 Subject: [games] Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <447E5821.10616.89144CE@tOM.Abacurial.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: TomAndDancer154.jpg Date: 29 May 2006, 17:23 Size: 4530 bytes. Type: Unknown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TomAndDancer154.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4530 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060601/76207cef/TomAndDancer154.obj From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 1 11:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 1 11:58:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm not sure what point is being made here. If declarer deliberately plays from the wrong hand that's an infraction and the TD imposes whatever penalty he sees fit. If declarer accidentally plays from the wrong hand his opponents may accept the lead if such is to their advantage, or decline if not. The declarer will be subject to an adverse adjusted score if either "could have known" or "possible UI gained" apply. OTOH if the suggestion is that all the randomising mechanical penalties be scrapped and replaced with a simple "5% penalty, that's UI to partner and AI to NOS - play on" then I'd agree wholeheartedly. Revoke penalties/PCs/Boots etc range in effect from 0 to 20+ IMPs in fairly random/arbitrary fashion - very silly IMO. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 2 10:07:04 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jun 2 10:08:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c68550$f1aa8540$dfd2403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ 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 irregularity. >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) ~ +=+ WBF Code of Practice, pages 5 and 6: >>The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law >>12C2) is appropriate when a violation of law >>causes damage to an innocent side (although the >>extent of redress to this side may be affected, >>see below, if it has contributed to its own damage >>by irrational, wild or gambling, action >>subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when, >>in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side >>obtains a table result less favourable than would >>have been the expectation in the instant prior to >>the infraction. >> >>If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused >>its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling >>action, it does not receive relief in the >>adjustment for such part of the damage as is self- >>inflicted. The offending side, however, should be >>awarded the score that it would have been allotted >>as the normal consequence of its infraction. A >>revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the >>infraction will affect its own score but again the >>infractor's score is to be adjusted as before >>without regard to the revoke. Richard Hills: The 1998 minute seems to distinguish the concept of "advantage" to the offending side from the concept of "damage" to the non-offending side. It seems to say that an offending side may have gained illegal "advantage" when a non-offending side has not suffered any corresponding "damage", if there is some relevance connecting the "advantage" to the earlier irregularity by the offending side. The Code of Practice, on the other hand, seems to argue that any portion of "damage" self-inflicted by a non-offending side accrues to them, but should not accrue to the benefit of an offending side. Let us look a particular case to clarify the difference in rulings between the 1998 minute and the CoP. Imped teams. At Table 1, the Team A North-South reach 4S, which makes eleven tricks on careful play for +650. At Table 2, the Team B North-South also reach 4S, but the Team A East-West infract Law 16 to reach a cheap 5D save, would give North-South only +300 if they double. North-South correctly bid on to the cold 5S, but then incorrectly misplay to make only ten tricks. As I interpret the 1998 minute, the adjusted score required at Table 2 is a split score of NS -100 and EW -650. As I interpret the CoP, the adjusted score required at Table 2 is a split score of NS +300 and EW -650. My preference would be for neither of the above interpretations, as I consider neither of them "fair and equitable". Rather, I would prefer the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 2 11:42:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 2 11:44:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > As I interpret the 1998 minute, the adjusted score > required at Table 2 is a split score of NS -100 > and EW -650. > > As I interpret the CoP, the adjusted score > required at Table 2 is a split score of NS +300 > and EW -650. I think you are misinterpreting both. Whatever score is assigned must be based on a contract of 4S so awarding NS -100/+300 assumes only 9 tricks in that contract. > My preference would be for neither of the above > interpretations, as I consider neither of them > "fair and equitable". Rather, I would prefer > the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split > adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620. Whereas I would assign a L12c3 score of: 20% of 650, 80% of 620 to both sides on the grounds that there is some chance that in the less pressured contract of 4S the lead may have been more helpful and/or the misplay not occurred. Of course this might annoy Nigel because the L12c3 ruling is more beneficial to NOS than the L12c2 ruling would have been and he might have to stop making assertions about L12c3 requiring TDs to be overly generous to OS. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jun 2 12:06:52 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri Jun 2 12:18:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44800DBC.6030000@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: [snip] > > Imped teams. > > At Table 1, the Team A North-South reach 4S, which > makes eleven tricks on careful play for +650. > > At Table 2, the Team B North-South also reach 4S, > but the Team A East-West infract Law 16 to reach a > cheap 5D save, would give North-South only +300 if > they double. North-South correctly bid on to the > cold 5S, but then incorrectly misplay to make only > ten tricks. > > As I interpret the 1998 minute, the adjusted score > required at Table 2 is a split score of NS -100 > and EW -650. > > As I interpret the CoP, the adjusted score > required at Table 2 is a split score of NS +300 > and EW -650. > > My preference would be for neither of the above > interpretations, as I consider neither of them > "fair and equitable". Rather, I would prefer > the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split > adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620. > I think the correct handling of this case depends on what Richard means with the word "careful" in his first sentence above. If the eleventh trick is made on a finesse, then surely everyone will agree that the AS should be +620. If OTOH the eleventh trick has dissapeared because of a revoke, the AS (for NS) should remain at -100. I'm not sure about EW. In all cases in between, the AC will have a difficult decision to make. Let's consider the case of a finesse, or maybe better of a complicated play requiring a choice of which suit to attack first, with a failure rate of 30%. I would like to compare the AS for a pair going down in 5S with the one for a pair who do not bid the 5S to begin with. If they do not bid 5S, they will get a weighted AS of 30% of +620 and 70% of +650. If they bid it and make it, they will keep their +650. If they bid it and don't make it, what do we give them? If we let them keep their -100 ("you should have made it") then they are worse off than by playing 5D. But if we give them +620, their "exepceted" score before bidding 5S is the same as their "adjusted" score if they don't. Which means it is neutral for them, and they can play "good bridge", expecting the opponents to have been ethical in their bidding of 5D. Incidentally, this also proves that the weighted score is a good thing. Americans, beware of L12C3 in Verona, you'll see a lot of it! (and maybe you'll see that it's a good thing too) Oh, and incidentally, that applies to Australians as well. Hope to see many of you next week! > > 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: 268.8.1/354 - Release Date: 1/06/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 2 13:55:58 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jun 2 13:49:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44800DBC.6030000@hdw.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060602134358.02072100@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:06 2/06/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Let's consider the case of a finesse, or maybe better of a complicated >play requiring a choice of which suit to attack first, with a failure rate >of 30%. > >I would like to compare the AS for a pair going down in 5S with the one >for a pair who do not bid the 5S to begin with. If the line of play expected from the NOS is "complicated", I would decide that missing it is definitely not "failing to play bridge", and award them the score they would have got if there had been no infraction, i.e. +620. This is equity. And in any case of doubt (ie, Was missing this line an egregious error or not ? Perhaps), I would restore +620. If we act otherwise, we would sooner or later encounter a case where declarer played in a strange way to cater for the case where the opponents' action *was* ethical (freak hand), and you'll tell him his line was inferior because it didn't cater for "ordinary" cases, so you don't adjust. This looks pretty wrong. If we have to look harsh to one side or the other (and in the case described by Richard, we have), I'd rather be harsh to the OS. BTA I've always been known to out-herod Herod in L16A and L23 cases. Regards, Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 2 14:07:57 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Jun 2 14:09:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ 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 irregularity. >>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) ~ +=+ > > WBF Code of Practice, pages 5 and 6: > >>>The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law >>>12C2) is appropriate when a violation of law >>>causes damage to an innocent side (although the >>>extent of redress to this side may be affected, >>>see below, if it has contributed to its own damage >>>by irrational, wild or gambling, action >>>subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when, >>>in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side >>>obtains a table result less favourable than would >>>have been the expectation in the instant prior to >>>the infraction. >>> >>>If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused >>>its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling >>>action, it does not receive relief in the >>>adjustment for such part of the damage as is self- >>>inflicted. The offending side, however, should be >>>awarded the score that it would have been allotted >>>as the normal consequence of its infraction. A >>>revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the >>>infraction will affect its own score but again the >>>infractor's score is to be adjusted as before >>>without regard to the revoke. > > Richard Hills: > > The 1998 minute seems to distinguish the concept of > "advantage" to the offending side from the concept > of "damage" to the non-offending side. It seems to > say that an offending side may have gained illegal > "advantage" when a non-offending side has not > suffered any corresponding "damage", if there is > some relevance connecting the "advantage" to the > earlier irregularity by the offending side. > > The Code of Practice, on the other hand, seems to > argue that any portion of "damage" self-inflicted > by a non-offending side accrues to them, but should > not accrue to the benefit of an offending side. > > Let us look a particular case to clarify the > difference in rulings between the 1998 minute and > the CoP. > > Imped teams. > > At Table 1, the Team A North-South reach 4S, which > makes eleven tricks on careful play for +650. > > At Table 2, the Team B North-South also reach 4S, > but the Team A East-West infract Law 16 to reach a > cheap 5D save, would give North-South only +300 if > they double. North-South correctly bid on to the > cold 5S, but then incorrectly misplay to make only > ten tricks. > > As I interpret the 1998 minute, the adjusted score > required at Table 2 is a split score of NS -100 > and EW -650. > > As I interpret the CoP, the adjusted score > required at Table 2 is a split score of NS +300 > and EW -650. > > My preference would be for neither of the above > interpretations, as I consider neither of them > "fair and equitable". Rather, I would prefer > the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split > adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae To be equitable it seems to me that the whole pie should be divided between the players that are contesting it. There seems something inequitable about ruling you [NOS] get 33% of the pie and you [OS] get 0% of the pie and the Governor of Iksbadstaad gets 67% to make illegal campaign contributions to Congress [you know which one]. The problem being what recipe to use that finds equity. There is a way to divide the pie equitably. Estimate [a 'weighted'] score that the NOS would likely feel they earned given their agreements, the cards, and what the four players have done. Then, estimate [a 'weighted'] score that the OS would likely feel they earned given their agreements, the cards, and what the four players have done. Then pick a spot between the two where you estimate that neither side would feel inclined to appeal. And tell both sides if one or both disagree either can appeal** with the following ground rules. The appealing side[s] pick one result [or one set of weighted results] that reflects what each side has earned and justify it to an AC. If convincing then both sides get that score. If not convincing then the ruling stands for the other side and your side gets the least favorable result that was at all probable. **An appeal can made to increase- or decrease their score [as when a side feels that the ruling was too generous and they want to avoid an even larger reduction should the other side appeal]. regards roger pewick From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jun 2 18:24:28 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jun 2 18:26:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 Message-ID: <7ABB9007-BCF4-478D-8942-A89E560207E6@rochester.rr.com> Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50)." Can anyone explain to me why declarer, rather than the TD, gets to decide whether such a card is a penalty card? In practice, has any TD ever offered this option to declarer? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jun 2 23:21:54 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri Jun 2 23:23:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: <7ABB9007-BCF4-478D-8942-A89E560207E6@rochester.rr.com> References: <7ABB9007-BCF4-478D-8942-A89E560207E6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4480ABF2.2070809@t-online.de> Hello Ed, Ed Reppert schrieb: > Law 24: "When the Director determines, during the auction, that > because of a player's action one or more cards of that player's hand > were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director > shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until > the auction closes; and (penalty) if the offender subsequently becomes > a defender, declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law > 50)." this is possibly thr most stupid law in the book, insofar as I am at a loss to comprehend how any declarer could choose not to treat it as a penalty card. Only if I do not want the suit to be led by an opening leader having a penalty card could this make any sense at all, but any thinking defender will now lead the suit anyway (probably much faster than he would have done otherwise), and this time with a systemic card, and not a more or less random one. A couple of years ago Max Bavin explained to me that the current L24 is only the remnant of a longer L24, and that part of the former text has been cut, leaving today`s version, leading to vertain difficulties to understand why it is there. Not being in possession of those older versions of the laws I have to take his word for it (anyone know where to get them?). > > Can anyone explain to me why declarer, rather than the TD, gets to > decide whether such a card is a penalty card? See above. Another reasoning may be that declarer should have the chance to make the most of it, but see above again. > In practice, has any TD ever offered this option to declarer? Yes (raises his hand). I expect it to happen again around 2015, players not being very prone to produce such penalty cards. Have a nice weekend Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 2 23:32:06 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Jun 2 23:33:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <7ABB9007-BCF4-478D-8942-A89E560207E6@rochester.rr.com> <4480ABF2.2070809@t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > Hello Ed, > > Not being in possession of those older versions of the laws I have to > take his word for it (anyone know where to get them?). I'm a bit busy now but I do have versions back to 1949. roger pewick > Have a nice weekend > Matthias From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 1 10:28:33 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri Jun 2 23:43:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000601c683cb$c1323290$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000201c6868d$67b406c0$80e8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 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. << +=+ One of my fonder reminiscences comes from the early 1950's. Playing, as a callow youth, in a district tournament against a couple of seasoned local players I required four tricks from A Q x in dummy and in hand K 10 x.x.. I led the third round of the suit towards K 10, RHO played smoothly and then I saw that LHO already had a card in hand to contribute .I switched my play from K to 10, noted by RHO who, as we scored nine tricks in 3NT, enquired about my change of card and why. "Well", I explained, "I had to decide whether the Knave was in your partner's hand or in his chair." ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jun 3 01:20:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jun 3 01:22:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: <4480ABF2.2070809@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > this is possibly thr most stupid law in the book, insofar as I am at > a loss to comprehend how any declarer could choose not to treat it as > a penalty card. Well, whenever the exposure was due to the infirmity of my LHO perhaps. Personally I resent the laws which forbid me (as NOS) to waive penalties against the opposition (at least if the TD imposes any greater restriction on "for cause" than "because I asked"). Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 3 03:12:29 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Jun 3 03:14:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <7ABB9007-BCF4-478D-8942-A89E560207E6@rochester.rr.com> <4480ABF2.2070809@t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 A couple of years ago Max Bavin > explained to me that the current L24 is only the remnant of a longer L24, > and that part of the former text has been cut, leaving today`s version, > leading to vertain difficulties to understand why it is there. Not being > in possession of those older versions of the laws I have to take his word > for it (anyone know where to get them?). > Have a nice weekend > Matthias 1963 23. CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION Whenever, during the auction, a player faces a card on the table or holds a card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face, the Director must require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and: (a) If it is a single card below the rank of an honor and not prematurely led, there is no penalty, and when the auction closes the card may be picked up. (b) If it is a single card of honor rank, or any card prematurely led, or if more than one card is so exposed, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call; and if the offender subsequently be?comes a defender declarer may treat every such card as a penalty card (Law 50) 1949 CARD EXPOSED DURING THE AUCTION 26. If during the auction a player faces a card on the table, or sees the face of a card belonging to his partner: (a) If an Ace, King, Queen or Jack, or a lower card prematurely led, or more than one card;* (penalty) the owner's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Every such card must be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and if its owner is then a defender, it becomes a penalty card. (b) If a single card, lower than a Jack and not prematurely led, there is no penalty. * If two (or more) cards are faced or seen at different times, clause (a) applies to both of them even though one has been picked up as provided in clause (b). 1933 LAW No. 29 Cards Exposed During the Auction (a) Exposing a single card of less than honor rank, without intent to lead. Penalty: If the offender becomes an adversary, Declarer may elect (1) to treat the card exposed as exposed during the play, or (2) to prohibit the offender's partner from making his first lead in the suit of the exposed card. (b) Exposing a card of honor rank, or any two cards, or any card with intent to lead. Penalty: An opponent* may elect (1) to bar the offender's partner from the auction, or (2) to treat the card or cards as exposed, or (3) in case the offender becomes an adversary, to call the lead of any designated suit when first it becomes an adversary's turn to lead. * The left-hand opponent has the first right to select a penalty, but may refer the selection to his partner. (See Law No. 44.) From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 3 13:43:41 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jun 3 13:45:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: Message-ID: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > Matthias wrote: > >> this is possibly thr most stupid law in the book, insofar as I am at >> a loss to comprehend how any declarer could choose not to treat it as >> a penalty card. > > Well, whenever the exposure was due to the infirmity of my LHO perhaps. > Personally I resent the laws which forbid me (as NOS) to waive penalties > against the opposition (at least if the TD imposes any greater > restriction on "for cause" than "because I asked"). It came up that I was telling a story to Espen and he made a OBOOT, which I didn't feel I should profit from as it was my distraction that may have caused it. The TD I summoned (not incompetent) was not inclined to waive the penalty and told us he had an urgent subsequent appointment and we could play a game not entirely unlike Contract Bridge under the 1997 laws if we chose in his absence. Given he didn't want to allow the penalty to be waived, I think he did very well. I then had a word with Max about "for cause". Max felt that "because I want to" is insufficient, but that "I was distracting him" would be. I'm sure also he'd permit "because he's infirm" - his take was that you don't need *much* of a reason. cheers John > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Sat Jun 3 14:10:32 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Jun 3 14:12:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: > > > Matthias wrote: > > > >> this is possibly thr most stupid law in the book, insofar as I am at > >> a loss to comprehend how any declarer could choose not to treat it as > >> a penalty card. > > Careful, Matthias, when you write something like the above, you open the question as to where stupidity may exist. "Insofar as I am at a loss to comprehend" could easily be construed as a failure on your part and not on the Law. Kojak From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Jun 4 00:23:32 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun Jun 4 00:25:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de> WILLIAM SCHODER schrieb: > > > >>> Matthias wrote: >>> >>> >>>> this is possibly thr most stupid law in the book, insofar as I am at >>>> a loss to comprehend how any declarer could choose not to treat it as >>>> a penalty card. >>>> > > Careful, Matthias, when you write something like the above, you open the > question as to where stupidity may exist. "Insofar as I am at a loss to > comprehend" could easily be construed as a failure on your part and not on > the Law. > > Kojak > > Sure, no queation about that. I have been completely blind before and expect to be again and again. I try to hold the number of occasions down, but you know how it is, being human and so on... To return to L24, "stupid" probably was an overbid, but I sure think it is redundant, because an event that would want me to have the penalty waived (distraction, infirmity, there may be others) can be handled by way of other laws. We used to have an elderly lady member who needed a strong source of light at the table and tended to drop a card now and then.. This was carefully ignored by all players at the table. Since nobody drew attention to an irrgularity..... Well, you sure don`t need my explanation. To summarize my position: As far as I can see L24 doesn`t give declarer a winning option (over and above the resulting advantage from the penalty card). If there is a reason why it shouldn`t be a penalty card, well, there are other ways. Whether being redundant (but not in conflict with other laws) is a bad thing is a matter of taste. I would like to avoid such things, but since redundancy sometimes is a matter of opinion and is not always easily definable it sure would be difficult to avoid it. So I resign myself to thr fact that my opinion or taste is not the only one and get on with it. On sober reflection I retract my earlier statement. L24 is not the most stupid in the TFLB. It does no harm. I still feel that it isn`t needed, but if the worst laws we meet are redundant ones (in bridge or otherwise) the world would be a happier place. If you doubt that statement I invite you to have a look at german tax laws... Matthias From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Jun 4 02:49:37 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun Jun 4 02:51:08 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000001c68770$c1a794b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Playing recently in a competition The bididng goes 1D 2D 3C 4C 4H 5D 2D inverted 3C IP nat - denies a major stop 4C nat 4H was described as a heart cue when asked. We had 2S's + singleton HK to lose. 3NT was actually the spot. Anyway ... LHO didn't try to cash his HA because "a heart cue" was void or ace. Cue for me is A,K,x or void. He called the TD and claimed he was misinformed ... was he ? Karel From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 4 10:26:09 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jun 4 10:27:42 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000001c68770$c1a794b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <000001c687b0$885ae550$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel > Playing recently in a competition > > The bididng goes > > 1D 2D > 3C 4C > 4H 5D > > > 2D inverted > 3C IP nat - denies a major stop > 4C nat > 4H was described as a heart cue when asked. > > > We had 2S's + singleton HK to lose. 3NT was actually the spot. Anyway > ... > LHO didn't try to cash his HA because "a heart cue" was void or ace. Cue > for me is A,K,x or void. He called the TD and claimed he was misinformed > ... was he ? Possibly. "Cue bid" is an incomplete description because cue bids come in two different styles: "First control first" or "first and second controls mixed". In this case much depends on exactly how the description was requested. If done properly then the 4H bid should be described as "shows first or second control", possibly elaborated as "void, singleton, Ace or guarded King". If the request simply was: "Is 4H cue bid?" then "yes" is a perfectly correct answer to an improper question! Regards Sven From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Sun Jun 4 10:36:23 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Sun Jun 4 10:37:55 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" References: <000001c68770$c1a794b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <000d01c687b1$f75790b0$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Sounds like it was a 'splinter' not a Cue which I read as first round control, not a singleton. Whether there was misinformation depends on their agreements, Either it was MI or 4H was a misbid in their system. It also depends on how the word 'cue' is used in the area of the problem. AKX would be described as 'double stop' where I am(UK), and the man looking at A would know it is working. However if AH would drop singleton K, I wonder that 3NT is making on that auction. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel" To: "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:49 AM Subject: [blml] The term "cue" > > Playing recently in a competition > > The bididng goes > > 1D 2D > 3C 4C > 4H 5D > > > 2D inverted > 3C IP nat - denies a major stop > 4C nat > 4H was described as a heart cue when asked. > > > We had 2S's + singleton HK to lose. 3NT was actually the spot. Anyway > ... > LHO didn't try to cash his HA because "a heart cue" was void or ace. Cue > for me is A,K,x or void. He called the TD and claimed he was misinformed > ... was he ? > > Karel > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 4 13:23:18 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun Jun 4 13:30:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> <44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de> Message-ID: <006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > Sure, no queation about that. I have been > completely blind before and expect to be > again and again. I try to hold the number > of occasions down, but you know how it > is, being human and so on... <<< +=+ Some of the subscribers on here are CTDs of NBOs, major Directors in NBOs having no formally appointed CTD, or senior advisors on the application of the laws in their own countries or regions. Some are simply isolated from counsel on the interpretation and application of laws - even, I am advised, in certain NBOs that we think of as being to the forefront of the game. When such as these find the law book confusing, or leaving a question in their minds, I prefer not to respond in terms of deprecation of the individual. There are a number of places in the law book where the player is given options following an irregularity; I see no reason why it should not be so here - the player may think it of possible advantage to himself in the play of the hand, or socially in some environments, and I have no quibble with that. Indeed it is my opinion that where alternatives are possible players should be given opportunity to judge their own advantage as often as may be following an opponent's infraction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jun 4 15:31:51 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun Jun 4 16:22:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de> <006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred> Message-ID: <007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> question about L 24: may treat such card as a P.C. >. There are a > number of places in the law book where > the player is given options following an > irregularity; I see no reason why it should > not be so here - the player may think it of > possible advantage to himself in the play > of the hand, or socially in some environments, > and I have no quibble with that. Indeed it is > my opinion that where alternatives are possible > players should be given opportunity to judge > their own advantage as often as may be > following an opponent's infraction. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I consider this 'may' as an omission int he laws. And in my country TD's are taught to treat such card as a P.C. And if the lawmakers (long ago) wanted to give declarer an option, they should have described what to do with such card in case declarer doesn't want it to be dealt with as a P.C. So omissions everywhere. ton From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 4 20:36:03 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Jun 4 20:37:41 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000001c687b0$885ae550$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c687b0$885ae550$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If the request simply was: "Is 4H cue bid?" then "yes" is a perfectly > correct answer to an improper question! Not in the ACBL, where "any question should trigger a complete description of the partnership agreement". :-) I do agree it's an improper question, and I do wish players would learn to ask *proper* questions - but they won't. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jun 4 20:38:39 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun Jun 4 20:40:15 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000d01c687b1$f75790b0$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> References: <000001c68770$c1a794b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> <000d01c687b1$f75790b0$ca590d52@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2006, at 4:36 AM, Anne Jones wrote: > Sounds like it was a 'splinter' not a Cue which I read as first round > control, not a singleton. Whether there was misinformation depends > on their > agreements, Either it was MI or 4H was a misbid in their system. It > also > depends on how the word 'cue' is used in the area of the problem. > AKX would > be described as 'double stop' where I am(UK), and the man looking > at A would > know it is working. > However if AH would drop singleton K, I wonder that 3NT is making > on that > auction. If you define "splinter" as a bid showing a singleton or void, and "cue bid" as a bid showing first (or first or second) round control, then a cue bid might also be a splinter. :-) IAC, if the intent of the bid were to show control, rather than specifically shortage, I would call it a cue bid. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 4 20:51:10 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jun 4 20:52:46 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c68807$d87f7c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jun 4, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > If the request simply was: "Is 4H cue bid?" then "yes" is a perfectly > > correct answer to an improper question! > > Not in the ACBL, where "any question should trigger a complete > description of the partnership agreement". :-) > > I do agree it's an improper question, and I do wish players would > learn to ask *proper* questions - but they won't. A question shall be for explanation of the whole auction (so far), not of any specific call made. (Law 20F1). I do not know the ACBL regulations but either they should accept "yes" or "no" as an answer to an improper question where such answers appear adequate, or they should request that the answer to any question related to the auction or part thereof, whether improper or not, to be a _complete_ explanation of the entire auction (so far)? Do they? A specific question related to a particular call is a violation of Law 20F1 and must be considered equivalent to an extraneous remark. Any answer that directly addresses such a question should IMO be considered adequate. Regards Sven From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Jun 4 23:48:15 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun Jun 4 23:49:45 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000901c68807$d87f7c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c68820$95e8c9b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> ++ 1D 2D 3C 4C 4H 5D On this sequence 3C has in principle denied a heart stopper so the subsequent cue bid "should" be based on shortage. 4H is not a splinter. It shows a control. So I suppose what I am asking .. are the terms control and cue bid the same (ie) ace, king, void or singleton. If not then it means the answer "yes" to "is 4H a cue" was incorrect. > > If the request simply was: "Is 4H cue bid?" then "yes" is a perfectly > > correct answer to an improper question! > > Not in the ACBL, where "any question should trigger a complete > description of the partnership agreement". :-) > > I do agree it's an improper question, and I do wish players would > learn to ask *proper* questions - but they won't. Karel From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Jun 5 00:15:08 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Jun 5 00:16:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000901c68807$d87f7c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000301c68824$577d7dc0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Ok 2 parter - no peeking :>> Teams S QTx H A98x D AQx C AQT bidding proceeds 2S* 3H 4D ?? * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) Your call ... see wayyy below for continuation Ok now what actually happened Teams North S Jxxxx H KJxxxx D K C K South S QTx H A98x D AQx C AQT bidding North South 2S* 2H(3H)** 4D 4H all pass * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) ** Insufficient bid. Apparnetly thought the bid was 1S. Td called. Bid not accepted. 3H was bid after enquiring what the 2S meant. Result 4H making on a claim after D lead (H's are 3/0 and declarer didnt dump 4 spades on the minors). The opps call the td and say that 3H over a weak 2 bid generally shows a decent hand. South KNEW from the ui that this particular 3H's was alot weaker as North intended to bid 2H over 1S and not over 2S. They felt over a "normal" 3H bid South had far too much not to pursue a slam and would infact bid it after North showed 1 key card + the increased likelihood of N's values being in the majors given the weak 2 minor opener. They felt the score should be adjusted to 6H-1 as South had acted on the UI. Extraneous info. N/S play weak 2D/2H/2S ... (it was suggested that N may have missed the opening bid all together) Several pairs did bid the slam after a pass, 1H opening by North. N/S played RKC The committee allowed the result to stand. Comments ? Karel From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 5 00:30:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 5 00:32:32 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000201c68820$95e8c9b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <000a01c68826$8d5572c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel > ++ > > 1D 2D > 3C 4C > 4H 5D > > On this sequence 3C has in principle denied a heart stopper so the > subsequent cue bid "should" be based on shortage. 4H is not a > splinter. It shows a control. So I suppose what I am asking > .. are the terms control and cue bid the same (ie) ace, king, void > or singleton. If not then it means the answer "yes" to "is 4H a cue" > was incorrect. As a director I would usually expect "control" in this context to mean a stopper when playing in NT and "cue" to indicate a stopper when playing with trumps. Thus a single King is hardly a "control" but it can justify a cuebid. However there are many conventions where an Ace is two controls and a King is one control, so the term "control" is by no means unambiguous. I still maintain that if the question was made in such a way as to ignore any interest in the 3C bid and only ask about the 4H bid then the damage is very much self inflected. But we still do not know the necessary details on what really happened. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 5 01:03:50 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 5 01:05:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44800DBC.6030000@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>My preference would be for neither of the above >>interpretations, as I consider neither of them >>"fair and equitable". Rather, I would prefer >>the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split >>adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620. Herman De Wael: >I think the correct handling of this case depends >on what Richard means with the word "careful" in >his first sentence above. > >If the eleventh trick is made on a finesse, then >surely everyone will agree that the AS should be >+620. > >If OTOH the eleventh trick has disappeared because >of a revoke, the AS (for NS) should remain at >-100. I'm not sure about EW. > >In all cases in between, the AC will have a >difficult decision to make. [snip] Richard Hills: I disagree. My point of view is that without the infraction of Law 16 by East-West, the contract would have been 4S. Careless play by North-South in 4S, resulting in ten tricks rather than the normal eleven, costs North-South one imp. However, careless play by North-South in the higher contract of 5S costs thirteen imps. The potential damage to North-South if they play carelessly has therefore been increased by twelve imps due to the East-West infraction of illegally bidding 5D after use of UI, thus pushing the North-South contract to a level where a mistake is more costly. Therefore, from my point of view it is irrelevant whether the North-South carelessness is due to a failure to finesse or due to a revoke. In either case the cost to North-South and the benefit to East-West has been increased by a net of twelve imps due to the East-West infraction, so it is that net of twelve imps which should be restored by a fair and equitable non-split adjusted score. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 5 01:33:07 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 5 01:34:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000301c68824$577d7dc0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <000c01c6882f$3c8f42e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel > Sent: 5. juni 2006 00:15 > To: 'blml' > Subject: [blml] Your call > > Ok 2 parter - no peeking :>> > > Teams > > S QTx > H A98x > D AQx > C AQT > > bidding proceeds > > 2S* 3H 4D ?? > > * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) > > Your call ... First comment: Why hide the vulnerabilities? > Ok now what actually happened > > > Teams > > North > S Jxxxx > H KJxxxx > D K > C K > > > South > S QTx > H A98x > D AQx > C AQT > > bidding > > North South > 2S* 2H(3H)** 4D 4H > all pass > > * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) > > ** Insufficient bid. Apparnetly thought the bid was 1S. Td called. Bid > not accepted. 3H was bid after enquiring what the 2S meant. Result 4H > making on a claim after D lead (H's are 3/0 and declarer didnt dump 4 > spades > on the minors). > > The opps call the td and say that 3H over a weak 2 bid generally shows a > decent hand. What opponents feel that the 2H bid or 3H bid should show is not relevant? North/South play their own system not their opponents' system > South KNEW from the ui that this particular 3H's was alot > weaker as North intended to bid 2H over 1S and not over 2S. Is this a fact? In case it is another fact that has been hidden from us. > They felt > over > a "normal" 3H bid South had far too much not to pursue a slam and would > infact bid it after North showed 1 key card + the increased likelihood of > N's values being in the majors given the weak 2 minor opener. They felt > the > score should be adjusted to 6H-1 as South had acted on the UI. They have a point here, but whether it is strong enough to warrant an adjusted score is for the Director (and in case the AC) to decide. I am not so sure I would have adjusted. > Extraneous info. > N/S play weak 2D/2H/2S ... (it was suggested that N may have missed the > opening bid all together) So what? > Several pairs did bid the slam after a pass, 1H opening by North. > N/S played RKC Again: So what? > > > The committee allowed the result to stand. Comments ? On the available facts I tend to agree with the AC. Regards sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 5 01:45:12 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 5 01:46:47 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000901c68807$d87f7c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c68807$d87f7c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I do not know the ACBL regulations but either they should accept > "yes" or > "no" as an answer to an improper question where such answers appear > adequate, or they should request that the answer to any question > related to > the auction or part thereof, whether improper or not, to be a > _complete_ > explanation of the entire auction (so far)? Do they? No. > A specific question related to a particular call is a violation of > Law 20F1 > and must be considered equivalent to an extraneous remark. Any > answer that > directly addresses such a question should IMO be considered adequate. Hm. So the procedure specified in the ACBL Alert Regulation (http:// www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html) is illegal? What does the Norwegian Alert Regulation require? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 5 02:02:22 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 5 02:03:57 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000201c68820$95e8c9b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <000201c68820$95e8c9b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <33DE60CB-152A-4D45-8BF6-DFE53D4CC0C3@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 4, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Karel wrote: > 1D 2D > 3C 4C > 4H 5D > > On this sequence 3C has in principle denied a heart stopper so the > subsequent cue bid "should" be based on shortage. 4H is not a > splinter. It > shows a control. So I suppose what I am asking > .. are the terms control and cue bid the same (ie) ace, king, void or > singleton. If not then it means the answer "yes" to "is 4H a cue" was > incorrect. The Bridge World suggests that the term "cue bid" should be limited to a bid in a contested auction of a suit bid or shown by the opposing side, and that a bid that indicates a control in a specific suit should be called a "control bid". Given these definitions, the answer to the question was indeed incorrect - but the Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th edition, 2001) defines "cue bid" as "a forcing bid in a suit in which the bidder cannot wish to play". By *that* definition, the answer was correct. Personally, I prefer The Bridge World's definitions, but the Encyclopedia's definition has been around about as long as bridge, so far as I know, and so The Bridge World is, IMO, fighting an uphill battle, at best. IAC, I do not believe that a TD should rule that the answer given to the question asked is incorrect - though he might rule that it is incomplete, given that one is supposed to explain what a call *means*, not what it's called (c.f. Law 75C, Law 40B, and SO regulations regarding explanations). :-) From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 5 09:43:52 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 5 09:45:27 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c68873$cad57080$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jun 4, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I do not know the ACBL regulations but either they should accept > > "yes" or > > "no" as an answer to an improper question where such answers appear > > adequate, or they should request that the answer to any question > > related to > > the auction or part thereof, whether improper or not, to be a > > _complete_ > > explanation of the entire auction (so far)? Do they? > > No. > > > A specific question related to a particular call is a violation of > > Law 20F1 > > and must be considered equivalent to an extraneous remark. Any > > answer that > > directly addresses such a question should IMO be considered adequate. > > Hm. So the procedure specified in the ACBL Alert Regulation (http:// > www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html) is illegal? What does the > Norwegian Alert Regulation require? No, I definitely do not think it is illegal, but I might think it is naive? I am not aware of any Norwegian regulation on this matter, we have the laws. Regards Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jun 5 10:05:15 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon Jun 5 10:06:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4483E5BB.4000207@hdw.be> I don't particularly disagree with Richard, but I would like to point out a flaw in his reasoning. See below. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > > >>>My preference would be for neither of the above >>>interpretations, as I consider neither of them >>>"fair and equitable". Rather, I would prefer >>>the Laws to mandate a fair and equitable non-split >>>adjusted score at Table 2 of NS +620 and EW -620. > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>I think the correct handling of this case depends >>on what Richard means with the word "careful" in >>his first sentence above. >> >>If the eleventh trick is made on a finesse, then >>surely everyone will agree that the AS should be >>+620. >> >>If OTOH the eleventh trick has disappeared because >>of a revoke, the AS (for NS) should remain at >>-100. I'm not sure about EW. >> >>In all cases in between, the AC will have a >>difficult decision to make. > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree. > > My point of view is that without the infraction of > Law 16 by East-West, the contract would have been > 4S. > > Careless play by North-South in 4S, resulting in > ten tricks rather than the normal eleven, costs > North-South one imp. > > However, careless play by North-South in the > higher contract of 5S costs thirteen imps. The > potential damage to North-South if they play > carelessly has therefore been increased by twelve > imps due to the East-West infraction of illegally > bidding 5D after use of UI, thus pushing the > North-South contract to a level where a mistake is > more costly. You said it Richard, the potential damage. Before the infraction, the expected score for NS was +620 or +650. After the infraction, the expected score for NS was -100 or +650. It is this change of expectation which EW should reimburse. I would not mind seeing a change in the laws which would give NS a reimbursement of (X%) of -720 + (100-X%) of 0, regardless of the outcome of 5S. Yes, that would give this NS, if they make 11 tricks, a better result than all other NS's. But the NS that makes only 10 tricks should not be reimbursed for the full 11th. > > Therefore, from my point of view it is irrelevant > whether the North-South carelessness is due to a > failure to finesse or due to a revoke. In either > case the cost to North-South and the benefit to > East-West has been increased by a net of twelve > imps due to the East-West infraction, so it is > that net of twelve imps which should be restored > by a fair and equitable non-split adjusted score. > From my point of view it is irrelevant as well. Only the frequency with which the contract goes down will change. > > 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: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 2/06/2006 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jun 5 10:17:07 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jun 5 11:45:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred> <007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@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: "Ton Kooijman" To: ; "blml" Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > question about > L 24: may treat such card as a P.C. > > >. There are a > > number of places in the law book where > > the player is given options following an > > irregularity; I see no reason why it should > > not be so here - the player may think it of > > possible advantage to himself in the play > > of the hand, or socially in some environments, > > and I have no quibble with that. Indeed it is > > my opinion that where alternatives are possible > > players should be given opportunity to judge > > their own advantage as often as may be > > following an opponent's infraction. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > I consider this 'may' as an omission in the laws. And in > my country TD's are taught to treat such card as a P.C. > > And if the lawmakers (long ago) wanted to give declarer > an option, they should have described what to do with > such card in case declarer doesn't want it to be dealt > with as a P.C. So omissions everywhere. > > ton > +=+ I agree that this law does not sit well with Law 50. It may be that Law 24 is aberrant; equally well it may be that the aberration is the omission of words "except as Law 24 allows" in Law 50. Since each Law stands equally with each other Law, Sponsoring Organizations may determine how they will apply Law 24 in the absence of guidance from a higher level. If a card is not treated as a PC the card is not a penalty card and Law 50 does not apply to it. It is then open to deem Law 16A applicable to information from exposure of the card. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jun 5 14:23:28 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon Jun 5 14:25:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: > > from Grattan Endicott > > +=+ I agree that this law does not sit well with Law 50. > It may be that Law 24 is aberrant; equally well it may be > that the aberration is the omission of words "except as > Law 24 allows" in Law 50. > Since each Law stands equally with each other Law, Sponsoring > Organizations > may determine how they will apply Law 24 in the absence > of guidance from a higher level. If a card is not treated as > a PC the card is not a penalty card and Law 50 does not > apply to it. It is then open to deem Law 16A applicable > to information from exposure of the card. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have trouble with the foregoing. For over 50 years I have been taught that when there exists a specific Law dealing with an infraction it takes precedence over any other Law which may appear to apply. Now I find categorically stated that all Laws "......stands equally with each other law....." which is, to me, is a personal opinion in conflict with years of usage. I fail to see any aberration in Law 24, or 50. When the declarer deems ".....such card a penalty card....." then Law 50 applies in which part C invokes the provisions of Law 16A. I find it presumptuous for the TD to decide on applying Law 16A on his own recognizance when the declarer has specifically decided not to, and find no justification for a Sponsoring Organizations right to decide otherwise. Kojak. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 5 15:42:11 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 5 15:43:48 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000001c68873$cad57080$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c68873$cad57080$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F6C8974-A149-49A8-BA4D-123473EB22A9@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:43 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I am not aware of any Norwegian regulation on this matter, we have > the laws. Hm. Norway does not have an "Alert" regulation, specifying certain calls to which attention must be drawn so that opponents will be aware they might want to ask questions? I suppose such a regulation might say that questions must be IAW Law 20, so that after an alert, one must request an explanation of the entire auction, but that seems naive to me - if a question is asked immediately after an alert, it seems extremely likely that the questioner is interested in the meaning of the alerted call. OTOH, I suppose an alert regulation need not, in itself, say anything about the form of questions engendered by an alert, leaving it, as you say, up to the laws. This is, it seems to me, a knotty problem, since the laws try to reduce the amount of UI generated by questions and answers to questions by not pinpointing (at first, at least) specific calls, while all the alert regulations of which I'm aware allow* (or require, depending on how you look at it) questions to *start* by pinpointing a specific call. I would think we would want to resolve this conflict somehow, but apparently the lawmakers, at least in the ACBL, don't agree. *I just looked at the WBF alert reg - it says simply that certain calls should be alerted - it says nothing about either the form of the alert or the form of questions asked in response to the alert - it does say that the spirit as well as the letter of both the laws and the alert regulation must be followed. I suppose that could be read as an oblique reference to Law 20. I wonder how, in practice, things are done in WBF events. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jun 5 15:21:00 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon Jun 5 16:07:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> . I find it presumptuous for the TD to > decide on applying Law 16A on his own recognizance when the declarer has > specifically decided not to, and find no justification for a Sponsoring > Organizations right to decide otherwise. > > Kojak. Well, we know your firm points of view. Then you should be able to answer my question what to do with such shown card not to be treated as a PC on the explicit wish of the declarer? Assume for example that declarer asks you that? What sir is the consequence of not treating it as a PC? ton From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Jun 5 16:16:03 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Jun 5 16:17:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000c01c6882f$3c8f42e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c688aa$94937f30$2101a8c0@Karel3200> > Ok 2 parter - no peeking :>> > > Teams > > S QTx > H A98x > D AQx > C AQT > > bidding proceeds > > 2S* 3H 4D ?? > > * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) > > Your call ... First comment: Why hide the vulnerabilities? +++ deliberately left out to see would it influence your call. Double, 3NT, 4H, 4NT, others are all possibilities and vul may push you one way or the other ... Made it as grey and nebulous as possible to see was there a sufficient vote to move toward slam or just die in game. > Ok now what actually happened > > ++ Teams Neither side vul > > North > S Jxxxx > H KJxxxx > D K > C K > > > South > S QTx > H A98x > D AQx > C AQT > > bidding > > North South > 2S* 2H(3H)** 4D 4H > all pass > > * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) > > ** Insufficient bid. Apparnetly thought the bid was 1S. Td called. Bid > not accepted. 3H was bid after enquiring what the 2S meant. Result 4H > making on a claim after D lead (H's are 3/0 and declarer didnt dump 4 > spades > on the minors). > > The opps call the td and say that 3H over a weak 2 bid generally shows a > decent hand. What opponents feel that the 2H bid or 3H bid should show is not relevant? North/South play their own system not their opponents' system +++ I think if you are deciding this case on the AC or as a TD - what the OS peers are likely to expect on a given sequence is very relevant or else you have no basis to make a decision. The OS agreements were not documented (and lets face it generally arent) and as such they are/were free to claim any range which improved their case. Most pairs would not wander in with a 10 count over some sort of weak two as they need to be relatively confident of not getting hammered with a double from LHO ... ergo the general style is to keep overcalls over a weak two "decent". The case in point, the 3H overcall, would I think be considered by the majority as a "dangerous" bid to put it mildly. It is on the other hand a reasonable overcall of 1S. > South KNEW from the ui that this particular 3H's was alot > weaker as North intended to bid 2H over 1S and not over 2S. Is this a fact? In case it is another fact that has been hidden from us. +++ yes this info should have been added and was disputed. The NOS claimed North was clearly reluctant to bid 3H. In my experience in these types of cases the huge majority of offenders will make the bid good, fairly promptly, to avoid any penalities. The NOS claim it was evident North was considering passing. The OS claim north was just thinking thru the possible options. IMO, Either way an established partnership will certainly pick up an appropriate vibe. > They felt > over > a "normal" 3H bid South had far too much not to pursue a slam and would > infact bid it after North showed 1 key card + the increased likelihood of > N's values being in the majors given the weak 2 minor opener. They felt > the > score should be adjusted to 6H-1 as South had acted on the UI. They have a point here, but whether it is strong enough to warrant an adjusted score is for the Director (and in case the AC) to decide. I am not so sure I would have adjusted. > Extraneous info. > N/S play weak 2D/2H/2S ... (it was suggested that N may have missed the > opening bid all together) So what? +++ Again there was doubt as to whether N actually saw the opening bid at all. The OS side claim North bid over what was thought to be a 1S opener, but the NOS thought North appeared surprised that there was a bid at all. If this was the case then 2H would have been a weak 2 (yes even with the 5 card spade), again reducing S's enthusiasm to move. > Several pairs did bid the slam after a pass, 1H opening by North. > N/S played RKC Again: So what? +++ Well if some pairs arrived at slam with pass 1H (opening bid), then on the actual auction, the OS have more information, similar values (again assuming most pairs would have an opening+ bid for a 3H bid) and should be more likely to get to slam. That they didn't is due to the UI. Which form of RKC the OS played could be relevant to allowing them to stop in 5 or do a queen ask and still stop. (eg) 4130 5C one keycard, 5D queen ask, 5H none or 5S an extra heart - possible pass/bid on. 3041 5D - now there isnt room and South will be forced to punt or bid 5H's. > The committee allowed the result to stand. Comments ? +++ Not sure the timing of asking about the meaning of the 2S is relevant - but I think it probably is. When N didn't ask about the alert before bidding 2H's, (maybe thought the NOS were alerting they played 5CM or weak 2's or tartan 5+S's/4+minor) then it is almost certain that North took the 2S as showing spades. With spades on North's right - the 3H bid is abit more understandable. It also taints Souths perception of what to expect from Norths hand as the bid was made on the basis of spades and not the minors. Also when it turns out its the minors, now the call doesn't look half as good, and would possibly back up the NOS sides claim of reluctance to bid. On the available facts I tend to agree with the AC. Regards sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 5 16:37:07 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 5 16:38:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: <008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000a01c688ad$856cd620$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > . I find it presumptuous for the TD to > > decide on applying Law 16A on his own recognizance when the declarer has > > specifically decided not to, and find no justification for a Sponsoring > > Organizations right to decide otherwise. > > > > Kojak. > > > > Well, we know your firm points of view. > Then you should be able to answer my question what to do with such shown > card not to be treated as a PC on the explicit wish of the declarer? > Assume for example that declarer asks you that? What sir is the > consequence > of not treating it as a PC? > > ton Shouldn't that be rather obvious? 1: The card is not a PC so it is taken back to the offender's hand 2: Offender's partner can have seen the card under circumstances which makes that observation "extraneous information" to him as defined in Law 16A. So Law 16A applies to its full extent on offender's partner. Regards Sven (Sorry for bouncing in, but I wish this discussion on Law 24 could be terminated, I find it rather fruitless and tiresome) From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 5 17:07:05 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 5 17:08:42 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <3F6C8974-A149-49A8-BA4D-123473EB22A9@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c688b1$b5f32e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:43 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I am not aware of any Norwegian regulation on this matter, we have > > the laws. > > Hm. Norway does not have an "Alert" regulation, specifying certain > calls to which attention must be drawn so that opponents will be > aware they might want to ask questions? I didn't say that? Sure we have an alert regulation. But this regulation specifies objective criteria for when a call shall be alerted rather than specifying particular alertable calls (except that the regulation includes examples on calls that meet the criteria for alerting). These criteria do not depend upon what are "common" or "uncommon" conventions, and what is more important: We enforce a principle that nobody shall ever be penalized for alerting a call that need not be alerted. An alert simply means: "You might want to ask about this call". Furthermore our directors are instructed to be very careful about awarding any redress for alleged damage caused by missing alert of a call that shall be described on the front page of our convention cards. I do not see how our alert regulation has anything to do with the fact that we have no explicit regulation on explanations but just apply the laws? I suppose such a regulation > might say that questions must be IAW Law 20, so that after an alert, > one must request an explanation of the entire auction, but that seems > naive to me - if a question is asked immediately after an alert, it > seems extremely likely that the questioner is interested in the > meaning of the alerted call. OTOH, I suppose an alert regulation need > not, in itself, say anything about the form of questions engendered > by an alert, leaving it, as you say, up to the laws. And a common question when a player alerts is just "WHY (the alert)?" This technically asks about the alert as such and not about the specific call, thus avoiding the problem from Law 20F. And I believe it is a sensible compromise between "alerting" opponents about possible surprises and overloading them with extensive verbal explanations. Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jun 5 17:14:41 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon Jun 5 17:16:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <000a01c688ad$856cd620$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c688b2$cb4b8c40$70fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> RE: [blml] Law 24 > On Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > . I find it presumptuous for the TD to > > decide on applying Law 16A on his own recognizance when the declarer has > > specifically decided not to, and find no justification for a Sponsoring > > Organizations right to decide otherwise. > > > > Kojak. > Well, we know your firm points of view. > Then you should be able to answer my question what to do with such shown > card not to be treated as a PC on the explicit wish of the declarer? > Assume for example that declarer asks you that? What sir is the > consequence > of not treating it as a PC? > > ton Shouldn't that be rather obvious? 1: The card is not a PC so it is taken back to the offender's hand 2: Offender's partner can have seen the card under circumstances which makes that observation "extraneous information" to him as defined in Law 16A. So Law 16A applies to its full extent on offender's partner. Regards Sven (Sorry for bouncing in, but I wish this discussion on Law 24 could be terminated, I find it rather fruitless and tiresome) ton: Since Kojak seemed to deny the possibility of applying L16 (I prefer C above A) here I was curious to see his answer. He will find his way to contradict our view, I am surprised about your distinction between this law and many of the others for being fruitless and tiresome. But it makes me silent again. ton From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 5 17:42:52 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 5 17:44:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000f01c688aa$94937f30$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <000d01c688b6$b52d2d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Karel > Sent: 5. juni 2006 16:16 > To: 'blml' > Subject: RE: [blml] Your call > > > > Ok 2 parter - no peeking :>> > > > > Teams > > > > S QTx > > H A98x > > D AQx > > C AQT > > > > bidding proceeds > > > > 2S* 3H 4D ?? > > > > * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) > > > > Your call ... > > First comment: Why hide the vulnerabilities? > > +++ deliberately left out to see would it influence your call. Double, > 3NT, 4H, 4NT, others are all possibilities and vul may push you one way or > the other ... Precisely, and if your post was intended as a poll then that is exactly why the result will be without any value at all. > Made it as grey and nebulous as possible to see was there a > sufficient vote to move toward slam or just die in game. I shall expect the vulnerabilities to be very significant for this question. .......... > > The opps call the td and say that 3H over a weak 2 bid generally shows a > > decent hand. > > What opponents feel that the 2H bid or 3H bid should show is not relevant? > North/South play their own system not their opponents' system > > +++ I think if you are deciding this case on the AC or as a TD - what the > OS peers are likely to expect on a given sequence is very relevant or else > you have no basis to make a decision. The OS agreements were not > documented Why not? Didn't the Director and AC do their job with investigations? If offenders are playing a legal system and have fulfilled their duty to inform opponents then if opponents expects something else is completely irrelevant. > (and lets face it generally arent) and as such they are/were free to claim > any range which improved their case. Most pairs would not wander in with > a > 10 count over some sort of weak two as they need to be relatively > confident > of not getting hammered with a double from LHO ... ergo the general style > is > to keep overcalls over a weak two "decent". The case in point, the 3H > overcall, would I think be considered by the majority as a "dangerous" bid > to put it mildly. It is on the other hand a reasonable overcall of 1S. > > > > South KNEW from the ui that this particular 3H's was alot > > weaker as North intended to bid 2H over 1S and not over 2S. > > Is this a fact? In case it is another fact that has been hidden from us. > > +++ yes this info should have been added and was disputed. The NOS > claimed > North was clearly reluctant to bid 3H. In my experience in these types of > cases the huge majority of offenders will make the bid good, fairly > promptly, to avoid any penalities. The NOS claim it was evident North was > considering passing. The OS claim north was just thinking thru the > possible > options. IMO, Either way an established partnership will certainly pick > up > an appropriate vibe. Law 73D1 (Inadvertent variations): ..... Otherwise, inadvertently to vary tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and AT HIS OWN RISK. (Last four words emphasized by me) NOS appears to having claimed a lot of inferences from the way North allegedly have made his calls. Unless they can establish a case of deception (or a violation of Law 16A2) I do not think they have much of a case. > > They felt > > over > > a "normal" 3H bid South had far too much not to pursue a slam and would > > infact bid it after North showed 1 key card + the increased likelihood > of > > N's values being in the majors given the weak 2 minor opener. They felt > > the > > score should be adjusted to 6H-1 as South had acted on the UI. > > They have a point here, but whether it is strong enough to warrant an > adjusted score is for the Director (and in case the AC) to decide. I am > not > so sure I would have adjusted. > > > Extraneous info. > > N/S play weak 2D/2H/2S ... (it was suggested that N may have missed the > > opening bid all together) > > So what? > > +++ Again there was doubt as to whether N actually saw the opening bid at > all. The OS side claim North bid over what was thought to be a 1S opener, > but the NOS thought North appeared surprised that there was a bid at all. > If this was the case then 2H would have been a weak 2 (yes even with the 5 > card spade), again reducing S's enthusiasm to move. > > > > Several pairs did bid the slam after a pass, 1H opening by North. > > N/S played RKC > > Again: So what? > +++ Well if some pairs arrived at slam with pass 1H (opening bid), then > on > the actual auction, the OS have more information, similar values (again > assuming most pairs would have an opening+ bid for a 3H bid) and should be > more likely to get to slam. That they didn't is due to the UI. > > Which form of RKC the OS played could be relevant to allowing them to stop > in 5 or do a queen ask and still stop. (eg) 4130 5C one keycard, 5D queen > ask, 5H none or 5S an extra heart - possible pass/bid on. 3041 5D - now > there isnt room and South will be forced to punt or bid 5H's. > > > The committee allowed the result to stand. Comments ? > > +++ Not sure the timing of asking about the meaning of the 2S is relevant > - > but I think it probably is. When N didn't ask about the alert before > bidding 2H's, (maybe thought the NOS were alerting they played 5CM or weak > 2's or tartan 5+S's/4+minor) then it is almost certain that North took the > 2S as showing spades. With spades on North's right - the 3H bid is abit > more understandable. It also taints Souths perception of what to expect > from Norths hand as the bid was made on the basis of spades and not the > minors. Also when it turns out its the minors, now the call doesn't look > half as good, and would possibly back up the NOS sides claim of reluctance > to bid. Had I been in Morth's shoes I would have resented being told what I thought during this auction. I would have reserved my right to tell the Director and AC my actual thoughts. > On the available facts I tend to agree with the AC. > > Regards sven Still the same conclusion Sven From jjlbridge at free.fr Mon Jun 5 19:15:05 2006 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Mon Jun 5 19:16:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000301c68824$577d7dc0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <000301c68824$577d7dc0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <44846699.4070007@free.fr> You shouldn't hijack existing threads... (even yours, since it was already a hijacking :-) Karel a ?crit : > Ok 2 parter - no peeking :>> > > Teams > > S QTx > H A98x > D AQx > C AQT > > bidding proceeds > > 2S* 3H 4D ?? > > * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) > > Your call ... 6NT > Ok now what actually happened > > > Teams > > North > S Jxxxx > H KJxxxx > D K > C K > > > South > S QTx > H A98x > D AQx > C AQT > > bidding > > North South > 2S* 2H(3H)** 4D 4H > all pass > > * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) > > ** Insufficient bid. Apparnetly thought the bid was 1S. Td called. Bid > not accepted. 3H was bid after enquiring what the 2S meant. Result 4H > making on a claim after D lead (H's are 3/0 and declarer didnt dump 4 spades > on the minors). > > The opps call the td and say that 3H over a weak 2 bid generally shows a > decent hand. South KNEW from the ui that this particular 3H's was alot > weaker as North intended to bid 2H over 1S and not over 2S. They felt over > a "normal" 3H bid South had far too much not to pursue a slam and would > infact bid it after North showed 1 key card + the increased likelihood of > N's values being in the majors given the weak 2 minor opener. They felt the > score should be adjusted to 6H-1 as South had acted on the UI. There is no UI : see 27B1a. There has been some discussions about 27B1b, however, some suggesting that it amounts to almost the same as if the withdrawn call was UI, whereas those who suppose that explicitely disabling 16C2 must mean something say that only results that would be improbable without the IB should be adjusted. This may be the case here, where the outcome is unclear at best if N passes the 2S opening, especially if E feels like preempting to the 5 level to keep S as much in the dark as possible. If he had SAK (which I doubt since he apparently didn't cash them against 4H), I could adjust to 5H -1, but with a most probable minor suit lead, no adjustment (5 of a minor seems at least 4 off). > > Extraneous info. > N/S play weak 2D/2H/2S ... (it was suggested that N may have missed the > opening bid all together) > Several pairs did bid the slam after a pass, 1H opening by North. > N/S played RKC > > > The committee allowed the result to stand. Comments ? > > Karel Jean-Jacques. -- From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 5 19:04:31 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jun 5 19:25:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4483E5BB.4000207@hdw.be> References: <4483E5BB.4000207@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060605125348.035e9640@pop.starpower.net> At 04:05 AM 6/5/06, Herman wrote: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>My point of view is that without the infraction of >>Law 16 by East-West, the contract would have been >>4S. >>Careless play by North-South in 4S, resulting in >>ten tricks rather than the normal eleven, costs >>North-South one imp. >>However, careless play by North-South in the >>higher contract of 5S costs thirteen imps. The >>potential damage to North-South if they play >>carelessly has therefore been increased by twelve >>imps due to the East-West infraction of illegally >>bidding 5D after use of UI, thus pushing the >>North-South contract to a level where a mistake is >>more costly. > >You said it Richard, the potential damage. >Before the infraction, the expected score for NS was +620 or +650. >After the infraction, the expected score for NS was -100 or +650. >It is this change of expectation which EW should reimburse. >I would not mind seeing a change in the laws which would give NS a >reimbursement of (X%) of -720 + (100-X%) of 0, regardless of the >outcome of 5S. Yes, that would give this NS, if they make 11 tricks, a >better result than all other NS's. >But the NS that makes only 10 tricks should not be reimbursed for the >full 11th. I don't understand. How can awarding +620 to N-S possibly constitute "reimbursing" them for the 11th trick? +620 sounds like making 10 tricks to me. >>Therefore, from my point of view it is irrelevant >>whether the North-South carelessness is due to a >>failure to finesse or due to a revoke. In either >>case the cost to North-South and the benefit to >>East-West has been increased by a net of twelve >>imps due to the East-West infraction, so it is >>that net of twelve imps which should be restored >>by a fair and equitable non-split adjusted score. > > From my point of view it is irrelevant as well. Only the frequency > with which the contract goes down will change. How can "the frequency with which the contract goes down" be irrelevant? Absent E-W's irregularity, N-S would have played in 4S. As a result of E-W's infraction, they played 5S, which changed "the frequency with which the contract goes down" from "never" to "sometimes". Had it changed it from "never" to "always" it would certainly be relevant -- we would adjust automatically. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 5 19:47:49 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 5 19:49:25 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <000b01c688b1$b5f32e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c688b1$b5f32e80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6C300755-38EC-4CCB-BABC-CC6F3B5AF3E0@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I didn't say that? Sure we have an alert regulation. But this > regulation > specifies objective criteria for when a call shall be alerted > rather than > specifying particular alertable calls (except that the regulation > includes > examples on calls that meet the criteria for alerting). > These criteria do not depend upon what are "common" or "uncommon" > conventions, and what is more important: We enforce a principle > that nobody > shall ever be penalized for alerting a call that need not be > alerted. An > alert simply means: "You might want to ask about this call". > Furthermore our > directors are instructed to be very careful about awarding any > redress for > alleged damage caused by missing alert of a call that shall be > described on > the front page of our convention cards. Fair enough. Even in the ACBL, an alert means the same thing. One difference, however, is that the ACBL regulation requires complete disclosure of the meaning of the alerted call in response to *any* question - including, in practice, a raised eyebrow or the like. > I do not see how our alert regulation has anything to do with the > fact that > we have no explicit regulation on explanations but just apply the > laws? My experience is with the ACBL regulation, which does have such a provision. I was trying to find out how our two regulations differ. > And a common question when a player alerts is just "WHY (the alert)?" > This technically asks about the alert as such and not about the > specific > call, thus avoiding the problem from Law 20F. This seems disingenuous. Clearly, if a player wants to know why someone alerted, knowledge of that interest is "extraneous" and may be UI. > And I believe it is a sensible compromise between "alerting" > opponents about > possible surprises and overloading them with extensive verbal > explanations. Chacun a son gout. :-) From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 5 21:58:14 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 5 21:59:48 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <6C300755-38EC-4CCB-BABC-CC6F3B5AF3E0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c688da$61a57800$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ............. > Fair enough. Even in the ACBL, an alert means the same thing. One > difference, however, is that the ACBL regulation requires complete > disclosure of the meaning of the alerted call in response to *any* > question - including, in practice, a raised eyebrow or the like. There is a difference between a question like: "Is it a cuebid" which calls for the answers "yes" or "no", and a request like: "Please explain". What I have tried to express is that when the question just calls for a "yes" or "no" answer then it should be perfectly OK to answer that question with just one of those two words. An explanation should of course be more complete. Regards Sven From ljtrent at adelphia.net Mon Jun 5 22:29:26 2006 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Mon Jun 5 22:31:00 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <33DE60CB-152A-4D45-8BF6-DFE53D4CC0C3@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: I spoke to Henry Francis regarding the Encyclopedia definition of a cue bid but it was too late to get it changed to what the ACBL definition of a cue bid is, -- next edition it should be fixed. IIR the ACBL definition is the Bridge World definition. I could probably find the meeting in which this was stated but I am too busy atm getting ready to go to Italy. I know in the ACBL that if the opponents open 2D Flannery (4 -5 in the majors; 11 to 15) the ACBL considers both 2H and 2S to be "cue bids" even if the bids are natural and to play. And, also -- "to play" cue bids are the only Alertable cue bids in ACBL. Are the cue bids that show raises of partner's suit or controls Alertable in the WBF? Are the natural ones Alertable there either? Linda The Bridge World suggests that the term "cue bid" should be limited to a bid in a contested auction of a suit bid or shown by the opposing side, and that a bid that indicates a control in a specific suit should be called a "control bid". Given these definitions, the answer to the question was indeed incorrect - but the Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th edition, 2001) defines "cue bid" as "a forcing bid in a suit in which the bidder cannot wish to play". By *that* definition, the answer was correct. Personally, I prefer The Bridge World's definitions, but the Encyclopedia's definition has been around about as long as bridge, so far as I know, and so The Bridge World is, IMO, fighting an uphill battle, at best. IAC, I do not believe that a TD should rule that the answer given to the question asked is incorrect - though he might rule that it is incomplete, given that one is supposed to explain what a call *means*, not what it's called (c.f. Law 75C, Law 40B, and SO regulations regarding explanations). :-) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jun 6 06:17:05 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jun 6 06:18:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: The card is returned to the hand, and play continues without further penalty, since the declarer has decided that he does not wish to penalize. For instance, RHO has bid spades twice, and also drops the Ace of Spades on the table reaching for a drink before LHO can make the opening lead. Declarer fully expected a spade lead, he is prepared for it, plans on it, and sees no reason to now impose a penalty under Law 24 and/or Law 50. He expected that RHO, having twice named the suit has cards in it that he'd like to win. Yes, LHO has unauthorized information, but he also has good reason to believe that his partner has spades. Please, sir, take into account that Law 16 treats with information that is not already forthcoming from legal actions. This is a simple example, and there are many other more complicated ones. I would not enforce a draconian action that says that LHO "may not choose from logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" when declarer does not wish to prohibit a spade lead from LHO now or at any time in the play. To do so would be the TD playing bridge instead of the players, and would most probably produce an aberrant score for no good reason. It is interesting to know that in your country someone apparently decides what the law is, even when the Law does not presently provide for Regulating Authority to change it. Not a stellar example for those on BLML who are trained to follow the laws as presently written, I would venture. P.S. You can always expect a "firm points of view" from me -- that is part of the job. What would you want to do, prohibit a spade lead since clearly it is a logical alternative and certainly "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the view of the Spade Ace? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; ; "blml" ; "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > . I find it presumptuous for the TD to > > decide on applying Law 16A on his own recognizance when the declarer has > > specifically decided not to, and find no justification for a Sponsoring > > Organizations right to decide otherwise. > > > > Kojak. > > > > Well, we know your firm points of view. > Then you should be able to answer my question what to do with such shown > card not to be treated as a PC on the explicit wish of the declarer? > Assume for example that declarer asks you that? What sir is the > consequence > of not treating it as a PC? > > ton > > > From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 6 08:55:47 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 6 08:57:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c68936$3d380a80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > The card is returned to the hand, and play continues without further > penalty, since the declarer has decided that he does not wish to penalize. > > For instance, RHO has bid spades twice, and also drops the Ace of Spades > on the table reaching for a drink before LHO can make the opening lead. > Declarer fully expected a spade lead, he is prepared for it, plans on it, > and sees no reason to now impose a penalty under Law 24 and/or Law 50. Have you overlooked, sir that by treating the exposed card as a penalty card declarer can ensure the spade lead he so much desire while if he waives his rights under Law 24 he can no longer be sure of a spade lead? I am not in favour of having L24 altered in any way. That law gives IMO absolutely no problem and I feel that you ought to come up with some better reasoning for your view? Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jun 6 12:18:28 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Jun 6 13:43:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Since we can't handle 'may' in this law 24 in my country on an individual basis we have given instructions to the TD's how to deal with it. Not illegal in my opinion. What I really don't understand is how you can ignore L16C when you allow the card to be picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me. ton From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jun 6 14:02:19 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue Jun 6 14:03:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <000501c68936$3d380a80$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: For Sven: My point was not that he so much desired a spade lead at that time, but that he didn't care about a spade lead. For instance change the exposed card to the person to make the opening lead -- a penalty imposed under Law 50 now would take place on the first trick. Perhaps the late hour I wrote last night did not get my thoughts clearly across, but what I am saying is that is that there are times when both defenders know about the location of a card of any rank exposed during the auction and the declarer feels it is immaterial. Remember, please, that according to this law it is only after the player has become the declarer, the auction is over, and any penalty such as 24 demands has already been exacted. The option of an additional penalty later on, during play, is the one that the declarer has the right to negate. I find no place where the law says that the penalty of causing partner to pass for one round is an option of the declarer. That has already happened if it was an honor card. The three possibilities of A, B, and C, of Law 24 have already taken place. Please carefully read the word "subsequently" -- without it the Law would make no sense since we don't yet know who the declarer is going to be when the card is exposed. For Ton: I'm not ignoring anything or any Law. I'm simply stating that declarer, by Law 24, has the right to waive the play penalty of this infraction, not the auction ones. What is of interest to me is that Law 10 should perhaps contain a parenthetical statement in A such as ("but see Law 24" -- or some such) for this very minor decision by declarer. If your country is of the opinion that the declarer has an option vis-?-vis A, B, and C of Law 24 as it is written in English, then translation has been faulty. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:55 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Law 24 > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > The card is returned to the hand, and play continues without further > penalty, since the declarer has decided that he does not wish to penalize. > > For instance, RHO has bid spades twice, and also drops the Ace of Spades > on the table reaching for a drink before LHO can make the opening lead. > Declarer fully expected a spade lead, he is prepared for it, plans on it, > and sees no reason to now impose a penalty under Law 24 and/or Law 50. Have you overlooked, sir that by treating the exposed card as a penalty card declarer can ensure the spade lead he so much desire while if he waives his rights under Law 24 he can no longer be sure of a spade lead? I am not in favour of having L24 altered in any way. That law gives IMO absolutely no problem and I feel that you ought to come up with some better reasoning for your view? Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 6 15:06:56 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jun 6 15:07:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> <44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de> <006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred> <007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060606090129.030d54a0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:17 AM 6/6/06, WILLIAM wrote: >It is interesting to know that in your country someone apparently decides >what the law is, even when the Law does not presently provide for >Regulating >Authority to change it. Not a stellar example for those on BLML who are >trained to follow the laws as presently written, I would venture. It has been made quite clear on BLML, however, that, in the official opinion of the WBF, L80F does provide for Regulating Authority to change it, effectively without restriction. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 6 15:47:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 6 15:49:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c6896f$c2941e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > For Sven: > > My point was not that he so much desired a spade lead at that time, > but that he didn't care about a spade lead. For instance change > the exposed card to the person to make the opening lead -- a > penalty imposed under Law 50 now would take place on the first > trick. Perhaps the late hour I wrote last night did not get my > houghts clearly across, but what I am saying is that is that there > are times when both defenders know about the location of a card of > any rank exposed during the auction and the declarer feels it is > immaterial. Remember, please, that according to this law it is > only after the player has become the declarer, the auction is over, > and any penalty such as 24 demands has already been exacted. > The option of an additional penalty later on, during play, is the > one that the declarer has the right to negate. I find no place where > the law says that the penalty of causing partner to pass for one > round is an option of the declarer. That has already happened if > it was an honor card. The three possibilities of A, B, and C, of > aw 24 have already taken place. Please carefully read the word > "subsequently" -- without it the Law would make no sense since we > don't yet know who the declarer is going to be when the card is > exposed. Frankly I have a big problem understanding both the purpose for and the logic in your argumentation? Law 24 is very clear and IMHO causes little if any problem at all. The immediate consequences of a card exposed during the auction is that the card must remain exposed for the duration of that same auction, and depending on the circumstances that the offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. There is one exception to this (automatic) procedure: A non-offender may request that the penalties be waived for cause at the Director's discretion (Law 81C8). Subsequently, unless penalties were waived according to Law 81C8, if the offender becomes a defender then declarer may at his own discretion decide that the card shall remain exposed as a major or minor penalty card as the case may be. Remember that nobody can have penalty card(s) during the auction period and only defenders can have penalty card(s) during the play period. None of the possible events described above prevent the application of Law 16A (Extraneous information from partner) or Law 16C (Information from withdrawn Calls and Plays), either or both of which will come into full effect at the moment an exposed card is restored to the offender's hand regardless of for what reason. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jun 6 17:37:55 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jun 6 17:47:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <6.1.1.1.0.20060606090129.030d54a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005301c6897f$5c37cad0$f5bf87d9@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: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > It has been made quite clear on BLML, however, > that, in the official opinion of the WBF, L80F does > provide for Regulating Authority to change it, effectively > without restriction. > +=+ Wilful misrepresentation. What has been repeated on numerous occasions over many years is that Law 80F is not a restriction on regulations authorized under other Laws, for example 80E, 78D, 40E, 40D, each of which is self-contained. I first encountered this stance in the Committee when we were chaired by Edgar Theus but the question was treated as generally accepted so presumably it had been settled before my time. The other relevant statement of the Committee is of more recent origin. It allows that, where the WBFLC has promulgated no interpretation of a Law, interim interpretations are made by authorities lower in the hierarchy. In the present instance I think we are looking at a matter of interpretation, not of regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 6 22:21:26 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jun 6 22:21:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: <005301c6897f$5c37cad0$f5bf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> <44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de> <006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred> <007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <6.1.1.1.0.20060606090129.030d54a0@pop.starpower.net> <005301c6897f$5c37cad0$f5bf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060606160506.02b755e0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:37 AM 6/6/06, Grattan wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > It has been made quite clear on BLML, however, > > that, in the official opinion of the WBF, L80F does > > provide for Regulating Authority to change it, effectively > > without restriction. > >+=+ Wilful misrepresentation. What has been repeated >on numerous occasions over many years is that Law 80F >is not a restriction on regulations authorized under other >Laws, for example 80E, 78D, 40E, 40D, each of which >is self-contained. I first encountered this stance in the >Committee when we were chaired by Edgar Theus but >the question was treated as generally accepted so >presumably it had been settled before my time. I'd like to think of my statement as "misrepresentation", but I don't see it. The only explicit restriction on regulating authorities in TFLB is in L80F, which requires that supplementary regulations be "not in conflict with[] these laws". When we discussed this extensively a while back, someone (I don't recall who) challenged the WBF rerpresentatives in this forum to provide a single example of a regulation, or a proposed regulation, from any subordinate body, that the WBF has ever held to be "in conflict with these laws" and consequently overturned. We are still waiting. That the WBF has the *power* to restrict its subordinates' regulations doesn't effectively restrict anyone or anything if the WBF is unwilling to use that power. We have been told repeatedly, however, that that is their policy, or at least their "attitude". There may be some theoretical, legalistic restriction on what can be regulated, but as long as the WBF declines to enforce the "not in conflict" provision of L80F and continues to permit its subordinate authorities to pass whatever regulations they please, I will stand by "effectively without restriction". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Jun 6 23:45:59 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Jun 6 23:47:44 2006 Subject: Restraining regulations (was: [blml] Law 24) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060606160506.02b755e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> <44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de> <006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred> <007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <6.1.1.1.0.20060606090129.030d54a0@pop.starpower.net> <005301c6897f$5c37cad0$f5bf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060606160506.02b755e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4485F797.4010105@comcast.net> Eric Landau wrote: > That the WBF has the *power* to restrict its subordinates' regulations > doesn't effectively restrict anyone or anything if the WBF is unwilling > to use that power. We have been told repeatedly, however, that that is > their policy, or at least their "attitude". > > There may be some theoretical, legalistic restriction on what can be > regulated, but as long as the WBF declines to enforce the "not in > conflict" provision of L80F and continues to permit its subordinate > authorities to pass whatever regulations they please, I will stand by > "effectively without restriction". Your argument fails when there are no regulations in conflict, which we're consistently told is true. On which regulations do you feel the WBF should exercise its power? -Todd From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 7 00:14:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 7 00:16:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >There are a number of places in the law book >where the player is given options following an >irregularity; I see no reason why it should >not be so here - the player may think it of >possible advantage to himself in the play of >the hand, or socially in some environments, >and I have no quibble with that. Indeed it is >my opinion that where alternatives are >possible players should be given opportunity >to judge their own advantage as often as may >be following an opponent's infraction. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Declarer currently has five options when an opening lead out of turn occurs. Michael Rosenberg has advocated that declarer be given a sixth option, that declarer be entitled to request that the OLOOT be withdrawn with no penalty, but that any information from the OLOOT would be unauthorised to the OLOOTer's partner. If this additional option for declarer was adopted for OLOOTs, then it could be generalised to all penalty cards. Declarer could be given the option to, whenever a penalty card occurs, request that no penalty applies to a penalty card, but information from the withdrawn penalty card was unauthorised. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 7 00:46:24 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed Jun 7 00:47:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > What I really don't understand is how you can > ignore L16C when you allow the card to be > picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me. > > ton > +=+ If the exposed card is picked up Law 16C surely applies when the card was played or led; when the exposure was accidental* and not a purposeful lead or play, the information gained from it was made available by partner and thus subject to 16A. This is my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (*or indeed purposeful but not a lead or play, if such can be the case) From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jun 7 02:01:36 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jun 7 02:03:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: For Ton and Grattan, Please correct me if I'm wrong. The declarer has exercised an option permitted by Law WHEN HE BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have already been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he does not wish any additional penalties (Law 50 and Law 16) to apply. The Law has stated he has that option. You now wish to tell me that the TD can go to Law 16, decide that the "player has chosen among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" and now adjust the score? And please, rather than talking around the question, please answer it. A simple yes or no would be greatly appreciated. The Law told the players what to do during the auction, the law told the players what could happen during the play, and the Law permitted the declarer to not wish to penalize the play of the cards. Is there anything much cleared than that? Or is your reluctance to accept the Law based on some sort of idea that the players are dunces and the TD must play the hands for them? Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know what we are talking about.. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ********************************* > Haditha. [;-( ] > ======================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:18 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > > > > > What I really don't understand is how you can > > ignore L16C when you allow the card to be > > picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me. > > > > ton > > > +=+ If the exposed card is picked up Law 16C > surely applies when the card was played or led; > when the exposure was accidental* and not a > purposeful lead or play, the information gained > from it was made available by partner and thus > subject to 16A. This is my opinion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > (*or indeed purposeful but not a lead or play, > if such can be the case) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 7 04:56:59 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jun 7 04:58:40 2006 Subject: [blml] What is a penalty? (was Law 24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak: >For Ton and Grattan, > >Please correct me if I'm wrong. The declarer has >exercised an option permitted by Law WHEN HE >BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have already >been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he >does not wish any additional penalties (Law 50 >and Law 16) to apply. [snip] >Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know >what we are talking about.. Richard Hills: In my opinion, this is one of the rare cases where Kojak is indeed wrong. Unless, of course, my own opinion is wrong. :-) What we are talking about is "what is a penalty?" Throughout the 1997 Lawbook, including in Law 24, there is repeated this bracketed word: (penalty) Following each such bracketed word is a specific and specified rectification. On the other hand, Law 16A does not include the bracketed word (penalty). Rather, Law 16A imposes a general obligation that a player may not select from amongst logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by unauthorised information from partner. Ergo, in my opinion, neither Law 24 nor Law 81C8 may be used to waive the general obligation for a player to abide by Law 16A. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 7 08:14:47 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 7 08:16:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c689f9$ae7bf8a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > Please correct me if I'm wrong. The declarer has exercised an option > permitted by Law WHEN HE BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have already > been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he does not wish any > additional penalties (Law 50 and Law 16) to apply. The Law has stated he > has that option. This is where you are wrong: Declarer has the option to waive Law 50 in this situation, but he has no option to waive Laws 16A or 16C Sven You now wish to tell me that the TD can go to Law 16, > decide that the "player has chosen among logical alternatives one that > could > have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" and now > adjust the score? > > And please, rather than talking around the question, please answer it. A > simple yes or no would be greatly appreciated. The Law told the players > what > to do during the auction, the law told the players what could happen > during > the play, and the Law permitted the declarer to not wish to penalize the > play of the cards. Is there anything much cleared than that? Or is your > reluctance to accept the Law based on some sort of idea that the players > are > dunces and the TD must play the hands for them? > > Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know what we are talking about.. > > Kojak > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:46 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ********************************* > > Haditha. [;-( ] > > ======================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:18 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > > > > > > > > > What I really don't understand is how you can > > > ignore L16C when you allow the card to be > > > picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me. > > > > > > ton > > > > > +=+ If the exposed card is picked up Law 16C > > surely applies when the card was played or led; > > when the exposure was accidental* and not a > > purposeful lead or play, the information gained > > from it was made available by partner and thus > > subject to 16A. This is my opinion. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > (*or indeed purposeful but not a lead or play, > > if such can be the case) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 7 08:23:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 7 08:25:39 2006 Subject: [blml] What is a penalty? (was Law 24) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c689fa$f5ea9a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Kojak: > >Please correct me if I'm wrong. The declarer has > >exercised an option permitted by Law WHEN HE > >BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have already > >been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he > >does not wish any additional penalties (Law 50 > >and Law 16) to apply. > > [snip] > > >Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know > >what we are talking about.. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, this is one of the rare cases > where Kojak is indeed wrong. > > Unless, of course, my own opinion is wrong. > > :-) > > What we are talking about is "what is a penalty?" > > Throughout the 1997 Lawbook, including in Law 24, > there is repeated this bracketed word: > > (penalty) > > Following each such bracketed word is a specific > and specified rectification. > > On the other hand, Law 16A does not include the > bracketed word (penalty). Rather, Law 16A > imposes a general obligation that a player may > not select from amongst logical alternatives > one that could demonstrably have been suggested > over another by unauthorised information from > partner. > > Ergo, in my opinion, neither Law 24 nor Law 81C8 > may be used to waive the general obligation for > a player to abide by Law 16A. Your conclusion is correct but your premises are partly wrong: Law 24 does not give the declarer any option to waive penalties; it gives declarer the option to waive specifically Law 50 on card(s) exposed during the auction. Declarer has no option to waive Laws 16A or 16C in this situation, and whether or not Law 16 had included the term [penalty] makes no difference. Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jun 7 08:45:54 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Jun 7 08:52:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002301c689fe$adf486e0$63fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> > For Ton and Grattan, > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. We are trying for quite some days now. Declarer did not decide to wave any additional penalty. Given the option he decided not to treat this card as a PC. ton >The declarer has exercised an option > permitted by Law WHEN HE BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have already > been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he does not wish any > additional penalties (Law 50 and Law 16) to apply. The Law has stated he > has that option. You now wish to tell me that the TD can go to Law 16, > decide that the "player has chosen among logical alternatives one that could > have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" and now > adjust the score? > > And please, rather than talking around the question, please answer it. A > simple yes or no would be greatly appreciated. The Law told the players what > to do during the auction, the law told the players what could happen during > the play, and the Law permitted the declarer to not wish to penalize the > play of the cards. Is there anything much cleared than that? Or is your > reluctance to accept the Law based on some sort of idea that the players are > dunces and the TD must play the hands for them? > > Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know what we are talking about.. > > Kojak > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:46 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ********************************* > > Haditha. [;-( ] > > ======================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ton Kooijman" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:18 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > > > > > > > > > What I really don't understand is how you can > > > ignore L16C when you allow the card to be > > > picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me. > > > > > > ton > > > > > +=+ If the exposed card is picked up Law 16C > > surely applies when the card was played or led; > > when the exposure was accidental* and not a > > purposeful lead or play, the information gained > > from it was made available by partner and thus > > subject to 16A. This is my opinion. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > (*or indeed purposeful but not a lead or play, > > if such can be the case) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 7 13:56:09 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed Jun 7 13:57:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred> <002301c689fe$adf486e0$63fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <00b201c68a29$5d7d68f0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" ; Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > > >> For Ton and Grattan, >> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > We are trying for quite some days now. > Declarer did not decide to wave any additional penalty. Given the option > he > decided not to treat this card as a PC. I think I'm going to weigh in against Kojak here. The specific act of not making the card a penalty card means that the declarer does not wish to invoke the lead penalties and play penalties specifically associated with there being a major PC. It does not in any way address the "extraneous" information which has been transmitted. However the way we play bridge is by means of the calls and plays alone, so the information content of the exposed card is not something that the offender's partner is allowed to use. We're not worried about how he got to find out about this card. There are two different processes which are entirely independent. 1) We don't want to exact play penalties for a MPC 2) We must address the general problem of some UI. I don't think we can play bridge any other way. and I specifically haven't used law numbers here because the problem needs to be addressed as "How do we play bridge?" cheers John > > ton > > >>The declarer has exercised an option >> permitted by Law WHEN HE BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have >> already >> been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he does not wish any >> additional penalties (Law 50 and Law 16) to apply. The Law has stated he >> has that option. You now wish to tell me that the TD can go to Law 16, >> decide that the "player has chosen among logical alternatives one that > could >> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" and now >> adjust the score? >> >> And please, rather than talking around the question, please answer it. A >> simple yes or no would be greatly appreciated. The Law told the players > what >> to do during the auction, the law told the players what could happen > during >> the play, and the Law permitted the declarer to not wish to penalize the >> play of the cards. Is there anything much cleared than that? Or is your >> reluctance to accept the Law based on some sort of idea that the players > are >> dunces and the TD must play the hands for them? >> >> Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know what we are talking >> about.. >> >> Kojak >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 >> >> >> > >> > Grattan Endicott> > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> > ********************************* >> > Haditha. [;-( ] >> > ======================== >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Ton Kooijman" >> > To: "blml" >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:18 AM >> > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 >> > >> > >> > > >> > > What I really don't understand is how you can >> > > ignore L16C when you allow the card to be >> > > picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me. >> > > >> > > ton >> > > >> > +=+ If the exposed card is picked up Law 16C >> > surely applies when the card was played or led; >> > when the exposure was accidental* and not a >> > purposeful lead or play, the information gained >> > from it was made available by partner and thus >> > subject to 16A. This is my opinion. >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > (*or indeed purposeful but not a lead or play, >> > if such can be the case) >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > blml mailing list >> > blml@amsterdamned.org >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 7 15:50:06 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 7 15:50:27 2006 Subject: Restraining regulations (was: [blml] Law 24) In-Reply-To: <4485F797.4010105@comcast.net> References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> <44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de> <006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred> <007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <6.1.1.1.0.20060606090129.030d54a0@pop.starpower.net> <005301c6897f$5c37cad0$f5bf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20060606160506.02b755e0@pop.starpower.net> <4485F797.4010105@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060607093540.02b85490@pop.starpower.net> At 05:45 PM 6/6/06, Todd wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>That the WBF has the *power* to restrict its subordinates' >>regulations doesn't effectively restrict anyone or anything if the >>WBF is unwilling to use that power. We have been told repeatedly, >>however, that that is their policy, or at least their "attitude". > > >>There may be some theoretical, legalistic restriction on what can be >>regulated, but as long as the WBF declines to enforce the "not in >>conflict" provision of L80F and continues to permit its subordinate >>authorities to pass whatever regulations they please, I will stand by >>"effectively without restriction". > > Your argument fails when there are no regulations in > conflict, which we're consistently told is true. On which > regulations do you feel the WBF should exercise its power? An example that has come up before is the ACBL's regulation (I don't know if it's still in effect) providing for an automatic penalty for opening 1NT on a balanced hand with a strong 9-count playing a 10-12 range. The WBF found this to be a legitimate exercise of the ACBL's power "to regulate the use of... conventions" despite the law that says that "such a regulation must not restrict... judgment, only method". Similar examples have been raised in the context of other SOs madating the "rule of X" for opening bids. ACBL regulation also prohibits the use of an agreed range for a 1NT opening with less than average strength (based solely on HCP), although the law only permits such a restriction on opening bids "of a King or more below average strength". I'm sure that mining the BLML archive would turn up other such examples we've discussed in the past. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 7 16:05:50 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 7 16:06:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john> <44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de> <006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred> <007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060607095319.02b81b70@pop.starpower.net> At 08:01 PM 6/6/06, WILLIAM wrote: >For Ton and Grattan, > >Please correct me if I'm wrong. The declarer has exercised an option >permitted by Law WHEN HE BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have >already >been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he does not wish any >additional penalties (Law 50 and Law 16) to apply. The Law has stated he >has that option. You now wish to tell me that the TD can go to Law 16, >decide that the "player has chosen among logical alternatives one that >could >have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" and now >adjust the score? > >And please, rather than talking around the question, please answer it. A >simple yes or no would be greatly appreciated. The Law told the >players what >to do during the auction, the law told the players what could happen >during >the play, and the Law permitted the declarer to not wish to penalize the >play of the cards. Is there anything much cleared than that? Or is your >reluctance to accept the Law based on some sort of idea that the >players are >dunces and the TD must play the hands for them? L24 allows declarer to decline to "treat every such card as a penalty card". But I don't see how we can leap from there to "he does not wish *any* [emphasis mine] additional penalties to apply" or "[does] not wish to penalize the play of the cards". His decision means that the card is not "disposed of" as a penalty card, so L50 doesn't apply. It does not immunize the opponents from being penalized under, say, L64 during the play of the cards; why should it immunize them from being penalized under L16? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 7 17:46:24 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jun 7 17:45:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <000c01c63c95$e4196120$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001701c68a49$888b15e0$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> [Marvin French] > ACBL TDs don't like this "may," thinking it might > lead to favorable treatment of friends by a > declarer. I doubt that any will give declarer the > right version of the law (if they know it) > when called to the table. That being so, it might > be well to change the English Laws to agree with > the French version. [nige1] I agree. The right to waive penalties seems superfluous because... [A] Under current law, nobody need draw attention to most infractions. (IMO this is wrong. The "propriety" section of the laws should insist that all infractions be reported -- even your own revoke). [B] Even when attention has been drawn to an infraction, the victim may ask the director to waive a penalty and the director will rarely refuse that request (but sometimes could well be right to do so). [C] Grattan and others opine that this law is more than "elegant variation" and does add value (in rare circumstances). Judging by this thread, it may make the director's life more interesting; but to a player it is just another unnecessary complication. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 7 18:00:04 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jun 7 18:01:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: <001701c68a49$888b15e0$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <000c01c63c95$e4196120$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <001701c68a49$888b15e0$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <8EAD8877-3A39-46F2-9BC6-727D7CD27FE8@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 7, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Guthrie wrote: > Judging by this thread, it > may make the director's life more interesting; but > to a player it is just another unnecessary > complication. Not to this player. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 7 18:07:38 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jun 7 18:06:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002901c68a4c$7fb42da0$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> [Kojak] > For Ton and Grattan, > Please correct me if I'm wrong. The declarer has > exercised an option permitted by Law WHEN HE > BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have already > been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he > does not wish any additional penalties (Law 50 > and Law 16) to apply. The Law has stated he > has that option. You now wish to tell me that > the TD can go to Law 16, decide that the "player > has chosen among logical alternatives one that > could have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information" and now adjust the score? [nige1] I'm not Ton or Grattan but even an ordinary player may have an opinion :) In principle, Grattan may be right. As a practical matter, I reluctantly agree with Kojak. The potential penalty cards have already been picked up. Some players may not have seen them. Some may not remember them. There may be even be some dispute as to what they were. It is almost impossible to convince the ordinary player that any such knowledge is unauthorised; and difficult to convince any player that he used such knowledge. IMO, it would simpler and fairer to extend this principle to most UI contexts and stop the farce of subjective and inconsistent UI rulings. Where possible, the law should attempt to penalize the unauthorised information itself (a relatively objective judgement), rather than its suspected misuse. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 7 19:52:58 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jun 7 19:51:49 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <95E5129E-DE3C-4A38-89EC-29F5C7437B43@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00cc01c68a5b$36c9f520$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > I cannot conceive of any situation in which I > would believe a player who told me that [he'd > forgotten the meaning of Stayman]- unless he also > forgot to put his pants on before coming to the > game. [nige1] I've played bridge for several years but I often have to ask what opponents mean by Stayman. 90% of the time, the reply is "Standard"; and I have to follow with "Sorry I've forgotten it, if I ever knew it." I feel that you should try to avoid more detailed questions e.g. "promissory?" "may you just have long clubs?", "garbage?" "what do you reply with both majors?" and so on because such questions may provide unauthorised information to partner. Faced with a determined prevaricator, however, even such questions seem justifiable. Hence I am also in sympathy is with the expert's suspected "pro-question". IMO, in spite of BLML efforts to distinguish them, there is little practical difference between a "Kaplan" question and "Pro" a question -- in both cases the questioner fears that opponents may have been economical with the truth; in neither case, does the questioner stop to examine his conscience on the precise reason for his question. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 7 20:09:40 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jun 7 20:11:15 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00cc01c68a5b$36c9f520$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <95E5129E-DE3C-4A38-89EC-29F5C7437B43@rochester.rr.com> <00cc01c68a5b$36c9f520$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <4A86F740-3348-4448-ADB3-98D4C671DA1E@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 7, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Faced with a determined prevaricator, however, even such > questions seem justifiable. Faced with a determined prevaricator, call the director and let him deal with it. It is, after all, part of his job. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 7 20:40:46 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jun 7 20:39:40 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002201c66cc0$ba3b7fe0$6c690947@immi.gov.au><5.1.0.14.0.20060502125935.02057550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00d801c68a61$e490e640$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert - A] > 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! [Ed Reppert B & C] > 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. [nige1] Most other BLMLers never seem to suffer this kind of frustration and accuse me of paranoia. It is a relief to me that even one other BLMLer admits to similar experiences. Such opponents don't cheat deliberately but the law goes out of its way to encourage them to rationalize obfuscation. For example... [a] If you aren't certain, you must not guess. [b] Don't divulge general knowledge. [c] Don't put up with "harassment". [d] You should avoid specific questions (potential UI). [e] You must avoid a question that would largely confirm your expectations if it might divulge opponents' methods to partner (Pro question) [f] If called and if they have the time, some directors can extract buried nuggets; but others react the same way as Ed's director did - thus reinforcing concealment. [g] Several BLMLers say that detail just tends to confuse. (: A problem of which nobody I know has complained :) In that difficult to imagine eventuality, however, why can't you give a brief summary but immediately offer to supply more detail. [h] Prevarication is rarely penalized. I'm told there was one case with a Polish 1N overcall. Can anybody relate another case? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 7 20:56:38 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 7 21:01:16 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <95E5129E-DE3C-4A38-89EC-29F5C7437B43@rochester.rr.com> <00cc01c68a5b$36c9f520$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <003201c68a64$1ca0c9e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > > Hence I am also in sympathy is with the expert's > suspected "pro-question". IMO, in spite of BLML > efforts to distinguish them, there is little > practical difference between a "Kaplan" question > and "Pro" a question -- in both cases the > questioner fears that opponents may have been > economical with the truth; in neither case, does > the questioner stop to examine his conscience on > the precise reason for his question. My understanding of the term "pro question" is not questioning that seeks to flesh out what has been scantily offered (a Kaplan question) but the origination of questioning solely for partner's benefit, with the pro fully aware of what the answer is. Often the pro question solicits information that is general knowledge, making it particularly heinous. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jun 7 21:46:03 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed Jun 7 21:47:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred><002301c689fe$adf486e0$63fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <00b201c68a29$5d7d68f0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: Let me make sure I understand this. The TD, should apply A,B,C of Law 24 during the auction. 24A. The law states that there is no further penalty. 24B and 24C the Law gives a penalty during the auction. When the declarer becomes known by completing the auction the TD should inform the defenders that by the declarer's choice Law 50 does not apply since one of them has exposed himself. However, Law 16 applies and the exposer's partner ".....may not choose from logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information....." during play. He has two logical options when on lead. He could lead a trump, or his partner's twice bid suit of spades. Having seen partner's Ace it is clear that he has unauthorized information, fitting the "demonstrably have been suggested" so he carefully avoids even the hint of a problem, leads a trump and sets the contract. Had he not felt so constrained and led his partner's suit declarer would have made his contract. I guess that is another slant on rub-of-the-green. Right? Can we at least agree that since there is no penalty card Law 50 C is out of the picture? However, since we hit the defense twice, once for exposing a card(s) (Law24), and second for effectively barring the lead of partner's suit (Law16), we can blithely go on knowing that we have done a good TD job. And, while we are at it, isn't it interesting that Law 16B specifically uses the words "...by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table BEFORE (caps for emphasis are mine) the auction begins...." leaving an exposed card during the auction for a specific law later on? I wonder why? Or do we now want to go back and put it in Law 16A where it is the guy in shorts at a formal dinner? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" ; > > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:45 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > > > > > > > > >> For Ton and Grattan, > >> > >> Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > We are trying for quite some days now. > > Declarer did not decide to wave any additional penalty. Given the option > > he > > decided not to treat this card as a PC. > > I think I'm going to weigh in against Kojak here. The specific act of not > making the card a penalty card means that the declarer does not wish to > invoke the lead penalties and play penalties specifically associated with > there being a major PC. It does not in any way address the "extraneous" > information which has been transmitted. > > However the way we play bridge is by means of the calls and plays alone, > so the information content of the exposed card is not something that the > offender's partner is allowed to use. We're not worried about how he got > to find out about this card. There are two different processes which are > entirely independent. > > 1) We don't want to exact play penalties for a MPC > 2) We must address the general problem of some UI. > > I don't think we can play bridge any other way. and I specifically haven't > used law numbers here because the problem needs to be addressed as "How do > we play bridge?" cheers John > > > > > > ton > > > > > >>The declarer has exercised an option > >> permitted by Law WHEN HE BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have > >> already > >> been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he does not wish any > >> additional penalties (Law 50 and Law 16) to apply. The Law has stated > >> he > >> has that option. You now wish to tell me that the TD can go to Law 16, > >> decide that the "player has chosen among logical alternatives one that > > could > >> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" and now > >> adjust the score? > >> > >> And please, rather than talking around the question, please answer it. > >> A > >> simple yes or no would be greatly appreciated. The Law told the players > > what > >> to do during the auction, the law told the players what could happen > > during > >> the play, and the Law permitted the declarer to not wish to penalize > >> the > >> play of the cards. Is there anything much cleared than that? Or is > >> your > >> reluctance to accept the Law based on some sort of idea that the > >> players > > are > >> dunces and the TD must play the hands for them? > >> > >> Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know what we are talking > >> about.. > >> > >> Kojak > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: > >> To: "blml" > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:46 PM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Grattan Endicott >> > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > >> > ********************************* > >> > Haditha. [;-( ] > >> > ======================== > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Ton Kooijman" > >> > To: "blml" > >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:18 AM > >> > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > What I really don't understand is how you can > >> > > ignore L16C when you allow the card to be > >> > > picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me. > >> > > > >> > > ton > >> > > > >> > +=+ If the exposed card is picked up Law 16C > >> > surely applies when the card was played or led; > >> > when the exposure was accidental* and not a > >> > purposeful lead or play, the information gained > >> > from it was made available by partner and thus > >> > subject to 16A. This is my opinion. > >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > (*or indeed purposeful but not a lead or play, > >> > if such can be the case) > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > blml mailing list > >> > blml@amsterdamned.org > >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blml mailing list > >> blml@amsterdamned.org > >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 8 01:18:01 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jun 8 01:19:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred><002301c689fe$adf486e0$63fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <00b201c68a29$5d7d68f0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <011701c68a88$9f5a2bf0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Probst John (MadDog)" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > Let me make sure I understand this. The TD, should apply A,B,C of Law 24 > during the auction. > 24A. The law states that there is no further penalty. > > 24B and 24C the Law gives a penalty during the auction. > > When the declarer becomes known by completing the auction the TD should > inform the defenders that by the declarer's choice Law 50 does not apply > since one of them has exposed himself. > However, Law 16 applies and the exposer's partner ".....may not choose > from > logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over > another by the extraneous information....." during > play. > > He has two logical options when on lead. He could lead a trump, or his > partner's twice bid suit of spades. Having seen partner's Ace it is clear > that he has unauthorized information, fitting the "demonstrably have been > suggested" so he carefully avoids even the hint of a problem, leads a > trump > and sets the contract. Had he not felt so constrained and led his > partner's > suit declarer would have made his contract. > > I guess that is another slant on rub-of-the-green. I think I go with rub-of-the-green here, Kojak. We're not in realms of "could have known". Declarer was aware (or should have been made aware) of the consequences of his decision not to enforce the penalty card. That this lead to his own downfall is his problem, not that of the defence.I definitely stick to my assertion that the UI aspect is independent of the penalty card aspect. You and I have discussed f2f the law in terms of "How do *we* play bridge" a number of times, and I don't see how we can wriggle out of the UI. Are you suggesting we can? > > Right? > > Can we at least agree that since there is no penalty card Law 50 C is out > of > the picture? clearly so. > > However, since we hit the defense twice, once for exposing a card(s) > (Law24), and second for effectively barring the lead of partner's suit > (Law16), we can blithely go on knowing that we have done a good TD job. Noo Kojak, Noo. We have ensured that the offending side is aware of its ethical obligations. I'm very concerned if we're allowing a player to "profit" from UI however gained, even if his ultimate action actually is to his benefit when he attempts to meet his obligations. We're happy that the law permits rub of the green. The shmock is allowed to get lucky sometimes surely, but we can't allow him to cheat? Otherwise we're back to "If it hesitates, shoot it" type thinking and we know that that is wrong. We can interpret L16 many ways. How do *you* play bridge? (apart from badly, of course).[[ The world must be told Kojak is a regional winner. He beat my team in the final of the Wiesbaden ko midnight zips! ]] > > And, while we are at it, isn't it interesting that Law 16B specifically > uses > the words "...by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own > table > BEFORE (caps for emphasis are mine) the auction begins...." leaving an > exposed card during the auction for a specific law later on? I wonder why? > Or do we now want to go back and put it in Law 16A where it is the guy in > shorts at a formal dinner? We know we have problems with 16. We think we know what it means even if it says it very badly? Mmm. very interesting problem though, I agree. cheers John > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Probst" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:56 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ton Kooijman" >> To: "WILLIAM SCHODER" ; "blml" ; >> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:45 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> For Ton and Grattan, >> >> >> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong. >> > >> > We are trying for quite some days now. >> > Declarer did not decide to wave any additional penalty. Given the >> > option >> > he >> > decided not to treat this card as a PC. >> >> I think I'm going to weigh in against Kojak here. The specific act of not >> making the card a penalty card means that the declarer does not wish to >> invoke the lead penalties and play penalties specifically associated with >> there being a major PC. It does not in any way address the "extraneous" >> information which has been transmitted. >> >> However the way we play bridge is by means of the calls and plays alone, >> so the information content of the exposed card is not something that the >> offender's partner is allowed to use. We're not worried about how he got >> to find out about this card. There are two different processes which are >> entirely independent. >> >> 1) We don't want to exact play penalties for a MPC >> 2) We must address the general problem of some UI. >> >> I don't think we can play bridge any other way. and I specifically >> haven't >> used law numbers here because the problem needs to be addressed as "How >> do >> we play bridge?" cheers John >> >> >> > >> > ton >> > >> > >> >>The declarer has exercised an option >> >> permitted by Law WHEN HE BECAME THE DECLARER. Other penalties have >> >> already >> >> been applied per Law 24. He has decided that he does not wish any >> >> additional penalties (Law 50 and Law 16) to apply. The Law has stated >> >> he >> >> has that option. You now wish to tell me that the TD can go to Law >> >> 16, >> >> decide that the "player has chosen among logical alternatives one that >> > could >> >> have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" and >> >> now >> >> adjust the score? >> >> >> >> And please, rather than talking around the question, please answer it. >> >> A >> >> simple yes or no would be greatly appreciated. The Law told the >> >> players >> > what >> >> to do during the auction, the law told the players what could happen >> > during >> >> the play, and the Law permitted the declarer to not wish to penalize >> >> the >> >> play of the cards. Is there anything much cleared than that? Or is >> >> your >> >> reluctance to accept the Law based on some sort of idea that the >> >> players >> > are >> >> dunces and the TD must play the hands for them? >> >> >> >> Again a yes or no would suffice to let me know what we are talking >> >> about.. >> >> >> >> Kojak >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: >> >> To: "blml" >> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:46 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Grattan Endicott> >> > [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> >> > ********************************* >> >> > Haditha. [;-( ] >> >> > ======================== >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > From: "Ton Kooijman" >> >> > To: "blml" >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:18 AM >> >> > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 24 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > What I really don't understand is how you can >> >> > > ignore L16C when you allow the card to be >> >> > > picked up. Seems utterly wrong to me. >> >> > > >> >> > > ton >> >> > > >> >> > +=+ If the exposed card is picked up Law 16C >> >> > surely applies when the card was played or led; >> >> > when the exposure was accidental* and not a >> >> > purposeful lead or play, the information gained >> >> > from it was made available by partner and thus >> >> > subject to 16A. This is my opinion. >> >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > (*or indeed purposeful but not a lead or play, >> >> > if such can be the case) >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > blml mailing list >> >> > blml@amsterdamned.org >> >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> blml mailing list >> >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > blml mailing list >> > blml@amsterdamned.org >> > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tzimnoch at comcast.net Thu Jun 8 02:38:03 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Jun 8 02:39:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Law 24 In-Reply-To: References: <009a01c68702$f624d090$9700a8c0@john><44820BE4.2020809@t-online.de><006001c687ca$2e006840$e705e150@Mildred><007901c687e2$2757c520$56fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000401c68883$b28dd250$3a9c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><008c01c688a9$2d087f60$28fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><00a801c6895e$48e6bc50$bdfbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx><000101c689bb$4bf19110$3ce7403e@Mildred><002301c689fe$adf486e0$63fbf1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> <00b201c68a29$5d7d68f0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4487716B.8000103@comcast.net> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > And, while we are at it, isn't it interesting that Law 16B specifically uses > the words "...by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table > BEFORE (caps for emphasis are mine) the auction begins...." leaving an > exposed card during the auction for a specific law later on? I wonder why? > Or do we now want to go back and put it in Law 16A where it is the guy in > shorts at a formal dinner? L16B can apply during the auction as well. "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play...." Its purpose seems to distinguish UI created by the players who are supposed to be at the table from UI created by other people. It seems more a matter of who creates the UI than when. L27B1a, in a similar position to assign no penalty, makes explicit reference to L16 and the effect of the extraneous information. L34 has the same potential problem as is being discussed about L24. Should they be treated the same? -Todd From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Jun 8 11:15:37 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu Jun 8 11:17:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia Message-ID: <1FoGc5-1ZkKrw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> South is declarer and makes an open lead to the first trick. TD ! ?? From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 8 12:24:41 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 8 12:26:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <1FoGc5-1ZkKrw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000201c68ae5$c11dfe30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > South is declarer and makes an open lead to the first trick. > > TD ! ?? As the auction period has not yet ended this is a card prematurely led during the auction period and Law 24B applies. If it is revealed during the question period before the opening lead is faced (Law 41) that there has been some misinformation from presumed declarer or dummy then the Director can allow the last pass from presumed defending side to be withdrawn and order the auction to continue from thereon (Law 21B1). It is fully possible that as a result of this process the originally presumed declaring side eventually becomes the defending side and vice versa, but if not the prematurely led card shall just be picked up and restored to the hand, and play continues normally with no further consequences from this irregularity. Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Jun 8 13:04:17 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu Jun 8 13:06:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia Message-ID: <1FoIJF-0JBqca0@fwd35.aul.t-online.de> Law 17 E: "The auction period ends when all four players pass or when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced [...]" ?? Regards Peter > From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > South is declarer and makes an open lead to the first trick. > > > > TD ! ?? > > As the auction period has not yet ended this is a card prematurely led > during the auction period and Law 24B applies. > > If it is revealed during the question period before the opening lead > is faced (Law 41) that there has been some misinformation from > presumed declarer or dummy then the Director can allow the last pass > from presumed defending side to be withdrawn and order the auction to > continue from thereon (Law 21B1). > > It is fully possible that as a result of this process the originally > presumed declaring side eventually becomes the defending side and vice > versa, but if not the prematurely led card shall just be picked up and > restored to the hand, and play continues normally with no further > consequences from this irregularity. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 8 13:19:25 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jun 8 13:13:13 2006 Subject: [blml] why ask ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00d801c68a61$e490e640$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <002201c66cc0$ba3b7fe0$6c690947@immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20060502125935.02057550@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060608131348.0273ac90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:40 7/06/2006 +0100, you wrote: >[g] Several BLMLers say that detail just tends to >confuse. (: A problem of which nobody I know has >complained :) In that difficult to imagine >eventuality, however, why can't you give a brief >summary but immediately offer to supply more >detail. There are quite a few cases in our system, and we frequently deal with the problems that way ; for example, our explanation of a 2C opener : "a variety of sub-opening-value hands with spades the anchor suit, or any game force". The formula "a variety" tells the opponents they can ask for more information is needed, but they will usually have enough information to know how to defend against that (same defense as over a transfer preempt will work and be understood : either double as TO of the genuine suit, or double for general values and "cue" as shapely TO, according to their style). Explaining all possibilities at once could indeed be a bit confusing (weak 2S, 5S and any other suit, 4S/5H, 4S/6 bad H, plus seat and vulnerability considerations) especially if followed by "or any game force". I don't see what's wrong with presenting info the way it will usually be most useful to them. Regards, Alain. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 8 13:29:40 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 8 13:31:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <1FoIIX-1VftyK0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001c68aee$d5a0c2d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > To: Sven Pran > Law 17 E > "The auction period ends when all four players pass or > when after three passes in rotation have followed any > call the opening lead is faced [...]" > > ?? > > Regards Peter Sure, but presumed declarer or dummy cannot make an opening lead; this is a "privilege" for the presumed defenders. Any attempt by presumed declarer or dummy to make an opening lead is instead an exposure of a card during the auction and is dealt with in Law 24B (card prematurely led). Technically even an opening lead made by presumed declarer's RHO is a card prematurely led during the auction, but here we have a special law (54) which in detail deals with this particular situation. Regards Sven > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > > South is declarer and makes an open lead to the first trick. > > > > > > TD ! ?? > > > > As the auction period has not yet ended this is a card prematurely led > > during the auction period and Law 24B applies. > > > > If it is revealed during the question period before the opening lead > > is faced (Law 41) that there has been some misinformation from > > presumed declarer or dummy then the Director can allow the last pass > > from presumed defending side to be withdrawn and order the auction to > > continue from thereon (Law 21B1). > > > > It is fully possible that as a result of this process the originally > > presumed declaring side eventually becomes the defending side and vice > > versa, but if not the prematurely led card shall just be picked up and > > restored to the hand, and play continues normally with no further > > consequences from this irregularity. > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 8 14:10:07 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jun 8 14:03:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000001c68aee$d5a0c2d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <1FoIIX-1VftyK0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060608140843.0272dec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:29 8/06/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > It is fully possible that as a result of this process the originally > > > presumed declaring side eventually becomes the defending side and vice > > > versa, but if not the prematurely led card shall just be picked up and > > > restored to the hand, and play continues normally with no further > > > consequences from this irregularity. I don't understand that. Do you mean that, after three passes, if declarer "leads", the bidding might restart ? That's the only way one could become a defender. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Jun 8 14:19:06 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu Jun 8 14:20:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000001c68aee$d5a0c2d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c68aee$d5a0c2d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1FoJTe-22Pp0S0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> Hi again, Law 41 A (and B,C,D) describe the correct procedure. But where is a definition, that the opening lead _has_ to be from an opponent ? Look at the Definitions in the Laws: "Opening Lead ? The card led to the first trick." And, you admit, there's a special law (54), if RHO makes an OLOOT, why not read Law 53 A for declarer ? "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it [...]" or Law 55: "If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction" I can live with either view, but there's certainly an ambiguity in the laws, isn't it ? Regards, Peter From: "Sven Pran" > From: Peter Eidt > > Law 17 E > > "The auction period ends when all four players pass or > > when after three passes in rotation have followed any > > call the opening lead is faced [...]" > > ?? > > Sure, but presumed declarer or dummy cannot make an opening lead; this > is a "privilege" for the presumed defenders. Any attempt by presumed > declarer or dummy to make an opening lead is instead an exposure of a > card during the auction and is dealt with in Law 24B (card prematurely > led). > > Technically even an opening lead made by presumed declarer's RHO is a > card prematurely led during the auction, but here we have a special > law (54) which in detail deals with this particular situation. > From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 8 14:25:53 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 8 14:27:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060608140843.0272dec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c68af6$af604e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Sent: 8. juni 2006 14:10 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia > > At 13:29 8/06/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > It is fully possible that as a result of this process the > > > > originally presumed declaring side eventually becomes the > > > > defending side and vice versa, but if not the prematurely > > > > led card shall just be picked up and restored to the hand, > > > > and play continues normally with no further consequences > > > > from this irregularity. > > I don't understand that. Do you mean that, after three passes, if declarer > "leads", the bidding might restart ? That's the only way one could become > a defender. Only if the auction is continued under Law 21B1. Say that South has landed in 4S and then before the faced opening lead is made by West (or incorrectly by East) it is revealed that during the auction North or South has given incorrect information on their calls. The last (presumed) defender to pass; either East or West can now claim that had they been given the correct information they would have bid on instead of passing. The Director shall (Laws 21B1 and 81C5) inform that player of this right and allow him if he so wishes to retract his pass and make a different call after which the auction proceeds. The final result of the auction can very well be that for instance West becomes declarer in 5 Diamonds so that eventually the opening lead will be with North. If then South had originally attempted an opening lead in his 4S contract, that card would during the continued auction be handled according to Law 24B and eventually become a major penalty card (at the discretion of West). Regards Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Jun 8 14:42:22 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu Jun 8 14:43:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120998@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] Sent: 08 June 2006 13:10 To: Sven Pran; blml Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia At 13:29 8/06/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > It is fully possible that as a result of this process the originally > > > presumed declaring side eventually becomes the defending side and vice > > > versa, but if not the prematurely led card shall just be picked up and > > > restored to the hand, and play continues normally with no further > > > consequences from this irregularity. I don't understand that. Do you mean that, after three passes, if declarer "leads", the bidding might restart ? That's the only way one could become a defender. _______________________________________________ South (presumed declarer) leads. West: "its not your lead" South:"oh! what was the auction?" West: (auction) South:"oh!!, if that was the auction I should have alerted partner's 3C" West: "TD" ... TD: "There was MI, West (last to call) can change his final pass under L21B" West: 5C, P, P, P. TD: South's lead is card exposed during the auction, declarer W may treat it as an MPC! Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 8 15:06:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 8 15:08:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <1FoJTe-22Pp0S0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000301c68afc$6ca3bea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > Hi again, > > Law 41 A (and B,C,D) describe the correct procedure. > But where is a definition, that the opening lead _has_ > to be from an opponent ? > Look at the Definitions in the Laws: > "Opening Lead - The card led to the first trick." > > And, you admit, there's a special law (54), if RHO makes > an OLOOT, why not read Law 53 A for declarer ? Because it does not fit well to the practical issues. > "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct > lead. It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either > defender, as the case may be, accepts it [...]" > or Law 55: "If declarer has led out of turn from his > or dummy's hand, either defender may accept the > lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction" > > I can live with either view, but there's certainly an > ambiguity in the laws, isn't it ? > > Regards, Peter There is indeed, or rather there is a missing law. As all the laws related to opening leads, whether in turn or out of turn, clearly assume that opening leads are only made by a (presumed) defender it makes sense to me that an attempted OLOOT by presumed declarer or dummy shall be treated under Law 24B. Presumed declarer should definitely not have the possibility to terminate the auction period and thereby for instance prevent an opponent from using Law 21B1 to reach a favorable contract after misinformation is revealed? Regards Sven From siegmund at gci.net Thu Jun 8 22:39:33 2006 From: siegmund at gci.net (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu Jun 8 22:41:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Laws 35 and 36 Message-ID: Hello again, all... I have finally had a chance to re-subscribe to BLML after a long hiatus. I return with a question which I am sure has come up some time in the past, but I cannot remember the answer to it. Suppose the auction begins like this. North deals: Pass, Pass, Double, Redouble. Director! Obviously, Double and Redouble are cancelled, and South must make a legal call after Pass-Pass. Obviously, Law 36 applies to the double, so there are no penalties to North-South. The Redouble, however, has not been condoned. So... does that mean that East is barred because West made an inadmissible redouble? Or does L36 not apply to the Redouble at all, because the redouble did not violate any provision of L19B (the preceding call was indeed a double by an opponent)? GRB From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 9 00:14:52 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 9 00:16:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Laws 35 and 36 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c68b48$f7725810$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Gordon Bower > Hello again, all... I have finally had a chance to re-subscribe to BLML > after a long hiatus. > > I return with a question which I am sure has come up some time in the > past, but I cannot remember the answer to it. > > Suppose the auction begins like this. North deals: > > Pass, Pass, Double, Redouble. Director! > > Obviously, Double and Redouble are cancelled, and South must make a legal > call after Pass-Pass. > Obviously, Law 36 applies to the double, so there are no penalties to > North-South. > > The Redouble, however, has not been condoned. So... does that mean that > East is barred because West made an inadmissible redouble? > > Or does L36 not apply to the Redouble at all, because the redouble did > not violate any provision of L19B (the preceding call was indeed a double > by an opponent)? Law 35A: The Double is an inadmissible call which is "condoned" with a following call. Both the inadmissible double and all subsequent calls (in this case the redouble) are cancelled. The turn to call returns to (in this case) South and the auction continues as though there had been no irregularity. Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jun 9 08:18:20 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri Jun 9 08:20:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Laws 35 and 36 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FoaK4-28C7jU0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Hello, to answer with other words: Law 36 does not apply in this context ! Only Law 35 A applies. Law 36 applies only to calls that are not condoned so far. To be sure, there is a reference to Law 35 A (unfortunately at the very end of the Law) . Regards, Peter > Pass, Pass, Double, Redouble. Director! > > Obviously, Double and Redouble are cancelled, and South must make a > legal call after Pass-Pass. > Obviously, Law 36 applies to the double, so there are no penalties to > North-South. > > The Redouble, however, has not been condoned. So... does that mean > that East is barred because West made an inadmissible redouble? > Or does L36 not apply to the Redouble at all, because the redouble > did not violate any provision of L19B (the preceding call was indeed a > double by an opponent)? > GRB From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 10 13:22:26 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jun 10 13:24:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call References: <000c01c6882f$3c8f42e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005c01c68c80$273c17b0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:33 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Your call >> On Behalf Of Karel >> Sent: 5. juni 2006 00:15 >> To: 'blml' >> Subject: [blml] Your call It's competely pointless asking blml an opinion without giving the salient facts. Now that I've seen most of the details I'll rule 5H. The responding hand is worth a try but no more. Now everyone can be unhappy, I've told the OS they are cheats and the NOS get no benefit. One of my better rulings, I guess. cheers john >> >> Teams >> >> S QTx >> H A98x >> D AQx >> C AQT >> >> bidding proceeds >> >> 2S* 3H 4D ?? 3H made good snipped. >> >> * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) >> snip> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 22:54:53 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Jun 11 22:56:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) Message-ID: <448C831D.4030607@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Alain Gottcheiner > And in any case of doubt (ie, Was missing this line an > egregious error or not ? Perhaps), I would restore +620. > > If we act otherwise, we would sooner or later encounter a case where > declarer played in a strange way to cater for the case where the opponents' > action *was* ethical (freak hand), and you'll tell him his line was > inferior because it didn't cater for "ordinary" cases, so you don't adjust. > This looks pretty wrong. An old thread, but this is an interesting point. An example: South opens 3H. West doubles in a loud voice, literally pounding his fist on the table. All pass. Double is labelled "cooperative" on the convention card. Of course most South's play West for the trump stack (which he has), but a naive South plays East for the trumps on the basis that East's pass would have been illegal otherwise. Adjust? For one side or both? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jun 11 23:04:56 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Jun 11 23:06:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) Message-ID: <448C8578.2030005@cfa.harvard.edu> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >>>Edgar also used similar reasoning to deprecate >>>another apparent double-shot in a 1960s article >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. As this was prior to the 1975 Laws, when L16A as we know it first came into force, it doesn't seem very compelling for the present. The footnote to the present Law states when the director is supposed to be called, and I remember a later writing of Kaplan's when he gave advice in accordance with the footnote. From tOM at Abacurial.com Sun Jun 11 23:50:21 2006 From: tOM at Abacurial.com (tOM Trottier) Date: Sun Jun 11 23:52:10 2006 Subject: [games] Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <448C8578.2030005@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <448C57DD.4412.BCC7231@tOM.Abacurial.com> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: TomAndDancer154.jpg Date: 29 May 2006, 17:23 Size: 4530 bytes. Type: Unknown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TomAndDancer154.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4530 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060611/706d0da5/TomAndDancer154.obj From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 12 02:32:06 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon Jun 12 02:36:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) References: <448C8578.2030005@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004601c68db7$a3a26ba0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Willner" > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > >Kaplan: The time to call the director is right > >at the moment that an opponent takes what may be > >an unusual action after receiving illegal > >information. > > As this was prior to the 1975 Laws, when L16A as we know it first came > into force, it doesn't seem very compelling for the present. The > footnote to the present Law states when the director is supposed to be > called, and I remember a later writing of Kaplan's when he gave advice > in accordance with the footnote. Exactly right. The footnote says you call the Director when you have evidence of an irregularity, not a mere suspicion. Why is this footnote so widely ignored? However, as Kaplan wrote in his Appeals Committee series (1982-1984), there are times when an irregularity is so very obvious that it is appropriate to call the Director immediately. E.g., a pro opens a weak 2S and later bids 4S opposite a slow-passing client. Perhaps Kaplan's reasoning was that promptness will aid in establishing the existence of UI, as the Director can do nothing at this time but say "Play on." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 12 11:41:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 12 11:42:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <004601c68db7$a3a26ba0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin wrote: > However, as Kaplan wrote in his Appeals Committee series > (1982-1984), there are times when an irregularity is so very obvious > that it is appropriate to call the Director immediately. E.g., a pro > opens a weak 2S and later bids 4S opposite a slow-passing client. To me, at least, even this is not obvious. Perhaps the pro was sand-bagging when he bid 2S and there is no LA to 4S. Perhaps he knows his partner well enough to identify the slow pass of 4H as suggesting defending (*his* pard is always keen to support and reluctant to double) and thus considers 4S the non-suggested LA. In any sensible jurisdiction one would simply seek agreement as to the slowness of the pass and call the TD at the end of the hand were one to consider the 4S call may have been an infraction. Of course if 4H and 4S both go off, or Pro did indeed hold a sandbagging 8 solid S suit there would be no cause to call the TD. Of course in the UK the word "pro" does not have the connotations of "unethical" that Marv often seems to imply. Indeed the average standard of "pro" ethics is, IME, much higher than the average amateur standard (albeit I could name a couple of exceptions to this generalisation). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 12 11:41:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 12 11:42:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <448C831D.4030607@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > South opens 3H. West doubles in a loud voice, literally pounding his > fist on the table. All pass. Double is labelled "cooperative" on > the convention card. Of course most South's play West for the trump > stack (which he has), but a naive South plays East for the trumps on > the basis that East's pass would have been illegal otherwise. > Adjust? For one side or both? Well, given some of the hands I pre-empt I might play *both* opps for trump stacks :). If that is unlikely I shall enquire of the TD whether I should "protect myself" against West having misled me by the tone of the double or against East having made an illegal pass. Of course as a TD I'll adjust for both sides whichever pathway to protection is chosen. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 12 12:58:34 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Jun 12 12:52:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <448C831D.4030607@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612125641.0216dd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:54 11/06/2006 -0400, Steve wrote: >South opens 3H. West doubles in a loud voice, literally pounding his fist >on the table. All pass. Double is labelled "cooperative" on the >convention card. Of course most South's play West for the trump stack >(which he has), but a naive South plays East for the trumps on the basis >that East's pass would have been illegal otherwise. Adjust? For one side >or both? Adjust. You can't disallow Soith playing for a "normal" case (ie the bidding, including East's decision, is normal). And tell E/W that the next time they'll be severely fined (in MPs, I mean). From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 12 13:03:31 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Jun 12 13:14:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <004601c68db7$a3a26ba0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <448C8578.2030005@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612125922.02175d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:32 11/06/2006 -0700, Marvin wrote: >The footnote says you call the Director when you have >evidence of an irregularity, not a mere suspicion. Why is this >footnote so widely ignored? I must have missed something here. Many TDs-thinkers (hoping this isn't an oxymoron ;-) have told and written that you have to "reserve your rights" as soon as possible, if only to avoid being suspected of trying to recover from an absurd result. Some (as in BW's Appeals Committee) say that in extreme cases (eg, slow BW), you might even call before the infraction, simply to establish "live" the break in tempo. Are they all wrong ? Regards, Alain. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060612/12587cfb/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 12 14:15:19 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 12 14:17:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612125922.02175d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c68e19$df342160$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner At 17:32 11/06/2006 -0700, Marvin wrote: The footnote says you call the Director when you have evidence of an irregularity, not a mere suspicion. Why is this footnote so widely ignored? I must have missed something here. Many TDs-thinkers (hoping this isn't an oxymoron ;-) have told and written that you have to "reserve your rights" as soon as possible, if only to avoid being suspected of trying to recover from an absurd result. Some (as in BW's Appeals Committee) say that in extreme cases (eg, slow BW), you might even call before the infraction, simply to establish "live" the break in tempo. Are they all wrong ? Sven: I believe this to a very high degree depends upon the local culture. So let me tell how we normally handle such cases in Norway: If there is agreement on for instance break in tempo then there is no reason to call the Director, and we tell the players that. However if one player feels a reason to ask something like: "Do we agree that this call came after a substantial hesitation" and the other side says something like: "No, not at all" then the Director should be called immediately so that he can be aware of the situation and set the facts to his own satisfaction as best possible. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 12 14:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 12 14:42:36 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612125922.02175d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > I must have missed something here. > Many TDs-thinkers (hoping this isn't an oxymoron ;-) have told and > written that you have to "reserve your rights" as soon as possible, > if only to avoid being suspected of trying to recover from an absurd > result. The difficulty, Alain, is that in Marv's Zone one is forbidden to reserve rights (including, in the opinion of some, seeking agreement that UI has been made available) thus anything in 16A1 is irrelevant. Players in such Zones have a choice between an immediate call when UI occurs, or a call at the end of the hand (when dummy goes down). The laws are, IMO, unclear on which course should be taken when unable to reserve rights but abuse of UI is suspected. However, it seems vital that those who believe waiting until the hand of the hand is the correct approach should not be unduly disadvantaged by the stupidity of their ZA. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 12 16:18:07 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Jun 12 16:11:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612125922.02175d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612161344.02186120@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:40 12/06/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >The difficulty, Alain, is that in Marv's Zone one is forbidden to >reserve rights (including, in the opinion of some, seeking agreement >that UI has been made available) thus anything in 16A1 is irrelevant. >Players in such Zones have a choice between an immediate call when UI >occurs, or a call at the end of the hand (when dummy goes down). Once again, I'm lost. What's the difference between : a) calling immediately, telling what happened (one of your two options) b) calling to reserve your rights given that in most cases, when you use a), the TD will say "proceed and call again if needed", since one can seldom decide before the table result is known ; which translates into GOSUB b) Regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 12 17:27:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 12 17:28:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612161344.02186120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > *From:* Alain Gottcheiner > *To:* "Tim West-Meads" , blml@rtflb.org > *Date:* Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:18:07 +0200 > > At 13:40 12/06/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >The difficulty, Alain, is that in Marv's Zone one is forbidden to > >reserve rights (including, in the opinion of some, seeking agreement > >that UI has been made available) thus anything in 16A1 is irrelevant. > >Players in such Zones have a choice between an immediate call when UI > >occurs, or a call at the end of the hand (when dummy goes down). > > Once again, I'm lost. > > What's the difference between : > > a) calling immediately, telling what happened (one of your two > options) > b) calling to reserve your rights The "reservation of rights" is not a TD call. Where permitted it often takes the form of "Do we agree there was a BiT", "Yes". The TD is *only* called if the answer is "No". He will always issue an instruction to play on but may be better positioned to establish whether a BiT occurred than if called at the end of the hand. Due to an ACBL Zonal election the "reservation of rights" is not permitted in that Zone. Some people believe this also prevents seeking agreement about a BiT (I'm not sure about that myself). Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 12 17:30:58 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Jun 12 17:34:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612125922.02175d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060612161344.02186120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Tim West-Meads" ; Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) > At 13:40 12/06/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>The difficulty, Alain, is that in Marv's Zone one is forbidden to >>reserve rights (including, in the opinion of some, seeking agreement >>that UI has been made available) thus anything in 16A1 is irrelevant. >>Players in such Zones have a choice between an immediate call when UI >>occurs, or a call at the end of the hand (when dummy goes down). > > Once again, I'm lost. > > What's the difference between : > > a) calling immediately, telling what happened (one of your two options) > b) calling to reserve your rights > > given that in most cases, when you use a), the TD will say "proceed and > call again if needed", since one can seldom decide before the table result > is known ; which translates into GOSUB b) > > Regards > > Alain For one thing it is going to take a minute or two or three to get the TD, and then it is going to take a minute or two for the TD to find out why he was called- and then it will be over; but if it isn't [over] then it might take two or three minutes for the TD to gather facts and sort it out. In the mean time players have forgotten where they are and they will take time to return to the task at hand. They will also be distracted by all the extraneous information generated and will want to take time to process that information. And now partner will know that there is something special about THIS hand because why else would you be taking special effort to get preliminary protection when there is insufficient evidence that there will be an infraction. And the opponents will feel like you have called them scumbags. Not that the player isn't a scumbag- because there are a lot of them out there- which I have met with alarming frequency. The point is that if the player isn't a SB then there won't be a problem with waiting until it is evident that an infraction occurred; and if he is a SB then he not only is going to protest your assertion the first time you make it but the second time you make it when the TD is called back. All this prolonging the hand and acrimony and distraction, for what??? Only to go through it again. That is the difference. regards roger pewick From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Jun 12 19:03:53 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 13 11:10:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) References: Message-ID: <003001c68e42$d189e9e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Due to an ACBL Zonal election the "reservation of rights" is not > permitted in that Zone. Some people believe this also prevents seeking > agreement about a BiT (I'm not sure about that myself). > The badly worded "Election" is impossible to understand. Its evident aim was to prevent the postponing of a Director call after UI is created, but then it says the call should be made "when they believe there may have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." "Resulting," not "could result," implies that the Director call is made when a suspicious action is taken. However, that violates the footnote of L16A2, which is *not* an option for SOs.The ignoramus who wrote this Election didn't know that bids are calls or that plays may be involved, not just calls, and most ACBL Directors rightfully ignore it.. And what is this haughty announcment "reserves the right" in L16A1? Rights don't have to be reserved, a player may call the Director at any time. Okay, what follows "reserves the right" are words that imply a discussion of the possible UI has taken place (and should take place). If the UI is denied, the Director should be called. Hence, the recommended scenario must go like this: "Can we agree that there is a problem here?" If the answer is no, the Director should be called (assuming the matter should be pursued at all). If the answer is yes, then: "In that case there is no need to call the Director, we can do that later if it seems appropriate." And L16A2's footnote specifies that appropriate time. I don't know why the ACBL had a problem with this scenario. It seems likely that the writer of the Election was thinking that when a suspicious action is taken the Director should be called immediately. That was what the 1975 Laws said, but the language was changed in 1987. Some people don't read updates. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 13 01:34:44 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 13 11:30:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <945A220D-8C16-46CA-936D-F292438FB416@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 12, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > The difficulty, Alain, is that in Marv's Zone one is forbidden to > reserve rights (including, in the opinion of some, seeking agreement > that UI has been made available) thus anything in 16A1 is irrelevant. This is not a Zonal election, it's a Sponsoring Organization election. The wording of Law 16A1 seems very clear to me: "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed)." So, if a player believes that UI exists, *and that damage could well result* (emphasis mine) he may reserve his rights, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization (see below) prohibit that. If the SO elects to prohibit reserving rights, then the player should, instead of reserving rights, call the TD *immediately*. The ACBL has, however, gone a bit further in their election, which reads "at ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." They are saying, in other words, that the player should *not* call the director immediately, but should wait until the recipient of the UI has taken an action that could result in damage. This means, in practice, that one is not supposed to attempt to establish that there has been a BIT (or whatever) at the time that happens, but only later, when an infraction may have occurred. I believe this to be an error for two reasons: (1) delaying the determination will make the TD's job more difficult, and opens the door to "you failed to protect yourself" rulings, and (2) the opponents lose their right to dispute the alleged conveyance of UI at the time of its occurrence, but must instead also wait until *use* of it is alleged. This is not in accordance with the wording of Law 16A1, in which the election pertains only to the reserving of rights by the putative NOS, and does nothing to modify the rights of the putative OS. Regarding who makes the election: the ACBL has stated, many times, that at club games, the *club* is the SO for purposes of the laws. ACBL clubs may therefore elect to *allow* reserving of rights. Perhaps they should do so. I know that the ACBL also calls the Unit, District or other organization (such as an area organization within a unit) which holds a Sectional, Regional or other tournament "the sponsoring organization". If this means, for example, that a Unit Tournament Committee, as the sponsoring organization for a Sectional, may elect to allow reserving of rights then, again, perhaps they should do so. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 12 19:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 13 11:35:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000301c68afc$6ca3bea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Presumed declarer should definitely not have the possibility to > terminate the auction period and thereby for instance prevent an > opponent from using Law 21B1 to reach a favorable contract after > misinformation is revealed? Why not? If declarer "terminates" the auction in a L21b1 case either by making the opening lead or by failing to correct MI before the OL is faced by LHO it makes no difference. Either way we adjust to the most favourable..etc.. that his opps would likely have got had he not infracted. This will be a *worse* (or at least no better) score for him than had he not infracted. The "Opening Lead" is the first card deliberately led after the auction is over. One person can lead in turn, 3 people can OLOOT. If declarer OLOOTs his opps are entitled to any advantage they may receive from acceptance. If they decline any inferences to declarer available from them so doing are UI to him. The laws do not require that the OL come from defenders but since I can handle infractions when it doesn't this deficiency/deliberate omission doesn't bother me. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 13 09:11:14 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jun 13 11:35:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612161344.02186120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060613090621.0217b9f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:27 12/06/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >The "reservation of rights" is not a TD call. Where permitted it often >takes the form of "Do we agree there was a BiT", "Yes". OK, I can see what I missed now. An impropriety. We use -erroneously, as it seems- the word "reserve one's rights" for an informal TD call just to mention the BiT or whatever, not for the agreement-seeking procedure you mention. The latter is seldom used in Belgium. Thanks. Best regards Alain From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 13 01:38:15 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 13 11:48:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <136A5F2E-6E0B-40C6-8F98-5044EEDA6E90@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 12, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Due to an ACBL Zonal election the "reservation of rights" is not > permitted in that Zone. Some people believe this also prevents > seeking > agreement about a BiT (I'm not sure about that myself). It is *not* a Zonal election, it is a sponsoring organization election. Clubs, at least, are not bound by it. I'm not sure about Units or Districts, who are SOs for Sectionals and Regionals, respectively. As to it preventing seeking agreement about a BIT, I don't buy it. I explained why in my previous message. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 13 13:38:45 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jun 13 13:31:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: References: <000301c68afc$6ca3bea0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060613133652.0217f300@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:43 12/06/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >The "Opening Lead" is the first card deliberately led after the auction >is over. One person can lead in turn, 3 people can OLOOT. >If declarer OLOOTs his opps are entitled to any advantage they may >receive from acceptance. If they decline any inferences to declarer >available from them so doing are UI to him. I fail to see how the opps are going to accept the OLOOT in this case. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 13 13:34:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 13 13:35:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <945A220D-8C16-46CA-936D-F292438FB416@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > This is not a Zonal election, it's a Sponsoring Organization > election. Oops - sorry Ed. I'm always a little prone to confusion as to the ACBL as ZO/NA/SO and the degree of authority it exerts over clubs. My understanding was that the prohibition extended to ACBL sanctioned games in clubs but maybe, as you say, it doesn't. Quite possibly clubs are free to choose but none have done so! I understood that the ACBL regarded "Reserving my rights!" as pompous/antagonistic/intimidatory - I tend to agree - and that is why they chose not to allow it. Few in the UK use that terminology but many will happily use the gentler "Can we agree there was a BiT?" believing that to be in keeping with the Law. As a process it seems to work well. I agree with Marv that the election (or whatever) was poorly conceived but assign a kinder motive to the cock-up. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 13 13:48:58 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jun 13 13:42:33 2006 Subject: [blml] inferential UI Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060613133849.0218eec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I just remembered of a strange case. Sometimes, you don't hear (or see) the auction properly, and the part you heard (or saw) doesn't fit together. For example, you might hear : pass - pass - pass - double. If you're swift of mind, and see nobody else objects, you realize what happened, shut your big t__p, and call for a review of the auction as soon as possible. If you aren't, and call the TD for the impossible auction, you transmit UI that you didn't hear the bid (this happened to my partner in the EEC championships a long time ago. BTW, he was the son of a great TD, but this was a case he hadn't be taught about ;-) But if the auction goes : 1C (strong : you) - pass - pass, the mere fact that partner passes gives you UI. Even if he doesn't raise any part of an eyebrow, and why should he, if he has a Spanish pass (a rare occurrence in my style) ? How do you deal with such information, transmitted by his mere call, given that L16 only mentions UI coming from incidents at the table (haste or delay, intonation, mannerism ...) ? I mention this because, recently, I passed a 2C opening (either GF or weak with 4+ spades), gambling that it was the latter. Several persons at the table, including the kibitzer, had the information that I didn't see partner's opening, except that I did :-P Thank you for the advice. Best regards, Alain. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 14:01:39 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jun 13 14:02:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:43 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia > The laws do not require that the OL come from defenders I am curious about the meaning of L41A............, the defender on the presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead ..... > but since I can handle infractions when it doesn't hmmmm......but in accordance with law? regards roger pewick > this deficiency/deliberate omission > doesn't bother me. > Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 13 14:46:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 13 14:48:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c68ee7$71c62b40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > I am curious about the meaning of > > L41A............, the defender on the presumed declarer's left makes the > opening lead ..... > > > but since I can handle infractions when it doesn't > > hmmmm......but in accordance with law? And indeed "which law(s)"? Just to summarize: Law 41A defines who can make the opening lead and how it is to be made. Law 17E specifies that the auction period ends when ... the opening lead is faced. Law 54 specifies how to deal with a faced opening lead out of turn. From the text in this law we must conclude that it is written to handle solely the case where the wrong defender attempts an opening lead. We have no law that seems applicable on attempted opening leads by presumed declarer or dummy, however if we accept that such attempts do not terminate the auction as specified in Law 17E we can apply Law 24B with no problems at all. What is needed to avoid discussions like this is a confirmation in law or footnote to the effect that presumed declarer or dummy's attempted opening lead out of turn does not terminate the auction period but shall be handled under Law 24B. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 13 15:02:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 13 15:03:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > > The laws do not require that the OL come from defenders > > I am curious about the meaning of > > L41A............, the defender on the presumed declarer's left makes > the opening lead ..... And it will be "in turn" (assuming the presumption is correct). When the player on declarer's right makes a lead it is still an opening lead, merely OOT. Equally it's OOT when declarer/dummy choose to lead. > > but since I can handle infractions when it doesn't > > hmmmm......but in accordance with law? Yes, not a problem. Defenders have a right, enshrined in L55a to accept a LOOT by declarer (Opening lead or otherwise). An OLOOT by presumed dummy is trickier, but can also be dealt with. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 13 15:02:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 13 15:03:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060613133652.0217f300@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > *From:* Alain Gottcheiner > *To:* "Tim West-Meads" , blml@rtflb.org > *Date:* Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:38:45 +0200 > > At 18:43 12/06/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >The "Opening Lead" is the first card deliberately led after the > auction > >is over. One person can lead in turn, 3 people can OLOOT. > >If declarer OLOOTs his opps are entitled to any advantage they may > >receive from acceptance. If they decline any inferences to declarer > >available from them so doing are UI to him. > > I fail to see how the opps are going to accept the OLOOT in this case. Suppose you are declarer's RHO and he leads a suit in which you hold the AQ and place him with the king. You simply say "I accept the lead". Dummy goes down and the players follow in sequence. I'm not saying this will happen very often - just that the right of RHO to accept the lead cannot be denied. Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 15:22:22 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jun 13 15:23:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > Roger wrote: > >> > The laws do not require that the OL come from defenders >> >> I am curious about the meaning of >> >> L41A............, the defender on the presumed declarer's left makes >> the opening lead ..... > > And it will be "in turn" (assuming the presumption is correct). When > the player on declarer's right makes a lead it is still an opening lead, > merely OOT. Equally it's OOT when declarer/dummy choose to lead. > >> > but since I can handle infractions when it doesn't >> >> hmmmm......but in accordance with law? > > Yes, not a problem. Defenders have a right, enshrined in L55a to accept > a LOOT by declarer (Opening lead or otherwise). > > An OLOOT by presumed dummy is trickier, but can also be dealt with. > > Tim What do you suggest in the case given the premise that the declaring side makes an OLOOT: W N E S P- P- P- 1N PPP N pulls a card from his hand, says*, 'my lead?' and [immediately] faces his card? Let us say that W calls the TD. *= an attempt to avoid dribbling on about whether S intended to lead. regards roger pewick From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 13 16:17:20 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 13 16:18:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F505D80-51AD-489C-B4F7-58FD3A26BB3B@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 13, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Oops - sorry Ed. I'm always a little prone to confusion as to the > ACBL > as ZO/NA/SO and the degree of authority it exerts over clubs. So is most everybody in North America. :-) > My understanding was that the prohibition extended to ACBL > sanctioned games > in clubs but maybe, as you say, it doesn't. Quite possibly clubs are > free to choose but none have done so! The election does say "in ACBL sanctioned games", but I have it on good authority (Rick Beye, ACBL CTD, among others) that it doesn't apply to clubs. I suspect in most cases clubs haven't chosen to allow reserving rights because they don't know they can, but I also think one could make a case for not doing so because it would confuse players who would then find themselves playing under different rules in Sectionals, Regionals or the Nationals. The ACBL might have done better to use "sponsored" instead of "sanctioned" - although I wouldn't be surprised if, back in 1987, the drafters intended the election to apply to clubs as well. > I understood that the ACBL regarded "Reserving my rights!" as > pompous/antagonistic/intimidatory - I tend to agree - and that is why > they chose not to allow it. Few in the UK use that terminology but > many > will happily use the gentler "Can we agree there was a BiT?" believing > that to be in keeping with the Law. As a process it seems to work > well. I don't know why the ACBL chose not to allow it. It might well have been Not Invented Here syndrome. IAC, I like the UK method. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 13 16:21:45 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 13 16:22:58 2006 Subject: [blml] inferential UI In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060613133849.0218eec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060613133849.0218eec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jun 13, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > How do you deal with such information, transmitted by his mere > call, given that L16 only mentions UI coming from incidents at the > table (haste or delay, intonation, mannerism ...) ? > > I mention this because, recently, I passed a 2C opening (either GF > or weak with 4+ spades), gambling that it was the latter. Several > persons at the table, including the kibitzer, had the information > that I didn't see partner's opening, except that I did :-P I believe you just shot down your own argument - you *know* that players will sometimes pass a forcing bid, because you've done it. Therefore the fact that partner passed your forcing bid conveys no UI at all. Aside from that, information from legal calls is AI. If you want to infer that partner passed because he didn't see your call, that's your lookout. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 13 16:25:44 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 13 16:26:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000101c68ee7$71c62b40$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c68ee7$71c62b40$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2DB343A0-5119-4D4C-9D2D-00B75712B451@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Law 17E specifies that the auction period ends when ... the opening > lead is > faced. [snip] > What is needed to avoid discussions like this is a confirmation in > law or > footnote to the effect that presumed declarer or dummy's attempted > opening > lead out of turn does not terminate the auction period but shall be > handled > under Law 24B. Suggested wording: "the auction period ends when... the correct opening leader faces his lead." From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 13 17:15:42 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 13 17:16:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <2DB343A0-5119-4D4C-9D2D-00B75712B451@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c68efc$3c88f830$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Law 17E specifies that the auction period ends when ... the opening > > lead is > > faced. > > [snip] > > > What is needed to avoid discussions like this is a confirmation in > > law or > > footnote to the effect that presumed declarer or dummy's attempted > > opening > > lead out of turn does not terminate the auction period but shall be > > handled > > under Law 24B. > > Suggested wording: "the auction period ends when... the correct > opening leader faces his lead." I'm sorry Ed but I don't think this will work without more endless discussions. Shall the auction period (with your amendment to L17E) end when Law 54 applies? (A faced opening lead from the wrong defender is definitely not an opening lead from the correct opening leader.) Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jun 13 17:19:32 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue Jun 13 17:20:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <2DB343A0-5119-4D4C-9D2D-00B75712B451@rochester.rr.com> References: <000101c68ee7$71c62b40$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2DB343A0-5119-4D4C-9D2D-00B75712B451@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <448ED784.2050606@meteo.fr> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Law 17E specifies that the auction period ends when ... the opening >> lead is >> faced. > > > [snip] > >> What is needed to avoid discussions like this is a confirmation in >> law or >> footnote to the effect that presumed declarer or dummy's attempted >> opening >> lead out of turn does not terminate the auction period but shall be >> handled >> under Law 24B. > > > Suggested wording: "the auction period ends when... the correct opening > leader faces his lead." > and so, when a lead out of turn is accepted, the auction period will never come to an end. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 13 17:43:23 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 13 17:44:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <448ED784.2050606@meteo.fr> References: <000101c68ee7$71c62b40$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2DB343A0-5119-4D4C-9D2D-00B75712B451@rochester.rr.com> <448ED784.2050606@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Jun 13, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > and so, when a lead out of turn is accepted, the auction period > will never come to an end. So it won't. Suggest a better wording. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 13 17:43:49 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 13 17:45:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000201c68efc$3c88f830$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c68efc$3c88f830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Jun 13, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I'm sorry Ed but I don't think this will work without more endless > discussions. Shall the auction period (with your amendment to L17E) > end when > Law 54 applies? (A faced opening lead from the wrong defender is > definitely > not an opening lead from the correct opening leader.) Suggest a better wording. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 13 17:48:48 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jun 13 17:47:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Complete, simple, clear laws References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060612125922.02175d40@pop.ulb.ac.be><5.1.0.14.0.20060612161344.02186120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005301c68f00$dd7a7580$149468d5@jeushtlj> BLMLers in a feeding frenzy over a complex and unclear rule. The latest is "right reservation" in the ACBL -- and variants in other jurisdictions. And this happens with regulation after regulation, law after law. If Bridge Law committees hired a child as a consultant, what advice would they get? Rather than bicker about their meaning it would require less work and be better (for Bridge players) to simplify and clarify laws and rules and publish them in the world-wide rules of bridge (at least as defaults). That nobody will seriously consider this solution, demonstrates that the law in Bridge (as in all walks of life) has been subverted for the benefit of lawyers and officials rather than players (and the public). When the new TFLB is published I fervently hope I'll be forced to make a public retraction. A special request: If you reply, please don't attack me personally -- I'm merely voicing a widely held view; and please answer the argument -- rather than try to earn Browny points with a nit-picking one-liner. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 18:15:09 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jun 13 18:17:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <000201c68efc$3c88f830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > > On Jun 13, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> I'm sorry Ed but I don't think this will work without more endless >> discussions. Shall the auction period (with your amendment to L17E) >> end when >> Law 54 applies? (A faced opening lead from the wrong defender is >> definitely >> not an opening lead from the correct opening leader.) > > Suggest a better wording. Better wording would take about 20000 words. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 13 18:22:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 13 18:23:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c68f05$9d4c4e70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jun 13, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > and so, when a lead out of turn is accepted, the auction period > > will never come to an end. > > So it won't. Suggest a better wording. Law 54: When an opening lead is faced out of turn {footnote}, declarer may ..... The footnote should read: By the defender on presumed declarer's right. See Law 24B when presumed declarer or dummy leads a card at the time of an opening lead. Regards Sven From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jun 13 18:20:09 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue Jun 13 18:26:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606131620.k5DGK9gc021650@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Roger Pewick writes: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >> I'm sorry Ed but I don't think this will work without more endless > >> discussions. Shall the auction period (with your amendment to L17E) > >> end when > >> Law 54 applies? (A faced opening lead from the wrong defender is > >> definitely > >> not an opening lead from the correct opening leader.) > > > > Suggest a better wording. > > Better wording would take about 20000 words. > Or one or two examples. I repeat the point I've made several times, an official case book vastly simplifies the process of writing rules for complex situations. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 13 18:34:42 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jun 13 18:35:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <000901c68f05$9d4c4e70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia >> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert >> On Jun 13, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >> > and so, when a lead out of turn is accepted, the auction period >> > will never come to an end. >> >> So it won't. Suggest a better wording. > > Law 54: > When an opening lead is faced out of turn {footnote}, declarer may ..... > > The footnote should read: > By the defender on presumed declarer's right. See Law 24B when presumed > declarer or dummy leads a card at the time of an opening lead. > > Regards Sven If the auction was over [three passes in rotation and no MI] at the time of the lead then 24B specifies that when the next board is played then the partner must pass at his 'next turn to call'. regards roger pewick From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 13 20:50:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 13 20:51:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger asked. > What do you suggest in the case given the premise that the declaring > side makes an OLOOT: > > W N E S > > P- P- P- 1N > > PPP > > N pulls a card from his hand, says*, 'my lead?' and [immediately] > faces his card? Let us say that W calls the TD. How about applying the laws? L41D: After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank, in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer, with trumps to dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. Followed by: L45D: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2). Ok, there's a tiny discrepancy in tense but not enough to render the law unworkable. The opening lead reverts to declarer's LHO - who now has the advantage of having seen dummy - well, tough titty to offenders, next time maybe N will be less careless. I wouldn't mind if the next laws made clear that an OLOOT could not be made by declaring side - and I'm sure wording it wouldn't be too difficult. Until then I happy that doing things this way ensures maximum protection to NOS from such shenanigans. If some other TD feels it better to rule "no opening lead has been made" I'd not overrule him were I CTD, I believe there's just about enough ambiguity to allow that interpretation. Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 13 21:40:03 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jun 13 21:41:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c68f21$2a7c4dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ........... > > Law 54: > > When an opening lead is faced out of turn {footnote}, declarer may ..... > > > > The footnote should read: > > By the defender on presumed declarer's right. See Law 24B when presumed > > declarer or dummy leads a card at the time of an opening lead. > > > > Regards Sven > > > If the auction was over [three passes in rotation and no MI] at > the time of the lead then 24B specifies that when the next board > is played then the partner must pass at his 'next turn to call'. But the auction wasn't over! The auction period ends when the opening lead is faced, and the footnote I suggested to Law 54 makes it clear that the "lead" from presumed declarer or dummy is no (opening) lead, it is a card exposed during the auction and therefore subject to Law 24B. A separate issue is that when no MI from declaring side is revealed during the query period at the end of the auction period then a premature lead from presumed declarer or dummy has absolutely no qonsequences. You remind me of the young lady who because of an infraction was forced to pass "whenever it was her turn to call". Three weeks later the club Director understood that she had misunderstood and told her that the penalty lasted only within that particular auction. (See for instance Laws 27B2 and 27B3). Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 14 00:45:55 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Jun 14 00:47:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > Roger asked. > >> What do you suggest in the case given the premise that the declaring >> side makes an OLOOT: >> >> W N E S >> >> P- P- P- 1N >> >> PPP >> >> N pulls a card from his hand, says*, 'my lead?' and [immediately] >> faces his card? Let us say that W calls the TD. > > How about applying the laws? > > L41D: After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front > of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of > rank, in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer, with trumps to > dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. hmmm. ok. Dummy tables his other 12 cards. That's whaat is says. > Followed by: > > L45D: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did > not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before > each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw > (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was > drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a > card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2). hmmm. This may indeed get interesting. I'm not sure about distinctions here. Is presumed dummy the same as dummy, or does it make a difference subsequent the OL? If there is no dummy until it is faced, I do not think it is valid to say that dummy has done anything until after dummy is faced. I think something like that has been argued but I wouldn't put money on it, yet. > Ok, there's a tiny discrepancy in tense but not enough to render the law > unworkable. The opening lead reverts to declarer's LHO - who now has > the advantage of having seen dummy - well, tough titty to offenders, > next time maybe N will be less careless. At this point I am going to point out a few things. Given that 'dummy' has made an OLOOT then 41C. Opening Lead Faced Following this question period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins, and dummy's hand is spread. dummy's other 12 cards are spread, and.... 55A. Declarer's Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). L55A gives defenders the option to accept Declarer's named card from dummy. I am thinking that it does not apply when dummy acts on his on volition. It being arguable whether it was dummy or presumed dummy that acted. but.... 53A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. This is unequivocal, imo. Yet.... 54A. Declarer Spreads His Hand After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy, and dummy becomes declarer. Truly interesting, I dare say. Dummy's hand has been spread, and now declarer may elect to spread his hand also and watch partner declare! However!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 47E2. Retraction of Play (a) No One Has Subsequently Played ...... An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. After all is said and done. Whatever option is chosen, dummy's OLOOT may not be retracted. As a further however!!!!! I do note that previously TWM suggested that L55A comes into play....... "Yes, not a problem. Defenders have a right, enshrined in L55a to accept a LOOT by declarer (Opening lead or otherwise). An OLOOT by presumed dummy is trickier, but can also be dealt with. Tim" .......And that he did not mention it above!!! After all, Tim suggested that the lawS be followed. regards roger pewick > I wouldn't mind if the next laws made clear that an OLOOT could not be > made by declaring side - and I'm sure wording it wouldn't be too > difficult. Until then I happy that doing things this way ensures > maximum protection to NOS from such shenanigans. > > If some other TD feels it better to rule "no opening lead has been made" > I'd not overrule him were I CTD, I believe there's just about enough > ambiguity to allow that interpretation. > > Tim From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Jun 14 01:58:00 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed Jun 14 01:59:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <005c01c68c80$273c17b0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000001c68f45$343aec30$2101a8c0@Karel3200> +++ and I completely agree with John. Since the thread start, a poll was run (not by me) asking various players what they would bid via 2S* 3H 4D ??. Not unsurprsingly the majority moved toward slam with either a minor cue or 4NT (my choice as it right sides the possible 5NT best contract) or bid it directly. Those that did move would probably have died in 5H's (insufficient key cards) or corrected 6H's to 6NT (protecting the minor tenance). So yes I would rule 5H's saying the OS are not allowed to make use of the UI but no the likelihood of getting to 6H's is too slim to impose that score (unless my poll or the AC felt otherwise). This is not the same as result stands. I have to admit though to some disappointment to "the head in the sand" attitude of Law 27B1. How can one suggest that correcting a bid passes no UI ?? It always does, whether it is a vibe, the knowledge that pd didnt mean to bid what they did and the implications of what the bid actually showed as opposed to the corrected bid, the "happiness" at correcting the bid (ie) yes they have values or don't, etc, etc. There is always UI in some form. and ... even if you do say ok the call was corrected smoothly no UI ... what happens in the current case ... The evidence is quite strong that the OS acted on "the vibe". You do a poll and as suspected the majority bid on. Of course the opps will never admit to this (considering their options etc etc will be their stance) knowing full well 27B1 covers them. The OS may infact act completely in good faith and yet still have acted unconciously on "the vibe" or UI. 27b2 - "If the director judges that the insufficient bid coveyed such information as to damage ...." - useless .... the information can still be imparted in the manner of the correction. The act of correcting the bid imo always carries information to pd. I should think a 27b3 ... "If the TD judges that the corrected call swayed the OS from a normal course of action (deemed to be a majority action taken by the OS peers) he can adjust the score ..." or allow 16C2 to apply. Karel It's competely pointless asking blml an opinion without giving the salient facts. Now that I've seen most of the details I'll rule 5H. The responding hand is worth a try but no more. Now everyone can be unhappy, I've told the OS they are cheats and the NOS get no benefit. One of my better rulings, I guess. cheers john >> >> Teams >> >> S QTx >> H A98x >> D AQx >> C AQT >> >> bidding proceeds >> >> 2S* 3H 4D ?? 3H made good snipped. >> >> * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers) >> From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 14 01:59:55 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 14 02:01:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c68f45$785d3e90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ........... > hmmm. This may indeed get interesting. I'm not sure about distinctions > here. Is presumed dummy the same as dummy, or does it make a difference > subsequent the OL? If there is no dummy until it is faced, I do not think > it is valid to say that dummy has done anything until after dummy is > faced. > I think something like that has been argued but I wouldn't put money on > it, > yet. Just to make that perfectly clear: There is no dummy (nor any declarer) in the play until after the opening lead has been faced. Notice that Law 41 very carefully uses the term "presumed declarer" to distinguish his state after the concluding pass until the opening lead is faced. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 14 11:33:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 14 11:34:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > > hmmm. This may indeed get interesting. I'm not sure about > distinctions here. Is presumed dummy the same as dummy, or does it > make a difference subsequent the OL? If there is no dummy until it > is faced, I do not think it is valid to say that dummy has done > anything until after dummy is faced. I think something like that has > been argued but I wouldn't put money on it, yet. Well, before an opening lead is faced he is "presumed dummy", after an opening lead is faced he is "dummy". By law the transition from one state to another happens at exactly the instant that the lead is faced. > 55A. Declarer's Lead Accepted > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either > defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its > retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > > > > L55A gives defenders the option to accept Declarer's named card from > dummy. I am thinking that it does not apply when dummy acts on his on > volition. It being arguable whether it was dummy or presumed dummy > that acted. > > but.... > > 53A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead > Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. > > This is unequivocal, imo. Indeed. It is perfectly legal for NOS to accept the lead (verbally or by following) > 54A. Declarer Spreads His Hand > After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; > he becomes dummy, and dummy becomes declarer. No longer an option because of Law54c. > 47E2. Retraction of Play > (a) No One Has Subsequently Played > > ...... An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has > faced any card. Agreed - no retraction allowed. > After all is said and done. Whatever option is chosen, dummy's OLOOT > may not be retracted. But that is irrelevant. Sure OS don't get a chance to "retract" but, presuming someone has drawn attention to the fiasco, we still have to apply "the card must be withdrawn" from L45D. Note "withdrawn", not "retracted". This is a "must" and carried out at the instruction of the TD not an option. As I said trickier but soluble. OK, the laws aren't perfect for the situation - whatever I do, Roger does, or Sven does requires a bit of verbal squeezing. I believe my approach is workable and at least as good a fit for the law as any other. It's not the only such approach but we don't get the option of saying "The laws don't cover this - please go away." Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jun 14 11:33:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jun 14 11:34:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000b01c68f21$2a7c4dc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > But the auction wasn't over! The auction period ends when the opening > lead is faced In the case we have been discussing the *auction* was most definitely over. The *auction period* was not. The two are different things with the period starting before the actually auction and continuing after the end of the auction. The laws, IMO, are sometimes careless in using one when they have intended the other. I note that Sven has, effectively, mentally inserted the word "period" into Law24. Perhaps this is right, but let us go back in time a bit. South, West and East have removed their cards, counted them and started to sort their hands - the auction *period* has begun for both sides (L17A). North, the dealer, is running a bit behind - when he attempts to remove his cards one or more is exposed (assume they were boxed by the previous player or "sprung-loaded" into a faulty board and flip out). Ok it's a result of North trying to remove the hand but it is not his fault. Do we use L24 because the *auction period* has begun - or do we use Law6D1 because the *auction* has not yet begun? L24 seems extremely harsh on player who has done nothing wrong. Tim From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 14 13:59:18 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed Jun 14 14:35:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > Roger wrote: >> >> hmmm. This may indeed get interesting. I'm not sure about >> distinctions here. Is presumed dummy the same as dummy, or does it >> make a difference subsequent the OL? If there is no dummy until it >> is faced, I do not think it is valid to say that dummy has done >> anything until after dummy is faced. I think something like that has >> been argued but I wouldn't put money on it, yet. > > Well, before an opening lead is faced he is "presumed dummy", after an > opening lead is faced he is "dummy". By law the transition from one > state to another happens at exactly the instant that the lead is faced. >> 54A. Declarer Spreads His Hand >> After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; >> he becomes dummy, and dummy becomes declarer. > > No longer an option because of Law54c. The law does suggest that L54 does not apply since the condition [that offender's partner has led face down] hasn't been met: LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN When an opening lead is faced out of turn, *and offender's partner leads face down*, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply. 54C. Declarer Must Accept Lead If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead. However, the effect of L54C requiring that the lead be accepted does not preclude the exercise of L54A with respect to putting his hand down as dummy! >> 47E2. Retraction of Play >> (a) No One Has Subsequently Played >> >> ...... An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has >> faced any card. > Agreed - no retraction allowed. >> After all is said and done. Whatever option is chosen, dummy's OLOOT >> may not be retracted. > But that is irrelevant. I disagree, it is the point. > Sure OS don't get a chance to "retract" but, > presuming someone has drawn attention to the fiasco, we still have to > apply "the card must be withdrawn" from L45D. Sven has pointed out that the OLOOT was made by a player [there being no dummy]. As such, dummy not having led, the condition of dummy having played a card not named by declarer is not satisfied and therefore L45D is mute. > Note "withdrawn", not > "retracted". This is a "must" and carried out at the instruction of the > TD not an option. > As I said trickier but soluble. I was not arguing that it wasn't. I was arguing about it being solvable both as you suggest, and being in accordance with law. > OK, the laws aren't perfect for the > situation - whatever I do, > Roger does, or Sven does requires a bit of > verbal squeezing. A red herring and I deny the assertion. I have addressed without word bending every relevant passage; and without word bending repudiated conflicting assertions wholely from the presented passages. regards roger pewick > I believe my approach is workable and at least as > good a fit for the law as any other. It's not the only such approach > but we don't get the option of saying "The laws don't cover this - > please go away." > Tim From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 14 14:43:31 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed Jun 14 14:44:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: Message-ID: <011201c68fb0$24b31510$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > Roger asked. > >> What do you suggest in the case given the premise that the declaring >> side makes an OLOOT: >> >> W N E S >> >> P- P- P- 1N >> >> PPP >> >> N pulls a card from his hand, says*, 'my lead?' and [immediately] snip I'd not over-rule you, though I strongly believe that the auction period has not finished and declarer's opening lead is an exposed card. > > If some other TD feels it better to rule "no opening lead has been made" > I'd not overrule him were I CTD, I believe there's just about enough > ambiguity to allow that interpretation. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 14 14:50:18 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed Jun 14 14:51:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: Message-ID: <011f01c68fb1$1702ca40$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:33 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia > Sven wrote: > >> But the auction wasn't over! The auction period ends when the opening >> lead is faced Max is entirely clear that auction and auction period are the same thing. The auction is *not* over until we have a faced opening lead by a defender. This is obvious because we still have correction of MI, roll-back and continuance of auction to get through before the opening lead is made. That this is usually null action is irrelevant. in some of my auctions opponents should be mandated to roll back and double me :) > > In the case we have been discussing the *auction* was most definitely > over. The *auction period* was not. The two are different things with > the period starting before the actually auction and continuing after the > end of the auction. The laws, IMO, are sometimes careless in using one > when they have intended the other. > > I note that Sven has, effectively, mentally inserted the word "period" > into Law24. Perhaps this is right, but let us go back in time a bit. > > South, West and East have removed their cards, counted them and started > to sort their hands - the auction *period* has begun for both sides > (L17A). North, the dealer, is running a bit behind - when he attempts > to remove his cards one or more is exposed (assume they were boxed by > the previous player or "sprung-loaded" into a faulty board and flip > out). Ok it's a result of North trying to remove the hand but it is not > his fault. > > Do we use L24 because the *auction period* has begun - or do we use > Law6D1 because the *auction* has not yet begun? > > L24 seems extremely harsh on player who has done nothing wrong. > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 14 16:46:48 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 14 16:49:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?) In-Reply-To: <448C831D.4030607@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <448C831D.4030607@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060614103406.02d94ab0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:54 PM 6/11/06, Steve wrote: >From: Alain Gottcheiner >>And in any case of doubt (ie, Was missing this line an egregious >>error or not ? Perhaps), I would restore +620. >>If we act otherwise, we would sooner or later encounter a case where >>declarer played in a strange way to cater for the case where the >>opponents' action *was* ethical (freak hand), and you'll tell him his >>line was inferior because it didn't cater for "ordinary" cases, so >>you don't adjust. This looks pretty wrong. > >An old thread, but this is an interesting point. An example: > >South opens 3H. West doubles in a loud voice, literally pounding his >fist on the table. All pass. Double is labelled "cooperative" on the >convention card. Of course most South's play West for the trump stack >(which he has), but a naive South plays East for the trumps on the >basis that East's pass would have been illegal >otherwise. Adjust? For one side or both? Adjust for both sides, of course. Not only does a player have an absolute right to base his actions on the assumption that his opponents are acting legally (else the entire scheme of the laws becomes unworkable), but it is only proper that he do so. It is the majority of South's who "got it right" this time who would not be protected if it turned out that E-W had acted properly (i.e. had East held the trump stack), since they took inference from West's "vary[ing] the... manner in which a call... is made... at [their] own risk" rather than making the "naive" assumption that East had acted legally. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 14 17:15:20 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jun 14 17:16:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <011f01c68fb1$1702ca40$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000101c68fc5$59d505e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John Probst > > Sven wrote: > > > >> But the auction wasn't over! The auction period ends when the opening > >> lead is faced > > Max is entirely clear that auction and auction period are the same thing. > The auction is *not* over until we have a faced opening lead by a > defender. > This is obvious because we still have correction of MI, roll-back and > continuance of auction to get through before the opening lead is made. > That > this is usually null action is irrelevant. in some of my auctions > opponents > should be mandated to roll back and double me :) > > > > > In the case we have been discussing the *auction* was most definitely > > over. The *auction period* was not. The two are different things with > > the period starting before the actually auction and continuing after the > > end of the auction. The laws, IMO, are sometimes careless in using one > > when they have intended the other. > > > > I note that Sven has, effectively, mentally inserted the word "period" > > into Law24. Perhaps this is right, but let us go back in time a bit. > > > > South, West and East have removed their cards, counted them and started > > to sort their hands - the auction *period* has begun for both sides > > (L17A). North, the dealer, is running a bit behind - when he attempts > > to remove his cards one or more is exposed (assume they were boxed by > > the previous player or "sprung-loaded" into a faulty board and flip > > out). Ok it's a result of North trying to remove the hand but it is not > > his fault. > > > > Do we use L24 because the *auction period* has begun - or do we use > > Law6D1 because the *auction* has not yet begun? Of course we must use Law 24! > > L24 seems extremely harsh on player who has done nothing wrong. But he "has done something wrong"; He has failed to handle his cards with sufficient care. And the Director must observe Law 12B. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 14 17:20:57 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 14 17:23:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000201c68efc$3c88f830$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2DB343A0-5119-4D4C-9D2D-00B75712B451@rochester.rr.com> <000201c68efc$3c88f830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060614104740.02a277e0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:15 AM 6/13/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Law 17E specifies that the auction period ends when ... the opening > > > lead is > > > faced. > > > > [snip] > > > > > What is needed to avoid discussions like this is a confirmation in > > > law or > > > footnote to the effect that presumed declarer or dummy's attempted > > > opening > > > lead out of turn does not terminate the auction period but shall be > > > handled > > > under Law 24B. > > > > Suggested wording: "the auction period ends when... the correct > > opening leader faces his lead." > >I'm sorry Ed but I don't think this will work without more endless >discussions. Shall the auction period (with your amendment to L17E) >end when >Law 54 applies? (A faced opening lead from the wrong defender is >definitely >not an opening lead from the correct opening leader.) The usual case here is that the auction has completed, notwithstanding that the legal "auction period" has not ended, so L24B becomes a no-op: the auction penalties won't apply, because there will be no more bidding, and the play penalties won't apply, because the offender will subsequently become declarer. So if we rule under L24B, nothing happens. Since L53 does not get invoked, the defenders lose their seemingly "natural" right to accept the LOOT ("natural" because a LOOT can be accepted by the opposite side in all other cases, and there's no reason to believe that the lawmakers intended this particular odd exception). L54 cannot apply; it requires not only that the OLOOT be faced, but also that the "offender's partner lead[] face down". We have a wording problem only in the case where the presumed declarer and the presumed dummy simultaneously lead OOT, one face up, the other face down. L54 is clearly not intended to apply to this case, as all of the options for rectification are explicitly given to "declarer"; presumably we are intended to treat this rather odd case under L55. Indeed, although L54 obviously presumes that the auction period has ended, it does not make it clear whether it did so because the OLOOT was faced, or because the correct OL'er led face down -- to resolve that, we must look elsewhere in the laws. This interpretation seems natural and sensible. It means that if declarer or dummy faces an opening lead out of turn, either opponent may accept it; if they don't, it is restored to the player's hand without further penalty, and the NOS retains whatever small advantage it gets from the fact that the identity of the restored card is AI for them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 14 19:23:05 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 14 20:55:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000001c68f45$343aec30$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <005c01c68c80$273c17b0$9700a8c0@john> <000001c68f45$343aec30$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060614131032.02d1a370@pop.starpower.net> At 07:58 PM 6/13/06, Karel wrote: >I have to admit though to some disappointment to "the head in the sand" >attitude of Law 27B1. How can one suggest that correcting a bid passes no >UI ?? It always does, whether it is a vibe, the knowledge that pd didnt >mean to bid what they did and the implications of what the bid actually >showed as opposed to the corrected bid, the "happiness" at correcting the >bid (ie) yes they have values or don't, etc, etc. There is always UI in >some form. > >and ... even if you do say ok the call was corrected smoothly no UI >... what >happens in the current case ... > >The evidence is quite strong that the OS acted on "the vibe". You do >a poll >and as suspected the majority bid on. Of course the opps will never admit >to this (considering their options etc etc will be their stance) knowing >full well 27B1 covers them. The OS may infact act completely in good >faith >and yet still have acted unconciously on "the vibe" or UI. I hope I have misunderstood this. Karel seems to be saying that after a corrected IB, if the IBer's partner takes an unusual action, then "even if... the call was corrected smoothly no UI... the evidence is quite strong that the OS acted on 'the vibe'". Is he really saying that in these situations we are to presume that the OS is psychic and that the bidder must have obtained UI via ESP? L27B1 specifies only that the IB itself ("the irregularity") carries no penalty, and that L16C2 does not apply. It does nothing to preclude the application of L16A if there is evidence that the IB and/or correction did convey UI which was subsequently acted upon. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 15 00:00:28 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jun 15 00:01:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: [SF] Datagroups in the early game (Ultra) In-Reply-To: <20060614155453.twbg5iuza11cw4c0@www.aveta.org> References: <80D10DC3-78BD-4E58-B2DB-9C57FA4C5036@rochester.rr.com> <20060613142803.tjejb4vvubpwoswc@www.aveta.org> <20060614155453.twbg5iuza11cw4c0@www.aveta.org> Message-ID: <81F45DAD-9039-471C-8E76-7EBB414BD313@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:54 PM, jeffrey@aveta.org wrote: > I don't put Yca on a warship. There's no need. Yeah, you said that already. > No weapon you have at SL2 has that range. Ya is sufficient. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. :-) > Yca is a huge system. Why are you putting it on anything other > than dedicated scouts? Hey, I started out by taking Kurt's 3rdR designs and applying them to a low tech level Ultra environment, just to see what would happen. I never said I didn't have scouts. > Ya allows units to attack buoys and is 1/10 the size. You said that before, too. l gather it's the "1/10 the size" point that really matters, and that the "allows units to attack buoys" bit is really irrelevant. > If it doesn't kill or cripple it, the ship being attacked gets to > fire anyway. The non-data linked ships will still do 5x damage but > cheaper and can spread out. Maybe. I do see your point - at least, I do if your point is that it is not cost effective to put datalink in swarm ships until the datalinked swarm can at least mission kill, if not completely destroy, its usual target (presumably the enemy's capital ships) in one volley. I don't disagree with that - I don't have enough data to agree or disagree - but I do understand the argument, and it does make sense to me. Your argument regarding capital sensors seems to be that they are not cost effective in warships (at least at low SL) because they take too much room and cost too much for too little practical gain. Yes, capital sensors give an earlier warning of approaching enemies (greater Long Range detection), but they add nothing to combat capabilities against large units (because the added Target Range cannot be used by the available weapons) and very little to capabilities vs. buoys (0.75 LS Target Range vs. 0.5 LS with Ya). The argument makes sense, and unless I'm missing something, I would agree that small independent (i.e., not datalinked) scouts are the place to put capital sensors. For datalink, the argument seems again to be one of cost effectiveness - until you expect at least a mission kill in a single volley, datalink does not sufficiently increase your chance of winning the battle to be worth the cost. As I said, I don't have enough experience to answer that, but have I understood you correctly (on both systems)? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jun 15 00:43:49 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jun 15 00:45:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Oops In-Reply-To: <81F45DAD-9039-471C-8E76-7EBB414BD313@rochester.rr.com> References: <80D10DC3-78BD-4E58-B2DB-9C57FA4C5036@rochester.rr.com> <20060613142803.tjejb4vvubpwoswc@www.aveta.org> <20060614155453.twbg5iuza11cw4c0@www.aveta.org> <81F45DAD-9039-471C-8E76-7EBB414BD313@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: A message that has nothing to do with bridge. Sorry about that, folks. From karel at esatclear.ie Thu Jun 15 03:34:45 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu Jun 15 03:35:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060614131032.02d1a370@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c6901b$e2ce1070$2101a8c0@Karel3200> I hope I have misunderstood this. Karel seems to be saying that after a corrected IB, if the IBer's partner takes an unusual action, then "even if... the call was corrected smoothly no UI... the evidence is quite strong that the OS acted on 'the vibe'". Is he really saying that in these situations we are to presume that the OS is psychic and that the bidder must have obtained UI via ESP? +++ if the Iber's partner takes unusal action over a "smoothly" corrected call - the NOS should be allowed to question that action. In reality ESP is not required. The human mind is capable of extracting information and coming to conclusions from numerous sources. All it takes is a small pause, an intake of breath, a shift in posture, a glance, a facial expression, a nervous gesture, a reshuffle of cards, etc etc etc to carry a mountain of implication. This mental processing can be easily denied, is generally circumstancial, yet very effective, impossible to prove and easy to defend via L27B1(a). This applies tenfold in established partnerships. L27B1 specifies only that the IB itself ("the irregularity") carries no penalty, and that L16C2 does not apply. It does nothing to preclude the application of L16A if there is evidence that the IB and/or correction did convey UI which was subsequently acted upon. +++ Take the case in question. The 4H bid over the 2S 3H(corrected smoothly) 4D might be considered conservative but hardly wacko. And yet it is equally clear that a small/grand slam has strong possibilities. It is also clear that the 5 level is extremely unliklely to go minus. So we have a situation where it is safe to explore for slam or at the very least make a forward move in safety and yet it didnt happen ?? Why ? The only evidence we have which is concrete is the subsequent poll. Over 80% of the pollee's would have bid on to at least the 5 level. So 80+% of the IBer's partners peers on a normal auction felt this hand worth at least a slam try. And yet the OS , given unusual (but apparently "smoothly" covered) circumstances, decided to go low and yet this all seems perfectly normal ? How did Hamlet put it ... "there is something rotten in the state of Denmark ...". I would think the onus should be the other way. The OS should be made defend why they didn't proceed in a normal fashion, should have the onus of proof on them to demonstrate that the corrected call did not effect their actions in any way and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the NOS where its unclear. Karel From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 15 17:18:31 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Jun 15 17:21:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <011f01c68fb1$1702ca40$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:33 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia > > >> Sven wrote: >> >>> But the auction wasn't over! The auction period ends when the opening >>> lead is faced > > Max is entirely clear that auction and auction period are the same thing. For Max, or anyone else, to be entirely clear about something does not preclude him from being at the same time entirely daft in what he is being clear about. In other words it is all well and good to be clear, but it is less than satisfactory to be clear yet not be accurate. Once it is specified the point upon which calls may not be appended [a call followed by three passes in rotation] to an auction then the auction is complete- it has ended- or using the word of the day, it is over. However, as provision has been made to cancel calls, then in the event that calls from a completed auction have been canceled then the auction becomes incomplete [at which point calls may be appended] and remains so until it becomes complete. > The auction is *not* over until we have a faced opening lead by a > defender. This is obvious because we still have correction of MI, > roll-back and continuance of auction to get through before the opening > lead is made. I will suggest that once the opening lead has been faced that is the point at which calls in a completed auction may no longer be canceled [an such]. regards roger pewick >> Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 15 17:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 15 17:41:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <011f01c68fb1$1702ca40$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: > Max is entirely clear that auction and auction period are the same > thing. Max may be clear - the laws are not. > The auction is *not* over until we have a faced opening lead by a > defender. This is obvious because we still have correction of MI, > roll-back and continuance of auction to get through before the > opening lead is made. Equally we could have correction of MI, re-opening of the auction and roll-back. This distinction really isn't important. Having two terms for the same thing doesn't help players. As it happens (most) players actually know what "an auction" is. They can accept a concept of an "auction period" (with a bit at beginning and end where different non-bidding things can happen) and even accept why special rules might apply during these bits. Of course if "auction" and "auction period" *are* to be treated as the same thing then only one of those terms should be used in the law-book. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 15 17:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 15 17:41:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <012401c68fb2$6fe3ab60$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: Probst wrote: > YAY! I've just got there. The Probst Cheat becomes presumed declarer > and takes 1st shot at his own contract, then explains partner's > failure to alert. Then the "Probst Cheat" is an idiot. If he corrects "too late" for a roll-back (an infraction) we give OS an adjusted score which is the worse of the worst possible rollback result and the actual table result. If he does the normal thing he gets the score eventually achieved at the table. > I still > stromgly believe that there has been no Opening lead, and we can back > the auction up if there was a failed alert. I can't understand the desire to back up the auction. NOS are guaranteed full protection had such back-up been possibly to their advantage. Declarer has made a mistake and should be prepared to pay the price. Basically if I'm NOS I think you are making things a lot harder for *me* by making me assess whether I'm better off rolling back the auction with an opposing penalty card to factor in on top of all the confusion. OK, what you want to do is legally plausible - but what I want to do is, IMO, both legally plausible and NOS friendly. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jun 15 17:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jun 15 17:42:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > > A red herring and I deny the assertion. I have addressed without > word bending every relevant passage; and without word bending > repudiated conflicting assertions wholely from the presented passages. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. As I recall you haven't said how you will rule, only quibbled about interpretations of words. If the law was clear that only presumed declarer's RHO could make an OLOOT we wouldn't be having the discussion. Since it isn't clear words will have to be bent somewhere. Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 15 18:34:41 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jun 15 18:35:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c69099$9a70d640$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............ > I can't understand the desire to back up the auction. NOS are > guaranteed full protection had such back-up been possibly to their > advantage. Declarer has made a mistake and should be prepared to pay > the price. Basically if I'm NOS I think you are making things a lot > harder for *me* by making me assess whether I'm better off rolling back > the auction with an opposing penalty card to factor in on top of all the > confusion. OK, what you want to do is legally plausible - but what I > want to do is, IMO, both legally plausible and NOS friendly. Well Tim, I read this to say that what you really want is a double shot! You apparently want to see the outcome of the board before you as NOS decide whether you should have taken some different action when it became clear that misinformation had been given? Sorry, that is not how events shall be run. Backing up the auction (within certain limits) is the best tool we have to save a board after misinformation. The fact that a card has been exposed from presumed declarer or dummy does not in any way reduce the value or availability of this tool. Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 15 20:10:57 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jun 15 20:11:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <001201c69099$9a70d640$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004601c690a7$0e1da5c0$039868d5@jeushtlj> [Sven Pran] > Well Tim, I read this to say that what you really > want is a double shot! You apparently want to see > the outcome of the board before you as NOS decide > whether you should have taken some different > action when it became clear that misinformation > had been given? > Sorry, that is not how events shall be run. > Backing up the auction (within certain limits) > is the best tool we have to save a board after > misinformation. The fact that a card has been > exposed from presumed declarer or dummy does > not in any way reduce the value or availability > of this tool. [nige1] While they are not be actively encouraged, are "double shots" really harmful. Rarely, perhaps they harshly punish the law-breaker and over-compensate the victim; also the field may incur some miniscule damaage; but almost all the time, the double-shot allows just about adequate redress while keeping the punishment pretty mild. Perhaps, when the law is unclear, as here, the director should *not* rule. He should leave the decision to an appeals comittee in the hope that they can establish some interim case law on the fly. Also, of course, the law committees should be urgently convened to plug the gap. The point where the auction ends and the play begins seems to need definition. A similar even hotter potato is "when does one trick end and the next begin?" Does a trick end only when its cards are turned? Alternatively, (without making a claim) may you lead to the next trick before all cards played to the current trick are quitted? Assuming you are leading a top trump, may you lead to the next two tricks (again without making a claim or suffering a penalty card)? Just how many tricks can be simultaneously on the go (without a claim or penalty card)? That both questions need legal clarification is obvious. IMO, the answers are also obvious, even if all that may be at stake is a Bermuda Bowl :) From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 15 22:11:15 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Jun 15 22:12:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > Roger wrote: > >> A red herring and I deny the assertion. I have addressed without >> word bending every relevant passage; and without word bending >> repudiated conflicting assertions wholely from the presented passages. > > As I recall you haven't > said how you will rule, Given the facts presented, North has made an OLOOT, an infraction. Dummy [N] is spread [L41C] and the lead stands [L47E2]: [a] play continues, also, [b] W may choose to POOT [L53C] and it will not be deemed to be to the irregular lead; however, being a POOT it is subject to penalty including the penalties provided by L57 [declarer may require E to play the [1] highest or [2] lowest card of the suit led [L53B] or [3] forbid the play of a suit that declarer names]. [c] no, the law does not provide the option for rejecting the irregular lead. >only quibbled about interpretations of words. > If the law was clear that only presumed declarer's RHO could make an > OLOOT we wouldn't be having the discussion. probably so. regards roger pewick >Since it isn't clear words > will have to be bent somewhere. > Tim From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 15 23:56:49 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jun 15 23:57:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <011f01c68fb1$1702ca40$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001601c690c6$9a5fc5d0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Probst" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:50 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tim West-Meads" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:33 AM >> Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia >> >> >>> Sven wrote: >>> >>>> But the auction wasn't over! The auction period ends when the opening >>>> lead is faced >> >> Max is entirely clear that auction and auction period are the same thing. > > For Max, or anyone else, to be entirely clear about something does not > preclude him from being at the same time entirely daft in what he is being > clear about. > > In other words it is all well and good to be clear, but it is less than > satisfactory to be clear yet not be accurate. > > Once it is specified the point upon which calls may not be appended [a > call followed by three passes in rotation] to an auction then the auction > is complete- it has ended- or using the word of the day, it is over. > However, as provision has been made to cancel calls, then in the event > that calls from a completed auction have been canceled then the auction > becomes incomplete [at which point calls may be appended] and remains so > until it becomes complete. > > >> The auction is *not* over until we have a faced opening lead by a >> defender. This is obvious because we still have correction of MI, >> roll-back and continuance of auction to get through before the opening >> lead is made. > > I will suggest that once the opening lead has been faced that is the point > at which calls in a completed auction may no longer be canceled [an such]. and we define the correct procedure for an opening lead, and we cater for the wrong defender opening OOT, but we don't cater for declarer OOT so declarer's faced card is not an opening lead. I continue, strongly, to aver that we are still in the auction period, and indeed we could still back up the auction if there were MI. I can be persuaded that defender's may be able to say "I accept" in which case we now have a lead, and dummy must be faced before LHO plays, but I have my doubts even on that point as I think it is still a card faced during the auction. John > > regards > roger pewick > > > >>> Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Fri Jun 16 01:11:16 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri Jun 16 01:12:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <011f01c68fb1$1702ca40$9700a8c0@john> <001601c690c6$9a5fc5d0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: By John Probst: > and we define the correct procedure for an opening lead, and we cater for > the wrong defender opening OOT, but we don't cater for declarer OOT so > declarer's faced card is not an opening lead. I continue, strongly, to > aver that we are still in the auction period, and indeed we could still > back up the auction if there were MI. I can be persuaded that defender's > may be able to say "I accept" in which case we now have a lead, and dummy > must be faced before LHO plays, but I have my doubts even on that point as > I think it is still a card faced during the auction. Thank you John for this return to sanity. It boggles the mind what a bunch of nit pickers can do to this game, were they given the chance. Kojak From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 16 11:26:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 16 11:28:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000101c68fc5$59d505e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > *From:* "Sven Pran" > *To:* "blml" > *Date:* Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:15:20 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of John Probst > > > Sven wrote: > > > > > >> But the auction wasn't over! The auction period ends when the > > > opening > > >> lead is faced > > > > Max is entirely clear that auction and auction period are the same > > thing. > > The auction is *not* over until we have a faced opening lead by a > > defender. > > This is obvious because we still have correction of MI, roll-back > > and > > continuance of auction to get through before the opening lead is > > made. > > That > > this is usually null action is irrelevant. in some of my auctions > > opponents > > should be mandated to roll back and double me :) > > > > > > > > In the case we have been discussing the *auction* was most > > > definitely > > > over. The *auction period* was not. The two are different > > > things with > > > the period starting before the actually auction and continuing > > > after the > > > end of the auction. The laws, IMO, are sometimes careless in > > > using one > > > when they have intended the other. > > > > > > I note that Sven has, effectively, mentally inserted the word > > > "period" > > > into Law24. Perhaps this is right, but let us go back in time a > > > bit. > > > > > > South, West and East have removed their cards, counted them and > > > started > > > to sort their hands - the auction *period* has begun for both > > > sides > > > (L17A). North, the dealer, is running a bit behind - when he > > > attempts > > > to remove his cards one or more is exposed (assume they were > > > boxed by > > > the previous player or "sprung-loaded" into a faulty board and > > > flip > > > out). Ok it's a result of North trying to remove the hand but it > > > is not > > > his fault. > > > > > > Do we use L24 because the *auction period* has begun - or do we > > > use > > > Law6D1 because the *auction* has not yet begun? > > Of course we must use Law 24! > > > > L24 seems extremely harsh on player who has done nothing wrong. > > But he "has done something wrong"; He has failed to handle his cards > with sufficient care. Sven, I have no interest, at this point in a player who has "failed to handle his cards with sufficient care". Just work with the case I gave and assume that the TD has established, to his total satisfaction, that North handled his cards with all the care and due diligence one could possibly require but that (due to faulty equipment and/or the actions of the previous player) exposure nevertheless occurs. If it helps assume you are directing in a club which has a rule that "Where the cards were boxed by a previous player the next player is considered in no way at fault if such a card is exposed during the withdrawal/counting of the hand." (A perfectly reasonable rule IMO putting the blame, and any associated penalties, squarely where it belongs). I agree that if it were simply a matter of carelessness I wouldn't *care* which law I applied. > And the Director must observe Law 12B. Law12b has little to do with it - it's matter of whether one interprets the different terms "Auction" and "Auction Period" as meaning the same thing. If one assumes the authors of the law-book chose to use two terms where one would have been clearer then obviously one is forced to apply L24. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 16 11:26:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 16 11:28:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <001201c69099$9a70d640$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Well Tim, I read this to say that what you really want is a double > shot! Then you read it wrongly > You apparently want to see the outcome of the board before you as NOS > decide whether you should have taken some different action when it > became clear that misinformation had been given? No, I want to either accept or decline the OLOOT, play the hand out, and receive protection from the TD if either infraction by opponents causes me damage. > Backing up the auction (within certain limits) is the best tool we > have to save a board after misinformation. In normal circumstances it is often useful, of course it doesn't help if the misinformation would have affected an earlier bid than the final call by NOS. > The fact that a card has been > exposed from presumed declarer or dummy does not in any way reduce > the value or availability of this tool. It compromises it. As TD what are you going tell NOS? Perhaps a) Any change of call you make must be based on the MI you received - it is UI to you that South will be barred for one round, that opps may be subject to penalty card restrictions if you become declaring side, and that North possess the SK. Or maybe: b) You have the option to change your call - when making that decision you should take into account that..(same things)..and if you fail to judge correctly the impact of these things in making your decision you will receive no redress. I don't want to debate whether the stuff is UI or AI because whichever one decides you are putting NOS into difficult and unfamiliar territory after a double infraction by their opponents. I know good players will often handle it OK but average punters will feel mind-blown by the situation. Basically my primary concern here is to protect NOS. So I rule "It's an OLOOT, and I'll handle it as such even the though laws are bit inadequate." I see your priority as trying to protect "the proper result". Again the laws are bit inadequate but you can achieve what you want by ruling "It's not an opening lead" and going from there. Perhaps the standard of players would influence which approach I would consider best in any given situation but given the ambiguity in law (and absent specific NA/SO regulation) I respect the right of a TD to take either approach. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 16 13:40:21 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 16 13:41:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c69139$a6574b60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Well Tim, I read this to say that what you really want is a double > > shot! > > Then you read it wrongly > > > You apparently want to see the outcome of the board before you as NOS > > decide whether you should have taken some different action when it > > became clear that misinformation had been given? > > No, I want to either accept or decline the OLOOT, play the hand out, and > receive protection from the TD if either infraction by opponents causes > me damage. As a director I would deny you any redress for alleged damage when you did not end in a contract you could have reached had you used your option in Law 21B1. If you request redress for such damage then you prove with your own request that you wanted a "double shot". ("Let me try one of the options, if that doesn't pay let me scream for redress according to the other".) > > Backing up the auction (within certain limits) is the best tool we > > have to save a board after misinformation. > > In normal circumstances it is often useful, of course it doesn't help if > the misinformation would have affected an earlier bid than the final > call by NOS. I expect normally capable readers to be aware of this limitation inasmuch as I have consistently referred to Law 21B1 rather than referring the essentials in that law. > > > The fact that a card has been > > exposed from presumed declarer or dummy does not in any way reduce > > the value or availability of this tool. > > It compromises it. HUH? > As TD what are you going tell NOS? > Perhaps > a) Any change of call you make must be based on the MI you received Of course. But the onus to prove that it (probably) was not based on the MI is on your opponents, not on you. > it is UI to you that South will be barred for one round, that opps may > be subject to penalty card restrictions if you become declaring side, > and that North possess the SK. Why on earth should this be UI? Don't you know Law 16? All these items are AI to NOS and shall be explained as such to NOS before NOS select their choice under Law 21B1. > Or maybe: > b) You have the option to change your call - when making that decision > you should take into account that..(same things)..and if you fail to > judge correctly the impact of these things in making your decision you > will receive no redress. Bullshit. Once NOS has been given a complete review of what laws apply and what alternatives they have then once they have selected their action they have no more redress to claim from THAT irregularity. > > I don't want to debate whether the stuff is UI or AI because whichever > one decides you are putting NOS into difficult and unfamiliar territory > after a double infraction by their opponents. Double infraction? Oh you mean first MI and then exposed card during the auction? But this should not cause any problems? The exposed card will have no effect unless MI is revealed, and then only if the auction is rolled back and resumed in which case Law 24 is perfectly clear. Of course this will be unfamiliar territory for most players, why do you think we have directors? His duty is to guide (all four) players finding themselves in unfamiliar territory and to protect the interests for both sides. > I know good players will often handle it OK but average punters will > feel mind-blown by the situation. A small sidestep: It happens from time to time that I am called to a table at the end of the play because of misinformation that had been revealed before the opening lead. Now the NOS requests the score to be adjusted because of this misinformation. I invariably inform them that if they had summoned me when MI was revealed I would have offered them their rights under Law 21B1. Failure to summon me at that time is a violation of Law 9 and normally results in forfeiture of their rights as specified in Law 11. A couple of years ago I had this happen in the Norwegian masters' league, so "class of players" has little to do with players' knowledge of the laws. However, whenever directing I take particular care to protect the interests of inexperienced players. > Basically my primary concern here is to protect NOS. So I rule "It's an > OLOOT, and I'll handle it as such even the though laws are bit > inadequate." And you have absolutely no law applicable to OLOOT made by presumed declarer or dummy. Yes I know you claim Law 53 and then wind yourself into more and more complications. > > I see your priority as trying to protect "the proper result". Again the > laws are bit inadequate but you can achieve what you want by ruling > "It's not an opening lead" and going from there. You cannot both eat your cake and have it. If (in desperation?) you rule that it is not an opening lead then what alternatives do you have other than to rule exposed card during the auction? > > Perhaps the standard of players would influence which approach I would > consider best in any given situation but given the ambiguity in law (and > absent specific NA/SO regulation) I respect the right of a TD to take > either approach. The only "ambiguity" (if any) in the laws related to these matters is the missing of an express indication that there is no mistake when the laws contain absolutely no rule on OLOOT made by presumed declarer or dummy. Sven From john at asimere.com Fri Jun 16 14:35:25 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri Jun 16 14:36:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: Message-ID: <004501c69141$5762c3b0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia snip > > Basically my primary concern here is to protect NOS. So I rule "It's an > OLOOT, and I'll handle it as such even the though laws are bit > inadequate." > > I see your priority as trying to protect "the proper result". Again the > laws are bit inadequate but you can achieve what you want by ruling > "It's not an opening lead" and going from there. > > Perhaps the standard of players would influence which approach I would > consider best in any given situation but given the ambiguity in law (and > absent specific NA/SO regulation) I respect the right of a TD to take > either approach. I can live with allowing "I accept", as there is a degree of ambiguity, and "the way we play bridge" is to permit taking advantage of an opponents error, and I'd not over-rule a TD who did that, although I'd explain why I think it's better to go my route. I'm glad we seem to be pulling the same cart again, as your interpretation of law is far more detailed than mine. I've no doubt you can see why I rule "Pick it up you dozy bint (AI to opps, subject to no roll-back etc)". > > Tim > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 16 15:36:46 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jun 16 15:38:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000001c6901b$e2ce1070$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060614131032.02d1a370@pop.starpower.net> <000001c6901b$e2ce1070$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060616092217.02c31340@pop.starpower.net> At 09:34 PM 6/14/06, Karel wrote: >I hope I have misunderstood this. Karel seems to be saying that after >a corrected IB, if the IBer's partner takes an unusual action, then >"even if... the call was corrected smoothly no UI... the evidence is >quite strong that the OS acted on 'the vibe'". Is he really saying >that in these situations we are to presume that the OS is psychic and >that the bidder must have obtained UI via ESP? > >+++ if the Iber's partner takes unusal action over a "smoothly" corrected >call - the NOS should be allowed to question that action. In reality >ESP is >not required. The human mind is capable of extracting information and >coming to conclusions from numerous sources. All it takes is a small >pause, >an intake of breath, a shift in posture, a glance, a facial expression, a >nervous gesture, a reshuffle of cards, etc etc etc to carry a mountain of >implication. This mental processing can be easily denied, is generally >circumstancial, yet very effective, impossible to prove and easy to defend >via L27B1(a). This applies tenfold in established partnerships. As a scientific rationalist, I would claim that all ESP can be explained similarly, as being based on subliminal cues of which the recipient is not consciously aware. But I don't see how we can make penalizable offenses out of actions that carry no intent, of which the puported offender is not aware, and which have no observable manifestation. If we do that, we allow ourselves to penalize anybody at any time for any reason. >L27B1 specifies only that the IB itself ("the irregularity") carries no >penalty, and that L16C2 does not apply. It does nothing to preclude >the application of L16A if there is evidence that the IB and/or >correction did convey UI which was subsequently acted upon. > >+++ Take the case in question. The 4H bid over the 2S 3H(corrected >smoothly) 4D might be considered conservative but hardly wacko. And >yet it >is equally clear that a small/grand slam has strong possibilities. It is >also clear that the 5 level is extremely unliklely to go minus. So we >have >a situation where it is safe to explore for slam or at the very least >make a >forward move in safety and yet it didnt happen ?? Why ? > >The only evidence we have which is concrete is the subsequent poll. Over >80% of the pollee's would have bid on to at least the 5 level. So 80+% of >the IBer's partners peers on a normal auction felt this hand worth at >least >a slam try. And yet the OS , given unusual (but apparently "smoothly" >covered) circumstances, decided to go low and yet this all seems perfectly >normal ? How did Hamlet put it ... "there is something rotten in the >state >of Denmark ...". > >I would think the onus should be the other way. The OS should be made >defend why they didn't proceed in a normal fashion, should have the >onus of >proof on them to demonstrate that the corrected call did not effect their >actions in any way and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the NOS >where its unclear. A pair that takes an unusual action isn't necessarily "the OS" -- for there to be an "offending side", there must be an "offense". 80% of the players polled would have tried for slam; that means that 20% wouldn't. Either this pair is one of those 20%, or else they have used UI which there is no evidence to account for -- you can't use UI if you don't have UI. In the absense of any evidence that there was UI transmitted, I don't see how we could -- or why we would want to -- presume the latter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 16 15:46:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 16 15:48:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <000101c69139$a6574b60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > As a director I would deny you any redress for alleged damage when > you did not end in a contract you could have reached had you used > your option in Law 21B1. Fine, but after the OLOOT by declarer I don't get an option under L21b1 - it is too late. I have been denied the option by declarer's OLOOT not by any action of my own so I am entitled to protection. > If you request redress for such damage then you prove with your own > request that you wanted a "double shot". ("Let me try one of the > options, if that doesn't pay let me scream for redress according to > the other".) Why would I scream? A simple request for a ruling because declarer's OLOOT prevented my recovery should suffice. > > > The fact that a card has been > > > exposed from presumed declarer or dummy does not in any way reduce > > > the value or availability of this tool. > > > > It compromises it. > > HUH? > > > As TD what are you going tell NOS? > > Perhaps > > a) Any change of call you make must be based on the MI you > > received > > Of course. But the onus to prove that it (probably) was not based on > the MI is on your opponents, not on you. > > > it is UI to you that South will be barred for one round, that opps > > may be subject to penalty card restrictions if you become declaring > > side, and that North possess the SK. > > Why on earth should this be UI? Don't you know Law 16? All these > items are AI to NOS and shall be explained as such to NOS before NOS > select their choice under Law 21B1. Of course I know L16. But L21b1 specifically requires that the change of call be based on MI. It is by no means automatic that one is allowed to base one's change of call be based (primarily) on the penalties OS will be under due to the OLOOT. > > > Or maybe: > > b) You have the option to change your call - when making that > > decision > > you should take into account that..(same things)..and if you fail to > > judge correctly the impact of these things in making your decision > > you will receive no redress. > > Bullshit. Once NOS has been given a complete review of what laws > apply and what alternatives they have then once they have selected > their action they have no more redress to claim from THAT > irregularity. So what? If the penalties associated with the OLOOT *are* to be taken into effect when deciding whether to change call then choosing there will be no redress if one gets that decision wrong. > > > > > I don't want to debate whether the stuff is UI or AI because > > whichever > > one decides you are putting NOS into difficult and unfamiliar > > territory > > after a double infraction by their opponents. > > Double infraction? Oh you mean first MI and then exposed card during > the auction? Or first the MI, then OLOOT by declarer/dummy. > But this should not cause any problems? The exposed card > will have no effect unless MI is revealed, and then only if the > auction is rolled back and resumed in which case Law 24 is perfectly > clear. Agreed it only matters in the tiny fraction of cases where there is both MI and OLOOT by declaring side. In the (still rare) cases where there is no MI then the auction was totally over anyway and one is simply dealing with an OLOOT. > Of course this will be unfamiliar territory for most players, why do > you think we have directors? His duty is to guide (all four) players > finding themselves in unfamiliar territory and to protect the > interests for both sides. The primary duty is to apply the laws as best they apply - the secondary duty is to protect NOS. Protecting the interests of OS are a lesser concern. > > I know good players will often handle it OK but average punters will > > feel mind-blown by the situation. > > A small sidestep: It happens from time to time that I am called to a > table at the end of the play because of misinformation that had been > revealed before the opening lead. Now the NOS requests the score to > be adjusted because of this misinformation. > > I invariably inform them that if they had summoned me when MI was > revealed I would have offered them their rights under Law 21B1. > Failure to summon me at that time is a violation of Law 9 and > normally results in forfeiture of their rights as specified in Law 11. That's just shoddy directing. The primary responsibility to summon the TD quite clearly rests with OS (there is absolutely no ambiguity in L75d2). If you want OS to gain from failure to make a required TD call carry on doing so. And yes, I'm aware of L9 but OS have infracted by giving MI, infracted L75d2 *and* infracted L9. There's no way I'm going to let OS benefit - so if a L21b1 roll-back would have prevented damage I will be awarding an adjusted score. Tim From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 16 19:06:35 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jun 16 19:07:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c69167$392c4760$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > As a director I would deny you any redress for alleged damage when > > you did not end in a contract you could have reached had you used > > your option in Law 21B1. > > Fine, but after the OLOOT by declarer I don't get an option under L21b1 > - it is too late. I have been denied the option by declarer's OLOOT not > by any action of my own so I am entitled to protection. That is precisely one of the reasons why there is no such thing as OLOOT by presumed declarer or dummy. > > If you request redress for such damage then you prove with your own > > request that you wanted a "double shot". ("Let me try one of the > > options, if that doesn't pay let me scream for redress according to > > the other".) > > Why would I scream? A simple request for a ruling because declarer's > OLOOT prevented my recovery should suffice. Se above. > > > > > The fact that a card has been > > > > exposed from presumed declarer or dummy does not in any way reduce > > > > the value or availability of this tool. > > > > > > It compromises it. > > > > HUH? > > > > > As TD what are you going tell NOS? > > > Perhaps > > > a) Any change of call you make must be based on the MI you > > > received > > > > Of course. But the onus to prove that it (probably) was not based on > > the MI is on your opponents, not on you. > > > > > it is UI to you that South will be barred for one round, that opps > > > may be subject to penalty card restrictions if you become declaring > > > side, and that North possess the SK. > > > > Why on earth should this be UI? Don't you know Law 16? All these > > items are AI to NOS and shall be explained as such to NOS before NOS > > select their choice under Law 21B1. > > Of course I know L16. But L21b1 specifically requires that the change > of call be based on MI. It is by no means automatic that one is allowed > to base one's change of call be based (primarily) on the penalties OS > will be under due to the OLOOT. No, L21B1 says "if it is probable that". And as the Director should never look at any closed hand and give a ruling based on such information that at the time should not be available to the other players, the decision whether a player may change his call under Law 21B1 is that player's alone. Only after his cards become visible to the other players may his intention be questioned, and even then any doubt whether his change of call was legitimate must be resolved in his (NOS) and not his opponents' (OS) favor. > > > > > > Or maybe: > > > b) You have the option to change your call - when making that > > > decision > > > you should take into account that..(same things)..and if you fail to > > > judge correctly the impact of these things in making your decision > > > you will receive no redress. > > > > Bullshit. Once NOS has been given a complete review of what laws > > apply and what alternatives they have then once they have selected > > their action they have no more redress to claim from THAT > > irregularity. > > So what? If the penalties associated with the OLOOT *are* to be taken > into effect when deciding whether to change call then choosing there > will be no redress if one gets that decision wrong. A player may at any time during the auction or play take (possibly pending) penalties that have been announced by the Director against opponents into account when selecting his actions. > > > > > > > > > I don't want to debate whether the stuff is UI or AI because > > > whichever > > > one decides you are putting NOS into difficult and unfamiliar > > > territory > > > after a double infraction by their opponents. > > > > Double infraction? Oh you mean first MI and then exposed card during > > the auction? > > Or first the MI, then OLOOT by declarer/dummy. > > > But this should not cause any problems? The exposed card > > will have no effect unless MI is revealed, and then only if the > > auction is rolled back and resumed in which case Law 24 is perfectly > > clear. > > Agreed it only matters in the tiny fraction of cases where there is both > MI and OLOOT by declaring side. In the (still rare) cases where there > is no MI then the auction was totally over anyway and one is simply > dealing with an OLOOT. Say that the auction has come as far as with South bidding 4H, West doubles, North and East pass. Consider the following scenarios: (North dealer) In all scenarios the auction goes (never mind the meanings of the conventional calls, this is irrelevant for the scenarios) N E S W 2D -- 2H -- 3H X 4H X -- -- IMP. In a contract of 4H South will best play safe and make just 10 tricks. In a contract of 5H South will have to play for the contract and make 11 tricks. Scenario 1: South leads a card after which attention is drawn to the fact that the auction is not over; South has not made a final pass. The Director uses Law 24B and South passes. Then attention is called to the fact that the 2D and 2H bids should have been alerted. After the correct information on the auction is revealed the Director offers East his options under Law 21B1 to which East says: "Sure, from what I now know I want to bid 4S!" Then South bids 5H and the other three players pass (North per force). Scenario 2: As scenario 1 except that East does not want to change his last pass and South just passes. I hope we can agree that in these first two scenarios the card "led" by South is a card exposed during the auction? Scenario 3: As scenario 1 except that South makes his concluding pass and attention is drawn to the missing alerts before South (as above) leads a card. When the immediate dust has settled East (who knows the laws) wants again to change his last pass and instead bid 4S. Shall he be denied this right? How will you rule if you deny East a bid in 4S? (620 or 650?) And incidentally: Will you in scenario 1 adjust the table result back to 620 which would have been the result had East not used his option to bid 4S? Does it make any difference if 5H always go 1 down? > > > > Of course this will be unfamiliar territory for most players, why do > > you think we have directors? His duty is to guide (all four) players > > finding themselves in unfamiliar territory and to protect the > > interests for both sides. > > The primary duty is to apply the laws as best they apply - the secondary > duty is to protect NOS. Protecting the interests of OS are a lesser > concern. It is insane for a Director to grade his duties like this. Applying the laws consists of observing and ensuring the rights for both NOS and OS. > > > > I know good players will often handle it OK but average punters will > > > feel mind-blown by the situation. > > > > A small sidestep: It happens from time to time that I am called to a > > table at the end of the play because of misinformation that had been > > revealed before the opening lead. Now the NOS requests the score to > > be adjusted because of this misinformation. > > > > I invariably inform them that if they had summoned me when MI was > > revealed I would have offered them their rights under Law 21B1. > > Failure to summon me at that time is a violation of Law 9 and > > normally results in forfeiture of their rights as specified in Law 11. > > That's just shoddy directing. The primary responsibility to summon the > TD quite clearly rests with OS (there is absolutely no ambiguity in > L75d2). If you want OS to gain from failure to make a required TD call > carry on doing so. > > And yes, I'm aware of L9 but OS have infracted by giving MI, infracted > L75d2 *and* infracted L9. There's no way I'm going to let OS benefit - > so if a L21b1 roll-back would have prevented damage I will be awarding > an adjusted score. Once attention has been drawn to an irregularity all four players (including dummy) at the table are jointly responsible for summoning the Director. If OS in a MI case fails their duty under Law 75D that does not excuse NOS from their duties under Law 9 or the consequences of Law 11. Sven From mandache at free.fr Sat Jun 17 10:37:21 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (mandache@free.fr) Date: Sat Jun 17 10:38:35 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play Message-ID: <1150533441.4493bf411c439@imp2-g19.free.fr> Hello, I'm a French TD, newcomer on the list. There's a nice problem, hoping I'm using the right vocabulary. Playing with screen; South is declarer and West leads faced the 6C. As soon as the card touches the table, West says, oh, no, I didn't want to lead this card, may I take it back? South calls the TD - what would you have done in his stead? If it helps, the TD does not doubt that the lead has really been a "hand slip". Thank you, Manuela Mandache From mandache at free.fr Sat Jun 17 11:09:42 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (mandache@free.fr) Date: Sat Jun 17 11:10:53 2006 Subject: [blml] second try Message-ID: <1150535382.4493c6d619a51@imp2-g19.free.fr> Hello, I'm new on the list and I tried to post a question to blml@amsterdamned.org address that had been indicated in the "welcome" message when I subscribed. It does'n seem to work, is it normal? There is my first message : Hello, I'm a French TD, newcomer on the list. There's a nice problem, hoping I'm using the right vocabulary. Playing with screen; South is declarer and West leads faced the 6C. As soon as the card touches the table, West says, oh, no, I didn't want to lead this card, may I take it back? The screen has not been raised. South calls the TD - what would you have done in his stead? If it helps, the TD does not doubt that the lead has really been a "hand slip". Thank you, Manuela Mandache From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 17 11:55:19 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 17 11:56:35 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play In-Reply-To: <1150533441.4493bf411c439@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000201c691f4$246e1640$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of mandache@free.fr > Hello, > > I'm a French TD, newcomer on the list. There's a nice problem, hoping I'm > using > the right vocabulary. > > Playing with screen; South is declarer and West leads faced the 6C. As > soon as > the card touches the table, West says, oh, no, I didn't want to lead this > card, > may I take it back? South calls the TD - what would you have done in his > stead? > If it helps, the TD does not doubt that the lead has really been a "hand > slip". The applicable law is L45C1. There is no question of inadvertency or "slip of the hand" in this law; the only question is if the other defender (East) "could have seen the face of the card". According to your description I understand that he could indeed (and probably did) see it. If the screen was not yet opened for play then we have a different case, and you must go to your organization's regulations on the use of screens. Most likely these regulations will allow West to take up his 6C and play another card as long as East can not possibly have seen the face of the 6C. However, I believe screens usually are to be opened before the opening lead is made? Regards Sven And PS.: Welcome to the list! From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 17 11:58:06 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 17 11:59:21 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <1150535382.4493c6d619a51@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000301c691f4$8844b610$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of mandache@free.fr > Hello, > > I'm new on the list and I tried to post a question to > blml@amsterdamned.org > address that had been indicated in the "welcome" message when I > subscribed. It does'n seem to work, is it normal? Oh it worked OK; sometimes you have to be patient. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Jun 17 13:03:53 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat Jun 17 12:57:00 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play In-Reply-To: <000201c691f4$246e1640$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <1150533441.4493bf411c439@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060617125304.027411e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:55 17/06/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >The applicable law is L45C1. There is no question of inadvertency or "slip >of the hand" in this law; the only question is if the other defender (East) >"could have seen the face of the card". According to your description I >understand that he could indeed (and probably did) see it. I'd say he didn't, else there was no need to mention screens being present. >If the screen was not yet opened for play then we have a different case, and >you must go to your organization's regulations on the use of screens. Most >likely these regulations will allow West to take up his 6C and play another >card as long as East can not possibly have seen the face of the 6C. However, >I believe screens usually are to be opened before the opening lead is made? Not in my country, which has the following advantages - if there was a BiT, one doesn't know whether it originates from the lead, or the leader's final pass (if applicable), or pre-lead questions about the meaning of calls, or a last sip of coffee before the fight begins. - the problem submitted by Manuela is solved. - and, above all, there is no LOOT problem. When the lead is done, either the leader's screenmate opens the window, or he knocks to have it opened from the other side. (screenmate, to avoid the way of knocking transmitting information). One last bit : if a card falls from your hand in the process of pulling another, this is not a lead, even if the card is seen by partner, but an "inadvertently exposed card", mPC or MPC according to its rank. Regards, Alain. From mandache at free.fr Sat Jun 17 13:24:06 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (mandache@free.fr) Date: Sat Jun 17 13:25:19 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play In-Reply-To: <000201c691f4$246e1640$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c691f4$246e1640$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1150543446.4493e656cd9b3@imp1-g19.free.fr> Selon Sven Pran : > > On Behalf Of mandache@free.fr > > Hello, > > > > I'm a French TD, newcomer on the list. There's a nice problem, hoping I'm > > using > > the right vocabulary. > > > > Playing with screen; South is declarer and West leads faced the 6C. As > > soon as > > the card touches the table, West says, oh, no, I didn't want to lead this > > card, > > may I take it back? South calls the TD - what would you have done in his > > stead? > > If it helps, the TD does not doubt that the lead has really been a "hand > > slip". > > The applicable law is L45C1. There is no question of inadvertency or "slip > of the hand" in this law; the only question is if the other defender (East) > "could have seen the face of the card". According to your description I > understand that he could indeed (and probably did) see it. > > If the screen was not yet opened for play then we have a different case, and > you must go to your organization's regulations on the use of screens. Most > likely these regulations will allow West to take up his 6C and play another > card as long as East can not possibly have seen the face of the 6C. However, > I believe screens usually are to be opened before the opening lead is made? > Sorry, I forgot to tell that the screen had not been raised (in French regulations, the screen must be opened by the defender after (s)he has made the faced OL). I did not make a word-to-word comparison, but the French specific screen-play regulations seem to be identical to those of the EBU White Book. The question is, should TD apply 45C1 or 45A? The card had been laid on the table, even if defender's partener had not seen it. Regards, Manuela > Regards Sven > > And PS.: Welcome to the list! > > Tx :o) > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 17 13:36:08 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat Jun 17 13:44:03 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play References: <000201c691f4$246e1640$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 4:55 AM Subject: RE: [blml] faced OL in screen play > On Behalf Of mandache@free.fr > Hello, > > I'm a French TD, newcomer on the list. There's a nice problem, hoping I'm > using > the right vocabulary. > > Playing with screen; South is declarer and West leads faced the 6C. As > soon as > the card touches the table, West says, oh, no, I didn't want to lead this > card, > may I take it back? South calls the TD - what would you have done in his > stead? > If it helps, the TD does not doubt that the lead has really been a "hand > slip". The applicable law is L45C1. There is no question of inadvertency or "slip of the hand" in this law; the only question is if the other defender (East) "could have seen the face of the card". According to your description I understand that he could indeed (and probably did) see it. If the screen was not yet opened for play then we have a different case, and you must go to your organization's regulations on the use of screens. Most likely these regulations will allow West to take up his 6C and play another card as long as East can not possibly have seen the face of the 6C. However, I believe screens usually are to be opened before the opening lead is made? Regards Sven And PS.: Welcome to the list! I believe that the operative law involves L45A [a card is played] and L47F [a played card may not be retracted] and possibly L80E [suspension of penalty provisions with/ screen regulations] I think that [a] there is no question that the card was played; the lead was not illegal and hence was not subject to penalty and hence there would be no penalty to suspend under L80E [b] L80E does not provide for changing a play that is in conflict with law [c] changing the C6 is prohibited by L47F [d] note that L45A does not specify visibility is a condition for being played. [e] let us say that W changed the C6- it would be an infraction- regulations couold provide that reinstating the C6 would not create a PC of the subsequent card And PS.:Ditto- Welcome to the list! regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 17 14:16:59 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 17 14:18:15 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play In-Reply-To: <1150543446.4493e656cd9b3@imp1-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000401c69207$ef047170$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of mandache@free.fr > Sent: 17. juni 2006 13:24 > To: BLML > Subject: RE: [blml] faced OL in screen play > > Selon Sven Pran : > > > > On Behalf Of mandache@free.fr > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm a French TD, newcomer on the list. There's a nice problem, hoping > I'm > > > using > > > the right vocabulary. > > > > > > Playing with screen; South is declarer and West leads faced the 6C. As > > > soon as > > > the card touches the table, West says, oh, no, I didn't want to lead > this > > > card, > > > may I take it back? South calls the TD - what would you have done in > his > > > stead? > > > If it helps, the TD does not doubt that the lead has really been a > "hand > > > slip". > > > > The applicable law is L45C1. There is no question of inadvertency or > "slip > > of the hand" in this law; the only question is if the other defender > (East) > > "could have seen the face of the card". According to your description I > > understand that he could indeed (and probably did) see it. > > > > If the screen was not yet opened for play then we have a different case, > and > > you must go to your organization's regulations on the use of screens. > Most > > likely these regulations will allow West to take up his 6C and play > another > > card as long as East can not possibly have seen the face of the 6C. > However, > > I believe screens usually are to be opened before the opening lead is > made? > > > > Sorry, I forgot to tell that the screen had not been raised (in French > regulations, the screen must be opened by the defender after (s)he has > made the faced OL). I did not make a word-to-word comparison, but the > French specific screen-play regulations seem to be identical to those > of the EBU White Book. > > The question is, should TD apply 45C1 or 45A? The card had been laid > on the table, even if defender's partener had not seen it. This (as I said) is a matter of regulation, and I would expect your regulation to state that the inadvertent lead can be taken back "as if no irregularity had occurred". I do not have the Norwegian regulation on screens at hand, but the general principle here is that any irregularity that can be corrected without information from the irregularity being passed to the other side of the screen shall so be corrected and the auction (or play) continues as if no irregularity had occurred. If there is no specific rule in your regulations for this situation I would simply rule accordingly that West can pick up his 6C and play whatever card he wants. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 17 14:26:17 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jun 17 14:27:33 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060617125304.027411e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000501c69209$3bb6e240$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > One last bit : if a card falls from your hand in the process of pulling > another, this is not a lead, even if the card is seen by partner, but an > "inadvertently exposed card", mPC or MPC according to its rank. That situation is amply covered by Law 58B1 (only one card is visible) or 58B2 (more than one card is visible) Law 58B2 applies also when one card falls from a hand in the process of pulling another even if the dropped card becomes visible long before the intended card. Regards Sven From jjlbridge at free.fr Sat Jun 17 18:56:29 2006 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Sat Jun 17 18:57:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000001c6901b$e2ce1070$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <000001c6901b$e2ce1070$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <4494343D.8090308@free.fr> Karel a ?crit : > The only evidence we have which is concrete is the subsequent poll. Over > 80% of the pollee's would have bid on to at least the 5 level. So 80+% of > the IBer's partners peers on a normal auction felt this hand worth at least > a slam try. And yet the OS , given unusual (but apparently "smoothly" > covered) circumstances, decided to go low and yet this all seems perfectly > normal ? How did Hamlet put it ... "there is something rotten in the state > of Denmark ...". I'm not sure I understood : what was the question asked in the poll ? If it was the question you asked at the beginning of the thread, it might be interesting, but is not related to the case at hand : partner *did* bid 2H, then 3H as a correction, which is AI, *not* merely 3H, this is not any more a normal auction, and we cannot pretend it is. At least when it comes as a question to blml, there is really no additional UI (I agree there might very well be some at the table, for instance making it clear whether 2H was intended as an opening bid or as an overcall of a 1S opening), but all AI should be available ! As I said, I would bid 6NT over 3H, but probably not over 2H corrected to 3H. And anyway the normal proceeding is first to establish if there was UI, *then* if there was LA, not to find that a decision was quite unusual, and concluding that it should have been triggered by some kind of UI... Jean-Jacques. -- From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 17 19:11:00 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jun 17 19:12:07 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play References: <1150533441.4493bf411c439@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <007501c69231$01baccf0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play The Screen regulations in the ebu White book are almost the same as the EBL Screen regulations (There's some doubt about law 34). Since you are one of those unfortunates who lives the wrong side of Le Manche, the EBL regulations will apply, and I cannot imagine that the FFB will have over-ridden them. The screen regulations are designed to change the penalties for infractions which do not damage the NOS (non-offending side), so that, for example, insufficient bids can be corrected without penalty provided the tray has not been passed. They do not provide for any modifications to laws where normal procedure has been followed. What we have here is a faced and legal opening lead. WB 151.1.2 Last para. "After a legal opening lead is faced, the screen aperture is opened ......". WB 151.3 "The laws of Duplicate contract bridge 1997 are in effect except as provided below" . A list of laws follows, none concern opening leads except L41A, L54 and this refers to faced or unfaced leads. this lead is faced and is not an OLOOT (Opening lead out of turn), so does not apply here. There is no question a legal opening lead has been made. ruling "Open the screen". There is no option. Bon chance, John > Hello, > > I'm a French TD, newcomer on the list. There's a nice problem, hoping I'm > using > the right vocabulary. > > Playing with screen; South is declarer and West leads faced the 6C. As > soon as > the card touches the table, West says, oh, no, I didn't want to lead this > card, > may I take it back? South calls the TD - what would you have done in his > stead? > If it helps, the TD does not doubt that the lead has really been a "hand > slip". > > Thank you, > > Manuela Mandache > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Jun 18 11:42:40 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun Jun 18 11:43:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <4494343D.8090308@free.fr> Message-ID: <001b01c692bb$8aff13b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> " .... As I said, I would bid 6NT over 3H, but probably not over 2H corrected to 3H. " +++ and that is exactly my point. There is a conflicit in the laws in this case. One Law 16 is telling you to bid on "normally" ignoring any extraneous information available which could divert you from a normal action. Another law 27B is saying its ok to have information available when Pd corrects a misbid legally to a level higher even though this information WILL almost certainly effect your call had that misbid not happened. Any cognitent pair with sufficient knowledge of the laws could have a field day with the implications here. Playing devils advocate - you could deliberately misbid in "dodgy" cases, correct the call and pd is now happy as larry with the extra info ... and its all legal. If you are going to bid 6NT over 3H's why do you change your mind over 2H corrected to 3H ... ?? They are the same auction. No they SHOULD be the same auction - but currently arent. Karel From jjlbridge at free.fr Sun Jun 18 18:07:15 2006 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Sun Jun 18 18:07:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <001b01c692bb$8aff13b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <001b01c692bb$8aff13b0$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <44957A33.60707@free.fr> Karel a ?crit : > " .... As I said, I would bid 6NT over 3H, but probably not over 2H > corrected > to 3H. " > > +++ and that is exactly my point. There is a conflicit in the laws in this > case. One Law 16 is telling you to bid on "normally" ignoring any > extraneous information available which could divert you from a normal > action. Another law 27B is saying its ok to have information available when > Pd corrects a misbid legally to a level higher even though this information > WILL almost certainly effect your call had that misbid not happened. Well, hardly a conflict : there is a general rule and an explicit exception :-) > Any cognitent pair with sufficient knowledge of the laws could have a field > day with the implications here. Playing devils advocate - you could > deliberately misbid in "dodgy" cases, correct the call and pd is now happy > as larry with the extra info ... and its all legal. This is exactly where 27A1b kicks in ! When the IB (+ the correction + the knowledge that the resulting bid was a correction) allowed you to achieve a result that would possibly (or probably, that's not in TFLB) be missed without any irregularity in the first place (ie no IB), the director may adjust. > If you are going to bid 6NT over 3H's why do you change your mind over 2H > corrected to 3H ... ?? They are the same auction. No they SHOULD be the > same auction - but currently arent. Why should they ? When there has been an irregularity, the laws often strive to keep the hand playable whenever possible. Among the workarounds, there are cases where one player is barred, and in this case his partner must take a shot at what could be a playable spot, not an easy guess. In the specific case of IB, the alternative is to allow the correction (when it is not conventional, bla bla bla) *and* to allow the information. There is often still a lot of guesswork involved during the auction, but the hand remains mostly playable. If the information were unauthorized, quite often the mere correction would be too risky, and the player would probably be better off just guessing the final contract (barring his partner). This is of course a possibility, but one that is further from "real" bridge than the one currently in place, therefore I don't think it would be an improvement (moreover, you would have to investigate use of UI on *all* IB corrections)... Jean-Jacques -- From henk at ripe.net Sun Jun 18 20:20:10 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun Jun 18 20:21:31 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <1150535382.4493c6d619a51@imp2-g19.free.fr> References: <1150535382.4493c6d619a51@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060618201611.0349e9a8@ripe.net> At 11:09 17/06/2006, mandache@free.fr wrote: >Hello, > >I'm new on the list and I tried to post a question to >blml@amsterdamned.org >address that had been indicated in the "welcome" message when I subscribed. It >does'n seem to work, is it normal? Hmm, the address should be "blml@rtflb.org" (though @amsterdamned.org is an alias for @rtflb.org). Your first mail has to be approved by the moderator. You should have gotten a mail back saying that the posting was in the moderator's queue. This is to prevent spammers from subscribing, posting and unsubscribing. Anyway, this one went through fine. Henk (listadmin). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400. Watch this space... From mandache at free.fr Sun Jun 18 22:25:44 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (mandache@free.fr) Date: Sun Jun 18 22:17:18 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060618201611.0349e9a8@ripe.net> References: <1150535382.4493c6d619a51@imp2-g19.free.fr> <7.0.1.0.2.20060618201611.0349e9a8@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1150662344.4495b6c88335b@imp3-g19.free.fr> > > Hmm, the address should be "blml@rtflb.org" (though @amsterdamned.org is > an alias for @rtflb.org). > > Your first mail has to be approved by the moderator. You should have > gotten a mail back saying that the posting was in the moderator's queue. > This is to prevent spammers from subscribing, posting and unsubscribing. > > Anyway, this one went through fine. Thank you for your answer. Indeed, I should just have been a little more patient... (I did not get the mail you mention, that's not important.) And now I'm abusing of your kindness: is there any way of posting an answer to the list, and not to the sender of the original message - other than 'reply all' and deleting the sender's address? That is, could the 'reply-to' field of the messages 'processed' by the list be set? to "blml@rtflb.org" or @amsterdamned.org :o) Thank you, best regards, Manuela > > Henk (listadmin). > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 1160438400. Watch this space... > > From mandache at free.fr Sun Jun 18 22:41:04 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (mandache@free.fr) Date: Sun Jun 18 22:32:38 2006 Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play In-Reply-To: <007501c69231$01baccf0$9700a8c0@john> References: <1150533441.4493bf411c439@imp2-g19.free.fr> <007501c69231$01baccf0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <1150663264.4495ba6076c22@imp3-g19.free.fr> Hello List, Thank you all for your answers, and for your kind welcome. John, thank you especially for your very detailed explanation. My previous answer went to your personal address rather than the one of the list by inadvertancy - a "slip of the reply". By the way, I was joking about my friends' explanations - I meant my Frenchness could make you doubt my ability to understand the directing itself. Sorry, my sense of humour takes some getting used to. Best regards, Manuela Quoting John Probst : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "BLML" > Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:37 AM > Subject: [blml] faced OL in screen play > > The Screen regulations in the ebu White book are almost the same as the EBL > Screen regulations (There's some doubt about law 34). Since you are one of > those unfortunates who lives the wrong side of Le Manche, the EBL > regulations will apply, and I cannot imagine that the FFB will have > over-ridden them. The screen regulations are designed to change the > penalties for infractions which do not damage the NOS (non-offending side), > so that, for example, insufficient bids can be corrected without penalty > provided the tray has not been passed. They do not provide for any > modifications to laws where normal procedure has been followed. > > What we have here is a faced and legal opening lead. WB 151.1.2 Last para. > "After a legal opening lead is faced, the screen aperture is opened ......". > WB 151.3 "The laws of Duplicate contract bridge 1997 are in effect except as > provided below" . A list of laws follows, none concern opening leads except > L41A, L54 and this refers to faced or unfaced leads. this lead is faced and > is not an OLOOT (Opening lead out of turn), so does not apply here. > > There is no question a legal opening lead has been made. > > ruling "Open the screen". There is no option. > > Bon chance, John > From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 18 22:53:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jun 18 22:55:12 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <1150662344.4495b6c88335b@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000501c69319$4cc433b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of mandache@free.fr ............. > And now I'm abusing of your kindness: is there any way of posting > an answer to the list, and not to the sender of the original > message - other than 'reply all'> and deleting the sender's > address? That is, could the 'reply-to' field of the messages > 'processed' by the list be set? to "blml@rtflb.org" Save the address blml@rtflb.org in you list of "contacts" with the name "blml", and whenever you want to reply to the list you just select "reply" (not "reply to all") and then you change the "to" address in the reply to "blml" before sending the message. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 19 08:41:54 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Jun 19 08:34:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <4494343D.8090308@free.fr> References: <000001c6901b$e2ce1070$2101a8c0@Karel3200> <000001c6901b$e2ce1070$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060619084053.027438e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:56 17/06/2006 +0200, Jean-Jacques Lafay wrote: >I'm not sure I understood : what was the question asked in the poll ? If >it was the question you asked at the beginning of the thread, it might be >interesting, but is not related to the case at hand : partner *did* bid >2H, then 3H as a correction, which is AI, *not* merely 3H, this is not any >more a normal auction, and we cannot pretend it is. At least when it comes >as a question to blml, there is really no additional UI (I agree there >might very well be some at the table, for instance making it clear whether >2H was intended as an opening bid or as an overcall of a 1S opening), but >all AI should be available ! > >As I said, I would bid 6NT over 3H, but probably not over 2H corrected to >3H. And anyway the normal proceeding is first to establish if there was >UI, *then* if there was LA, not to find that a decision was quite unusual, >and concluding that it should have been triggered by some kind of UI... I find this extremely dangerous, as it allows (if I dare say) crooks to make a "light 3H bid" by bidding 2H then 3H, and have their partner understand it. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 19 11:51:30 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon Jun 19 11:53:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <1FoGc5-1ZkKrw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <44202FB900268913@mk-cpfrontend-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com> >-- Original Message -- >Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:15:37 +0200 >To: "BLML" >From: "Peter Eidt" >Subject: [blml] Amnesia > +=+ I forget what this thread was all about. +=+ ___________________________________________________________ Tiscali Broadband from 14.99 with free setup! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ From henk at ripe.net Mon Jun 19 11:57:24 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon Jun 19 11:58:43 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <1150662344.4495b6c88335b@imp3-g19.free.fr> References: <1150535382.4493c6d619a51@imp2-g19.free.fr> <7.0.1.0.2.20060618201611.0349e9a8@ripe.net> <1150662344.4495b6c88335b@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060619115509.034fab70@ripe.net> Hi, >Thank you for your answer. Indeed, I should just have been a little more >patient... (I did not get the mail you mention, that's not important.) And now >I'm abusing of your kindness: is there any way of posting an answer to the >list, and not to the sender of the original message - other than 'reply all' >and deleting the sender's address? That is, could the 'reply-to' field of the >messages 'processed' by the list be set? to "blml@rtflb.org" or >@amsterdamned.org :o) I checked the mailing list configs and added a "reply-to" field. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400. Watch this space... From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Jun 19 13:06:45 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon Jun 19 13:07:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060619084053.027438e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c69390$74792d30$2101a8c0@Karel3200> > >As I said, I would bid 6NT over 3H, but probably not over 2H corrected to >3H. And anyway the normal proceeding is first to establish if there was >UI, *then* if there was LA, not to find that a decision was quite unusual, >and concluding that it should have been triggered by some kind of UI... I find this extremely dangerous, as it allows (if I dare say) crooks to make a "light 3H bid" by bidding 2H then 3H, and have their partner understand it. +++ Jacques has already replied to a similar thread I put forth and his position as the laws currently stand is absolutely correct. Whoever created law 27B has basically balanced the amount of work involved in looking into the UI in *every* IB case versus legalising the the UI in a special case of a corrected bid to the next level in the same denomination. They tried to keep the game rolling and make the contract playable as Jacques has stated. No problem with that. But to argue that there is no UI in the first place is ridiculous. There is and always will be and no esp is required. You can't create a law which allows a player to use UI in a particular instance and thereafter say no UI occured. What I dislike is how this " legal UI cop out" has now twisted the onus of proof onto the NOS. The huge majority of players will correct their bid to the next denomination REGARDLESS of merit because they know there are no penalties involved in this action L27B. Generally speaking the NOS will now not question any subsequent bidding or implications. Maybe they get a good score, maybe the opps land on their feet - maybe the auction is normal and the game proceeds as normal and L27B worked as it was intended. But ... If a pair brings a case where the majority are strongly in favour of some action, then as we know we have legalised the UI element in this particular scenario, the onus should be heavily on the OS to prove their minority action wasn't effected by the UI (consciously or otherwise) available. Infact we should give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. In the case quoted - 80% is massive and is a clear indication of an anti percentage action taken via an abnormal auction. I feel at the very least the contract level should have been adjusted. You have a problem here guys and I hate to say this but if the word gets out alot of cowboys will be distinguishing between to play, invitational & forcing with IB's. Karel From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 19 13:12:18 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jun 19 13:13:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <44202FB900268913@mk-cpfrontend-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <000101c69391$3a65aa00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk > +=+ I forget what this thread was all about. +=+ South is declarer and makes an open lead to the first trick. TD ! ?? From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 19 16:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 19 16:50:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <001001c69390$74792d30$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: There are basically two distinct types of IB. The more common (IME) is where IBer *intends* a sufficient call but pulls the wrong card from the bidding box (or says the wrong thing). This type of IB conveys no information about IBers hand and there is no UI AFAICT. The second type of IB is the "mis-seen (mis-heard)" auction call. In many cases the reaction of IBer makes to obvious that this has occurred and there *is* UI to consider. I am guided by the use of the phrase "Apparnetly thought the bid was 1S." in the original write-up to say that this case was of the latter type. However, I'm in agreement with those who adjust to 5H on the grounds that this hand is worth a slam-try not a slam-force. NB, as TDs we are quite capable of ruling against offender when our judgement is "2H corrected to 3H describes the hand perfectly" even in the absence of an observed reaction to the IB. Tim From john at asimere.com Mon Jun 19 16:49:18 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Jun 19 16:50:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <44202FB900268913@mk-cpfrontend-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <012c01c693af$8b445930$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Peter Eidt" ; "BLML" Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:51 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia > >>-- Original Message -- >>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:15:37 +0200 >>To: "BLML" >>From: "Peter Eidt" >>Subject: [blml] Amnesia >> > > +=+ I forget what this thread was all about. +=+ Just occasionalyy, VERY occasionally you produce a "mot juste" of awe-inspiring proportion. It's always worth waiting for it. best john > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Tiscali Broadband from 14.99 with free setup! > http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Jun 19 16:52:04 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Jun 19 16:53:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <000101c69391$3a65aa00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <013a01c693af$ee1bd880$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia >> On Behalf Of gesta@tiscali.co.uk >> +=+ I forget what this thread was all about. +=+ > > South is declarer and makes an open lead to the first trick. > > TD ! ?? My reply and Sven's indicate the world of cultural difference between the Nordic and Anglo World. :) John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mandache at free.fr Mon Jun 19 21:34:36 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (mandache@free.fr) Date: Tue Jun 20 11:56:01 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060619115509.034fab70@ripe.net> References: <1150535382.4493c6d619a51@imp2-g19.free.fr> <7.0.1.0.2.20060618201611.0349e9a8@ripe.net> <1150662344.4495b6c88335b@imp3-g19.free.fr> <7.0.1.0.2.20060619115509.034fab70@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1150745676.4496fc4c442bf@imp6-g19.free.fr> Selon Henk Uijterwaal : Hello, > I checked the mailing list configs and added a "reply-to" field. > Well, the field appeared... but is seted to sender's address. Computer science is not an exact science :o) Best, Manuela > Henk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 1160438400. Watch this space... > > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 20 16:25:57 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 20 16:27:20 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <1150745676.4496fc4c442bf@imp6-g19.free.fr> References: <1150535382.4493c6d619a51@imp2-g19.free.fr> <7.0.1.0.2.20060618201611.0349e9a8@ripe.net> <1150662344.4495b6c88335b@imp3-g19.free.fr> <7.0.1.0.2.20060619115509.034fab70@ripe.net> <1150745676.4496fc4c442bf@imp6-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <0F2E1BC6-CD4E-4766-853E-B5EEB08BCEF3@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 19, 2006, at 3:34 PM, mandache@free.fr wrote: > Well, the field appeared... but is seted to sender's address. > Computer science > is not an exact science :o) Some would say it's not a science at all. :-) IIRC, the default behavior for mail programs is to set the "to" field in a reply to the address in the "reply-to" field, and if there is no such field, to the (first?, all?) address in the "from" field. I also seem to recall Henk had some reason for not wanting to set the "reply- to" field to the list, though I don't remember what it was. It's a pain to have to remember to change the address before you send a message, but at least you're not alone. :-) From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jun 20 16:33:05 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue Jun 20 16:39:32 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <0F2E1BC6-CD4E-4766-853E-B5EEB08BCEF3@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Ed Reppert writes: > > On Jun 19, 2006, at 3:34 PM, mandache@free.fr wrote: > > > Well, the field appeared... but is seted to sender's address. > > Computer science > > is not an exact science :o) > > Some would say it's not a science at all. :-) > > IIRC, the default behavior for mail programs is to set the "to" field > in a reply to the address in the "reply-to" field, and if there is no > such field, to the (first?, all?) address in the "from" field. Yup. > I also > seem to recall Henk had some reason for not wanting to set the "reply- > to" field to the list, though I don't remember what it was. Simply that while in general you want to reply to the list from time to time you want to take the traffic off list. It's generally harder for most people to figure out the sender's address (though most lists bury the info in the headers some place) than to remember to set the address to the list (and most people will let you know if you've forgotten) I'm on lists with both types of behaviour. No biggy to me either way, but I think Henk's choice is the best compromise -- even if it's "wrong" more often. Matter of taste though. > > It's a pain to have to remember to change the address before you send > a message, but at least you're not alone. :-) At least every message has a footer with the info required. From john at asimere.com Tue Jun 20 18:52:27 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue Jun 20 18:53:36 2006 Subject: [blml] second try References: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <005101c69489$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] second try > Ed Reppert writes: >> >> On Jun 19, 2006, at 3:34 PM, mandache@free.fr wrote: >> >> > Well, the field appeared... but is seted to sender's address. >> > Computer science >> > is not an exact science :o) >> >> Some would say it's not a science at all. :-) >> >> IIRC, the default behavior for mail programs is to set the "to" field >> in a reply to the address in the "reply-to" field, and if there is no >> such field, to the (first?, all?) address in the "from" field. > > Yup. > >> I also >> seem to recall Henk had some reason for not wanting to set the "reply- >> to" field to the list, though I don't remember what it was. Yup I'm with Ron, John > > Simply that while in general you want to reply to the list > from time to time you want to take the traffic off list. > > It's generally harder for most people to figure out the sender's > address (though most lists bury the info in the headers some place) > than to remember to set the address to the list (and most people > will let you know if you've forgotten) > > I'm on lists with both types of behaviour. No biggy to me either > way, but I think Henk's choice is the best compromise -- even if > it's "wrong" more often. Matter of taste though. >> >> It's a pain to have to remember to change the address before you send >> a message, but at least you're not alone. :-) > > At least every message has a footer with the info required. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at ripe.net Wed Jun 21 08:22:42 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Jun 21 08:54:06 2006 Subject: [blml] second try In-Reply-To: <005101c69489$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john> References: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <005101c69489$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060621081935.0349ff40@ripe.net> Hi all, I checked and (if I understand mailman's documentation correctly, and mailman's documentation is more complex than TFLB ;-)) the list will now leave any "reply-to:" field that the poster puts in, as well as add a "reply-to:" for the poster. This is the recommended setting. So, reply will reply to the poster, reply all to the list and the poster. Some mail clients do this differently. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400. Watch this space... From blml at blakjak.com Wed Jun 21 11:48:50 2006 From: blml at blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed Jun 21 11:52:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Herman De Wael Message-ID: Hi all Is there a Herman out there? If so, why do emails to his normal eddress keep failing? Please send any replies to me by direct email. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mandache at free.fr Wed Jun 21 13:23:06 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (mandache@free.fr) Date: Wed Jun 21 13:46:02 2006 Subject: [blml] one more (silly) question In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060621081935.0349ff40@ripe.net> References: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <005101c69489$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john> <7.0.1.0.2.20060621081935.0349ff40@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1150888986.44992c1a89a36@imp8-g19.free.fr> Hello, > I checked and (if I understand mailman's documentation correctly, and > mailman's documentation is more complex than TFLB ;-)) What does TFLB (and RTFLB) stand for? Thanks, Manuela From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 21 14:22:54 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jun 21 14:24:14 2006 Subject: [blml] one more (silly) question In-Reply-To: <1150888986.44992c1a89a36@imp8-g19.free.fr> References: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <005101c69489$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john> <7.0.1.0.2.20060621081935.0349ff40@ripe.net> <1150888986.44992c1a89a36@imp8-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: On Jun 21, 2006, at 7:23 AM, mandache@free.fr wrote: > Hello, > >> I checked and (if I understand mailman's documentation correctly, and >> mailman's documentation is more complex than TFLB ;-)) > > What does TFLB (and RTFLB) stand for? "The Fine Law Book" and "Read The Fine Law Book". :-) From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 21 14:49:34 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed Jun 21 14:50:43 2006 Subject: [blml] one more (silly) question References: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><005101c69489$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john><7.0.1.0.2.20060621081935.0349ff40@ripe.net><1150888986.44992c1a89a36@imp8-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <002301c69531$257fdab0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: Cc: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] one more (silly) question > > On Jun 21, 2006, at 7:23 AM, mandache@free.fr wrote: > >> Hello, >> >>> I checked and (if I understand mailman's documentation correctly, and >>> mailman's documentation is more complex than TFLB ;-)) >> >> What does TFLB (and RTFLB) stand for? > > "The Fine Law Book" and "Read The Fine Law Book". Huh; Politically correct Americans at work again.! It starts from a standard English mantra. "If all else fails RTFI ." (read the f*****g instructions) :) I leave you to work out the significance of the "F" in RTFLB, and it's what I'd say to a junior TD who asks me a question "RTFLB and then come back and ask me again" Which reminds me - A particularly fine piece of Francophobia I managed to research is related to the English V-sign (F*** Off), but first I have to give a historical background. The English longbowmen used to grease their spare bow strings to keep them flexible with tallow (lamb's fat) and the French archers used lard (pig's fat). The rats which infest an army encampment much prefer the taste of pig fat and selectively ate the French archers' spare bowstrings, so once an archer's bowstring broke he had no spares and was useless, whilst the English longbowmen weren't so inconvenienced. Of such small detail battles are won and lost. Remember Agincourt 1415 :) "Cry God for Harry, Englnad and St George!" (Wm. Shakespeare) The English V-sign Francophobia will follow sometime. cheers john > > :-) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jun 21 15:01:56 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed Jun 21 15:03:13 2006 Subject: [blml] one more (silly) question In-Reply-To: <1150888986.44992c1a89a36@imp8-g19.free.fr> References: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><005101c694 89$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john><7.0.1.0.2.20060621081935.0349ff40@ripe.net> <1150888986.44992c1a89a36@imp8-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <44994344.1090802@meteo.fr> mandache@free.fr a ?crit : > Hello, > > >>I checked and (if I understand mailman's documentation correctly, and >>mailman's documentation is more complex than TFLB ;-)) > > > What does TFLB (and RTFLB) stand for? (read) the fabulous law book > > Thanks, > > Manuela > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 21 18:30:46 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 21 18:50:08 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks Message-ID: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> The ACBL has changed its casebook policy again, after one try at a Discussion format for the Denver casebook, reverting instead to the previous format (absent me). Responsibility for casebooks has been removed from the hands of CTD Rick Beye, and is probably (can't find out) the responsibility of the NABC Appeals Committee, some of whom will be commenting on their own cases. The new panel of expert commentators comprises Ron Gerard (AC member), Jeff Goldsmith (AC member), Jeffrey Polisner (AC co-chair), Barry Rigal (AC co-chair), Howard Weinstein, Adam Wildavsky (AC member), Bobby Wolff, and ACBL TD Gary Zeiger. While the write-ups for the spring Dallas NABC have been posted, the expert commentary won't be included for a few more weeks. My own comments on selected cases will appear later on BLML and rgb. The casebooks are viewable at www.acbl.org, in the "Play" section. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jun 21 19:41:57 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jun 21 20:28:27 2006 Subject: [blml] one more (silly) question In-Reply-To: <002301c69531$257fdab0$9700a8c0@john> References: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <005101c69489$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john> <7.0.1.0.2.20060621081935.0349ff40@ripe.net> <1150888986.44992c1a89a36@imp8-g19.free.fr> <002301c69531$257fdab0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <64624E52-A134-4572-9C26-97308BA7B396@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 21, 2006, at 8:49 AM, John Probst wrote: > Huh; Politically correct Americans at work again.! It starts from a > standard English mantra. "If all else fails RTFI ." (read the f*****g > instructions) :) I leave you to work out the significance of the > "F" in > RTFLB, and it's what I'd say to a junior TD who asks me a question > "RTFLB > and then come back and ask me again" Actually, I learned that wording from one David W. Stevenson -who is not, last time I checked, an American. :-) "Politically correct" is not a label people who know me well apply to me. I would have used the correct wording, but this *is* supposed to be a polite forum. As for "f***ing", I follow science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle, who on his discussion board on GEnie many years ago (last I heard it had moved to Bix, but that was also many years ago) established the rule that if you meant to use an obscenity, use it, don't pussyfoot around with asterisks and such. He would not have objected to "fine", I think, but he definitely felt that "f***ing* would be a copout. :-) From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Jun 21 20:36:52 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed Jun 21 20:38:09 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209AB@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: Marvin French [mailto:mfrench1@san.rr.com] Sent: 21 June 2006 17:31 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks The ACBL has changed its casebook policy again, after one try at a Discussion format for the Denver casebook, reverting instead to the previous format (absent me). Responsibility for casebooks has been removed from the hands of CTD Rick Beye, and is probably (can't find out) the responsibility of the NABC Appeals Committee, some of whom will be commenting on their own cases. The new panel of expert commentators comprises Ron Gerard (AC member), Jeff Goldsmith (AC member), Jeffrey Polisner (AC co-chair), Barry Rigal (AC co-chair), Howard Weinstein, Adam Wildavsky (AC member), Bobby Wolff, and ACBL TD Gary Zeiger. While the write-ups for the spring Dallas NABC have been posted, the expert commentary won't be included for a few more weeks. My own comments on selected cases will appear later on BLML and rgb. The casebooks are viewable at www.acbl.org, in the "Play" section. _______________________________________________ This one's a bit of a corker. http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Dallas2006/NonNABC+%20061-5.pdf The role of the panel was to find a different (supposed) OS and so find a different set of facts. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From mandache at free.fr Wed Jun 21 21:06:56 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Wed Jun 21 20:58:14 2006 Subject: [blml] one more (silly) question In-Reply-To: <002301c69531$257fdab0$9700a8c0@john> References: <200606201433.k5KEX5j3001934@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca><005101c69489$e9694ae0$9700a8c0@john><7.0.1.0.2.20060621081935.0349ff40@ripe.net><1150888986.44992c1a89a36@imp8-g19.free.fr> <002301c69531$257fdab0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <1150916816.449998d038075@imp3-g19.free.fr> Quoting John Probst : > Huh; Politically correct Americans at work again.! It starts from a > standard English mantra. "If all else fails RTFI ." (read the f*****g > instructions) :) I leave you to work out the significance of the "F" in > RTFLB Fabuloug? , and it's what I'd say to a junior TD who asks me a question "RTFLB > and then come back and ask me again" > > Which reminds me - A particularly fine piece of Francophobia I managed to > research is related to the English V-sign (F*** Off), but first I have to > give a historical background. The English longbowmen used to grease their > spare bow strings to keep them flexible with tallow (lamb's fat) and the > French archers used lard (pig's fat). The rats which infest an army > encampment much prefer the taste of pig fat and selectively ate the French > archers' spare bowstrings, so once an archer's bowstring broke he had no > spares and was useless, whilst the English longbowmen weren't so > inconvenienced. Of such small detail battles are won and lost. Remember > Agincourt 1415 :) "Cry God for Harry, Englnad and St George!" (Wm. > Shakespeare) The English V-sign Francophobia will follow sometime. > cheers john > > > > :-) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 21 22:10:10 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jun 21 22:12:09 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:30 PM 6/21/06, Marvin wrote: >The ACBL has changed its casebook policy again, after one try at a >Discussion format for the Denver casebook, reverting instead to the >previous format (absent me). Responsibility for casebooks has been >removed from the hands of CTD Rick Beye, and is probably (can't find >out) the responsibility of the NABC Appeals Committee, some of whom >will be commenting on their own cases. The new panel of expert >commentators comprises Ron Gerard (AC member), Jeff Goldsmith (AC >member), Jeffrey Polisner (AC co-chair), Barry Rigal (AC co-chair), >Howard Weinstein, Adam Wildavsky (AC member), Bobby Wolff, and ACBL >TD Gary Zeiger. While the write-ups for the spring Dallas NABC have >been posted, the expert commentary won't be included for a few more >weeks. My own comments on selected cases will appear later on BLML >and rgb. So... we again have a casebook with "expert commentary", the purpose of which is presumably to review and criticize appeals results in order to provide superior guidance to those who might be involved in future appeals over and above the cases themselves. Except that the overwhelming majority of the contributors will be from the very ACs whose decisions are to be reviewed. I don't expect they'll be particularly keen to criticize their own work too vigorously. This is only what we can expect from the ACBL, who, as has been made clear on this list, shows far less concern for educating its prospective AC members than other NCBOs. The NABC Appeals Committee, as well as the previous casebook review group, were always essentially patronage appointments (based on whom you know, not what you know), but at least they were not nearly the same people. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 04:50:35 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Jun 22 04:51:47 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: <200606211859.k5LIxZWb029112@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200606211859.k5LIxZWb029112@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <449A057B.20509@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Robin Barker" > This one's a bit of a corker. > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Dallas2006/NonNABC+%20061-5.pdf > > The role of the panel was to find a different (supposed) OS and > so find a different set of facts. Heh. Not only are the facts confusing -- though they might have been clear to the AC -- but the ruling is wrong in law. The AC made the all-too-common mistake of asking what should have happened after the infraction instead of what would have happened if the infraction had never occurred as L12C2 requires. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jun 22 04:59:16 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Jun 22 05:00:26 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <200606191443.k5JEhUec024352@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200606191443.k5JEhUec024352@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <449A0784.8000504@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > Whoever created > law 27B has basically balanced the amount of work involved in looking into > the UI in *every* IB case versus legalising the the UI in a special case of > a corrected bid to the next level in the same denomination. ... > But to argue that there is no UI in the first place is ridiculous. There is > and always will be and no esp is required. You can't create a law which > allows a player to use UI in a particular instance... If you are saying that in practice there will "always" be some mannerism or remark, then your experience differs from mine. If, however, you are saying that the withdrawn IB is UI, then that's not what the FLB says. Maybe it should be, but that's not what the Laws say now. [Insert here my usual assertion that if the withdrawn IB is made UI, there should be no mechanical penalty.] > You have a problem here guys and I hate to say this but if the word gets out > alot of cowboys will be distinguishing between to play, invitational & > forcing with IB's. Only if the TD ignores both L72B1 and 27B1b. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 22 06:52:05 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 22 06:53:28 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c68770$c1a794b0$2101a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Karel: [snip] >4H was described as a heart cue when asked. > >We had 2S's + singleton HK to lose. 3NT was actually the >spot. Anyway ... LHO didn't try to cash his HA because "a >heart cue" was void or ace. Cue for me is A,K,x or void. >He called the TD and claimed he was misinformed ... was >he ? Richard: Yes, in my opinion that was misinformation, and as TD I might have adjusted the score (depending upon whether the misinformation caused damage on the actual lie of the cards). The explanation of "cue" was overly succinct. Since the partnership agreement was that 4H showed a first or second round control in hearts, the non-succinct explanation should have been "4H shows a first or second round control in hearts". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 22 08:02:18 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jun 22 08:04:22 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >>>>If the request simply was: "Is 4H cue bid?" then "yes" is a >>>>perfectly correct answer to an improper question! Ed Reppert: >>>Not in the ACBL, where "any question should trigger a >>>complete description of the partnership agreement". :-) >>> >>>I do agree it's an improper question, and I do wish players >>>would learn to ask *proper* questions - but they won't. >>> EBU Orange Book 2006, clause 3B9: [snip] >>If the questioner asks a more specific question then a >>TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it >>misinformation if he gets a correct but incomplete answer >>to his question. Furthermore, asking "What does that call >>mean?" rather than any more pointed question tends to avoid >>a suggestion of unauthorised information. [snip] >>For example, if a 3C overcall is Ghestem, showing a hand >>with two specified suits, and if an opponent merely says >>"Weak or strong?" it is not unreasonable for a player to >>"answer "Weak", since this is true [snip] ABF Alert Regulation: [snip] >Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you >must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you >can. [snip] >If an enquiry is made, a full explanation of the call must >be given. [snip] Richard Hills: It seems to me that the ACBL / ABF approach is more consistent than the EBU / Pran approach in applying the Law 75A requirement "must be *fully* and freely available to the opponents" and the Law 75C requirement "disclose *all* special information". Merely because an improper question may transmit UI is no excuse for an answer to an improper question to create MI. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 22 09:03:36 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jun 22 08:56:33 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001c68770$c1a794b0$2101a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060622090224.02745880@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:52 22/06/2006 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The explanation of "cue" was overly succinct. Since the >partnership agreement was that 4H showed a first or second >round control in hearts, the non-succinct explanation >should have been "4H shows a first or second round >control in hearts". However, that's the sense which will be given to the word 'cue-bid' by moderate to strong players, at least above 3NT, so what's the misinformation ? (and you may always enquire) Regards Alain From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 22 12:21:09 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jun 22 12:22:21 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00dd01c695e5$94ad90d0$9700a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > >>>>>If the request simply was: "Is 4H cue bid?" then "yes" is a >>>>>perfectly correct answer to an improper question! > > Ed Reppert: > >>>>Not in the ACBL, where "any question should trigger a >>>>complete description of the partnership agreement". :-) >>>> >>>>I do agree it's an improper question, and I do wish players >>>>would learn to ask *proper* questions - but they won't. >>>> > > EBU Orange Book 2006, clause 3B9: > > [snip] > >>>If the questioner asks a more specific question then a >>>TD or Appeals Committee is unlikely to consider it >>>misinformation if he gets a correct but incomplete answer >>>to his question. Furthermore, asking "What does that call >>>mean?" rather than any more pointed question tends to avoid >>>a suggestion of unauthorised information. > > [snip] > >>>For example, if a 3C overcall is Ghestem, showing a hand >>>with two specified suits, and if an opponent merely says >>>"Weak or strong?" it is not unreasonable for a player to >>>"answer "Weak", since this is true I'd adjust on the basis of failure fully and freely to disclose. this is OBSCENE! John > > [snip] > > ABF Alert Regulation: > > [snip] > >>Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you >>must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you >>can. > > [snip] > >>If an enquiry is made, a full explanation of the call must >>be given. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that the ACBL / ABF approach is more > consistent than the EBU / Pran approach in applying the > Law 75A requirement "must be *fully* and freely available > to the opponents" and the Law 75C requirement "disclose > *all* special information". > > Merely because an improper question may transmit UI is no > excuse for an answer to an improper question to create MI. > > > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 22 13:57:49 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jun 22 13:50:47 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00dd01c695e5$94ad90d0$9700a8c0@john> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060622135322.02741860@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:21 22/06/2006 +0100, you wrote: >I'd adjust on the basis of failure fully and freely to disclose. this is >OBSCENE! Yes, this is an extreme case, it is excessive, but I would welcome a jurisprudency stating that, when a question is biased, answering the question and nothing else, possibly withholding important information, isn't an infraction. It is, presently, but changing that is a fine way to deter people from biasing their questions. A classical case : you open 2H and LHO asks : "weak ?" (which is absurd in countries where weak 2's aren't alerted). If you play Dutch two's, partner is allowed to answer "yes". Best regards, Alain From karel at esatclear.ie Fri Jun 23 11:25:25 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri Jun 23 11:26:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Carti Mundi Oostende In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c696a6$f630f920$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Hi all Can anyone confirm or deny Carti Mundi bridge congress, Oostende, Belgium, this weekend 23rd - 25th ?? Karel From henk at ripe.net Fri Jun 23 12:19:57 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri Jun 23 12:26:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Carti Mundi Oostende In-Reply-To: <000001c696a6$f630f920$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <000001c696a6$f630f920$2101a8c0@Karel3200> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060623121947.03411f28@ripe.net> At 11:25 23/06/2006, Karel wrote: >Hi all > >Can anyone confirm or deny Carti Mundi bridge congress, Oostende, Belgium, >this weekend 23rd - 25th ?? It is this weekend. >Karel > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400. Watch this space... From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 23 15:26:35 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jun 23 15:19:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000001c68f45$343aec30$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <005c01c68c80$273c17b0$9700a8c0@john> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060623152527.020823b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:58 14/06/2006 +0100, Karel wrote: >+++ and I completely agree with John. Since the thread start, a poll was >run (not by me) asking various players what they would bid via 2S* 3H 4D ??. >Not unsurprsingly the majority moved toward slam with either a minor cue or >4NT (my choice as it right sides the possible 5NT best contract) or bid it >directly. Those that did move would probably have died in 5H's >(insufficient key cards) or corrected 6H's to 6NT (protecting the minor >tenance). > >So yes I would rule 5H's saying the OS are not allowed to make use of the UI >but no the likelihood of getting to 6H's is too slim to impose that score >(unless my poll or the AC felt otherwise). This is not the same as result >stands. Doesn't that point to a score of -450 to the NOS and -50 to the OS, on the grounds of "the worst result that was at all possible" ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 23 15:31:26 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jun 23 15:24:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <000001c6901b$e2ce1070$2101a8c0@Karel3200> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060614131032.02d1a370@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060623152655.020893a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:34 15/06/2006 +0100, Karel wrote: >I hope I have misunderstood this. Karel seems to be saying that after >a corrected IB, if the IBer's partner takes an unusual action, then >"even if... the call was corrected smoothly no UI... the evidence is >quite strong that the OS acted on 'the vibe'". Is he really saying >that in these situations we are to presume that the OS is psychic and >that the bidder must have obtained UI via ESP? No, he's stating that the fact that IBer's partner made a drastic underbid is pretty strong evidence that 'he knew something'. It could be subliminal, hence unconscious. Please correct 'ESP' to 'micro-expression'. The same players that sometimes make the wrong bid at the right time (or a psyche, perhaps) because 'well, I somehow guessed that LHO has a whale of a hand' -and being one of those is among my braggables- might guess something about partner's. Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 23 16:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 23 17:01:02 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060622135322.02741860@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > Yes, this is an extreme case, it is excessive, but I would welcome a > jurisprudency stating that, when a question is biased, answering the > question and nothing else, possibly withholding important > information, isn't an infraction. It is, presently, but changing that > is a fine way to deter people from biasing their questions. Actually I'd say that currently such behaviour *may* be an infraction. > A classical case : you open 2H and LHO asks : "weak ?" (which is > absurd in countries where weak 2's aren't alerted). If you play Dutch > two's, partner is allowed to answer "yes". In Holland I'd agree that the answer wasn't an infraction (opps know the 2H isn't natural and it is fair to assume that they are only interested in the point range - I don't think the question is necessarily absurd). In the UK (where weak 2s are, currently, alertable) the question "Weak?" should be interpreted as "Is that just a standard weak 2 in H or is there something else to the alert" and answered accordingly. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jun 23 16:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jun 23 17:01:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060623152527.020823b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > Doesn't that point to a score of -450 to the NOS and -50 to the OS, > on the grounds of "the worst result that was at all possible" ? It might, but the words in law are "The most unfavourable result that was at all *probable*". It's a nuance but a somewhat higher threshold and a "too slim" chance would likely be ignored. One might consider L12c3 adjusting this case to 5% of -50, 95% of 450 if one could be bothered. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 23 18:06:24 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jun 23 17:59:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060623152527.020823b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060623180229.0207a6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:59 23/06/2006 +0100, you wrote: >It might, but the words in law are "The most unfavourable result that >was at all *probable*". It's a nuance but a somewhat higher threshold >and a "too slim" chance would likely be ignored. One might consider >L12c3 adjusting this case to 5% of -50, 95% of 450 if one could be >bothered. I'd say it is probable that some players could unconsideredly jump to 6H after 2S-3H-4D, if only to avoid giving away information as to their hand type. BTA there are subtleties that make "possible", "probable" and other words diverge between French and English so I would easily accept being told I'm far off. From mandache at free.fr Fri Jun 23 19:38:33 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Fri Jun 23 19:29:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060623180229.0207a6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060623152527.020823b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060623180229.0207a6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1151084313.449c27198aef4@imp3-g19.free.fr> Hi all, I try to follow the various discussions and that puts me in mind a short SF story I once read. In a more or less far away future, the Terrian observatories capture signals from the Large Magellanic Cloud that are beyond doubt sent by an ET intelligence. Unfortunately, they remain incomprehensible no matter the scientists' efforts. After hundreds of years of energetic restrains, humanity is able to send a short message simply coded: "What do you have to tell us?" Some more hundreds of years later, a brief gap in the incomprehensible signal flow is filled with the answer, using Earth's code: "Nothing." Once more, efforts to send a complain: "Then why do you send us messages?" After the normal delay: "We don't, we were talking to the Aldebarran Civilisation." So, what may ESP mean? And BTA? Thank you. Regards, Manuela From tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri Jun 23 21:15:21 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri Jun 23 21:16:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Your call In-Reply-To: <1151084313.449c27198aef4@imp3-g19.free.fr> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060623152527.020823b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060623180229.0207a6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1151084313.449c27198aef4@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <449C3DC9.2080906@comcast.net> Manuela Mandache wrote: > So, what may ESP mean? And BTA? Thank you. ESP = Extra-Sensory Perception. The ability to read minds, for example. BTA = But Then Again. Interpret this literally, I guess. What usually follows is some evidence contrary to the previous opinion. -Todd From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 24 13:24:30 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat Jun 24 13:25:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <1FoGc5-1ZkKrw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4424AC790026C195@mk-cpfrontend-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com> +=+ Just discussed in Laws Drafting Subcommittee. We have added words to clarify that the led card is played and cannot be withdrawn. The correct defender will make his lead. +=+ ,,,,,,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >-- Original Message -- >Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:15:37 +0200 >To: "BLML" >From: "Peter Eidt" >Subject: [blml] Amnesia > > >South is declarer and makes an open lead to the first trick. > >TD ! ?? > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ___________________________________________________________ Tiscali Broadband from 14.99 with free setup! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Jun 24 14:18:14 2006 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat Jun 24 14:24:05 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004901c69789$1db82940$64493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Alain wrote: > > > Yes, this is an extreme case, it is excessive, but I would welcome a > > jurisprudency stating that, when a question is biased, answering the > > question and nothing else, possibly withholding important > > information, isn't an infraction. It is, presently, but changing that > > is a fine way to deter people from biasing their questions. > > Actually I'd say that currently such behaviour *may* be an infraction. > > > A classical case : you open 2H and LHO asks : "weak ?" (which is > > absurd in countries where weak 2's aren't alerted). If you play Dutch > > two's, partner is allowed to answer "yes". > > In Holland I'd agree that the answer wasn't an infraction (opps know the > 2H isn't natural and it is fair to assume that they are only interested > in the point range - > > In the Netherlands natural bids are in general not alertable qua length and strength. 2 H is: - naturel 8 or 9 tricks not alertable used by beginners, - weak two, naturel six-card usually 6-11 HP, not alertable used by older and more experienced players, - Muiderberg, five-card plus 4+ minor usually 6-11 HP, alertable and used by tournament players, - other convention, alertable and used by tournament players. So the answer "weak" or "yes" is not complete. Ben From adam at tameware.com Sat Jun 24 21:43:06 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat Jun 24 21:45:04 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: At 4:10 PM -0400 6/21/06, Eric Landau wrote: >So... we again have a casebook with "expert commentary", the purpose >of which is presumably to review and criticize appeals results in >order to provide superior guidance to those who might be involved in >future appeals over and above the cases themselves. Except that the >overwhelming majority of the contributors will be from the very ACs >whose decisions are to be reviewed. I don't expect they'll be >particularly keen to criticize their own work too vigorously. I've seen no evidence to support this assertion. Quite the contrary -- the panelists, whether AC members or not, have always seemed willing to forcefully criticize decisions with which they disagree. Surely you've noticed that I do so often. As an AC member I take it especially badly when an AC overturns a perfectly good TD decision. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From tzimnoch at comcast.net Sun Jun 25 00:25:12 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sun Jun 25 00:26:37 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <449DBBC8.2060202@comcast.net> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I've seen no evidence to support this assertion. Quite the contrary -- > the panelists, whether AC members or not, have always seemed willing to > forcefully criticize decisions with which they disagree. What do you feel about the ACBL's decision to allow self-review of AC performance rather than finding external measures? > Surely you've > noticed that I do so often. As an AC member I take it especially badly > when an AC overturns a perfectly good TD decision. I'm led to believe the internal channels available for dissent are insufficient, which would be a pity. I've always found your arguments lucid and I've admired you for that. While I know not all AC members are involved in every case, it looks like most of the commentators have already had their chances to have their opinions included in the casebook. I personally enjoyed reading the commentaries as representing outsiders' view and look forward to the unofficial commentaries that might be compiled. -Todd From adam at tameware.com Sun Jun 25 09:02:21 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun Jun 25 09:03:49 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: <449DBBC8.2060202@comcast.net> References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> <449DBBC8.2060202@comcast.net> Message-ID: At 6:25 PM -0400 6/24/06, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: >What do you feel about the ACBL's decision to allow self-review of >AC performance rather than finding external measures? Which external measures do you suggest? The cases are published and anyone can review them. I do so on my web site, and for years I've invited anyone and everyone to help me out or to contest my findings -- to date few have taken me up on it. http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html >I personally enjoyed reading the commentaries as representing >outsiders' view and look forward to the unofficial commentaries that >might be compiled. As do I. I liked the online discussion forum for the previous casebook. I don't know why it was discontinued. I'll ask, but I have to suspect it was from lack of use. Marvin was almost the only one to post. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From john at asimere.com Sun Jun 25 23:29:37 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun Jun 25 23:30:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <4424AC790026C195@mk-cpfrontend-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <003701c6989e$75f51ad0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Peter Eidt" ; "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia +=+ Just discussed in Laws Drafting Subcommittee. We have added words to clarify that the led card is played and cannot be withdrawn. The correct defender will make his lead. +=+ You are seriously changing the game of bridge. We can't have an opening lead by declarer. Period. Full stop. I can live with an "I accept" by either defender, facing of dummy and 2nd card from declarer's left. As I read it declarer picks the friggin thing up directly after the opening lead anyway, or are you constructing a brand new and 3rd type of penal;ty card. Wonderful! cheers John ,,,,,,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >-- Original Message -- >Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:15:37 +0200 >To: "BLML" >From: "Peter Eidt" >Subject: [blml] Amnesia > > >South is declarer and makes an open lead to the first trick. > >TD ! ?? > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ___________________________________________________________ Tiscali Broadband from 14.99 with free setup! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 26 00:03:04 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jun 26 00:18:45 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060622090224.02745880@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The explanation of "cue" was overly succinct. Since the >>partnership agreement was that 4H showed a first or second >>round control in hearts, the non-succinct explanation >>should have been "4H shows a first or second round >>control in hearts". Alain Gottcheiner: >However, that's the sense which will be given to the word >'cue-bid' by moderate to strong players, at least above >3NT, so what's the misinformation ? (and you may always >enquire) Richard Hills: An important reason why players inadvertently create MI is that they fallaciously assume that their opponents are clones of themselves, sharing the same so-called general knowledge. In this thread's stem case, Karel made the "clone" error and now Alain has repeated it. If a pair's only bridge reading has been "Goren's Bridge Complete", they will assume that a cue bid guarantees a first round control, so they will see no need further to enquire. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 00:42:33 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Jun 26 00:44:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <4424AC790026C195@mk-cpfrontend-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com> <003701c6989e$75f51ad0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > We can't have an opening lead by declarer. Period. Full stop. It isn't often that Probst's language is so vigorous. Whether we can have an OL by declarer [or not], some physicist or chemist or whoever may well have to so ascertain. It can be safely pointed out that declarer might, and in fact has, led OOT- TFLB so recognizing it. Anyway, I won't be so bold to say is it is a good or bad idea. Besides, the LC hasn't published anything. Me, I'm not going to worry about it. regards roger pewick > cheers John ps In the past year the declaring side has OLOOT twice at my table- with no help from me I might add. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 26 00:49:09 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 26 00:50:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia In-Reply-To: <003701c6989e$75f51ad0$0701a8c0@john> References: <4424AC790026C195@mk-cpfrontend-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com> <003701c6989e$75f51ad0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On Jun 25, 2006, at 5:29 PM, John Probst wrote: > +=+ Just discussed in Laws Drafting Subcommittee. > We have added words to clarify that the led card is > played and cannot be withdrawn. The correct defender > will make his lead. +=+ > > You are seriously changing the game of bridge. > We can't have an opening lead by declarer. Period. Full stop. > > I can live with an "I accept" by either defender, facing of dummy > and 2nd > card from declarer's left. > As I read it declarer picks the friggin thing up directly after the > opening > lead anyway, or are you constructing a brand new and 3rd type of > penal;ty > card. Wonderful! cheers John My head hurts. If putative declarer faces a card, intending to lead it, after three passes but before the correct opening lead has been made or after it is made face down, then Law 24B applies. The card is left face up until the putative declarer's LHO faces his lead, at which point it's picked up. The penalty provisions of 24B are moot, since putative dummy has no more calls (unless some other infraction causes a roll back of the auction). If declarer faces a card after the correct opening lead is faced (including if the lead was made face up), then it seems to me declarer has played out of turn to the first trick. If the leads were simultaneous, then declarer's lead is deemed to be subsequent to the correct lead (Law 58A). So if declarer's "lead" was simultaneous with or subsequent to the facing of the correct lead it's not a lead out of turn, it's a play out of turn. If it's not a revoke, it stands as played (Law 45C2). if it is a revoke, he picks it up and can play what he wants (Law 62B2). If the correct lead was faced *subsequent* to declarer's lead, then Law 53C applies, declarer withdraws his card, no penalty. Wtp with the current laws? From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 26 13:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 26 13:59:17 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004901c69789$1db82940$64493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: Ben wrote: > > > Yes, this is an extreme case, it is excessive, but I would > > > welcome a > > > jurisprudency stating that, when a question is biased, answering > > > the > > > question and nothing else, possibly withholding important > > > information, isn't an infraction. It is, presently, but changing > > > that > > > is a fine way to deter people from biasing their questions. > > > > Actually I'd say that currently such behaviour *may* be an > > infraction. > > > > > A classical case : you open 2H and LHO asks : "weak ?" (which is > > > absurd in countries where weak 2's aren't alerted). If you play > > > Dutch two's, partner is allowed to answer "yes". > > > > In Holland I'd agree that the answer wasn't an infraction (opps > > know the 2H isn't natural and it is fair to assume that they are only > > interested in the point range - > > > > > In the Netherlands natural bids are in general not alertable qua > length and strength. > 2 H is: > - naturel 8 or 9 tricks not alertable used by beginners, > - weak two, naturel six-card usually 6-11 HP, not alertable used by > older > and more experienced players, > - Muiderberg, five-card plus 4+ minor usually 6-11 HP, alertable and > used by > tournament players, > - other convention, alertable and used by tournament players. > > So the answer "weak" or "yes" is not complete. Incomplete is not the same as being an infraction. I can't remember the last time I gave a "complete" answer (one disclosing the totality of my partnership experience) to a simple question from opps. In Alain's example the opponent has been informed (by the alert) that the bid is not natural. The opponent has chosen to enquire as to the point count rather than the nature of the hand so the answer "yes" to the query "weak?" is surely sufficient. However, had the question been "Please explain?" an answer of "weak" would be insufficient. If nothing else we might teach players to use the proper form for their questions. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jun 26 16:19:58 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jun 26 16:21:28 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:57 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Incomplete is not the same as being an infraction. Depends where you are. In North America, it is an infraction because the alert regulation and the principle of full disclosure require you to give a complete explanation *regardless* of the form of the question. > I can't remember the last time I gave a "complete" answer (one > disclosing the totality of my > partnership experience) to a simple question from opps. Well, it's not an easy thing to do, in any case. :-) > In Alain's example the opponent has been informed (by the alert) that > the bid is not natural. The opponent has chosen to enquire as to the > point count rather than the nature of the hand so the answer "yes" to > the query "weak?" is surely sufficient. However, had the question > been > "Please explain?" an answer of "weak" would be insufficient. See above. > If nothing else we might teach players to use the proper form for > their > questions. We might try. Success is not guaranteed. Nor, IMO, likely. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jun 26 18:53:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jun 26 18:54:57 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > Incomplete is not the same as being an infraction. > > Depends where you are. In North America, it is an infraction because > the alert regulation and the principle of full disclosure require you > to give a complete explanation *regardless* of the form of the > question. Maybe. But if the question is something specific like "How many hearts has your partner shown?" I'd consider an answer that addressed that issue in detail (but didn't explain e.g. point range) to be sufficient. > > I can't remember the last time I gave a "complete" answer (one > > disclosing the totality of my > > partnership experience) to a simple question from opps. > > Well, it's not an easy thing to do, in any case. :-) Sometimes it can be difficult - but the main problem is that it is extremely time-consuming and often unwelcome/confusing. There are various principles involved in this sort of thing. From the duty not to ask leading (and UI giving) questions such as "Weak?", to the expectation on players to protect themselves, to how much one should say. Obviously the TD only gets called when there is a problem. If, as TD, I believe the problem was *primarily* caused by the form of the question I'm likely to rule in favour of the person answering. If I think the problem was deliberate obtuseness on the part of answerer I'll likely rule against him. As always it's a matter of balance and each case needs to be decided on individual merit - around whatever principles the SO/NA/ZO has established. > > If nothing else we might teach players to use the proper form for > > their questions. > > We might try. Success is not guaranteed. Nor, IMO, likely. Well, any education process which only addresses one pair at a time is going to take a while to penetrate - but each little step brings success closer and despite Yoda's opinion sometimes "try" is all we can do. Tim From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 26 14:24:46 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon Jun 26 22:36:18 2006 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted Message-ID: I've posted my comments on the Spring NABC cases under my bridge laws page at http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/dallas2006 I've included a link to the cases themselves. Your comments, corrections, and suggestions are welcome as always. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 27 04:19:55 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jun 27 04:21:23 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com><6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> <449DBBC8.2060202@comcast.net> Message-ID: <008601c69990$2f79f560$029468d5@jeushtlj> IMO... [A] When choosing a panel to discuss AC decisions, it does seem a bit incestuous to confine its membership to ACBL AC members. [B] Posting documents like this in pdf format makes deals difficult to quote. For some of us it is also slow to load, difficult to read and error-prone. This restricts outside comment. Regrettably it is becoming the preferred format on bridge sites. HTML or text format would be more web-friendly. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 27 08:00:46 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 27 08:05:06 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> <449DBBC8.2060202@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00d201c699af$097ab100$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" > > While I know not all AC members are involved in every case, > it looks like most of the commentators have already had > their chances to have their opinions included in the > casebook. It is obviously inappropriate for those who served on an appeal to comment on their own case. They had their say already and should not get a second bite of the apple when that is denied most AC members. > I personally enjoyed reading the commentaries as > representing outsiders' view and look forward to the > unofficial commentaries that might be compiled. > Stay tuned. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 27 10:09:24 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jun 27 10:02:18 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627100551.027427a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:19 26/06/2006 -0400, Ed wrote: >Depends where you are. In North America, it is an infraction because >the alert regulation and the principle of full disclosure require you >to give a complete explanation *regardless* of the form of the question. This means three things : 1. When you do want a specific item of information, you will only get it among a sea of irrelevant (to you) information ; 2. It is unnecessary variation to ask question in different forms, whence it carries strong UI ; 3. There are two logical positions : either one may ask how one wants and get the relevant information, or there is only one way to ask ans get information. But this intermediary position is intenable. Regards, Alain. From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Jun 27 15:52:02 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen Grauwels) Date: Tue Jun 27 15:53:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Muiderberg with changes in 3th hand Message-ID: Hello, Following bidding at local club MP's game in Belgium. Brown conventions are not allowed according to the club rules. P-(P)-2S-(DBL) (3C)-All pass 2S: Alerted and explained: Muiderberg (5 card S and 4 card minor and 5 till 10 points), but can have variation in 3th hand; example given: can e.g. only have 4 card S. 3C: Alerted and explained: pass or correct 2S opener had 5=2=3=3 distribution. I asked this here before and if I remember correct then 2-suit opener where one of the suits can be shorter then a 4-card is a brown convention according to ACBL rules. After the bidding and before the play opps dispute the bidding. They say that this bidding where variations are possible is not allowed. "You can't just bid anything you want." 3C was going -2 and 4H for the opps would make. At the other tables most pairs were in 4H. The above happened at another table and my opinion was asked about this case at the end of the evening (I was backup TD). I told the TD that I could not really give my opinion because I also opened 2S on this hand. At our table opps reached 4H and TD was not called (opps didn't even notice I had 5=2=3=3). ========================== Questions: 1. Am I correct that opening 5=2=3=3 as weak hand with S and a minor suit is a brown convention according to ACBL? 2. If this is a brown convention for ACBL is it then automatically a brown convention in Belgium? 2b. If not: Is it a brown convention in Belgium? (Herman?) 3. How do you rule if it is a brown convention and if brown conventions are not allowed in the club? - Is there an automatic ruling? e.g. 60/40, Max for opps (4H contract)? - Does the ruling depend on opps cards; eg if it is clear that they should still have reached 4H like they did at my table? - Opps are not really harmed that 2S opener has no 4 card minor. Does that matter? 4. While asking my opinion the TD found that I also opened 2S on this hand. - Should/can the TD change my score on this hand (suppose that we also ended in 3C)? - Should/can the TD note this fact to take this into account if I would do this aggain in the future? Thanks, Koen From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Jun 27 16:07:02 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue Jun 27 16:08:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Muiderberg with changes in 3th hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2da24b8e0606270707v60028f63m3e74f8cc6e0596e1@mail.gmail.com> Lot of different issues here: Comment 1: From the sounds of things, the partnership in question is playing a 2S opening that promises 4+ Spades and tends to suggest a 4 card minor. The WBF definition of a Brown Sticker Convention is quite clear. Said convention is not a BSC. Comment 2: It is possible that there may be some issues surrounding disclosure. (If I were to rule against the partnership in question, it would be based on disclosure rather than the nature of the convention that they are playing. > 1. Am I correct that opening 5=2=3=3 as weak hand with S and a minor suit is > a brown convention according to ACBL? The ACBL doesn't use concepts like Brown Sticker Conventions in its convention charts. For example,the Midchart permits players to use a 2NT opening that shows a weak 3 level preempt in either minor. Equally significant, I fail to see why internal ACBL policies would have any bearing on a ruling in a Belgian Club. > 2. If this is a brown convention for ACBL is it then automatically a brown > convention in Belgium? > 2b. If not: Is it a brown convention in Belgium? (Herman?) I'll let someone from Belgium comment on 2b, however, my reading of the WBF policy suggests that this is NOT a BSC. I think that it would be unfortunate if individual bridge federations "polluted" nomenclature by creating their own definition of a BSC. -- "The chill, malevolent eyes of the plastic flamingos on the lawn tracked his every move, and their sinister painted beaks whispered of the black and terrible voids between the stars where even now, Elvis might still be alive" From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jun 27 16:13:18 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue Jun 27 16:19:58 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: <00d201c699af$097ab100$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200606271413.k5REDIaM004674@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Marvin French writes: > > > From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" > > > > While I know not all AC members are involved in every case, > > it looks like most of the commentators have already had > > their chances to have their opinions included in the > > casebook. > > It is obviously inappropriate for those who served on an appeal to > comment on their own case. They had their say already and should not > get a second bite of the apple when that is denied most AC members. I don't buy this for a second. Even the best AC reports aren't full transcipts of the AC hearing. (As a matter of policy I look with suspicion on all arguments that contain "obviously" -- it's obviously uneccessary to include the word "obvious" if the position is obvious.) I'll go further. I'd think it stupid to reject something from (say) Barry Rigal or Adam (or ...) simply because they've served on the AC in question. > > I personally enjoyed reading the commentaries as > > representing outsiders' view and look forward to the > > unofficial commentaries that might be compiled. Second the motion. > Stay tuned. From henk at ripe.net Tue Jun 27 16:22:10 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue Jun 27 16:23:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Muiderberg with changes in 3th hand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060627161235.033b85b8@ripe.net> Hi, >Questions: >1. Am I correct that opening 5=2=3=3 as weak hand with S and a minor >suit is a brown convention according to ACBL? The ACBL does not use the concept of brown sticker conventions. The WBF does. Under the WBF rules, a weak two suited bid that can by agreement be made with less than 4 cards in one of the suits is a BSC. This makes agreements like "weak twosuiter in X and Y, including 5x-3y-zz or 4x-3y-zz" BSC's. >2. If this is a brown convention for ACBL is it then automatically a >brown convention in Belgium? No, the ACBL and VBL can both make their own regulations on acceptable systems. >2b. If not: Is it a brown convention in Belgium? (Herman?) >3. How do you rule if it is a brown convention and if brown >conventions are not allowed in the club? >- Is there an automatic ruling? e.g. 60/40, Max for opps (4H contract)? In .nl, we rule table result or Ave+/Ave- whichever is better for the non offenders. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400. Watch this space... From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 27 17:17:45 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jun 27 17:10:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Muiderberg with changes in 3th hand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627170847.02077060@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:52 27/06/2006 +0200, Koen Grauwels wrote: >2. If this is a brown convention for ACBL is it then automatically a brown >convention in Belgium? Nope. >2b. If not: Is it a brown convention in Belgium? (Herman?) Nope. In Belgium, an opening 2-bid which shows a specified 4-+ card suit will never be "brown". Neither in France or Netherlands (where "brown" translates as "red"). Provided, of course, it was fully explained, but in your story the answer seems affirmative. >3. How do you rule if it is a brown convention and if brown conventions >are not allowed in the club? I'd rule 40/60 1st time and 0/60 2nd time, with possible restrictions on what the offending pair is allowed to play thereafter. >- Is there an automatic ruling? e.g. 60/40, Max for opps (4H contract)? >- Does the ruling depend on opps cards; eg if it is clear that they should >still have reached 4H like they did at my table? >- Opps are not really harmed that 2S opener has no 4 card minor. Does that >matter? Sorry, you can't be sure of that. I play different defenses to 5+ card weak two's and Muidie two's. Anyway, we're talking procedure, not UI or MI or the like, so it isn't relevant. >4. While asking my opinion the TD found that I also opened 2S on this hand. >- Should/can the TD change my score on this hand (suppose that we also >ended in 3C)? The TD is allowed to act if he obtains knowledge or an irregularity by any means (L 81 ?). I'd answer "can". >- Should/can the TD note this fact to take this into account if I would do >this again in the future? Same answer. Best regards, Alain. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 27 17:22:15 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jun 27 17:15:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Muiderberg with changes in 3th hand In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060627161235.033b85b8@ripe.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627171913.020897b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:22 27/06/2006 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Under the WBF rules, a weak two suited bid that can by agreement be made >with less than 4 cards in one of the suits is a BSC. This makes agreements >like "weak twosuiter in X and Y, including 5x-3y-zz or 4x-3y-zz" BSC's. Which is perverse, because they only have to correct the definition to "4+ spades, not 4+ hearts" to make it non-brown, but with the same meaning. I'd say that "usually 5s-4m but occasionally 44 or 5332" is in essence 1-suited, not 2-suited. Especially as the 2nd suit isn't known. Contrast with "43+ Landy" where you show both H and S but perhaps happen to hold only one. Regards, Alain. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jun 27 17:39:35 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue Jun 27 17:46:14 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200606271539.k5RFdZJb005401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Tim West-Meads writes: > > Ben wrote: > > > > > So the answer "weak" or "yes" is not complete. > > Incomplete is not the same as being an infraction. I can't remember the > last time I gave a "complete" answer (one disclosing the totality of my > partnership experience) to a simple question from opps. Likewise, but ... > > In Alain's example the opponent has been informed (by the alert) that > the bid is not natural. The opponent has chosen to enquire as to the > point count rather than the nature of the hand so the answer "yes" to > the query "weak?" is surely sufficient. However, had the question been > "Please explain?" an answer of "weak" would be insufficient. > If nothing else we might teach players to use the proper form for their > questions. > I can't think of a worse policy than one that requires players to ask questions "correctly". After brooding on this for a while the best I can come up with is a directive placing the emphasis on players with complex or non-standard agreements to make sure that their opponents are properly informed. (Yes, this might be tough to write up. There's no meeting of the minds as to what constitutes complex or non-standard) The ACBL appears to have an informal policy for Meckwell (I can cite a couple of rulings that hold Meckwell to higher disclosure obligations) in this area and I think it's a good general policy. From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 27 17:56:46 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Jun 27 17:58:11 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:13:18 EDT." <200606271413.k5REDIaM004674@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <200606271546.IAA29602@mailhub.irvine.com> > (As a matter of policy I look with suspicion on all arguments > that contain "obviously" -- it's obviously uneccessary to > include the word "obvious" if the position is obvious.) My favorite is "It goes without saying that..." People start sentences with this phrase, and then they go ahead and say it anyway. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 27 18:01:52 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 27 18:06:13 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200606271539.k5RFdZJb005401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <001001c69a03$02f30c20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > > > I can't think of a worse policy than one that requires players > to ask questions "correctly". > The ACBL says that "actively ethical players" will disclose all pertinentl information when an opponent asks a question, whether or not the it is formulated properly ("Please explain your auction"). Any question should trigger complete disclosure. Now what we'd like to know is why they don't make this a regulation. One of San Diego's top players recently explained his partner's unAlerted simple raise of a weak two bid as "non-forcing" when my partner was considering a balancing 3S bid. Partner passed when given this explanation, which should have been something like "That is a drop-dead bid which I must pass." In the absence of an Alert this is the default explanation in ACBL-land, but most club players do not know it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 27 18:21:21 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Jun 27 18:22:46 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:01:52 PDT." <001001c69a03$02f30c20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200606271610.JAA29803@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > One of San Diego's top players recently explained his partner's > unAlerted simple raise of a weak two bid as "non-forcing" when my > partner was considering a balancing 3S bid. Partner passed when > given this explanation, which should have been something like "That > is a drop-dead bid which I must pass." In the absence of an Alert > this is the default explanation in ACBL-land, but most club players > do not know it. Since absolutely no one plays a simple raise here as forcing, it sounds to me like your opponent either had a slip of the tongue or just wasn't thinking carefully. I don't think that's relevant whether there was damage or not. A director *could* perhaps argue that the explanation was so nonsensical that your partner should have realized there was more to it and protected himself, but I don't think I'd argue this way---I'd still lean toward penalizing the player who made the bad explanation. By the way, my partnership would explain this as "not constructive, doesn't invite opener to go on", or something like that. But we'd never explain it as "drop-dead", especially when it's my partner opening the weak 2. You never know what kind of weird hand he might have decided to make a weak 2 on this time, and for all we know he might actually bid on even though he's not supposed to, quite possibly by bidding his second five-card suit. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Tue Jun 27 18:22:43 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Jun 27 18:24:06 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:21:21 PDT." <200606271610.JAA29803@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200606271611.JAA29848@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > One of San Diego's top players recently explained his partner's > > unAlerted simple raise of a weak two bid as "non-forcing" when my > > partner was considering a balancing 3S bid. Partner passed when > > given this explanation, which should have been something like "That > > is a drop-dead bid which I must pass." In the absence of an Alert > > this is the default explanation in ACBL-land, but most club players > > do not know it. > > Since absolutely no one plays a simple raise here as forcing, it > sounds to me like your opponent either had a slip of the tongue or > just wasn't thinking carefully. I don't think that's relevant whether > there was damage or not. I left out a word. That should be "I don't think that's relevant *to* whether there was damage or not." -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 27 18:28:20 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 27 18:32:39 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks References: <200606271413.k5REDIaM004674@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <001501c69a06$b4985040$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > Marvin French writes: > > > > > > From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" > > > > > > While I know not all AC members are involved in every case, > > > it looks like most of the commentators have already had > > > their chances to have their opinions included in the > > > casebook. > > > > It is obviously inappropriate for those who served on an appeal to > > comment on their own case. They had their say already and should not > > get a second bite of the apple when that is denied most AC members. > > I don't buy this for a second. Even the best AC reports > aren't full transcipts of the AC hearing. But they must be the sole basis for comments. We have had very dubious "additions" by AC members aimed at excusing a committee's apparently poor performance (e.g., Pittsburgh Case 3). > > (As a matter of policy I look with suspicion on all arguments > that contain "obviously" -- it's obviously uneccessary to > include the word "obvious" if the position is obvious.) Well, it was not obvious to you, so the adjective was needed. > > I'll go further. I'd think it stupid to reject something > from (say) Barry Rigal or Adam (or ...) simply because they've > served on the AC in question. > I would never doubt anything that Adam says (barring second-hand information or hearsay), but we must treat everyone equally. AC members have a say, I believe, in what goes into the writeups, and an opportunity to correct them before they are published. Post-hoc comments can be accepted only if signed off by the entire committee. Memories are notoriously unreliable when they involve justifying a position. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 27 18:39:04 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jun 27 18:38:30 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200606271539.k5RFdZJb005401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <001001c69a03$02f30c20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005901c69a08$349602a0$099468d5@jeushtlj> IMO TFLB should specify ... [A] An acceptable form of words that an opponent should use in a question about a call. [B] that your answer should include details of the strength and shape of partner's hand that may be gleaned from all partner's calls in the auction (but, of course exclude details, that you know only by virtue of the contents of your own hand). Such a description would be usefully informative and save time. [C] that an opponent may ask a specific question, only as a follow-up to the general question, and only when your answer seems incomplete. [D] that you may not use "General knowledge" or "I'm not absolutely sure" as legally acceptable reasons for non-disclosure. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jun 27 19:26:53 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jun 27 19:32:46 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> <449DBBC8.2060202@comcast.net> <008601c69990$2f79f560$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002701c69a0f$19762d40$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > IMO... > > [A] When choosing a panel to discuss AC decisions, > it does seem a bit incestuous to confine its > membership to ACBL AC members. Some of the new panel of commentators are not AC members. > > [B] Posting documents like this in pdf format > makes > deals difficult to quote. For some of us it is > also slow to load, difficult to read and > error-prone. > This restricts outside comment. Regrettably it is > becoming the preferred format on bridge sites. > HTML or text format would be more web-friendly. Yes, HTML or text format would be preferable, but Acrobat files are much easier to produce. I use them a lot on my web site, despite complaints, being too lazy to do everything in HTML. Formatting a case for BLML or rgb easily seems to require a fairly recent version of Acrobat Reader. One of my computers has version 6.0, the other 7.0.5. The former does a very poor job of formatting deals and auctions, the latter does much better. I recommend to all a free update from adobe.com. The ACBL seems to have updated its version of Adobe Acrobat, as the card pips, not readable previously (by me, anyway), can now can be cut and pasted. That's a big help. I thought the Discussion Forum method of presenting AC cases for comments, used for the Denver cases (q.v.), was ideal. At first the commentators were restricted to a select (?) group, I believe, none of whom (except me) chose to participate.There must have been an opposing cabal that quietly got everyone to boycott the forum. Finally "expert" comments were added to the writeups themselves, with no direct means of countering them. Are these people afraid to debate, or to have their opinions criticized publicly? Later the Discussion Foruml seems to have been opened to all, but few took advantage of it. Someone told me the software was very expensive, so that could have been a factor in its demise. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 27 22:22:24 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jun 27 22:24:09 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <001001c69a03$02f30c20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200606271539.k5RFdZJb005401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <001001c69a03$02f30c20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060627153029.02d245d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:01 PM 6/27/06, Marvin wrote: >The ACBL says that "actively ethical players" will disclose all >pertinentl information when an opponent asks a question, whether or >not the it is formulated properly ("Please explain your auction"). >Any question should trigger complete disclosure. > >Now what we'd like to know is why they don't make this a regulation. Perhaps because that would require them to come up with a sensible definition of what consituted "pertinent" information -- or, more likely, leave that task to a plethora of individual TDs and ACS each with their own ideas as to what it should be -- which would be difficult or impossible to get exactly right. And then there would be players who would parse each word and punctuation mark to allow themselves to ignore the spirit and intention of the guideline while following its exact letter (as they interpret it), all the time arguing that the ethics of our game mean nothing more than following its rules literally. The ACBL, quite cleverly IMO, has come to realize that the way to keep the sharpies from parsing every rule looking for "loopholes" through which they might gain some advantage unanticipated by the writers of the rule is not to give them rules to parse. Instead, they came up with the concept of "active ethics". Active ethics is a set of principles telling players what to try to do (e.g. "disclose all pertinent information...") that deliberately do not have specific procedures or definitions associated with them. Since they lack those procedures and definitions, they cannot be enforced through the "legal system" of TDs, ACs, etc. Nevertheless, the ACBL officially "expects" all their players to "strive to practice active ethics". So what we get is essentially a set of regulations for which the only punishment for a violation is being called "not actively ethical", and the only punishment for repeated violation is a widespread reputation for being "not actively ethical". And nobody can argue in defense of that reputation that it's not true because if you carefully examine that verb tense and that comma it doesn't precisely say that I'm not allowed to do whatever it is I did. Oddly, it works. The sharpies much prefer to argue with TDs and spend hours in front of ACs justifying themselves than to gain a reputation as unethical players that they cannot evade with legal sophistry. >One of San Diego's top players recently explained his partner's >unAlerted simple raise of a weak two bid as "non-forcing" when my >partner was considering a balancing 3S bid. Partner passed when >given this explanation, which should have been something like "That >is a drop-dead bid which I must pass." That's not a misexplanation; that's an outright evasion, no better than a flat refusal to answer the question. Does this so-called "top player" really know of any partnership anywhere in the world that plays a single raise of a weak two-bid as *forcing*? I'd be very surprised, to say the least. But I'll bet this "top player" could cite chapter and verse as to why his non-explanation was not a violation of this or that law. Regardless, word gets around: this guy doesn't "practice active ethics", and I'm certain that San Diego's other top players know who he is. >In the absence of an Alert >this is the default explanation in ACBL-land, I'll bet a dollar that that's what the "top player" told the TD/AC in his own defense. >but most club players >do not know it. Which is exactly why "active ethics" says don't try to give an exact literal answer to the exact literal question that was asked, don't try to follow some precise formula, instead just tell them whatever any reasonable person would assume that they might need or want to know. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 27 22:46:06 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jun 27 22:47:48 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <005901c69a08$349602a0$099468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200606271539.k5RFdZJb005401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <001001c69a03$02f30c20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <005901c69a08$349602a0$099468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060627162445.02d45780@pop.starpower.net> At 12:39 PM 6/27/06, Guthrie wrote: >IMO TFLB should specify ... > >[A] An acceptable form of words that an opponent >should use in a question about a call. > >[B] that your answer should include details of the >strength and shape of partner's hand that may be >gleaned from all partner's calls in the auction >(but, of course exclude details, that you know >only by virtue of the contents of your own hand). >Such a description would be usefully informative >and save time. > >[C] that an opponent may ask a specific question, >only as a follow-up to the general question, and >only when your answer seems incomplete. > >[D] that you may not use "General knowledge" or >"I'm not absolutely sure" as legally acceptable >reasons for non-disclosure. IMO this is a truly bad idea. I was about to write a point-by-point discourse on why it's a truly bad idea, but then realized that I'd be largely paraphrasing my recent remarks on "active ethics" that I wrote in reply to Marv. Nigel's suggestions would merely provide more fodder for players of less than sterling ethics to parse to death (us, too, of course, but we do it for fun, where it doesn't affect any at-the-table opponents). Sure, there are players out there who don't seem -- or want -- to know what the first sentence of L75 means, but a whole lot of precise supporting regulation trying to pin down *exactly* what it means (such as mandating "an acceptable form of words") will only make it harder to see -- and enforce, albeit informally -- its obvious implications. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jun 27 23:34:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jun 27 23:36:07 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200606271539.k5RFdZJb005401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Ron wrote: > > If nothing else we might teach players to use the proper form for > > their questions. > > > I can't think of a worse policy than one that requires players > to ask questions "correctly". Really? I have found that training my partners to simply ask "Yes please?" or "Please explain" very easy (obviously follow-up Q's may need to be more specific - particularly if the initial answer is brief). OTOH as a TD I find questions like "Short minor?". "Weak, presumably?", "Does that actually show spades?" cause all sorts of problems. What problems do you anticipate with a policy that encourages the former approach and discourages the latter? > The ACBL appears to have an informal policy for Meckwell > (I can cite a couple of rulings that hold Meckwell to > higher disclosure obligations) in this area and I think > it's a good general policy. I doubt the policy is Meckwell specific - certainly *I* would apply it to any pair known to have discussed system to the nth degree. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jun 27 23:57:10 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jun 27 23:58:40 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627100551.027427a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627100551.027427a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4CCA2860-594E-4278-A3CE-09D68C151ACF@rochester.rr.com> On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:09 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > 1. When you do want a specific item of information, you will only > get it among a sea of irrelevant (to you) information ; > 2. It is unnecessary variation to ask question in different forms, > whence it carries strong UI ; > 3. There are two logical positions : either one may ask how one > wants and get the relevant information, or there is only one way to > ask ans get information. But this intermediary position is intenable. Heh. Tell it to the Tournament Committee - I believe they're the ones responsible for these regulations. From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Wed Jun 28 01:31:32 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Wed Jun 28 01:33:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Muiderberg with changes in 3th hand In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627170847.02077060@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627170847.02077060@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <44A1BFD4.7060004@hotmail.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 15:52 27/06/2006 +0200, Koen Grauwels wrote: > >> 2b. If not: Is it a brown convention in Belgium? (Herman?) > > Nope. In Belgium, an opening 2-bid which shows a specified 4-+ card > suit will never be "brown". Neither in France or Netherlands (where > "brown" translates as "red"). > Provided, of course, it was fully explained, but in your story the > answer seems affirmative. Not that I don't believe you...but can I find this somewhere in a doc, web page,...? >> 4. While asking my opinion the TD found that I also opened 2S on this >> hand. >> - Should/can the TD change my score on this hand (suppose that we >> also ended in 3C)? > > > The TD is allowed to act if he obtains knowledge or an irregularity by > any means (L 81 ?). > I'd answer "can". And would you give me 40/60? - If not: then it is not fair compared to the other pair you give 40/60 - If yes: then it is not fair to me. I did only give this information to help the TD judging this case. From henk at ripe.net Wed Jun 28 07:50:41 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed Jun 28 09:01:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Muiderberg with changes in 3th hand In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627171913.020897b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060627171913.020897b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060628074523.0343d128@ripe.net> At 17:22 27/06/2006, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 16:22 27/06/2006 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > >>Under the WBF rules, a weak two suited bid that can by agreement be made >>with less than 4 cards in one of the suits is a BSC. This makes agreements >>like "weak twosuiter in X and Y, including 5x-3y-zz or 4x-3y-zz" BSC's. > >Which is perverse, because they only have to correct the definition >to "4+ spades, not 4+ hearts" to make it non-brown, but with the same meaning. I think the problem is more in wording. If a bid is explained as a two suiter, then people expect that this player has 2 suits longer than average length (3.25 cards), not 1 long suit and 3 short suits. With your second definition, it is clear to expect only spades, not spades and another. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400. Watch this space... From tzimnoch at comcast.net Wed Jun 28 16:57:54 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed Jun 28 16:59:28 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> <449DBBC8.2060202@comcast.net> Message-ID: <44A298F2.7080204@comcast.net> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > At 6:25 PM -0400 6/24/06, Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: >> What do you feel about the ACBL's decision to allow self-review of AC >> performance rather than finding external measures? > > Which external measures do you suggest? A more diverse collection of commentators, excluding entirely the AC and its chairs. I don't know the specifics for serving on the AC, but I'd naively assume that its chairs already assume a duty of reviewing the casebook for content and to help identify weaknesses in the the committees they chair. > The cases are published and > anyone can review them. I do so on my web site, and for years I've > invited anyone and everyone to help me out or to contest my findings -- > to date few have taken me up on it. The response might be larger if you could have their names printed in a book with reasonable distribution amongst the expert bridge playing community, like the ACBL used to offer. -Todd From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jun 28 18:54:56 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed Jun 28 19:01:39 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060627153029.02d245d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200606281654.k5SGsuPM015912@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Eric Landau writes: > > > Which is exactly why "active ethics" says don't try to give an exact > literal answer to the exact literal question that was asked, don't try > to follow some precise formula, instead just tell them whatever any > reasonable person would assume that they might need or want to know. > When I first started playing duplicate one of the top local players interrupted a legalistic argument (of the type you cited above) with a comment that's served me well over the years. "If you know something that I don't, tell me" (Yeah, flesh it out with "from the auction, not your hand", etc. -- I got the gist and so will anybody not trying to play rules lawyer) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jun 28 19:15:12 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jun 28 19:19:34 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks References: <003301c69552$287ee6e0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060621160003.02bc2df0@pop.starpower.net> <449DBBC8.2060202@comcast.net> <44A298F2.7080204@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001001c69ad6$6b8fc1a0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" < > Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > The cases are published and > > anyone can review them. I do so on my web site, and for years I've > > invited anyone and everyone to help me out or to contest my findings -- > > to date few have taken me up on it. As is my experience with the comments I posted in the Denver Discussion Forum. Adam, maybe folks believe that arguing with us is a waste of time, as we never seem to change our minds. > > The response might be larger if you could have their names > printed in a book with reasonable distribution amongst the > expert bridge playing community, like the ACBL used to offer. > The "reasonable distribution" was: Free to NABC AC members, the ACBL BoD, and ACBL TDs. Anyone else could get a copy at a low price. The Acrobat file method of publishing seems reasonable to me. It would be more reasonable if the casebooks were included under the "NABC" page instead of the "Play" page. I've had people tell me they couldn't find the casebooks. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jun 29 09:58:43 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jun 29 10:31:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Amnesia References: <4424AC790026C195@mk-cpfrontend-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com><003701c6989e$75f51ad0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000e01c69b55$35c05380$a18887d9@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: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Amnesia > > > If the correct lead was faced *subsequent* to declarer's lead, then > Law 53C applies, declarer withdraws his card, no penalty. > +=+ I have now 93 laws to go through implementing the changes of wording where they occur. When I get to this one I will have a look at exactly what we have said, but I cannot release details until the lengthy agreed post-Verona procedure has been completed. There is a long way to go yet. We are aiming for ratification and adoption of the new code by the Executive in Shanghai. Maybe you will then consider the laws have been 'shanghaied' ? :-) ~ G ~ +=+