From henk at amsterdamned.org Fri Sep 1 01:01:01 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for August 2006 Posts From ----- ---- From henk at amsterdamned.org Fri Sep 1 01:01:00 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:01:00 +0200 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 henk at ripe.net Wed Sep 6 11:52:44 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:52:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The list is back Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060906114601.034e0e10@ripe.net> Dear All, As you may have noticed, BLML was offline for a month. What happened was that during my vacation, the mailing list software crashed. This wasn't noticed until I return from my vacation on 14/8. However, when I tried to restart it, it crashed again. I had some of the operators here look at the problem, nobody could find it and they referred me to the real mailman expert. This person had, unfortunately, left for his summer vacations two days before I returned. He came back Monday and fixed this. The list is now up and running again, all mail sent to the list since it went down should have been buffered and will be processed in the next couple of hours. If you don't see it by tomorrow morning, send it again. Sorry about all this, 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 + 381600 = 1160820000. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 6 12:56:26 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:56:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is it still working? In-Reply-To: <002601c6bf19$b06b7dc0$0200a8c0@David> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060906125425.027a2380@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:47 13/08/2006 +0100, David Martin wrote: > > Is it still working? I had some qualms, too. Apparently, only inertia or the sudden PMFIsation of all appeals can explain the sudden hush on blml. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 6 13:13:01 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:13:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c6b93d$a21470b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060906130453.027994f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:49 6/08/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear >opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent on >the application of law 25A: > >The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens) >N E S W >1C - P - 1D - P >1H - P - 2S - P >2NT - P - P - P > >Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated with the >opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or words to that >effect. > >Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to game >(4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, i.e. 3NT, and >that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am deliberately avoiding the word >"inadvertent" here). > >Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for his >last pass? > >"Disturbing" circumstances: > >We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) rule >in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid card should >normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box as the bid card for >the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come from one compartment, all >bids come from a different compartment). > >I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a >situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response to a >Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but "inadvertently" >passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the agreed trumps. At that >time his mistake shall have been ruled not to qualify for a correction under >Law 25A? > >Comments anybody? (I am deliberately not disclosing my own opinion or the >ruling actually made except that they do agree). I consider an inadvertent bid to be (only) the case where the player knew what one wanted to bid but happened to blurb or fumble something else. This is consistent with the Norwegian jurisprudency Sven mentions. One rather common case is that of the player that doubles partner's bid, in lieu of pulling the stop card (they are the same color). L25b2 is there for other cases of unintended bids, i.e. it is obvious that the intent of the player was to do something else, but one had a slip of the motor system. According to this classification, I would decide Sven's case along L25b2 and, yes, it is obvious that the bid was 'unintended'. Let North play 3NT, but for limited rewards. Best regards, Alain. From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Wed Sep 6 13:20:04 2006 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:20:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c6b93d$a21470b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: If the director judges that South took the bidding card of Pass intending to take the 3NT, then we can rule as inadvertent. Seems strange. At the moment he passed, it seems from a distance that South intended to pull that card from the box... Slip of fingers, inadvertent, slip of mind, "Im very sorry but...". I would tend to judge as not inadvertent. But the TD at the table is the one that has to form the opinion about it, about the reasons why Southpicked the wrong card. Normally I ask something like "Yes, you wanted to be in game of course, but you passed because it seemed like it was already 3NT the contract?" Or some variations of it. Usually this establishes a reply like "of course, I would never pass if I had noticed it was only 2NT", and this means of course intentional. Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:50 AM To: blml Subject: [blml] Law 25A I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent on the application of law 25A: The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens) N E S W 1C - P - 1D - P 1H - P - 2S - P 2NT - P - P - P Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated with the opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or words to that effect. Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to game (4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, i.e. 3NT, and that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am deliberately avoiding the word "inadvertent" here). Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for his last pass? "Disturbing" circumstances: We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) rule in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid card should normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box as the bid card for the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come from one compartment, all bids come from a different compartment). I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response to a Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but "inadvertently" passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the agreed trumps. At that time his mistake shall have been ruled not to qualify for a correction under Law 25A? Comments anybody? (I am deliberately not disclosing my own opinion or the ruling actually made except that they do agree). Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Wed Sep 6 12:50:41 2006 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:50:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] long long time Message-ID: <30012828.1157539841317.JavaMail.www@wwinf1609> BLML is back...I enjoy that!!!!! Regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060906/13644ea4/attachment.htm From herman at hdw.be Wed Sep 6 13:46:35 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:46:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] welcome back Message-ID: <44FEB51B.6050605@hdw.be> As well as the list, I have had serious troubles with my e-mails over the past few months. Anyway, we've been to Verona and Warszawa. Warszawa saw us holding 13 appeals, that is one more than 2 years ago in Malm?. And we've put the 2005 appeals in a booklet on-line at : http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2005.pdf No doubt that will keep you busy! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/438 - Release Date: 5/09/2006 From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Sep 6 14:09:27 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:09:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c6b93d$a21470b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6b93d$a21470b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1GKwDf-1ntWsq0@fwd35.aul.t-online.de> Hi Sven, it sounds like a classic example for 25 B, so ... no correction under 25 A ! Peter From: "Sven Pran" > I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear > opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent > on the application of law 25A: > > The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens) > N ? ?E ? ?S ? ?W > 1C - P - 1D - P > 1H - P - 2S - P > 2NT - P - P - P > > Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated > with the opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or > words to that effect. > > Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to > game (4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, > i.e. 3NT, and that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am > deliberately avoiding the word "inadvertent" here). > > Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for > his last pass? > > "Disturbing" circumstances: > > We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) > rule in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid > card should normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box > as the bid card for the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come > from one compartment, all bids come from a different compartment). > > I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a > situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response > to a Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but > "inadvertently" passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the > agreed trumps. At that time his mistake shall have been ruled not to > qualify for a correction under Law 25A? From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Wed Sep 6 14:47:39 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:47:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c6b93d$a21470b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB093@rama.Micronas.com> The Dutch interpretation of Law 25A when using bidding boxes is that it is meant to correct mechanical errors: the hand does something different than the mind. This is usually caused by things like sticking bidding cards, or grabbing the card next to the intended one. It falls to the TD to determine whether such is the case. When the intended call and the actual call come from different compartments of the box, the TD usually does not allow the change. But there are exceptions, such as pulling a "green" Stop card before making a jump bid. Anyway, the TD should take that person from the table and question him/her about the reason of the "mispull" and possibly look at the hand for additional information before making a decision. For this case I would say that at the moment of his pass, South thought for some reason that he was passing 3NT, and just a little too late found out that that still had to be bid. Proof of that would be the compartment the pass comes from, and also his exclamation, which to me shows that he really wanted to pass at the time of his mistake, probably thinking that the contract was already 3NT. I would not allow the change. This would be a 25B case if West hadn't passed already. This is similar to someone passing an ace-asking answer who forgets to bid the agreed trump indeed; there can be no doubt that that person does not want to play the ace-asking answer suit, but he/she had a momentary black-out. Regards, -- Martin Sinot > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:50 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Law 25A > > I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear > opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent on > the application of law 25A: > > The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens) > N E S W > 1C - P - 1D - P > 1H - P - 2S - P > 2NT - P - P - P > > Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated with > the > opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or words to that > effect. > > Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to game > (4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, i.e. 3NT, > and > that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am deliberately avoiding the > word > "inadvertent" here). > > Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for his > last pass? > > "Disturbing" circumstances: > > We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) rule > in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid card should > normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box as the bid card > for > the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come from one compartment, > all > bids come from a different compartment). > > I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a > situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response to > a > Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but "inadvertently" > passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the agreed trumps. At > that > time his mistake shall have been ruled not to qualify for a correction > under > Law 25A? > > Comments anybody? (I am deliberately not disclosing my own opinion or the > ruling actually made except that they do agree). > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 6 15:22:09 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:22:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: Encrypted signals Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060906152155.02793260@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:21:44 +0200 >To: Eric Landau >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals > >At 14:25 28/07/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >>IBTD with Alain. Back when they were still legal, I played systemic >>psyches (which are not really "psychs" at all) with "psychic >>controls". My openings were in fact in the range 0-5 or 13+, and the >>1/1 and 2/1 responses were not forcing if partner held 0-5. All of >>this was regularly, properly and fully disclosed to my >>opponents. Alain appears to be asserting that were such methods were >>to become legal and I started playing them again, making me one of >>those "systemic psychers" he refers to, that I would not alert my >>opponents. That could be taken as a serious insult. > >I don't intend insulting anybody, I just say what I've seen when two >Belgian pairs (independently, as it seems) decided to play psychic controls. > >The fact is, methods that would pose many ethical problems because players >do not use them properly will often be banned. If honest players feel >insulted by this, I'm sorry, and SO's are, too. > >Several SO's are thinking about banning Ghestem 2-suiters because they >give regular headaches when somebody errs. This is the same situation. >And the forcing-but-not-forcing responses, even if fully disclosed, are >also very difficult to defend against, much more than mini-NTs. That's >another (albeit bad, IMNSHO) reason to disallow them. > >This is all a question of degree. >On the 0-to-10 scale of problems to the oponents, controlled psyches earn >a '8'. >On the 0-to-10 scale of problems to the TDs, they earn a '9'. > >MOSCITO openings earn repectively a '3' and a '1'. >mini-NTs earn a '6' and a '6'. >Ghestem earns a '4' and a '9'. > >This means controlled psyches should be classified yellow (rather than >banned), and perhaps Ghestem too. > >Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > >Regards, > > Alain. From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 15:49:11 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:49:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060906150458.027ac770@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728095433.02c09eb0@pop.starpower.net> <200607281524.IAA05810@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060906150458.027ac770@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0609060649w6e1b7d4bxb9ba5772f94c1152@mail.gmail.com> On 9/6/06, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 18:41 29/07/2006 -0400, you wrote: > > > >The ACBL Conventions Committe refuses to approve ANY defense to a 1D > >opening showing 4+ Hearts. Members of the ACBL Conventions > >Committee claim that its impossible to construct and adequate defense > > This is ridiculous. > > Use the same defense as you do against a 1H Acol opening (or rather Blue > Team 1H opening, which it is closer to), and give 1H any meaning you want. > Is that *so* difficult ? You won't get much argument here, but please recall the original discussion. A number of the members of this list are highly critical of the ACBL regulatory structure. More specifically, I believe that ACBL regularly applies the laws in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner. I was merely providing an example. I'll go a step further. I believe that the ACBL regulations are deliberately vague in order to maximize discretionary power. Personally, I find this highly problemic. I'd prefer rule of law to whims of individuals. -- "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't" Will Rogers From moranl at netvision.net.il Wed Sep 6 17:17:41 2006 From: moranl at netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:17:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060906130453.027994f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000001c6b93d$a21470b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20060906171424.029922b0@mail.netvision.net.il> We cannot use law 25B in this case as LHO has already passed. Eitan At 01:13 PM 06-09-06 +0200, Alain wrote: >According to this classification, I would decide Sven's case along L25b2 >and, yes, it is obvious that the bid was 'unintended'. Let North play 3NT, >but for limited rewards. > >Best regards, > > Alain. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From moranl at netvision.net.il Wed Sep 6 18:07:12 2006 From: moranl at netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:07:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <1GKwDf-1ntWsq0@fwd35.aul.t-online.de> References: <000001c6b93d$a21470b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c6b93d$a21470b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20060906180531.02242ec0@mail.netvision.net.il> Not, it's not! LHO has already passed - Law 25B does not apply! Eitan At 02:09 PM 06-09-06 +0200, you wrote: >Hi Sven, > >it sounds like a classic example for 25 B, so ... > >no correction under 25 A ! > >Peter > >From: "Sven Pran" > > I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear > > opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent > > on the application of law 25A: > > > > The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens) > > N E S W > > 1C - P - 1D - P > > 1H - P - 2S - P > > 2NT - P - P - P > > > > Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated > > with the opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or > > words to that effect. > > > > Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to > > game (4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, > > i.e. 3NT, and that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am > > deliberately avoiding the word "inadvertent" here). > > > > Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for > > his last pass? > > > > "Disturbing" circumstances: > > > > We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) > > rule in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid > > card should normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box > > as the bid card for the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come > > from one compartment, all bids come from a different compartment). > > > > I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a > > situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response > > to a Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but > > "inadvertently" passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the > > agreed trumps. At that time his mistake shall have been ruled not to > > qualify for a correction under Law 25A? > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 6 17:27:10 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 10:27:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Has declarer lead from dummy? References: <002d01c6bb06$752dc6d0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:19 AM Subject: [blml] Has declarer lead from dummy? > This one got me to phone DWS. What do you think? > > Declarer is cashing a long suit from hand, pitching small side suit cards > from dummy and he holds all the remaining cards of the suit. He is playing > quickly. His brain beats his hand and he says "heart deuce" (a card in > dummy) before he plays the next winner from his hand. RHO snaps a heart > onto the table. Declarer says "Hang on I haven't played yet.". From this > it is clear that declarer knows he's in hand and knows he's about to lead > to this trick from hand. These are the *facts* - don't argue with them. > > Has declarer led OOT from dummy or has the trick not yet started, and > therefore the lead is still in his hand and we can pick up the 2 cards > currently in the played position with all the usual UI/AI constraints? > > I ruled he was still in hand, and DWS wan't sure feeling it was, at least, > a tenable ruling. I think it's a tough one. John The law is clear- POOT accepted. L45B dummy's named card must be played. The play was [definitions] a lead and L53A was OOT and accepted as the proper lead. btw, this happened yesterday- with three tricks left the lead is in dummy holding two [good] diamonds and a losing heart. Declarer mumbles something about play diamonds. Dummy played a diamond and all picthed and turned the trick. Declarer then tabled a spade and LHO claimed the the SA and HJ. Dummy never made a move to play a card to T12. regards roger pewick From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 6 19:40:28 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:40:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Has declarer lead from dummy? References: <5.1.1.6.0.20060906172237.029913e0@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: <006a01c6d1db$8ac33610$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eitan Levy" To: "John Probst" Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Has declarer lead from dummy? > I'm with you on this one, John. > Reading 45B (or maybe misreading it on purpose?): Declarer has not yet > finished the action of playing a card as dummy has not yet picked it up > and faced it. > So we go to 45 C4(a) to see if it is nevertheless considered played. No, > it was designated, but not designated as the card he PROPOSED to play. I'll settle for Shoder, Levy and Probst. :) thanks guys :) > > I know I'm stretching it a bit ("decide what you want to rule, and then > find a law") - but let the defender appeal. > > I missed being at Brighton this year - i hope i'll be there again next > year. > Cheers > Eitan > > > At 05:19 PM 08-08-06 +0100, you wrote: >>This one got me to phone DWS. What do you think? >> >>Declarer is cashing a long suit from hand, pitching small side suit cards >>from dummy and he holds all the remaining cards of the suit. He is playing >>quickly. His brain beats his hand and he says "heart deuce" (a card in >>dummy) before he plays the next winner from his hand. RHO snaps a heart >>onto >>the table. Declarer says "Hang on I haven't played yet.". From this it is >>clear that declarer knows he's in hand and knows he's about to lead to >>this >>trick from hand. These are the *facts* - don't argue with them. >> >>Has declarer led OOT from dummy or has the trick not yet started, and >>therefore the lead is still in his hand and we can pick up the 2 cards >>currently in the played position with all the usual UI/AI constraints? >> >>I ruled he was still in hand, and DWS wan't sure feeling it was, at least, >>a >>tenable ruling. I think it's a tough one. John >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From tkooij at tiscali.nl Wed Sep 6 16:37:07 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:37:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060906130453.027994f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Let North play 3NT, but for limited rewards. Best regards, Alain. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Just a small remark, 25B can't be applied anymore after LHO has made a call. Another reason to get rid of it; that we have difficulties to apply it, I mean. ton From moranl at netvision.net.il Wed Sep 6 18:11:46 2006 From: moranl at netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:11:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20060906181117.0224ce40@mail.netvision.net.il> Not, it's not! LHO has already passed - Law 25B does not apply! Eitan At 02:09 PM 06-09-06 +0200, you wrote: >Hi Sven, > >it sounds like a classic example for 25 B, so ... > >no correction under 25 A ! > >Peter > >From: "Sven Pran" > > I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear > > opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent > > on the application of law 25A: > > > > The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens) > > N E S W > > 1C - P - 1D - P > > 1H - P - 2S - P > > 2NT - P - P - P > > > > Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated > > with the opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or > > words to that effect. > > > > Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to > > game (4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, > > i.e. 3NT, and that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am > > deliberately avoiding the word "inadvertent" here). > > > > Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for > > his last pass? > > > > "Disturbing" circumstances: > > > > We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) > > rule in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid > > card should normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box > > as the bid card for the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come > > from one compartment, all bids come from a different compartment). > > > > I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a > > situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response > > to a Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but > > "inadvertently" passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the > > agreed trumps. At that time his mistake shall have been ruled not to > > qualify for a correction under Law 25A? > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 6 22:24:40 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:24:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728095433.02c09eb0@pop.starpower.net><200607281524.IAA05810@mailhub.irvine.com><5.1.0.14.0.20060906150458.027ac770@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0609060649w6e1b7d4bxb9ba5772f94c1152@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007201c6d1f2$7c6dcfa0$209868d5@jeushtlj> [richard willey[ > I believe that the ACBL regulations are > deliberately vague in order to maximize > discretionary power. > Personally, I find this highly problemic. > I'd prefer rule of law to whims of > individuals. [nige1] The EBU is the same. Thus, for the purpose of restricting agreements, the new EBU Orange book has replaced the objective "rule of x" with the subjective "rule of x or equivalent playing strength." In spite of my pleas, no borderline examples are provided. This maximises the confusion for players and the subjective latitude for directors. IMO this is particularly daft because neither the simple old regulations not the sophisticated new regulations add any value to the game. From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 23:37:18 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:37:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <007201c6d1f2$7c6dcfa0$209868d5@jeushtlj> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728095433.02c09eb0@pop.starpower.net> <200607281524.IAA05810@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060906150458.027ac770@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0609060649w6e1b7d4bxb9ba5772f94c1152@mail.gmail.com> <007201c6d1f2$7c6dcfa0$209868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0609061437t6e58c759u586824ed7c4ad931@mail.gmail.com> > [richard willey[ > > I believe that the ACBL regulations are > > deliberately vague in order to maximize > > discretionary power. > > Personally, I find this highly problemic. > > I'd prefer rule of law to whims of > > individuals. > > [nige1] > The EBU is the same. Thus, for the purpose of > restricting agreements, the new EBU Orange book > has replaced the objective "rule of x" with the > subjective "rule of x or equivalent playing > strength." In spite of my pleas, no borderline > examples are provided. This maximises the > confusion for players and the subjective latitude > for directors. I don't have much directly playing experience in Britain, however, I consider the White and the Orange book order's of magnitude better than anything we have available here in ACBL land. For what its worth, I would disagree slightly with the way you characterize the recent changes to the Orange book. My understanding is that the EBU had regulations based on "Rule of X", however, said regulations did not match common practice. (You've made any number of complaints that other players were violating "Rule of XYZ" and that the Directors were shrugging off your complaints). From my perspective, this issue could be resolved in one of three ways: 1. The EBU could enforce the laws that were currently on the book and ding anyone who opens a hand that doesn't correspond to rule of XYZ... 2. The EBU could relax the laws (admittedly making them more subjective) 3. The EBU could switch hand evaluation metrics in an attempt to add more definition to the boundaries... Personally, I'd prefer case 3. However, case 2 (which was chosen by the EBU) seems better than have rules on the books that are not enforced. -- "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't" Will Rogers From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 7 00:36:11 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 00:36:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <003001c6d1da$f05250c0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001001c6d204$daf74c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> First of all thanks to Henk for bringing blml back again. I was probably one of many who yelled "wolf" to him when I discovered than not only was blml silent, but also that it was completely unknown at amsterdamned.org The L25A question arose in the Norwegian championships for pairs (round 69, board 137) and the first ruling was to not allow a change of the call. (L25B was never in question) However CTD (one of the best we have in Norway) later got "cold feet" and called on me among others to discuss the situation. There was no doubt that South intended to reach game and there seemed little (if any) reason to believe that he thought North had already bid 3NT. More probably South absentmindedly ("inadvertently") pulled the pass card rather than the desired 3NT card from his bid box. And it is clear from the facts that there was no "pause for thought" when he discovered what he had done. After an extensive discussion we ended up "allowing" a Law 25A correction. It is part of the history that North/South only made 8 tricks as East/West had an easy defense for 5 tricks (I had no knowledge of that fact during our discussion) so the final ruling was to let North/South keep their score for 2NT8 (based on an application of Law 82C Director's error) and award East/West the score for 3NT8 (the contract South wanted to be in and the result that would give). A side point: Law 25A apparently misses some specification on when it is too late to have an inadvertent pass corrected when this pass is the second last pass of the three or four passes in a row that end the bidding. "Until partner makes a call" has no meaning here since partner is not to make another call. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: John Probst [mailto:john at asimere.com] > Sent: 6. september 2006 19:36 > To: Sven Pran > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:49 AM > Subject: [blml] Law 25A > > > >I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear > > opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent > on > > the application of law 25A: > > I have occasionally allowed the intended call to be substituted. i'd have > to > have been there and given the South a pretty hard time. > > > > The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens) > > N E S W > > 1C - P - 1D - P > > 1H - P - 2S - P > > 2NT - P - P - P > > > > Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated with > > the > > opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or words to that > > effect. > > > > Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to game > > (4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, i.e. 3NT, > > and > > that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am deliberately avoiding the > > word > > "inadvertent" here). > > > > Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for his > > last pass? > > > > "Disturbing" circumstances: > > > > We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) > rule > > in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid card > should > > normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box as the bid card > > for > > the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come from one compartment, > > all > > bids come from a different compartment). > > > > I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a > > situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response > to > > a > > Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but "inadvertently" > > passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the agreed trumps. At > > that > > time his mistake shall have been ruled not to qualify for a correction > > under > > Law 25A? > > > > Comments anybody? (I am deliberately not disclosing my own opinion or > the > > ruling actually made except that they do agree). > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 7 04:46:14 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:46:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Has declarer lead from dummy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >This one got me to phone DWS. What do you think? > >Declarer is cashing a long suit from hand, pitching small side suit cards >from dummy and he holds all the remaining cards of the suit. He is >playing quickly. His brain beats his hand and he says "heart deuce" (a >card in dummy) before he plays the next winner from his hand. RHO snaps a >heart onto the table. Declarer says "Hang on I haven't played yet.". From >this it is clear that declarer knows he's in hand and knows he's about to >lead to this trick from hand. These are the *facts* - don't argue with >them. > >Has declarer led OOT from dummy or has the trick not yet started, and >therefore the lead is still in his hand and we can pick up the 2 cards >currently in the played position with all the usual UI/AI constraints? Richard Hills: Wrong questions. The trick has started, but declarer has inadvertently designated. Law 45C4(b): >>A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he >>does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, >>played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that >>opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute >>another (see Law 47E)." Richard Hills: So both dummy's heart deuce and RHO's heart currently played to this trick are withdrawn. As now zero outstanding cards have been played to this trick, the person who won the previous trick - declarer - leads a card from his own hand to this trick (Law 44G). What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Sep 7 05:51:56 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:51:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract Message-ID: <00cf01c6d230$fa304b50$6400a8c0@rota> N-S play in 4H, a contract which they may have reached through use of UI. Ten tricks are cold, but West revokes. After the adjustment, N-S take 11 tricks, which is impossible without the revoke. (E-W had taken two aces at the first two tricks, and West revoked later by overruffing with the high trump.) -620 is already a bad score for E-W, so they are still entitled to an adjustment. How do you treat the revoke when awarding an adjusted score, if you adjust to a different contract? For example, if you adjust to 3H, and the play would go the same, do you award +200/-200? If you adjust to 5C, and the same ten tricks are available, do you award 11 tricks for +600/-600, or 10 tricks for -100/+100, or compromise by giving the matchpoint score for -100/+100, minus the difference between -620 and -650 for E-W and plus the same difference for N-S? If you adjust to 3S by E-W, which makes three for -140/+140, how do you account for the revoke? From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 05:53:01 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:53:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <001001c6d204$daf74c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A > First of all thanks to Henk for bringing blml back again. I was probably > one > of many who yelled "wolf" to him when I discovered than not only was blml > silent, but also that it was completely unknown at amsterdamned.org > > The L25A question arose in the Norwegian championships for pairs (round > 69, > board 137) and the first ruling was to not allow a change of the call. > (L25B > was never in question) > > However CTD (one of the best we have in Norway) later got "cold feet" and > called on me among others to discuss the situation. There was no doubt > that > South intended to reach game and there seemed little (if any) reason to > believe that he thought North had already bid 3NT. More probably South > absentmindedly ("inadvertently") pulled the pass card rather than the > desired 3NT card from his bid box. And it is clear from the facts that > there > was no "pause for thought" when he discovered what he had done. > > After an extensive discussion we ended up "allowing" a Law 25A correction. I agree that a relevant issue has to deal with the facts surrounding whether or not there was a pause for thought. But a pause for thought prior to what? And that is the issue of first importance. Did the player change his call, or, to be more thorough, did the player change his call- or attempt to do so but was stopped by an outside force from completing the change? And the facts support the conclusion that the player did not. It is as simple as that. It is one thing for a player to change his call; it is quite another to want to do it. At no time did the player change his call. He well may have wanted to do so but did not. Instead he bemoaned what he had done. And from that point on there had been pause for thought. So, even if he had then changed his call, in the least it would not have fulfilled the specification provided by law for requiring the change to stand [that he changed it without pause for thought]. > It is part of the history that North/South only made 8 tricks as East/West > had an easy defense for 5 tricks (I had no knowledge of that fact during > our > discussion) so the final ruling was to let North/South keep their score > for > 2NT8 (based on an application of Law 82C Director's error) and award > East/West the score for 3NT8 (the contract South wanted to be in and the > result that would give). imo the ruling should have been changed back to result stands;. and the TDs involved with the rigamorole of going back and forth should buy the table a round. regards roger pewick > A side point: Law 25A apparently misses some specification on when it is > too > late to have an inadvertent pass corrected when this pass is the second > last > pass of the three or four passes in a row that end the bidding. "Until > partner makes a call" has no meaning here since partner is not to make > another call. > > Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Probst [mailto:john at asimere.com] >> Sent: 6. september 2006 19:36 >> To: Sven Pran >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 10:49 AM >> Subject: [blml] Law 25A >> >> >> >I was consulted (on telephone) on a case on which I would like to hear >> > opinions on blml, preferably from those that feel themselves competent >> on >> > the application of law 25A: >> >> I have occasionally allowed the intended call to be substituted. i'd have >> to >> have been there and given the South a pretty hard time. >> > >> > The auction: (North dealer, bid boxes in use, no screens) >> > N E S W >> > 1C - P - 1D - P >> > 1H - P - 2S - P >> > 2NT - P - P - P >> > >> > Immediately after West's final pass, before any activity associated >> > with >> > the >> > opening lead, South exclaims: "God, what have I done" or words to that >> > effect. >> > >> > Facts (undisputed) as established by the Director: 2S is forcing to >> > game >> > (4th suit), there is no doubt that South intended to bid game, i.e. >> > 3NT, >> > and >> > that his pass as such was "unintended". (I am deliberately avoiding the >> > word >> > "inadvertent" here). >> > >> > Question: Shall South be permitted a Law 25A substitution of 3NT for >> > his >> > last pass? >> > >> > "Disturbing" circumstances: >> > >> > We have since long practiced a general (but not necessarily absolute) >> rule >> > in Norway that for a call to be considered inadvertent its bid card >> should >> > normally "come" from the same compartment in the bid box as the bid >> > card >> > for >> > the intended call. (Pass, Double and Redouble come from one >> > compartment, >> > all >> > bids come from a different compartment). >> > >> > I believe I have heard that Law 25B2(b)(2) was introduced because of a >> > situation where a player was so disappointed by his partner's response >> to >> > a >> > Blackwood asking bid that he lost all hopes of slam but "inadvertently" >> > passed instead of correcting the contract to 5 in the agreed trumps. At >> > that >> > time his mistake shall have been ruled not to qualify for a correction >> > under >> > Law 25A? >> > >> > Comments anybody? (I am deliberately not disclosing my own opinion or >> the >> > ruling actually made except that they do agree). From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 06:03:32 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:03:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Has declarer lead from dummy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Has declarer lead from dummy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John (MadDog) Probst: > >>This one got me to phone DWS. What do you think? >> >>Declarer is cashing a long suit from hand, pitching small side suit cards >>from dummy and he holds all the remaining cards of the suit. He is >>playing quickly. His brain beats his hand and he says "heart deuce" (a >>card in dummy) before he plays the next winner from his hand. RHO snaps a >>heart onto the table. Declarer says "Hang on I haven't played yet.". From >>this it is clear that declarer knows he's in hand and knows he's about to >>lead to this trick from hand. These are the *facts* - don't argue with >>them. >> >>Has declarer led OOT from dummy or has the trick not yet started, and >>therefore the lead is still in his hand and we can pick up the 2 cards >>currently in the played position with all the usual UI/AI constraints? > > Richard Hills: > > Wrong questions. The trick has started, but declarer has inadvertently > designated. > > Law 45C4(b): It is pretty clear that a contestant that acts during his turn has the provisions of L45C4 'working for him'. Can the same be said for a player that acts during another's turn? regards roger pewick ps as for inadvertency, Declarer intended to call that dummy's card; it being unwise to do so OOT. >>>A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he >>>does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, >>>played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that >>>opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute >>>another (see Law 47E)." > > Richard Hills: > > So both dummy's heart deuce and RHO's heart currently played to this > trick are withdrawn. As now zero outstanding cards have been played to > this trick, the person who won the previous trick - declarer - leads a > card from his own hand to this trick (Law 44G). > > What's the problem? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 7 08:20:25 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:20:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00cf01c6d230$fa304b50$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: David Grabiner: >N-S play in 4H, a contract which they may have reached through use of UI. >Ten tricks are cold, but West revokes. After the adjustment, N-S take 11 >tricks, which is impossible without the revoke. (E-W had taken two aces >at the first two tricks, and West revoked later by overruffing with the >high trump.) -620 is already a bad score for E-W, so they are still >entitled to an adjustment. > >How do you treat the revoke when awarding an adjusted score, if you >adjust to a different contract? WBF Code of Practice, pages 5 and 6: >>Score adjustment >> >>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. David Grabiner: >For example, if you adjust to 3H, and the play would go the same, do you >award +200/-200? Richard Hills: A WBF Code of Practice ruling would be +170/-200. David Grabiner: >If you adjust to 5C, and the same ten tricks are available, do you award >11 tricks for +600/-600, or 10 tricks for -100/+100, or compromise by >giving the matchpoint score for -100/+100, minus the difference between >-620 and -650 for E-W and plus the same difference for N-S? Richard Hills: A WBF Code of Practice ruling would be -100/-600. David Grabiner: >If you adjust to 3S by E-W, which makes three for -140/+140, how do you >account for the revoke? Richard Hills: North-South must get -140. But the East-West score is a question where the WBF Code of Practice is silent. Does it make a difference if the revoking West is deemed to be the 3S declarer (so might be deemed to make the same revoke in 3S) or if the revoking West is deemed to be the 3S dummy (so might be deemed to play cards in 3S on the instructions of the non-revoking East)? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 7 09:31:37 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:31:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6d24f$a7d98e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............. > > South intended to reach game and there seemed little (if any) reason to > > believe that he thought North had already bid 3NT. More probably South > > absentmindedly ("inadvertently") pulled the pass card rather than the > > desired 3NT card from his bid box. And it is clear from the facts that > > there > > was no "pause for thought" when he discovered what he had done. ............... > I agree that a relevant issue has to deal with the facts surrounding > whether > or not there was a pause for thought. But a pause for thought prior to > what? It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that "pause" is to be measured from the moment the player discovers his mistake until he gives some indication that he had made an inadvertent mistake. He need not immediately actually name his intended call. Thus the following scenario satisfies Law 25A: A player makes some call and LHO makes his subsequent call. Then the player exhibits all signs of great surprise looking at the call he had made and for instance says "OOPS!" Now the Director is (correctly) summoned, comes to the table and asks in what way he can be of help. The player tells him that he didn't intend to make that call. The other players at the table confirm the player's indication of immediate surprise and reaction. >From this evidence the director should now allow the player Law 25A correction of his call. The Director must NOT at this time look at the players cards for instance in order to evaluate the probability of the player's story! And that is the issue of first importance. Did the player change > his > call, or, to be more thorough, did the player change his call- or attempt > to > do so but was stopped by an outside force from completing the change? > > > > And the facts support the conclusion that the player did not. It is as > simple as that. It is one thing for a player to change his call; it is > quite another to want to do it. At no time did the player change his > call. It is not a requirement that a player immediately actually changes his call, only that he obviously never intended to make the call he actually made. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 7 10:19:30 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:19:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: Revoke then adjust to different contract Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060907101923.027adb10@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:19:10 +0200 >To: "David Grabiner" >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract > >At 23:51 6/09/2006 -0400, you wrote: >>N-S play in 4H, a contract which they may have reached through use of UI. >>Ten tricks are cold, but West revokes. After the adjustment, N-S take 11 >>tricks, which is impossible without the revoke. (E-W had taken two aces at >>the first two tricks, and West revoked later by overruffing with the high >>trump.) -620 is already a bad score for E-W, so they are still entitled to >>an adjustment. >> >>How do you treat the revoke when awarding an adjusted score, if you adjust >>to a different contract? > >When adjusting, consider the number of tricks that would have been made in >the contract you correct to, resolving close cases in favor of the NOS, >weighting if you feel you have to (my inclination is to do it as often as >possible). >The number of tricks that were actually made in 4H is irrelevant, as this >contract is 'inexistent'. >Therefore, the revoke is immaterial. > >Even if the case was about a line of play, I would be very careful before >I consider the number of tricks that were actually made, because : >- one doesn't play the same way in, say, 3NT and 6NT ; >- it is legitimate, when dealing with UI, to play as if opponents' actions >were proper after receiving UI. For example, if opponents pushed you to >5H, but their 5C bid could have been affected by UI, you might decide to >play for freakish hands (that would make 5C legitimate even after UI), >while you wouldn't have done so absent UI. This has been said here before. > >Best regards, > > Alain From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Thu Sep 7 10:20:11 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:20:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c6d24f$a7d98e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB0C6@rama.Micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:32 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A > > It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that "pause" is to be > measured from the moment the player discovers his mistake until he gives > some indication that he had made an inadvertent mistake. He need not > immediately actually name his intended call. > > Thus the following scenario satisfies Law 25A: > > A player makes some call and LHO makes his subsequent call. Then the > player > exhibits all signs of great surprise looking at the call he had made and > for > instance says "OOPS!" > > Now the Director is (correctly) summoned, comes to the table and asks in > what way he can be of help. The player tells him that he didn't intend to > make that call. The other players at the table confirm the player's > indication of immediate surprise and reaction. > > >From this evidence the director should now allow the player Law 25A > correction of his call. The Director must NOT at this time look at the > players cards for instance in order to evaluate the probability of the > player's story! I think he should evaluate player's story. Otherwise, you get the following horror story (true!): Bidding boxes. West opens 1D, South 1D -- oops -- 1H. Looks very much like a mispull, doesn't it? So thought everybody else at the table. Until you evaluate a little further - South had 13 HCP, five diamonds, four hearts and a very quick mind. No 25A, therefore. -- Martin Sinot From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Thu Sep 7 10:46:48 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:46:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract In-Reply-To: <00cf01c6d230$fa304b50$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB0C8@rama.Micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of David Grabiner > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:52 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract > > N-S play in 4H, a contract which they may have reached through use of UI. > Ten tricks are cold, but West revokes. After the adjustment, N-S take 11 > tricks, which is impossible without the revoke. (E-W had taken two aces > at > the first two tricks, and West revoked later by overruffing with the high > trump.) -620 is already a bad score for E-W, so they are still entitled to > an adjustment. > > How do you treat the revoke when awarding an adjusted score, if you adjust > to a different contract? You must treat the revoke differently. It is a separate infraction which has nothing to do with using the UI. So: > For example, if you adjust to 3H, and the play would go the same, do you > award +200/-200? You adjust to +170/-170. However, part of the bad result of EW comes from the revoke, so from the EW-score (in IMP/MP) you subtract the IMP/MP difference between 4H= and 4H+1. Thus, you compensate EW for NS's infraction, but not for their own. Note that you should NOT subtract the point difference (30 - the difference between 620 and 650), but the difference after calculating the IMP/MPs. You do this only for EW, NS just get +170 without any "awards" for the revoke by EW. > If you adjust to 5C, and the same ten tricks are available, do you award > 11 > tricks for +600/-600, or 10 tricks for -100/+100, or compromise by giving > the matchpoint score for -100/+100, minus the difference between -620 > and -650 for E-W and plus the same difference for N-S? Same thing. You give -100/+100 and again subtract from EW the IMP/MP difference between 4H= and 4H+1. > If you adjust to 3S by E-W, which makes three for -140/+140, how do you > account for the revoke? Again, subtract from EW the IMP/MP difference between 4H= and 4H+1. You do this in all cases where part of the bad result comes from a separate infraction, but there is still damage without that secondary infraction. If there were only nine tricks in 4H, but the revoke let NS make it, then you still adjust the NS score, but let EW keep their score, because all they had to do was not revoke for a good score. -- Martin Sinot From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 7 11:08:12 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:08:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB0C6@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <000101c6d25d$262331b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Sinot Martin > > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > > It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that > > "pause" is to be measured from the moment the player > > discovers his mistake until he gives some indication > > that he had made an inadvertent mistake. He need not > > immediately actually name his intended call. > > > > Thus the following scenario satisfies Law 25A: > > > > A player makes some call and LHO makes his subsequent > > call. Then the player exhibits all signs of great > > surprise looking at the call he had made and for > > instance says "OOPS!" > > > > Now the Director is (correctly) summoned, comes to the > > table and asks in what way he can be of help. The player > > tells him that he didn't intend to make that call. The > > other players at the table confirm the player's > > indication of immediate surprise and reaction. > > > > From this evidence the director should now allow the player > > Law 25A correction of his call. The Director must NOT at > > this time look at the players cards for instance in order > > to evaluate the probability of the player's story! > > I think he should evaluate player's story. Otherwise, you get > the following horror story (true!): > > Bidding boxes. West opens 1D, South 1D -- oops -- 1H. Looks very much > like a mispull, doesn't it? So thought everybody else at the table. > Until you evaluate a little further - South had 13 HCP, five diamonds, > four hearts and a very quick mind. No 25A, therefore. Right. So the Director looks at South's hand and denies him the L25A correction. The result of this is that the other three players KNOW that South's hand is incompatible with 1D being an inadvertent mistake, i.e. that South holds a hand that would normally be opened in 1D with a probable rebid or at least support in hearts. Is there any way now that this board can be played and scored normally? Absolutely not, the Director has effectively destroyed that board. Sven From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Thu Sep 7 11:32:21 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:32:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000101c6d25d$262331b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB0CB@rama.Micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:08 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A > Right. So the Director looks at South's hand and denies him the L25A > correction. The result of this is that the other three players KNOW that > South's hand is incompatible with 1D being an inadvertent mistake, i.e. > that > South holds a hand that would normally be opened in 1D with a probable > rebid > or at least support in hearts. Why is that a problem? If South truthfully had told that he had overseen the 1D-opening, you would have had the same situation. Everybody has exactly the same information. But then you simply apply L27. Why should you now do otherwise? Of course, the TD takes the person outside hearing distance for questioning, and only tells which decision he makes, but not why. It probably doesn't matter much, people probably guess what the person had anyway. -- Martin Sinot From tkooij at tiscali.nl Thu Sep 7 11:55:17 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:55:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that the code of practise asks for another approach. Let us take teams and the result at the other table is 3S + 1. For the offending side their score is adjusted to 3S + ?? The code of practise is not clear about the ??. There are two possibilities: + 1, with the argument that playing in 3S might have avoided the revoke ( 0 IMP) + 2, the offending side made 11 tricks. (1 IMP) This argument of having played differently is not so clear when a revoke has occurred but certainly could be valid in normal play, trying for the down trick. I used 'normal', which shows the approach to follow I think. As long as the play went within the range of 'normal' as defined in the laws it should be accepted and the loss of an extra trick should be compensated. For the non offending side the damage caused by the revoke is subsequent, the damage caused by the 4S bid is consequent damage and should be compensated. We played board 1, non-vulnerable. The actual result is +170 - 450 ( - 7 imps) The consequent damage is based on +170 - 420 (- 6 imps). So the adjusted score for the offending side is - 1 imp. Vulnerable there would not have been a difference in this case. In a pairs event the difference could be big. Let us take the frequencies: 5 times + 170 (4 mp) 6 times + 420 (15 mp) and this score of + 450 (22 mp). For the offenders either + 170 (5 mp) or + 200 (10 mp) The non-offenders: actually they have a 0 (zero). With normal play they would have received 6 mp for 7 bottom scores of - 420. There is no compensation for this loss of 6 mp. But there is for the difference between the expected result without an infraction (17 mp) and the normal result after the infraction ( 6 mp). So this pair receives 11 mp. Leaves us with the question what score all other pairs should receive. For pairs compared with the offending side (I mean NS or EW) just add 170 or 200 and calculate the mp. For the pairs compared with the non-offending side I would add - 200 and then calculate the mp. ton (it is easy to make mistakes, so waiting for your critical remarks) From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 14:33:31 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 07:33:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <000001c6d24f$a7d98e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 2:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A >> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ............. >> > South intended to reach game and there seemed little (if any) reason to >> > believe that he thought North had already bid 3NT. More probably South >> > absentmindedly ("inadvertently") pulled the pass card rather than the >> > desired 3NT card from his bid box. And it is clear from the facts that >> > there >> > was no "pause for thought" when he discovered what he had done. > ............... >> I agree that a relevant issue has to deal with the facts surrounding >> whether >> or not there was a pause for thought. But a pause for thought prior to >> what? > > It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that "pause" is to be > measured from the moment the player discovers his mistake until he gives > some indication that he had made an inadvertent mistake. He need not > immediately actually name his intended call. Not only is there no basis in law for for such a regulation, it further is in direct contravention of L25A. > Thus the following scenario satisfies Law 25A: > > A player makes some call and LHO makes his subsequent call. Then the > player > exhibits all signs of great surprise looking at the call he had made and > for > instance says "OOPS!" I point out that 'oops' has two normal meanings at the table. In bridge the most frequent occurrence is 'I did something I regret.' and second, 'I was doing something else but it didn't get to the table'. The first meaning is far more frequent. As such, when a player does a L25A he should never use 'oops' as a precursor to actually changing his call since it can suggest pausing for thought. > Now the Director is (correctly) summoned, >comes to the table and asks in > what way he can be of help. The player tells him that he didn't intend to > make that call. The other players at the table confirm the player's > indication of immediate surprise and reaction. If the call hadn't been changed before calling the TD then surely there has been a pause for thought, even if only to find out if it is ok to change without penalty which de facto it isn't ok he needs the answer to the question is it ok]. . >>From this evidence the director should now allow the player Law 25A > correction of his call. The Director must NOT at this time look at the > players cards for instance in order to evaluate the probability of the > player's story! > > > And that is the issue of first importance. Did the player change >> his >> call, or, to be more thorough, did the player change his call- or attempt >> to >> do so but was stopped by an outside force from completing the change? >> >> >> >> And the facts support the conclusion that the player did not. It is as >> simple as that. It is one thing for a player to change his call; it is >> quite another to want to do it. At no time did the player change his >> call. > > It is not a requirement that a player immediately actually changes his > call, > only that he obviously never intended to make the call he actually made. L25A says otherwise if he is to avoid penalty, if for nothing else for creating UI. regards roger pewick > Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 7 17:22:48 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:22:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <001001c6d204$daf74c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <003001c6d1da$f05250c0$0701a8c0@john> <001001c6d204$daf74c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060907111316.02b269c0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:36 PM 9/6/06, Sven wrote: >However CTD (one of the best we have in Norway) later got "cold feet" and >called on me among others to discuss the situation. There was no doubt >that >South intended to reach game and there seemed little (if any) reason to >believe that he thought North had already bid 3NT. More probably South >absentmindedly ("inadvertently") pulled the pass card rather than the >desired 3NT card from his bid box. And it is clear from the facts that >there >was no "pause for thought" when he discovered what he had done. > >After an extensive discussion we ended up "allowing" a Law 25A correction. Sven seems to be treating "absentmindedly" and "inadvertently" as synonyms. But they aren't. On the contrary, it is the distinction between them that presents us with problems in the application of L25. As I understand it, for a call to be considered "inadvertent" for L25 purposes (for L25A to apply), the "mind" must be "present"; it is the (proper) connection between the mind and the hand, or the mind and the mouth, that must be "absent". An absentminded intention is still an intention. ISTM that L25B exists for the specific purpose of providing some relief to a player who has bid "absentmindedly" rather than "inadvertently". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 7 17:26:56 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:26:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract In-Reply-To: <00cf01c6d230$fa304b50$6400a8c0@rota> References: <00cf01c6d230$fa304b50$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060907112322.02b2aeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:51 PM 9/6/06, David wrote: >N-S play in 4H, a contract which they may have reached through use of UI. >Ten tricks are cold, but West revokes. After the adjustment, N-S take 11 >tricks, which is impossible without the revoke. (E-W had taken two >aces at >the first two tricks, and West revoked later by overruffing with the high >trump.) -620 is already a bad score for E-W, so they are still >entitled to >an adjustment. > >How do you treat the revoke when awarding an adjusted score, if you >adjust >to a different contract? > >For example, if you adjust to 3H, and the play would go the same, do you >award +200/-200? Yes. >If you adjust to 5C, and the same ten tricks are available, do you >award 11 >tricks for +600/-600, or 10 tricks for -100/+100, or compromise by giving >the matchpoint score for -100/+100, minus the difference between -620 >and -650 for E-W and plus the same difference for N-S? 10 tricks. Presumably the play in 5C would have gone quite differently, and there's no reason to presume that a different revoke would occur under different circumstances. >If you adjust to 3S by E-W, which makes three for -140/+140, how do you >account for the revoke? You don't. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 7 17:40:07 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 17:40:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB0CB@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <000201c6d293$e79428f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Sinot Martin ............... > > Right. So the Director looks at South's hand and denies him the L25A > > correction. The result of this is that the other three players KNOW > that > > South's hand is incompatible with 1D being an inadvertent mistake, > i.e. > > that > > South holds a hand that would normally be opened in 1D with a probable > > rebid > > or at least support in hearts. > > Why is that a problem? If South truthfully had told that he had overseen > the 1D-opening, you would have had the same situation. Everybody has > exactly the same information. But then you simply apply L27. Why should > you now do otherwise? > > Of course, the TD takes the person outside hearing distance for > questioning, and only tells which decision he makes, but not why. It > probably doesn't matter much, people probably guess what the person had > anyway. Taking a player outside hearing distance is OK for the purpose of letting him explain his view without passing information to the other players. But there is no way the director can look at a player's hand and then give a ruling without "informing" the other players at the table that his ruling was (at least partly) based upon the cards he has seen. That makes the board impossible to be played and scored normally. Finito. However, I have no problem with the Director examining the board after the play and then decide if his original ruling allowing a Law 25A correction was incorrect because of some clever deception by the offender (pretending inadvertency when there apparently must have been a change of mind). In that case I expect the Director to adjust the score. The standard criterion should be: Did the first call carry any bridge information? If it did we do not have an inadvertent call, if it did not then that call was inadvertent. And that question must be judged and answered by the Director without looking at any cards when he shall rule whether to allow or deny a Law 25A correction. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 7 17:45:20 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 17:45:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c6d294$9fdafec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > >> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > ............. > > It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that "pause" is > > to be measured from the moment the player discovers his mistake > > until he gives some indication that he had made an inadvertent > > mistake. He need not immediately actually name his intended call. > > Not only is there no basis in law for for such a regulation, it further is > in direct contravention of L25A. I think you should find the following minutes (and particular #7) from WBFLC Maastricht 2000 relevant? 6 The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow instantaneously upon the player's discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The Committee finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no regulation to cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. 7 The Committee discussed the word 'inadvertent' used in the laws. A guest suggested that an action is inadvertent if, at the time the player makes it, he decides one course of action but actually does something else through misadventure in speaking, writing or selecting a bidding card. Mr. Wignall made observation that the etymology of the word indicates a turning away of the mind, so that the action does not occur as a conscious process of the mind. The Committee acquiesced in the views expressed. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 18:13:56 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:13:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <000301c6d294$9fdafec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A >> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >> >> On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >> > ............. >> > It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that "pause" is >> > to be measured from the moment the player discovers his mistake >> > until he gives some indication that he had made an inadvertent >> > mistake. He need not immediately actually name his intended call. >> >> Not only is there no basis in law for for such a regulation, it further >> is >> in direct contravention of L25A. > > I think you should find the following minutes (and particular #7) from > WBFLC > Maastricht 2000 relevant? > > 6 The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in use > the > attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow > instantaneously First I point out that there was no correction, or attempt to correct- at the time or at any time. Second, I point out that that there is direction to L25A. Which explicitly states that "...his last call stands..." Clearly, if the player has made only one call at the time of arrival of the TD, that call stands. regards roger pewick > Regards Sven From schoderb at msn.com Thu Sep 7 18:29:41 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:29:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <003001c6d1da$f05250c0$0701a8c0@john><001001c6d204$daf74c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20060907111316.02b269c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Laudau writes: > As I understand it, for a call to be considered "inadvertent" for L25 > purposes (for L25A to apply), the "mind" must be "present"; it is the > (proper) connection between the mind and the hand, or the mind and the > mouth, that must be "absent". An absentminded intention is still an > intention. > > ISTM that L25B exists for the specific purpose of providing some relief > to a player who has bid "absentmindedly" rather than "inadvertently". You are right in both of these paragraphs. 25B came about because Edgar (l990 Geneva, WBF) did not see his partner's opening of 1 spade on the bidding tray (screens in use- tray not fully passed across) and passed with 10 HCPs 4 spades, and a singleton. When the tray was moved after his opponent had passed, he discovered his MISTAKE. He now wanted to change his call, and the TD, in consultation with me, said no. This was protested to a committee of Rules and Regulations sitting jointly with the Laws Committee, since it addressed a matter of application of Laws and Regulations. The committee upheld the TD ruling. Thereafter we now were faced with the "Bandaid" change of 25B giving those who are absentminded, ill-informed by their own actions, lazy, and realizing, after-the-fact that what they had done was going to get them a big fat zero a chance to stem the bleeding to somewhere between zero and average minus. It goes along with the philosophy that you no longer need to suffer the full consequences of making mistakes in a game which is based on avoiding making mistakes. Kojak It started (nah -- continued and accelerated) the slide to always look for something to fix bad biding, play, and bridge. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 7 19:24:56 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 19:24:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c6d2a2$8a398c40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............. > > I think you should find the following minutes (and particular #7) from > > WBFLC > > Maastricht 2000 relevant? > > > > 6 The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in use > > the > > attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow > > instantaneously > > First I point out that there was no correction, or attempt to correct- at > the time or at any time. > > Second, I point out that that there is direction to L25A. Which > explicitly > states that "...his last call stands..." Clearly, if the player has made > only one call at the time of arrival of the TD, that call stands. And please explain why you completely ignored minute #7 Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 7 19:31:40 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 19:31:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c6d2a3$7aebbe10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER .............. > > ISTM that L25B exists for the specific purpose of providing some relief > > to a player who has bid "absentmindedly" rather than "inadvertently". > > > You are right in both of these paragraphs. 25B came about because Edgar > (l990 Geneva, WBF) did not see his partner's opening of 1 spade on the > bidding tray (screens in > use- tray not fully passed across) and passed with 10 HCPs 4 spades, and a > singleton. When the tray was moved after his opponent had passed, he > discovered his MISTAKE. He > now wanted to change his call, and the TD, in consultation with me, said > no. > This was protested to a committee of Rules and Regulations sitting jointly > with the Laws Committee, since it addressed a matter of application of > Laws > and Regulations. The committee upheld the TD ruling. > > Thereafter we now were faced with the "Bandaid" change of 25B giving those > who are > absentminded, ill-informed by their own actions, lazy, and realizing, > after-the-fact that what they had done was going to get them a big fat > zero > a chance to stem the bleeding to somewhere between zero and average minus. > It goes along with the philosophy that you no longer need to suffer the > full > consequences of making mistakes in a game which is based on avoiding > making > mistakes. > > Kojak > > > > It started (nah -- continued and accelerated) the slide to always look for > something to fix bad biding, play, and bridge. I suppose the following WBFLC minute from Bermuda January 11th 2000 still should be of interest? Quote 6. Mr. Schoder had indicated a desire to see Law 25B removed from the laws. He asked the committee to consider the question. Mr. Martel said that in its current form Law 25B had been devised as a solution to a particular problem, but in the outcome "the cure is worse than the disease". There was considered to be a difficulty in finding suitable words to express this in the laws. Unquote Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 7 20:29:40 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:29:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000201c6d293$e79428f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB0CB@rama.Micronas.com> <000201c6d293$e79428f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060907142429.02a45490@pop.starpower.net> At 11:40 AM 9/7/06, Sven wrote: >The standard criterion should be: > >Did the first call carry any bridge information? > >If it did we do not have an inadvertent call, if it did not then that call >was inadvertent. > >And that question must be judged and answered by the Director without >looking at any cards when he shall rule whether to allow or deny a Law 25A >correction. This is all essentially correct, but I'm not sure it helps. A genuinely inadvertent call cannot carry any (bridge) information -- if you pull a bid card that isn't the one you were trying for, it could be any one; there's nothing to be learned from which one it is. But the same call made intentionally would normally carry potential information, as one might deduce what was in the caller's mind when he made it. So in the typical L25 problem case, you need to decide whether the call was or was not inadvertent to determine whether it does not, or does, respectively, carry any information. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 8 00:44:47 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:44:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB0CB@rama.Micronas.com><000201c6d293$e79428f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20060907142429.02a45490@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001f01c6d2cf$3a6e2cc0$079868d5@jeushtlj> Law 25 is yet another superfluous law that adds nothing of value to the game for players: it just rewards players who lie convincingly. It also requires directors to exercise subjective judgement unnecessarily. L25BC2 is too awful for words. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 8 01:16:25 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:16:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kojak: >25B came about because Edgar (l990 Geneva, WBF) did not see his >partner's opening of 1 spade on the bidding tray (screens in use- >tray not fully passed across) and passed with 10 HCPs 4 spades, and >a singleton. When the tray was moved after his opponent had passed, >he discovered his MISTAKE. He now wanted to change his call, and >the TD, in consultation with me, said no. > >This was protested to a committee of Rules and Regulations sitting >jointly with the Laws Committee, since it addressed a matter of >application of Laws and Regulations. The committee upheld the TD >ruling. > >Thereafter we now were faced with the "Bandaid" change of 25B [snip] Richard Hills: I agree with Kojak that the "Bandaid" Law 25B should be abolished in the next edition of the Laws. However, Kojak incorrectly implies that Law 25B was introduced into the 1997 Lawbook as a consequence of Edgar's 1990 experience. Actually, Law 25B first appeared in the 1987 Lawbook and then was slightly modified in the 1997 Lawbook. It was because Law 25B already existed in 1990 that Edgar launched his protest at the WBF Geneva event. And the only reason that Edgar's protest was unsuccessful was that the WBF had sensibly created Conditions of Contest for Geneva which limited the scope of Law 25B when screens were in use. Edgar argued that screen regulations created pursuant to Law 80 could not over-ride another Law of Bridge, Law 25B. The Laws Committee decided otherwise. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From schoderb at msn.com Fri Sep 8 02:27:58 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 20:27:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Thank you for the further clarification. I was aware that Law 25B existed in 1990. It showed up in 1975 as a "B" not 1987. I was referring to the Bandaid laid on in 1997. It's one example of "fixes" that can easily be traced back to an incident where an individual was inconvenienced by the Laws that have worked well for decades. Whenever something appears to be too harsh, too clearly punitive, feels "wrong", or some such thing we have to "fix" it. Ala Law 70 in this era. Hopefully the 200X Laws will have removed the Bandaids and not added more, by hysterical knee jerk reactions. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 7:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Kojak: > > >25B came about because Edgar (l990 Geneva, WBF) did not see his > >partner's opening of 1 spade on the bidding tray (screens in use- > >tray not fully passed across) and passed with 10 HCPs 4 spades, and > >a singleton. When the tray was moved after his opponent had passed, > >he discovered his MISTAKE. He now wanted to change his call, and > >the TD, in consultation with me, said no. > > > >This was protested to a committee of Rules and Regulations sitting > >jointly with the Laws Committee, since it addressed a matter of > >application of Laws and Regulations. The committee upheld the TD > >ruling. > > > >Thereafter we now were faced with the "Bandaid" change of 25B > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Kojak that the "Bandaid" Law 25B should be abolished in > the next edition of the Laws. > > However, Kojak incorrectly implies that Law 25B was introduced into > the 1997 Lawbook as a consequence of Edgar's 1990 experience. > > Actually, Law 25B first appeared in the 1987 Lawbook and then was > slightly modified in the 1997 Lawbook. It was because Law 25B > already existed in 1990 that Edgar launched his protest at the WBF > Geneva event. And the only reason that Edgar's protest was > unsuccessful was that the WBF had sensibly created Conditions of > Contest for Geneva which limited the scope of Law 25B when screens > were in use. > > Edgar argued that screen regulations created pursuant to Law 80 > could not over-ride another Law of Bridge, Law 25B. The Laws > Committee decided otherwise. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 8 06:24:11 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:24:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills (clarification): >>Actually, Law 25B first appeared in the 1987 Lawbook and then was >>slightly modified in the 1997 Lawbook. [snip] Kojak: >Thank you for the further clarification. I was aware that Law 25B >existed in 1990. It showed up in 1975 as a "B" not 1987. I was >referring to the Bandaid laid on in 1997. [snip] Richard Hills (even further clarification): Sorry, I should have been more precise, and stated: "Actually, a Law 25B which permitted a delayed or purposeful correction first appeared in the 1987 Lawbook..." The 1987 Law 25B was fundamentally flawed. The 1997 Law 25B "bandaid" version merely slightly complicated the 1987 Law 25B but did not fix the fundamental flaw. So, in my opinion, the 1997 "bandaid" was merely a symptom of the original 1987 disease. As part of the renumbering of the Laws between 1975 and 1987, the 1975 Law 23 became the 1987 Law 24, and the 1975 Law 24 became the 1987 25A. But the 1975 Law 25 was completely different to its 1987 successor, Law 25B, in that delayed or purposeful corrections were not permitted. However, the 1975 Law 25BA1 was somewhat draconian: >>>B. Attempt to Change Legal Call >>> >>>A call substituted for a legal call made previously at the same >>>turn, when Law 24 does not apply, is cancelled. The legal call >>>stands and (penalty): >>> >>>1. Auction Period Penalty >>> >>>The offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Of course, restoring the 1975 Law 25BA1 into the 2007 Laws would be "giving those who are absentminded, ill-informed by their own actions, lazy, and realizing, after-the-fact that what they had done was going to get them a big fat zero a chance to ... suffer the full consequences of making mistakes in a game which is based on avoiding making mistakes". :-) Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 8 08:32:39 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 08:32:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6d310$95b71920$6400a8c0@WINXP> > To: Sven Pran > >> > ............. > >> > It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that "pause" is > >> > to be measured from the moment the player discovers his mistake > >> > until he gives some indication that he had made an inadvertent > >> > mistake. He need not immediately actually name his intended call. > >> > >> Not only is there no basis in law for for such a regulation, it further > >> is > >> in direct contravention of L25A. > > > > I think you should find the following minutes (and particular #7) from > > WBFLC > > Maastricht 2000 relevant? > > > > 6 The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in use > > the > > attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow > > instantaneously > > upon the player's discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile > > made > > a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The > > Committee finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating > authorities > > to incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament > > regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no regulation to > > cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. > > > > 7 The Committee discussed the word 'inadvertent' used in the laws. A > guest > > suggested that an action is inadvertent if, at the time the player makes > > it, > > he decides one course of action but actually does something else through > > misadventure in speaking, writing or selecting a bidding card. Mr. > Wignall > > made observation that the etymology of the word indicates a turning away > > of > > the mind, so that the action does not occur as a conscious process of > the > > mind. > > > > The Committee acquiesced in the views expressed. > > > > Regards Sven > > I don't know what comment I should make about #7. You said it is relevant > as to ascertaining whether the player fulfilled the specification wrt the > window of opportunity. I don't get it. After having allowed a Law 25A correction of a call (according to the circumstances around the alleged inadvertent call) we evaluate the situation again when all cards are known. The main question at that time is this: Did the alleged inadvertent call give any bridge information relevant to the actual hand? If the answer to this question is "yes" we consider reversing the Law 25A ruling and award an adjusted score on the board. If the alleged inadvertent call did not convey any bridge information relevant to that hand we understand minute #7 to confirm that the call was indeed inadvertent. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 8 16:40:16 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:40:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <000001c6d310$95b71920$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A >> To: Sven Pran >> >> > ............. >> >> > It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that "pause" is >> >> > to be measured from the moment the player discovers his mistake >> >> > until he gives some indication that he had made an inadvertent >> >> > mistake. He need not immediately actually name his intended call. >> >> >> >> Not only is there no basis in law for for such a regulation, it >> >> further >> >> is >> >> in direct contravention of L25A. >> > >> > I think you should find the following minutes (and particular #7) from >> > WBFLC >> > Maastricht 2000 relevant? >> > >> > 6 The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in >> > use >> > the >> > attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow >> > instantaneously >> > upon the player's discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile >> > made >> > a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The >> > Committee finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating >> authorities >> > to incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament >> > regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no regulation to >> > cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. >> > >> > 7 The Committee discussed the word 'inadvertent' used in the laws. A >> guest >> > suggested that an action is inadvertent if, at the time the player >> > makes >> > it, >> > he decides one course of action but actually does something else >> > through >> > misadventure in speaking, writing or selecting a bidding card. Mr. >> Wignall >> > made observation that the etymology of the word indicates a turning >> > away >> > of >> > the mind, so that the action does not occur as a conscious process of >> the >> > mind. >> > >> > The Committee acquiesced in the views expressed. >> > >> > Regards Sven >> >> I don't know what comment I should make about #7. You said it is >> relevant >> as to ascertaining whether the player fulfilled the specification wrt the >> window of opportunity. I don't get it. > > After having allowed a Law 25A correction of a call (according to the > circumstances around the alleged inadvertent call) we evaluate the > situation > again when all cards are known. The main question at that time is this: > > Did the alleged inadvertent call give any bridge information relevant to > the > actual hand? > > If the answer to this question is "yes" we consider reversing the Law 25A > ruling and award an adjusted score on the board. > > If the alleged inadvertent call did not convey any bridge information > relevant to that hand we understand minute #7 to confirm that the call was > indeed inadvertent. > > Sven If nothing prevented a player from correcting his inadvertent call and a player did not do so, once there has been the time for the TD to arrive the law forbids the TD ruling that the player may then correct his call [as provided by L25A]- without regard to intention at time the call had been made. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 8 17:06:12 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:06:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c6d358$531ba020$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............... > > After having allowed a Law 25A correction of a call > > (according to the circumstances around the alleged > > inadvertent call) we evaluate the situation again > > when all cards are known. The main question at that > > time is this: > > Did the alleged inadvertent call give any bridge > > information relevant to the actual hand? > > > > If the answer to this question is "yes" we consider > > reversing the Law25A ruling and award an adjusted > > score on the board. > > > > If the alleged inadvertent call did not convey any > > bridge information relevant to that hand we understand > > minute #7 to confirm that the call was indeed inadvertent. > > > > Sven > > If nothing prevented a player from correcting his inadvertent > call and a player did not do so, once there has been the time > for the TD to arrive the law forbids the TD ruling that the > player may then correct his call [as provided by L25A]- > without regard to intention at time the call had been made. > > regards > roger pewick This was indeed the understanding of Law 25A a decade or so ago, but as we understand WBFLC this is no longer the case. Similarly the question if the alleged inadvertent call carried any bridge information was explicitly stated (in the commentaries of 1992) as being entirely irrelevant; presently we understand this question to be most important in an after the fact evaluation. It remains to see what will happen to Law 25 in the upcoming laws. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Sat Sep 9 00:04:00 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:04:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A References: <000101c6d25d$262331b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004801c6d392$b0728920$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 25A >> On Behalf Of Sinot Martin >> > On Behalf Of Sven Pran >> > It is a well established understanding of Law 25A that >> > "pause" is to be measured from the moment the player >> > discovers his mistake until he gives some indication >> > that he had made an inadvertent mistake. He need not >> > immediately actually name his intended call. >> > >> > Thus the following scenario satisfies Law 25A: >> > >> > A player makes some call and LHO makes his subsequent >> > call. Then the player exhibits all signs of great >> > surprise looking at the call he had made and for >> > instance says "OOPS!" >> > >> > Now the Director is (correctly) summoned, comes to the >> > table and asks in what way he can be of help. The player >> > tells him that he didn't intend to make that call. The >> > other players at the table confirm the player's >> > indication of immediate surprise and reaction. >> > >> > From this evidence the director should now allow the player >> > Law 25A correction of his call. The Director must NOT at >> > this time look at the players cards for instance in order >> > to evaluate the probability of the player's story! >> >> I think he should evaluate player's story. Otherwise, you get >> the following horror story (true!): >> >> Bidding boxes. West opens 1D, South 1D -- oops -- 1H. Looks very much >> like a mispull, doesn't it? So thought everybody else at the table. >> Until you evaluate a little further - South had 13 HCP, five diamonds, >> four hearts and a very quick mind. No 25A, therefore. > > Right. So the Director looks at South's hand and denies him the L25A > correction. The result of this is that the other three players KNOW that > South's hand is incompatible with 1D being an inadvertent mistake, i.e. > that > South holds a hand that would normally be opened in 1D with a probable > rebid > or at least support in hearts. Why did the TD not ask "Why did you bid 1D?" I've discovered this is easily the best way to resolve these. It's preferable to do this away from the table. john > > Is there any way now that this board can be played and scored normally? > > Absolutely not, the Director has effectively destroyed that board. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 9 05:02:26 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 13:02:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883), translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: "Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same Door as in I went." Imps North-South vulnerable South is declarer in 4H, and has lost two tricks so far. At trick ten you, West are on lead. NORTH (dummy) S K5 H A D --- C --- WEST (you) S Q32 H --- D --- C --- You have a complete count on the deal, so you know that declarer's last three cards are two spades plus the other outstanding trump, while partner's last three cards are two spades plus the thirteenth diamond. Obviously your correct play is to lead the deuce or trey of spades, in case declarer's spade holding is Jx and declarer misguesses. However, as you attempt to lead the deuce of spades, you unintentionally drop both the queen of spades and the deuce of spades simultaneously face up on the table. Law 58B2: "If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)." Law 50B: "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card ....." Law 50C: "When a defender has a minor penalty card ..... Offender's partner is not subject to lead penalty, but information gained through seeing the penalty card is extraneous, unauthorised (see Law 16A). Law 72A5: "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction." The Director is summoned, and advises you of your rights under Laws 58B2, 50B, 50C and 72A5. You realise that if you designate your original choice of the deuce of spades as the card you propose to play that will be disastrous for the defence. Your queen of spades will be a major penalty card, so when partner wins the spade trick then declarer will be able to force pard to lead their thirteenth diamond for a ruff- and-discard. Therefore, your only hope is that pard's two spades are the AJ, so you select the queen of spades as the card you propose to play, since it seems that your deuce of spades would be a minor penalty card thus allowing pard to choose their only logical alternative of cashing the jack of spades for the setting trick. You duly lead the queen of spades, and declarer duly plays the king of spades, and pard duly wins the ace of spades, and pard delightfully holds the jack of spades!!! However..... The Director rules that your deuce of spades is a major penalty card, not a minor penalty card. The Director's reasoning is that because you originally intended to lead the deuce of spades, that card was not exposed inadvertently. You appeal to the National Authority. How should the National Authority rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 9 05:35:41 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 13:35:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2005 disciplinary hearing 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44FEB51B.6050605@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: In the thread "welcome back", Herman De Wael advised: >Warszawa saw us holding 13 appeals, that is one more than 2 >years ago in Malm?. > >And we've put the 2005 appeals in a booklet on-line at : > >http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2005.pdf > >No doubt that will keep you busy! EBL 2005 disciplinary hearing 1: Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jens Auken (Denmark), Grattan Endicott (England) [2NT partscore hand snipped] The Facts: North had shown/played the H5 and wanted to play a diamond instead. The Director was called, who heard both versions. According to East/West, the H5 had been played, according to North the two cards had stuck together. After getting the facts, the Director ruled that the H5 was the played card. Play proceeded, and declarer made his contract. After the play, West turned to North (under the screen) and asked "Why did you lie?". North demanded an apology, which West refused to give. North then refused to continue to play. The Director: First asked West to apologise, which he did not do. Then the Director asked North to continue to play, which he too refused. Finally the Chief Tournament Director gave the table two options, either to stop play and face the Appeal Committee immediately, or to continue and meet the Appeal Committee later in the day. North accepted to play on, still demanding the apology he believed was his due. Ruling: matter to be referred to the Appeal Committee. Relevant Laws: Law 74A1, 74A2 Present: All players The Players: West confirmed that he had asked North "Why did you lie?". West believed North would need to have played the heart at some point, so there was no reason not to play it at this time. West told the Committee he had known North for thirty years. The Chairman reminded him that since that fact was quite well known, there was no use in uttering such a phrase. West refused to apologise because he thought he was right. East confirmed that North had told the Director that the cards had stuck together. North wondered why there was any talk about bridge, but he still explained why he had wanted to play the diamonds first: so as not to go four down. He had explained the facts to the Director, who had made his ruling. North had accepted the ruling, but he had not lied. He considered West's behaviour to be the worst possible. The Committee: Reminded the players that this is a very serious matter. The Committee could understand harsh words being spoken in the heat of the moment, but not several hours after the facts. The Chairman asked West once again to apologise. West continued to maintain that he knew what had happened, and finally said "I apologise, but...". The Committee's decision: West receives an Official warning. The team of East/West are fined 4VP. Verdict to be published (anonymously) in the Daily Bulletin. Official Warning to player West: West has said to North, at the very least, "Why did you lie?". This is a serious breach of Law 74A of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge: LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE A. Proper Attitude 1. Courtesy A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times. 2. Etiquette of Word and Action A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. Player West, at the request of the Chairman of the Appeals Committee, eventually apologised to his opponent. The apology has been taken into account in the Appeals Committee's decision. Without it the sanction would have been more severe. Under Law 90 the Appeals Committee imposes a 4VP procedural penalty on player West's team. In addition player West is: 1) reprimanded 2) warned that a recurrence of such a breach of the Laws will result in a more severe sanction. Deposit: not applicable Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Sep 9 05:54:43 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:54:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005101c6d3c3$b03059c0$6400a8c0@rota> (Intending to lead the S2 from SQ32, dropping the SQ and S2 together, and choosing to play the SQ) > Law 50B: > "A single card below the rank of an honour > and exposed inadvertently (as in playing > two cards to a trick, or in dropping a > card accidentally) becomes a minor > penalty card ....." > The Director rules that your deuce of > spades is a major penalty card, not a > minor penalty card. The Director's > reasoning is that because you originally > intended to lead the deuce of spades, that > card was not exposed inadvertently. > > You appeal to the National Authority. How > should the National Authority rule? The S2 became exposed as the result of an inadvertent action; it was not deliberately played in the sense of the other examples of major penalty cards in L50B (lead out of turn or revoke retracted). Consistent with the spirit of the Law, and the fact that the S2 had not been played at the time of the infraction, I rule that the S2 is a minor penalty card. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 9 06:10:28 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 14:10:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609070955.k879tTYi030943@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Martin Sinot: [big snip] >>Again, subtract from EW the IMP/MP difference between 4H= and 4H+1. >> >>You do this in all cases where part of the bad result comes from a >>separate infraction, but there is still damage without that secondary >>infraction. If there were only nine tricks in 4H, but the revoke let NS >>make it, then you still adjust the NS score, but let EW keep their >>score, because all they had to do was not revoke for a good score. Richard Hills: >I think that Martin Sinot is generally on the right track. > >However, I disagree with what I think Martin is saying in his final >sentence (although it is possible that I have misinterpreted Martin's >intent). He seems to be saying that East-West keep their matchpoint >bottom if their error was significant enough to turn a good matchpoint >score into a bottom (letting the UI-assisted contract of 4H make >instead of defeating it), but East-West do not keep their matchpoint >bottom if their less significant error turned a poor matchpoint score >into a bottom (conceding an overtrick when the UI-assisted 4H was cold >for ten tricks). > >Law 12C2 states: >".....The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be >assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score >prior to matchpointing. > >It seems to me that the best approach is Ton's idea (see attached >below). Although "altering the total-point score" is the default >method of calculating adjusted scores, Ton's idea of "assigning in >matchpoints" seems to me to ensure that the non-offending side who >subsequently revokes is neither over-compensated nor under-compensated. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae >National Training Branch >02 6225 6285 Ton Kooijman: I think that the code of practise asks for another approach. Let us take teams and the result at the other table is 3S + 1. For the offending side their score is adjusted to 3S + ?? The code of practise is not clear about the ??. There are two possibilities: + 1, with the argument that playing in 3S might have avoided the revoke ( 0 IMP) + 2, the offending side made 11 tricks. (1 IMP) This argument of having played differently is not so clear when a revoke has occurred but certainly could be valid in normal play, trying for the down trick. I used 'normal', which shows the approach to follow I think. As long as the play went within the range of 'normal' as defined in the laws it should be accepted and the loss of an extra trick should be compensated. For the non offending side the damage caused by the revoke is subsequent, the damage caused by the 4S bid is consequent damage and should be compensated. We played board 1, non-vulnerable. The actual result is +170 - 450 ( - 7 imps) The consequent damage is based on +170 - 420 (- 6 imps). So the adjusted score for the offending side is - 1 imp. Vulnerable there would not have been a difference in this case. In a pairs event the difference could be big. Let us take the frequencies: 5 times + 170 (4 mp) 6 times + 420 (15 mp) and this score of + 450 (22 mp). For the offenders either + 170 (5 mp) or + 200 (10 mp) The non-offenders: actually they have a 0 (zero). With normal play they would have received 6 mp for 7 bottom scores of - 420. There is no compensation for this loss of 6 mp. But there is for the difference between the expected result without an infraction (17 mp) and the normal result after the infraction ( 6 mp). So this pair receives 11 mp. Leaves us with the question what score all other pairs should receive. For pairs compared with the offending side (I mean NS or EW) just add 170 or 200 and calculate the mp. For the pairs compared with the non-offending side I would add - 200 and then calculate the mp. ton (it is easy to make mistakes, so waiting for your critical remarks) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Sep 9 08:43:00 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 08:43:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <005101c6d3c3$b03059c0$6400a8c0@rota> References: <005101c6d3c3$b03059c0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <1GLwYO-1pj65A0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> > (Intending to lead the S2 from SQ32, dropping the SQ and S2 together, > and choosing to play the SQ) > > > > Law 50B: > > > "A single card below the rank of an honour > > and exposed inadvertently (as in playing > > two cards to a trick, or in dropping a > > card accidentally) becomes a minor > > penalty card ....." > > > The Director rules that your deuce of > > spades is a major penalty card, not a > > minor penalty card. ?The Director's > > reasoning is that because you originally > > intended to lead the deuce of spades, that > > card was not exposed inadvertently. > > > > You appeal to the National Authority. ?How > > should the National Authority rule? > > The S2 became exposed as the result of an inadvertent action; it was > not deliberately played in the sense of the other examples of major > penalty cards in L50B (lead out of turn or revoke retracted). > Consistent with the spirit of the Law, and the fact that the S2 had > not been played at the time of the infraction, I rule that the S2 is a > minor penalty card. No, not the exposure of the S2 was inadvertent, but the exposure of the SQ. Although Law 58 B2 allows a change of mind by selecting the card offender (now) proposes to play, law 50 B does not allow so. But I admit, that a clever player can make it very difficult for TD to find out, what was offender's original intent. Having Richard's story offender telling he wanted to play the deuce originally I rule major PC. Peter From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 9 10:12:15 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 10:12:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <1GLwYO-1pj65A0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001c6d3e7$a9b252a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > (Intending to lead the S2 from SQ32, dropping the SQ and S2 together, > > and choosing to play the SQ) ............. > > The S2 became exposed as the result of an inadvertent action; it was > > not deliberately played in the sense of the other examples of major > > penalty cards in L50B (lead out of turn or revoke retracted). > > Consistent with the spirit of the Law, and the fact that the S2 had > > not been played at the time of the infraction, I rule that the S2 is a > > minor penalty card. > > No, not the exposure of the S2 was inadvertent, but > the exposure of the SQ. Although Law 58 B2 allows a > change of mind by selecting the card offender (now) > proposes to play, law 50 B does not allow so. Read Law 50B again: A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or .....) becomes a minor penalty card. There is no question about which (if any) of the two exposed cards he intended to play. He must select one of them (Law 58B2) and the other is treated as an inadvertently exposed card. The S2 becomes a minor penalty card. Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Sep 9 10:53:37 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 10:53:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <000001c6d3e7$a9b252a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6d3e7$a9b252a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1GLyan-1S6oeO0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > > (Intending to lead the S2 from SQ32, dropping the SQ and S2 > > > together, and choosing to play the SQ) > > > > ............. > > > The S2 became exposed as the result of an inadvertent action; it > > > was not deliberately played in the sense of the other examples of > > > major penalty cards in L50B (lead out of turn or revoke > > > retracted). > > > Consistent with the spirit of the Law, and the fact that the S2 > > > had not been played at the time of the infraction, I rule that the > > > S2 is a minor penalty card. > > > > > > > No, not the exposure of the S2 was inadvertent, but > > the exposure of the SQ. Although Law 58 B2 allows a > > change of mind by selecting the card offender (now) > > proposes to play, law 50 B does not allow so. > > Read Law 50B again: > > A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently > (as in playing two cards to a trick, or .....) becomes a minor penalty > card. > > There is no question about which (if any) of the two exposed cards he > intended to play. He must select one of them (Law 58B2) and the other > is treated as an inadvertently exposed card. > > The S2 becomes a minor penalty card. Veto ! "as in playing two cards to a trick" does _not_ mean that both cards are exposed inadvertently. When a player intends to play a card and thereby a second card falls on the table, that (second) card is exposed inadvertently. Also the fact, that there are 2 cards visible, is of course inadvertent. But the exposure of the S2 is not inadvertent. And only that matters in law 50 B. But - again - the TD will have to struggle for that fact. Peter From herman at hdw.be Sat Sep 9 11:03:56 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:03:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <000001c6d3e7$a9b252a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6d3e7$a9b252a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4502837C.8040904@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Peter Eidt >> >>>(Intending to lead the S2 from SQ32, dropping the SQ and S2 together, >>>and choosing to play the SQ) > > ............. > >>>The S2 became exposed as the result of an inadvertent action; it was >>>not deliberately played in the sense of the other examples of major >>>penalty cards in L50B (lead out of turn or revoke retracted). >>>Consistent with the spirit of the Law, and the fact that the S2 had >>>not been played at the time of the infraction, I rule that the S2 is a >>>minor penalty card. >> >>No, not the exposure of the S2 was inadvertent, but >>the exposure of the SQ. Although Law 58 B2 allows a >>change of mind by selecting the card offender (now) >>proposes to play, law 50 B does not allow so. > > > Read Law 50B again: > > A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in > playing two cards to a trick, or .....) becomes a minor penalty card. > > There is no question about which (if any) of the two exposed cards he > intended to play. He must select one of them (Law 58B2) and the other is > treated as an inadvertently exposed card. > > The S2 becomes a minor penalty card. > > Regards Sven > I'm siding with Peter on this one. We know that 2 cards are always MPC, but also quite reasonably rule that each of two played simultaneously can remain a mPC, provided L50B applies. So we need to examine the S2 in the light of L50B, and it contains 2 conditions: it must be a small card (it is) and it must be exposed inadvertently. That, according to the story, is not the case. Major PC -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 7/09/2006 From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 9 11:57:24 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 11:57:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <4502837C.8040904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c6d3f6$59f82cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 9. september 2006 11:04 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 > > Sven Pran wrote: > >>On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > >> > >>>(Intending to lead the S2 from SQ32, dropping the SQ and S2 together, > >>>and choosing to play the SQ) > > > > ............. > > > >>>The S2 became exposed as the result of an inadvertent action; it was > >>>not deliberately played in the sense of the other examples of major > >>>penalty cards in L50B (lead out of turn or revoke retracted). > >>>Consistent with the spirit of the Law, and the fact that the S2 had > >>>not been played at the time of the infraction, I rule that the S2 is a > >>>minor penalty card. > >> > >>No, not the exposure of the S2 was inadvertent, but > >>the exposure of the SQ. Although Law 58 B2 allows a > >>change of mind by selecting the card offender (now) > >>proposes to play, law 50 B does not allow so. > > > > > > Read Law 50B again: > > > > A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as > in > > playing two cards to a trick, or .....) becomes a minor penalty card. > > > > There is no question about which (if any) of the two exposed cards he > > intended to play. He must select one of them (Law 58B2) and the other is > > treated as an inadvertently exposed card. > > > > The S2 becomes a minor penalty card. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > I'm siding with Peter on this one. We know that 2 cards are always > MPC, but also quite reasonably rule that each of two played > simultaneously can remain a mPC, provided L50B applies. > > So we need to examine the S2 in the light of L50B, and it contains 2 > conditions: it must be a small card (it is) and it must be exposed > inadvertently. That, according to the story, is not the case. Major PC Why do you then think the "clarifying" parenthesis in Law 50B is written "(as in _playing_ two cards to a trick, _or_ in _dropping_ a card accidentally)"? The laws assume that when two cards are exposed simultaneously in an action of playing to a trick then the entire action is considered to be accidental. Also notice that Law 58B says: "If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he _proposes_ to play", it does not require the player to disclose which (if any) of the exposed cards he _intended_ to play. The player is free to change his mind and the resulting penalty card shall be treated as a card exposed accidentrally. Sven From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Sat Sep 9 14:37:13 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 14:37:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <004801c6d392$b0728920$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB115@rama.Micronas.com> > Why did the TD not ask "Why did you bid 1D?" I've discovered this is > easily > the best way to resolve these. It's preferable to do this away from the > table. john Well, actually, the TD was not summoned at all. The problem was only discovered after the deal. If the TD had been summoned, he could indeed have asked the person why the 1D, and would have discovered that the 1D-opening was missed, by looking at the hand. Off the table, of course. -- Martin Sinot From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Sat Sep 9 14:51:36 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 14:51:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke then adjust to different contract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB116@rama.Micronas.com> > Richard Hills: > > >I think that Martin Sinot is generally on the right track. > > > >However, I disagree with what I think Martin is saying in his final > >sentence (although it is possible that I have misinterpreted Martin's > >intent). He seems to be saying that East-West keep their matchpoint > >bottom if their error was significant enough to turn a good matchpoint > >score into a bottom (letting the UI-assisted contract of 4H make > >instead of defeating it), but East-West do not keep their matchpoint > >bottom if their less significant error turned a poor matchpoint score > >into a bottom (conceding an overtrick when the UI-assisted 4H was cold > >for ten tricks). No, that was not what I meant. I said that NS simply get the score without their own infraction, so they cannot keep the good score they got from a blunder of the opponents; EW, however, get a correction only insofar the damage was not caused by their own subsequent fault (here, the revoke). So, assuming nine tricks are available in hearts, for the first few cases you can let EW keep their score, because without the revoke (their own mistake) they would have got a better score than the TD can give them back, which means that all EW damage is their own fault: not consequent, but subsequent damage. In the last case, there is still damage if you disregard the revoke (+140 is better than +100), so now they are entitled to some correction: you give the score belonging to +140, but subtract the IMP/MP difference between +100 and -620. EW are now better off than letting their score stand, but they do not get everything back. But for all cases, the score for NS is the score without their infraction, and EW's subsequent error is disregarded for them. -- Martin Sinot From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 9 15:48:16 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 15:48:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFB115@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <000201c6d416$9a474990$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Sinot Martin > > Why did the TD not ask "Why did you bid 1D?" I've discovered > > this is easily the best way to resolve these. > > It's preferable to do this away from the table. > > john > > Well, actually, the TD was not summoned at all. The problem was only > discovered after the deal. If the TD had been summoned, he could indeed > have asked the person why the 1D, and would have discovered that the > 1D-opening was missed, by looking at the hand. Off the table, of course. There is no use in leaving the table when looking at a hand. All the affected players will know that he (at least probably) has made his ruling based on what he has seen, and this discloses sufficient information about the hand so that it is impossible to play and score the board normally. Actually, once the Director leaves the table before announcing his ruling it is imperative that he delays this announcement until the play of the board is completed in order to avoid any impression by the players that he is giving away any unauthorized information about the hand in question. In the actual case: Error #1: The Director should have been summoned when a Law 25A situation arose. (This error is not that serious. When the situation appeared obvious to the players at the table I would have had no problem not being summoned). Error #2: If it after the board was played became evident that a Law 25A correction request had been granted on false premises the Director should have judged a likely result had this correction been denied and award an adjusted score accordingly. Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Sep 10 03:27:01 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:27:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 Message-ID: <450369E5.4040609@cfa.harvard.edu> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > However, as you attempt to lead the deuce of > spades, you unintentionally drop both the > queen of spades and the deuce of spades > simultaneously face up on the table. We had a very long thread on this subject perhaps three or four years ago. As already seen in the current thread, opinion was split but fiercely held on both sides. I'm slightly surprised there is no WBFLC minute on the subject by now -- or have I missed one? Richard's case has a new wrinkle in that defender's probable intention can be inferred from the bridge situation. In more common cases, the original intention can't be known without mind reading. My own opinion (FWIW) will come as no surprise to regular readers: read L58B2 literally -- 'proposes' is present tense, not past -- and dismiss any interpretation that requires mind reading. L10C1 may also be relevant. And "equity" proponents should be happy with the least penalty that preserves the rights of the NOS. (No villain will expect to gain by dropping two cards on the table.) Despite that, one can see how some people will take the opposite view. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 10 16:05:10 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:05:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <000101c6d3f6$59f82cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c6d3f6$59f82cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Also notice that Law 58B says: "If more than one card is visible, > the player > designates the card he _proposes_ to play", it does not require the > player > to disclose which (if any) of the exposed cards he _intended_ to play. > > The player is free to change his mind and the resulting penalty > card shall > be treated as a card exposed accidentrally. Precisely. From john at asimere.com Sun Sep 10 16:38:24 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:38:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 References: <000001c6d3e7$a9b252a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002301c6d4e6$c5aeed60$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 >> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt >> > (Intending to lead the S2 from SQ32, dropping the SQ and S2 together, >> > and choosing to play the SQ) > ............. >> > The S2 became exposed as the result of an inadvertent action; it was >> > not deliberately played in the sense of the other examples of major >> > penalty cards in L50B (lead out of turn or revoke retracted). >> > Consistent with the spirit of the Law, and the fact that the S2 had >> > not been played at the time of the infraction, I rule that the S2 is a >> > minor penalty card. >> >> No, not the exposure of the S2 was inadvertent, but >> the exposure of the SQ. Although Law 58 B2 allows a >> change of mind by selecting the card offender (now) >> proposes to play, law 50 B does not allow so. > > Read Law 50B again: > > A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in > playing two cards to a trick, or .....) becomes a minor penalty card. > > There is no question about which (if any) of the two exposed cards he > intended to play. He must select one of them (Law 58B2) and the other is > treated as an inadvertently exposed card. > > The S2 becomes a minor penalty card. We visit this one every now and then. For a while I went for the inadvertent, thus minor penalty card, but the card led was the S2 and the SQ was inadverntent, and I go the major PC route. I think that's what we're doing in the uk at the moment, but it could change back again. John > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Sep 10 16:47:30 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:47:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 References: <450369E5.4040609@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003a01c6d4e8$0b1b0860$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> However, as you attempt to lead the deuce of >> spades, you unintentionally drop both the >> queen of spades and the deuce of spades >> simultaneously face up on the table. > > We had a very long thread on this subject perhaps three or four years > ago. As already seen in the current thread, opinion was split but > fiercely held on both sides. I'm slightly surprised there is no WBFLC > minute on the subject by now -- or have I missed one? Max IIRC has come down in favour of Major pen card, but has grave doubts. He can stand minor pen card. The fundamental is whether the TD tries to establish intent - and perhaps he shouldn't. cheers John > > Richard's case has a new wrinkle in that defender's probable intention > can be inferred from the bridge situation. In more common cases, the > original intention can't be known without mind reading. > > My own opinion (FWIW) will come as no surprise to regular readers: read > L58B2 literally -- 'proposes' is present tense, not past -- and dismiss > any interpretation that requires mind reading. L10C1 may also be > relevant. And "equity" proponents should be happy with the least > penalty that preserves the rights of the NOS. (No villain will expect > to gain by dropping two cards on the table.) Despite that, one can see > how some people will take the opposite view. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 10 17:23:42 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:23:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <003a01c6d4e8$0b1b0860$0701a8c0@john> References: <450369E5.4040609@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c6d4e8$0b1b0860$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6311345F-4B46-49F3-9CDB-2259F7932140@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 10, 2006, at 10:47 AM, John Probst wrote: > Max IIRC has come down in favour of Major pen card, but has grave > doubts. > He can stand minor pen card. The fundamental is whether the TD > tries to > establish intent - and perhaps he shouldn't. Given that Law 58B says nothing about intent, I would call "perhaps" an underbid. Of course, you still may have a problem if the offender blurts out his intent. Thus, it seems to me intent is irrelevant, and should be ignored even if stated or if somebody or other thinks it's obvious. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 11 01:47:53 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:47:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01c6d4e8$0b1b0860$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>However, as you attempt to lead the deuce of >>>spades, you unintentionally drop both the queen >>>of spades and the deuce of spades simultaneously >>>face up on the table. Steve Willner: >>We had a very long thread on this subject perhaps >>three or four years ago. As already seen in the >>current thread, opinion was split but fiercely >>held on both sides. I'm slightly surprised there >>is no WBFLC minute on the subject by now -- or >>have I missed one? John (MadDog) Probst: >Max IIRC has come down in favour of Major pen >card, but has grave doubts. He can stand minor pen >card. The fundamental is whether the TD tries to >establish intent - and perhaps he shouldn't. Richard Hills: In my opinion, if the WBF LC deems that the _original_ intent of the defender should be relevant, then the WBF LC should amend Law 58B2 to read: "If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card that he originally intended to play (but if a defender originally intended to play a card not visible, then the defender freely chooses from amongst their visible cards); when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)." This would avoid the inconsistency of the EBU interpretation that a defender is deemed to have led a particular card, but still has the Law 58B2 right to change that led card to another card. Steve Willner: >>Richard's case has a new wrinkle in that >>defender's probable intention can be inferred from >>the bridge situation. In more common cases, the >>original intention can't be known without mind >>reading. Richard Hills: Not quite. Suppose my scenario has its facts slightly modified: "However, as you are Papa the Greek, who false- cards as a matter of habit, you attempt to lead the *three* of spades. As you attempt to do so, the trey of spades remains hidden in your hand, but you unintentionally drop both the queen of spades and the deuce of spades simultaneously face up on the table." In this case, both the EBU interpretation and the alternate interpretation lead to the same result - if the queen of spades is selected as the defensive lead, then the two of spades is a minor penalty card. Of course, if Papa the Greek was declarer, then it seems to me that Law 48A would over-ride Law 58B2, permitting Papa the declarer to withdraw both exposed cards and instead play his originally intended card of the three of spades. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 11 02:30:25 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:30:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Do you remember the 5th friday comps for the SS Finland trophy? Message-ID: <000501c6d539$79ac1250$0701a8c0@john> I was deleting old files and ran across this. I'd forgotten all about it. Poor hermY, he takes a lot of flak :) John Young Chelsea heat of ssf with sound effects 14 1/2 Tables, 12 Round 2-board Mitchell 2 rounds of arrow switch, 30 boards in play 15 NS phantom. EW Add 20 1) Dramatis personnae - "the usual suspects" Act 1, Scene 1, A smoky basement in Chelsea, London Enter A noisesome rabble preceded by Mahmoud, the Egyptian Mahmoud: "Take your places please, 2 board rounds" there is no reaction from the rabble Mahmoud: "TAKE YOUR PLACES NOW" still no action Mahmoud: "BUMS IN SEATS PLEASE" the players reluctantly sit down, the boards are distributed, the game starts five minutes late, the hubbub reaches a crescendo. Mahmoud: [purple with effort] "QUIET PLEASE" there is a mild diminution of the riot. Play starts Act 1, Scene 2, Board 1 2 Board 3 4 Board 5 6 1 21 5 -11 2 22 -5 -10 3 23 -45 -5 14 32 -40 -11 1 35 13 14 2 21 -45 -5 13 30 5 10 14 31 -10 14 1 34 -45 -10 12 28 10 15 13 29 -10 14 14 30 -42 11 11 26 5 10 12 27 15 62 13 28 5 17 10 24 5 0 11 25 13 17 12 26 -48 11 9 22 15 -11 10 23 13 -10 11 24 -48 -5 8 35 -42 5 9 21 13 -10 10 22 -45 11 7 33 5 -20 8 34 40 14 9 35 -45 11 31 6 10 5 32 7 18 14 33 8 -48 -10 29 5 -40 5 30 6 11 -10 31 7 45 50 Mahmoud: "Move please" complete catatonia Mahmoud: "MOVE PLEASE, EAST-WEST UP ONE, BOARDS DOWN ONE" sullen compliance, the noise is measured at the earthquake laboratory in Antwerpen, bending the needle on the machine Mahmoud: "TABLE 2, stop discussing the hand AND MOVE ... ... GO TO TABLE 3, NOT THE BAR. Put the Boards on Table 1, not the floor" Pair 22 shuffle to the next table complaining about terrorism. The curtain comes down and rises to reveal Act 1, Scene 3, a smoke churned atmosphere redolent of Beirut on a better day. [Actually Thursday is a no-smoking day, but I'm getting into this story] Board 7 8 Board 9 10 Board 11 12 4 24 14 10 5 25 9 63 6 26 -65 -46 3 22 -10 10 4 23 9 63 5 24 10 10 2 35 -10 5 3 21 -11 14 4 22 30 -43 1 33 12 -12 2 34 12 -10 3 35 -20 -43 14 29 -10 -11 1 32 -11 66 2 33 45 -14 13 27 62 -11 14 28 11 11 1 31 -65 -43 12 25 -10 5 13 26 28 66 14 27 -48 -43 11 23 -10 11 12 24 10 63 13 25 45 -46 10 21 -20 5 11 22 -11 66 12 23 -65 15 34 9 12 -14 35 10 -11 63 21 11 -65 -43 32 8 63 -14 33 9 -20 14 34 10 -45 -43 Mahmoud: [cowering in the Director's redoubt] "Move please" The noise increases Mahmoud: "We have a house rule that Boards dealt today are to be played today. [Veins standing out on head] MOVE PLEASE" mass exodus to bar Mahmoud: [Reasonably] "Please move and play" Players sit down for round 8 Chorus: "We've played these Boards" Mahmoud "SKIP A TABLE! Table 7 Put the hands away and SKIP" Chorus: "Terrorist". The machine in Antwerpen falls off its stand amputating the right hand of Eric the Viking. Wagner's 'Ride of the Valkerie' heard as background noise on the sub-space aether. Curtain falls: Pandemonium in the aisles. It rises to reveal Act 2, Scene 1. Mahmoud armed with a cattle-prod, strong smell of sulphur, Mephistopheles offering him a glowing tablet. Board 13 14 Board 15 16 Board 17 18 7 27 11 -11 8 28 66 13 9 29 5 -45 6 25 50 -5 7 26 -20 -11 8 27 10 -48 5 23 14 -8 6 24 66 80 7 25 15 -17 4 21 14 -14 5 22 63 30 6 23 10 -42 3 34 20 -8 4 35 66 20 5 21 5 -42 2 32 30 -14 3 33 66 20 4 34 -14 -48 1 30 -20 -11 2 31 -10 20 3 32 -14 -51 14 26 20 -17 1 29 66 43 2 30 5 -17 13 24 10 -11 14 25 -30 20 1 28 15 -42 22 12 10 -14 23 13 63 10 24 14 -20 -42 35 11 -20 20 21 12 50 10 22 13 5 -51 Mahmoud: "2 rounds to go, please arrow-switch" Chorus: "Terrorist" Mahmoud: [waving cattle prod] "MOVING PAIRS PLAY N/S" Aftershocks cause building damage in Antwerpen, HdW hit on head by collapsing tables at "The Squeeze". [Possibility of legal rulings in Belgium - watch this space]. Chorus of Niebelungen singing "We shall overcome" on sub-space aether. Mahmoud: "It's more interesting watching paint dry. MOVE!" ss Finland inundated by tidal wave, shock epicentre in West London. Mahmoud sprouting horns in forehead. The Acol Bridge Club reduced to rubble Act 2, Scene 2. A strange eerie silence Board 19 20 Board 21 22 Board 23 24 10 30 -5 11 11 31 71 10 12 32 15 10 9 28 20 11 10 29 -14 20 11 30 -10 -5 8 26 -5 9 9 27 -40 40 10 28 15 -5 7 24 42 -13 8 25 -42 80 9 26 12 5 6 22 14 9 7 23 60 -50 8 24 11 -10 5 35 10 18 6 21 13 -30 7 22 9 10 4 33 -5 -14 5 34 10 40 6 35 12 -10 3 31 42 -11 4 32 -17 -15 5 33 15 -10 2 29 -5 -10 3 30 -17 -30 4 31 18 -5 1 27 17 9 28 2 -30 110 3 29 18 -5 23 14 10 9 26 1 5 -5 27 2 12 -5 25 1 15 -15 Group of players sitting in sylvan glade under bright sunlight Stream splashing in background, pan-pipes heard chanting Mahmoud: [sporting full set of antlers] "Scores will be out in 5 minutes" Chorus: "Pint of warm flat sour beer please, Wendy" Board 25 26 Board 27 28 Board 29 30 13 33 15 65 14 34 42 ** 14 33 -65 80 ** unplayed 12 31 -5 68 13 32 46 -18 13 31 -65 -5 scores factored 11 29 40 63 12 30 40 11 12 29 -65 10 10 27 11 62 11 28 18 -10 11 27 -20 40 9 25 -5 62 10 26 46 -12 10 25 -62 15 8 23 40 66 9 24 46 -12 9 23 -62 -5 7 21 15 66 8 22 40 -15 8 21 -65 40 6 34 15 65 7 35 43 5 7 34 -62 18 5 32 40 63 6 33 40 10 6 32 -65 -15 4 30 -5 65 5 31 40 -12 30 5 -62 -5 28 3 -5 65 29 4 42 -12 28 4 -65 5 26 2 -5 65 27 3 17 5 The curtain falls at the end of Act 2. The bar is heaving. Gallons of warm flat sour beer being consumed. Mahmoud is breathing incantations over the 286 in the corner. A scrap of smoking parchment appears on the bar notice board. Handel's "Judas Maccabaeus" 'See how the conquering hero ...' Order is restored from chaos, just another night down at the YC. 1 Tim Kitely Jeffrey Mervis 344 65.25% 2 Niklas Sandqvist Janet de Botton 315 59.73% : From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 11 13:31:41 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:31:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] A day to remember Message-ID: <000101c6d595$db7ddca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> I had thought that as time goes by the impressions from five years ago would eventually have faded away. To some extent they have, but I must realize that they linger in my subconscious and present themselves whenever I am somehow reminded of those events. I still remember my first conscious thought as I slowly woke up in my hotel room in Washington DC on Wednesday 9/12: "This has not been just a bad dream, it did really happen". The rest of 9/11 is just chaotic, I do remember a lot of details, but when I try to put them together I am almost unable to get the time element to fit. What really had and still has great impact on my mood were all the impressions I received from being within the American society in the weeks to follow; a "we will not give in" attitude that I imagine can only be compared with the shocking experience from Pearl Harbor in 1941, combined with the sympathy for all the victims who died while doing their rescue jobs or just because they happened to be on the wrong place at the wrong time. For my own part I was very little "practically" disturbed by the events, still all the impressions remain in my mind and I realize they will probably remain there for the rest of my life. On this day all my thoughts go abroad in a mood of grief. Sven (in Norway) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Sep 11 19:36:43 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:36:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <000201c6b94c$8dbd3c00$56e8403e@Mildred> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@immi.gov.au><6.1.1.1.0.200607281 03436.02dad120@pop.starpower.net> <000201c6b94c$8dbd3c00$56e8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <45059EAB.2040300@meteo.fr> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "The true genius is a mind of large general > powers, accidentally determined to some > particular direction." > ~ Dr. Samuel Johnson. > ===================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:42 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest > card) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >>The problem -- I believe it was Herman who first >>articulated it in this forum -- is that if they choose to >>exercise that authority, they take on an obligation to >>define precisely what an "encrypted signal" >>is. "We can't define it, but you may not do it" just >>doesn't cut it. Unfortunately, that would appear to >>be exactly what some SOs have adopted as their >>stated policy. >> > > +=+ I do not consider this accurate. The SO's, > through their appointed officers on site - or through > those to whom reference is made beforehand, may > look at any proposed signalling method and decide > whether it intends to rely on a secondary key to > withhold from declarer access to the meaning of the > card played. 'Key' signifies a method of defining which > of alternative meanings is to be attributed. That method > is not the characteristic of the card but a secondary > circumstance, one that is obscured in principle from > the perception of the declarer. > Encryption is a question of principle and intent. If > the principle and intent is defined in the regulation, the > determination whether a particular method reflects that > principle and intent may follow within the announced > procedures for systems submission and acceptance. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > it doesn't appear wbf follows this broad interpretation of what is a "key". maybe they restrict it to the cryptography meaning: a secret parameter exchanged by correspondants prior to the moment they need to use it for a coding/uncoding process, and which they avoid to disclose to other people, that is to say: a concealed agreement. otherwise, what would they think of this lead method: low= even without honor or odd with honor higher possible= odd without honor or even with honor the intent is to keep declarer in the dark as often as possible while defenders can decode partner's holding. J102 A65 lho leads 3, J, Q, A Lho may have got 9743 as well as K9743. rho knows what happens in both cases, declarer knows lho led his lowest card but can't infer anything. i don't know the position of wbf about this lead system but it has been used for a long time by italian champions nunes-fantoni without any trouble. 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 at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 12 01:42:59 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:42:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted? (2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 EBL 2004 Appeal No. 10 Sweden v England Appeals Committee: Jean-Claude Beineix (Chairman, France), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), David Birman (Israel), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Steen M?ller (Denmark) Open Teams Round 24 Board 13. Dealer North. All Vulnerable. \ QJ965 \ QT9 \ 83 \ 932 KT3 \ A872 K76542 \ --- 9 \ QJT7 T85 \ AQJ76 4 \ AJ83 \ AK6542 \ K4 \ West North East South Townsend Lindkvist Gold Fredin --- Pass 1C 2H Pass Pass Dble Redble Pass (*)Pass Pass (*)2NT Dble 3D Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass Comments: 2H: 4H and 5+ minor intermediate, Redble showed a good hand (*) first and second version of the auction, after the Director ruled that the Pass could be changed Contract: Three Diamonds doubled, played by South Lead: C5 Result: 8 tricks, NS -200 The Facts: West's second Pass was not alerted, at neither side of the screen. When East also passed, North asked what West's pass meant, and he was told it was an indication that West would also have passed the Double (without a Redouble). North then called the Director, because he thought such a meaning ought to be alertable. The Director: Consulted among his colleagues and could not find out for sure whether or not the pass would be alertable. After some time the Director returned to the table, declared that the pass should have been alerted, and gave North the option of changing his call. North did so, and the second auction continued as shown. Ruling: Change of Call Allowed Relevant Laws: Law 21B1, 21B2 East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The Players: West clarified that he had not alerted his Pass, and neither had his partner. South had asked him about the pass, and he had replied "business". West considered a Pass that had the meaning of "I want to play here" as being the most natural meaning possible, and should therefore not be alerted. West stated that North, who is an expert player, could always have asked about the meaning of the Pass. North stated that he had not wanted to ask about the meaning of the Pass, so as not to give away anything. He relied on it not being alerted and called the Director when the Pass turned out to have the meaning he considered alertable. South explained that he had sat there, together with West, for 15 minutes, not knowing what was going on at the other side of the screen. North/South said that they too play penalty passes in this position, but that they alert them. The Captain of North/South summed up that there seem to be 2 schools concerning this pass, but that if this meaning is considered non-alertable, then all normal passes suddenly become alertable. The Committee: First of all checked whether the appeal had any reason of taking place at all. The alternate contract of 2Hxx goes (at least) one down, so East/West are asking for a score of -400. Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were met for North being allowed to change his call. The "change of explanation" should be surprising and affect the decision made by the player. These conditions are indeed met. The Committee considered whether North should be allowed this "double shot". By passing, North has two chances: East might bid, and if he does not, there is still the option of calling the Tournament Director. But the Committee felt that it should not blame North for relying on the non-alert and the meaning that this suggested to him. So the question remained whether or not there had been a "misexplanation" in the form of a missing alert. Is this Pass alertable? First of all, West's argument that it is a natural meaning is irrelevant. There are many instances of "natural" meanings that are alertable because the artificial meaning is much more "normal" (like a 2C Stayman). The Committee read the relevant part of the regulation: (C2) The EBL "Alerting Policy" applies. Any call which (i) has a special or artificial meaning, or (ii) which has a partnership meaning that may not be understood by the opponents, is a call that must be brought to the immediate attention of the opponents through the use of the "alert procedure". The Committee asked the Director to join them again and tell the Committee what the Directors had thought about the matter. It turned out that opinions among the Directors had been divided. Within the Committee as well, opinions were divided as to whether this Pass should be alerted. Some members would have alerted it, some would not. In the end the Committee decided that since there was no clear indication that the Director had taken the wrong decision, his ruling should stand. The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 03:09:55 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:09:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:42 PM Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted? (2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 EBL 2004 Appeal No. 10 Sweden v England Appeals Committee: Jean-Claude Beineix (Chairman, France), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), David Birman (Israel), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Steen M?ller (Denmark) Open Teams Round 24 Board 13. Dealer North. All Vulnerable. \ QJ965 \ QT9 \ 83 \ 932 KT3 \ A872 K76542 \ --- 9 \ QJT7 T85 \ AQJ76 4 \ AJ83 \ AK6542 \ K4 \ West North East South Townsend Lindkvist Gold Fredin --- Pass 1C 2H Pass Pass Dble Redble Pass (*)Pass Pass (*)2NT Dble 3D Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass Comments: 2H: 4H and 5+ minor intermediate, Redble showed a good hand (*) first and second version of the auction, after the Director ruled that the Pass could be changed Contract: Three Diamonds doubled, played by South Lead: C5 Result: 8 tricks, NS -200 The Facts: West's second Pass was not alerted, at neither side of the screen. When East also passed, North asked what West's pass meant, and he was told it was an indication that West would also have passed the Double (without a Redouble). North then called the Director, because he thought such a meaning ought to be alertable. The Director: Consulted among his colleagues and could not find out for sure whether or not the pass would be alertable. After some time the Director returned to the table, declared that the pass should have been alerted, and gave North the option of changing his call. North did so, and the second auction continued as shown. Ruling: Change of Call Allowed Relevant Laws: Law 21B1, 21B2 East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The Players: West clarified that he had not alerted his Pass, and neither had his partner. South had asked him about the pass, and he had replied "business". West considered a Pass that had the meaning of "I want to play here" as being the most natural meaning possible, and should therefore not be alerted. West stated that North, who is an expert player, could always have asked about the meaning of the Pass. North stated that he had not wanted to ask about the meaning of the Pass, so as not to give away anything. He relied on it not being alerted and called the Director when the Pass turned out to have the meaning he considered alertable. South explained that he had sat there, together with West, for 15 minutes, not knowing what was going on at the other side of the screen. North/South said that they too play penalty passes in this position, but that they alert them. The Captain of North/South summed up that there seem to be 2 schools concerning this pass, but that if this meaning is considered non-alertable, then all normal passes suddenly become alertable. The Committee: First of all checked whether the appeal had any reason of taking place at all. The alternate contract of 2Hxx goes (at least) one down, so East/West are asking for a score of -400. Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were met for North being allowed to change his call. I wonder if this question was answered correctly? If I am not mistaken. a player is permitted to ask a question at his turn to call; also, once the auction ending pass has occurred, declarer [as distinguished from dummy to be] may ask. As such, N would not be able to raise any question until after the hand, with the consequnce that it would be too late to change a call. regards roger pewick The "change of explanation" should be surprising and affect the decision made by the player. These conditions are indeed met. The Committee considered whether North should be allowed this "double shot". By passing, North has two chances: East might bid, and if he does not, there is still the option of calling the Tournament Director. But the Committee felt that it should not blame North for relying on the non-alert and the meaning that this suggested to him. So the question remained whether or not there had been a "misexplanation" in the form of a missing alert. Is this Pass alertable? First of all, West's argument that it is a natural meaning is irrelevant. There are many instances of "natural" meanings that are alertable because the artificial meaning is much more "normal" (like a 2C Stayman). The Committee read the relevant part of the regulation: (C2) The EBL "Alerting Policy" applies. Any call which (i) has a special or artificial meaning, or (ii) which has a partnership meaning that may not be understood by the opponents, is a call that must be brought to the immediate attention of the opponents through the use of the "alert procedure". The Committee asked the Director to join them again and tell the Committee what the Directors had thought about the matter. It turned out that opinions among the Directors had been divided. Within the Committee as well, opinions were divided as to whether this Pass should be alerted. Some members would have alerted it, some would not. In the end the Committee decided that since there was no clear indication that the Director had taken the wrong decision, his ruling should stand. The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 12 05:57:13 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:57:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know Message-ID: <002301c6d61f$88d5c8c0$6400a8c0@rota> We have had previous discussions on BLML about which Laws players actually need to know. They need to know the basic rules of the game, the Proprieties, and fundamental principles such as what to do about UI and that the Director should be called when anything goes wrong. They don't need to know the penalty for an opening bid out of turn or a conventional insufficient bid, since the Director will make sure that the proper penalty is enforced. However, I encountered a new situation in which the player does need to know the penalty: the revoke, because the penalty is imposed only later. I was West, dummy (North) led a diamond, East (who was out) played a hearts, and South revoked by playing a heart. I won the trick, and South established the revoke by leading (out of turn) to the next trick, thinking he had won the trick. We called the (playing) Director, who told us to play on, leave the cards out, and the penalty would be imposed at the end. She didn't mention the penalty at that time. I cashed several tricks, and then I was left with a low heart and a low diamond. North had a high heart and a high spade, and South had a high diamond and a high club. If I led a heart, North would get two tricks, and the revoke penalty would be one trick. If I led a diamond, South would win the trick with a card he could have played on the revoke trick, and the revoke penalty would be two tricks. By knowing the Laws, I gained an extra trick. From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 12 06:55:17 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:55:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6d627$a451a300$6400a8c0@WINXP> I am puzzled. Can we assume that East/West use some kind of negative doubles? Would a Double from West as his first call have shown 4 spades? Should not in such cases the _first_ pass from West be alerted? ("It can show interest for a penalty double of the 2H bid"). The consequence of the Director's and AC's rulings must IMO be (if we shall be consistent) that also all passes in response to takeout doubles must be alerted, is anybody practicing that? Example: 1H - Dble - Pass - Pass(*) (*)is this Pass alertable? Not in my book. Regards Sven > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: 12. september 2006 01:43 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > (1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted? > > (2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many > players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > EBL 2004 Appeal No. 10 > Sweden v England > > Appeals Committee: Jean-Claude Beineix (Chairman, France), Herman > De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), David Birman (Israel), Jean-Paul Meyer > (France), Steen M?ller (Denmark) > > Open Teams Round 24 Board 13. > Dealer North. All Vulnerable. > > \ QJ965 > \ QT9 > \ 83 > \ 932 > KT3 \ A872 > K76542 \ --- > 9 \ QJT7 > T85 \ AQJ76 > 4 \ > AJ83 \ > AK6542 \ > K4 \ > > West North East South > Townsend Lindkvist Gold Fredin > --- Pass 1C 2H > Pass Pass Dble Redble > Pass (*)Pass Pass > (*)2NT Dble 3D > Pass Pass Dble Pass > Pass Pass > > Comments: > 2H: 4H and 5+ minor intermediate, Redble showed a good hand > (*) first and second version of the auction, after the Director > ruled that the Pass could be changed > > Contract: Three Diamonds doubled, played by South > > Lead: C5 > > Result: 8 tricks, NS -200 > > The Facts: > West's second Pass was not alerted, at neither side of the > screen. > When East also passed, North asked what West's pass meant, and > he was told it was an indication that West would also have > passed the Double (without a Redouble). North then called the > Director, because he thought such a meaning ought to be > alertable. > > The Director: > Consulted among his colleagues and could not find out for sure > whether or not the pass would be alertable. After some time the > Director returned to the table, declared that the pass should > have been alerted, and gave North the option of changing his > call. North did so, and the second auction continued as shown. > > Ruling: Change of Call Allowed > > Relevant Laws: Law 21B1, 21B2 > > East/West appealed. > > Present: All players and both Captains > > The Players: > West clarified that he had not alerted his Pass, and neither > had his partner. South had asked him about the pass, and he had > replied "business". West considered a Pass that had the meaning > of "I want to play here" as being the most natural meaning > possible, and should therefore not be alerted. West stated that > North, who is an expert player, could always have asked about > the meaning of the Pass. > North stated that he had not wanted to ask about the meaning of > the Pass, so as not to give away anything. He relied on it not > being alerted and called the Director when the Pass turned out > to have the meaning he considered alertable. > South explained that he had sat there, together with West, for > 15 minutes, not knowing what was going on at the other side of > the screen. > North/South said that they too play penalty passes in this > position, but that they alert them. > The Captain of North/South summed up that there seem to be 2 > schools concerning this pass, but that if this meaning is > considered non-alertable, then all normal passes suddenly > become alertable. > > The Committee: > First of all checked whether the appeal had any reason of > taking place at all. The alternate contract of 2Hxx goes (at > least) one down, so East/West are asking for a score of -400. > Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were > met for North being allowed to change his call. The "change of > explanation" should be surprising and affect the decision made > by the player. These conditions are indeed met. > The Committee considered whether North should be allowed this > "double shot". By passing, North has two chances: East might > bid, and if he does not, there is still the option of calling > the Tournament Director. But the Committee felt that it should > not blame North for relying on the non-alert and the meaning > that this suggested to him. > So the question remained whether or not there had been a > "misexplanation" in the form of a missing alert. Is this Pass > alertable? > First of all, West's argument that it is a natural meaning is > irrelevant. There are many instances of "natural" meanings that > are alertable because the artificial meaning is much more > "normal" (like a 2C Stayman). > The Committee read the relevant part of the regulation: (C2) > The EBL "Alerting Policy" applies. Any call which > (i) has a special or artificial meaning, or > (ii) which has a partnership meaning that may not be > understood by the opponents, is a call that must be brought > to the immediate attention of the opponents through the use > of the "alert procedure". > The Committee asked the Director to join them again and tell > the Committee what the Directors had thought about the matter. > It turned out that opinions among the Directors had been > divided. > Within the Committee as well, opinions were divided as to > whether this Pass should be alerted. Some members would have > alerted it, some would not. > In the end the Committee decided that since there was no clear > indication that the Director had taken the wrong decision, his > ruling should stand. > > The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. > > Deposit: Returned > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 12 07:59:58 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:59:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c6d627$a451a300$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >I am puzzled. Can we assume that East/West use some kind of negative >doubles? Would a Double from West as his first call have shown 4 spades? >Should not in such cases the _first_ pass from West be alerted? ("It can >show interest for a penalty double of the 2H bid"). Richard Hills: Although a negative double is a convention, it seems to me that a trap pass is not a convention, since a trap pass shows "willingness to play ..... in the last denomination named" (see the Chapter 1 Definitions). Unless, of course, you rule that a trap pass is a convention because what willingness it actually shows is willingness to play in the last denomination named only if that last denomination is subsequently doubled by partner. If a trap pass is not a convention, then a trap pass need not be alerted as an unusual natural call, since negative double agreements are now much more generally in use than the old-fashioned (but effective) agreements to play penalty doubles of overcalls. Sven Pran: >The consequence of the Director's and AC's rulings must IMO be (if we >shall be consistent) that also all passes in response to takeout doubles >must be alerted, is anybody practicing that? > >Example: >1H - Dble - Pass - Pass(*) (*)is this Pass alertable? Not in my book. Richard Hills: Wrong example. Try this one: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Cummings Seres 1H X XX Pass(1) Pass Pass (1) Shows a penalty pass of hearts, not alerted. About four decades ago, the world-class Australian partnership of Seres- Cummings gained a big number in an international championship when South's pass was not alerted. East-West complained that the almost universal meaning of South's pass was that it showed equal preference between the unbid suits and was forcing on North to bid their longest suit. At that time Seres-Cummings won the appeal on the grounds that it was not necessary to alert a natural call. Alert regulations are more sophisticated nowadays, as they now require the alerting of natural calls with unexpected meanings. Of course, for the 2004 case the penalty meaning of the second pass is somewhat more expected since the first pass by general bridge knowledge could be a trap pass awaiting an reopening double. The famous American partnership of Berkowitz - Cohen lost a World Pairs championship because that had an illogical agreement that a possible trap pass of a partscore transmogrified into a forcing pass once an opponent redoubled to show strength. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 12 08:41:01 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:41:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c6d636$69faa5d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >I am puzzled. Can we assume that East/West use some kind of negative > >doubles? Would a Double from West as his first call have shown 4 spades? > >Should not in such cases the _first_ pass from West be alerted? ("It can > >show interest for a penalty double of the 2H bid"). > > Richard Hills: > > Although a negative double is a convention, it seems to me that a trap > pass is not a convention, since a trap pass shows "willingness to play > ..... in the last denomination named" (see the Chapter 1 Definitions). > > Unless, of course, you rule that a trap pass is a convention because what > willingness it actually shows is willingness to play in the last > denomination named only if that last denomination is subsequently doubled > by partner. > > If a trap pass is not a convention, then a trap pass need not be alerted > as an unusual natural call, since negative double agreements are now much > more generally in use than the old-fashioned (but effective) agreements > to play penalty doubles of overcalls. It can be a matter of discussion whether or not the trap pass itself is a convention, but it cannot be any discussion that if the partnership uses negative or hi-lo doubles then that pass is basically ambiguous: It shows either no relevant values or willingness to play the last denomination doubled. If partner from his own cards finds that the latter alternative is likely (for instance if he is void in the denomination) he will double, otherwise he will pass or bid something else. Therefore I consider the trap pass to be part of the convention "negative double" and thus alertable. Regards Sven > Sven Pran: > > >The consequence of the Director's and AC's rulings must IMO be (if we > >shall be consistent) that also all passes in response to takeout doubles > >must be alerted, is anybody practicing that? > > > >Example: > >1H - Dble - Pass - Pass(*) (*)is this Pass alertable? Not in my book. > > Richard Hills: > > Wrong example. Try this one: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Cummings Seres > 1H X XX Pass(1) > Pass Pass > > (1) Shows a penalty pass of hearts, not alerted. > > About four decades ago, the world-class Australian partnership of Seres- > Cummings gained a big number in an international championship when > South's pass was not alerted. East-West complained that the almost > universal meaning of South's pass was that it showed equal preference > between the unbid suits and was forcing on North to bid their longest > suit. At that time Seres-Cummings won the appeal on the grounds that it > was not necessary to alert a natural call. > > Alert regulations are more sophisticated nowadays, as they now require > the alerting of natural calls with unexpected meanings. > > Of course, for the 2004 case the penalty meaning of the second pass is > somewhat more expected since the first pass by general bridge knowledge > could be a trap pass awaiting an reopening double. > > The famous American partnership of Berkowitz - Cohen lost a World Pairs > championship because that had an illogical agreement that a possible > trap pass of a partscore transmogrified into a forcing pass once an > opponent redoubled to show strength. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 12 08:58:08 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:58:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Committee: >>>Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were >>>met for North being allowed to change his call. Roger Pewick: >>I wonder if this question was answered correctly? >> >>If I am not mistaken. a player is permitted to ask a question >>at his turn to call; also, once the auction ending pass has >>occurred, declarer [as distinguished from dummy to be] may >>ask. >> >>As such, N would not be able to raise any question until after >>the hand, with the consequence that it would be too late to >>change a call. Law 80E: >A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws >has the following duties and powers: > >to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as >written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions >for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended). Richard Hills: All screen regulations suspend the penalty for the action of a player asking a question of their screen-mate when it is not that player's turn to call. But Roger raises an interesting question. If the deal had been played without screens, then two infractions would have occurred. As well as the misinformation infraction by East it seems that the presumed dummy, North, has infracted Law 41B by asking a question How should the Director rule in this hypothetical non-screen case with two offending sides? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 09:28:46 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:28:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know In-Reply-To: <002301c6d61f$88d5c8c0$6400a8c0@rota> References: <002301c6d61f$88d5c8c0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: On 12/09/06, David Grabiner wrote: > > We have had previous discussions on BLML about which Laws players actually > need to know. They need to know the basic rules of the game, the > Proprieties, and fundamental principles such as what to do about UI and > that > the Director should be called when anything goes wrong. They don't need > to > know the penalty for an opening bid out of turn or a conventional > insufficient bid, since the Director will make sure that the proper > penalty > is enforced. > > However, I encountered a new situation in which the player does need to > know > the penalty: the revoke, because the penalty is imposed only later. > > I was West, dummy (North) led a diamond, East (who was out) played a > hearts, > and South revoked by playing a heart. I won the trick, and South > established the revoke by leading (out of turn) to the next trick, > thinking > he had won the trick. We called the (playing) Director, who told us to > play > on, leave the cards out, and the penalty would be imposed at the end. She > didn't mention the penalty at that time. > > I cashed several tricks, and then I was left with a low heart and a low > diamond. North had a high heart and a high spade, and South had a high > diamond and a high club. If I led a heart, North would get two tricks, > and > the revoke penalty would be one trick. If I led a diamond, South would > win > the trick with a card he could have played on the revoke trick, and the > revoke penalty would be two tricks. By knowing the Laws, I gained an > extra > trick. When I'm called as a TD in cases like this, I always inform the players of how a revoke will be penalized after play, including the difference between a one and two trick penalty, depending on whether the revoker later win or doesn't win a trick with a card in the suit led to the revoke trick. Not doing so would be an error on my part. The consequence being that a later law 82C ruling might apply, leading to a split score. Regards, Harald _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060912/7fdb7318/attachment.htm From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Sep 12 09:53:13 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:53:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45066769.2000504@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > (1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted? it depends > > (2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many > players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way? it depends > i am puzzled by this notion of "alertable call". so often it leads to misunderstandings and lawyerings. how simple however it is to disclose meanings of calls that are a consequence of a partnership agreement or experience and could be mistaken by opponents. as long as EW have previously discussed this situation, they should of course alert west's pass as NS might otherwise think it is neutral or undiscussed, as for many other pairs. they should also alert if west had made a bid in place of his second turn pass because of the infernce. what surprises me the most is the division of opinions among directors and comitee and the return of deposit. anybody for a campaign of "helpful alerting"? jpr > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > EBL 2004 Appeal No. 10 > Sweden v England > > Appeals Committee: Jean-Claude Beineix (Chairman, France), Herman > De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), David Birman (Israel), Jean-Paul Meyer > (France), Steen M?ller (Denmark) > > Open Teams Round 24 Board 13. > Dealer North. All Vulnerable. > > \ QJ965 > \ QT9 > \ 83 > \ 932 > KT3 \ A872 > K76542 \ --- > 9 \ QJT7 > T85 \ AQJ76 > 4 \ > AJ83 \ > AK6542 \ > K4 \ > > West North East South > Townsend Lindkvist Gold Fredin > --- Pass 1C 2H > Pass Pass Dble Redble > Pass (*)Pass Pass > (*)2NT Dble 3D > Pass Pass Dble Pass > Pass Pass > > Comments: > 2H: 4H and 5+ minor intermediate, Redble showed a good hand > (*) first and second version of the auction, after the Director > ruled that the Pass could be changed > > Contract: Three Diamonds doubled, played by South > > Lead: C5 > > Result: 8 tricks, NS -200 > > The Facts: > West's second Pass was not alerted, at neither side of the > screen. > When East also passed, North asked what West's pass meant, and > he was told it was an indication that West would also have > passed the Double (without a Redouble). North then called the > Director, because he thought such a meaning ought to be > alertable. > > The Director: > Consulted among his colleagues and could not find out for sure > whether or not the pass would be alertable. After some time the > Director returned to the table, declared that the pass should > have been alerted, and gave North the option of changing his > call. North did so, and the second auction continued as shown. > > Ruling: Change of Call Allowed > > Relevant Laws: Law 21B1, 21B2 > > East/West appealed. > > Present: All players and both Captains > > The Players: > West clarified that he had not alerted his Pass, and neither > had his partner. South had asked him about the pass, and he had > replied "business". West considered a Pass that had the meaning > of "I want to play here" as being the most natural meaning > possible, and should therefore not be alerted. West stated that > North, who is an expert player, could always have asked about > the meaning of the Pass. > North stated that he had not wanted to ask about the meaning of > the Pass, so as not to give away anything. He relied on it not > being alerted and called the Director when the Pass turned out > to have the meaning he considered alertable. > South explained that he had sat there, together with West, for > 15 minutes, not knowing what was going on at the other side of > the screen. > North/South said that they too play penalty passes in this > position, but that they alert them. > The Captain of North/South summed up that there seem to be 2 > schools concerning this pass, but that if this meaning is > considered non-alertable, then all normal passes suddenly > become alertable. > > The Committee: > First of all checked whether the appeal had any reason of > taking place at all. The alternate contract of 2Hxx goes (at > least) one down, so East/West are asking for a score of -400. > Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were > met for North being allowed to change his call. The "change of > explanation" should be surprising and affect the decision made > by the player. These conditions are indeed met. > The Committee considered whether North should be allowed this > "double shot". By passing, North has two chances: East might > bid, and if he does not, there is still the option of calling > the Tournament Director. But the Committee felt that it should > not blame North for relying on the non-alert and the meaning > that this suggested to him. > So the question remained whether or not there had been a > "misexplanation" in the form of a missing alert. Is this Pass > alertable? > First of all, West's argument that it is a natural meaning is > irrelevant. There are many instances of "natural" meanings that > are alertable because the artificial meaning is much more > "normal" (like a 2C Stayman). > The Committee read the relevant part of the regulation: (C2) > The EBL "Alerting Policy" applies. Any call which > (i) has a special or artificial meaning, or > (ii) which has a partnership meaning that may not be > understood by the opponents, is a call that must be brought > to the immediate attention of the opponents through the use > of the "alert procedure". > The Committee asked the Director to join them again and tell > the Committee what the Directors had thought about the matter. > It turned out that opinions among the Directors had been > divided. > Within the Committee as well, opinions were divided as to > whether this Pass should be alerted. Some members would have > alerted it, some would not. > In the end the Committee decided that since there was no clear > indication that the Director had taken the wrong decision, his > ruling should stand. > > The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. > > Deposit: Returned -- _______________________________________________ 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 at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 12 10:01:41 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:01:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060912095614.027c0c90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:42 12/09/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >(1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted? > >(2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many >players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way? Answer to (2) is : yes, even if you scratch out ' and illogical'. FWIW, 'illogical way' is hard to define. A natural 2C opening (eg Blue Team) is alertable. A penalty double of a weak 2-bid (which is 'natural' according to the definition, and quite logical when you see modern weak 2's) is alertable (in countries where *some* doubles are). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 12 10:05:11 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:05:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c6d627$a451a300$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060912100230.027c8b00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:55 12/09/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >I am puzzled. Can we assume that East/West use some kind of negative >doubles? Would a Double from West as his first call have shown 4 spades? >Should not in such cases the _first_ pass from West be alerted? ("It can >show interest for a penalty double of the 2H bid"). > >The consequence of the Director's and AC's rulings must IMO be (if we shall >be consistent) that also all passes in response to takeout doubles must be >alerted, is anybody practicing that? Perhaps West's pass should have been alerted, if forcing partner to double. Apart from that, the fact that West's pass aims at penalties is obvious bridge logic, hence unalertable. I do agree with Sven's puzzlement. A good question, however, is : 1C X XX pass is this pass alertable, if meaning "I want to play in 1C XX" ? Best regards, Alain From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Tue Sep 12 12:37:44 2006 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:37:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know In-Reply-To: <002301c6d61f$88d5c8c0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: Thats just plain bad directing. Though the td was playing at same time, and it may act as an excuse, it is essential that the TD explains all options and consequences when giving some ruling / info at the table, and not leave the table before all options and consequences are extinct... In this case, something like: "Did you win the revoke trick? No, clearly. If you win any trick after the revoke we transfer one trick, but if you win a trick with a diamond and some more trick after the revoke we transfer two tricks. We may transfer more if this is not enough compensation to the opponents" wopuld do the job reasonably enough Rui Marques -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:57 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know We have had previous discussions on BLML about which Laws players actually need to know. They need to know the basic rules of the game, the Proprieties, and fundamental principles such as what to do about UI and that the Director should be called when anything goes wrong. They don't need to know the penalty for an opening bid out of turn or a conventional insufficient bid, since the Director will make sure that the proper penalty is enforced. However, I encountered a new situation in which the player does need to know the penalty: the revoke, because the penalty is imposed only later. I was West, dummy (North) led a diamond, East (who was out) played a hearts, and South revoked by playing a heart. I won the trick, and South established the revoke by leading (out of turn) to the next trick, thinking he had won the trick. We called the (playing) Director, who told us to play on, leave the cards out, and the penalty would be imposed at the end. She didn't mention the penalty at that time. I cashed several tricks, and then I was left with a low heart and a low diamond. North had a high heart and a high spade, and South had a high diamond and a high club. If I led a heart, North would get two tricks, and the revoke penalty would be one trick. If I led a diamond, South would win the trick with a card he could have played on the revoke trick, and the revoke penalty would be two tricks. By knowing the Laws, I gained an extra trick. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 12 14:40:54 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:40:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > The Committee: > >>>>Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were >>>>met for North being allowed to change his call. > > Roger Pewick: > >>>I wonder if this question was answered correctly? >>> >>>If I am not mistaken. a player is permitted to ask a question >>>at his turn to call; also, once the auction ending pass has >>>occurred, declarer [as distinguished from dummy to be] may >>>ask. >>> >>>As such, N would not be able to raise any question until after >>>the hand, with the consequence that it would be too late to >>>change a call. > > Law 80E: > >>A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws >>has the following duties and powers: >> >>to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as >>written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions >>for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended). > > Richard Hills: > > All screen regulations suspend the penalty for the action of a > player asking a question of their screen-mate when it is not > that player's turn to call. > > But Roger raises an interesting question. If the deal had been > played without screens, then two infractions would have > occurred. As well as the misinformation infraction by East it > seems that the presumed dummy, North, has infracted Law 41B by > asking a question > > How should the Director rule in this hypothetical non-screen > case with two offending sides? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 Perhaps I am further mistaken but is not the CoC that penalties for infractions not transmitted beyond the screen are suspended? The point is that N committed an infraction with the intention of gaining by it, and henceforth sought and did gain by that infraction. regards roger pewick From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 12 17:57:19 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:57:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know References: <002301c6d61f$88d5c8c0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <001601c6d684$221d23c0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Grabiner" > We have had previous discussions on BLML about which Laws players actually > need to know. They need to know the basic rules of the game, the > Proprieties, and fundamental principles such as what to do about UI and that > the Director should be called when anything goes wrong. They don't need to > know the penalty for an opening bid out of turn or a conventional > insufficient bid, since the Director will make sure that the proper penalty > is enforced. > > However, I encountered a new situation in which the player does need to know > the penalty: the revoke, because the penalty is imposed only later. > > I was West, dummy (North) led a diamond, East (who was out) played a hearts, > and South revoked by playing a heart. I won the trick, and South > established the revoke by leading (out of turn) to the next trick, thinking > he had won the trick. We called the (playing) Director, who told us to play > on, leave the cards out, and the penalty would be imposed at the end. She > didn't mention the penalty at that time. > > I cashed several tricks, and then I was left with a low heart and a low > diamond. North had a high heart and a high spade, and South had a high > diamond and a high club. If I led a heart, North would get two tricks, and > the revoke penalty would be one trick. If I led a diamond, South would win > the trick with a card he could have played on the revoke trick, and the > revoke penalty would be two tricks. By knowing the Laws, I gained an extra > trick. > But the TD should have explained the revoke consequences thoroughly instead of saying "play on." Then your first paragraph would be correct. Not only revoke consequences, but those of UI also. I guess if TDs don't do their job players do have to known some of the penalty provisions of the Laws. Nevertheless, a version of the Laws for novices, with no penalty provisions, written in simple English, would perhaps encourage them to play the game according to the rules. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 13 01:14:39 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:14:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060912095614.027c0c90@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >A natural 2C opening (eg Blue Team) is alertable. Richard Hills: Yes and no. In ideal alert system, common and general calls (such as an artificial and strong 2C opening bid) should not be alerted, and uncommon and special calls (such as a natural 2C opening bid) should be alerted. Australia, however, has a compromise alert system. The ABF primarily requires all conventional bids at or below the level of 3NT to be alerted, and only secondarily requires uncommon and special bids to be alerted. Since in Australia the common and general call of an artificial and strong 2C opening bid is always alerted, I do _not_ alert our uncommon and special natural 2C opening bid. Because of the unexpected non-alert of 2C, my opponents are woken up to the fact that it has an uncommon and special meaning of being a natural call. On the other hand, if _all_ 2C opening bids were alerted (either because they were conventional, or because they were abnormally non-conventional), then the rationale of any alert system - to wake up opponents to the fact that a call differs from the general norm - would be nullified. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 13 01:27:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:27:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c6d636$69faa5d0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >that pass is basically ambiguous: It shows >either no relevant values or willingness to >play the last denomination doubled. [snip] >Therefore I consider the trap pass to be part >of the convention "negative double" and thus >alertable. Richard Hills: In both cases the pass shows willingness to defend against the last denomination named. And the Chapter 1 definition of "convention" states: "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." So in Australia such a two-way pass is defined as non-conventional, therefore is not alerted. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Sep 13 03:37:14 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:37:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know Message-ID: <450760CA.3050006@NTLworld.com> David Grabiner wrote: > We have had previous discussions on BLML about which Laws players > actually need to know. They need to know the basic rules of the game, > the Proprieties, and fundamental principles such as what to do about > UI and that the Director should be called when anything goes wrong. > They don't need to know the penalty for an opening bid out of turn or > a conventional insufficient bid, since the Director will make sure > that the proper penalty is enforced. > > However, I encountered a new situation in which the player does need > to know the penalty: the revoke, because the penalty is imposed only > later. > [nige1] IMO players need know and understand Bridge rules better than direcotors. Luckily many do. Players must rely on memory. Directors can (should) consult the law book. Take David's examples: (when an opponent's bid is insufficient or out of turn). The legally naive player waits for the director to arrive to inform him of his options and then often chooses an inferior option because he has to make a complex real-time decision. The secretary bird considers his options while waiting for the director. He can rule out inferior options quickly. Suppose aplayer is unsure whether his "mechanical mistake" is a slip of the mind or a slip of the hand? How often have you heard a secretary bird admit to a slip of the mind? :) Directors sometimes rule wrongly. For example, in a national tournament, a director ruled "declarer cannot revoke"! :) In more subtle cases, director mistakes are more frequent. Read any random BLM:L thread to confirm this. Thus, in-depth knowledge of the rules is vital for any serious player. Whereas directors need only an up-to-date law-book. Unecessary incompete fragmented unclear sophisticated and subjective laws make the directors life more interesting but increase the burden on players. From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 13 04:14:43 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 03:14:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know References: <002301c6d61f$88d5c8c0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <001a01c6d6da$605c8ad0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Grabiner" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:57 AM Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know > We have had previous discussions on BLML about which Laws players actually > need to know. They need to know the basic rules of the game, the > Proprieties, and fundamental principles such as what to do about UI and > that > the Director should be called when anything goes wrong. They don't need > to > know the penalty for an opening bid out of turn or a conventional > insufficient bid, since the Director will make sure that the proper > penalty > is enforced. If you're called in the middle of the hand you are required to explain that it is in revoker's best interest not to win a trick in the suit, and opponents interest to make them do so. Dress it up as you like; the TD was incompetent. John > > However, I encountered a new situation in which the player does need to > know > the penalty: the revoke, because the penalty is imposed only later. > > I was West, dummy (North) led a diamond, East (who was out) played a > hearts, > and South revoked by playing a heart. I won the trick, and South > established the revoke by leading (out of turn) to the next trick, > thinking > he had won the trick. We called the (playing) Director, who told us to > play > on, leave the cards out, and the penalty would be imposed at the end. She > didn't mention the penalty at that time. > > I cashed several tricks, and then I was left with a low heart and a low > diamond. North had a high heart and a high spade, and South had a high > diamond and a high club. If I led a heart, North would get two tricks, > and > the revoke penalty would be one trick. If I led a diamond, South would > win > the trick with a card he could have played on the revoke trick, and the > revoke penalty would be two tricks. By knowing the Laws, I gained an > extra > trick. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 13 02:25:14 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:25:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another Law that players need to know References: <002301c6d61f$88d5c8c0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <008401c6d6cb$164602f0$6400a8c0@rota> While Harald and several other people have made the point that the Director should have told us about the revoke penalty when I called her, it is still necessary for players to know about the penalty, because many revokes are not confirmed until after the hand. On the hand in question, the Director had to be called as soon as the revoke became established, because South tried to lead out of turn to the next trick. But on many other hands, nobody calls the director about a suspected revoke in mid-deal. It is also important for players to be able to claim that a revoke actually cost three tricks; the TD should always mention this possibility, but rarely does, and it almost never matters. Another reason for players to know this rule is to know what the rule *doesn't* say. I have twice had opponents revoke when ruffing with the high trump, and they weren't happy to lose a trick that they could not have lost; one even said that he thought there was an exception. ----- Original Message ----- From: Harald Skj?ran To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another Law that players need to know On 12/09/06, David Grabiner wrote: We have had previous discussions on BLML about which Laws players actually need to know. They need to know the basic rules of the game, the Proprieties, and fundamental principles such as what to do about UI and that the Director should be called when anything goes wrong. They don't need to know the penalty for an opening bid out of turn or a conventional insufficient bid, since the Director will make sure that the proper penalty is enforced. However, I encountered a new situation in which the player does need to know the penalty: the revoke, because the penalty is imposed only later. I was West, dummy (North) led a diamond, East (who was out) played a hearts, and South revoked by playing a heart. I won the trick, and South established the revoke by leading (out of turn) to the next trick, thinking he had won the trick. We called the (playing) Director, who told us to play on, leave the cards out, and the penalty would be imposed at the end. She didn't mention the penalty at that time. I cashed several tricks, and then I was left with a low heart and a low diamond. North had a high heart and a high spade, and South had a high diamond and a high club. If I led a heart, North would get two tricks, and the revoke penalty would be one trick. If I led a diamond, South would win the trick with a card he could have played on the revoke trick, and the revoke penalty would be two tricks. By knowing the Laws, I gained an extra trick. When I'm called as a TD in cases like this, I always inform the players of how a revoke will be penalized after play, including the difference between a one and two trick penalty, depending on whether the revoker later win or doesn't win a trick with a card in the suit led to the revoke trick. Not doing so would be an error on my part. The consequence being that a later law 82C ruling might apply, leading to a split score. Regards, Harald _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060912/edb64933/attachment-0001.htm From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 13 10:49:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:49:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c6d711$97f66100$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > > >that pass is basically ambiguous: It shows > >either no relevant values or willingness to > >play the last denomination doubled. > > [snip] > > >Therefore I consider the trap pass to be part > >of the convention "negative double" and thus > >alertable. > > Richard Hills: > > In both cases the pass shows willingness to > defend against the last denomination named. > > And the Chapter 1 definition of "convention" > states: > > "However, an agreement as to overall strength > does not make a call a convention." > > So in Australia such a two-way pass is defined > as non-conventional, therefore is not alerted. Does not your alert regulation include a clause (or clauses) to the effect that an otherwise non-conventional call which includes "side information" shall be alerted? Example: A popular agreement in Norway is that an opening bid in 2M shows exactly 5 cards in that major suit and at least 4 cards in a minor suit. That bid is "natural" as far as the named major suit is concerned, but it must still be alerted because of the "side information". IMO the trap pass carries such "side information". Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 13 13:36:48 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:36:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c6d711$97f66100$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060913132102.020e4170@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:49 13/09/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Example: A popular agreement in Norway is that an opening bid in 2M shows >exactly 5 cards in that major suit and at least 4 cards in a minor suit. >That bid is "natural" as far as the named major suit is concerned, but it >must still be alerted because of the "side information". > >IMO the trap pass carries such "side information". It does, but there is a difference : in thee times of negative doubles, you have to pass when holding the penalty hand ; this is common bridge knowledge, not conventional. To the contrary, the side suit in Norwegian, Dutch or Belgian 2M openers is the kind of side information that you wouldn't be able to infer from bridge logic. Some pairs, however, consider a pass over the O/C as forcing ; opener should reopen with a double in most cases ; and it may include some positive hands other than a penalty pass. This is a common agreement over stronger openings (stronger than a normal strong club, but not as strong as a standard 2C ; a good example is the Romex or Arno 1NT opening). One of its functions is to drive out psyches : opener has the suit, but overcaller thinks it is responder who holds a penalty pass, and one has to escape. This kind of pass should be alerted, becausse it is far from standard and bridge logic. Another problem is whether to alert bids that are purely natural, but unexpectedly nonforcing (eg negative free bids over an overcall) ; although they don't carry side information (second suit, short suit etc.) and although "an agreement as to strength doesn't make the bid a convention", not knowing about their nonforcing character would be a real handicap to the opponents ; for this reason, they should be alerted. The prime function of alerting is avoiding players being caught by surprise. Not complying with a set of rules. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 13 14:30:57 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:30:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060913132102.020e4170@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c6d730$76aed850$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > At 10:49 13/09/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > >Example: A popular agreement in Norway is that an opening bid in 2M shows > >exactly 5 cards in that major suit and at least 4 cards in a minor suit. > >That bid is "natural" as far as the named major suit is concerned, but it > >must still be alerted because of the "side information". > > > >IMO the trap pass carries such "side information". > > It does, but there is a difference : in thee times of negative doubles, > you > have to pass when holding the penalty hand ; this is common bridge > knowledge, not conventional. > > To the contrary, the side suit in Norwegian, Dutch or Belgian 2M openers > is the kind of side information that you wouldn't be able to infer from > bridge logic. > > Some pairs, however, consider a pass over the O/C as forcing ; opener > should reopen with a double in most cases ; and it may include some > positive hands other than a penalty pass. This is a common agreement over > stronger openings (stronger than a normal strong club, but not as strong > as a standard 2C ; a good example is the Romex or Arno 1NT opening). One > of its functions is to drive out psyches : opener has the suit, but > overcaller thinks it is responder who holds a penalty pass, and one has > to escape. This kind of pass should be alerted, becausse it is far from > standard and bridge logic. > > Another problem is whether to alert bids that are purely natural, but > unexpectedly nonforcing (eg negative free bids over an overcall) ; > although they don't carry side information (second suit, short suit etc.) > and although "an agreement as to strength doesn't make the bid a > convention", not knowing about their nonforcing character would be a > real handicap to the opponents ; for this reason, they should be alerted. > The prime function of alerting is avoiding players being caught by > surprise. Not complying with a set of rules. We have found it impossible in Norway to have alert regulations based upon what is "standard" or "common knowledge" because what is "standard" in one environment is not necessarily standard in the next. Instead our alert regulations are based upon strictly objective criteria like a bid not showing length in the named suit and/or showing length in a different suit, a pass showing possible extra values, a call being ambiguous and so on. Also we never consider it illegal to alert any call (but alerts of course convey UI to partner). Alerts are popularly described as messages to opponents: "You can have reasons to ask about this call". So according to these principles; where a negative double shall be alerted so shall the corresponding trap pass. A completely different issue is the consequence of missing alerts where required. When judging damage we always take into account whether opponents really can claim damage from a missing alert as such or if it can as well be contributed to their own ignorance of for instance what is "common agreements". Specifically we very seldom if ever grant redress for damage when the missing alert is related to a convention that has been correctly described on the front page of our convention cards. I am fully aware that other jurisdictions have different alert regulations. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 14 01:25:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:25:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c6d711$97f66100$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [big snip] >>So in Australia such a two-way pass is defined >>as non-conventional, therefore is not alerted. Sven Pran: >Does not your alert regulation include a clause >(or clauses) to the effect that an otherwise >non-conventional call which includes "side >information" shall be alerted? Richard Hills: No, the definitions in the ABF alert regulation define only two types of calls: (a) conventional, and (b) natural (not conventional) The ABF requires that any natural call whose meaning the opponents are "unlikely to expect" should be alerted (unless it is self-alerting call). And the ABF does not define the common and general natural trap pass as "unlikely to expect". Sven Pran: >Example: A popular agreement in Norway is that >an opening bid in 2M shows exactly 5 cards in >that major suit and at least 4 cards in a minor >suit. That bid is "natural" as far as the named >major suit is concerned, but it must still be >alerted because of the "side information". Richard Hills: Under the ABF alert regulation, that popular Norwegian agreement would be defined as _not_ natural, since its so-called "side information" about distribution makes that agreement a convention. So that agreement would also be alerted in Australia. Sven Pran: >IMO the trap pass carries such "side >information". Richard Hills: "Side information" about strength does not change a natural call into a conventional call. But "side information" about distribution does define a call as a conventional call. Of course, Norway can regulate any or all calls to be alerted. And Norway can include as part of its regulation the term "side information". And indeed Norway can even define the term "natural" to include some conventions. But it is impossible to have a rational debate about natural calls on blml if the word "natural" is used with a different meaning by the blmler disputants. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 14 08:07:30 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:07:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>Max IIRC has come down in favour of Major pen >>card, but has grave doubts. He can stand minor pen >>card. The fundamental is whether the TD tries to >>establish intent - and perhaps he shouldn't. Good Queen Bess: >I have no desire to make windows into men's souls. Richard Hills: It is easier for TDs to enforce objective Laws, rather than them trying to enforce subjective "window" Laws. Hence the Law 49 criterion "could have seen" rather than "did see" and the Law 73F2 criterion "could have known" rather than "did know". Another disadvantage of "window" Laws is that the "Probst cheats" who can convincingly lie about their intent gain a competitive advantage over honest players. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 14 09:28:37 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:28:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6d7cf$661c9870$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > [big snip] > >IMO the trap pass carries such "side > >information". > > Richard Hills: > > "Side information" about strength does not > change a natural call into a conventional call. A very interesting consequence is that an opening pass that promises 13+ HCP regardless of distribution is _not_ a conventional call? (I assume of course that it must be alerted also in Australia as a "normal" call conveying "unexpected" information) Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 14 11:53:02 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:53:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003101c6d7e3$914e8cb0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John (MadDog) Probst: > >>>Max IIRC has come down in favour of Major pen >>>card, but has grave doubts. He can stand minor pen >>>card. The fundamental is whether the TD tries to >>>establish intent - and perhaps he shouldn't. > > Good Queen Bess: > >>I have no desire to make windows into men's souls. > > Richard Hills: > > It is easier for TDs to enforce objective Laws, > rather than them trying to enforce subjective > "window" Laws. > > Hence the Law 49 criterion "could have seen" rather > than "did see" and the Law 73F2 criterion "could > have known" rather than "did know". > > Another disadvantage of "window" Laws is that the > "Probst cheats" who can convincingly lie about > their intent gain a competitive advantage over > honest players. I like this definition of the "intent" laws. "window laws" It is indeed for this reason that I don't like asking for intent. My wife is honest and would tell me her intent; I (the probst cheat) would lie and tell her the answer most favourable to me. That is blatantly unfair. Curiously L25A rulings are easy. You can be pretty sure about those, but not about 2 cards dropped. John From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 14 12:04:24 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:04:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c6d7cf$661c9870$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003601c6d7e5$28491a80$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> [big snip] >> >IMO the trap pass carries such "side >> >information". >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> "Side information" about strength does not >> change a natural call into a conventional call. > > A very interesting consequence is that an opening pass that promises 13+ > HCP > regardless of distribution is _not_ a conventional call? > > (I assume of course that it must be alerted also in Australia as a > "normal" > call conveying "unexpected" information) I enjoyed this one. LOL passes AJT Axxx Jxx Axx in first, and competes to 3H which famous lady international (married to well known grumpy bulletin writer and inernational) expresses contempt for. When dummy hits she calls in the NYPD. "Why did you pass 14 High?" I ask. "9 losers" says LOL, counting them for my benefit. "WTFP?" says I to FLI. "Will you record it?" says she. "Why? you've heard the lady's explanation" says I. I was amused that some FLI players have no idea that there exist players who are perpetual beginners. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 15 06:09:26 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:09:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps, knockout teams Dlr: North Vul: variable (see below) A82 2 Q743 AQJ92 Auction 1 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 1D(1) 1S Dble(2) 2C(3) ? (1) Could be short (2) Negative double (3) Artificial, a good raise to 2S What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Would any vulnerability affect your call? Auction 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 1D(1) 1S Dble(2) 2C(3) ? (1) Could be short (2) Negative double (3) Artificial, a transfer promising five or more diamonds What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Would any vulnerability affect your call? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Sep 15 10:40:37 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:40:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Useful Tip For Oldies Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060915184001.057b8c90@mail.optusnet.com.au> > > Subject: Hum: Useful Tip For Oldies > > > > > > > Why didn't someone tell me this a long time ago? > > > > > > This is for everyone over 50 whose eyesight isn't what it used to be. I > > > just found out about it, and thought I would pass the information on. >It's > > > very useful when trying to read small e-mail print (especially in the > > > early > > > hours). > > > > > > If you hold down the Ctrl key on your key board and turn the small wheel > > > in > > > the middle of your mouse, the print size will change - it will either >get > > > larger or smaller - depending on which way you turn the wheel. > > > > > > Pass this on to other friends who may find it very useful....I'm glad I > > > was > > > told. > > > > > From brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Sep 15 11:52:16 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:52:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Useful Tip For Oldies In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060915184001.057b8c90@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20060915184001.057b8c90@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:40:37 +1000, you wrote: > >> > Subject: Hum: Useful Tip For Oldies >> > >> > >> > > Why didn't someone tell me this a long time ago? >> > > >> > > This is for everyone over 50 whose eyesight isn't what it used to be. I >> > > just found out about it, and thought I would pass the information on. >>It's >> > > very useful when trying to read small e-mail print (especially in the >> > > early >> > > hours). >> > > >> > > If you hold down the Ctrl key on your key board and turn the small wheel >> > > in >> > > the middle of your mouse, the print size will change - it will either >>get >> > > larger or smaller - depending on which way you turn the wheel. >> > > >> > > Pass this on to other friends who may find it very useful....I'm glad I >> > > was >> > > told. >> > > >> > Whether or not this works depends on which e-mail program you're using. That's not saying that it's not a helpful tip, just that it won't work for everyone. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 15 15:40:00 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:40:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060915092644.02af3a20@pop.starpower.net> At 12:09 AM 9/15/06, richard.hills wrote: >Imps, knockout teams >Dlr: North >Vul: variable (see below) > >A82 >2 >Q743 >AQJ92 > >Auction 1 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass 1D(1) >1S Dble(2) 2C(3) ? > >(1) Could be short >(2) Negative double >(3) Artificial, a good raise to 2S > >What call do you make? 3C. >What other calls do you consider making? Pass. >Would any vulnerability affect your call? No. >Auction 2 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass 1D(1) >1S Dble(2) 2C(3) ? > >(1) Could be short >(2) Negative double >(3) Artificial, a transfer promising five >or more diamonds > >What call do you make? Double. >What other calls do you consider making? 3C, pass (in that order). >Would any vulnerability affect your call? Opponents NV would make doubling less attractive, but I would still double. In either case, I might well pass if my table feel told me that the opponents were likely to be having a bidding misunderstanding. That, however, assumes that I have a sensible agreement about my negative doubles -- I expect partner to have either hearts and clubs or hearts and diamonds. But some folks play that the double merely shows length in hearts, with no guarantee of a second potentially playable strain. Forced to play that way, I have no idea what I would do. These situations provide compelling examples of the weakness of that method. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Sep 15 16:30:12 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:30:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] New version of Laws Message-ID: Hi all BLMLrs, Back from my cottage after 4 months (without email....). I would just like to know what happens with the new version of Laws (first try was 2005, then 2006, and now...). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From adam at irvine.com Fri Sep 15 17:08:10 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:08:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: Useful Tip For Oldies In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:52:16 EDT." Message-ID: <200609151451.HAA08146@mailhub.irvine.com> > On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:40:37 +1000, you wrote: > > > > >> > Subject: Hum: Useful Tip For Oldies > >> > > >> > > >> > > Why didn't someone tell me this a long time ago? > >> > > > >> > > This is for everyone over 50 whose eyesight isn't what it used to be. I > >> > > just found out about it, and thought I would pass the information on. > >>It's > >> > > very useful when trying to read small e-mail print (especially in the > >> > > early > >> > > hours). > >> > > > >> > > If you hold down the Ctrl key on your key board and turn the small wheel > >> > > in > >> > > the middle of your mouse, the print size will change - it will either > >>get > >> > > larger or smaller - depending on which way you turn the wheel. > >> > > > >> > > Pass this on to other friends who may find it very useful....I'm glad I > >> > > was > >> > > told. > >> > > > >> > > > Whether or not this works depends on which e-mail program you're > using. That's not saying that it's not a helpful tip, just that > it won't work for everyone. Also, since this tip apparently will not work for those of us who are not yet 50 but still have eyesight problems, perhaps whoever posted the above could suggest an alternate solution that will work for us younger folks. :) -- Adam From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Sep 15 17:13:25 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200609151513.k8FFDPwj024302@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > Imps, knockout teams > Dlr: North > Vul: variable (see below) > > A82 > 2 > Q743 > AQJ92 > > Auction 1 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass 1D(1) > 1S Dble(2) 2C(3) ? > > (1) Could be short > (2) Negative double > (3) Artificial, a good raise to 2S > > What call do you make? This is potentially an issue of partnership understandings. Does partner *promise* at least one minor suit? I'll assume that the answer is either no or undiscussed. I'd still make a 3C call. > What other calls do you consider making? I'd consider passing. (Wouldn't do it, but that's potentially idiosyncratic) I'd *consider* double, mostly because I'm not sure what it means with this partner. > Would any vulnerability affect your call? No. I'd make the 3C call vul at matchpoints. Fully aware of the risks. > > Auction 2 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass 1D(1) > 1S Dble(2) 2C(3) ? > > (1) Could be short > (2) Negative double > (3) Artificial, a transfer promising five > or more diamonds > > What call do you make? Gah. Takes away a potential safety net. Have we discussed this? Probably not. I'd like to double, showing clubs, but I'm far from sure that's what it means. 3C. Yes, slow. (With the faint hope they're having an oops auction and that I'm taking all the space that it's safe to take) > What other calls do you consider making? Pass, double. > Would any vulnerability affect your call? Nope. From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 15 17:44:33 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:44:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] New version of Laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6d8dd$d79dc190$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Laval Dubreuil > > Hi all BLMLrs, > > Back from my cottage after 4 months (without email....). > > I would just like to know what happens with the new > version of Laws (first try was 2005, then 2006, and now...). > > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City Some twenty or twenty-five years ago I attended a seminar and heard a lecture on the (then upcoming) X.25 (I believe it was) network which was planned by the telecommunication administrations to come into use. The lecturer told me afterwards that he had held this lecture now for three years, and there was one particular sentence which he had not had to change during this time: "The new data network which will come into use next year"! Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 16 03:24:36 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:24:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] New version of Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c6d8dd$d79dc190$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil asked: >>>I would just like to know what happens with the new >>>version of Laws (first try was 2005, then 2006, and now...). Sven Pran replied: >>The lecturer told me afterwards that he had held this lecture now >>for three years, and there was one particular sentence which he had >>not had to change during this time: >> >>"The new data network which will come into use next year"! In the "Amnesia" thread, Grattan Endicott wrote (29 July 2006): >+=+ I have now 93 laws to go through implementing the changes of >wording where they occur. When I get to this one I will have a look >at exactly what we have said, but I cannot release details until the >lengthy agreed post-Verona procedure has been completed. There >is a long way to go yet. We are aiming for ratification and adoption >of the new code by the Executive in Shanghai. Maybe you will then >consider the laws have been 'shanghaied' ? :-) ~ G ~ +=+ Hebrews 11:1: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Sep 16 16:49:22 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:49:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] New version of Laws In-Reply-To: <000001c6d8dd$d79dc190$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > On Behalf Of Laval Dubreuil > > Hi all BLMLrs, > > Back from my cottage after 4 months (without email....). > > I would just like to know what happens with the new > version of Laws (first try was 2005, then 2006, and now...). > > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City __________________________________________________________________________ Some twenty or twenty-five years ago I attended a seminar and heard a lecture on the (then upcoming) X.25 (I believe it was) network which was planned by the telecommunication administrations to come into use. The lecturer told me afterwards that he had held this lecture now for three years, and there was one particular sentence which he had not had to change during this time: "The new data network which will come into use next year"! Regards Sven ____________________________________________________________________________ _ I know, may be I was there. I am a retired telecom engineer.... Laval Du Breuil From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 08:45:05 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:45:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/09/06, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps, knockout teams > Dlr: North > Vul: variable (see below) > > A82 > 2 > Q743 > AQJ92 > > Auction 1 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass 1D(1) > 1S Dble(2) 2C(3) ? > > (1) Could be short > (2) Negative double > (3) Artificial, a good raise to 2S > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > Would any vulnerability affect your call? > > Auction 2 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass 1D(1) > 1S Dble(2) 2C(3) ? > > (1) Could be short > (2) Negative double > (3) Artificial, a transfer promising five > or more diamonds > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > Would any vulnerability affect your call? Unless we apply some special conventional meaning to double in these two cases, I'd double to show clubs in both instances. To be able to compete in the suit if appropriate and to help partner on lead. I'd not consider any other calls. Vulnerability would not affect my call at all. Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060915/880d2d7e/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 18 00:55:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:55:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: APPEAL NABC+ FIVE Subject: Misinformation (MI) DIC: Roger Putnam Event: Vanderbilt KO Teams Session: Round of 32, April 4, 2006 Board # Bruce Rogoff Vul: Kx Dlr: JT9xx xx KTxx Marcin Lesniewski Peter Weichsel Q9xxx JTx AQx Kxxx K8 AT9xx xxx x Josh Parker A8x x Q743 AQJ9x West North East South --- Pass Pass 1D(1) 1S Dbl 2C(2) Pass 2D 2H 2S Pass Pass Pass Note: The written hand record was misplaced along with the board number. Therefore, this is the closest approximation to the hand that is available. (1) May be short (2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds. The Facts: 2S made three for an E/W score of +140. The director was summoned after the auction because of the misAlert. The director determined that 2C showed a good spade raise, not a transfer to diamonds. East did not have a weak 2D bid available to him. East's possible responses to 1S were 2N, showing a four-card limit raise or better; 2S showing a 5-7 raise; 2H showing 8+ to 10- three-card raise; 2D showing Hearts, 2C showing a three-card raise with a better hand than the 2H bid. The Ruling: The director, after a discussion with N/S and E/W at the table, had assumed that N/S was comfortable with the table result. Because this hand was from the fourth quarter and neither pair had requested a ruling let alone an appeal, the table director left after all the results had been submitted. About 15 or 20 minutes after the session, the N/S pair lodged an appeal with the DIC. The DIC called the table director to find out the facts. After determining that no ruling had been made, the DIC ruled that the result stood because there was no damage from the misinformation and let the table result of 2S making three, E/W +140 stand. The Appeal: N/S argued that if 2C had been properly explained, South would have had a clear 3C bid over 2C, since his partner would have at most two spades, and the hands would fit well. 3C would quite possibly have ended the auction. E/W said that South had ample opportunity to show his clubs but failed to do so. East said that he would have competed to 3S over 3C and neither North nor South had a 4C bid. The Decision: The Committee ruled that N/S's result was due to South's excessive caution in neither doubling 2C nor bidding 3C. Thus, the table result was allowed to stand. The Committee considered the impact of the unauthorized information (UI) that East possessed. He was not allowed to know that his partner was unaware of his spade support, and he was required to assume that his partner's 2D bid was some kind of game try. However, since East had a bare minimum for his 2C bid, his 2S bid was entirely proper. The Committee: Adam Wildavsky (Chair), Bart Bramley, Dick Budd, Doug Doub (scribe) and John Solodar. Commentary: Gerard - Curious. West thought it was diamonds, East might have meant it that way. If so, 2S was the completion of a planned two-step so there was no UI. However, assume East knew the system. Then the issue wasn't whether the backtracking 2S was "entirely proper", it was whether anything else was a logical alternative (LA). Granted that the peer group is small, but would they have felt 2C was such an overbid for a 3-card raise? Prime red suit values, two trump honors and a singleton in South's likely suit? Isn't that at least a solid 10-point supporting hand? If you're so ashamed of 2C, why bid it in the first place? Could partner have done anything to improve your hand by more? OK, so East can't blast 4S in light of his previous "overbid", but wouldn't a reasonable number of East's peers have bid 3D as a further game try? No extra credit for guessing why that didn't happen. And, what about the difference between 2S and pass? Any agreement about which was stronger? Do you really believe 2S was fast arrival? I lost the Vanderbilt on this kind of sequence when partner was supposed to have a reason to bid a 2S equivalent rather than passing to show a minimum but his reason was that he never liked to pass. I think E/W should have been adjusted to 3D. Giving North the Jx of diamonds, I can't come to more than six tricks whether East draws two trumps or not. That would be down three for the offenders, whatever the vulnerability. N/S's adjustment is much more complicated. Whereas E/W's adjustment is due to UI, N/S suffered from MI and any damage to them would have to be the result of the latter, not the former. I agree with N/S about bidding 3C over 2C, if East has a raise N/S had at least an 8-card minor fit. Of course he could have doubled, but after 2D - 2H - 2S or 2D - 3C - 3S it's not clear that anyone would bid 3C or 4C. So give South his 3C bid, isn't it interesting that East would have competed to 3S with his backtracking hand? But the bottom line is that "excessive caution" didn't cause N/S's result, MI did. Doubling wouldn't have necessarily changed the contract and South's best chance to bid 3C was over a properly alerted 2C. "No one had a 4C bid" is just noise, under 12C2 it was likely that 3C or 4C would have been the contract. So E/W -150, N/S +130 and apply Law 86. If the Committee treated South's excessive caution as an egregious failure to play bridge, they confused the two infraction standards since +150 was never really available to N/S solely as a result of the MI. Goldsmith - Assuming that E/W had notes to document their methods, this looks right to me. I don't think we can ask East to accept a game try when he has an 8-count and has already promised a good ten. Yeah, it's a great 8, but... Polisner - I think that the AC gave too little consideration to the UI aspect of this case. East, possessing an ace, king and singleton along with a presumed big diamond fit has much more than a "bare minimum" and at least should bid 3D having already shown a three-card spade raise. All partner needs to have a decent play for game is something like KQxxx, Ax, QJxx, xx or AQxxx Ax Jxxx xx. It would be nice to know if E/W were vulnerable which would make at least a game try mandatory. Rigal - This was to my mind the most unfortunate ruling from Dallas. I believe East was obligated to do something other than bid 2S here after the UI he had received. My view (supported by the blind poll from AC members not in Dallas) is that East is closer to a four-level action than 2S. The committee appeared to focus too hard on South's failure to bid more, and not enough on the other concerns on the deal. Wildavsky - This was a poor performance by the AC for a number of reasons. First of all, N/S do not have to play perfectly in order for their rights to be protected. Perhaps South ought to have acted over 2C, but neglecting to do so was scarcely "failure to play bridge." Second, even if N/S were injured primarily through their own error subsequent to the infraction we must still adjust the E/W score per Law 72B1. Third, even if we do not adjust because of MI we must still take UI into account. What are East's LAs over 2D? I think that 3D is not only logical, it is the best call. It has two ways to win, by reaching a game on a perfect fit or by improving the part-score. With a double-fit game has play opposite as little as KQxxx, x, Kxxx, xxx; and West must have more -- he would never make a game try with so little. East need not be concerned about his lack of a fourth trump, he's already denied one! Jeff Polisner mentioned to me that, if asked to place the final contract, he'd rather play at the six level than the two level! Indeed, give partner; AQxxx, Ax, Kxxxx, x; and you'd want to play slam with the finesse coming through the opening bidder, but partner will pass 2S without regret. Even this misfit would make 6D with a spade finesse and a 2-1 diamond break; AQxxx, x, Kxxxx, Ax. Both the tournament director and the AC ought to have adjusted the contract to 3D - it looks as though it's likely to go down a couple. How could the AC have done better? My opinion was a minority of one. I could have been more forceful as chair, but I might have been outvoted anyway. I think there are a few things I ought to have done: 1. Given the East hand to the other AC members as a blind preview with only the authorized info that 2C shows a spade raise. I think at least one or two, and perhaps all four, would have realized then and there that 3D is logical. Even if they wouldn't bid it they'd have had to strongly consider it. 2. Commissioned a poll of East's peers, either before or during the AC hearing, as to the best action over 2D. 3. Explained to the AC that since I would have bid 3D that makes it logical in and of itself. I've written before that ACs should take a more expansive view of LAs, and in particular should not choose LAs by a strict majority vote. If an AC member asserts that he would make a call then absent compelling evidence to the contrary that call must be logical. This case was from the same match as NABC+ 3. In order to lose the match the N/S team here (they were E/W in case 3) had to find themselves on the losing end of both decisions. I think each ruling was unjust -- that they occurred in the same match was even more unfortunate. I can't think of any way to deal with the problem other than to try to make better rulings in the future. Wolff - Another convention disruption (CD) case, but this time EW got lucky with the committee when they ruled that the CD involved didn't hurt the victim. What this committee doesn't know is that CD is usually the result of a "home brew" convention or treatment which sometimes startles the opponents into poor judgment. When South didn't show his clubs, it probably was because he was startled. If there was nothing else in the case then NS should have been found negligent, but here there was also negligence by EW which should switch the blame back to EW. At the very least EW should get a procedural penalty for their CD and both sides should probably get a bad board. Since it was KO team it might have turned out that the ruling should be close to no IMPs exchanging hands. Se la vie! Zeiger - Easy decision. Easy AWMW. Oh wait. They didn't get one? You're kidding!! Whenever a team comes up with a ridiculous appeal, after the fact, clearly trying to steal in Committee what they couldn't earn at the table, an AWMW is absolutely mandatory! This was a solid, experienced Committee. They covered all the bases, including the UI East possessed. How could they miss the AWMW? Say it ain't so. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 18 09:49:19 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:49:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: First issue -> In the NABC appeal number five under discussion, it seems that the Appeals Committee erred in stating that "N/S's result was due to South's excessive caution in neither doubling 2C nor bidding 3C". A number of blmlers, whom considered a pass to be a logical alternative on the MI that South received at the table, did *not* consider a pass to be a logical alternative on the correct information. And even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that the AC was right in determining South's pass as irrationally excessively cautious (thus denying North-South an adjusted score), the AC should still have split the score (adjusting for East-West at least), since the East-West MI infraction greatly increased the likelihood of South choosing an excessively cautious pass. Second issue -> "The director, after a discussion with N/S and E/W at the table, had assumed that N/S was comfortable with the table result. Because this hand was from the fourth quarter and neither pair had requested a ruling let alone an appeal, the table director left after all the results had been submitted." It seems to me that the director has somewhat misinterpreted two clauses of Law 81C: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: ..... 6. Errors to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. ..... 8. Waiver of Penalties to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." That is, it seems to me that if the Director is summoned to the table because of an irregularity, then the Director is required to rectify that irregularity, regardless of whether or not a pair requests a ruling. And it seem to me that the Director should not automatically waive a penalty merely because the non-offending side is "comfortable" with the table result. Rather, it seems to me that such a waiver not only requires a specific request from the non-offending side, but also requires a "cause". (Edgar Kaplan's example of such a "cause" was declarer spilling coffee into a defender's lap, causing the defender to expose a card.) Third issue -> WBF Code of Practice, page 5: "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." In this case it seems to me that there were two infractions causing damage. In the instant before the first MI infraction, North-South could expect +130 declaring 3C. But in the instant before the consequent second UI infraction - East's illegal 2S signoff, when a legal logical alternative would be to raise partner's apparent 2D try to 3D - then North- South could expect +150 or +300 (depending on whether or not East-West were vulnerable) by defending a 3D contract failing by three tricks. If one assumes that an intelligent Appeals Committee had ruled that East-West did indeed commit those two infractions, are North-South entitled to +130 or +150/+300? Or should the score be split, so North-South get +130 and East-West get -150/-300? It seems to me that the correct North-South adjusted score is debatable, but it is certain that a score of -150/-300 for East-West is the correct ACBL ruling (given that Law 12C3 does not apply there). Law 12C2 states: ".....the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable....." That is, given that the phrase "had the irregularity not occurred" is only relevant to the non-offending side, it seems to me that East-West can be given the most unfavourable result at all probable after a mere partial correction of their two irregularities. Of course, then the AC would have to more intensively investigate the facts to determine whether or not East-West were vulnerable. (It seems to me that perhaps the ACBL could possibly improve its record-keeping in one of its most prestigious events by using computer- dealt boards throughout.) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From tkooij at tiscali.nl Mon Sep 18 09:59:13 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:59:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] New version of Laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: So, we learn. You won't hear us saying 'in 2007'. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Laval Dubreuil Sent: zaterdag 16 september 2006 16:49 To: svenpran at online.no; blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] New version of Laws > On Behalf Of Laval Dubreuil > > Hi all BLMLrs, > > Back from my cottage after 4 months (without email....). > > I would just like to know what happens with the new > version of Laws (first try was 2005, then 2006, and now...). > > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City __________________________________________________________________________ Some twenty or twenty-five years ago I attended a seminar and heard a lecture on the (then upcoming) X.25 (I believe it was) network which was planned by the telecommunication administrations to come into use. The lecturer told me afterwards that he had held this lecture now for three years, and there was one particular sentence which he had not had to change during this time: "The new data network which will come into use next year"! Regards Sven ____________________________________________________________________________ _ I know, may be I was there. I am a retired telecom engineer.... Laval Du Breuil _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Sep 18 12:06:40 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:06:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <450E6FB0.3030200@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] > First issue -> > > In the NABC appeal number five under discussion, it > seems that the Appeals Committee erred in stating > that "N/S's result was due to South's excessive > caution in neither doubling 2C nor bidding 3C". > > A number of blmlers, whom considered a pass to be > a logical alternative on the MI that South received > at the table, did *not* consider a pass to be a > logical alternative on the correct information. > > And even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, > that the AC was right in determining South's pass > as irrationally excessively cautious (thus denying > North-South an adjusted score), the AC should > still have split the score (adjusting for East-West > at least), since the East-West MI infraction > greatly increased the likelihood of South choosing > an excessively cautious pass. > > Second issue -> > > "The director, after a discussion with N/S and > E/W at the table, had assumed that N/S was > comfortable with the table result. Because this > hand was from the fourth quarter and neither pair > had requested a ruling let alone an appeal, the > table director left after all the results had > been submitted." > > It seems to me that the director has somewhat > misinterpreted two clauses of Law 81C: > > "The Director's duties and powers normally > include the following: > ..... > 6. Errors > to rectify an error or irregularity of which he > becomes aware in any manner, within the > correction period established in accordance with > Law 79C. > ..... > 8. Waiver of Penalties > to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, > upon the request of the non-offending side." > > That is, it seems to me that if the Director is > summoned to the table because of an irregularity, > then the Director is required to rectify that > irregularity, regardless of whether or not a pair > requests a ruling. > > And it seem to me that the Director should not > automatically waive a penalty merely because the > non-offending side is "comfortable" with the > table result. Rather, it seems to me that such > a waiver not only requires a specific request > from the non-offending side, but also requires a > "cause". (Edgar Kaplan's example of such a > "cause" was declarer spilling coffee into a > defender's lap, causing the defender to expose a > card.) > > Third issue -> > > WBF Code of Practice, page 5: > > "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." > > In this case it seems to me that there were two > infractions causing damage. > > In the instant before the first MI infraction, > North-South could expect +130 declaring 3C. > > But in the instant before the consequent second > UI infraction - East's illegal 2S signoff, when > a legal logical alternative would be to raise > partner's apparent 2D try to 3D - then North- > South could expect +150 or +300 (depending on > whether or not East-West were vulnerable) by > defending a 3D contract failing by three tricks. > > If one assumes that an intelligent Appeals > Committee had ruled that East-West did indeed > commit those two infractions, are North-South > entitled to +130 or +150/+300? Or should the > score be split, so North-South get +130 and > East-West get -150/-300? > > It seems to me that the correct North-South > adjusted score is debatable, but it is certain > that a score of -150/-300 for East-West is the > correct ACBL ruling (given that Law 12C3 does > not apply there). > > Law 12C2 states: > > ".....the score is, for a non-offending side, > the most favourable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred or, for an > offending side, the most unfavourable result > that was at all probable....." > > That is, given that the phrase "had the > irregularity not occurred" is only relevant to > the non-offending side, it seems to me that > East-West can be given the most unfavourable > result at all probable after a mere partial > correction of their two irregularities. > > Of course, then the AC would have to more > intensively investigate the facts to determine > whether or not East-West were vulnerable. (It > seems to me that perhaps the ACBL could > possibly improve its record-keeping in one of > its most prestigious events by using computer- > dealt boards throughout.) > [Nige1] IMO many players would endorse Richard's assessment: especially of logical alternatives to East's 2S. This is a typical equity ruling by the director and committee. It could be published as a paradigm in the new edition of the Laws. :( A mugger beats up an old lady and robs her of her purse. A policeman catches the escaping mugger and examines the purse. He finds it empty. He feels that no punishment or redress is appropriate because there was no obvious loss. She brings a private prosecution but the courts find her guilty of wasting police time. The court kindly let her off so that she can attend her appointments at the hospital casualty department :( From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Sep 18 12:34:50 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:34:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <450E6FB0.3030200@NTLworld.com> References: <450E6FB0.3030200@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <450E764A.1070900@NTLworld.com> > [Nige1] > IMO many players would endorse Richard's assessment: especially of > logical alternatives to East's 2S. > > This is a typical equity ruling by the director and committee. It could > be published as a paradigm in the new edition of the Laws. :( > > A mugger beats up an old lady and robs her of her purse. A policeman > catches the escaping mugger and examines the purse. He finds it empty. > He feels that no punishment or redress is appropriate because there was > no obvious loss. She brings a private prosecution but the courts find > her guilty of wasting police time. The court kindly lets her off so that > she can attend her appointments at the hospital casualty department :( > [Nige2] I missed a key element of the original case in the above fable. The old lady might have prevented the mugger from robbing her by sticking her hat-pin into his eye. She didn't. Therefore, the court ruled that she aided and abetted her own mugging. Naive players like me feel that insult is added to injury when the the traumatized victim's behaviour is criticised as "wild, gambling" or whatever. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 18 18:25:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <6311345F-4B46-49F3-9CDB-2259F7932140@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > Given that Law 58B says nothing about intent, I would call "perhaps" > an underbid. Of course, you still may have a problem if the offender > blurts out his intent. Thus, it seems to me intent is irrelevant, and > should be ignored even if stated or if somebody or other thinks it's > obvious. Of course it should be ignored when applying L58b - regardless of intent the player can choose to play a a card exposed accidentally instead of the card he intended to lead. However, once we get to L50 "inadvertency" is a key test re MPC/mPC. Commonly, when playing two cards to a trick, one is intended and the other gets stuck to it (occasionally neither is the intended lead). This situation very seldom requires mind-reading. A modicum of bridge logic and a question such as "What happened?" will get the right result. Sure as a TD one might, once in a blue moon, conclude that offender is a lying cheat but there is nothing to stop one from ruling on that basis. Generally playing 2 cards is seldom advantageous and we have L72b1 if necessary even then. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 18 18:25:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45066769.2000504@meteo.fr> Message-ID: > *From:* Jean-Pierre Rocafort > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Date:* Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:53:13 +0200 > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > (1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted? > it depends > > > > (2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many > > players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way? > it depends > > > i am puzzled by this notion of "alertable call". so often it leads to > misunderstandings and lawyerings. how simple however it is to > disclose meanings of calls that are a consequence of a partnership > agreement or experience and could be mistaken by opponents. > as long as EW have previously discussed this situation, they should > of course alert west's pass as NS might otherwise think it is neutral > or undiscussed, as for many other pairs. Whereas if they alert one would surely assume the bid to be agreed as artificial (ie forcing) - and there should be no doubt that playing a forcing pass here would be alertable (and flawed IMO). If the pass is "undiscussed" it *must* show a desire to defend 2H as anything else would allow opps off the hook. I don't consider it at all "helpful" to say one should alert a bid to show that one has discussed it and agreed to play it as natural. > > First of all, West's argument that it is a natural meaning is > > irrelevant. There are many instances of "natural" meanings that > > are alertable because the artificial meaning is much more > > "normal" (like a 2C Stayman). Insofar as I understand WBF/EBL policy 2C Stayman is alertable while 2C (natural) is not. It would not be helpful for 2C to be alertable regardless of meaning. Tim > they should also alert if > west had made a bid in place of his second turn pass because of the > infernce. > what surprises me the most is the division of opinions among > directors and comitee and the return of deposit. anybody for a > campaign of "helpful alerting"? > > jpr > > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > > National Training Branch > > 02 6225 6285 > > > > EBL 2004 Appeal No. 10 > > Sweden v England > > > > Appeals Committee: Jean-Claude Beineix (Chairman, France), Herman > > De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), David Birman (Israel), Jean-Paul Meyer > > (France), Steen M?ller (Denmark) > > > > Open Teams Round 24 Board 13. > > Dealer North. All Vulnerable. > > > > \ QJ965 > > \ QT9 > > \ 83 > > \ 932 > > KT3 \ A872 > > K76542 \ --- > > 9 \ QJT7 > > T85 \ AQJ76 > > 4 \ > > AJ83 \ > > AK6542 \ > > K4 \ > > > > West North East South > > Townsend Lindkvist Gold Fredin > > --- Pass 1C 2H > > Pass Pass Dble Redble > > Pass (*)Pass Pass > > (*)2NT Dble 3D > > Pass Pass Dble Pass > > Pass Pass > > > > Comments: > > 2H: 4H and 5+ minor intermediate, Redble showed a good hand > > (*) first and second version of the auction, after the Director > > ruled that the Pass could be changed > > > > Contract: Three Diamonds doubled, played by South > > > > Lead: C5 > > > > Result: 8 tricks, NS -200 > > > > The Facts: > > West's second Pass was not alerted, at neither side of the > > screen. > > When East also passed, North asked what West's pass meant, and > > he was told it was an indication that West would also have > > passed the Double (without a Redouble). North then called the > > Director, because he thought such a meaning ought to be > > alertable. > > > > The Director: > > Consulted among his colleagues and could not find out for sure > > whether or not the pass would be alertable. After some time the > > Director returned to the table, declared that the pass should > > have been alerted, and gave North the option of changing his > > call. North did so, and the second auction continued as shown. > > > > Ruling: Change of Call Allowed > > > > Relevant Laws: Law 21B1, 21B2 > > > > East/West appealed. > > > > Present: All players and both Captains > > > > The Players: > > West clarified that he had not alerted his Pass, and neither > > had his partner. South had asked him about the pass, and he had > > replied "business". West considered a Pass that had the meaning > > of "I want to play here" as being the most natural meaning > > possible, and should therefore not be alerted. West stated that > > North, who is an expert player, could always have asked about > > the meaning of the Pass. > > North stated that he had not wanted to ask about the meaning of > > the Pass, so as not to give away anything. He relied on it not > > being alerted and called the Director when the Pass turned out > > to have the meaning he considered alertable. > > South explained that he had sat there, together with West, for > > 15 minutes, not knowing what was going on at the other side of > > the screen. > > North/South said that they too play penalty passes in this > > position, but that they alert them. > > The Captain of North/South summed up that there seem to be 2 > > schools concerning this pass, but that if this meaning is > > considered non-alertable, then all normal passes suddenly > > become alertable. > > > > The Committee: > > First of all checked whether the appeal had any reason of > > taking place at all. The alternate contract of 2Hxx goes (at > > least) one down, so East/West are asking for a score of -400. > > Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were > > met for North being allowed to change his call. The "change of > > explanation" should be surprising and affect the decision made > > by the player. These conditions are indeed met. > > The Committee considered whether North should be allowed this > > "double shot". By passing, North has two chances: East might > > bid, and if he does not, there is still the option of calling > > the Tournament Director. But the Committee felt that it should > > not blame North for relying on the non-alert and the meaning > > that this suggested to him. > > So the question remained whether or not there had been a > > "misexplanation" in the form of a missing alert. Is this Pass > > alertable? > > First of all, West's argument that it is a natural meaning is > > irrelevant. There are many instances of "natural" meanings that > > are alertable because the artificial meaning is much more > > "normal" (like a 2C Stayman). > > The Committee read the relevant part of the regulation: (C2) > > The EBL "Alerting Policy" applies. Any call which > > (i) has a special or artificial meaning, or > > (ii) which has a partnership meaning that may not be > > understood by the opponents, is a call that must be brought > > to the immediate attention of the opponents through the use > > of the "alert procedure". > > The Committee asked the Director to join them again and tell > > the Committee what the Directors had thought about the matter. > > It turned out that opinions among the Directors had been > > divided. > > Within the Committee as well, opinions were divided as to > > whether this Pass should be alerted. Some members would have > > alerted it, some would not. > > In the end the Committee decided that since there was no clear > > indication that the Director had taken the wrong decision, his > > ruling should stand. > > > > The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld. > > > > Deposit: Returned > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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 at meteo.fr > > Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr > _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 18 18:58:40 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:58:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00A0FD96-C72E-497F-AD30-BA764A8845A1@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 18, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > However, once we get to L50 "inadvertency" is a key test re MPC/mPC. > Commonly, when playing two cards to a trick, one is intended and the > other gets stuck to it (occasionally neither is the intended lead). > This situation very seldom requires mind-reading. A modicum of bridge > logic and a question such as "What happened?" will get the right > result. > Sure as a TD one might, once in a blue moon, conclude that offender > is a > lying cheat but there is nothing to stop one from ruling on that > basis. > Generally playing 2 cards is seldom advantageous and we have L72b1 if > necessary even then. Seems to me if you get to 50 via 58B you have a card exposed inadvertently, whatever the player's original intent. Law 50 specifically mentions the situation in the context of a minor penalty card, and makes no suggestion that this is or might be a major penalty card. As for the right result, well, that depends on which interpretation of the law is correct, doesn't it? :-) From herman at hdw.be Mon Sep 18 19:08:57 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:08:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not Message-ID: <450ED2A9.1070807@hdw.be> I was directing in Pula (Croatia) last week, and this ruling created some controversy among us TDs: East opens 1D and South puts 1NT on the table. West enquires and North says "16-18". Now South looks at the table in front of him and utters the classical "ooops", saying he intented to bid 1S. FWIW, I was convinced that the error was mechanical. And it was also clear to everyone that South only looked at the table after hearing (and being surprised at) North's explanation of what he thought was his natural spade bid. So, does L25A apply or not? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/447 - Release Date: 13/09/2006 From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Sep 18 19:38:41 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:38:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <450ED2A9.1070807@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman writes: I was directing in Pula (Croatia) last week, and this ruling created some controversy among us TDs: East opens 1D and South puts 1NT on the table. West enquires and North says "16-18". Now South looks at the table in front of him and utters the classical "ooops", saying he intented to bid 1S. FWIW, I was convinced that the error was mechanical. And it was also clear to everyone that South only looked at the table after hearing (and being surprised at) North's explanation of what he thought was his natural spade bid. So, does L25A apply or not? ______________________________________________________________________ Why not ? That is why this famous Law 25A is for. Partner did not make a call, the call was inadvertent and there was not "pause for thought" (no change of mind). I think we must trust players when no other evidence. But I know you know that Herman. Where is the trap ? North's explanation ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From tkooij at tiscali.nl Mon Sep 18 20:34:36 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:34:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <450ED2A9.1070807@hdw.be> Message-ID: I assume that the controversy has to do with UI, being used by South. Well, L 25A doesn't mention anything else than the call being inadvertent and no pause for thought. No other conditions. So, yes he is allowed to change his call. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: maandag 18 september 2006 19:09 To: blml Subject: [blml] L25A or not I was directing in Pula (Croatia) last week, and this ruling created some controversy among us TDs: East opens 1D and South puts 1NT on the table. West enquires and North says "16-18". Now South looks at the table in front of him and utters the classical "ooops", saying he intented to bid 1S. FWIW, I was convinced that the error was mechanical. And it was also clear to everyone that South only looked at the table after hearing (and being surprised at) North's explanation of what he thought was his natural spade bid. So, does L25A apply or not? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/447 - Release Date: 13/09/2006 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at tameware.com Mon Sep 18 21:28:29 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:28:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted Message-ID: The ACBL has posted preliminary versions of the cases from Chicago: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Chicago2006.html There were only four appeals in NABC+ events! I've posted an initial version of my comments on those cases here: http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/chicago2006 As always comments, corrections, and suggestions are welcome. I'll post my comments on the 14 Regional cases once I've written them. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 18 22:36:54 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:36:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <450ED2A9.1070807@hdw.be> References: <450ED2A9.1070807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060918163002.02af5d20@pop.starpower.net> At 01:08 PM 9/18/06, Herman wrote: >I was directing in Pula (Croatia) last week, and this ruling created >some controversy among us TDs: > >East opens 1D and South puts 1NT on the table. > >West enquires and North says "16-18". > >Now South looks at the table in front of him and utters the classical >"ooops", saying he intented to bid 1S. > >FWIW, I was convinced that the error was mechanical. >And it was also clear to everyone that South only looked at the table >after hearing (and being surprised at) North's explanation of what he >thought was his natural spade bid. > >So, does L25A apply or not? I can't speak for Croatia, but the ACBL interprets "without pause for thought" as applying to the time between the player's noting the actual identity of the bid card on the table in front of him and his indicating that it is not the one he intended to put there. So assuming no "pause for thought" between "South looks at the table" and "'oops'", I would allow a L25A correction. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From herman at hdw.be Mon Sep 18 23:13:56 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:13:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <20060918183242.68BBE42CBC2@hitweb> References: <20060918183242.68BBE42CBC2@hitweb> Message-ID: <450F0C14.7060407@hdw.be> I am happy to see that my solution is the same one as the first three posters in reply, amongst which: ton kooijman wrote: > I assume that the controversy has to do with UI, being used by South. Well, > L 25A doesn't mention anything else than the call being inadvertent and no > pause for thought. No other conditions. So, yes he is allowed to change his > call. > Indeed the controversy was with the use of "UI". Of course there are 2 reasons for which this is wrong: - L16 mentions that one should not bid or play on UI, but says nothing about saying "oops" as the result (or simply after) UI; - L25A imposes no other conditions than inadvertency, immediacy (indeed usually defined as "immediate after noticing"), and partner not having called. Still, three eminent TD's disagreed with my ruling. I'm certain this thread is not over, though. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/447 - Release Date: 13/09/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 18 23:15:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 In-Reply-To: <00A0FD96-C72E-497F-AD30-BA764A8845A1@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: > Seems to me if you get to 50 via 58B you have a card exposed > inadvertently, whatever the player's original intent. Law 50 > specifically mentions the situation in the context of a minor penalty > card, and makes no suggestion that this is or might be a major > penalty card. I have the card declarer has chosen to play to the current trick and I have another card which may have been dropped or played inadvertently as the second card to a trick (mPC) or which may have been played deliberately. I believe that playing a card deliberately and then choosing to substitute a card played/dropped accidently under L58 is broadly analogous to a card played "in revoking and then correcting". I have no strong feelings should the WBF issue a minute/clarification either way but until they do I'm happier ruling MPC (I'd consider changing my ruling if an AC I respected in terms of legal competence requested that I do so). Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 19 00:23:26 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:23:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: [snip] >I have no strong feelings should the WBF issue a >minute/clarification either way [snip] Richard Hills: I do have a strong feeling that next year's edition of the Lawbook should admit of only one interpretation. I do have a strong feeling that WBF clarifying minutes should be unnecessary once next year's Lawbook is released. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 19 01:38:41 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:38:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6db7b$931057e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: 19. september 2006 00:23 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Tim West-Meads: > > [snip] > > >I have no strong feelings should the WBF issue a > >minute/clarification either way > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I do have a strong feeling that next year's > edition of the Lawbook should admit of only one > interpretation. I do have a strong feeling that > WBF clarifying minutes should be unnecessary > once next year's Lawbook is released. And my guess is that we shall have the first minutes (or equivalent) within a year after the release of the new laws. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Sep 19 02:13:14 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:13:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c6db7b$931057e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6db7b$931057e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2F107C18-BC0B-4B8C-A5A1-E04C3484CFE5@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 18, 2006, at 7:38 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Richard Hills: >> >> I do have a strong feeling that next year's >> edition of the Lawbook should admit of only one >> interpretation. I do have a strong feeling that >> WBF clarifying minutes should be unnecessary >> once next year's Lawbook is released. > > And my guess is that we shall have the first minutes (or > equivalent) within > a year after the release of the new laws. "The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. I say the glass is too damn big!" - George Carlin From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 19 04:47:31 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:47:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <450E6E83.7030502@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asserted: >This is a typical equity ruling by the director and >committee. It could be published as a paradigm in the >new edition of the Laws. :( Richard Hills: Typical??? No, it is the atypical errors by directors and committees which get discussed on blml, since there is no point in posting on blml for discussion the much more frequent obviously correct rulings . >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: >>The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy >>where a cluster of statistically non-significant data >>is taken from its context, and therefore thought to >>have a common cause. >> >>The name comes from a story about a Texan who fires >>his gun randomly at the side of a barn, then paints a >>target centred on the largest cluster of hits. >> >>The fallacy is closely related to the clustering >>illusion, which refers to the tendency in human >>cognition to interpret patterns in randomness where >>none actually exist. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Sep 19 08:11:32 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:11:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060918163002.02af5d20@pop.starpower.net> References: <450ED2A9.1070807@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060918163002.02af5d20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <1GPYpQ-0rB2Om0@fwd35.aul.t-online.de> From: Eric Landau > At 01:08 PM 9/18/06, Herman wrote: > > > I was directing in Pula (Croatia) last week, and this ruling created > > some controversy among us TDs: > > > > East opens 1D and South puts 1NT on the table. > > > > West enquires and North says "16-18". > > > > Now South looks at the table in front of him and utters the > > classical "ooops", saying he intented to bid 1S. > > > > FWIW, I was convinced that the error was mechanical. > > And it was also clear to everyone that South only looked at the > > table after hearing (and being surprised at) North's explanation of > > what he thought was his natural spade bid. > > > > So, does L25A apply or not? > > > > I can't speak for Croatia, but the ACBL interprets "without pause for > thought" as applying to the time between the player's noting the > actual identity of the bid card on the table in front of him and his > indicating that it is not the one he intended to put there. ?So > assuming no "pause for thought" between "South looks at the table" and > "'oops'", I would allow a L25A correction. I'm sure, this is not a matter of regulation. "without pause for thought" should be dealt equally all over the world. Peter From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 19 09:09:34 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:09:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c6d7cf$661c9870$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>"Side information" about strength does not >>change a natural call into a conventional call. Sven Pran: >A very interesting consequence is that an >opening pass that promises 13+ HCP regardless of >distribution is _not_ a conventional call? > >(I assume of course that it must be alerted also >in Australia as a "normal" call conveying >"unexpected" information) Richard Hills: Not so fast. While strength alone does not define a call as a convention, there are other criteria, as for example: "conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named" If that opening pass promising 13+ hcp also forces partner to respond, then it shows a meaning other than willingness to pass the deal out. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 19 09:30:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:30:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >East opens 1D and South puts 1NT on the table. > >West enquires and North says "16-18". > >Now South looks at the table in front of him and utters the >classical "ooops", saying he intended to bid 1S. > >FWIW, I was convinced that the error was mechanical. >And it was also clear to everyone that South only looked at the >table after hearing (and being surprised at) North's explanation >of what he thought was his natural spade bid. > >So, does L25A apply or not? Richard Hills: Insufficient information. Suppose South uses a 12-14 1NT as an opening bidder, but uses a 16-18 1NT as an overcall. And suppose that North-South solve some rebid problems in their methods with an agreement that an opening bid of 1NT could contain a five-card major. In that case South could have intended to open 1NT, and the classical "oops" was due to South belatedly realising that RHO had opened 1D earlier. So in that case Law 25B would be the relevant Law. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From tkooij at tiscali.nl Tue Sep 19 09:42:20 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:42:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <450F0C14.7060407@hdw.be> Message-ID: The case is not obvious, but needs interpretation to be solved. In 25A nor in 25B we talk explicitly about UI. In 25B we do not allow a change if based on extraneous info. "What are you doing?" "what does it mean?" etc. But when you allow the call being changed even after LHO has made a call then there is no other possibility than to accept any way the player discovers his mistake. And that is how we are doing it for a long time already as far as I know. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: maandag 18 september 2006 23:14 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] L25A or not I am happy to see that my solution is the same one as the first three posters in reply, amongst which: ton kooijman wrote: > I assume that the controversy has to do with UI, being used by South. Well, > L 25A doesn't mention anything else than the call being inadvertent and no > pause for thought. No other conditions. So, yes he is allowed to change his > call. > Indeed the controversy was with the use of "UI". Of course there are 2 reasons for which this is wrong: - L16 mentions that one should not bid or play on UI, but says nothing about saying "oops" as the result (or simply after) UI; - L25A imposes no other conditions than inadvertency, immediacy (indeed usually defined as "immediate after noticing"), and partner not having called. Still, three eminent TD's disagreed with my ruling. I'm certain this thread is not over, though. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/447 - Release Date: 13/09/2006 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From herman at hdw.be Tue Sep 19 09:59:20 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:59:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <450FA358.4070707@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > >>East opens 1D and South puts 1NT on the table. >> >>West enquires and North says "16-18". >> >>Now South looks at the table in front of him and utters the >>classical "ooops", saying he intended to bid 1S. >> >>FWIW, I was convinced that the error was mechanical. >>And it was also clear to everyone that South only looked at the >>table after hearing (and being surprised at) North's explanation >>of what he thought was his natural spade bid. >> >>So, does L25A apply or not? > > > Richard Hills: > > Insufficient information. > > Suppose South uses a 12-14 1NT as an opening bidder, but uses a > 16-18 1NT as an overcall. And suppose that North-South solve > some rebid problems in their methods with an agreement that an > opening bid of 1NT could contain a five-card major. > > In that case South could have intended to open 1NT, and the > classical "oops" was due to South belatedly realising that RHO > had opened 1D earlier. So in that case Law 25B would be the > relevant Law. > It could, but this story does not conform to the real situation as I explained it to you. I was convinced that there had been a mechanical error. I may of course have been wrong in my conviction, but surely it is not possible on blml to go re-evaluating my "feel at the table". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/450 - Release Date: 18/09/2006 From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Sep 19 10:38:08 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:38:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <450FAC70.8050100@meteo.fr> Tim West-Meads a ?crit : >>*From:* Jean-Pierre Rocafort >>*To:* blml at rtflb.org >>*Date:* Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:53:13 +0200 >> >>richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >>>(1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted? >> >>it depends >> >>>(2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many >>>players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way? >> >>it depends >> >>i am puzzled by this notion of "alertable call". so often it leads to >>misunderstandings and lawyerings. how simple however it is to >>disclose meanings of calls that are a consequence of a partnership >>agreement or experience and could be mistaken by opponents. >> as long as EW have previously discussed this situation, they should >>of course alert west's pass as NS might otherwise think it is neutral >>or undiscussed, as for many other pairs. > > > Whereas if they alert one would surely assume the bid to be agreed as > artificial (ie forcing) - and there should be no doubt that playing a > forcing pass here would be alertable (and flawed IMO). i think the purpose of an alert is (or should be?) to alert opponents that they should not assume anything. > > If the pass is "undiscussed" it *must* show a desire to defend 2H as > anything else would allow opps off the hook. I don't consider it at all > "helpful" to say one should alert a bid to show that one has discussed > it and agreed to play it as natural. if "undiscussed", it's "general bridge knowledge" which, in this instance, isn't for most people "natural", but a willingness not to be involved in the bidding process for the moment. if ew have the agreement that pass would be a willingness to defend against 2H after 1C 2H - - x xx, when w bids instead 2S, his spade suit may be shorter than if they had not the agreement, it's helpful to disclose it to the opponents and they may feel themselves misinformed if they are not let into the secret. > > >>>First of all, West's argument that it is a natural meaning is >>>irrelevant. There are many instances of "natural" meanings that >>>are alertable because the artificial meaning is much more >>>"normal" (like a 2C Stayman). > > > Insofar as I understand WBF/EBL policy 2C Stayman is alertable while 2C > (natural) is not. It would not be helpful for 2C to be alertable > regardless of meaning. > > Tim > > > > >>they should also alert if >>west had made a bid in place of his second turn pass because of the >>infernce. >> what surprises me the most is the division of opinions among >>directors and comitee and the return of deposit. anybody for a >>campaign of "helpful alerting"? >> >>jpr >> >> >>>Best wishes >>> >>>Richard James Hills, amicus curiae >>>National Training Branch >>>02 6225 6285 >>> > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 19 11:02:00 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:02:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <450ED2A9.1070807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060919104739.020f3350@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:08 18/09/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I was directing in Pula (Croatia) last week, and this ruling created >some controversy among us TDs: > >East opens 1D and South puts 1NT on the table. > >West enquires and North says "16-18". > >Now South looks at the table in front of him and utters the classical >"ooops", saying he intented to bid 1S. > >FWIW, I was convinced that the error was mechanical. I have always some qualms about that statement, for how does the TD determine whether the error was mechanical ? He's not allowed to look at the player's hand, remember. But, assuming some imp (not the bridge kind) told you the error was mechanical, you're precisely in the right conditions for using L25A : mechanical error ; correction without pause FOR THOUGHT (other delays are irrelevant) ; the bidding didn't progress beyond LHO. How the player was made conscious of one's error is irrelevant (unless, perhaps, one's side's kibitz gulped). Afterthoughts : the TD is allowed to look at the player's hand after the deal, to see whether the player's statement (slip of the finger) is credible. Best regards Alain From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Sep 19 14:00:24 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:00:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <450FA358.4070707@hdw.be> Message-ID: It could, but this story does not conform to the real situation as I explained it to you. I was convinced that there had been a mechanical error. I may of course have been wrong in my conviction, but surely it is not possible on blml to go re-evaluating my "feel at the table". ____________________________________________________________________ Right Herman. That is what I felt about you "feeling" when first readind your post... and wrote "where is the trap?". Most of the time, the TD gets the right "feeling" at table and can "read in mind". Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 19 14:47:51 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:47:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060919104739.020f3350@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060919104739.020f3350@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <450FE6F7.8000000@t-online.de> Hello Alaisn, Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > > I have always some qualms about that statement, for how does the TD > determine whether the error was mechanical ? He's not allowed to look at > the player's hand, remember. > > have I missed something? Where does it say that the TD may not look at a player`s hand? It often is a bad idea, agreed, and should be avoided, but for the life of me I cannot find a rule where it says "the TD may not look at a player`s hand" or some such. I always teach newbie TDs not to look, _except_ possibly when they have to decide between 25 A and B, and preferably not even then, but if there is no other way (for example if the player does not understand the intricacies of inadvertancy), then I look at the hand record or at the hand (away from the table of course), and I _never_ tell the players why I have ruled 25B before the play is finished. BTW, I agree with Herman (and about everyone else) that this is 25A if the TD deems the call to have been made inadvertant. Best regards Matthias From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 19 15:12:17 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:12:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c6db7b$931057e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6db7b$931057e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060919091029.02b2d280@pop.starpower.net> At 07:38 PM 9/18/06, Sven wrote: >And my guess is that we shall have the first minutes (or equivalent) >within >a year after the release of the new laws. If anyone is taking bets, I'll go for the under. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 19 15:27:35 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:27:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <450FE6F7.8000000@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000501c6dbef$60cb22f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus ............. > have I missed something? Where does it say that the TD may not look at a > player`s hand? It often is a bad idea, agreed, and should be avoided, > but for the life of me I cannot find a rule where it says "the TD may > not look at a player`s hand" or some such. You will not find this in any law. But it is a fact that when a Director announces his ruling after having (possibly) inspected cards involved he cannot avoid suspicion that his ruling was actually influenced from what he saw. This implies that the players are given essential information which they are not entitled to, i.e. they have unauthorized information about the board given to them by the Director. This is in many cases sufficient to subsequently rule that the board can no longer be played and scored normally, a situation the Director must avoid by all means. Regards Sven From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Sep 19 17:15:03 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:15:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] TR: L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca] Envoye : 19 septembre, 2006 08:00 A : herman at hdw.be; blml at rtflb.org Objet : RE: [blml] L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] It could, but this story does not conform to the real situation as I explained it to you. I was convinced that there had been a mechanical error. I may of course have been wrong in my conviction, but surely it is not possible on blml to go re-evaluating my "feel at the table". ____________________________________________________________________ Right Herman. That is what I felt about you "feeling" when first readind your post... and wrote "where is the trap?". Most of the time, the TD gets the right "feeling" at table and can "read in mind". Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 19 17:29:53 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:29:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <000501c6dbef$60cb22f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c6dbef$60cb22f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45100CF1.5080206@t-online.de> Sven Pran schrieb: >> On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus >> > ............. > >> have I missed something? Where does it say that the TD may not look at a >> player`s hand? It often is a bad idea, agreed, and should be avoided, >> but for the life of me I cannot find a rule where it says "the TD may >> not look at a player`s hand" or some such. >> > > You will not find this in any law. > Of course not. > But it is a fact that when a Director announces his ruling after having > (possibly) inspected cards involved he cannot avoid suspicion that his > ruling was actually influenced from what he saw. > Sure. So you try without looking. But sometimes you realize that you are unable to get the difference between 25A and 25B over to the player. Very rarely, but it happens. So you have no choice, have you? You cannot flip a coin and possibly adjust the score later. > This implies that the players are given essential information which they are > not entitled to, i.e. they have unauthorized information about the board > given to them by the Director. Not in 25A, and not if the players do not know whether the TD has seen the cards. If you zake the player round the corner.... No problem there. Of course you have to avoid giving UI as TD, no question about it. > This is in many cases sufficient to > subsequently rule that the board can no longer be played and scored > normally, a situation the Director must avoid by all means. > Right. And he can, if he is careful. Regards Matthias > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 19 17:34:51 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:34:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45100E1B.40805@NTLworld.com> [Herman] I was convinced that there had been a mechanical error. I may of course have been wrong in my conviction, but surely it is not possible on blml to go re-evaluating my "feel at the table". [Laval] Right Herman. That is what I felt about you "feeling" when first reading your post... and wrote "where is the trap?". Most of the time the TD gets the right "feeling" at table and can "read in mind". [Nigel] Some players are worried about laws that rely heavily on judgement, perhaps unnecessarily, such as those that allow favoured players to correct mechanical errors. It is human nature to more readily believe a self-serving statement by a friend than by a foe; and it is hard to dispute such a judgement. It may comfort a director to believe that "most of the time the TD gets the right 'feeling' at table" but that confidence isn't shared by all players :( IMO the law should rely as little as possible on subjective judgement. For example, normally a player shouldn't be allowed to retract a mechanical error to which attention has been drawn -- unless his opponents ask the director and the director agrees. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 19 17:48:39 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:48:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060919091029.02b2d280@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c6db7b$931057e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20060919091029.02b2d280@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <45101157.60403@NTLworld.com> [Sven] And my guess is that we shall have the first minutes (or equivalent) within a year after the release of the new laws. [Nigel] Players would far rather that ambiguities and corrections be made quickly rather than be allowed to fester for years, as previously. Obviously, obscure minutes and so on are virtually useless to most players (and many directors). Eventually, players hope that the WBFLC will take on board that it is better to publish interim revised editions of the complete laws on the web, together with specific corrigenda that can be pasted into hard-copy. From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 19 20:46:03 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:46:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c6db7b$931057e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20060919091029.02b2d280@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007f01c6dc1b$dba0e420$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > At 07:38 PM 9/18/06, Sven wrote: > >>And my guess is that we shall have the first minutes (or equivalent) >>within >>a year after the release of the new laws. > > If anyone is taking bets, I'll go for the under. I'd already emailed a spread offer of 180 days plus or minus 10 :) John > > > Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Sep 19 21:17:50 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:17:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A43@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of John Probst Sent: 19 September 2006 19:46 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List; Eric Landau Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > At 07:38 PM 9/18/06, Sven wrote: > >>And my guess is that we shall have the first minutes (or equivalent) >>within >>a year after the release of the new laws. > > If anyone is taking bets, I'll go for the under. I'd already emailed a spread offer of 180 days plus or minus 10 :) John > > > Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml I'm not sure when the 1997 laws were first available, or the earliest they were in use. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_bas.htm says "In the ACBL it happened in late May 1997. In England it occurred on 1st October 1997. Everywhere will be using it by the 1st of January 1998." So it is likely the 1997 laws were in use less than five months when WBFLC minutes (1997-10-19) contained interpretations of the new laws. In England the pristine laws were in use for 19 days and in other places the laws had been subject to interpretation before being used! Robin WBFLC 1997-10-19 #6 re Law71C WBFLC 1997-10-19 #7 re definition of "convention" ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Sep 19 22:03:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <450FAC70.8050100@meteo.fr> Message-ID: > if "undiscussed", it's "general bridge knowledge" which, in this > instance, isn't for most people "natural", but a willingness not to > be involved in the bidding process for the moment. The natural meaning of a pass is a desire for the contract to remain as it is. If one plays a forcing pass here that would be conventional (and definitely alertable). > if ew have the agreement that pass would be a willingness to defend > against 2H after 1C 2H - - x xx, when w bids instead 2S, his spade > suit may be shorter than if they had not the agreement, it's helpful > to disclose it to the opponents and they may feel themselves > misinformed if they are not let into the secret. It is helpful to disclose, but necessary to follow the spirit and letter of the alert policy when so doing. Since the pair have an agreement to play pass as natural, and since such an agreement should not be a surprise to anyone (agreeing to play pass as forcing here simply allows opps off the hook by reXXing) the bid should not be alerted. North *chose* not to enquire about the pass, there was no "secrecy" involved. Opps may *feel* misinformed but the TD/AC should have disabused them of the idea that the pass was alertable. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Sep 19 22:03:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <45100CF1.5080206@t-online.de> Message-ID: > Sure. So you try without looking. But sometimes you realize that you > are unable to get the difference between 25A and 25B over to the > player. Very rarely, but it happens. So you have no choice, have you? > You cannot flip a coin and possibly adjust the score later. Of course you can - if you get it wrong you simply apply L82c at the end. These cases (L25a/b, L21b) are fairly rare, getting them wrong is very rare but it is *normally* better to go with instinct as to what you will allow and remedy later than to look at the hand. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Sep 19 22:03:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45100E1B.40805@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > It is human nature to more readily believe a self-serving statement > by a friend than by a foe; Perhaps I am inhuman, I find it easier to take the word of someone I am known to *dislike* in these situations lest I be be accused of favouritism. Of course one *tries* to get the balance right but as long as bridge requires judgement the laws will too (although for some reason I find impossible to fathom Nigel seems not to accept this) and some poor sucker has to be the one making such judgements. Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 19 22:50:03 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:50:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <45100CF1.5080206@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000301c6dc2d$2e9abe10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus > > ............. > > > >> have I missed something? Where does it say that the TD may not look > >> at a player`s hand? It often is a bad idea, agreed, and should be > >> avoided, but for the life of me I cannot find a rule where it says > >> "the TD may not look at a player`s hand" or some such. > >> > > > > You will not find this in any law. > > > > Of course not. > > > But it is a fact that when a Director announces his ruling after having > > (possibly) inspected cards involved he cannot avoid suspicion that his > > ruling was actually influenced from what he saw. > > > > Sure. So you try without looking. But sometimes you realize that you are > unable to get the difference between 25A and 25B over to the player. > Very rarely, but it happens. So you have no choice, have you? You cannot > flip a coin and possibly adjust the score later. Sure not. But if you really are in doubt you rule Law 25A but warn the player that if on subsequent inspection of the cards you find that you have been deceived you may adjust the score on the board. > > > This implies that the players are given essential information which they > > are not entitled to, i.e. they have unauthorized information about the > > board given to them by the Director. > > Not in 25A, and not if the players do not know whether the TD has seen > the cards. If you zake the player round the corner.... No problem there. > Of course you have to avoid giving UI as TD, no question about it. There is absolutely no use taking the player around the corner or otherwise walking away from the table and then come back with a ruling. The players will "know" that your ruling very likely is giving away essential information on the board: Either that the cards are consistent or that they are not consistent with a Law 25A according to how you ruled. > > > This is in many cases sufficient to > > subsequently rule that the board can no longer be played and scored > > normally, a situation the Director must avoid by all means. > > > > Right. And he can, if he is careful. Yes, by acting in such a way that the players are convinced his ruling is independent on the cards and only a result of the immediate impression he has from the table. Regards Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Sep 20 00:38:55 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:38:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <000301c6dc2d$2e9abe10$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c6dc2d$2e9abe10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4510717F.8000408@t-online.de> Sven Pran schrieb: > > Yes, by acting in such a way that the players are convinced his ruling is > independent on the cards and only a result of the immediate impression he > has from the table. > > Sven, we are not very much apart on this one, and I think we would handle most situations in the same way. Maybe our confidence level regarding our acting abilities is different. I feel confident that I can look at the cards (only in extreme cases, I know that there is danger in doing that) without giving something away. I have been wrong before. In either case I believe that the adverse effeczs on the bridge deal ( the relation between the actual hand and the score - which may include an adjustment -) is minimized if _I follow my method_, and possibly i_f you follow your methods_. Maybe your confidence in your judgement abilities is as high as my confidence in my acting abilities. In the long run what matters is what we feel comfortable with, what we can sell to the players, and what we adjust under "director`s error" when we got it wrong. In my eyes this is the ultimate proof for a director: what errors he is prepared to admit to. I am human, humans are vain, sometimes arrogant, but I always hope to be able to face my errors and learn from them. I can`t tell whether I always succed. I think we all try to live up to our own expectations. I can always live with players who think I got it wrong, I resigned myself to that when I became a director. It is more difficult when *_I_* think I got it wrong. I know I make mistakes, but I don`t like it. What I found out is that I make less mistakes doing it my way than doing it someone else`s way. In all probability any given director would be less successful using any other director`s methods. Regards Matthias > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 20 08:56:30 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:56:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <4510717F.8000408@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000701c6dc81$e6ecfa60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus > Sven Pran schrieb: > > > > Yes, by acting in such a way that the players are convinced his > > ruling is independent on the cards and only a result of the > > immediate impression he has from the table. > > > > > > Sven, we are not very much apart on this one, and I think we would > handle most situations in the same way. Maybe our confidence level > regarding our acting abilities is different. I feel confident that I can > look at the cards (only in extreme cases, I know that there is danger in > doing that) without giving something away. I have been wrong before. In > either case I believe that the adverse effeczs on the bridge deal ( the > relation between the actual hand and the score - which may include an > adjustment -) is minimized if _I follow my method_, and possibly i_f you > follow your methods_. Maybe your confidence in your judgement abilities > is as high as my confidence in my acting abilities. > In the long run what matters is what we feel comfortable with, what we > can sell to the players, and what we adjust under "director`s error" > when we got it wrong. In my eyes this is the ultimate proof for a > director: what errors he is prepared to admit to. I am human, humans are > vain, sometimes arrogant, but I always hope to be able to face my errors > and learn from them. I can`t tell whether I always succed. > I think we all try to live up to our own expectations. I can always live > with players who think I got it wrong, I resigned myself to that when I > became a director. It is more difficult when *_I_* think I got it wrong. > I know I make mistakes, but I don`t like it. What I found out is that I > make less mistakes doing it my way than doing it someone else`s way. > In all probability any given director would be less successful using any > other director`s methods. The horror case which we were taught as an example to avoid when I received my training as Director some 25 years ago goes back to the days when a Director was supposed to rule whether a bid could have been influenced by unauthorized information and either accept or deny it immediately. The Director looked at the questioned hand and exclaimed: "In my opinion he has full justification for his call!" Lesson: Never ever look at a player's cards and then give a ruling until after the play of the board is completed at which time you can adjust the result if you feel that way. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 20 09:37:18 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:37:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <4510717F.8000408@t-online.de> References: <000301c6dc2d$2e9abe10$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000301c6dc2d$2e9abe10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060920092859.020f4060@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:38 20/09/2006 +0200, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > I feel confident that I can look at the cards (only in extreme cases, I > know that there is danger in >doing that) without giving something away. BTA, the mere fact that you used L25A (resp L25B) tells a conversant player the hand is (resp isn't) consistent IYO with the "slip of the finger" interpretation, which may be a big chunk of information. AFAIC an educated guess -followed if necessary by application of L82 and/or disciplinary measures against deception- is less ticklish. I'm with Sven on that one. Even considering I'm not the best one in these guessing games. Best regards, Alain. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Sep 20 12:01:17 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:01:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4511116D.3020707@NTLworld.com> [Tim West-Meads] Perhaps I am inhuman, I find it easier to take the word of someone I am known to *dislike* in these situations lest I be be accused of favouritism. [nige1] Human perhaps but certainly unique. [Tim] As long as bridge requires judgement the laws will too (although for some reason I find impossible to fathom Nigel seems not to accept this)... [nige1] Untrue. I have often stated that laws require subjective judgement in their application. You can simplify the laws of Bridge, however, keeping the essential qualities of the game, but eliminating much unnecessary subjectivity. 25A is a case in point. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Sep 20 13:45:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] L25A or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <451086BD.6010602@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Untrue. I have often stated that laws require subjective judgement in > their application. You can simplify the laws of Bridge, however, > keeping the essential qualities of the game, but eliminating much > unnecessary subjectivity. 25A is a case in point. An example of the revised law25A would strengthen your case. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Sep 20 13:45:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <000701c6dc81$e6ecfa60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > The horror case which we were taught as an example to avoid when I > received my training as Director some 25 years ago goes back to the > days when a Director was supposed to rule whether a bid could have > been influenced by unauthorized information and either accept or > deny it immediately. > > The Director looked at the questioned hand and exclaimed: "In my > opinion he has full justification for his call!" And given the requirement for an immediate decision what else could he do? The laws have changed since then and no TD would look today because there can be no need. (NB when ruling at Chicago it is *necessary* to look as the hand must be recorded but the Director simply records and asks to be called back at the end - no problem). If ruling under laws which require an *immediate* decision it is occasionally better to look. BTW, the old way isn't as horrific as you seem to think. Obviously the NOS should play *as if* the bid is fully justified in these circumstances so the UI from the TD doesn't suggest any particular action (the downsides are more due to the inability to consult and the times one had to rule the bid back and handle the UI from the rolled back bid). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Sep 20 13:45:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] L25A or not In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060920092859.020f4060@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > BTA, the mere fact that you used L25A (resp L25B) tells a conversant > player the hand is (resp isn't) consistent IYO with the "slip of the > finger" interpretation, which may be a big chunk of information. It may, but we are only looking "in extremis" - ie where the things said at the table (or occasionally by a player taken away from the table to avoid giving UI to the others) leave us with a deep suspicion that offender is trying to slip a L25b change through L25a. Indeed I can't remember a time where I've felt the need to look and subsequently allowed a L25a change. That I have disallowed a L25a change in these circumstances is UI to OS and AI to NOS which seems fair. Tim From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Wed Sep 20 16:24:06 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:24:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >(1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted? > >(2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many >players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way? > > > >Open Teams Round 24 Board 13. >Dealer North. All Vulnerable. > >\ QJ965 > \ QT9 > \ 83 > \ 932 >KT3 \ A872 >K76542 \ --- >9 \ QJT7 >T85 \ AQJ76 > 4 \ > AJ83 \ > AK6542 \ > K4 \ > >West North East South >Townsend Lindkvist Gold Fredin >--- Pass 1C 2H >Pass Pass Dble Redble >Pass? > >Comments: >2H: 4H and 5+ minor intermediate, Redble showed a good hand >(*) first and second version of the auction, after the Director >ruled that the Pass could be changed > >Contract: Three Diamonds doubled, played by South > >Lead: C5 > >Result: 8 tricks, NS -200 > >The Facts: >West's second Pass was not alerted, at neither side of the >screen. >When East also passed, North asked what West's pass meant, and >he was told it was an indication that West would also have >passed the Double (without a Redouble). North then called the >Director, because he thought such a meaning ought to be >alertable. > > > The main problem is that a "pass" bid has two different "natural" meaning. A, There's nothing more to say about my hand, no additional strength or special distribution which i could show using our system B, I'd like to play the last bidden contract In the hand above it's a real huge problem which methode EW uses. Suppose they have an agreement and both of them play the same. Should they alert or no? There are lots of consistent anwsers to this question. P1, They should alert none of the two situations. Opponents know there are two possibilities, so if important they can enquier for that. P2, A is the usual method, so alert if B. P3, B is the logical method so alert if A. P4, The most of the players (including experts) have no agreement to this situation, so the pass can be the both type of hand. If EW has an agreement --- does not matter A or B --- they should alert. As I see, there are no law or regulation and nothing in the alert policy which correctly anwsers to this question. There may are anwsers in NBOs' rulebooks but not in WBF alerpolicy. Of course if someone likes one of the P1, P2, P3, P4 points better then the others he can explain it, but I don't think he is right. It's a thing which is missing from the WBF alert policy but should be in the next edition. We should think about what's the best solution. I think P3 does not work, cos the the majority of players who play A or play nothing do not understand there is something to alert. The other three Points can be good but I think the P1 is the best. Using screen there's normal in this situation if someone asks the meaning of this pass and no misinformation to partner. Without screen anyway in lots of cases the alert can inform West what his partner think about his bid. regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 20 19:03:47 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:03:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> References: <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060920125103.02bb9cc0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:24 AM 9/20/06, Laszlo wrote: >The main problem is that a "pass" bid has two different "natural" meaning. > >A, There's nothing more to say about my hand, no additional strength or >special distribution which i could show using our system > >B, I'd like to play the last bidden contract > >In the hand above it's a real huge problem which methode EW uses. >Suppose they have an agreement and both of them play the same. Should >they alert or no? > >There are lots of consistent anwsers to this question. > >P1, They should alert none of the two situations. Opponents know there >are two possibilities, so if important they can enquier for that. > >P2, A is the usual method, so alert if B. > >P3, B is the logical method so alert if A. > >P4, The most of the players (including experts) have no agreement to >this situation, so the pass can be the both type of hand. If EW has an >agreement --- does not matter A or B --- they should alert. > >As I see, there are no law or regulation and nothing in the alert policy >which correctly anwsers to this question. There may are anwsers in NBOs' >rulebooks but not in WBF alerpolicy. Of course if someone likes one of >the P1, P2, P3, P4 points better then the others he can explain it, but >I don't think he is right. It's a thing which is missing from the WBF >alert policy but should be in the next edition. We should think about >what's the best solution. > >I think P3 does not work, cos the the majority of players who play A or >play nothing do not understand there is something to alert. The other >three Points can be good but I think the P1 is the best. Using screen >there's normal in this situation if someone asks the meaning of this >pass and no misinformation to partner. Without screen anyway in lots of >cases the alert can inform West what his partner think about his bid. I think Laci is on the right track here. Any rule will work fine -- for those partnerships who have actually thought about and discussed the issue. But that's a small minority. For most non-novice partnerships, a pass is forcing, except when it isn't. IOW, the "standard" treatment of a pass is something like "it is forcing if and only if the logic of the auction dictates that the opponents should not be allowed to play an undoubled contract". That makes Laci's P2 and P3 unworkable. My own personal preference would be for P1 also, but P4 is certainly a viable choice. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 21 00:25:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: > A, There's nothing more to say about my hand, no additional strength > or special distribution which i could show using our system But add to that: "Partner has already shown a hand with a genuine diamond suit and heart shortage and I have declined to bid a black suit or support partner and made a non-forcing pass (because a forcing pass would certainly have been alerted)." and you end up with > B, I'd like to play the last bidden contract Thus in *this* sequence A and B have the same meaning. While I've played with David on occasion we have never encountered this particular sequence however if we did I'd like to think he would describe it (in full) as "Not explicitly discussed but over a natural 2H it would express a desire to defend (we have discussed the principle of handling psychic/SOS redoubles in general) and I expect the same logic to apply here." Playing behind screens with written Q&A I'd settle for "business" as a first response. Neither of us would consider alerting. Of course he and Tommy may have discussed more sequences, including this one, but one still doesn't expect to alert natural bids with no special meaning under EBL rules. The CTD should have advised the AC that the pass was not alertable - if necessary after consultation with the EBL (maybe WBF). Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 21 09:03:27 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:03:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: North-South You, East, hold: AKQJ982 A K3 632 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- Pass Pass 4S(1) 4NT 5C(2) 5H 5S 6H Pass Pass ? (1) In your methods a 4D opening bid would show a preempt in diamonds (2) Lead-directing in clubs and shows spade tolerance What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 21 09:35:26 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:35:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A43@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robin Barker: >>I'm not sure when the 1997 laws were first available, or the >>earliest they were in use. >> >>http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_bas.htm says >> >>"In the ACBL it happened in late May 1997. In England it >>occurred on 1st October 1997. Everywhere will be using it by >>the 1st of January 1998." >> >>So it is likely the 1997 laws were in use less than five >>months when WBFLC minutes (1997-10-19) contained >>interpretations of the new laws. In England the pristine >>laws were in use for 19 days and in other places the laws >>had been subject to interpretation before being used! Nigel Guthrie: >Players would far rather that ambiguities and corrections be >made quickly rather than be allowed to fester for years, as >previously. Obviously, obscure minutes and so on are virtually >useless to most players (and many directors). > >Eventually, players hope that the WBFLC will take on board >that it is better to publish interim revised editions of the >complete laws on the web, together with specific corrigenda >that can be pasted into hard-copy. Richard Hills: Nigel's solution to the problem of an incomplete or ambiguous Lawbook is only the second-best one. Much better is doing the beta-testing of "the new data network which will come into use next year" before it is released, rather than after. If the new Lawbook (which will come into use next year?) is thoroughly checked and rechecked for lacunae _before_ promulgation, so as to exterminate any ancient or potential bugs in the text, then later corrigenda will not be necessary. And a 2008 flawless Lawbook would be better than a 2007 flawed Lawbook; the world will not come to an end if TDs have to muddle along with the highly flawed 1997 Lawbook for another year. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 21 10:46:43 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:46:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060920125103.02bb9cc0@pop.starpower.net> References: <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060921103533.020f6250@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:03 20/09/2006 -0400, you wrote: >A, There's nothing more to say about my hand, no additional strength or >special distribution which i could show using our system > >B, I'd like to play the last bidden contract > > > >P1, They should alert none of the two situations. Opponents know there > >are two possibilities, so if important they can enquier for that. > > > >P2, A is the usual method, so alert if B. > > > >P3, B is the logical method so alert if A. > > > >P4, The most of the players (including experts) have no agreement to > >this situation, so the pass can be the both type of hand. If EW has an > >agreement --- does not matter A or B --- they should alert. > > I think P3 is intenable, as is every prescript of alerting "type A" passes, as every player, in every system, has "difficult hands" that can't be bid in such-and-such situation. Therefore, 90% of passes are "type A complete", i.e. "I have nothing to tell, or I have something to tell that my system doesn't allow". For example : 1D 1S p ? Most pairs are unable to show a long diamond suit. Should we alert because advancer might have a fair hand with long diamonds ? If this is common bridge knowledge, what about that : 1D 2Swk 3C ? Robson and his followers (including Yours Truly) will tell you 3H is now fit-showing. Should you alert the pass because partenr could have hearts ? (of course, if he bids hearts belatedly, one should alert and explain this is the only way partner had to do so, lest opponents draw inferences from the original pass) Or, the ability to bid a 2335 stopperless 8-count after 1D (1H) depends on the meaning of your doubles and 1S bids. But I wouldn't compel opponents to alert the pass because they happen to play "double = 4 spades" and "1S = 5 spades". Best regards, Alain. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 21 10:53:05 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:53:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060921104713.020fa8a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:03 21/09/2006 +1000, you wrote: >AKQJ982 >A >K3 >632 > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >--- Pass Pass 4S(1) >4NT 5C(2) 5H 5S >6H Pass Pass ? > >(1) In your methods a 4D opening bid >would show a preempt in diamonds >(2) Lead-directing in clubs and shows >spade tolerance > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I would double, expecting to lose 1 club and 1 diamond trick in 6S. I even know what to lead (no, not a spade). At the vulnerability, an "insurance" 6S is possible, but I don't like telling partner his bid didn't help me. If this is an hesitation case, you could hardly disallow the double. I wouldn't allow 6S, but YMMV. Apart from that, East's 5S was wrong IMHO : E/W are "committed" to 5S, so that a pass would be more encouraging, and right here. Best regards, Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 21 10:45:35 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:45:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A43@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <003101c6dd5a$77d54ae0$a6c787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "My lord, we make use of you, not for your bad legs, but for your good head." [Queen Elizabeth I ] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > So it is likely the 1997 laws were in use less than > five months when WBFLC minutes (1997-10-19) > contained interpretations of the new laws. > +=+ I am not sure that the comparison is on a level playing field. At the meeting in question the WBFLC was "under new management" and there was an element of clearing up things that Kaplan might have said were already clear from his text (although he may not have hit upon the same interpretation). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 21 19:51:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > You, East, hold: > > AKQJ982 > A > K3 > 632 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- Pass Pass 4S(1) > 4NT 5C(2) 5H 5S > 6H Pass Pass ? > > (1) In your methods a 4D opening bid > would show a preempt in diamonds > (2) Lead-directing in clubs and shows > spade tolerance > > What call do you make? Dunno. I've got AAKK more than I might have had for my 4S bid (albeit with shorter spades) so pass isn't an option. 7S could make opposite Txxx,xxx,Axxxxx,- but I don't really have space to explore. Double is reasonable but I can see 500 being a poor score. I'd like to bid 6S but it depends how much faith I have in partner's lead directing bid - I'd expect him to have either decent clubs or a void but some people might just be showing an Ace (also interested in what a X of 5C rather than 5H by RHO would have shown). Were this a case of a slow 5C I'd feel obliged to bid 6S and go off. > What other calls do you consider making? I'd read the case before this was posted and TBH I can't see that the actual UI makes much difference - it doesn't tell me whether partner's clubs are AQJTx (6S pls) or AQ9xx (X pls). Tim From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 19:54:35 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:54:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2da24b8e0609211054p4368f89fxd510756a498efb6e@mail.gmail.com> On 9/21/06, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > You, East, hold: > > AKQJ982 > A > K3 > 632 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- Pass Pass 4S(1) > 4NT 5C(2) 5H 5S > 6H Pass Pass ? > > (1) In your methods a 4D opening bid > would show a preempt in diamonds > (2) Lead-directing in clubs and shows > spade tolerance > > What call do you make? I double > What other calls do you consider making? I don't think any other call merits serious consideration From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 21 22:59:11 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:59:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004601c6ddc0$e7d875e0$119468d5@computer> [ Richard Hillls] > Nigel's solution to the problem of an incomplete or ambiguous > Lawbook is only the second-best one. > > Much better is doing the beta-testing of "the new data network > which will come into use next year" before it is released, > rather than after. > > If the new Lawbook (which will come into use next year?) is > thoroughly checked and rechecked for lacunae _before_ > promulgation, so as to exterminate any ancient or potential > bugs in the text, then later corrigenda will not be necessary. > > And a 2008 flawless Lawbook would be better than a 2007 flawed > Lawbook; the world will not come to an end if TDs have to > muddle along with the highly flawed 1997 Lawbook for another > year. [nigel] You are quibbling again, Richard; but in so far as we disagree {which isn't much) my suggestion seems better.. You propose that the WBFLC should seek criticism from a select group (probably mostly directors and administrators). I think the views of ordinary players are at least as important so it would be better to publish fiirst efforts on the web.. In either case, the committee is free to decide what criticisms it studies and implements. Furthermore, as in th past, flaws will become apparent only when the new laws are put into practice, so more editiions will be necessary (assuming that the committee don't continue to rely on obscure minutes). Finally, neither players nor directors would "have to muddle along with the highly flawed 1997 Lawbook for another year". From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri Sep 22 01:06:46 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:06:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060921103533.020f6250@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> <5.1.0.14.0.20060921103533.020f6250@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <45131B06.3020604@cs.elte.hu> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 13:03 20/09/2006 -0400, you wrote: > > > > >A, There's nothing more to say about my hand, no additional strength or > >special distribution which i could show using our system > > > >B, I'd like to play the last bidden contract > > >>>P1, They should alert none of the two situations. Opponents know there >>>are two possibilities, so if important they can enquier for that. >>> >>>P2, A is the usual method, so alert if B. >>> >>>P3, B is the logical method so alert if A. >>> >>>P4, The most of the players (including experts) have no agreement to >>>this situation, so the pass can be the both type of hand. If EW has an >>>agreement --- does not matter A or B --- they should alert. >>> >>> >>> > >I think P3 is intenable, as is every prescript of alerting "type A" passes, >as every player, in every system, has "difficult hands" that can't be bid >in such-and-such situation. Therefore, 90% of passes are "type A complete", >i.e. "I have nothing to tell, or I have something to tell that my system >doesn't allow". > > > Sure I agree, P3 is strange ruling ind the real life. But which of the other three? regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 22 01:30:25 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:30:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004601c6ddc0$e7d875e0$119468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Furthermore, as in the past, flaws will become apparent >only when the new laws are put into practice, so more >editions will be necessary Richard Hills: Nigel is begging the question, petitio principii, in arguing that it is useless to try to create a flawless Lawbook because any flawless Lawbook will later have flaws become apparent. On the other hand, I agree that new editions of the Lawbook will be needed as the general bridge culture evolves, thus causing a need for the policy framework of the Lawbook to evolve. For example, the Active Ethics campaign in the 1990s had an effect on the interpretation of the "carefully avoid taking any advantage" criterion of Law 73C, which will presumably be reflected by better, less ambiguous and more specific language in "next year's" Lawbook. Looking into the far future, I suspect that the 2017 Lawbook will continue the decades-long trend away from arbitrary and draconian penalties and towards "let the punishment fit the crime" rectifications. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 22 02:38:32 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:38:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: <200609121420.k8CEKDVi023129@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609121420.k8CEKDVi023129@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45133088.9010600@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > i am puzzled by this notion of "alertable call". so often it leads to > misunderstandings and lawyerings. how simple however it is to disclose > meanings of calls that are a consequence of a partnership agreement or > experience and could be mistaken by opponents. If it were simple, we wouldn't have problems. For an experienced partnership, practically every call will have some possibly-unexpected implications, but alerting all of them is not useful. Blame -- if there is any -- attaches to SO's who fail to give clear alerting rules. >>EBL 2004 Appeal No. 10 >>The Captain of North/South summed up that there seem to be 2 >>schools concerning this pass, but that if this meaning is >>considered non-alertable, then all normal passes suddenly >>become alertable. The fallacy of "only one non-alertable meaning." > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > And the Chapter 1 definition of "convention" > states: > "However, an agreement as to overall strength > does not make a call a convention." Readers of this forum shouldn't need to be reminded that L30C provides an exception for passes. > So in Australia such a two-way pass is defined > as non-conventional, therefore is not alerted. I don't know what's "two-way" about the pass, but I don't see that either agreement is a convention. Regardless of that, the definition of convention is so unclear that SO's are ill-advised to use the word in their alerting regulations. Sven Pran: >>A very interesting consequence is that an >>opening pass that promises 13+ HCP regardless of >>distribution is _not_ a conventional call? I missed the original message (spam filters got "turned up") and am not sure whether this was a question or attempt at _reductio ad absurdum_. I expect Sven knows L30C. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 22 04:13:17 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:13:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error Message-ID: <004b01c6ddec$ad210300$6400a8c0@rota> It's good practice for the Panel or AC to cite the Law that is being applied, particularly in the case of an obscure Law like L82C. In Chicago regional case 11, the Panel seems to have misinterpreted the Law, most likely by not reading it properly. Initial ruling: With West on lead, South made a statement which could have been a claim. The TD ruled that it was not a claim. South had a losing diamond in hand, but West led a club, allowing South to take all the remaining tricks for +420. The Panel ruled that it was a claim, and that South would have gone down one on a normal line of play; however, it ruled +420/+50 because there was a TD error at the table in allowing play to continue. It is correct to apply L82C here; both sides should be considered non-offending *for purposes of awarding an adjusted score* if normal scoring is not possible, and the TD error prevented South from making a claim statement (or even claiming a number of tricks) and prevented E-W from acquiescing or objecting. However, L82C still requires an adjusted score to be awarded by the normal rules; both sides get the best score that was likely without the TD error. Since South made a claim, the score must be awarded under the claim rules. If South had claimed down one, he would have scored only -50. If South had claimed all the tricks and faced his hand, revealing a losing diamond, it is not likely that West would acquiesce to the claim when he could cash the setting trick. Thus it is not likely that South would score +420 without the TD error. (It may be likely that South would score +420 without his faulty claim, but his faulty claim had already happened before the TD made any error.) Subsequent ruling: The Panel discovered a day later that the table ruling had been changed to -50/+50, but the TD did not report that changed ruling to the panel. Again the Panel ruled TD error, this time in giving the facts to the Panel, and said that it would have ruled -50/+50 with the correct facts. And again it misused L82C; the TD error, once corrected, should not affect the Panel result, since -50/+50 was the best score likely for both sides. Here, the Panel could make an equity case for letting the previous ruling stand, and it might have to let the previous ruling stand if it were too late to undo. But it has no L82C case for letting the previous ruling stand. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Sep 22 06:49:35 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:49:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922143822.0459ac40@mail.optusnet.com.au> I found the following case of misinformation difficult. Nil Vul, Dealer North Q 9 5 3 K Q J 10 4 3 8 6 3 K 10 J 7 6 4 2 A 9 6 3 J 8 5 A 9 8 6 2 K 5 A J Q 9 2 A 8 Q 10 7 4 2 7 K 10 7 5 4 South opened 2H, to show that suit and another, not alerted (OK for a weak 6 card suit in Oz). West then bid 3NT (2NT would have shown the minors, and double was ruled out because West was afraid of the spade response). North had forgotten the system, and 3NT went down three (bottom). No-one else in the club played the hand with an opening 2H bid, so it was difficult to decide what might have occurred in the bidding, and perhaps the subsequent play with correct information. I finally decided that a plausible scenario was for West to pass and await the further auction, leaving 2H by South as the final contract. This should go 2 off, for quite a good EW score. I would welcome some other opinions. Tony (Sydney) . From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Sep 22 08:51:54 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:51:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922143822.0459ac40@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922164544.0591d280@mail.optusnet.com.au> richard opined: At 04:34 PM 22/09/2006, you wrote: >If one assumes that the declarer play in 3NT was not affected by MI, and if >one assumes that the defence to 3NT was not affected by UI, then I am >inclined to let the score stand. > >Given that West plays the silly method of a 2NT overcall always showing >both minors (even when 2NT is not a jump overcall), and given that West was >consequently willing to grossly overbid to 3NT over 2H showing hearts, it >seems likely that West would also have grossly overbid to 3NT over 2H >showing hearts and another. That is, it seems to me that it was the fact >of South's opening bid, not the misdescription of South's opening bid, that >caused the East-West bottom. I was reluctant to criticise the non-offender's bidding methods, but they were quite happy to let the result stand. Ex post facto, West felt that she may have elected to pass if informed that South had a 2nd suit (presumably clubs). I think that is unsatisfactory that my decision results in either a top to NS (the infractors), or about 80% for EW if I decide that pass is possible. I would rather give them both avg-. Tony(Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 22 08:59:18 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:59:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: <45131B06.3020604@cs.elte.hu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060921103533.020f6250@pop.ulb.ac.be> <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> <45114F06.9020303@cs.elte.hu> <5.1.0.14.0.20060921103533.020f6250@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060922085826.027b49d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 01:06 22/09/2006 +0200, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > > >A, There's nothing more to say about my hand, no additional strength or > > >special distribution which i could show using our system > > > > > >B, I'd like to play the last bidden contract > > > > > >>>P1, They should alert none of the two situations. Opponents know there > >>>are two possibilities, so if important they can enquier for that. > >>> > >>>P2, A is the usual method, so alert if B. > >>> > >>>P3, B is the logical method so alert if A. > >>> > >>>P4, The most of the players (including experts) have no agreement to > >>>this situation, so the pass can be the both type of hand. If EW has an > >>>agreement --- does not matter A or B --- they should alert. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >I think P3 is intenable, as is every prescript of alerting "type A" passes, > >as every player, in every system, has "difficult hands" that can't be bid > >in such-and-such situation. Therefore, 90% of passes are "type A complete", > >i.e. "I have nothing to tell, or I have something to tell that my system > >doesn't allow". > > > > > > >Sure I agree, P3 is strange ruling ind the real life. But which of the >other three? I prefer F1, BTA I've always been in favor of a ''significant alert' policy. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 22 09:25:37 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:25:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error In-Reply-To: <004b01c6ddec$ad210300$6400a8c0@rota> References: <004b01c6ddec$ad210300$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: On Sep 21, 2006, at 10:13 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > It's good practice for the Panel or AC Or the Director! > to cite the Law that is being applied From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 22 09:39:36 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:39:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error In-Reply-To: <004b01c6ddec$ad210300$6400a8c0@rota> References: <004b01c6ddec$ad210300$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <88A31CC2-F7EB-4A4E-86A0-05C9F8114A18@rochester.rr.com> I do not see how an AC is justified in applying law 82C. That law says "If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose." The Law does *not* say "If the Director has given a ruling that an AC subsequently determines to be incorrect...." As I understand the laws and the proper procedure for ACs, if the AC decides the TD made a judgement error, the AC may substitute its judgement for his, and make the ruling to which their judgement leads. If, however, the AC feels the TD made an error in law, all they can do is suggest to him that he change it. In no case that I can see is a committee justified in applying law 82C. The case in point revolves around the question whether there was in fact a claim. That question is answered by Law 68A, and it seems to me the answer is a matter of law, and not one of judgement. So it seems to me that in this case the committee was wrong twice - once in applying 82C in order to arrive at an adjustment, and prior to that also in overturning the TD's ruling in the first place, rather than sending the case back to him with a recommendation that he change his ruling himself. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 22 09:43:40 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:43:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922164544.0591d280@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922143822.0459ac40@immi.gov.au> <6.2.0.14.2.20060922164544.0591d280@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <73A093F8-4CE2-4926-857B-DB9DB4A0DC51@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 22, 2006, at 2:51 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > I would rather give them both avg-. Maybe so, but a result was obtained at the table, so you can't. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 22 09:54:28 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:54:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: <45133088.9010600@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609121420.k8CEKDVi023129@cfa.harvard.edu> <45133088.9010600@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > the definition of convention is so unclear that SO's are ill- > advised to use the word in > their alerting regulations. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "convention", as it relates to bridge, thusly: "a practice in bidding or playing that conveys information between partners in a card game (as bridge)". Therefore, *every* call is a convention, and for that reason, the word should not, IMO, be used *anywhere* in law or regulation. If the laws defined "convention" as a *special* agreement - i.e., one whose meaning is not obvious to *any* bridge player, and thus requiring disclosure in accordance with the laws and regulation pertaining to disclosure, I would have less problem with the use of the turn. But the laws don't do that. :-( Actually, even that definition is dangerous. I've seen several cases of players who think the methods they play are "obvious" - and they're wrong. Hell, I had a partner once who doubled an opponent's opening 1S bid for penalty - and who thought "everybody knows that" because that's what his mother taught him. Heh. From herman at hdw.be Fri Sep 22 10:15:49 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:15:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error In-Reply-To: <88A31CC2-F7EB-4A4E-86A0-05C9F8114A18@rochester.rr.com> References: <004b01c6ddec$ad210300$6400a8c0@rota> <88A31CC2-F7EB-4A4E-86A0-05C9F8114A18@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <45139BB5.7090506@hdw.be> Ed forgets one thing: Ed Reppert wrote: > I do not see how an AC is justified in applying law 82C. That law > says "If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief > Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no > rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall > award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for > that purpose." The Law does *not* say "If the Director has given a > ruling that an AC subsequently determines to be incorrect...." > L93B3: the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these laws to the director Hence, the AC may also apply L82C. IMHO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date: 21/09/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 22 11:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: <45133088.9010600@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > If it were simple, we wouldn't have problems. For an experienced > partnership, practically every call will have some > possibly-unexpected implications, but alerting all of them is not > useful. > > Blame -- if there is any -- attaches to SO's who fail to give clear > alerting rules. Below I give the EBL policy as taken from the official EBL website. Please note that this *differs* from the regulation quoted in the AC ruling (albeit the ruling says that "EBL policy applies"). Perhaps I am being foolish in assuming the web-site is correct and the ruling a poor paraphrase of the actual regulations. **The following classes of calls should be alerted: 1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. 2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: All doubles. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter. ** End policy Strictly speaking only *bids* are alertable while pass/X/XX never are (so a forcing pass would not be alertable even though conventional!). However IMO this conflicts with the "spirit" of the policy and I would argue that conventional *calls* are alertable (unless excepted by the specific regs for screens not being in use). The only issue then is what constitutes "special" under the terms of item 2". > The fallacy of "only one non-alertable meaning." But the EBL/WBF are *known* not to embrace *that* fallacy. Natural opening bids of 2x are not alertable regardless of strength or being forcing/non-forcing (Natural 2/1 responses not alertable whether GF,Promising a rebid or F1). Thus we can infer that a "non-conventional" meaning is not "special" if it is one of a range of commonly played meanings. OK, it would be better had that been *stated* in the policy rather than merely inferential but I don't think the actual policy is particularly ambiguous, I just think the TD got it wrong (and was derelict in his/her duty in failing to seek official clarification from the EBL when on-site directorial opinion was divided). > If it were simple, we wouldn't have problems. For an experienced > partnership, practically every call will have some > possibly-unexpected implications, but alerting all of them is not > useful. I agree with this, which is why I have a problem with the regulation quoted by the AC: ** Reg C2 (i) has a special or artificial meaning, or (ii) which has a partnership meaning that may not be understood by the opponents, is a call that must be brought to the immediate attention of the opponents through the use of the "alert procedure". Under *that* regulation I would indeed alert *everything* if playing with even a semi-regular partner. However, I would also rule that NS were not damaged by the failure to alert since it is inconceivable that the pass would have a non-alertable meaning under a regulation this broad (even if undiscussed there will be inferences from other agreements/discussions/experience). I would also say that any partnership which discussed their system/alerts based on the official EBL regulations on the web only to discover that those regulations are *not* being applied in an EBL tournament has been treated unfairly. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 22 11:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922164544.0591d280@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony wrote: > I think that is unsatisfactory that my decision > results in either a top to NS (the infractors), or about 80% for EW > if I decide that pass is possible. I would rather give them both > avg-. You need to get L12c3 enabled. I don't see why average- for both sides is desirable but a score of 50% of 3N-2/50% of 2H-2 to each side (based on expectations of how West might have bid had 2H been alerted) would be reasonable. NB, it's possible that 2N would be natural over a conventional 2H and that EW would end in 2N/3S. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 22 12:03:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "convention", as it Which is irrelevant. The *laws* define a convention as: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. Much better than MW but still far from perfect. A few riders (such as "other than" includes "in addition to") word improve it. Tim From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Sep 22 14:07:09 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:07:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922143822.0459ac40@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony writes: I found the following case of misinformation difficult. Nil Vul, Dealer North Q 9 5 3 K Q J 10 4 3 8 6 3 K 10 J 7 6 4 2 A 9 6 3 J 8 5 A 9 8 6 2 K 5 A J Q 9 2 A 8 Q 10 7 4 2 7 K 10 7 5 4 South opened 2H, to show that suit and another, not alerted (OK for a weak 6 card suit in Oz). West then bid 3NT (2NT would have shown the minors, and double was ruled out because West was afraid of the spade response). North had forgotten the system, and 3NT went down three (bottom). No-one else in the club played the hand with an opening 2H bid, so it was difficult to decide what might have occurred in the bidding, and perhaps the subsequent play with correct information. I finally decided that a plausible scenario was for West to pass and await the further auction, leaving 2H by South as the final contract. This should go 2 off, for quite a good EW score. _________________________________________________________________ There was misinformation: "an other suit" was not alerted. There was a bad score for E-W. But does this bad score come from the MI? Not so evident. What W would have bid without the MI ? Is it then more evident not to bid 3NT than on a "normal" 2H opening ? The other suit is likely to be Spade. The real problem is the E-W system: using 2NT as minors on a weak opening, instead of a standard 15-18 balanced hand. My first reaction would be: the score stand. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 22 14:58:24 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:58:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. References: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922143822.0459ac40@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <005d01c6de46$ca2817e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:49 AM Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. >I found the following case of misinformation difficult. the question one should be asking is what would 2NT have meant over a 2-suiter? if it were natural, I'd rule 2NT down whatever, since West would bid 2NT (He took an IWOG 3N after all) If EW have agreements over 2H (2-suiter) then pass is also possible. > > Nil Vul, Dealer North > > Q 9 5 3 > K > Q J 10 4 3 > 8 6 3 > > K 10 J 7 6 4 2 > A 9 6 3 J 8 5 > A 9 8 6 2 K 5 > A J Q 9 2 > > A 8 > Q 10 7 4 2 > 7 > K 10 7 5 4 > > > South opened 2H, to show that suit and another, not > alerted (OK for a weak 6 card suit in Oz). West then bid 3NT > (2NT would have shown the minors, and double was ruled out > because West was afraid of the spade response). North had > forgotten the system, and 3NT went down three (bottom). > > No-one else in the club played the hand with an opening 2H > bid, I always said the Oz's were wimps :) Can't play cricket, can't play bridge :) so it was difficult to decide what might have occurred in the > bidding, and perhaps the subsequent play with correct information. > > I finally decided that a plausible scenario was for West to pass > and await the further auction, leaving 2H by South as the final > contract. This should go 2 off, for quite a good EW score. > > I would welcome some other opinions. > > Tony (Sydney) > > > . > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrhind at therock.bm Fri Sep 22 15:24:52 2006 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:24:52 -0300 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I always view MI problems with 2 questions: 1. Was their MI? 2. Did the MI cause damage? I only consider adjusting the score if the answer to both is yes. In this case the answer to 1. Is yes, but I don't think that answer to 2. Is yes. West took a shot at bidding 3NT opposite a passed hand and I believe that they should keep the poor result that they earned. I would give serious consideration to awarding a PP to NS for the failure to alert. Regards to all, Jack On 9/22/06 9:07 AM, "Laval Dubreuil" wrote: > Tony writes: > > I found the following case of misinformation difficult. > > Nil Vul, Dealer North > > Q 9 5 3 > K > Q J 10 4 3 > 8 6 3 > > K 10 J 7 6 4 2 > A 9 6 3 J 8 5 > A 9 8 6 2 K 5 > A J Q 9 2 > > A 8 > Q 10 7 4 2 > 7 > K 10 7 5 4 > > > South opened 2H, to show that suit and another, not > alerted (OK for a weak 6 card suit in Oz). West then bid 3NT > (2NT would have shown the minors, and double was ruled out > because West was afraid of the spade response). North had > forgotten the system, and 3NT went down three (bottom). > > No-one else in the club played the hand with an opening 2H > bid, so it was difficult to decide what might have occurred in the > bidding, and perhaps the subsequent play with correct information. > > I finally decided that a plausible scenario was for West to pass > and await the further auction, leaving 2H by South as the final > contract. This should go 2 off, for quite a good EW score. > _________________________________________________________________ > > There was misinformation: "an other suit" was not alerted. > There was a bad score for E-W. > But does this bad score come from the MI? > > Not so evident. What W would have bid without the MI ? > Is it then more evident not to bid 3NT than on a "normal" 2H > opening ? The other suit is likely to be Spade. > > The real problem is the E-W system: using 2NT as minors on > a weak opening, instead of a standard 15-18 balanced hand. > > My first reaction would be: the score stand. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 22 15:59:14 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:59:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <005d01c6de46$ca2817e0$0701a8c0@john> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20060922143822.0459ac40@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060922155547.027c5170@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:58 22/09/2006 +0100, John Probst wrote: Q 9 5 3 > K > Q J 10 4 3 > 8 6 3 > > K 10 J 7 6 4 2 > A 9 6 3 J 8 5 > A 9 8 6 2 K 5 > A J Q 9 2 > > A 8 > Q 10 7 4 2 > 7 > K 10 7 5 4 >the question one should be asking is what would 2NT have meant over a >2-suiter? >if it were natural, I'd rule 2NT down whatever, since West would bid 2NT (He >took an IWOG 3N after all) Good point. In Brussels, we tend to play T/O doubles vs 6-card weak bids, but Weiss (optional double, 3C T/O, 2NT with minor length and stopper) vs 5-card weak bids (2-suited type or not). If I was West, I would expect the TD to adjust to 3C -1, doubled or not, since this is the most probable result after my obvious Weiss double. Best regards, Alain. From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 22 16:02:59 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:02:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6de4f$d0222880$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Laval Dubreuil > Sent: 22. september 2006 14:07 > To: ardelm at optusnet.com.au; blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. > > Tony writes: > > I found the following case of misinformation difficult. > > Nil Vul, Dealer North > > Q 9 5 3 > K > Q J 10 4 3 > 8 6 3 > > K 10 J 7 6 4 2 > A 9 6 3 J 8 5 > A 9 8 6 2 K 5 > A J Q 9 2 > > A 8 > Q 10 7 4 2 > 7 > K 10 7 5 4 > > > South opened 2H, to show that suit and another, not > alerted (OK for a weak 6 card suit in Oz). West then bid 3NT > (2NT would have shown the minors, and double was ruled out > because West was afraid of the spade response). North had > forgotten the system, and 3NT went down three (bottom). > > No-one else in the club played the hand with an opening 2H > bid, so it was difficult to decide what might have occurred in the > bidding, and perhaps the subsequent play with correct information. > > I finally decided that a plausible scenario was for West to pass > and await the further auction, leaving 2H by South as the final > contract. This should go 2 off, for quite a good EW score. > _________________________________________________________________ > > There was misinformation: "an other suit" was not alerted. > There was a bad score for E-W. > But does this bad score come from the MI? > > Not so evident. What W would have bid without the MI ? > Is it then more evident not to bid 3NT than on a "normal" 2H > opening ? The other suit is likely to be Spade. Not in the areas I am familiar with. The convention (double M) is AFAIK most often showing a weak hand with exactly 5 cards in the named major suit and at least 4 cards in a minor suit. My experience is that the convention is too dangerous to use with 4 (or 4+) cards in the other major suit (I have tried that too!) But I do not see the big argument for West to bid over a weak 6+ in Hearts but not over a weak 5 in Hearts and 4+ in a minor suit? In fact if he wants to bid given correct information I believe he would have a perfect 2NT bid which hardly could mean anything but 15 or 16 to 17 or 18 balanced now? What I would like to know as the Director is whether CC was in use and how the 2H opening bid was described there. Sven > The real problem is the E-W system: using 2NT as minors on > a weak opening, instead of a standard 15-18 balanced hand. > > My first reaction would be: the score stand. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Sep 22 17:48:07 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:48:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. References: Message-ID: <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Rhind" To: "Laval Dubreuil" ; ; Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. >I always view MI problems with 2 questions: > > 1. Was their MI? > 2. Did the MI cause damage? you.ve missed the important one. 3) did the MI create UI? > > I only consider adjusting the score if the answer to both is yes. > > In this case the answer to 1. Is yes, but I don't think that answer to 2. > Is > yes. West took a shot at bidding 3NT opposite a passed hand and I believe > that they should keep the poor result that they earned. yes, 3NT is probably IWOG, but he'd have bid 2NT natural if the opponents would have alerted. I'm likely to stick him with that, at least. Why this insane desire to crucify non-offenders? The primary purpose of the law is to restore equity. > > I would give serious consideration to awarding a PP to NS for the failure > to > alert. PP's for this sort of offence are how to ensure you're an out of work TD within weeks. No-one will come to your game. There is no justification at all for a PP, other than a gentle warning. You get the buggers under 12C2 (or 12C3 in any sane SO) anyway, why kick a man when he's down? cheers John > > Regards to all, > > Jack > > > On 9/22/06 9:07 AM, "Laval Dubreuil" wrote: > >> Tony writes: >> >> I found the following case of misinformation difficult. >> >> Nil Vul, Dealer North >> >> Q 9 5 3 >> K >> Q J 10 4 3 >> 8 6 3 >> >> K 10 J 7 6 4 2 >> A 9 6 3 J 8 5 >> A 9 8 6 2 K 5 >> A J Q 9 2 >> >> A 8 >> Q 10 7 4 2 >> 7 >> K 10 7 5 4 >> >> >> South opened 2H, to show that suit and another, not >> alerted (OK for a weak 6 card suit in Oz). West then bid 3NT >> (2NT would have shown the minors, and double was ruled out >> because West was afraid of the spade response). North had >> forgotten the system, and 3NT went down three (bottom). >> >> No-one else in the club played the hand with an opening 2H >> bid, so it was difficult to decide what might have occurred in the >> bidding, and perhaps the subsequent play with correct information. >> >> I finally decided that a plausible scenario was for West to pass >> and await the further auction, leaving 2H by South as the final >> contract. This should go 2 off, for quite a good EW score. >> _________________________________________________________________ >> >> There was misinformation: "an other suit" was not alerted. >> There was a bad score for E-W. >> But does this bad score come from the MI? >> >> Not so evident. What W would have bid without the MI ? >> Is it then more evident not to bid 3NT than on a "normal" 2H >> opening ? The other suit is likely to be Spade. >> >> The real problem is the E-W system: using 2NT as minors on >> a weak opening, instead of a standard 15-18 balanced hand. >> >> My first reaction would be: the score stand. >> >> Laval Du Breuil >> Quebec City >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 22 20:09:39 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:09:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42C21EAB-836C-44C1-9502-DA0CDD830898@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:03 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Ed wrote: > >> Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "convention", as it > > Which is irrelevant. The *laws* define a convention as: > 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than > willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not > make > a call a convention. > 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather > than inference. > > Much better than MW but still far from perfect. A few riders (such as > "other than" includes "in addition to") word improve it. Steve made the point that the laws' definition of "convention" is unclear. i was agreeing with him, and going a bit farther. As to "irrelevant", whatever the laws say, people "know" what a convention is - and what they "know" is IME closer to the dictionary definition than to the laws definition. Personally, I think the laws definition, while it may be "better" than the dictionary one, sucks. Too many words, too convoluted. Try reading it to players who haven't heard it before, and watch their eyes glaze over. :-( What's the difference between a convention, a special agreement, and a special understanding? What makes an agreement or understanding "special"? What exactly, is "general bridge knowledge"? Until the WBFLC drains this swamp, we are going to continue to get bit by alligators. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Sep 22 20:24:20 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:24:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> References: <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <610E6D9A-A572-46D3-8B5A-C681CAE2ECF0@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 22, 2006, at 11:48 AM, John Probst wrote: > You get the buggers under 12C2 (or 12C3 in any sane SO) anyway, why > kick a man when he's down? "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." - Scope of the Laws, last sentence. A frequently stated principle is that a score adjustment is not a penalty. It is not punishment. Yet here an experienced and respected TD says it *is* punishment. Yes, I know a lot of players will think it is (especially if the adjustment is not in their favor) but should we really be reinforcing that mistaken belief, or should we be trying to correct it? As for PPs driving players away, I keep hearing that. Never seen any evidence of it, but then I've never seen a club TD with the balls to award any PP other than a mild warning, and that rarely. "Teacher: Suppose you get a puppy. The puppy makes a mess on the living room floor. You say to the puppy "don't do that", and clean it up. This happens several times over the next few years, and each time your reaction is the same. Eventually, you have a full grown dog who continues to make messes on the living room floor. So you take him out and shoot him. Comments?" "Student: That's the stupidest way to raise a puppy I've ever heard!" "Teacher: Oh, I agree. But back in the twentieth century, that's how they raised their kids." -- Robert A. Heinlein, in "Starship Troopers" "Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." - Proverbs 22:6 From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Sep 23 01:33:21 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 09:33:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> References: <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060923092932.08f5abe0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Thanks to all for the input. I shall now stick them with the table result tell them their system stinks. And they have been called wimps by an Englishman. Actually, I thought I made it clear that they played 2NT as for the minors, presumably over a 2 suited multi 2 as well. I was told by two of our little old ladies, that they had to change their standard multi 2 openings in UK, because they were not considered "cricket", Ciao, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Sep 23 04:09:59 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:09:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On the earlier auction without any unauthorised information, the survey of blmlers suggested that 6S was _not_ East's only logical alternative. The next question is whether the ACBL Appeals Committee needed any _objective_ evidence to distinguish between: (a) a player who forgotten their methods, but is reminded of their methods by partner's alert, and (b) a player who is fully aware of their methods, but has intentionally deviated from them, so has no UI from partner's alert. or whether a mere _assertion_ of an intentional tactical deviation is sufficient evidence for (b). Should the ACBL Appeals Committee have explored a third possibility? (c) a player whose _partner_ frequently forgets their methods, so receives UI that partner has for once remembered their methods when partner correctly alerts. Details of the actual table result and actual appeal -> Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: North-South You, East, hold: AKQJ982 A K3 632 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- Pass Pass 4S(1) 4NT 5C(2) 5H 5S 6H Pass Pass 6S Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) 4S was alerted as less strong than 4D, since E/W agreed to play Namyats (2) Lead-directing in clubs and shows spade tolerance The Facts: E/W had agreed to play Namyats (four of a major is a weaker hand with a long suit and four of the respective minor is a stronger hand) and had put it on their card. East on this hand decided to make a strategic underbid, knowing that Namyats was on the card and that West was a passed hand and probably did not hold the values for slam exploration. The 4S bid was alerted and explained according to the partnership's agreement. The Ruling: It was judged that when East became aware that her partner thought she held a weak hand (from the UI of the alert and explanation), this now demonstrably suggested a 6S call. It was judged that double was a logical alternative (LA) but pass was not a LA. Therefore, the table result was adjusted to 6H, doubled, down two, -500 N/S in accordance with laws 16A and 12C2. The Appeal: E/W, the only players to attend the hearing, contended that their bid was properly alerted and explained. The partnership (which played roughly once a month) had a detailed and well- documented system file. Since East was willing to give up on slam possibilities facing a passed hand, she strategically deviated from the agreement. East claimed that there was no infraction. She was merely using her own bidding judgment (by which she indicated that she thought that 6H might make). Her partner's lead- directing call was facing her length, and the DK was clearly waste paper. Had the club ace been with South (which was where the auction implied it would be) a club lead would be necessary to beat slam. The Decision: The committee questioned East about her exploitation of Namyats, asking such questions as whether her hand would be a Namyats 4S bid in first or second seat. She said that it would not be; it would be a 4D bid. The committee determined that by East's reasoning, her bid was an intentional deviation from the convention and that she would also have bid 4S in third seat with much weaker (defensive) hands. Since a player is allowed to deviate from partnership agreements intentionally (so long as the player's partner is as much in the dark about it as the opponents), the committee concluded that no infraction occurred. Therefore the committee restored the table result 6S doubled making seven, E/W +1310. The Committee: Richard Popper (chairperson), Mark Bartusek, Ed Lazarus, Barry Rigal and Peggy Sutherlin. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Sep 23 09:53:21 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 09:53:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060923092932.08f5abe0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060923095153.027bad20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:33 23/09/2006 +1000, Tony Musgrove wrote: >Actually, I thought I made it clear that they >played 2NT as for the minors, presumably >over a 2 suited multi 2 as well. I was told >by two of our little old ladies, that they had >to change their standard multi 2 openings >in UK, because they were not considered >"cricket", But surely you won't let a bunch of Englishmen tell you wnat cricket means ;-) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 23 16:31:52 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:31:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error In-Reply-To: <200609221440.k8MEeKIU026281@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609221440.k8MEeKIU026281@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45154558.9020508@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > I do not see how an AC is justified in applying law 82C. That law > says "If the Director has given a ruling ... > The Law does *not* say "If the Director has given a > ruling that an AC subsequently determines to be incorrect...." The AC can exercise (almost) all powers the Director can (L93B3). > In no case that I > can see is a committee justified in applying law 82C. > > The case in point revolves around the question whether there was in > fact a claim. It's easy to give an example: suppose the Director in the case cited had ruled that South's remark was in fact a claim. Play would have been stopped. Later the AC overturns this judgment, ruling that the remark was not a claim after all. The AC then has to decide the outcome if play had continued. Under L82C, the ruling would consider both sides non-offending. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 23 16:40:58 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:40:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 In-Reply-To: <200609221425.k8MEPEVr023064@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609221425.k8MEPEVr023064@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4515477A.2020507@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > Below I give the EBL policy as taken from the official EBL website. > **The following classes of calls should be alerted: > > 1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. As we have seen many times on BLML, no one knows what calls are conventional. The similar EBU regulation avoids the problem by using "natural" and "artificial," both of which are clearly defined. As Tim notes, the rule should probably say "calls" instead of "bids." > 2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead > to special understandings between the partners. This one is hopeless. First of all, "special" is never defined. If we take Grattan's definition "additional to what is normal or general," to an experienced partnership, almost every call is likely to have some special meaning. (Again it should be "calls," not "bids.") > 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or > overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to > opening bids of one of a suit. This, at least, is clear. > Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as > the letter. I wouldn't say the letter of the policy is deserving of much respect. Presumably most players do in fact respect its spirit, which is all that makes bridge playable under such vague rules. No wonder the directors and AC had such a hard time with the ruling. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 23 16:43:46 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:43:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <200609221418.k8MEIUD0021671@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609221418.k8MEIUD0021671@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45154822.5050406@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Tony Musgrove > I think that is unsatisfactory that my decision > results in either a top to NS (the infractors), or about 80% for EW > if I decide that pass is possible. I would rather give them both > avg-. This is the sentiment behind the "Reveley rulings." No one wants to see bad bridge get a reward. Nevertheless, the sentiment must be resisted at all costs. Sometimes bad bridge receives a top score; that's just part of the game. Give the result the Laws dictate, and don't worry about it. From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 23 17:13:43 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:13:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <45154822.5050406@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000201c6df22$dd171f40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: 23. september 2006 16:44 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. > > > From: Tony Musgrove > > I think that is unsatisfactory that my decision > > results in either a top to NS (the infractors), or about 80% for EW > > if I decide that pass is possible. I would rather give them both > > avg-. > > This is the sentiment behind the "Reveley rulings." No one wants to see > bad bridge get a reward. Nevertheless, the sentiment must be resisted > at all costs. Sometimes bad bridge receives a top score; that's just > part of the game. (*) Give the result the Laws dictate, and don't worry > about it. (*) An example of this occurred in a local club season final many years ago: The absolutely weakest pair in the club failed (as the only pair in the field) to bid game in majors with some 28 HCP and a nice fit between them. However, as the cards lay it was absolutely impossible for declarer to make anything but nine tricks and equally impossible for defenders to get anything but four. As we played just two boards per round (barometer) and the other board was fairly flat they easily won the prize for that round! As you say: That's just part of the game. (They received a lot of cheers!) Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Sat Sep 23 20:00:22 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:00:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. References: <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> <610E6D9A-A572-46D3-8B5A-C681CAE2ECF0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003301c6df3a$238fed50$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. > > On Sep 22, 2006, at 11:48 AM, John Probst wrote: > >> You get the buggers under 12C2 (or 12C3 in any sane SO) anyway, why >> kick a man when he's down? > > "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." - Scope of the > Laws, last sentence. > > A frequently stated principle is that a score adjustment is not a > penalty. It is not punishment. Yet here an experienced and respected > TD says it *is* punishment. Yes, I know a lot of players will think > it is (especially if the adjustment is not in their favor) but should > we really be reinforcing that mistaken belief, or should we be trying > to correct it? > > As for PPs driving players away, I keep hearing that. Never seen any > evidence of it, but then I've never seen a club TD with the balls to > award any PP other than a mild warning, and that rarely. The score adjustment is what the TD does. In any sane SO he gives redress for the damage using 12C3 (or if he has to 12C2). Once we have given redress, and we err on the side of the NOs, why do we need to add further punishments to the offending side? As i said, "why kick him when he's down?" ... and yes, I have lost members by issuing PPs, persistent slow play; persistent mis-boarding being a couple of things that I almost always issue a mp fine for. In both cases I haven't minded at all that the player hasn't returned. the ambience in the club has sufficiently improved that nett I gain membership. cheers John > > > > "Teacher: Suppose you get a puppy. The puppy makes a mess on the > living room floor. You say to the puppy "don't do that", and clean it > up. This happens several times over the next few years, and each time > your reaction is the same. Eventually, you have a full grown dog who > continues to make messes on the living room floor. So you take him > out and shoot him. Comments?" > > "Student: That's the stupidest way to raise a puppy I've ever heard!" > > "Teacher: Oh, I agree. But back in the twentieth century, that's how > they raised their kids." > > -- Robert A. Heinlein, in "Starship Troopers" > > > "Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will > not depart from it." - Proverbs 22:6 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 24 05:33:29 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:33:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error In-Reply-To: <45154558.9020508@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609221440.k8MEeKIU026281@cfa.harvard.edu> <45154558.9020508@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <71461F87-69B0-4C6C-91C4-5F6ABC37F34C@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 23, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > The AC can exercise (almost) all powers the Director can (L93B3). That is true, and is probably the basis of the ACBL's idea that the AC ought to toss out the TD ruling and start from scratch. However, they're wrong about that. The first question before an AC is "was the TD's ruling correct?' If it was, the AC should not change it. If it was not, the AC can, if it was a judgement ruling, substitute their judgement for the TDs, but the AC *cannot* overrule the TD on a point of law. That being the case, throwing out the TD ruling is not a power of the AC, and neither is deciding there was TD error and applying Law 82C, which is in effect overruling the TD on a point of law. [snip] > Later the AC overturns this judgment, ruling that the remark was > not a claim after all. *Is* this judgement, in the sense of the laws? Or is the determination whether a claim was made a point of law? Seems to me the latter. Even if it is, should the *committee* apply 82C, or send the case back to the TDs and let them do it? In practice I don't suppose it matters much, but I still think it's wrong. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 24 05:44:43 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:44:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. In-Reply-To: <003301c6df3a$238fed50$0701a8c0@john> References: <009301c6de5e$7fbe7c40$0701a8c0@john> <610E6D9A-A572-46D3-8B5A-C681CAE2ECF0@rochester.rr.com> <003301c6df3a$238fed50$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On Sep 23, 2006, at 2:00 PM, John Probst wrote: > The score adjustment is what the TD does. In any sane SO he gives > redress > for the damage using 12C3 (or if he has to 12C2). Once we have given > redress, and we err on the side of the NOs, why do we need to add > further > punishments to the offending side? As i said, "why kick him when > he's down?" Once we have given redress, we have not punished anybody. A PP is not a "further punishment", it's the first punishment in such a case. The preface to the laws addresses varying degrees of offense. At one end, a PP, says the preface, should be rare. At the other, *not* giving a PP should be rare. And yet *every* club TD around here (except me, and I don't own a club) treats all such cases the same, and rarely gives a PP of any kind, including warnings. Where they *do* issue a warning, they don't follow up on a subsequent offense, unless it's with another warning. > ... and yes, I have lost members by issuing PPs, persistent slow play; > persistent mis-boarding being a couple of things that I almost > always issue > a mp fine for. In both cases I haven't minded at all that the > player hasn't > returned. the ambience in the club has sufficiently improved that > nett I > gain membership. cheers John Fair enough. That's one, and not in North America. I wonder how many there are here? :-) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Sep 24 17:39:15 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:39:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error In-Reply-To: <200609241516.k8OFGON5005227@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609241516.k8OFGON5005227@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4516A6A3.6050807@cfa.harvard.edu> >>The AC can exercise (almost) all powers the Director can (L93B3). From: Ed Reppert > That is true, and is probably the basis of the ACBL's idea that the > AC ought to toss out the TD ruling and start from scratch. I suspect the historical origin was one of personality rather than specific text in the Laws. Either approach is consistent with the Laws as they stand. Having authority to do something is not the same as deciding to do it. > The first question before an AC is "was the > TD's ruling correct?' This is a good approach if TDs are competent. > but the AC *cannot* overrule the TD on a point of law. They can, however, recommend the TD change his ruling. In practice, in relatively few cases is there doubt about the appropriate law to apply. (We on BLML see a high proportion of such cases.) > That being the case, throwing out the TD ruling is not a > power of the AC, and neither is deciding there was TD error and > applying Law 82C, which is in effect overruling the TD on a point of > law. I don't know how you extrapolate to this. Most TD rulings are of fact or bridge judgment. The AC can override those. Sometimes the original ruling has prevented the board from being played normally. If that happens, what else can the AC do besides apply L82C? Only rare TD errors will be on a point of law. (Alas probably more common in the ACBL than elsewhere.) >>Later the AC overturns this judgment, ruling that the remark was >>not a claim after all. > *Is* this judgement, in the sense of the laws? What else can it be? The Laws give standards for what constitutes a claim. Ruling whether a specific remark does or does not meet those standards is a matter of bridge judgment. More familiarly, the definition of "logical alternative" is a matter of law (actually regulation, but still solely within the TDs powers). Whether a given action is or is not a LA is bridge judgment. Of course even if the TD rules wrong in a UI case, it typically won't lead to L82C because the deal has been played normally. (It isn't hard to construct examples where L82C would be required, though.) > Or is the > determination whether a claim was made a point of law? Seems to me > the latter. I can't see why. It depends on what the putative claimer said (fact) and whether that statement meets certain standards (bridge judgment). The standards themselves are a matter of law. > Even if it is, should the *committee* apply 82C, or send the case > back to the TDs and let them do it? In practice I don't suppose it > matters much, but I still think it's wrong. Why? Once a case reaches an AC, they are obliged to give a ruling. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Sep 24 17:51:56 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:51:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <200609231850.k8NIofCN004515@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609231850.k8NIofCN004515@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4516A99C.7030806@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > The next question is whether the ACBL > Appeals Committee needed any > _objective_ evidence to distinguish > between: > > (a) a player who forgotten their > methods, but is reminded of their > methods by partner's alert, and > > (b) a player who is fully aware of > their methods, but has intentionally > deviated from them, so has no UI > from partner's alert. This is a bridge judgement, and the AC can use whatever evidence it finds sufficient. I personally would need substantial evidence indeed to rule a. Except behind screens, one of the substantial risks of psyching is that partner's explanations may make your planned followup illegal. > Details of the actual table result > and actual appeal -> Why did no one discuss "suggested over another?" Suppose you believe the 4S bidder (who holds a strong hand, not a weak preempt) has forgotten NAMYATS and was reminded by partner's alert (UI). Why does that suggest 6S over double? The director asserts that it does but gives no reason. The committee seems to be addressing some kind of MI issue, not the actual issue of UI. (Note to Ed Reppert: the "points of law" here are that this is a UI ruling, which involves "logical alternatives" and "suggested over another." _How_ to rule depends on bridge judgment.) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Sep 24 18:51:53 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:51:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <4516A99C.7030806@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609231850.k8NIofCN004515@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <4516A99C.7030806@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Sep 24, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > This is a bridge judgement I disagree. Strongly. :-) From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Sep 24 23:07:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <4516A99C.7030806@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > The next question is whether the ACBL > > Appeals Committee needed any > > _objective_ evidence to distinguish > > between: > > > > (a) a player who forgotten their > > methods, but is reminded of their > > methods by partner's alert, and > > > > (b) a player who is fully aware of > > their methods, but has intentionally > > deviated from them, so has no UI > > from partner's alert. > > This is a bridge judgement, and the AC can use whatever evidence it > finds sufficient. I personally would need substantial evidence > indeed to rule a. Except behind screens, one of the substantial > risks of psyching is that partner's explanations may make your > planned followup illegal. When a player has psyched in this way the UI simply *cannot* make the planned follow-up illegal. For the player who has knowingly psyched it is not logical to believe that he has misbid. The *risk* is that a TD/AC will *judge* the planned follow-up illegal - the player *may not* take that risk into account when choosing his call since that risk is purely a result of being in possession of UI. As for evidence - I will normally be satisfied by the clear testimony of the player concerned and its consistency with the CC. Bear in mind that if I do not accept that testimony I have no option but to deal with the case as deliberate cheating - a player cannot accidently/mistakenly tell me that he deliberately psyched and I cannot simply adjust without imposing a suitable penalty (disqualification at the least) for telling an outright lie. > > Details of the actual table result > > and actual appeal -> > > Why did no one discuss "suggested over another?" Suppose you believe > the 4S bidder (who holds a strong hand, not a weak preempt) has > forgotten NAMYATS and was reminded by partner's alert (UI). Why does > that suggest 6S over double? The director asserts that it does but > gives no reason. I suspect the TD didn't consider "suggested over" because his bridge skills weren't up to it (no big deal, if his bridge skills were better he'd be playing not TDing). IMO the fact that I have bid 4S forgetting I had NAMYATS available or 4S psychic doesn't help me at all in deciding whether partner's clubs are good enough to give 6S play. One assumes that the AC didn't consider "suggested over" because they had already decided there was no UI. Tim. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 25 00:03:39 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:03:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error In-Reply-To: <4516A6A3.6050807@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609241516.k8OFGON5005227@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <4516A6A3.6050807@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <1907D523-A4F2-4C83-AAAA-5EFDC48C4004@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 24, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > I suspect the historical origin was one of personality rather than > specific text in the Laws. Either approach is consistent with the > Laws > as they stand. Having authority to do something is not the same as > deciding to do it. And deciding to do something is not the same as having the authority to do it. >> The first question before an AC is "was the >> TD's ruling correct?' > > This is a good approach if TDs are competent. Seems to me that an AC that starts with the premise that TDs are incompetent is treading very dangerous ground. >> but the AC *cannot* overrule the TD on a point of law. > > They can, however, recommend the TD change his ruling. In > practice, in > relatively few cases is there doubt about the appropriate law to > apply. > (We on BLML see a high proportion of such cases.) I do not believe that which law to apply is the only point of law contemplated by that particular provision of Law 93. > I don't know how you extrapolate to this. Most TD rulings are of fact > or bridge judgment. The AC can override those. Sometimes the > original > ruling has prevented the board from being played normally. If that > happens, what else can the AC do besides apply L82C? I know you're not saying that an AC can say that something a TD has determined to be fact is in fact *not* fact. I will grant that if an AC uncovers facts that were not in evidence when the TD made his ruling, those facts may change the ruling. I would think that the proper procedure for the AC is to send the case back to the CTD, pointing out the error(s) or new facts, and let the CTD or the table TD rule under 82C. >> *Is* this judgement, in the sense of the laws? > > What else can it be? The Laws give standards for what constitutes a > claim. Ruling whether a specific remark does or does not meet those > standards is a matter of bridge judgment. Why qualify "judgement"? Why is "bridge judgement" necessary? > I can't see why. It depends on what the putative claimer said (fact) > and whether that statement meets certain standards (bridge judgment). > The standards themselves are a matter of law. Um. This bothers me, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint why at the moment. I'll have to think about it. >> Even if it is, should the *committee* apply 82C, or send the case >> back to the TDs and let them do it? In practice I don't suppose it >> matters much, but I still think it's wrong. > > Why? Once a case reaches an AC, they are obliged to give a ruling. Well, if the committee sustains the original ruling, have *they* given a ruling? Besides, if this were true, the National Authority's policy of refusing to hear certain cases (in the ACBL at least) would seem to be illegal at best, and at worst a slap in the face to anyone who submits such a case. In particular, I have been told that the ACBLLC would refuse to hear *any* case originating in a club game, regardless of its merits. And I still think that sending a case back to the CTD is within the purview of, and should in some cases at least be considered by, an AC. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 25 01:07:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <31870818.1159134812045.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: John wrote: > >When a player has psyched in this way the UI simply *cannot* make > the >planned follow-up illegal. > > The UI cannot make a planned follow-up illegal? It can in every other > circumstance; it is likely to be rarer in the case of a psych, but I > don't think this blanket rule is correct. In cases where one has various plans following a psych UI may indeed suggest one alternative over another (as it always can) but if one has decided to walk the dog one may not decide to leave it in the park after receiving UI. Put another way the LAs for a player who knows he has psyched are different to those for a player who has become aware of a misbid. > For the player who has knowingly psyched it > >is not logical to believe that he has misbid. The *risk* is that a > TD/AC >will *judge* the planned follow-up illegal - the player *may > not* take >that risk into account when choosing his call since that > risk is purely >a result of being in possession of UI. > > Wow. I don't see it - making a bend-over-backwards bid that you think > won't work to avoid an adverse UI ruling seems legal to me in all > circumstances. Or do I misunderstand you, Tim? You are trying to avoid the bad score from an adverse ruling - you would not consider so doing absent the UI (e.g. behind screens) it's not a "bend over backwards" bid (as is normal in UI cases) - it's a wriggle bid suggested by the UI. > >As for evidence - I will normally be satisfied by the clear > testimony of >the player concerned and its consistency with the CC. > Bear in mind that >if I do not accept that testimony I have no option > but to deal with the >case as deliberate cheating - a player cannot > accidently/mistakenly tell >me that he deliberately psyched and I > cannot simply adjust without >imposing a suitable penalty > (disqualification at the least) for telling >an outright lie. > > That way lies madness. Using two separate standards for what are > essentially the civil remedies (reversal of score) and criminal > penalties (expulsion) seems sensible. There are certainly times when > the description by the player is dubious; If the description by the player is ambiguous (e.g. he doesn't claim to have psyched but to have made a judgement that the hand wasn't quite worth 4D) then I don't think he has made a clear statement and I can simply adjust the score. > we should rule on a > preponderance of the evidence standard for score adjustments, and by > a clear and convincing standard for disciplinary action. Sorry, but if the player, after the consequences have been made very clear to him, has made the statement "I knew we were playing NAMYATS but I decided to psych." and the adjustment is wholly predicated on the falsehood of that statement we cannot allow the deliberate lie to go unpunished. Failing to avoid using UI is a misdemeanour offence and an adjustment suffices. Lies a player tells himself like "I would always have bid that way" even when repeated are similar. Telling deliberate lies to the TD/AC is a serious conduct issue and must be the subject of separate, and severe, penalties. Tim. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 25 02:09:28 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:09:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Dallas comments posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [snip] > Josh Parker > A8x > x > Q743 > AQJ9x > >West North East South >--- Pass Pass 1D(1) >1S Dbl 2C(2) Pass >2D 2H 2S Pass >Pass Pass > >Note: The written hand record was misplaced along with the >board number. Therefore, this is the closest approximation >to the hand that is available. > >(1) May be short >(2) Alerted as a transfer to diamonds. [snip] >The Decision: The Committee ruled that N/S's result was >due to South's excessive caution in neither doubling 2C >nor bidding 3C. [snip] >Wildavsky - This was a poor performance by the AC for a >number of reasons. First of all, N/S do not have to play >perfectly in order for their rights to be protected. >Perhaps South ought to have acted over 2C, but neglecting >to do so was scarcely "failure to play bridge." [snip] Richard Hills: I have been advised that the Committee failed to fully investigate the facts. If the Committee had asked North- South what the system meaning of a double of 2C would have been, they would have discovered that a double would have shown exactly three hearts (an extension of the popular "Support Double" convention). Therefore, if South had desired to show clubs, South's only systemic option would have been the riskier 3C rebid on a likely misfit. Of course, after South's initial pass, South could have backed in with 3C once East rebid 2S. But, in my opinion, it was not irrational for South to pass again, since on the MI provided East was merely showing spade preference, perhaps with Qx xxx AKJTx xxx, so backing in with 3C would still be a violation of The Law of Total Tricks. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 24 04:42:59 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:42:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45131B06.3020604@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: >Sure I agree, P3 is strange ruling in the real >life. But which of the other three? > >regards >Laci Richard Hills: The EBL Alert Policy contained this residual clause: "Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter." And the definition of Alert in Chapter 1 of the Laws states: "Alert - A notification, whose form may be specified by a sponsoring organisation, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation." Therefore, I think for an area which was not specifically regulated by the letter of of the EBL Alert Policy, but rather by its residual spirit, then Laci's P2 option should be applied: >>P2, A is the usual method, so alert if B. Which was the eventual decision of the EBL Directors and the EBL Appeals Committee. Of course, I also believe that the EBL Alert Policy (and the WBF Alert Policy on which it is based) might usefully be improved by some redrafting. I parochially suggest that such redrafting might adopt some ideas from the ABF Alert Policy. Since the adoption of the ABF Alert Policy in more-or-less its current form more than a decade ago, the number of Aussie appeals predicated on questions of whether a call should have been alertable have dramatically declined. Copies of the current version of the ABF Alert Policy are available at: http://www.abf.com.au/members/alertingregs.html Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 24 04:04:55 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:04:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] E = Mpc cubed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Vulnerable: North-South Contract: Five Clubs redoubled Declarer: South 2 --- 2 A --- A --- --- K AQ K2 --- --- --- 3 QJ In this three-card endgame, West is on lead and South needs two of the last three tricks to make their redoubled contract. However... The ace, king and queen of diamonds are all major penalty cards. Law 50D1: "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity ... The obligation ... to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card ..." Therefore, if declarer wishes, declarer could prohibit West from leading their king of diamonds for as long as West retains the lead due to East also holding diamond penalty cards. However, suppose that declarer does want West to immediately lead their king of diamonds, would this law be applicable? Law 51B1(a): "When a defender has two or more penalty cards in one suit, and declarer requires the defender's partner to lead that suit, the cards of that suit are no longer penalty cards and are picked up; the defender may make any legal play to the trick." Of course, the only way that 5Cxx can be made is if West leads the king of diamonds, East overtakes with the ace of diamonds, then East continues with the queen of diamonds - the contract makes on a smother play. Can this smother play be achieved by declarer applying this law? Law 50D2(b): "When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected ... Declarer may choose: ... not to require or prohibit a lead, in which case the defender may lead any card; the penalty card remains a penalty card." That is, can declarer simply announce that declarer is choosing for East's AQ of diamonds to remain major penalty cards, and allowing West to make any legal play? If so, West's only legal play (by the first phrase of Law 50D1) is the king of diamonds. But the choice by declarer under Law 50D2(b) is identical to the choice by declarer under Law 51B1(a); in both cases declarer is requiring West to lead the king of diamonds. However, the two identical choices by declarer lead to different outcomes; applying one Law sees the AQ of diamonds remain penalty cards, while applying another Law sees the AQ of diamonds cease to be penalty cards and picked up. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 24 05:23:46 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:23:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <42C21EAB-836C-44C1-9502-DA0CDD830898@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >What's the difference between a convention, a special agreement, >and a special understanding? What makes an agreement or >understanding "special"? What exactly, is "general bridge >knowledge"? Until the WBFLC drains this swamp, we are going to >continue to get bit by alligators. Richard Hills: Seek and you shall find. The swamp has already been drained. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: >>"Special" >> >>In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, "special" >>means "additional to what is normal and general". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 25 04:21:40 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:21:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opinion needed on score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003301c6df3a$238fed50$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >... and yes, I have lost members by issuing PPs, persistent slow play; >persistent mis-boarding being a couple of things that I almost always >issue a mp fine for. In both cases I haven't minded at all that the >player hasn't returned. the ambience in the club has sufficiently >improved that nett I gain membership. cheers John Richard Hills: The highly successful (now voluntarily retired) proprietor of a local Canberra bridge club was keenly aware of the importance of the ambience factor. If a player persistently infracted the courtesy requirements of Law 74, that player was not given a mere PP, but rather that player was privately advised at the end of the session to never return to the club. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Sep 25 07:16:06 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:16:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30E54408-B78B-4F42-BFDC-69EDCF9BE1DD@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 23, 2006, at 11:23 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Seek and you shall find. The swamp has already been drained. > > WBF Code of Practice, page 8: > >>> "Special" >>> >>> In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, "special" >>> means "additional to what is normal and general". Hm. I'll have to see if the CoP defines "normal and general" somewhere. Still seems a bit swampy around here. :-) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Sep 25 08:28:10 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:28:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] E = Mpc cubed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1GRjwo-0HZTlo0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Hi Richard, nice construction ;-) But no, these two cases are by far not identical - as you know. In the case with the double-penalty-cards the defender on turn is in a "double-squeeze" of a multiple lead-restriction, whereas in the "genuine" case of an opposite penalty card he is "really free" to lead, if declarer chooses not to choose a restriction. Peter From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Vulnerable: North-South > Contract: ? Five Clubs redoubled > Declarer: ? South > > ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 > ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 > ? ? ? ? ? ? A > --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A > --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--- > K ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AQ > K2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 > ? ? ? ? ? ? QJ > > In this three-card endgame, West is on > lead and South needs two of the last > three tricks to make their redoubled > contract. > > However... > > The ace, king and queen of diamonds > are all major penalty cards. > > Law 50D1: > > "A major penalty card must be played > at the first legal opportunity ... > The obligation ... to comply with a > lead or play penalty, takes precedence > over the obligation to play a major > penalty card ..." > > Therefore, if declarer wishes, > declarer could prohibit West from > leading their king of diamonds for as > long as West retains the lead due to > East also holding diamond penalty > cards. > > However, suppose that declarer does > want West to immediately lead their > king of diamonds, would this law be > applicable? > > Law 51B1(a): > > "When a defender has two or more > penalty cards in one suit, and > declarer requires the defender's > partner to lead that suit, the cards > of that suit are no longer penalty > cards and are picked up; the defender > may make any legal play to the trick." > > Of course, the only way that 5Cxx can > be made is if West leads the king of > diamonds, East overtakes with the ace > of diamonds, then East continues with > the queen of diamonds - the contract > makes on a smother play. > > Can this smother play be achieved by > declarer applying this law? > > Law 50D2(b): > > "When a defender has the lead while > his partner has a major penalty > card, he may not lead until > declarer has stated which of the > options below is selected ... > Declarer may choose: > ... > not to require or prohibit a lead, > in which case the defender may lead > any card; the penalty card remains > a penalty card." > > That is, can declarer simply announce > that declarer is choosing for East's > AQ of diamonds to remain major > penalty cards, and allowing West to > make any legal play? ?If so, West's > only legal play (by the first phrase > of Law 50D1) is the king of diamonds. > > But the choice by declarer under Law > 50D2(b) is identical to the choice > by declarer under Law 51B1(a); in > both cases declarer is requiring > West to lead the king of diamonds. > > However, the two identical choices > by declarer lead to different > outcomes; applying one Law sees the > AQ of diamonds remain penalty cards, > while applying another Law sees the > AQ of diamonds cease to be penalty > cards and picked up. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sun Sep 24 22:19:44 2006 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:19:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question Message-ID: <200609242019.k8OKJkUb023598@smtp10.hccnet.nl> _____ Van: Andre Steffens Verzonden: zondag 24 september 2006 8:36 Aan: 'blml at amsterdamned.org' Onderwerp: Live exam question On the dutch TD's live exam there was a nasty problem on a double revoke. As I am "sentenced" by Ton Kooijman to comment on this exam and would like to include this problem I decided to get some expert opinion. Any help will be greatly appreciated. South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by South and overruffed in West. As this is the first time he clubs are played and East and dummy only have seven clubs between them East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those clubs gone to?" And calls the TD. The TD had to realise that he had to address the following issues: 1. Can East be considered to have alerted his partner to have revoked? In Europe asking your partner about a revoke while being defender is not allowed. 2. How furtively should the TD establish that both South and West have revoked? 3. Is South entitled to the knowledge that West has revoked too? (West has the king and the queen is in dummy. South has the ace) 4. How is West's revoke dealt with? Who's going for the top marks on this one :-)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060924/32fb38e5/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 25 09:26:47 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:26:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4516A99C.7030806@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Why did no one discuss "suggested over another?" Suppose you >believe the 4S bidder (who holds a strong hand, not a weak >preempt) has forgotten NAMYATS and was reminded by partner's >alert (UI). Why does that suggest 6S over double? The >director asserts that it does but gives no reason. Richard Hills: If I had been the TD, I would have given this reasoning: (1) Given the matchpoint scoring in use, going -800 in 5Sx would be a bottom if North-South cannot make 6H. (2) Opposite a weak-or-strong 4S, partner might make a slightly pushy 5C lead-director. (3) But opposite an always-weak 4S, partner will have full value for their 5C lead-director, due to the greater risk of -800. Ergo, an alerting partner will tend to hold more values than a non-alerting partner, thus demonstrably suggesting that a "glass is half full" optimist should bid to 6S, rather than score a mere +500 defending 6H doubled. On the other hand, the actual East was a pessimist, as they apparently expected 6H to make, so bid 6S as a "glass is half empty" sacrifice, rather than score a mere -1430 defending 6H undoubled. So, who are East's peers for determining what was demonstrably suggested by West's alert? Must we poll Eeyore and Marvin the Paranoid Android? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 25 09:53:18 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:53:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1907D523-A4F2-4C83-AAAA-5EFDC48C4004@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>In practice, in relatively few cases is there doubt about the >>appropriate law to apply. >>(We on BLML see a high proportion of such cases.) Ed Reppert: >I do not believe that which law to apply is the only point of >law contemplated by that particular provision of Law 93. Richard Hills: Yes, Ed seems to be correct in his argument that Steve is too narrowly construing the Law 93B3 limitations on the powers of an Appeals Committee. WBF Code of Practice, pages 4-5: "Appeals of questions of law or regulation are heard by the Chief Director; a further appeal against his decision may be made thereafter to an Appeal Committee which has no power to overturn the Chief Director's decision but may recommend to him that he reconsider." EBU White Book, clause 93.7: "Suppose a TD rules that Law 25B may be applied despite LHO having already called: that is a point of Law so even though the Director is wrong the Committee may not over-rule him. They are allowed to be forceful when explaining this to him! But if he had allowed Law 25B because he believes the attempt to change was before LHO called, but the Committee decided it was after LHO called then they may over-rule him because that is a matter of fact." Richard Hills: In the regional case 11 in question, the facts were agreed, but the Director had misinterpreted Law 68A. Since the appeals panel was not discovering any new facts, it lacked the power to vary the Director's ruling. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 25 10:52:15 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:52:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4516A99C.7030806@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060925104356.020de650@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:26 25/09/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Ergo, an alerting partner will tend to hold more values than a >non-alerting partner, thus demonstrably suggesting that a "glass >is half full" optimist should bid to 6S, rather than score a >mere +500 defending 6H doubled. > >On the other hand, the actual East was a pessimist, as they >apparently expected 6H to make, so bid 6S as a "glass is half >empty" sacrifice, rather than score a mere -1430 defending 6H >undoubled. When the case is intricated, I like to go back to essentials. The explanation did give UI. So what ? 1. Would many players opt to defend 6H undoubled ? No. 2. Did UI CLEARLY suggest either double or 6S over the other ? No. Richard's point about having more values for a 5C bid is important, but it also suggests 6H will go down quite a few. (Although, if the 5C bidder was my usual partner, you could forget the inference) I've an empirical rule, as an AC member, that if the AC don't agree quickly on what was clearly suggested, nothing was. So, who are we to disallow either double or 6S ? Best regards, Alain. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 25 11:05:57 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:05:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <200609242019.k8OKJkUb023598@smtp10.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060925105338.021090d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:19 24/09/2006 +0200, =?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?= wrote: > > >South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. >In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by South and overruffed >in West. >As this is the first time he clubs are played and East and dummy only >have seven clubs between them East exclaims: "Where on earth have all >those clubs gone to?" And calls the TD. >The TD had to realise that he had to address the following issues: >1. Can East be considered to have alerted his partner to have revoked? In >Europe asking your partner about a revoke while being defender is not allowed. Yes, he has, no matter what words were used. Else, it would be too easy to get round the European law. >2. How furtively should the TD establish that both South and West have >revoked? This is not the same matter as, say, to check whether a player has 'an obvious bid' after UI, which would give away more UI ; here, the knowledge that somebody revoked (or didn't) is AI. Therefore, the TD is fully entitled to look at the player's hands and react appropriately. >3. Is South entitled to the knowledge that West has revoked too? (West has >the king and the queen is in dummy. South has the ace) He isn't entitled to know whether LHO has a void in the suit or not, before playing from his hand ; in rare cases, this could constitute an 'Alcatraz coup' (the knowledge that West has or hasn't a card in the suit is essentinal), but this doesn't seem to be the case here (too many clubs outstanding to make West's holding in the suit critical). It could be different if, say, East had doubled the Stayman enquiry, and the probability that West held a void was substantial. >4. How is West's revoke dealt with? Is is established. The fact that South played a spade doesn't diminish West's responsibility for looking at the cards. Unless some mannerism addes to confusion, e.g. South plays a spade and says "I'm following low". BTW, it's quite plausible that South pulled the wrong card (i.e. he knew perfectly well he had some clubs in hand); How would this small error (which can be negated by dummy's enquiry - or East's !) allow West's revoke to be cancelled ? Best regards, Alain. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060925/fad90658/attachment.htm From brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Sep 25 11:04:12 2006 From: brambledown at blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:04:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] E = Mpc cubed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6e081$92304dc0$6501a8c0@Zog> Richard.hills wrote: > Sent: 24 September 2006 03:05 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] E = Mpc cubed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Vulnerable: North-South > Contract: Five Clubs redoubled > Declarer: South > > 2 > --- > 2 > A > --- A > --- --- > K AQ > K2 --- > --- > --- > 3 > QJ > > In this three-card endgame, West is on > lead and South needs two of the last > three tricks to make their redoubled > contract. > > However... > > The ace, king and queen of diamonds > are all major penalty cards. -------------- > Of course, the only way that 5Cxx can > be made is if West leads the king of > diamonds, East overtakes with the ace > of diamonds, then East continues with > the queen of diamonds - the contract > makes on a smother play. Sorry to spoil the story, but this is not the only way ... Declarer can prohibit the lead of a diamond, the DA & Q are picked up but the DK remains a MPC. W leads C2 won by dummy's CA. Now S2 is led from dummy and ruffed, with W obligated to discard DK. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 22/09/06 From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 25 11:09:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:09:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] E = Mpc cubed In-Reply-To: <1GRjwo-0HZTlo0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001401c6e082$5b2a7fc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> I am not quite sure about Peter's comment; maybe it is exactly what I am going to say here, maybe not. But here is the correct answer anyway: West is on the lead and because of the penalty cards in East Declarer may at his choice request or forbid West to play a Diamond (in which case East takes up his penalty cards in Diamonds), or he may leave West to play whatever legal card he wants (in which case East's penalty cards remain penalty cards). (Law 50D2) As will be seen in the following Declarer should leave West to play whatever legal card he wish to play which means that West must play his (only) penalty card; the King. (Law 50D1) Now we turn to East who still has two penalty cards. Declarer may designate which of these cards shall be played; the other card remains a penalty card. (Laws 50D1 and 51A) Declarer can now make his contract by designating the Ace of Diamond as the card to be played from East. After winning that trick East still has his Diamond Queen as a penalty card and must lead that one. Regards Sven. > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > Hi Richard, > > nice construction ;-) > > But no, these two cases are by far not identical > - as you know. > > In the case with the double-penalty-cards > the defender on turn is in a "double-squeeze" of > a multiple lead-restriction, whereas in the > "genuine" case of an opposite penalty card > he is "really free" to lead, if declarer chooses > not to choose a restriction. > > Peter > > > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > Vulnerable: North-South > > Contract: ? Five Clubs redoubled > > Declarer: ? South > > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 > > ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > > ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 > > ? ? ? ? ? ? A > > --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A > > --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--- > > K ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AQ > > K2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > > ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > > ? ? ? ? ? ? --- > > ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 > > ? ? ? ? ? ? QJ > > > > In this three-card endgame, West is on > > lead and South needs two of the last > > three tricks to make their redoubled > > contract. > > > > However... > > > > The ace, king and queen of diamonds > > are all major penalty cards. > > > > Law 50D1: > > > > "A major penalty card must be played > > at the first legal opportunity ... > > The obligation ... to comply with a > > lead or play penalty, takes precedence > > over the obligation to play a major > > penalty card ..." > > > > Therefore, if declarer wishes, > > declarer could prohibit West from > > leading their king of diamonds for as > > long as West retains the lead due to > > East also holding diamond penalty > > cards. > > > > However, suppose that declarer does > > want West to immediately lead their > > king of diamonds, would this law be > > applicable? > > > > Law 51B1(a): > > > > "When a defender has two or more > > penalty cards in one suit, and > > declarer requires the defender's > > partner to lead that suit, the cards > > of that suit are no longer penalty > > cards and are picked up; the defender > > may make any legal play to the trick." > > > > Of course, the only way that 5Cxx can > > be made is if West leads the king of > > diamonds, East overtakes with the ace > > of diamonds, then East continues with > > the queen of diamonds - the contract > > makes on a smother play. > > > > Can this smother play be achieved by > > declarer applying this law? > > > > Law 50D2(b): > > > > "When a defender has the lead while > > his partner has a major penalty > > card, he may not lead until > > declarer has stated which of the > > options below is selected ... > > Declarer may choose: > > ... > > not to require or prohibit a lead, > > in which case the defender may lead > > any card; the penalty card remains > > a penalty card." > > > > That is, can declarer simply announce > > that declarer is choosing for East's > > AQ of diamonds to remain major > > penalty cards, and allowing West to > > make any legal play? ?If so, West's > > only legal play (by the first phrase > > of Law 50D1) is the king of diamonds. > > > > But the choice by declarer under Law > > 50D2(b) is identical to the choice > > by declarer under Law 51B1(a); in > > both cases declarer is requiring > > West to lead the king of diamonds. > > > > However, the two identical choices > > by declarer lead to different > > outcomes; applying one Law sees the > > AQ of diamonds remain penalty cards, > > while applying another Law sees the > > AQ of diamonds cease to be penalty > > cards and picked up. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > > National Training Branch > > 02 6225 6285 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 25 11:37:01 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:37:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <200609242019.k8OKJkUb023598@smtp10.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <001501c6e086$2770c820$6400a8c0@WINXP> My answers: 1: Yes 2: The Director should do nothing at this stage except explaining to the players all alternatives and consequences: If South confirms a revoke and corrects it he will avoid his revoke to become established. In that case West (if he wants) may without penalty retract his played (revoking) card and replace it with any other (legal) card. If West's original play also was a revoke this allows him to correct this revoke without any penalty. If South did not revoke (very unlikely!) or does not confirm it then West is stuck with his play and an established revoke. 3: No 4: If West was not given the opportunity to correct his revoke without penalty it is established and must be dealt with as such after the play of the board is completed. If South did not revoke (very unlikely!) then the procedure is straight forward. If both South and West revoked to the same trick the normal revoke procedures are suspended and the Director must award an adjusted score on the board according to the most likely result had there been no revoke at all to this trick. Regards Sven -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Andre Steffens Sent: 24. september 2006 22:20 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: [blml] Live exam question _____ Van: Andre Steffens Verzonden: zondag 24 september 2006 8:36 Aan: 'blml at amsterdamned.org' Onderwerp: Live exam question On the dutch TD's live exam there was a nasty problem on a double revoke. As I am "sentenced" by Ton Kooijman to comment on this exam and would like to include this problem I decided to get some expert opinion. Any help will be greatly appreciated. South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by South and overruffed in West. As this is the first time he clubs are played and East and dummy only have seven clubs between them East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those clubs gone to?" And calls the TD. The TD had to realise that he had to address the following issues: 1. Can East be considered to have alerted his partner to have revoked? In Europe asking your partner about a revoke while being defender is not allowed. 2. How furtively should the TD establish that both South and West have revoked? 3. Is South entitled to the knowledge that West has revoked too? (West has the king and the queen is in dummy. South has the ace) 4. How is West's revoke dealt with? Who's going for the top marks on this one :-)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060925/7b2a930d/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 25 12:17:37 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:17:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <200609242019.k8OKJkUb023598@smtp10.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060925121427.0210f8f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:19 24/09/2006 +0200, =?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?= wrote: One more item of information : >2. How furtively should the TD establish that both South and West have >revoked? If the TD, on the basis of general principles, is wary about peeking at the hands, he might ask both players to check their hands. The Laws explicitly disallow a player to do anything to conceal one's infractions, so the player(s) at fault will be compelled to give the important information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060925/2365e61c/attachment.htm From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Sep 25 13:01:46 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:01:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <001501c6e086$2770c820$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001501c6e086$2770c820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1GRoDb-0lNuWe0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Hi Sven, From: "Sven Pran" > My answers: > > 1: Yes > > 2: The Director should do nothing at this stage except explaining to > the players all alternatives and consequences: > > If South confirms a revoke and corrects it he will avoid his revoke > to become established. In that case West (if he wants) may without > penalty retract his played (revoking) card and replace it with any > other (legal) card. If West's original play also was a revoke this > allows him to correct this revoke without any penalty. hmm, which law ? > > If South did not revoke (very unlikely!) or does not confirm it then > West is stuck with his play and an established revoke. ? > > 3: No > > 4: If West was not given the opportunity to correct his revoke > without penalty it is established and must be dealt with as such > after the play of the board is completed. > > If South did not revoke (very unlikely!) then the procedure is > straight forward. > > If both South and West revoked to the same trick the normal revoke > procedures are suspended and the Director must award an adjusted > score on the board according to the most likely result had there been > no revoke at all to this trick. But we are in the middle of a trick not at the end of hand ... (?) Regards Peter BTW: we were not in disagreement in another thread ;-) From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 25 13:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <200609242019.k8OKJkUb023598@smtp10.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: Andre wrote: > South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. > In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by South and > overruffed in West. As this is the first time he clubs are > played and East and dummy only have seven clubs between them > East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those clubs > gone to?" And calls the TD. OK, let us deal with the infractions as they occurred. The TD inquires of South as to whether he has revoked. South acknowledges possession of at least one club and corrects the revoke immediately (62A/B2). We now apply L62C and West chooses to play a club instead of the Spade - this occurs without penalty. We now deal with West's revoke - it no longer exists, no problem. South is neither entitled to know that West has revoked nor that West possesses a Spade - L16c2. > In Europe asking your partner about a revoke while being defender is > not allowed. Which must be the second most stupid law in the book after L25b. Revokes should be corrected and any information arising from revoke enquires (regardless of correction) regarded as UI. The nonsense about correcting, and suffering a penalty card, and suffering the revoke penalty should be expunged. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 25 13:36:29 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:36:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: References: <200609242019.k8OKJkUb023598@smtp10.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060925132415.02108060@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:13 25/09/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >OK, let us deal with the infractions as they occurred. >The TD inquires of South as to whether he has revoked. >South acknowledges possession of at least one club and corrects the >revoke immediately (62A/B2). We now apply L62C and West chooses to play >a club instead of the Spade - this occurs without penalty. IBTD. West has revoked. Why should the fact that South revoked influence the fact that West holds some clubs ? Do you deem West's play nonexistent ? This seems inconsistent with the fact that, for the sake of establishing revokes, East's remark is equivalent to playing to a new trick. >Which must be the second most stupid law in the book after L25b. >Revokes should be corrected and any information arising from revoke >enquires (regardless of correction) regarded as UI. The nonsense about >correcting, and suffering a penalty card, and suffering the revoke >penalty should be expunged. Objection. This is one rare case where UI will be given, Sherlock's way, by the fact that parner keeps mum. That is, when West should have one more, accounting for East's holding, East will ask, and when it's quite possible West doesn't, he will not. Now, how do you establish that a perfectly quiet and silent East has transmitted UI ? (you'd need to know this peculiar East's habits : does he ask or not ?). The only way to avoid this (possibly unintentional) undetectable transmission of UI was to disallow such questions altogether. Best regards, Alain. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 25 14:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060925132415.02108060@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > >OK, let us deal with the infractions as they occurred. > >The TD inquires of South as to whether he has revoked. > >South acknowledges possession of at least one club and corrects the > >revoke immediately (62A/B2). We now apply L62C and West chooses to > playa club instead of the Spade - this occurs without penalty. > > IBTD. West has revoked. Why should the fact that South revoked > influence the fact that West holds some clubs ? It doesn't. > Do you deem West's play nonexistent ? It's not "non-existent" but is has become a withdrawn action after applying L62C to South's revoke. we have been told that South held a club so correction by South is compulsory and replacement by West is an option I expect him to take once he realises that the trick in question is a club trick rather than the S trick South's revoke gave the impression of. I'm not giving S a chance at a free Alcatraz position of trying to discover info on the S suit. > This seems inconsistent with > the fact that, for the sake of establishing revokes, East's remark > is equivalent to playing to a new trick. It's consistent with the fact that by the time I have resolved the first revoke there is no second revoke. > >Which must be the second most stupid law in the book after L25b. > >Revokes should be corrected and any information arising from revoke > >enquires (regardless of correction) regarded as UI. The nonsense > about > >correcting, and suffering a penalty card, and suffering the revoke > >penalty should be expunged. > > Objection. This is one rare case where UI will be given, Sherlock's > way, by the fact that parner keeps mum. A failure to enquire when a player *might* have chosen so to do can also transmit UI. It is "information arising" whether the dog barks or not. I'd say such cases are extremely rare rather than just rare. Problems can be avoided (if playing rubber bridge in Europe or duplicate in the US) by training oneself to always ask. Tim From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Sep 25 14:45:55 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:45:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1GRpqN-0decHQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> From: "Tim West-Meads" > Andre wrote: > > > South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. > > In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by South and > > overruffed in West. As this is the first time he clubs are > > played and East and dummy only have seven clubs between them > > East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those clubs > > gone to?" ?And calls the TD. > > OK, let us deal with the infractions as they occurred. > The TD inquires of South as to whether he has revoked. > South acknowledges possession of at least one club and corrects the > revoke immediately (62A/B2). ?We now apply L62C and West chooses to > play a club instead of the Spade - this occurs without penalty. > We now deal with West's revoke - it no longer exists, no problem. mmmmmh (?) In my lawsbook it reads (Law 62 C1): "Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played ..." West did revoke; can he be a non-offender ?? Peter > South is neither entitled to know that West has revoked nor that West > possesses a Spade - L16c2. > > > > In Europe asking your partner about a revoke while being defender is > > not allowed. > > > > Which must be the second most stupid law in the book after L25b. > Revokes should be corrected and any information arising from revoke > enquires (regardless of correction) regarded as UI. ?The nonsense > about correcting, and suffering a penalty card, and suffering the > revoke penalty should be expunged. > > Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 25 15:08:22 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:08:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <1GRoDb-0lNuWe0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <002a01c6e0a3$aee91600$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > From: "Sven Pran" > > My answers: > > > > 1: Yes > > > > 2: The Director should do nothing at this stage except explaining to > > the players all alternatives and consequences: > > > > If South confirms a revoke and corrects it he will avoid his revoke > > to become established. In that case West (if he wants) may without > > penalty retract his played (revoking) card and replace it with any > > other (legal) card. If West's original play also was a revoke this > > allows him to correct this revoke without any penalty. > > hmm, which law ? Law 62C1. > > > > If South did not revoke (very unlikely!) or does not confirm it then > > West is stuck with his play and an established revoke. BTW if South did indeed revoke but does not confirm and correct his revoke he is liable to a procedure penalty for violating law 62A! > > 3: No > > > > 4: If West was not given the opportunity to correct his revoke > > without penalty it is established and must be dealt with as such > > after the play of the board is completed. > > > > If South did not revoke (very unlikely!) then the procedure is > > straight forward. > > > > If both South and West revoked to the same trick the normal revoke > > procedures are suspended and the Director must award an adjusted > > score on the board according to the most likely result had there been > > no revoke at all to this trick. > > But we are in the middle of a trick not at the end of hand ... (?) Correct. And the ruling on established revoke only takes place when the play of that board has ended. You cannot make this ruling without knowing the outcome of the play. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 25 15:31:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <1GRpqN-0decHQ0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: > > We now deal with West's revoke - it no longer exists, no problem. > > mmmmmh (?) > > In my lawsbook it reads (Law 62 C1): > "Each member of the non-offending side may, > without penalty, withdraw any card he may have > played ..." > > West did revoke; can he be a non-offender ?? The ... conceals "after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it." Note "the" revoke, not "a" revoke. West is a member of NOS with regard to the *first* revoke (the one with which I am currently dealing). Should he decide not to change his card following South's change he *will* be an offender when I come to deal with his revoke (unlikely IMO!!). Declarer's revokes, being penalty free, can easily be tried as investigative/mistake inducing ploys. We must be careful to resolve the offence fully before dealing with a subsequent offence by NOS. Tim From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 25 17:07:09 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:07:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4517F09D.2050803@t-online.de> Hi all, in order zo get a precise answer to this ine should go to the EBL website http://www.eurobridge.org/index2.html and there find Departments --> Directing --> Courses. Go to the 7th course --> Practical exercises. Case 22 gives a clear answer. OK, so I lied. Sue me. For the record: I disagree with the answer to a). East knows quite well that South does not have 6 clubs. Regarding the original questzon I think that the established revoke does not disappear. Even if the defender is the non-offending side where declarer`s revoke is concerned, the defenders are the offending side in a 61B violation, leading to 63B. Why should this vanish into thin air just because declarer revoked first? Best regards Matthias From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 25 19:19:26 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:19:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Live exam question References: <200609242019.k8OKJkUb023598@smtp10.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Andre Steffens To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 3:19 PM Subject: [blml] Live exam question Van: Andre Steffens Verzonden: zondag 24 september 2006 8:36 Aan: 'blml at amsterdamned.org' Onderwerp: Live exam question On the dutch TD's live exam there was a nasty problem on a double revoke. As I am "sentenced" by Ton Kooijman to comment on this exam and would like to include this problem I decided to get some expert opinion. Any help will be greatly appreciated. South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by South and overruffed in West. As this is the first time he clubs are played and East and dummy only have seven clubs between them East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those clubs gone to?" And calls the TD. The TD had to realise that he had to address the following issues: 1. Can East be considered to have alerted his partner to have revoked? In Europe asking your partner about a revoke while being defender is not allowed. 2. How furtively should the TD establish that both South and West have revoked? 3. Is South entitled to the knowledge that West has revoked too? (West has the king and the queen is in dummy. South has the ace) 4. How is West's revoke dealt with? Who's going for the top marks on this one :-)? It is presumptuous to presume what facts the TD will uncover. However I note the following: Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Paris, France, on 1st November 2001. . 4. The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. The committee decided that the Director should deal with this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C. The Nov 1 2001 meeting of the WBFLC produced the pronouncement that only the provision of L64C was applicable to the situation where a defender first revokes and then declarer then revokes. I find it perplexing that the LC did not persist in its clarification to say that the policy does not apply when it is first the declaring side that revokes, or that it is dummy that revokes last. I am left to wonder that the intention was applicable generally where opponents revoke on the same trick. It approaches absurdity to presume otherwise. As such, I am thinking that the Nov1 minute provides the remedy for the situation once it has been acknowledged that S & W have revoked on the same trick. It follows that the score is to be adjusted [L64C] forthwith [other issues are mute] on the basis that play to the first three tree tricks stand. regards roger pewick From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Sep 25 21:33:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <4517F09D.2050803@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias wrote: > in order zo get a precise answer to this ine should go to the EBL > website Precise it may be, correct it isn't. The answers (in both scenarios a and b) speak of various cards being penalty cards. Since all the cards picked up by defender fall are being picked up under the auspices of L62c and fall into the category of "any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it" they cannot be penalty cards. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 25 22:59:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:59:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6e0e5$7f921310$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ........... > South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. > In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by South and overruffed > in > West. > As this is the first time he clubs are played and East and dummy only have > seven clubs between them East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those > clubs > gone to?" And calls the TD. ........... > It is presumptuous to presume what facts the TD will uncover. However I > note the following: > > Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee > > held in Paris, France, on 1st November 2001. > > 4. The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing > and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The > committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's > side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the > defenders' side is non-offending. The committee decided that the > Director should deal with this situation by restoring equity, based on > what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law > 64C. > > The Nov 1 2001 meeting of the WBFLC produced the pronouncement that only > the > provision of L64C was applicable to the situation where a defender first > revokes and then declarer then revokes. I find it perplexing that the LC > did not persist in its clarification to say that the policy does not apply > when it is first the declaring side that revokes, or that it is dummy > that > revokes last. > > I am left to wonder that the intention was applicable generally where > opponents revoke on the same trick. It approaches absurdity to presume > otherwise. As such, I am thinking that the Nov1 minute provides the > remedy > for the situation once it has been acknowledged that S & W have revoked on > the same trick. It follows that the score is to be adjusted [L64C] > forthwith [other issues are mute] on the basis that play to the first > three > tree tricks stand. Please be aware that the quoted WBFLC minute concerned _established_ revokes while this thread is about revokes that have not yet become established. That is a major difference. Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 01:03:11 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:03:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <000001c6e0e5$7f921310$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "blml" >Subject: Re: [blml] Live exam question >Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:59:31 +0200 > > > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick >........... > > South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. > > In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by South and overruffed > > in > > West. > > As this is the first time he clubs are played and East and dummy only >have > > seven clubs between them East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those > > clubs > > gone to?" And calls the TD. >........... > > It is presumptuous to presume what facts the TD will uncover. However I > > note the following: > > > > Minutes of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee > > > > held in Paris, France, on 1st November 2001. > > > > 4. The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing > > and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The > > committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's > > side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the > > defenders' side is non-offending. The committee decided that the > > Director should deal with this situation by restoring equity, based on > > what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law > > 64C. > > > > The Nov 1 2001 meeting of the WBFLC produced the pronouncement that only > > the > > provision of L64C was applicable to the situation where a defender first > > revokes and then declarer then revokes. I find it perplexing that the >LC > > did not persist in its clarification to say that the policy does not >apply > > when it is first the declaring side that revokes, or that it is dummy > > that > > revokes last. > > > > I am left to wonder that the intention was applicable generally where > > opponents revoke on the same trick. It approaches absurdity to presume > > otherwise. As such, I am thinking that the Nov1 minute provides the > > remedy > > for the situation once it has been acknowledged that S & W have revoked >on > > the same trick. It follows that the score is to be adjusted [L64C] > > forthwith [other issues are mute] on the basis that play to the first > > three > > tree tricks stand. > >Please be aware that the quoted WBFLC minute concerned _established_ >revokes Well, yes it does. >while this thread is about revokes that have not yet become established. > >That is a major difference. > >Regards Sven I am well aware that a revoke is either established or unestablished. And the language of the minute excludes neither and as such leads to the conclusion that it concerned established and unestablished revokes. As you said, the difference between the two is a major difference, and most certainly the LC was well aware of it at the time. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 26 01:31:10 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:31:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4517F09D.2050803@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Andre Steffens: >>>South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. >>>In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by >>>South [revoke] and overruffed by West [revoke]. As >>>this is the first time the clubs are played and >>>East and dummy only have seven clubs between them >>>East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those clubs >>>gone to?" And calls the TD. EBL TD course Telecitta January 2006 official answer: >>a) It is reasonable to accept East's question as an >>honest one, not aimed to awake his partner (South >>really needs a high club honor for his 2NT opening). >>None of the revokes is established yet, so ST and J >>are taken back, with the J becoming a major PC. >>(this might be a case where declarer generously >>waives the PC; L81C8?) Matthias Berghaus: >For the record: I disagree with the answer to a). >East knows quite well that South does not have 6 >clubs. Richard Hills: For the record, I disagree with Matthias. Law 61B allows a defender to ask declarer if declarer has revoked, but prohibits (unless a Zonal option applies) a defender asking their partner if pard have revoked. If both declarer and partner have shown out on the same trick, so that the enquiring defender knows for certain someone must have revoked, then either Law 61B has an unresolved internal paradox, or a defender is entitled to indirectly "wake up" their revoking partner by asking a question of declarer. For the record, I also disagree with answer (a). It states that the over-ruffing spade jack becomes a major penalty card. This is unclear, since the Laws contain an internal paradox when declarer commits an unestablished revoke followed by their LHO also committing an unestablished revoke (this paradox was first identified by Bridge World editor Jeff Rubens). Law 62C1: "Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16C)." Law 62B1: "To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played in revoking and follows suit with any card. A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender's unfaced hand." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 26 01:45:17 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:45:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c6e0fc$a78b9140$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............ > >Please be aware that the quoted WBFLC minute concerned _established_ > >revokes > > Well, yes it does. > > >while this thread is about revokes that have not yet become established. > > > >That is a major difference. > > > >Regards Sven > > I am well aware that a revoke is either established or unestablished. And > the language of the minute excludes neither and as such leads to the > conclusion that it concerned established and unestablished revokes. Then you should also be aware that the Revoke penalties never apply to revokes that have not been established and that when attention is called to a revoke before it is established that revoke can never be established. > As you said, the difference between the two is a major difference, and > most > certainly the LC was well aware of it at the time. So the LC when discussing revoke penalties did not have any reason to concern itself in this minute with revokes that have not been established. As I indicated before: That minute is only relevant when both sides have revoked to the same trick and their revokes have been established. That condition is not met in the case for this thread. Regards Sven From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue Sep 26 02:47:39 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:47:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems Message-ID: <451878AB.6040202@cs.elte.hu> Can anyone tell me the category (red or blue) of the following systems? In general I'm interested the precise definition of red systems. System A More or less strong club system (1C: 17+), but 1H: 11-20p 5+H or 17-20p 1444. Other opening bids and anwsers are similar to a normal strong club 5cM system. System B More or less a normal strong club system (1C:16+), but 1D: 11-15p 5+H 1H: 11-15p 5+S 1S: 11-15p similar to a normal strong club systems 1D opening bid: 1+D, (the 2D opening means something else) anwsers: 1D-2C: stayman. No more extras. System C More or less an abnormal strong club system :) (1C:16+ --- frequently depends on valuation of the cards) but 1D: 11-15p, diamond or club suit or balanced hand including 5332 with Major. 2C: 11-15p, any 4441 anwsers: 1D-1H strong relay; 1D-1S weaker relay, etc relay anwsers to other opening bids as well. regards Laci ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Sep 26 02:51:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > This is unclear, since the Laws > contain an internal paradox when declarer commits an > unestablished revoke followed by their LHO also > committing an unestablished revoke There isn't much of a paradox here. The first revoke is addressed first, a compulsory change is made by the first revoker and the next player has the option of voluntarily withdrawing his card(s) without penalty. Only if he decides *not* to exercise that option (presumably in ignorance of his own revoke despite everything) do we have a second revoke to address - in such a case L62b1 comes into play. Tim From schoderb at msn.com Tue Sep 26 03:46:18 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:46:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Having taken the trouble to change my Email sending mode to the most basic of e-mails (text) to assure that it doesn't get held up by the monitor I respond to the continuing stuff that the amicus curiae devines. A Bunch of words to be sure, but not anywhere can I find where he is willing to propose what he thinks is right. Did I miss something, or did I expect more? It must be a warm and comfortable existence to declaim on others without being held accountable for one's own decisions -- a well loved attitude of players who never would be tasked or held responsible for their actions as a TD of high level and made to exhibit judgement. Hopefully he does not find himself in the uncomfortable position of being responsible for the direction of bridge tournaments beyond the novice level. Quoting existent Law makes me feel that it may be the first time the writer has read it. I can read as well (or better) than he can, but perhaps my penchant to include the intent of the Law is what so much grates on the self-styled savants. The minute of the WBFLC (of 2001?)is enough for me to do the right thing. I suggest he read it. Kojak From: To: Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Andre Steffens: > > >>>South is playing 4 spades after opening with 2NT. > >>>In trick four East leads a club, which is ruffed by > >>>South [revoke] and overruffed by West [revoke]. As > >>>this is the first time the clubs are played and > >>>East and dummy only have seven clubs between them > >>>East exclaims: "Where on earth have all those clubs > >>>gone to?" And calls the TD. > > EBL TD course Telecitta January 2006 official answer: > > >>a) It is reasonable to accept East's question as an > >>honest one, not aimed to awake his partner (South > >>really needs a high club honor for his 2NT opening). > >>None of the revokes is established yet, so ST and J > >>are taken back, with the J becoming a major PC. > >>(this might be a case where declarer generously > >>waives the PC; L81C8?) > > Matthias Berghaus: > > >For the record: I disagree with the answer to a). > >East knows quite well that South does not have 6 > >clubs. > > Richard Hills: > > For the record, I disagree with Matthias. Law 61B > allows a defender to ask declarer if declarer has > revoked, but prohibits (unless a Zonal option > applies) a defender asking their partner if pard > have revoked. If both declarer and partner have > shown out on the same trick, so that the enquiring > defender knows for certain someone must have revoked, > then either Law 61B has an unresolved internal > paradox, or a defender is entitled to indirectly > "wake up" their revoking partner by asking a question > of declarer. > > For the record, I also disagree with answer (a). It > states that the over-ruffing spade jack becomes a > major penalty card. This is unclear, since the Laws > contain an internal paradox when declarer commits an > unestablished revoke followed by their LHO also > committing an unestablished revoke (this paradox was > first identified by Bridge World editor Jeff Rubens). > > Law 62C1: > > "Each member of the non-offending side may, without > penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after > the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see > Law 16C)." > > Law 62B1: > > "To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the > card he played in revoking and follows suit with any > card. > A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) > if it was played from a defender's unfaced hand." > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 26 03:47:12 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:47:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c6e0fc$a78b9140$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Then you should also be aware that the Revoke penalties never >apply to revokes that have not been established Richard Hills: Never say never again. Law 43B2(b) and Law 63B apply revoke penalties to non-established revokes. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From geller at nifty.com Tue Sep 26 04:35:15 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:35:15 +0900 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200609260235.AA05568@geller204.nifty.com> I just joined this ML. Could you please advise me of the URL where the minutes of the WBFLC are available on-line? Thanks. Bob Geller, Tokyo Japan WILLIAM SCHODER writes: >The minute of the WBFLC (of 2001?)is enough for me to do the right thing. >I suggest he read it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 26 06:21:21 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:21:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609260235.AA05568@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Former WBF Chief Director William Schoder (Kojak): [snip] >>Hopefully he does not find himself in the uncomfortable >>position of being responsible for the direction of bridge >>tournaments beyond the novice level. Quoting existent Law >>makes me feel that it may be the first time the writer has >>read it. I can read as well (or better) than he can, but >>perhaps my penchant to include the intent of the Law is >>what so much grates on the self-styled savants. >> >>The minute of the WBFLC (of 2001?)is enough for me to do the >>right thing. I suggest he read it. Bob Geller: >I just joined this ML. Could you please advise me of the >URL where the minutes of the WBFLC are available on-line? >Thanks. > >Bob Geller, Tokyo Japan Novice director and self-styled savant Richard Hills: Welcome, Bob, to blml. I hope that you find this list both instructive and entertaining (including creative invective and apposite ripostes). A link to the WBF minutes is at: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/cmte_minutes.asp The minute referred to by Kojak is 1st November 2001, item 4: >>The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by >>ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of >>the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke >>is made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the >>second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. >>The committee decided that the Director should deal with this >>situation by restoring equity, based on what would have >>happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C. Richard Hills: The minute refers to Law 64C, which Law is applicable only to an established revoke. Therefore it is not obvious to me as a mere novice director (although it is apparently obvious to the Greatest Of All Time director) that this minute applies to the two non-established revokes under discussion in this thread. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From geller at nifty.com Tue Sep 26 07:37:32 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:37:32 +0900 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200609260537.AA05571@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >A link to the WBF minutes is at: > >http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/cmte_minutes.asp Thanks. I also received mail informing me of the following site, http://www.dybdal.dk/tl/wbflc/text/ which has minutes from 1997 to 2002. But neither site had any minutes for any meetings after 2003. Has the committee held any meetings since Nov. 2003, and, if so, where are the minutes available? Thanks. From herman at hdw.be Tue Sep 26 09:49:25 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:49:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4518DB85.9080603@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Andre Steffens: > > > Richard Hills: > > For the record, I disagree with Matthias. Law 61B > allows a defender to ask declarer if declarer has > revoked, but prohibits (unless a Zonal option > applies) a defender asking their partner if pard > have revoked. If both declarer and partner have > shown out on the same trick, so that the enquiring > defender knows for certain someone must have revoked, > then either Law 61B has an unresolved internal > paradox, or a defender is entitled to indirectly > "wake up" their revoking partner by asking a question > of declarer. > Or, third possibility: the defender is not allowed to ask anything when two players show out. Which is the possibility I believe is the correct one. There is no inconsistency: It is allowed, but not obliged, to ask declarer when he shows out. Not even the explicit mention that something is allowed is enough to allow something which is forbidden by some other regulation. Uttering the sentence "no more spades, declarer", when two people have shown out, is allowed under L61B(3) and forbidden under L61B(4). Therefore, it is forbidden. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 22/09/2006 From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 26 10:57:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:57:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems In-Reply-To: <451878AB.6040202@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <000001c6e149$dd94b350$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Laszlo Hegedus > Can anyone tell me the category (red or blue) of the following systems? > In general I'm interested the precise definition of red systems. According to the Norwegian regulations which I believe are inline with at least EBL if not also WBF regulations all your systems are IMO Red with the possible exception of system A which could even be Yellow. None of them seem to me to qualify for the Blue category. Green are "natural" systems where the opening bids at the one level show at least three cards in the named minor and four cards in the named major, use "natural" answers at the one-level and which use 1NT to show balanced or semi-balanced hand. Blue includes systems that use 1C and/or 1D as conventional strong opening bids and where the opening bids of 1H, 1S and 1NT satisfy the conditions for Green systems. A Red system includes all systems that do not qualify for Green or Blue, and which do not use HUM and therefore is Yellow. (Red systems include for instance Vienna, Relay systems and systems with permitted ambiguous opening bids. [note: The regulation is written this way, but I believe the ambiguity should refer to opening bids at the one level only]) One of the criteria making a system Yellow is when an opening bid at the one level can show either length or shortness in a single suit, or show either length in one suit or length in one or more other suits. (1H in your system A?) Regards Sven > > System A > More or less strong club system (1C: 17+), but > 1H: 11-20p 5+H or 17-20p 1444. > Other opening bids and anwsers are similar to a normal strong club 5cM > system. > > System B > More or less a normal strong club system (1C:16+), but > 1D: 11-15p 5+H > 1H: 11-15p 5+S > 1S: 11-15p similar to a normal strong club systems 1D opening bid: 1+D, > (the 2D opening means something else) > anwsers: 1D-2C: stayman. > No more extras. > > System C > More or less an abnormal strong club system :) (1C:16+ --- frequently > depends on valuation of the cards) but > 1D: 11-15p, diamond or club suit or balanced hand including 5332 with > Major. > 2C: 11-15p, any 4441 > anwsers: 1D-1H strong relay; 1D-1S weaker relay, etc relay anwsers to > other opening bids as well. > > regards > > Laci > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! > Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes > WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. > R?szletek: www.freestart.hu > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 26 11:09:29 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:09:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems In-Reply-To: <000001c6e149$dd94b350$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <451878AB.6040202@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060926110257.020dab90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:57 26/09/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Laszlo Hegedus > > Can anyone tell me the category (red or blue) of the following systems? > > In general I'm interested the precise definition of red systems. > > > System A > > More or less strong club system (1C: 17+), but > > 1H: 11-20p 5+H or 17-20p 1444. > > Other opening bids and anwsers are similar to a normal strong club 5cM > > system. Depends on whtehter "1444" means "any 3-suiter". Then it would be classified yellow. However, you only need to state "1444 with 4 hearts" to make it a blue system. > > > System B > > More or less a normal strong club system (1C:16+), but > > 1D: 11-15p 5+H > > 1H: 11-15p 5+S > > 1S: 11-15p similar to a normal strong club systems 1D opening bid: 1+D, > > (the 2D opening means something else) > > anwsers: 1D-2C: stayman. > > No more extras. Obviously red. It could be argued that it is yellow, because "1S shows either clubs or diamonds or NT", which is in principle disallowed, but a "residual opening", i.e. "anything that isn't shown by another 1-level opening" is tolerated. The fact that such a 1S opening seems unplayable is a horse of another color. > > > System C > > More or less an abnormal strong club system :) (1C:16+ --- frequently > > depends on valuation of the cards) but > > 1D: 11-15p, diamond or club suit or balanced hand including 5332 with > > Major. > > 2C: 11-15p, any 4441 > > anwsers: 1D-1H strong relay; 1D-1S weaker relay, etc relay anwsers to > > other opening bids as well. Non-strong relays and the 2C opening make this red. 2C makes, however, could be considered "a brown sticker convention" with such a lower limit. To be checked. Best regards, Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 26 11:09:44 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c6e14b$81e5b6b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >Then you should also be aware that the Revoke penalties never > >apply to revokes that have not been established > > Richard Hills: > > Never say never again. Law 43B2(b) and Law 63B apply revoke > penalties to non-established revokes. Point taken! In fact, it is an interesting and unanswered question if Law 63B forces the Director to handle West's revoke first and only thereafter handle the revoke by South. However, I stick to my original answer (Apply Law 62A on South's revoke first and allow West to retract his card without penalty under Law 62C1). This is the only solution that both seems reasonable and makes sense to me. Leaving West with a penalty card (and even worse with a revoke penalty) while South who initiated the irregularities on this trick only gets advantages from the situation cannot possibly have been the intention of WBFLC and is definitely not in the interest of the game. (And the quoted WBFLC minute does IMO _not_ address this situation.) Regards Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Sep 26 11:58:47 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:58:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Red systems Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A4E@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: 26 September 2006 10:09 To: Sven Pran; blml Subject: Re: [blml] Red systems > > System B > > More or less a normal strong club system (1C:16+), but > > 1D: 11-15p 5+H > > 1H: 11-15p 5+S > > 1S: 11-15p similar to a normal strong club systems 1D opening bid: 1+D, > > (the 2D opening means something else) > > anwsers: 1D-2C: stayman. > > No more extras. Obviously red. It could be argued that it is yellow, because "1S shows either clubs or diamonds or NT", which is in principle disallowed, but a "residual opening", i.e. "anything that isn't shown by another 1-level opening" is tolerated. _______________________________________________ WBF system policy HUM ... 5. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another. EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system So a 1S catch-all (either minor or balanced) is HUM (yellow). 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 26 12:23:54 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:23:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A4E@exchsvr1.npl.ad.loc al> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060926121443.02102580@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:58 26/09/2006 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >So a 1S catch-all (either minor or balanced) is HUM (yellow). 1S as a weak NT has been allowed. Would you allow : - 1S : 12-14, no 5-card suit - 1S : 12-14, diamonds the only possible 5-card suit - 1S : catchall (NT or length in minor) Robin firmly says : not the latter. Where should one put the limit, and how do you justify it ? NB : this is one more absurdity of the rules. Opening X, with meaning Y, isn't allowed, while opening X, higher than X, thus more difficult to defend against, with the same meaning Y, is allowed. Examples : 2C weak (0-5) is BSC, but 1S weak (0-5) is yellow. 2D or 2C showing H or S is red, but 1NT showing H or S is yellow. 2D or 2C as the strongest opening is green (if no other problem), but 1NT is red. (is it ?) Regards Alain From herman at hdw.be Tue Sep 26 13:23:59 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:23:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060926110257.020dab90@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <451878AB.6040202@cs.elte.hu> <5.1.0.14.0.20060926110257.020dab90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <45190DCF.3080701@hdw.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > The fact that such a 1S opening seems unplayable is a horse of another color. Precisely, but the question was "which color?" ;) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/456 - Release Date: 25/09/2006 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 26 17:20:38 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:20:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45194546.10505@NTLworld.com> [WILLIAM SCHODER] > Quoting existent Law makes me feel that it may be the first > time the writer has read it. I can read as well (or better) > than he can, but perhaps my penchant to include the intent > of the Law is what so much grates on the self-styled savants. > The minute of the WBFLC (of 2001?)is enough for me to do > the right thing. I suggest he read it. [nige1] I can't speak for Richard, but Kojak has hit the nail on the head to accurately address the main concern of club directors and ordinary players. Our knowledge of the law is poor. We may have to interpret a law that we've just read for the first time. We aren't privy to obscure minutes. We must rely on the words of the law rather than try to guess what the authors intended to write :) To be of practical use to most directors and players, the laws should be more complete, simple, clear and objective. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Sep 26 18:04:16 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:04:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003e01c6e185$6d224420$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Rainsford" > > I don't think the original post I was replying to specified such a > particular hand. Nevertheless, playing a 4 card major system, a > biddable major is 4 cards or longer - hence the name of the system. Actually, most of us who play a "pure" four-card major system say that a biddable major is headed by at least A, K, Q10, or J10. On my convention card is a prominent "Weak majors often bypassed." That makes bidding a 9xxx suit a psych in your opinion, I suppose, but as a matter of "style and judgment" it really isn't. > > To start by bidding a suit you don't hold, in preference to > bidding one you do hold, is a gross distortion of your hand > description. > > Before Marv starts misinterpreting me again, let me say that it > doesn't follow that I think it's wrong, illegal or fattening to > deliberately do so, but I do think it's a psych. > Sorry if I ever misinterpreted you, but I don't regard even an Axx suit as a "gross distortion" in a four-card major system, especially one that frowns on bidding a 9xxx suit. When I bid a three-card major it is because there just isn't a satisfactory bid in the hand and in my judgment it represents the least of evils. An outside singleton (always held) gives it ruffing value, so it has the trick-taking potential of a four-card suit. How is this "gross"?. In third seat a light opening is supposed to be lead-directing, so I bid 1H with x AKx Jxxxx Kxxx, taking a chance. I do such things maybe once in 20 sessions, so partner does not expect it, and opponents would do well not to expect it. See Law 75B. The ACBL does not allow me to do it more often as a part of system, because three-card majors as system bids are forbidden. Illegally, since these are not conventional bids (as defined by the Laws, which permit the control of conventional calls only). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 26 18:28:26 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:28:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4518DB85.9080603@hdw.be> References: <4518DB85.9080603@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4519552A.6080002@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] > Uttering the sentence "no more spades, declarer", when two people have > shown out, is allowed under L61B(3) and forbidden under L61B(4). > Therefore, it is forbidden. [nige1] Herman has got to be right in law and common sense. [Tim West-Meades] > A failure to enquire when a player *might* have chosen so to do can > also transmit UI. It is "information arising" whether the dog > barks or not. I'd say such cases are extremely rare rather than > just rare. > Problems can be avoided (if playing rubber bridge in Europe or > duplicate in the US) by training oneself to always ask. > Problems can be avoided (if playing rubber bridge in Europe or > duplicate in the US) by training oneself to always ask. [nige1] Until recently, at duplicate in the UK, the law allowed defenders to ask "having none partner?" My experience is different from Tim's: Both asking and not asking gave rise to "useful" unauthorised information several times per session. The standard of ethics must be higher in the USA than in the UK, if players refrain from taking advantage of so many opportunities. Hence, IMO, changing the laws back in the UK, would be a retrograde step. Tim is right that few problems would result if the law then insisted that "you always ask"; I fear, however, that some players would protest at being penalized for "forgetting to ask". There is an analogous problem with alerting; unless players must *always* ask the meaning of an alert, unauthorised information is inevitable; but in the case of alerting, the solution is obvious: Should the law be changed to insist that players always ask? No! Why waste time with alerting and asking at all? Just insist that players *announce* (in detail) all calls that they would formerly have alerted! If the law also accorded players the option to "switch off" all opponents' announcements, then not only would the game be simpler and more fun; but a conduit of unauthorised information would be dammed :) :) :) :) :) :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 26 18:32:08 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:32:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <003e01c6e185$6d224420$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060926182436.0210f810@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:04 26/09/2006 -0700, Marvin French wrote: >In third seat a light opening is supposed to be lead-directing, so I >bid 1H with x AKx Jxxxx Kxxx, taking a chance. I do such things >maybe once in 20 sessions, so partner does not expect it, and >opponents would do well not to expect it. See Law 75B. About one hand in 6 is a light opener (law of 17-19) ; therefore about one hand in 24 is a 3rd-in-hand light opener. We will be able to do such an opening only about once in 40 deals, because of possible openings before us. Also, of those hands do not qualify for an opening at all (eg 4333 10-11 counts with no good lead). All being accounted for, we can expect to open light, in 3rd hand, on about 1 deal in 50. Perhaps some of those figures are approximative, but the general idea is correct. If you open a semi-psyche once every 20 sessions, that is, once about 520 deals, this means that about 10% of your light 3rd-in-hand openings (and 3% of all your 3rd-in-hand openings) will be semi-psuches. IMOBO, this is far too much to be brushed aside as a psyche ; this is part of your system. Best regards, Alain. From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Sep 26 19:03:29 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:03:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A4F@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Guthrie Sent: 26 September 2006 17:28 To: BLML Subject: Re: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hence, IMO, changing the laws back in the UK, would be a retrograde step. Tim is right that few problems would result if the law then insisted that "you always ask"; I fear, however, that some players would protest at being penalized for "forgetting to ask". _______________________________________________ Why would a law that insisted that "you always ask" be any more successful than a law that insisted that "you always follow suit (when holding a card of the suit)". Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 26 19:36:29 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:36:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060926182436.0210f810@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <006301c59884$9469e4c0$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <748071f2a886a037145f659f8715b7f3@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <002c01c59b97$4e1cbb80$6701a8c0@san.rr.com> <2D5AD92B-0ADC-4D8A-83EC-B30483441BA0@rochester.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060926182436.0210f810@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4519651D.2030406@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] wrote: > If you open a semi-psyche once every 20 sessions, that is, once about 520 > deals, this means that about 10% of your light 3rd-in-hand openings (and 3% > of all your 3rd-in-hand openings) will be semi-psuches. IMOBO, this is far > too much to be brushed aside as a psyche; this is part of your system. [nige1] Many UK players and directors share Marvin's opinion on this topic. I also usually agree with Marvin but I feel that Alain has got this right. Part of the problem is restrictive licensing regulations: so that players rationalise their illegal agreements as (more or less) rare "deviations". Relevant local regulations should be part of the WBF laws. They also need need to be simplified and tightened up. The first step would be to agree universal definitions (I suggested some on BLML, a year or two ago). For example, the legislation should embrace *deviations* not gross enough to be classified as full-blown *psyches* but equally damaging to other players. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 26 09:41:59 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:41:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Complaints of ill-usage [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lord Melbourne (1779-1848), after his dismissal as Prime Minister by King William 1V: "I have always thought complaints of ill-usage contemptible, whether from a seduced disappointed girl or a turned out Prime Minister." Draft EBU Laws & Ethics Committee minutes 6th June 2006: [snip] 7.2 Complaint from a member 'Iguana' Mr Faulkner considered that publication of material on BLML (or equivalent) could count as conduct or behaviour which falls below accepted standards as allowed by 3.2(v) of the Disciplinary rules of EBU Ltd. However Mr Barnfield felt that there was more 'rough and tumble' language used on the internet than might be accepted in face to face encounters. It was the decision of the committee that 'While we may disagree with the comments used, the nature of language used by the internet community meant that the comment was not so far in breach of 3.2(v) of the Disciplinary code to merit any further action by the committee'. The secretary was asked to write to both parties with the decision. [snip] 8.2 06.23 Dealer S Game all Scoring: VPs . K6 Q6 7632 KQJ53 T9 AJ8732 A93 KT542 AKQJ 84 AT64 --- Q54 J87 T95 9872 West North East South --- --- --- Pass 1C(A)(1) 2C 2S Pass 2NT Pass 3H Pass 3NT Pass 4H Pass 4NT(A) Pass 5H Pass 6S Pass Pass Pass (1) 'Strong' club Result: 6S= by East = -1430 TD first called: at end of hand Tournament Director's statement of facts & ruling NS called me as they felt that EW had reached a contract based of extraneous information (viz the previous table discussing the hand). N & S both overheard a player state that 'should have bid 6' and also '..shape was 6/5'. N felt that the 6S contract was achieved as a result of that. Both E and W stated that they did not hear the detail of the conversation and ignored the conversation anyway. At table, when I was asking West (only) about the auction, he did say that he knew E was at least 5/5 . East now stated without being asked that it was showing 6/5. West confirmed that was why he bid 6S to pitch (word unclear) of the D suit. A player at the other table admitted he had discussed the hand and apologised). I felt there are two separate problems 1) Did EW overhear the conversation at the other table and 2) Did EW act upon it. In answer to 1) I think it probable that they did hear what was said, but cannot prove this. 2) EW (esp.W) has declared that his bidding was NOT influenced by any E.I. (because he didn't have any E.I.), thus he bid the contract on its own merits. Table result stands. Appeals Committee's decision Committee were satisfied. Auction seemed consistent with no overheard conversation. L&E comment: The committee were unhappy that North/South had not called the TD to report that they had overheard matters at the other table. Law 16B refers. The secretary was asked to write to North/South pointing this out. [snip] Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 27 00:52:30 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:52:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4519552A.6080002@NTLworld.com> References: <4518DB85.9080603@hdw.be> <4519552A.6080002@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Sep 26, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] >> Uttering the sentence "no more spades, declarer", when two people >> have >> shown out, is allowed under L61B(3) and forbidden under L61B(4). >> Therefore, it is forbidden. > > [nige1] > Herman has got to be right in law and common sense. Except that Law 61B has no subsections. Oh, and that a question specifically directed to declarer is *not* directed to partner. From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Wed Sep 27 05:56:01 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:56:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060926110257.020dab90@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <451878AB.6040202@cs.elte.hu> <5.1.0.14.0.20060926110257.020dab90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4519F651.8030002@cs.elte.hu> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 10:57 26/09/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > >>>On Behalf Of Laszlo Hegedus >>>Can anyone tell me the category (red or blue) of the following systems? >>>In general I'm interested the precise definition of red systems. >>> >>> >>>System A >>>More or less strong club system (1C: 17+), but >>>1H: 11-20p 5+H or 17-20p 1444. >>>Other opening bids and anwsers are similar to a normal strong club 5cM >>>system. >>> >>> > >Depends on whtehter "1444" means "any 3-suiter". Then it would be >classified yellow. >However, you only need to state "1444 with 4 hearts" to make it a blue system. > > It sounds me very strange. I think, in the 'bridge-language' the expression '4441' is not clear: can mean short club or any 3-suiter as well, but... expression '1444' surely means 1 spade, 4-4-4 in the other suits; expression '4144' surely means 1 heart, 4-4-4 in the other suits; expression '4414' surely means 1 diamond, 4-4-4 in the other suits. >>>System B >>>More or less a normal strong club system (1C:16+), but >>>1D: 11-15p 5+H >>>1H: 11-15p 5+S >>>1S: 11-15p similar to a normal strong club systems 1D opening bid: 1+D, >>>(the 2D opening means something else) >>>anwsers: 1D-2C: stayman. >>>No more extras. >>> >>> > >Obviously red. It could be argued that it is yellow, because "1S shows >either clubs or diamonds or NT", which is in principle disallowed, but a >"residual opening", i.e. "anything that isn't shown by another 1-level >opening" is tolerated. >The fact that such a 1S opening seems unplayable is a horse of another color. > > I wrote, that 1S open is similar to a normal (NOT AN ABNORMAL like system C) strong clubs system's 1D opening bid; with club suit the opening bid is 2C of course (1S: diamond suit or 11-14 balanced or 11-15 4414) >>>System C >>>More or less an abnormal strong club system :) (1C:16+ --- frequently >>>depends on valuation of the cards) but >>>1D: 11-15p, diamond or club suit or balanced hand including 5332 with >>>Major. >>>2C: 11-15p, any 4441 >>>anwsers: 1D-1H strong relay; 1D-1S weaker relay, etc relay anwsers to >>>other opening bids as well. >>> >>> > >Non-strong relays and the 2C opening make this red. >2C makes, however, could be considered "a brown sticker convention" with >such a lower limit. To be checked. > > >Best regards, > > Alain > > ____________________________________________________________________ Nagyobb szabads?gra v?gysz? T?rj ki a n?gy fal k?z?l! Start ADSL el?fizet?sedhez az EuroWeb mostant?l havi 100 perc ingyenes WiFi hozz?f?r?st biztos?t sz?modra. R?szletek: www.freestart.hu From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 27 08:55:24 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:55:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609260537.AA05571@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller asked: >But neither site had any minutes for any meetings after 2003. >Has the committee held any meetings since Nov. 2003, and, if >so, where are the minutes available? Thanks. Richard Hills: The English Bridge Union has published a director's guide which they name the "White Book". This can be downloaded at: http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/misc/2004whitebook.htm This EBU White Book is conveniently numbered in accordance with the numbering used in the Laws, and contains paraphrases of relevant WBF LC minutes located against the corresponding Law numbers. A minor revision of the EBU White Book is currently being undertaken, so a further update is likely to appear on the EBU website in the medium-term future. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Wed Sep 27 09:03:28 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:03:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4518DB85.9080603@hdw.be> <4519552A.6080002@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <451A2240.1030700@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Sep 26, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Guthrie wrote: > > >>[Herman De Wael] >> >>>Uttering the sentence "no more spades, declarer", when two people >>>have >>>shown out, is allowed under L61B(3) and forbidden under L61B(4). >>>Therefore, it is forbidden. >> >>[nige1] >>Herman has got to be right in law and common sense. > > > Except that Law 61B has no subsections. Oh, and that a question > specifically directed to declarer is *not* directed to partner. > I know the first - but I needed to make certain that you understood that the two regulations came from different parts of the lawbook, even if they are in the same law. And you're wrong about the second. Even if the question is not asked of partner, or even not asked at all (as in sitting still with the open card for five minutes), the EBL and WBF interpretation is that such manners of asking are treated as illegal asking of partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/456 - Release Date: 25/09/2006 From svenpran at online.no Wed Sep 27 10:58:51 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:58:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems In-Reply-To: <4519F651.8030002@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <000001c6e213$27418860$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Laszlo Hegedus ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > >>>System B > >>>More or less a normal strong club system (1C:16+), but > >>>1D: 11-15p 5+H > >>>1H: 11-15p 5+S > >>>1S: 11-15p similar to a normal strong club systems 1D opening bid: 1+D, > >>>(the 2D opening means something else) > >>>anwsers: 1D-2C: stayman. > >>>No more extras. > >>> > >>> > > > >Obviously red. It could be argued that it is yellow, because "1S shows > >either clubs or diamonds or NT", which is in principle disallowed, but a > >"residual opening", i.e. "anything that isn't shown by another 1-level > >opening" is tolerated. > >The fact that such a 1S opening seems unplayable is a horse of another > color. > > > > > I wrote, that 1S open is similar to a normal (NOT AN ABNORMAL like > system C) strong clubs system's 1D opening bid; with club suit the > opening bid is 2C of course (1S: diamond suit or 11-14 balanced or 11-15 > 4414) HUM: ....... An opening bid at the one level can alternatively show short or long suit. ......... The above information, part of your description of your system B, says (if I correctly understand what you mean) that the 1S opening bid shows either single Diamond (with 4414), a Diamond suit (at least 3 or 4?) or balanced. Also the length of your named suit Spades can according to this be either 2 (short) or 4 (long). I overlooked this when I prepared my first comment; the above information makes (IMO) your system B a Yellow system. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 27 10:08:19 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:08:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>This is unclear, since the Laws contain an internal >>paradox when declarer commits an unestablished >>revoke followed by their LHO also committing an >>unestablished revoke [snip] Tim West-Meads: >There isn't much of a paradox here. The first >revoke is addressed first, [snip] Richard Hills: This is begging the question, petitio principii. Nowhere do the Laws state that if two or more infractions have occurred before the director is summoned, then the infractions must be rectified in chronological order. However, as Tim and Sven Pran have noted, and the official who set the TD exam implied (with the exam setter's reference to South waiving West's penalty card under Law 81C8), an infraction by one side quite often partially causes another infraction by the other side. If I was the El Supremo of the WBF LC drafting committee :-), then I would include these paragraphs in The Scope And Interpretation of next year's Lawbook: "If the director has two or more infractions to rectify, then the director should normally rectify the infractions in chronological order (unless Law 11 applies, or unless the director deems that another significant reason applies), Note: The rectification of an earlier infraction may make the rectification of a later infraction unnecessary, because that later infraction is now moot. Example: Without any infraction, North would have been dummy in 4H, cold for ten tricks. A Law 16 infraction by East causes East to declare 4S, cold for nine tricks. Due to being somewhat irritated by East's infraction, North carelessly revokes when defending 4S. Since the rectification of the Law 16 infraction means that North is deemed to be dummy in a different contract, North's revoke is now moot and need not be rectified." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Sep 27 14:07:11 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:07:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4518DB85.9080603@hdw.be> <4519552A.6080002@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <451A696F.6060805@NTLworld.com> >> [Herman De Wael] >>> Uttering the sentence "no more spades, declarer", when two people >>> have >>> shown out, is allowed under L61B(3) and forbidden under L61B(4). >>> Therefore, it is forbidden. >> [nige1] >> Herman has got to be right in law and common sense..... [Ed Reppert] > Except that Law 61B has no subsections. Oh, and that a question > specifically directed to declarer is *not* directed to partner. [Nige1] [A] BLML usually uses a dot notation to refer to a *section*; so I guess that Herman's bracketed number may be refer to a *sentence*. [B] To me it seems that that the question could be intended to wake up *either* player. [C] At duplicate, in the UK, you have to watch your words carefully because (AFIK) your bids and plays are your *only* legal information channels with partner. IMO, the law that permits a defender to ask declarer about showing out flouts this principle, whether or not partner also shows out. Since this law adds little of value and can so easily be abused, I feel that it is another candidate for removal from the law book. [D] Oh, and I'm disappointed when a BLMLer carps at one sentence; rather comments on what I imagine to be a series of constructive points. But... thank you Ed, I prefer any criticism to none. From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Sep 27 19:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A4F@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: Robin wrote: >> Hence, IMO, changing the laws back in the UK, would be a retrograde >> step. Tim is right that few problems would result if the law then >> insisted that "you always ask"; I fear, however, that some players >> would protest at being penalized for "forgetting to ask". The law as currently written ends up completely shafting rubber bridge players (and overseas visitors) playing in duplicate competitions - the penalty is out of all proportion to the offence. Failure to ask should not be the subject of penalty, only the subject of score adjustment should UI be created and used. > Why would a law that insisted that "you always ask" be any more > successful than a law that insisted that "you always follow suit > (when holding a card of the suit)". Since only a tiny percentage of revokes (themselves fairly rare) give rise to situations where the failure to ask creates significant UI such a law would seldom be called upon - IMO that's a success criterion - YVMV. As noted above my concern is for players who play primarily under the 1993 laws and relatively seldom under the '97 ones. Not asking when one is used to so doing is a difficult adaptation to make even if one actually knows the stupid law. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Sep 27 22:48:48 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:48:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <451A696F.6060805@NTLworld.com> References: <4518DB85.9080603@hdw.be> <4519552A.6080002@NTLworld.com> <451A696F.6060805@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [A] BLML usually uses a dot notation to refer to a *section*; Since when? > so I guess that Herman's bracketed number may be refer to a > *sentence*. Well, that's still problematic, since there are only 3 sentences in that law. > [B] To me it seems that that the question could be intended to wake > up *either* player. So? Which law requires us to assume that a question or comment is an attempt to cheat? > [C] At duplicate, in the UK, you have to watch your words carefully > because (AFIK) your bids and plays are your *only* legal information > channels with partner. Law 16, first sentence: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." Note: "may be" does not mean "is". > IMO, the law that permits a defender to ask > declarer about showing out flouts this principle, whether or not > partner also shows out. Since this law adds little of value and can > so easily be abused, I feel that it is another candidate for removal > from the law book. You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, whether the laws will or should be changed doesn't affect how we should rule under the existing laws. > [D] Oh, and I'm disappointed when a BLMLer carps at one sentence; > rather comments on what I imagine to be a series of constructive > points. But... thank you Ed, I prefer any criticism to none. Carp, intransitive verb: to find fault or complain querulously. I did find fault with that sentence. I hope you're not claiming I did so "querulously". As for the rest of your earlier post, well, let's see... Ah, yes, you were writing about how the laws are flawed and should be changed. I didn't address that because I'm not interested in that - I want to understand how to apply the laws as they exist. From herman at hdw.be Wed Sep 27 23:55:53 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:55:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451AF369.5030907@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Robin wrote: > > > >>>Hence, IMO, changing the laws back in the UK, would be a retrograde >>>step. Tim is right that few problems would result if the law then >>>insisted that "you always ask"; I fear, however, that some players >>>would protest at being penalized for "forgetting to ask". > > > The law as currently written ends up completely shafting rubber bridge > players (and overseas visitors) playing in duplicate competitions - the > penalty is out of all proportion to the offence. Failure to ask should > not be the subject of penalty, only the subject of score adjustment > should UI be created and used. > And what do you think of the situation then? A player has revoked, and his partner asks him if he has no more of them? So he looks again and finds one. What is the UI? the fact that he has revoked. What would have happened without the question? The revoke would become established (or may have - same thing in UI adjustments). So what would the outcome of your proposal be? That the revoke be corrected and then penalized as if it had become established. Sounds very much like the present law to me! (and I do realize that there are subtle differences, but far too exotic for it to really matter). No, if you don't want people to ask, you need to put the penalty at the same level as the possible gain of asking - that is, to have the revoke being penalized. > >>Why would a law that insisted that "you always ask" be any more >>successful than a law that insisted that "you always follow suit >>(when holding a card of the suit)". > > > Since only a tiny percentage of revokes (themselves fairly rare) give > rise to situations where the failure to ask creates significant UI such > a law would seldom be called upon - IMO that's a success criterion - > YVMV. As noted above my concern is for players who play primarily under > the 1993 laws and relatively seldom under the '97 ones. Not asking when > one is used to so doing is a difficult adaptation to make even if one > actually knows the stupid law. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at 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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/457 - Release Date: 26/09/2006 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 27 23:58:08 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:58:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4518DB85.9080603@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >>>Not even the explicit mention that something >>>is allowed is enough to allow something which >>>is forbidden by some other regulation. In the "Law 24" thread, on 5th June 2006, William Schoder (Kojak) asserted: >>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. Edgar Kaplan apocryphally may have asserted: >If you do not like what a Law says, search for >another Law. Richard Hills: Of these three possible interpretations which resolve contradictory Laws, it seems to me that Kojak's interpretation is the best available interpretation for the wording of the 1997 Lawbook. But it also seems to me that a better solution for next year's Lawbook should be improved cross-referencing, so that it is blatantly clear to a club TD which of two contradictory Laws would take precedence over the other. "2007 Law X The director should do such-and-such. Exception: See Law Y." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 28 00:46:23 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:46:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Complaints of ill-usage [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tournament Director's statement of facts & ruling: >NS called me as they felt that EW had reached a contract >based of extraneous information (viz the previous table >discussing the hand). N & S both overheard a player >state that 'should have bid 6' and also '..shape was >6/5'. N felt that the 6S contract was achieved as a >result of that. Both E and W stated that they did not >hear the detail of the conversation and ignored the >conversation anyway. [big snip] >Table result stands. Appeals Committee's decision: >Committee were satisfied. Auction seemed consistent with >no overheard conversation. L&E comment: >The committee were unhappy that North/South had not >called the TD to report that they had overheard matters >at the other table. Law 16B refers. The secretary was >asked to write to North/South pointing this out. Law 16B: >>When a player accidentally receives unauthorised >>information about a board he is playing or has yet to >>play ..... by overhearing calls, results or remarks >>..... the Director should be notified forthwith, >>preferably by the recipient of the information ..... Ed Reppert (from "Live exam question" thread): [snip] >>>Ah, yes, you were writing about how the laws are >>>flawed and should be changed. I didn't address that >>>because I'm not interested in that - I want to >>>understand how to apply the laws as they exist. Richard Hills: In this case it seems that Law 16B is not flawed and need not be changed. Rather, the TD and AC failed to understand and apply Law 16B as it exists. Otherwise, the TD and AC would have realised that the only side who certainly committed an infraction, by their own self-incriminating admission, was the North-South pair who complained of ill-usage. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From adam at tameware.com Thu Sep 28 05:53:55 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:53:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just posted my comments on the non-NABC+ (NABC minus?) events. I've also updated the summary spreadsheet at http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html AW On 9/18/06, I wrote: > The ACBL has posted preliminary versions of the cases from Chicago: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Chicago2006.html > > There were only four appeals in NABC+ events! I've posted an initial > version of my comments on those cases here: > > http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/chicago2006 > > As always comments, corrections, and suggestions are welcome. > > I'll post my comments on the 14 Regional cases once I've written them. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 28 09:50:40 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:50:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ABF National Authority minutes, Friday January 27 2006: [snip] Preventing Insufficient Bid The following question was referred to the National Authority at the instigation of Laurie Kelso. Does the National Authority have an opinion on the following two scenarios: a) In a slam investigation auction (using written bidding) a player bids 5NT (king ask) and as his partner begins to write down "5" he calls out "stop", thus preventing partner from making an insufficient bid. b) The dealer (using bidding boxes) sees his partner begin to remove a bid (not a green "pass" card) from the box, where upon he reaches across and prevents his partner from getting the bidding cards any more than half-way out of the box. (Please assume that the intervention occurred before the point where regulation defines the partner's action as a call). Are the above actions permitted or not permitted (legal or illegal)? The National Authority noted that the only reference to "preventing an irregularity" in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 is found in the laws which refer to attempts by dummy to prevent an irregularity (Law 9A2b(2) and Law 42B2). Such attempts are legitimate. A concern might arise where despite the action being prevented some unauthorised information is passed to partner (Law 16). The National Authority expressed the opinion that the director has power to take action where unauthorised information is conveyed and that, in the absence of unauthorised information, an attempt to prevent an irregularity in the bidding is legitimate. [snip] Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From geller at nifty.com Thu Sep 28 10:39:28 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:39:28 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200609280839.AA05601@geller204.nifty.com> The minutes of the WBFLC on 24 Aug 1998 contains the following statement: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm ****************************************** 8. Actions authorised in the laws The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. ****************************************** Considering the first part of the above WBFLC statement (through ".... not so;") the actions queried below (stopping partner from making an insufficient bid or a bid out of turn) are not authorized by the laws and are therefore not proper procedure. Therefore it seems clear those unauthorized actions shouldn't be allowed. (They are probably also "gratuitous information under 73B1.) That being the case, the use of the info my the partner (in stopping short of committing an infraction based on the extraneous info) was an infraction. The question is how this should be dealt with. The warning to partner is not authorized information. Had it not been for the UI partner would have committed an irregularity, but that hadn't yet taken place, if I understand correctly. In that case maybe a ruling of AV+/AV- is most appropriate (with PP?). -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >ABF National Authority minutes, Friday January 27 2006: > >[snip] > >Preventing Insufficient Bid > >The following question was referred to the National >Authority at the instigation of Laurie Kelso. > > Does the National Authority have an opinion on the > following two scenarios: > > a) In a slam investigation auction (using written > bidding) a player bids 5NT (king ask) and as his > partner begins to write down "5" he calls out "stop", > thus preventing partner from making an insufficient > bid. > > b) The dealer (using bidding boxes) sees his partner > begin to remove a bid (not a green "pass" card) from > the box, where upon he reaches across and prevents his > partner from getting the bidding cards any more than > half-way out of the box. (Please assume that the > intervention occurred before the point where > regulation defines the partner's action as a call). > > Are the above actions permitted or not permitted > (legal or illegal)? > >The National Authority noted that the only reference to >"preventing an irregularity" in the Laws of Duplicate >Contract Bridge 1997 is found in the laws which refer >to attempts by dummy to prevent an irregularity (Law >9A2b(2) and Law 42B2). Such attempts are legitimate. > >A concern might arise where despite the action being >prevented some unauthorised information is passed to >partner (Law 16). The National Authority expressed the >opinion that the director has power to take action >where unauthorised information is conveyed and that, in >the absence of unauthorised information, an attempt to >prevent an irregularity in the bidding is legitimate. > >[snip] > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae >National Training Branch >02 6225 6285 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 28 12:16:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Nowhere do the Laws state that if two or more > infractions have occurred before the director is > summoned, then the infractions must be rectified in > chronological order. And nowhere do they forbid so doing. I agree with the paragraphs you suggested (ie normally chronological but perhaps there will be special exceptions) but I must admit I'd hope they were sufficiently common-sense to be unnecessary. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 28 12:16:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <451AF369.5030907@hdw.be> Message-ID: > And what do you think of the situation then? > A player has revoked, and his partner asks him if he has no more of > them? So he looks again and finds one. > What is the UI? the fact that he has revoked. Of course the fact that has revoked isn't UI - and even if it was there would no LA to correcting the revoke. Where asking is allowed it is exactly the same as asking (or not asking) about the meaning of a bid - there is the potential that the question (or lack thereof) conveys information about the enquirer's hand. Normally either no information is conveyed or the information conveyed doesn't suggest any particular action (particularly since a corrected revoke creates a penalty card). In the very rare cases where UI has been conveyed and acted upon we adjust the score to that which would have been obtained had the UI not been used (unlike a revoke penalty this would not involve transfer of tricks which could not possibly have been lost). > No, if you don't want people to ask But I do want people to ask. Revoke penalties distort the game (even more so when imposed on top of the penalty card restrictions). Allowing asking reduces the number of revoke penalties and that is, IMO, a desirable thing. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 28 12:16:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609280839.AA05601@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller wrote: > Considering the first part of the above WBFLC statement (through > ".... not so;") the actions queried below (stopping partner from > making an insufficient bid or a bid out of turn) are not authorized by > the laws and are therefore not proper procedure. Allowing partner to commit an infraction which one could have prevented is also not authorised by law and thus not "proper procedure". Thus we have two choices neither of which are explicitly allowed. One would hope that common-sense would apply (as the ABF have made clear it should). IE any player may attempt to prevent an infraction by any other player. Any information arising from such aborted infractions is authorised to the NOS, unauthorised to the (A)OS. Things such as whose turn it is to bid can never be UI - it's something every player is entitled to know at any given moment. In an ideal world (at least IMO) there would be no BOOTs/LOOTs/IBs etc (as when playing on-line). Anything (almost) which prevents such infractions in f2f bridge is thus a good thing. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 28 13:05:03 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:05:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200609280839.AA05601@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060928130206.027cfd00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:16 28/09/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Allowing partner to commit an infraction which one could have prevented >is also not authorised by law and thus not "proper procedure". I would not say that. Dummy may enquire about declarer possibly revoking, and may warn him about playing from the wrong hand, but it's said that's a right, not a duty ; therefore, declining to do it shouldn't be considered "impropoer procedure". Regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Sep 28 14:58:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060928130206.027cfd00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > >Allowing partner to commit an infraction which one could have > >prevented is also not authorised by law and thus not "proper > >procedure". > > I would not say that. Dummy may enquire about declarer possibly > revoking, and may warn him about playing from the wrong hand, but > it's said that's a right, not a duty ; therefore, declining to do it > shouldn't be considered "impropoer procedure". I'd agree with that in the specific (while keeping "could have known" or "concealing an infraction" in reserve for some bizarre case where dummy* has reason to believe that silence would work to his side's advantage). However, I was addressing the generality of cases (It's not your bid/opening lead) where the laws in no way address either the rights or duties involved in trying to prevent partner's infraction. *And anyway Dummy's proper place is in the bar getting drinks in or having a ciggy - not mucking around at the table. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 28 16:10:25 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:10:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200609280839.AA05601@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060928100241.02b3eeb0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:16 AM 9/28/06, twm wrote: >Robert Geller wrote: > > > Considering the first part of the above WBFLC statement (through > > ".... not so;") the actions queried below (stopping partner from > > making an insufficient bid or a bid out of turn) are not authorized by > > the laws and are therefore not proper procedure. > >Allowing partner to commit an infraction which one could have prevented >is also not authorised by law and thus not "proper procedure". > >Thus we have two choices neither of which are explicitly allowed. One >would hope that common-sense would apply (as the ABF have made clear it >should). IE any player may attempt to prevent an infraction by any >other player. Any information arising from such aborted infractions is >authorised to the NOS, unauthorised to the (A)OS. Things such as whose >turn it is to bid can never be UI - it's something every player is >entitled to know at any given moment. ISTM that the heart of the issue here is whether the legal auction to that point is one of those "things [that] can never be UI". The ABF seems to think so, and I would agree, but concede that the Law could be read in such a way that "things [that] can never be UI" do not exist. >In an ideal world (at least IMO) there would be no BOOTs/LOOTs/IBs etc >(as when playing on-line). Anything (almost) which prevents such >infractions in f2f bridge is thus a good thing. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From geller at nifty.com Fri Sep 29 02:07:00 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:07:00 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060928100241.02b3eeb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060928100241.02b3eeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200609290007.AA05611@geller204.nifty.com> Eric Landau writes: >ISTM that the heart of the issue here is whether the legal auction to >that point is one of those "things [that] can never be UI". The ABF >seems to think so, and I would agree, but concede that the Law could be >read in such a way that "things [that] can never be UI" do not exist. (1) Bids out of turn and insufficient bids are infractions, and the laws contain provisions for delaing with them. (2) It is not authorized by the laws to warn your partner before he/she is about to make an insufficient bid or bid out of turn. Information from such an "extraneous action" is thus UI. Tim West-Meads writes: >>In an ideal world (at least IMO) there would be no BOOTs/LOOTs/IBs etc >>(as when playing on-line). Anything (almost) which prevents such >>infractions in f2f bridge is thus a good thing. Directors, appeals committees, and laws commissions have to make rulings based on the laws and standing interpretations thereof issued by higher bodeis (e.g. WBFLC) as they now are. It's perfectly reasonable to debate how things ought to be, but those opinions shouldn't be allowed to affect rulings or appeals. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 29 04:12:40 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:12:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <200609251608.k8PG8bHT016200@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609251608.k8PG8bHT016200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451C8118.6080907@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > For the player who has knowingly psyched it > is not logical to believe that he has misbid. Unfortunately, this is useful only if you can read minds. > The *risk* is that a TD/AC will *judge* the planned follow-up illegal Indeed a considerable risk in some positions. > the player *may not* take > that risk into account when choosing his call since that risk is purely > a result of being in possession of UI. Huh? Why not? And what UI? Players typically don't have any UI when they decide whether or not to psych. Sure, if partner has thrown his cards down and groaned, "Another rotten hand!" that's UI, and the player may be effectively forbidden to psych, but that's a pretty rare occurrence. The potential psycher's position is vaguely -- not exactly -- analogous to a player who takes a long time to decide his own action and in the process realizes his partner will be constrained by UI. In such situations, most of us take positive action of some kind, knowing partner cannot (for example) pull a slow double. Are you claiming this is illegal? If so, on what basis? Operation of Law is AI, as you yourself have often argued. > As for evidence - I will normally be satisfied by the clear testimony of > the player concerned and its consistency with the CC. Bear in mind that > if I do not accept that testimony I have no option but to deal with the > case as deliberate cheating - a player cannot accidently/mistakenly tell > me that he deliberately psyched and I cannot simply adjust without > imposing a suitable penalty (disqualification at the least) for telling > an outright lie. I understand your position, but I'm curious whether other people agree. Wouldn't it be better to say, without demanding possibly incriminating testimony, "We can't tell whether you psyched or misbid, but we have to rule on the basis of misbid." From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 29 04:23:44 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:23:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error In-Reply-To: <200609251610.k8PGAQDQ016480@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609251610.k8PGAQDQ016480@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451C83B0.4050106@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Ed Reppert > Seems to me that an AC that starts with the premise that TDs are > incompetent is treading very dangerous ground. Seems to me ACs have to take the directing as they find it. You know as well as I do what that means here in the ACBL. (As it happens, the two clubs I play at have _far_ better directing than the ACBL tournaments I attend. There _are_ competent directors around here; we just don't get them at the tournaments. Don't ask me why not.) > I know you're not saying that an AC can say that something a TD has > determined to be fact is in fact *not* fact. I am saying they have that authority. L93B3 agrees. _Exercising_ that authority will typically be unwise, of course. > I will grant that if an > AC uncovers facts that were not in evidence when the TD made his > ruling, those facts may change the ruling. That's one possible reason for overruling the TD. > I would think that the proper procedure for the AC is to send the > case back to the CTD, pointing out the error(s) or new facts, and let > the CTD or the table TD rule under 82C. I don't see why. This seems cumbersome and unnecessary as a practical matter, and there's no legal need to do it that way. > Why qualify "judgement"? Why is "bridge judgement" necessary? Probably it isn't really, but it emphasizes that bridge skill -- as opposed to ordinary reasoning and general human knowledge -- is an important aspect of the judgment. > Well, if the committee sustains the original ruling, have *they* > given a ruling? Seems to me they have. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 29 04:28:06 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:28:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609251628.k8PGS2oe020247@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609251628.k8PGS2oe020247@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451C84B6.3040509@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > In the regional case 11 in question, the facts were agreed, but > the Director had misinterpreted Law 68A. Since the appeals > panel was not discovering any new facts, it lacked the power to > vary the Director's ruling. I must have missed that part. Wasn't the issue whether a certain statement did or did not constitute a claim? L68A defines a claim, but both the factual question of what words were said and the bridge judgment as to whether those words meet the standards of L68A are within the purview of an AC. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 29 04:35:52 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:35:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Atlanta NABC Mischief In-Reply-To: <200609261903.k8QJ3en1029259@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609261903.k8QJ3en1029259@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451C8688.5000303@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > If you open a semi-psyche once every 20 sessions, that is, once about 520 > deals, this means that about 10% of your light 3rd-in-hand openings (and 3% > of all your 3rd-in-hand openings) will be semi-psuches. > > IMOBO, this is far too much to be brushed aside as a psyche ; this is part > of your system. While the CoP makes frequency an important factor in determining whether a call is a psych or not, it neeedn't be. Jurisdictions that don't accept the CoP are free to have their own rules. Personally, I believe the only factors should be whether the system or partner's choices allow for the psych. This sort of rule is enforceable; rules based on frequency are not unless good records are kept. Of course frequency is an important factor in _disclosure_, but that's a different matter than _system_. Enforcement is a big problem here, and I don't see what to do about it. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Sep 29 04:39:50 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:39:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609271444.k8REiA8k002197@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609271444.k8REiA8k002197@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451C8776.7060301@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > Even if the question is not asked > of partner, or even not asked at all (as in sitting still with the > open card for five minutes), the EBL and WBF interpretation is that > such manners of asking are treated as illegal asking of partner. This seems a very big extrapolation. I understand the need to treat questions asked in subtle or indirect form as equivalent to direct ones, but taking this reasonable principle as far as banning something that the Laws explicitly permit... words fail me. From geller at nifty.com Fri Sep 29 04:56:44 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:56:44 +0900 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <451C8776.7060301@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <451C8776.7060301@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200609290256.AA05618@geller204.nifty.com> I notice Steve's email address is at Harvard Univ. so I assume he plays primarily in the U.S. The asking of a question (e.g., "no spades pard?") by one defender to the other is forbidden by Law 61B, http://web2.acbl.org/laws/play.htm except that the zonal organization (ACBL in the case of the US, Canada, Mexico and Bermuda) can authorize the asking of such a question. As far as I know, it has been authorized only by the ACBL, and is illegal everywhere else in the world. Therefore when Steve says: >but taking this reasonable principle as far as banning something that >the Laws explicitly permit... words fail me. he is presumably talking about the U.S., but he should note that such a question (defender -> defender) is explicitly banned everywhere else, so it is entirely natural that (except in ACBL-land) the asking of such a question is UI. Therefore an action (such as not turning over one's card for 5 min) which is tantamount to asking a question should also be treated as UI (outside ACBL-land). It would be desirable. IMO, to make the laws uniform world-wide, but this appears to be politically impossible. I'm an American but have lived in Japan since 1984 and IMO in the case of banning defender -> defender questions the "rest of the world" position is preferable to the US one. -Bob Steve Willner writes: >> From: Herman De Wael >> Even if the question is not asked >> of partner, or even not asked at all (as in sitting still with the >> open card for five minutes), the EBL and WBF interpretation is that >> such manners of asking are treated as illegal asking of partner. > >This seems a very big extrapolation. I understand the need to treat >questions asked in subtle or indirect form as equivalent to direct ones, >but taking this reasonable principle as far as banning something that >the Laws explicitly permit... words fail me. ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 29 06:49:39 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:49:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290256.AA05618@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >The asking of a question (e.g., "no spades pard?") >by one defender to the other is forbidden by Law >61B, except that the zonal organization (ACBL in >the case of the US, Canada, Mexico and Bermuda) >can authorize the asking of such a question. As >far as I know, it has been authorized only by the >ACBL, and is illegal everywhere else in the world. Richard Hills: The South Pacific Zone (Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia, French Polynesia) has also adopted the Law 61B zonal option. Robert Geller: >Therefore when Steve says: "but taking this >reasonable principle as far as banning something >that the Laws explicitly permit... words fail me" >he is presumably talking about the U.S. Richard Hills: No, Steve was talking about the explicit right, not subject to any zonal option, that "defenders may ask declarer"; in response to Herman De Wael's assertion that a defender may _not_ ask declarer whenever declarer and partner show out on the same trick. Robert Geller: [snip] >It would be desirable. IMO, to make the laws >uniform world-wide, but this appears to be >politically impossible. [snip] Richard Hills: It depends on what you mean by "uniform laws". It is impractical for a world-wide set of rules to contain fine detail about _all_ conditions of contest (as, for example, the number of green masterpoints gained for winning an 11-table Mitchell movement without an arrow-switch in South Canberra). But universally applicable rules can be included in the 2007 Lawbook, while local customs and needs can be included in local regulations. As for the in-between cases where there is a need for some rule, but not necessarily a universally uniform rule, the 2007 Lawbook should include default laws which specifically state that, "until this Law is amended by the sponsoring organisation the Director shall do such-and-such". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From geller at nifty.com Fri Sep 29 07:31:29 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:31:29 +0900 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200609290531.AA05623@geller204.nifty.com> >The South Pacific Zone (Australia, New Zealand, >New Caledonia, French Polynesia) has also adopted >the Law 61B zonal option. Didn't know that. Thanks. >No, Steve was talking about the explicit right, not >subject to any zonal option, that "defenders may >ask declarer"; in response to Herman De Wael's >assertion that a defender may _not_ ask declarer >whenever declarer and partner show out on the same >trick. Defender can always ask declarer, but in the event that declarer was really void and partner was the one who revoked then I suppose this is UI in zones that haven't opted out of 61B (suppose it would be OK in S.Pacific or ACBL, where the defender could legally have asked his partner in the first place). -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 29 08:15:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:15:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290531.AA05623@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000001c6e38e$b6397d80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller ......... > >No, Steve was talking about the explicit right, not > >subject to any zonal option, that "defenders may > >ask declarer"; in response to Herman De Wael's > >assertion that a defender may _not_ ask declarer > >whenever declarer and partner show out on the same > >trick. > Defender can always ask declarer, but in the event that > declarer was really void and partner was the one who > revoked then I suppose this is UI in zones > that haven't opted out of 61B (suppose it would > be OK in S.Pacific or ACBL, where the defender > could legally have asked his partner in the first place). The rule is crystal clear: Where a defender's explicit question to his partner of a possible revoke is a violation of Law 61B so is also considered any action or mannerism which although not being an explicit question still is likely to alert partner of the possibility that he has revoked. Regards Sven From herman at hdw.be Fri Sep 29 09:31:54 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:31:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <451C8776.7060301@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609271444.k8REiA8k002197@cfa.harvard.edu> <451C8776.7060301@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451CCBEA.5000203@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Herman De Wael >> Even if the question is not asked >>of partner, or even not asked at all (as in sitting still with the >>open card for five minutes), the EBL and WBF interpretation is that >>such manners of asking are treated as illegal asking of partner. > > > This seems a very big extrapolation. I understand the need to treat > questions asked in subtle or indirect form as equivalent to direct ones, > but taking this reasonable principle as far as banning something that > the Laws explicitly permit... words fail me. > Words fail you? two players fail to follow suit and you ask one of them if he still has spades? When it is obvious to you that one or the other has revoked? When it is to your detriment to ask this one player to check his spade holding (since if he has revoked, you gain something)? When it gains you if partner finds out he revokes? Surely you can see that this trick is only useful because you are in fact asking your partner to reconsider revoking! Words fail me if you cannot see that this is the correct way of handling things. I can only write in your defence that in your part of the work, you can simply ask partner. But how do the ACBL deal with players who only ask partner when they know someone must have revoked? What about this: defender one starts cashing his long spade suit. Declarer has already shown out. When partner shows out, one round too soon, the defender asks if partner has any spades left. OK in ACBL? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 27/09/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 29 09:53:33 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:53:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290007.AA05611@geller204.nifty.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060928100241.02b3eeb0@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060928100241.02b3eeb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929095041.028ee320@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:07 29/09/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: > (2) It is not authorized by the laws to warn your partner before he/she >is about to make an insufficient bid or bid out of turn. Information from >such an "extraneous action" is thus UI. How do you address that case : South pulls "stop" and North says "you're not the one to bid". Of course, the fact that South was about to make an opening at level 2 or higher is UI tu North, but would you really disallow North's reaction ? South's pulling a Stop card is in itself an infraction (of the kind which doesn't produce systematic penalties) and North is allowed (in fact, required) by L9 to draw attention to it. Best regards, Alain From geller at nifty.com Fri Sep 29 09:58:00 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:58:00 +0900 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <451CCBEA.5000203@hdw.be> References: <451CCBEA.5000203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200609290758.AA05631@geller204.nifty.com> Herman De Wael writes: >What about this: defender one starts cashing his long spade suit. >Declarer has already shown out. When partner shows out, one round too >soon, the defender asks if partner has any spades left. OK in ACBL? Yes, as far as I know. I personally don't think this should be allowed, but the ACBL is reported to have insisted on this when the laws were revised, which is why there are "opt-out" clauses in the rules (for 61B, for example). Apparently the reason ACBL management insisted on the opt-out was the fear that the change would alienate relatively casual social-type players in local clubs, especially maybe older players..... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Fri Sep 29 10:14:42 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:14:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929095041.028ee320@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929095041.028ee320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200609290814.AA05632@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >At 09:07 29/09/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >> (2) It is not authorized by the laws to warn your partner before he/she >>is about to make an insufficient bid or bid out of turn. Information from >>such an "extraneous action" is thus UI. > >How do you address that case : >South pulls "stop" and North says "you're not the one to bid". > >Of course, the fact that South was about to make an opening at level 2 or >higher is UI tu North, but would you really disallow North's reaction ? Of course. There's nothing in the rules to allow it. It's not any different than if South was declarer and North blurted out that South forgot to draw the last enemy trump. >South's pulling a Stop card is in itself an infraction (of the kind which >doesn't produce systematic penalties) and North is allowed (in fact, >required) by L9 to draw attention to it. I quote the applicable part of Law 9 below: ***************************************************************** General Laws Governing Irregularities LAW 9 PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY A. Calling Attention to an Irregularity 1. During the Auction Period Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call. ****************************************************************** An irregularity occurs if South bids out of turn. Anyone, including North, can properly call attention to the BOOT. Nothing in law 9 says that North can intervene to prevent South from making a bid out of turn. Please consider Law 42B2 which specifically authorizes the dummy to intervene to attempt to prevent an irregularity, and note the absence of any similar provision in Law 9 to authorize an attempt to prevent an irregularity by one's partner during the auction. So, in the absence of specific authorization in the laws for an attempt to prevent an irregularity by partner, it seems clear to me that this is not allowed. Of course it is allowed (by Law 9) to call attention to it after it has occurred. This may seem a little cruel, but it's the law. We should follow it. If we don't like it we can try to get it changed. In my opinion it's reasonable. Bridge is 99.9% of the time a simple game, but the essence of winning is to stay alert. If we start to allow more and more do-overs we remove the essence of the game, which is paying attention to what's going on. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From herman at hdw.be Fri Sep 29 10:58:10 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:58:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290758.AA05631@geller204.nifty.com> References: <451CCBEA.5000203@hdw.be> <200609290758.AA05631@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <451CE022.3060807@hdw.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Herman De Wael writes: > >>What about this: defender one starts cashing his long spade suit. >>Declarer has already shown out. When partner shows out, one round too >>soon, the defender asks if partner has any spades left. OK in ACBL? > > Yes, as far as I know. I personally don't think this should be > allowed, but the ACBL is reported to have insisted on this when > the laws were revised, which is why there are "opt-out" clauses in > the rules (for 61B, for example). > > Apparently the reason ACBL management insisted on the opt-out was > the fear that the change would alienate relatively casual > social-type players in local clubs, especially maybe older > players..... > I don't think this is precisely why the ACBL insisted on the opt-out. I seem to recall that the reason was that many American players casually ask partner when he shows out, and this habit (not detrimental to bridge) was what they did not want to change (and indeed alienate social players). I don't believe the ACBL wants this opt-out so that partners can prevent partner from revoking ... (although they don't mind that this is the consequence). In Europe, when a player asks his partner, it is only when something strange is happening - either partner is revoking, or declarer has many more than he promised in the bidding. This constitutes hard UI, and it is clear that the EBL (and WBF) do not want this. In America, where asking is apparently more common, the element of surprise is not that present, and so there is little UI (and if the surprise is too obvious, L16 still deals with that). So it is IMHO acceptable that the ACBL opted out. But not because they want to give their players a free hand at giving UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 27/09/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 29 11:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290007.AA05611@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert wrote: > (2) It is not authorized by the laws to warn your partner before And it is not forbidden. Thus the action is extraneous and acting on information arising *may* be an infraction. > he/she is about to make an insufficient bid or bid out of turn. > Information from such an "extraneous action" is thus UI. Of course such extraneous actions *can* give rise to UI. However the fact that it is not the player's turn to bid is *always* AI. It is information available from the legal auction - if you ask the player's peers what they would do in such a situation the unanimous response will be "wait for my turn". As such the logical alternatives do not include committing an infraction. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 29 11:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <451C8118.6080907@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > the player *may not* take > > that risk into account when choosing his call since that risk is > > purely a result of being in possession of UI. > > Huh? Why not? And what UI? Players typically don't have any UI > when they decide whether or not to psych. I was talking about cases where partner has alerted/explained. An alert/explanation are always UI (albeit we almost never deem that UI to suggest an action when it merely confirms what the player appears to know). If playing behind screens one would not know about any alert/explanation and would make ones rebid on that basis - if there is only one logical rebid with screens there is only one logical rebid without screens. Choosing a different rebid in attempt to avoid an adverse ruling is an action suggested by the UI. > The potential psycher's position is vaguely -- not exactly -- > analogous to a player who takes a long time to decide his own action > and in the process realizes his partner will be constrained by UI. > In such situations, most of us take positive action of some kind, > knowing partner cannot (for example) pull a slow double. Are you > claiming this is illegal? The difference here is that one's *own* BIT is AI to oneself (as is the operation of law). Consider instead where partner has bid on after a slow pass by me. Now it is illegal for me to base a *subsequent* call on the knowledge that partner's action is clear-cut rather than marginal because doing so would be using partner's knowledge of my hesitation. > > As for evidence - I will normally be satisfied by the clear > > testimony of the player concerned and its consistency with the CC. > > Bear in mind that if I do not accept that testimony I have no > > option but to deal with the case as deliberate cheating - a player > > cannot accidently/mistakenly tell me that he deliberately psyched > > and I cannot simply adjust without imposing a suitable penalty > > (disqualification at the least) for telling an outright lie. > > I understand your position, but I'm curious whether other people > agree. Wouldn't it be better to say, without demanding possibly > incriminating testimony, "We can't tell whether you psyched or > misbid, but we have to rule on the basis of misbid." Honest players won't incriminate themselves. If cheats wish to self-incriminate I'm going to let them (I might not catch them the first time they try it but I'll hammer them like hell when I do catch them). If we routinely rule a misbid rather than a psych then we may as well ban psyching. It's the TDs job to establish the facts and the difference between a psych and a misbid is a fundamental fact. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 29 11:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290256.AA05618@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert wrote: > such a question (defender -> defender) is explicitly banned everywhere > else, so it is entirely natural that (except in ACBL-land) > the asking of such a question is UI. The question is UI in ACBL-land - just as it is everywhere else. If the question is asked in EBL-land and partner *hasn't* revoked there is no automatic penalty but the TD will still adjust if a UI-suggested action is taken (e.g. tip-off pard, defend on the basis that declarer has surprisingly long clubs). The penalties imposed in EBL-land for asking have absolutely nothing to do with any UI created. UI constraints are separate, and in addition to, the penalty card and establishment penalties (albeit generally rendered moot by the excessive harshness of those penalties). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 29 11:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <451C8776.7060301@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > Even if the question is not asked > > of partner, or even not asked at all (as in sitting still with the > > open card for five minutes), the EBL and WBF interpretation is that > > such manners of asking are treated as illegal asking of partner. > > This seems a very big extrapolation. I understand the need to treat > questions asked in subtle or indirect form as equivalent to direct > ones, but taking this reasonable principle as far as banning > something that the Laws explicitly permit... words fail me. An example of a poorly written law Steve. Since the law only applies penalties to "inquiries" those penalties would not apply to either. "Partner, clubs were led, please correct your revoke" OR "Declarer, would you be so kind as to enquire of partner whether he has revoked?" Thus the WBF/EBL have ended up having to extrapolate the law in order to actually impose these ridiculous penalties and make TDs seem useful - in so extrapolating they have taken a "widest possible" approach. Tim From geller at nifty.com Fri Sep 29 11:05:52 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:05:52 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200609290905.AA05637@geller204.nifty.com> Sorry, you lost me. Could you please tell me the specific law (number and section) that (in your opinion) authorizes a player to stop his partner from making a bid out of turn? Thanks. -Bob Tim West-Meads ????????: >Robert wrote: > >> (2) It is not authorized by the laws to warn your partner before > >And it is not forbidden. Thus the action is extraneous and acting on >information arising *may* be an infraction. > >> he/she is about to make an insufficient bid or bid out of turn. >> Information from such an "extraneous action" is thus UI. > >Of course such extraneous actions *can* give rise to UI. However the >fact that it is not the player's turn to bid is *always* AI. It is >information available from the legal auction - if you ask the player's >peers what they would do in such a situation the unanimous response will >be "wait for my turn". As such the logical alternatives do not include >committing an infraction. > >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Fri Sep 29 11:13:48 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:13:48 +0900 Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <451CE022.3060807@hdw.be> References: <451CE022.3060807@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200609290913.AA05638@geller204.nifty.com> Herman De Wael writes: >I don't believe the ACBL wants this >opt-out so that partners can prevent partner from revoking ... >(although they don't mind that this is the consequence). I don't think this is correct. The purpose of the opt-out is precisely so defenders can prevent each other from establishing a revoke. Of course the (as yet unestablished) revoke card becomes a major penalty card. This is the old rubber-bridge tradition. On the other hand, if you ALWAYS ask your partner whenever he shows out of any suit , there can't be any UI, as you say, This is why the ACBL would argue that the old "nos spades pard?" should be allowed between defenders. The asking of such a question between partners probably dates back 100s of years, to the earliest days of whist. In any event, for better or worse, the world bridge community is moving away from such social traditions, and sooner or later the ACBL will probably have to go along with this..... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 29 11:18:47 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:18:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290814.AA05632@geller204.nifty.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929095041.028ee320@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060929095041.028ee320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929110824.02108c20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:14 29/09/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner writes: > > >Of course, the fact that South was about to make an opening at level 2 or > >higher is UI tu North, but would you really disallow North's reaction ? >Of course. There's nothing in the rules to allow it. >It's not any different than if South was declarer and North blurted out >that South forgot to draw the last enemy trump. There is one big difference : when South says "stop" or scribbles "5", he is in the process of committing an infraction. The Laws say /quote any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction /unquote They do not state the irregularity must be completed before attention is drawn to it. In particular, if South stretches the hand towards his BB, North may say "I'm dealer" and therefore prevent the oncoming BOOT. There are other cases. The fact that South isn't dealer is AI. Spontaneously giving information that is AI doesn't per se constitute UI. Else, saying "your lead, partner" would contitute UI. Of course, there might be cases where it is explicitly stated that one may not remind partner of some piece of AI, but I fail to see anything in TFLB and its adventices about this cases. When some behaviour is allowed by general principles and not explicitly disallowed by any law, it is allowed. Of course, the mere fact that North can see South scribble "5" should be avoided. Perhaps this is even irregular. Best regards, Alain. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060929/6d2e8cda/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 29 11:20:48 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:20:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290905.AA05637@geller204.nifty.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929111950.02107960@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:05 29/09/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >Sorry, you lost me. Could you please tell me the specific law (number >and section) that (in your opinion) authorizes a player to stop his partner >from making a bid out of turn? Thanks. You're wrong, Bob. *You* will need to tell which law disallows it, in order to make your case. All which isn't explicitly disallowed or regulated is allowed. From geller at nifty.com Fri Sep 29 11:30:22 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:30:22 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929110824.02108c20@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929110824.02108c20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200609290930.AA05639@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >When some behaviour is allowed by general principles and not explicitly >disallowed by any law, it is allowed. The above is diametrically opposed to the official position of the WBF Laws Commission, who made the following general statement in the minutes of the WBFLC on 24 Aug 1998. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm ****************************************** 8. Actions authorised in the laws The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. ****************************************** If you don't like the above then please write the WBFLC and ask them to reconsider their position. But I think we should follow the authoritative position stated by the world-wide rule-making body unless and until it is formally retracted or superseded. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 29 12:23:13 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:23:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290930.AA05639@geller204.nifty.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929110824.02108c20@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060929110824.02108c20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929120545.0210bd10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:30 29/09/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >The above is diametrically opposed to the official position of the >WBF Laws Commission, who made the following general statement >in the minutes of the WBFLC on 24 Aug 1998. Absolutely right. However : 1. This addresses cases where nothing was said about whether something is allowed or not. Actions about which nothing is written can be deemed illegal. Fine. But we're speaking about cases where some action is allowed by some item of rules (drawing attention to an irregularity, L9), and not explicitly disallowed otherwise. This is quite different. 2. There is no supplementary item of information deriving from saying "you're not the one to bid", which makes use of said ruling in this case null and void. If issuing information that was available to every player and can affect the auction or play was per se disallowed, you wouldn't be allowed to keep scores, keep track of tricks won, or manhandling the board to see who's dealer (I'm deeply long-sighted). ... I'll be wrong, of course, it's written somewhere that attention can only be drawn to an irregularity after is is completed, not when it's happening, but I can't find this anywhere. Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060929/e151d9f2/attachment.htm From tkooij at tiscali.nl Fri Sep 29 14:39:18 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:39:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929120545.0210bd10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ... I'll be wrong, of course, it's written somewhere that attention can only be drawn to an irregularity after is is completed, not when it's happening, but I can't find this anywhere. Regards Alain This sounds as another example of a problem created in blml and not at the bridge table. If north has to call and south picks a card form his box, regardless what kind of card it is and how he keeps it, may be he just touched it even, this action is an irregularity. And any player at the table may call attention to it, at any stage. What is wrong with acting like that and having laws saying so? ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060929/72b557a0/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Sep 29 15:05:09 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:05:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451D1A05.207@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] > Preventing Insufficient Bid > > The following question was referred to the National > Authority at the instigation of Laurie Kelso. > > Does the National Authority have an opinion on the > following two scenarios: > > a) In a slam investigation auction (using written > bidding) a player bids 5NT (king ask) and as his > partner begins to write down "5" he calls out "stop", > thus preventing partner from making an insufficient > bid. > > b) The dealer (using bidding boxes) sees his partner > begin to remove a bid (not a green "pass" card) from > the box, where upon he reaches across and prevents his > partner from getting the bidding cards any more than > half-way out of the box. (Please assume that the > intervention occurred before the point where > regulation defines the partner's action as a call). > > Are the above actions permitted or not permitted > (legal or illegal)? [nige1] IMO a moot point. The law says you can prevent an infraction; but... [A] Your communication with partner is about a call or play but itself is neither call nor play. Is such information authorised, unless specifically permitted? [B] IMO, the infraction is under way. For example, how should the director rule when... (i) The last bid was "5H", and partner starts to write "5D". You manage to knock the pen from partner's hand just before he completes the "D"? (ii) You are dealer but you see partner scrabbling in the bidding box. You succeed in karate chopping the cards and box to the floor before partner can commit himself? (iii) You are dummy and declarer shows out in a suit. You ask "having none". Partner insists he has "None". You are *sure* he has made a mistake. May you ask a kibitzer or scorer or director to check partner's hand? [C] Does the ABF interpretation favour agile youngsters with quick reaction times? [D] Some players assiduously study the expressions and mannerisms of partner and opponents. Do law-makers really want to go out of their way to reward and encourage such behaviour? [E] Some directors may relish the prospect of exercising more "subjective judgement" ... but should law-makers have any regard for poor players who inevitably will have to put up with more inconsistent rulings on identical facts? From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 29 15:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290913.AA05638@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert wrote: > In any event, for better or worse, the world bridge community is > moving away from such social traditions, and sooner or later the > ACBL will probably have to go along with this..... Bob, please do not confuse rubber bridge with purely social bridge. I am one of many players around the world who play our serious (ie significant money) bridge under the 1993 code. Asking is permitted and leads to corrected (rather than established) revokes far more often than it creates UI problems. For *us* this is seen as a good thing. Mostly the differences between '93 and '97 laws don't cause problems at the table but this particular one is hard to adapt to when switching codes. I wouldn't mind so much if I felt the difference was an improvement but the mechanical penalties are totally out of proportion to the "offence". It is (and I rarely say this) the ACBL who are in step with the spirit of the game on this issue and the WBF/EBL who are undermining the way it should be played. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 29 15:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290930.AA05639@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner writes: > >When some behaviour is allowed by general principles and not > explicitly >disallowed by any law, it is allowed. > The above is diametrically opposed to the official position of the > WBF Laws Commission, who made the following general statement > in the minutes of the WBFLC on 24 Aug 1998. > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_lcmn.htm > ****************************************** > 8. Actions authorised in the laws > The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action > was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other > actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The > Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states > that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in > the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an > infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the > auction or the play. > ****************************************** This minute does *not* contradict Alain's position. The minute only states that something extraneous *may* be an infraction. Even then it will likely be deemed an infraction only if information arising from it is used. A typical example might be saying something like "We are vulnerable partner". The vulnerability itself is AI but the very act of drawing attention to it during the auction usually suggests a particular cause of action. OTOH an extraneous action which would never be regarded as an offence would be to stop partner from opening the bidding (at his turn) having just realised that an opponent revoked on the previous hand. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Sep 29 15:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609290905.AA05637@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert wrote: > Sorry, you lost me. Could you please tell me the specific law > (number and section) that (in your opinion) authorizes a player to > stop his partner from making a bid out of turn? Thanks. There is no law authorising it, there is no law forbidding it. IMO bridge is a better game if such mechanical infractions are prevented. In the rare cases where the manner of such intervention conveys information about the *intervenor's* hand UI is created and the TD will adjust (if necessary). In the somewhat more common cases where the aborted infraction itself creates UI the TD will also adjust (if necessary) while in the remaining (majority) of cases an infraction has been prevented and normal play of the hand occurs. We should not *need* a law saying it's OK to prevent infractions by other players - but apparently this is no longer common-sense and we do. Take L41A as an example. A player attempts a face-down OLOOT and the laws do not expressly permit anyone to say "It's not your lead" but if no-one is permitted to say it why bother having the lead face-down? Tim From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Fri Sep 29 15:50:01 2006 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?utf-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Steffens?=) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:50:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Live exam question:summary In-Reply-To: <000401c6e3ae$14d3d740$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200609291349.k8TDnvEX022174@smtp30.hccnet.nl> The discussion has not died yet, but there are two main issues: Issue one: Has West's revoke become established? Yes because: -Both the WBF and and the EBL have stated that ANY action that makes a defending partner aware of a revoke establishes it. All other arguments are moot. No because: -Declarer's revoke comes first and in correcting it (Law 62C1) West's revoke effectively vanishes. -In correcting South's revoke West would have woken up no matter what. -There is a minute of the WBFLC stating that since both parties are to be considered offending and non offending, the penalties should be waived. (But it deals with established revokes) -The hand from the dutch live exam was nearly identical to the one used in the practical excercises of the EBL director's course of last february (hand 22a). The solution given there was to let West substitute without penalty tricks. So at least we lesser -not dry behind the ears yet- TDs should accept this as how the EBL wants us to solve the case Issue two: Does West's Jack of spades become a major penalty card? Yes because: -Laws 47B and 49 apply: the Jack was a revoke and thus illegal No because: -Laws 62C1 and 47D apply. Law 62C1 states that ANY card played by the NOP after the revoke may be retracted without penalty. So the Laws are contradictory and there is no definite answer. I vote for following the answer given to hand 22a in Telecitt? (which was how I handled the question myself :-): 22) E/N Auction: South 2NT, North 3H, South 4 spades. South plays 4? West leads three rounds of ?, E ruffling the third. He plays back a club which S follows with the 10........of ?. W is somehow sleepy (?) and thinks that a ? has been played. He ?takes? the trick with the ?J and a) East asks declarer where the clubs are left The whole table calls for the TD. Answer: It is reasonable to accept East?s question as an honest one, not aimed to awake his partner (South really needs a high ?-honor for his 2NT opening). None of the revokes is established yet, so ?T and J are taken back, with the J becoming a major PC. (this might be a case where declarer generously waives the PC; L81C8?) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 29 15:53:30 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:53:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200609290905.AA05637@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929155022.02107d80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:10 29/09/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >We should not *need* a law saying it's OK to prevent infractions by other >players - but apparently this is no longer common-sense and we do. >Take L41A as an example. A player attempts a face-down OLOOT and the >laws do not expressly permit anyone to say "It's not your lead" but if >no-one is permitted to say it why bother having the lead face-down? Good example. Another example is the following utterance : "I've got only twelve cards. Would you all recount yours ?" Usually, it's partner who holds 14 ; BTW, because the cause of this usually is that one card from dummy is mixed with declarer's, this increases the probability that the 14-card-holder becomes declarer, which somehow is UI. Best regards, Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 29 18:56:18 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:56:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: Live exam question Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060929125353.02ab3b40@pop.starpower.net> At 02:15 AM 9/29/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Robert Geller >......... > > >No, Steve was talking about the explicit right, not > > >subject to any zonal option, that "defenders may > > >ask declarer"; in response to Herman De Wael's > > >assertion that a defender may _not_ ask declarer > > >whenever declarer and partner show out on the same > > >trick. > > Defender can always ask declarer, but in the event that > > declarer was really void and partner was the one who > > revoked then I suppose this is UI in zones > > that haven't opted out of 61B (suppose it would > > be OK in S.Pacific or ACBL, where the defender > > could legally have asked his partner in the first place). > >The rule is crystal clear: Where a defender's explicit question to his >partner of a possible revoke is a violation of Law 61B so is also >considered >any action or mannerism which although not being an explicit question >still >is likely to alert partner of the possibility that he has revoked. That seems a bit categorical. Suppose I cash the CA, but partner, who has clubs, unknowingly "follows" with a spade, which is trump. Then nothing happens. I can sit there and look at partner until he wakes up, or I can tell him it's his lead; unless the opponents prove helpful, I have no third choice. So whatever I do will be an "action or mannerism which... is likely to alert partner [to] the possibility that he has revoked". Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 29 18:57:14 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:57:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <451CCBEA.5000203@hdw.be> References: <200609271444.k8REiA8k002197@cfa.harvard.edu> <451C8776.7060301@cfa.harvard.edu> <451CCBEA.5000203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060929125330.02ac2b70@pop.starpower.net> At 03:31 AM 9/29/06, Herman wrote: >What about this: defender one starts cashing his long spade suit. >Declarer has already shown out. When partner shows out, one round too >soon, the defender asks if partner has any spades left. OK in ACBL? Yes. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 29 21:06:21 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:06:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: Live exam question In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060929125353.02ab3b40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c6e3fa$5a058c40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >......... > >The rule is crystal clear: Where a defender's explicit question to his > >partner of a possible revoke is a violation of Law 61B so is also > >considered > >any action or mannerism which although not being an explicit question > >still > >is likely to alert partner of the possibility that he has revoked. > > That seems a bit categorical. Suppose I cash the CA, but partner, who > has clubs, unknowingly "follows" with a spade, which is trump. Then > nothing happens. I can sit there and look at partner until he wakes > up, or I can tell him it's his lead; unless the opponents prove > helpful, I have no third choice. So whatever I do will be an "action > or mannerism which... is likely to alert partner [to] the possibility > that he has revoked". Indeed, and that will be the hell of a nightmare for the Director who must distinguish between the player patiently waiting for his partner to lead to the next trick having the lead, and the player delaying the game for the possible purpose of alerting partner of a probable revoke without really asking. As I said: The rule is crystal clear, but I doubt if anybody ever paid this particular situation any attention. The situation is no abstraction; I still remember many years ago in a regional for teams, we were defending against 4H after an auction telling me that Dummy probably had 4-4-4-1 with his singleton in Clubs (which my partner and I had both bid). I was on the lead and for various reasons I did not fancy leading a trump so I lead a small club to partner's expected Ace. Partner wasn't too happy about opening any of the other suits so he just returned another club which declarer covered and I covered too and then Declarer said to Dummy: "Discard a heart please". It felt like ten minutes passed before Declarer suddenly and very surprised looked at our played cards and exclaimed: "Why have you all marked that trick to me?" (All play in the room was completely halted for several minutes because of the laughter at our table.) Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Sep 30 06:42:17 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:42:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question:summary In-Reply-To: <200609291349.k8TDnvEX022174@smtp30.hccnet.nl> References: <200609291349.k8TDnvEX022174@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <2658B06D-E34C-4DAE-A8C1-7370F3AA595D@rochester.rr.com> On Sep 29, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Andr? Steffens wrote: > Answer: > It is reasonable to accept East?s question as an honest one, not > aimed to awake his > partner (South really needs a high ?-honor for his 2NT opening). > None of the revokes > is established yet, so ?T and J are taken back, with the J > becoming a major PC. (this > might be a case where declarer generously waives the PC; L81C8?) Interesting answer. Why does the spade Jack become a major penalty card? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 29 15:56:22 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:56:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20060929134659.93E3E1DC@bonito.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929120545.0210bd10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060929155424.02107220@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:39 29/09/2006 +0200, ton kooijman wrote: >If north has to call and south picks a card form his box, regardless what >kind of card it is and how he keeps it, may be he just touched it even, >this action is an irregularity. And any player at the table may call >attention to it, at any stage. Indeed. And "I intended to pull cards from the rear of my BB" is less UI than "I pulled a big pack of cards from my BB", which makes it clever for partner to intervene asap. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060929/4a69c65e/attachment.htm From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 30 18:02:38 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:02:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <200609291436.k8TEaA6l027938@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609291436.k8TEaA6l027938@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451E951E.9050201@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Robert Geller By the way, Robert, welcome to BLML. > I notice Steve's email address is at Harvard Univ. so I assume he plays > primarily in the U.S. I do indeed, but having subscribed to BLML since its beginning, I'm familiar with the rules elsewhere, including L61B. > As far as I know, it has been authorized only by the ACBL, > and is illegal everywhere else in the world. As Richard pointed out, asking is also legal in Zone 7. At last report, asking was also legal in part of Zone 8. ("Part of zone" shouldn't happen, but Zone 8 is new and maybe not fully organized yet. However, "last report" was quite some time ago. Anyone have an update?) >>but taking this reasonable principle as far as banning something that >>the Laws explicitly permit... words fail me. > > he is presumably talking about the U.S., No, I was writing about zones where asking is illegal. In Zones 2 and 7, there's no problem at all; defenders have the right to query any revoke. > Therefore an action (such as not > turning over one's card for 5 min) which is tantamount to asking a question > should also be treated as UI (outside ACBL-land). Not correct. Actions that are "tantamount to asking a question" are (in most zones) illegal and -- if asker's partner really did revoke -- incur a severe penalty. This is nothing to do with UI. I quite understand the principle; my objection is to carrying it too far. When something explicitly legal is suddenly rendered illegal, that is IMHO too far. > IMO in the case of banning defender -> defender > questions the "rest of the world" position is preferable to the US one. Reasonable people can differ on what is preferable. It wouldn't surprise me if the 2017 Laws ban all such questions, though. > From: "Tim West-Meads" > An example of a poorly written law Steve. Since the law only applies > penalties to "inquiries" those penalties would not apply to either. > "Partner, clubs were led, please correct your revoke" OR > "Declarer, would you be so kind as to enquire of partner whether he > has revoked?" > > Thus the WBF/EBL have ended up having to extrapolate the law... As noted above, I understand the reason and agree that the extrapolation has to be broad. But why does it have to be so broad as to include something the Laws explicitly declare to be legal? > From: Herman De Wael > two players fail to follow suit and you ask one of them if he still > has spades?... > Surely you can see that this trick is only useful because you are in > fact asking your partner to reconsider revoking! L61B is clear that it is legal for a defender to ask declarer. I don't see why an interpretation -- however necessary in other situations -- should take away an explicit right. > But how do the ACBL deal with players who only ask partner when they > know someone must have revoked? Asking is always legal (in Zone 2); information conveyed about the asker's hand is UI to partner. In practice, it's rarely a problem. Most people either always ask or never do. > What about this: defender one starts cashing his long spade suit. > Declarer has already shown out. When partner shows out, one round too > soon, the defender asks if partner has any spades left. OK in ACBL? Certainly. Preventing establishment of a revoke is the point of being able to ask. If this thread shows anything, it is that the question is awfully tough for an exam. It would, of course, be an excellent topic for a training session. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 30 18:18:23 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:18:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <200609291444.k8TEi64D029090@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609291444.k8TEi64D029090@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451E98CF.6000505@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > I was talking about cases where partner has alerted/explained. An > alert/explanation are always UI OK, there's the confusion. I thought you meant for the psych itself, which is what I was writing about. Before I decide to psych, it is wise to consider various risks. One risk is an adverse ruling, which can occur in a number of forms. Do we agree on this idea? > (albeit we almost never deem that UI to > suggest an action when it merely confirms what the player appears to > know). If playing behind screens one would not know about any > alert/explanation and would make ones rebid on that basis - if there is > only one logical rebid with screens there is only one logical rebid > without screens. Certainly so. If there is only one LA, there's never any problem. > Choosing a different rebid in attempt to avoid an > adverse ruling is an action suggested by the UI. I don't get this at all, though. For there to be any problem, there must be more than one LA. Now I have UI from partner, and I pick the LA that a TD or AC will decide was the legal one -- an attempt to avoid an adverse ruling. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? > The difference here is that one's *own* BIT is AI to oneself (as is the > operation of law). Right. So is my true system if I've psyched. > Consider instead where partner has bid on after a > slow pass by me. Now it is illegal for me to base a *subsequent* call on > the knowledge that partner's action is clear-cut rather than marginal BLML discussed this exact question several years ago. My recollection is that the conclusion was the opposite: you _must_ take into account that partner's action was clear-cut. It is AI because of "operation of law." I believe Linda Trent was the one who presented the reasoning. Perhaps we should examine the archive and revisit this question. > Honest players won't incriminate themselves. If cheats wish to > self-incriminate I'm going to let them (I might not catch them the first > time they try it but I'll hammer them like hell when I do catch them). > If we routinely rule a misbid rather than a psych then we may as well > ban psyching. That seems over-broad to me. After most psychs, there won't be more than one LA, and in cases where there are more than one, usually partner's accurate explanation won't suggest one over another. But yes, certain rare types of psychs will be banned except behind screens. I don't like it, but the alternative seems worse to me. > It's the TDs job to establish the facts and the > difference between a psych and a misbid is a fundamental fact. The problem is that this "fundamental fact" requires mind reading. My opinion on that is well known, so I won't belabor it. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Sep 30 20:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <451E951E.9050201@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > L61B is clear that it is legal for a defender to ask declarer. I > don't see why an interpretation -- however necessary in other > situations -- should take away an explicit right. While it is legal to ask declarer doing so is not without risk. If declarer *has* revoked there's no problem since partner will be able to correct under Law62c1 (declarer having no option but to correct his own revoke#). If declarer *hasn't* revoked the question will be deemed to be directed at partner. If we permit questions of declarer all the "awake" player need do is leave his own card face up until the others have turned their cards and then ask declarer "Excuse me, but did you just revoke?". #Obviously if partner has revoked *before* declarer it is almost certainly better to try to let both revokes become established rather than say anything. While to me this smacks of concealing one own side's infraction and isn't the way bridge should be played my views are obviously at variance with the perpetrators of the current laws who encourage such practices. Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Sep 30 21:20:24 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:20:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport In-Reply-To: <200609291512.k8TFC80x004591@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200609291512.k8TFC80x004591@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <451EC378.4070401@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Robert Geller > WBF Laws Commission, who made the following general statement > in the minutes of the WBFLC on 24 Aug 1998. The background for this minute is in BLML; you may want to glance through the archives if they are available. > ... the laws define correct procedure and anything not > specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an > infraction > of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. Note that there are _three_ categories: legal, illegal, and extraneous. Acts not mentioned in the Laws are not inherently illegal, but they may create UI or cause other problems. Some people have read the minute as saying extraneous actions are the same as illegal ones, but that's not what it says.