From henk at amsterdamned.org Sun Oct 1 01:01:01 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 01:01:01 +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 amsterdamned.org Sun Oct 1 01:01:01 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for September 2006 Posts From ----- ---- 44 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 35 svenpran (at) online.no 34 twm (at) cix.co.uk 28 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 18 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 15 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 12 john (at) asimere.com 12 herman (at) hdw.be 11 geller (at) nifty.com 11 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 10 ehaa (at) starpower.net 10 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 7 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 6 tkooij (at) tiscali.nl 6 picatou (at) uqss.uquebec.ca 6 Martin.Sinot (at) Micronas.com 5 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 4 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 4 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 schoderb (at) msn.com 3 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 3 moranl (at) netvision.net.il 3 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 3 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 3 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 2 rui.mlmarques (at) netvisao.pt 2 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 2 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 2 adam (at) tameware.com 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 johnson (at) CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca 1 henk (at) ripe.net 1 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 1 defranchi.henri (at) wanadoo.fr 1 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 1 brambledown (at) blueyonder.co.uk 1 adam (at) irvine.com From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Oct 1 03:25:42 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:25:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question Message-ID: <451F1916.6070703@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > 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#). Doesn't this work only if the revoking defender is West (declarer South), and it's East who asks? Otherwise it's East who will have to correct his revoke (if any) first. > If declarer *hasn't* revoked the question will be deemed > to be directed at partner. This is what I'm having trouble with. If declarer has followed suit, I'm with you all the way: the question can be directed only at partner. And if partner has followed suit, there's no problem at all. So the problem only exists when both declarer and a defender have failed to follow suit. > 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?". If declarer didn't follow suit, in my view the defender can ask any time; he doesn't have to be tricky. And if declarer did follow suit, we agree on what to do. > #Obviously if partner has revoked *before* declarer it is almost > certainly better to try to let both revokes become established rather > than say anything. That isn't at all obvious to me. But both having revoked is a rare case. It must be far more common that the defender knows at least (or only) one of the two has revoked but doesn't know which one. In that case, I'd think the explicit language of the Laws should prevail over a mere interpretation, no matter how reasonable that interpretation is in other contexts. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 1 04:16:49 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 12:16:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609280839.AA05601@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: [snip] >>The warning to partner is not authorized information. >>Had it not been for the UI partner would have committed >>an irregularity, [snip] Ton Kooijman: >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. Richard Hills: Ye, I agree with Ton. In my opinion, Robert Geller has misinterpreted the concept of unauthorised information from partner. Under Law 16A, extraneous information from one partner is defined as UI when it will assist the other partner in choosing amongst logical alternatives. An irregularity is never a logical alternative. On the other hand, suppose that in Ton's example North said: "Don't bid out of turn pard; this is the first time this session that I've held a slam-try hand." It would be AI to South that it was North's turn to call. However, if in the North-South system it was undiscussed whether North's next call of 4H was a forcing splinter bid agreeing spades, or a natural signoff in hearts, then it would be UI to South that North was expecting South to bid again. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 1 12:44:50 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:44:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201c6e547$019bbc20$440ee150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Robert Geller: > > [snip] > >>>The warning to partner is not authorized information. >>>Had it not been for the UI partner would have committed >>>an irregularity, > > [snip] > > Ton Kooijman: > >>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. > > Richard Hills: > > Ye, I agree with Ton. In my opinion, Robert Geller has > misinterpreted the concept of unauthorised information > from partner. > > Under Law 16A, extraneous information from one partner is > defined as UI when it will assist the other partner in > choosing amongst logical alternatives. An irregularity is > never a logical alternative. > > On the other hand, suppose that in Ton's example North > said: "Don't bid out of turn pard; this is the first time > this session that I've held a slam-try hand." > > It would be AI to South that it was North's turn to call. > > However, if in the North-South system it was undiscussed > whether North's next call of 4H was a forcing splinter bid > agreeing spades, or a natural signoff in hearts, then it > would be UI to South that North was expecting South to bid > again. > > > 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 twm at cix.co.uk Sun Oct 1 14:45:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200609291331.k8TDVb96015610@mta03.mx.cix.co.uk> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > 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? I don't see any problem with acting like that and there would be no issue if the laws *explicitly* stated that such preventative action was permitted. While I'm of the opinion that such actions are legitimate (although as with other legitimate actions *capable* of transmitting UI) others, misinterpreting (IMO) the WBFLC minute, are of the belief that any such action is illegal. This becomes an "at the table" problem rather than merely a BLML one when TDs start ruling differently on the same facts. Thus an enhancement to law9 along the lines of Forestalling an irregularity. With the exception of dummy (see Law42/43) any player may attempt to prevent an irregularity by any other player (such has by saying "it is not your bid/lead"). All players should be aware that both the forestalled/partial irregularity and the act of intervention may create UI. Would clarify the matter for everybody. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Oct 1 14:45:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <451F1916.6070703@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: > *From:* Steve Willner > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Date:* Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:25:42 -0400 > > > From: "Tim West-Meads" > > 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#). > > Doesn't this work only if the revoking defender is West (declarer > South), and it's East who asks? Otherwise it's East who will have to > correct his revoke (if any) first. That's what my # was about. In fact even where asking is allowed it will often be better to say nothing when one believes both players has revoked. Partner's correction will create a penalty card whereas allowing both revokes to become established and a later L64c adjustment will tend to produce a better result. > > If declarer *hasn't* revoked the question will be deemed > > to be directed at partner. > > This is what I'm having trouble with. If declarer has followed suit, > I'm with you all the way: the question can be directed only at > partner. And if partner has followed suit, there's no problem at all. > So the problem only exists when both declarer and a defender have > failed to follow suit. > > > 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?". > > If declarer didn't follow suit, in my view the defender can ask any > time; he doesn't have to be tricky. And if declarer did follow suit, > we agree on what to do. > > > #Obviously if partner has revoked *before* declarer it is almost > > certainly better to try to let both revokes become established > > rather than say anything. > > That isn't at all obvious to me. But both having revoked is a rare > case. It must be far more common that the defender knows at least > (or only) one of the two has revoked but doesn't know which one. In > that case, I'd think the explicit language of the Laws should prevail > over a mere interpretation, no matter how reasonable that > interpretation is in other contexts. It's a bit like asking opps about the meaning of their auction. Such questions are legal but even perfectly legal questions are capable of making UI available. In this case it's not a matter of UI but of a legitimate question serving the purpose of an illegal one. If you like think of it as a "mind-reading" issue. How do we distinguish between a defender who *knows* declarer has shown out but partner has revoked and a defender who doesn't know which player has revoked. Careful questioning won't help you on this one since the perp will merely state "Declarer showed out and I am entitled to enquire." In part my total dislike of this law is to blame. I examined it (as a player) for all possible loopholes. As a result I concluded (as a TD responsible for enforcing the law despite my dislike) that I could not uphold the law without closing down such loopholes (others must have done the same or the WBF would have given an official extrapolation). The exception being where both players *have* revoked and declarer did so *first* (but that's an Alcatraz variant for declarer so I was never going to allow him to gain thereby). Tim From geller at nifty.com Sun Oct 1 17:04:21 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:04:21 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200610011504.AA05653@geller204.nifty.com> Dear Tim and all, This discussion has been very helpful for me in understanding the issues involved and I thank you and Ton and everyone else who's contributed to this discussion. I agree completely with your suggestion (below) for an enhancement to law 9 although I would suggest that such an enhancement should either clearly allow the forestalling of an irregularity such as an impending BOOT (or else a clear statement that trying to forestall such an irregularity is prohibited except in cases where a law specifically allows it) so TDs everywhere in the world will have a clear statement of what the law is, and treatment of this can be made uniform. I think one problem the next version of the laws should correct is that in the 1997 laws and all previous versions spoken bidding is still treated as the mainstream, and bidding boxes aren't mentioned at all, But I suspect that as of 2006 bidding boxes are by far and away the majority, written bidding is second, and spoken bidding a small minority. That (presumably) being the case, the laws on bidding ought to be based primarily on bidding boxes, with secondary provision for written and spoken bidding. -Bob Tim West-Meads ????????: >Ton wrote: > >> 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? > >I don't see any problem with acting like that and there would be no >issue if the laws *explicitly* stated that such preventative action was >permitted. While I'm of the opinion that such actions are legitimate >(although as with other legitimate actions *capable* of transmitting UI) >others, misinterpreting (IMO) the WBFLC minute, are of the belief that >any such action is illegal. This becomes an "at the table" problem >rather than merely a BLML one when TDs start ruling differently on the >same facts. > >Thus an enhancement to law9 along the lines of >Forestalling an irregularity. >With the exception of dummy (see Law42/43) any player may attempt to >prevent an irregularity by any other player (such has by saying "it is >not your bid/lead"). All players should be aware that both the >forestalled/partial irregularity and the act of intervention may create >UI. > >Would clarify the matter for everybody. > >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 2 06:40:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:40:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060928100241.02b3eeb0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >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, Richard Hills: Me too. The first phrase of Law 16 states: "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls..." It seems to me that "the legal auction to that point" is a subset of "information from legal calls". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From geller at nifty.com Mon Oct 2 08:30:41 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:30:41 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200610020630.AA05659@geller204.nifty.com> There are only two places in the laws where it is specifically authorized for a player to attempt to prevent an irregularity (below). Both refer to the same thing, namely dummy's attempts to prevent declarer from committing an irregularity: ********************************************************* L9A2b2 Dummy may attempt to prevent declarer from committing an irregularity (Law 42B2). L42B(2) [Dummy] may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. ********************************************************* OTOH, the rest of the laws authorize a player to call attention to an irregularity, but do not explicit authorize a player to try to prevent an irregularity (see below). ******************************************************** L9A1 Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call. L9A2a Declarer or Either Defender Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. ******************************************************** Maybe one of the drafters of the 1997 Laws (if any are reading this) can explain how this distinction arose. Was it intentional that "attempting to prevent an irregularity" was not specifically mentioned in L9A1 and L9A2a (i.e., was it intended not to authorize this) ? Or was this an oversight? In any case, as Tim Wes-Meads poined out earlier, the lack or clarity could be rectified by reworded L9A1 and L9A2a to either prohibit or allow attempts to prevent irregularities. I have a question (maybe for Richard Hills). We've been discussing attempts to stop partner from making a BOOT. How about a LOOT? If pard has led face down it seems to be generally accepted that you can tell him it's not his lead, and he can put the card back in his hand without penalty. I never really thought about this before, but L41A seems to imply the director should be called and then he can instruct the player to put the face-down card back in his hand. In practice, the players seem to do this themselves. But my question is of the same general nature. Law 41A specifically discusses how an irregularity in the openeing lead (still face down) can be corrected. But there's no mention in the Laws of one defender trying to prevent his partner from leading out of turn at a later trick. Do you think this should this be allowed? Have there been any rulings on this by the Laws body in Oz? In any case, as Tim pointed out, if Law 9 were reworded to explicitly preclude or explicitly allow attempts to prevent irregularities this discussion wouldn't be needed. Then we'd have to find something else to talk about. Maybe we should hope they don't change Law9.. :-) If my partner goes down in a cold contract by forgetting to count trumps, due to brain lock, I as dummy (or defender) have to take this as part of the game. I don't seee why if pard tries to bid out or turn (due to brain lock) it should be allowable to pipe up and save him/her from folly in this one instance of brain lock, but not others...... This is my philosphical objection to allowing the attemts to stop BOOTs by pard. But if the laws were clear one way or the other then obviously we should all follow them. -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >Eric Landau: > >>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, > >Richard Hills: > >Me too. The first phrase of Law 16 states: "Players are authorised >to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls..." > >It seems to me that "the legal auction to that point" is a subset >of "information from legal calls". > > >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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 2 11:35:28 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:35:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200610020630.AA05659@geller204.nifty.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061002112832.0210e070@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:30 2/10/2006 +0900, you wrote: >OTOH, the rest of the laws authorize a player to call attention to an >irregularity, but do not explicit authorize a player to try to prevent >an irregularity (see below). However, when a player makes any gesture towards one's bidding box, the irregularity has already happened. This means attention may be drawn to it. Of course, this irregularity is of the kind that will seldom incur penalties, but it is an irregularity nevertheless. Contrast with the fact that declarer detaches a card from his hand but doesn't play it ; this is no irregularity (only playing that card would), and perhaps that's why one needs a specific law to allow dummy to say something. Declarer is the only player to be allowed some mannerisms irregularity-free (if they don't decieve opps, of course), and this is why one needs another text than L91/92. Best regards, Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 2 12:29:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061002112832.0210e070@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > However, when a player makes any gesture towards one's bidding box, > the irregularity has already happened. This means attention may be > drawn to it. Of course, this irregularity is of the kind that will > seldom incur penalties, but it is an irregularity nevertheless. That addresses a specific case but doesn't, for example, cover the partner who starts to remove 1C from the bidding box at his turn when his RHO has opened. My opinion remains that the reason the laws are silent on the issue is that nobody in 1997 thought it necessary to state the obvious (ie that where infractions can be prevented it is better that they should be.) This seems consistent with the expectation that in on-line bridge the coding will prevent such mechanical irregularities. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 2 16:47:46 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:47:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000a01c6e631$bde97ee0$63c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> However, when a player makes any gesture towards > >one's bidding box, the irregularity has already happened. >>> +=+ The statement is too sweeping. There is only an irregularity if the action is prohibited by regulation. Otherwise it is an extraneous action. The possibilities are that an action may be 1. 'lawful' - authorized by an express provision of law or regulation 2. 'infractive' - contrary to an express provision of law or regulation 3. 'extraneous' - neither of the above. The movement of the hand to the box would be an infraction if it were designed to communicate information purposefully to partner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 2 17:38:39 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:38:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c6e631$bde97ee0$63c8403e@Mildred> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061002173505.0211b7b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:47 2/10/2006 +0100, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > >> However, when a player makes any gesture towards > > >one's bidding box, the irregularity has already happened. > >>> >+=+ The statement is too sweeping. There is only an >irregularity if the action is prohibited by regulation. >Otherwise it is an extraneous action. > The possibilities are that an action may be >1. 'lawful' - authorized by an express provision of law or > regulation >2. 'infractive' - contrary to an express provision of law or > regulation >3. 'extraneous' - neither of the above. >The movement of the hand to the box would be an >infraction if it were designed to communicate >information purposefully to partner. Indeed, but it would nevertheless, in all cases, be an irregularity, i.e. deviation from normal procedure (which sates that extraneous gestures shall be avoided). And I was speaking about avoiding partner's irregularity, not infraction. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 3 01:38:57 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:38:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200610020630.AA05659@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >There are only two places in the laws where it is specifically >authorized for a player to attempt to prevent an irregularity >(below). Both refer to the same thing, namely dummy's attempts >to prevent declarer from committing an irregularity: >********************************************************* >L9A2b2 Dummy may attempt to prevent declarer from committing an >irregularity (Law 42B2). > >L42B(2) [Dummy] may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. >********************************************************* > >OTOH, the rest of the laws authorize a player to call attention >to an irregularity, but do not explicit authorize a player to >try to prevent an irregularity (see below). >********************************************************* >L9A1 >Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an >irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn >to call. > >L9A2a Declarer or Either Defender >Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call >attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. >******************************************************** > >Maybe one of the drafters of the 1997 Laws (if any are reading >this) can explain how this distinction arose. Richard Hills: This distinction is ancient of days, dating back well before the 1997 Laws. Part of the problem is that the 1997, 1987 and 1975 Lawbooks were patchwork evolutions, not fundamental redrafts, so that this gap in Law 9 has had to be interpreted by the ABF National Authority, rather than explicitly dealt with by Law 9 itself from 1975 onwards. Tim West-Meads: >>My opinion remains that the reason the laws are silent on the >>issue is that nobody in 1997 thought it necessary to state the >>obvious (ie that where infractions can be prevented it is >>better that they should be.) Robert Geller: >Was it intentional that "attempting to prevent an irregularity" >was not specifically mentioned in L9A1 and L9A2a (i.e., was it >intended not to authorize this) ? Or was this an oversight? Richard Hills: If the answer to this Law 9 gap was obvious, then the ABF National Authority would not have needed to interpret Law 9. :-) One school of thought is that attempting to prevent an irregularity is a special right granted only to dummy and not to any other player (provided that dummy has not committed a Law 43 infraction which causes dummy to lose that right). Robert Geller: >In any case, as Tim West-Meads pointed out earlier, the lack of >clarity could be rectified by reworded L9A1 and L9A2a to either >prohibit or allow attempts to prevent irregularities. Richard Hills: If dummy has an exclusive right to any attempt to prevent an irregularity, then it would be an infraction if declarer attempted to prevent an irregularity by a defender. Since in so doing declarer is acting against their own interests, and since declarer cannot transmit UI to dummy ("le mort"), it seems to me that at the very least the new Law 9 should legalise declarer's attempt to prevent an irregularity by a defender. And, of course, declarer should be given the explicit right to correct an attempted irregularity by dummy. :-) Robert Geller: >I have a question (maybe for Richard Hills). We've been >discussing attempts to stop partner from making a BOOT. How >about a LOOT? If pard has led face down it seems to be >generally accepted that you can tell him it's not his lead, >and he can put the card back in his hand without penalty. > >I never really thought about this before, but L41A seems to >imply the director should be called and then he can instruct >the player to put the face-down card back in his hand. In >practice, the players seem to do this themselves. > >But my question is of the same general nature. Law 41A >specifically discusses how an irregularity in the opening lead >(still face down) can be corrected. Richard Hills: A face-down opening lead out of turn is not an attempted irregularity, it is an actual irregularity, therefore clearly covered by Law 9. The idea of the face-down opening lead first appeared in the 1975 Laws as an option, and was later upgraded in the 1987 Laws to a default. Because the opening lead out of turn is face-down, the further irregularity of a penalty card does not occur. Robert Geller: >But there's no mention in the Laws of one defender trying to >prevent his partner from leading out of turn at a later trick. >Do you think this should this be allowed? Have there been any >rulings on this by the Laws body in Oz? ABF National Authority: >>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. Richard Hills: The above ABF National Authority ruling refers only to an attempt to prevent an irregularity in the bidding. But since it based its ruling on a general principle, then mutatis mutandis the ABF National Authority ruling should also apply to an Aussie attempting to prevent an irregularity in the play. Of course, most Aussie TDs are unaware of the ABF National Authority ruling, since its minutes are merely published on the ABF website, but not in the widely-read free ABF Newsletter. Robert Geller: >In any case, as Tim pointed out, if Law 9 were reworded to >explicitly preclude or explicitly allow attempts to prevent >irregularities this discussion wouldn't be needed. Then we'd >have to find something else to talk about. Maybe we should >hope they don't change Law 9.. :-) > >If my partner goes down in a cold contract by forgetting to >count trumps, due to brain lock, I as dummy (or defender) >have to take this as part of the game. I don't see why if >pard tries to bid out or turn (due to brain lock) it should be >allowable to pipe up and save him/her from folly in this one >instance of brain lock, but not others...... This is my >philosophical objection to allowing the attempts to stop BOOTs >by pard. But if the laws were clear one way or the other then >obviously we should all follow them. Richard Hills: The WBF Executive Council, at its Montreal meeting in 2002, gave a riding instruction to the WBF LC drafting sub-committee that ambiguity should be minimised in next year's Lawbook. Of course, given the length and complexity of the 1997 Lawbook, this is a Sisyphean task. But to a certain extent blml is a friend of Sisyphus, as blml finds stones of ambiguity that might otherwise be overlooked until 2017. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From geller at nifty.com Tue Oct 3 02:28:39 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:28:39 +0900 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200610030028.AA05672@geller204.nifty.com> Thanks for the explanation of the history. I hope the next version of the laws will clean up as many of these ambiuities as possible. richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: [snip] >Of course, most Aussie TDs are unaware of the ABF National >Authority ruling, since its minutes are merely published on the >ABF website, but not in the widely-read free ABF Newsletter. I found minutes of two meetings here: http://www.abf.com.au/about/natauth.html They're well hidden, even for being on the website. [snip] >The WBF Executive Council, at its Montreal meeting in 2002, >gave a riding instruction to the WBF LC drafting sub-committee >that ambiguity should be minimised in next year's Lawbook. > >Of course, given the length and complexity of the 1997 Lawbook, >this is a Sisyphean task. But to a certain extent blml is a >friend of Sisyphus, as blml finds stones of ambiguity that >might otherwise be overlooked until 2017. It's a big job indeed. Looking forward to seeing the new laws sometime soon. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 3 04:00:39 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:00:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention Message-ID: <4521C447.2070200@cfa.harvard.edu> Anybody know what the ACBL rules are when an illegal convention is used? Yesterday, we opened 1NT and heard a 2D overcall, which turned out to have an illegal meaning. This was in a team match, and the board had not yet been played at the other table. What should the ruling have been? (The TD had us redeal, which was fine with us, but I have no idea whether it was technically correct.) From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 3 04:12:40 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:12:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <200610021419.k92EJsMh019071@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610021419.k92EJsMh019071@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4521C718.4040109@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > That's what my # was about. In fact even where asking is allowed it > will often be better to say nothing when one believes both players has > revoked. Partner's correction will create a penalty card whereas > allowing both revokes to become established and a later L64c adjustment > will tend to produce a better result. Thanks, Tim. That clears it up. > It's a bit like asking opps about the meaning of their auction. Such > questions are legal but even perfectly legal questions are capable of > making UI available. In this case it's not a matter of UI but of a > legitimate question serving the purpose of an illegal one. Well, I see your point, but I still think this interpretation is going too far when it has the effect of retracting an explicit permission. > If you like think of it as a "mind-reading" issue. How do we distinguish > between a defender who *knows* declarer has shown out but partner has > revoked and a defender who doesn't know which player has revoked. You know my view: the rules should not distinguish between these two cases. Either the question is legal or it (in effect) is not. The player's state of mind shouldn't matter. > In part my total dislike of this law is to blame. I examined it (as a > player) for all possible loopholes. As a result I concluded (as a TD > responsible for enforcing the law despite my dislike) that I could not > uphold the law without closing down such loopholes (others must have > done the same or the WBF would have given an official extrapolation). > The exception being where both players *have* revoked and declarer did so > *first* (but that's an Alcatraz variant for declarer so I was never going > to allow him to gain thereby). At least I understand your position, though I still don't agree with it for the specific case when declarer has in fact shown out. We had a L64C ruling the other night -- my first one in many years. We could have avoided the nuisance of it if partner had been awake enough to ask declarer why he wasn't following suit; I as East had shown out on the previous trick. No great harm done, but it can save time and trouble if defenders can freely ask declarer. Tim: am I right that you would have allowed partner to ask declarer here? After all, if I was the revoker, it would already have been established. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 3 04:42:23 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:42:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention References: <4521C447.2070200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:00 PM Subject: [blml] Illegal convention > Anybody know what the ACBL rules are when an illegal convention is used? > > Yesterday, we opened 1NT and heard a 2D overcall, which turned out to > have an illegal meaning. This was in a team match, and the board had > not yet been played at the other table. What should the ruling have > been? (The TD had us redeal, which was fine with us, but I have no idea > whether it was technically correct.) Well, what happened at my table ten years ago went like this 1S-2N*-P-3D*-P-P*-P *= pronounced hesitation Dummy showed up with long D&H. I called the TD after the play since I thought the 3D was strange [it turned out to be the maximum call for the hand] given declarer's club length AND the hesitations. The TD found out that 2N promised two long UNKNOWN suits in a GCC event [illegal]. He gave all of us [well, I was stuck there with a board still to play] the riot act for 8 minutes for using an illegal convention- and left. I don't think he said anything about UI. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 3 04:54:49 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:54:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c6e631$bde97ee0$63c8403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The statement is too sweeping. There is only an >>irregularity if the action is prohibited by regulation. >>Otherwise it is an extraneous action. >> The possibilities are that an action may be >>1. 'lawful' - authorized by an express provision of law >> or regulation >>2. 'infractive' - contrary to an express provision of law >> or regulation >>3. 'extraneous' - neither of the above. >>The movement of the hand to the box would be an >>infraction if it were designed to communicate >>information purposefully to partner. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Alain Gottcheiner: >Indeed, but it would nevertheless, in all cases, be an >irregularity, i.e. deviation from normal procedure (which >states that extraneous gestures shall be avoided). Richard Hills: Alain's statement of "in all cases" is still too sweeping. An extraneous gesture is not always necessarily an irregularity, so need not necessarily be avoided "in all cases". A more nuanced view of an extraneous gesture is defined by Law 73D1, which states: "It is desirable, _though not always required_, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be _particularly careful_ in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. _Otherwise, inadvertently_ to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." Anecdotally, when Groucho Marx played bridge, he was not "particularly careful" with his gestures. Whenever Groucho's partner used Blackwood, not only would Groucho give the correct response, but also Groucho would hold up fingers equal to the aces he held. This may have been a subtle Groucho jest, insulting his partner by implying that pard was too stupid to remember the step responses to Blackwood. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Oct 3 05:33:48 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c6e631$bde97ee0$63c8403e@Mildred> References: <000a01c6e631$bde97ee0$63c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4521DA1C.8040108@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] > There is only an irregularity if the action is prohibited > by regulation. Otherwise it is an extraneous action. > The possibilities are that an action may be 1. 'lawful' - authorized by an express provision of law or > regulation > 2. 'infractive' - contrary to an express provision of law or > regulation > 3. 'extraneous' - neither of the above. > The movement of the hand to the box would be an > infraction if it were designed to communicate information purposefully to partner. [nige1] Suppose the hand-movement is a simple mistake about whose turn it is to bid; its purpose is *not* to convey useful bridge information to partner, but in fact it does. IMO, it's still an irregularity, no matter what the *intention*. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 3 09:38:30 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 17:38:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL contains multitudes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Walt Whitman (1819-1892): "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" The ACBL Competition and Conventions Committee, most recent meeting, Reno 22nd March 2004: "The question was raised whether an opening 4H or 4S when playing NAMYATS should require an Alert. The point was raised that we should be consistent to principle (i.e. in general, negative inferences do not require an Alert). The Committee was virtually unanimous in determining that such a call does not require an Alert." Current 2006 ACBL Alert Procedures: (http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html) "Natural opening bids at the three level or higher which convey an unusual message regarding HCP range or any other information which might be unexpected to the opponents must be Alerted. EXAMPLE: 4H, 4S openings which are natural but are weaker than might be expected because the partnership has some other method (an example is the Namyats convention) for showing a good 4H, 4S opening." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 3 10:01:33 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:01:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4521C447.2070200@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Anybody know what the ACBL rules are when an illegal convention is >used? > >Yesterday, we opened 1NT and heard a 2D overcall, which turned out >to have an illegal meaning. This was in a team match, and the >board had not yet been played at the other table. What should the >ruling have been? (The TD had us redeal, which was fine with us, >but I have no idea whether it was technically correct.) Richard Hills: It would have been technically correct under the 1975 Laws (which prescribed a redeal as the solution for most bidding infractions whenever a team's board had not yet been played at the other table). But the TD's ruling seems to me to be overly generous to the OS under the 1997 Laws. The EBU has this Law 40D regulation: "If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal should be completed. If he attains a score of Ave- or less then the score stands. Otherwise he gets Ave- and his opponents get Ave+." If the ACBL has a similar regulation to the EBU, it is well-hidden, as when I searched the ACBL website I could not find it. If the ACBL has not created such a Law 40D ACBL regulation, then it seems to me that Steve's NOS team deserved +3 imps under Law 12A2 and/or Law 12C1, then Law 86A. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 3 11:15:11 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:15:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061002173505.0211b7b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <009701c6e6cd$3c25c430$54cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************ "My lord, we make use of you, not for your bad legs, but for your good head." [Queen Elizabeth I ] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ I am not sure, Alain, on what you base this assertion. It might perhaps just about scrape into the terms of 74A2. In the place (73B1) where gestures are specifically referred to the prohibition is on communication with a gesture - not on making the gesture, which is stated to be 'extraneous'. Things extraneous are not of themselves irregularities but only by way of their effects on the game. ~ G ~ +=+ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:38 PM > > Indeed, but it would nevertheless, in all cases, be an > irregularity, i.e. deviation from normal procedure (which > states that extraneous gestures shall be avoided). And I > was speaking about avoiding partner's irregularity, not > infraction. > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 3 11:43:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:43:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000a01c6e631$bde97ee0$63c8403e@Mildred> <4521DA1C.8040108@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00c601c6e6d0$73023b70$54cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ +=+ I disagree. There is a breach of Law 16 if the partner bases a call or play "on other extraneous information" contrary to the preamble to Law 16 and to Law 16A. The action itself, in error and done with no intention to communicate, is extraneous and not an irregularity. ~ G ~ +=+ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:33 AM > > [nige1] > Suppose the hand-movement is a simple mistake > about whose turn it is to bid; its purpose is *not* > to convey useful bridge information to partner, > but in fact it does. IMO, it's still an irregularity, > no matter what the *intention*. > From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue Oct 3 16:10:17 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:10:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems In-Reply-To: <000001c6e213$27418860$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6e213$27418860$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45226F49.3080104@cs.elte.hu> Sven Pran wrote: >>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'm not sure, you understand it quite well. This 1S promises diamond suit, but only 1+. If you play a 5card Major strong club system and your 2 clubs promises minimum 5 clubs (6 without a 4card Major) as usual and your 1NT is not as wide as the whole limited range (11-15 or 11-16), and 2 diamonds are some weak/preemtive bid, then if your distribution is 3325 or (4432) with dubleton diamonds or 4414 you can open with pass or 1D only. Anyway as bridge player i do not like this method, (when I play strong club system i like to open 2D with 4414), but this is a worldwide known and used method, not a HUM system. In system B the definition of 1D, 1H, and 1S are changed (permuted). On the world bridge.org the following is written in the WBF system policy *2.2 HUM Systems* For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement: 1. A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities 2. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass. 3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. 4. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit 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 It seems to me, that the 'exception' applies to the 5th point only. And the world wide used method when 1D promises 1+ length in the suit is not HUM, so system B isnt that as well. Maybe I know it badly. regards Laci >I overlooked this when I prepared my first comment; the above information >makes (IMO) your system B a Yellow system. > >Regards Sven > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 3 16:35:58 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:35:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Red systems In-Reply-To: <45226F49.3080104@cs.elte.hu> References: <000001c6e213$27418860$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000001c6e213$27418860$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061003163056.026396e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:10 3/10/2006 +0200, you wrote: > 1. A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally > accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative > weak possibilities > 2. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > weaker than pass. > 3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > made with values a king or more below average strength. > 4. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows > either length or shortage in a specified suit > 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 > > >It seems to me, that the 'exception' applies to the 5th point only. And >the world wide used method when 1D promises 1+ length in the suit is not >HUM, so system B isnt that as well. Maybe I know it badly. I vaguely remember that point 5. has been said to encompass openings that don't show any specific length, nor show NT pattern, i.e. "residual" openings. Look at it another way : if the need was felt to say a Precision 1D, for example, is an exception to 5., hence allowed, it means that such an opening would otherwise be banned ; this applies to your 1S opening. Best regards, Alain. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 4 06:09:12 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:09:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil You, West, hold: 9 A753 AKT865 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 4S Pass Pass Dble Pass 5S Pass 5NT (1) Pass 6H Pass ? (2) (1) Do you agree with the 5NT call? If not, what call would you have made instead? (2) What call do you make now? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 4 09:23:50 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:23:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061004092036.02115330@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:09 4/10/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >You, West, hold: > >9 >A753 >AKT865 >K2 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 4S Pass Pass >Dble Pass 5S Pass >5NT (1) Pass 6H Pass >? (2) > >(1) Do you agree with the 5NT call? > If not, what call would you have made instead? If our agreements are that a pull from 6C to 6D shows secondary hearts (rather than grand slam ambition), it's a good bid. >(2) What call do you make now? I pass. Partner has shown "a strong 6H bid", but this does not necessarily include the CA. I'm fairly conservative about slam bidding, and some would be willing to bid seven, but at least I show that pass is a LA, if that's what you looked for. Best regards, Alain. From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 3 04:16:41 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:16:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:00:39 EDT." <4521C447.2070200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200610030158.SAA23119@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Willner wrote: > Anybody know what the ACBL rules are when an illegal convention is used? > > Yesterday, we opened 1NT and heard a 2D overcall, which turned out to > have an illegal meaning. This was in a team match, and the board had > not yet been played at the other table. What should the ruling have > been? (The TD had us redeal, which was fine with us, but I have no idea > whether it was technically correct.) As far as the Laws are concerned, Law 40D gives SO's the right to regulate bidding conventions, but does not prescribe a penalty for violating those regulations. By default, I'd say that Law 84E applies, which tells the director to award an adjusted score, which means that the TD figures out what is likely to have happened without the irregularity (but I don't know if this means we assume the opponents would have been using natural bidding over 1NT and *might* have made a call, or if we assume the opponents would have passed), and adjusts the score if it's better for the NOs than they actually got. But I think L40D probably gives the SO's the right to deal with violations in a different way. I looked at the ACBL web site and various Conditions of Contest, and while several places discuss what convention charts are in effect, I couldn't find a regulation for how to deal with the use of an illegal convention. Law 6D3 seems to give the TD the power to order a redeal for any reason compatible with the Laws (with a couple exceptions). So since there doesn't seem to be an applicable regulation, I'd say that either solution is legal, although I personally think it's better to adjust using 84E. -- Adam From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Wed Oct 4 12:42:21 2006 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:42:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] =?utf-8?b?wqBQb3NpdHJvbmljIGJyYWluIMKgIMKgW1NFQz1VTk9GRklD?= =?utf-8?q?IAL=5D?= Message-ID: <10017293.100641159958541624.JavaMail.www@wwinf1507> Hi 1) Ok 2) I pass . No more values Regards > Message du 04/10/06 06:32 > De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au > A : blml at rtflb.org > Copie ? : > Objet : [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Imps > > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > You, West, hold: > > 9 > A753 > AKT865 > K2 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 4S Pass Pass > Dble Pass 5S Pass > 5NT (1) Pass 6H Pass > ? (2) > > (1) Do you agree with the 5NT call? > If not, what call would you have made instead? > > (2) What call do you make now? > > > 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/20061004/de7253c6/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Oct 4 13:44:59 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:44:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45239EBB.10602@NTLworld.com> [Richard.hills] > Imps North Nil vul S:9 H:A753 D:AKT865 C:K2 > --- (4S) P (P) > X (P) 5S (P) > 5N (1) (P) 6H (P) > ? (2) > > (1) Do you agree with the 5NT call? > If not, what call would you have made instead? [nige1] 6D=10 5N=6 7D=4 A grand may be on but I would take a conservative view because I have little to spare for my double. Trump quality is important when bad breaks are likely. 6D or 7D is probably better than 6H opposite say S- J8642 Q92 C:AQJ86 > (2) What call do you make now? [nigel] P=10 7D=9 7H=5 Partner is likely to hold the black aces but for a grand I also need third round diamond control and lots of heart /club intermediates From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Oct 4 14:11:53 2006 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:11:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Authorized, Ethical ou Inethical? Message-ID: <00af01c6e7ae$479cec30$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> Hello, Someone asks me an old question and i want your advice : A player holds two touching cards (as king-queen), he can play anyone of those or another one, Q: When he "thinks" a while before playing and want to play a "high" card, must he play a) the biggest one (king) b) the smallest one (the queen) c) anyone of those two cards, and if you says he must use a) or b), please explain accordin to something like a Law, a Rule, a Way of doing accordin to ..., a Writing of ... Thanks, Olivix -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061004/83390231/attachment.htm From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 4 15:02:10 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:02:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:09 PM Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Imps > > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > You, West, hold: > > 9 > A753 > AKT865 > K2 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 4S Pass Pass > Dble Pass 5S Pass > 5NT (1) Pass 6H Pass > ? (2) > > (1) Do you agree with the 5NT call? If 5N is artificial takeout leading to a pass or correct, then what else is there to do? Otherwise it seems a bit odd without S control. > If not, what call would you have made instead? Partner was asking my opinion????? My diamonds are great and my hearts are lousy- 6D. > (2) What call do you make now? As Sherlock said, 'Why didn't the dog bark?' If E had slam forcing values opposite QJT-Ax-AK-xxxxxx [a hand W would have doubled with] why hadn't E entered the auction earlier?-- since he would have needed substantial controls opposite such a hand to produce 12 tricks and if he had them after the double he would have had them before the double. Thus there are too many possible holes to risk being higher than 6 [since you are already there]. regards roger pewick > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 4 15:07:11 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:07:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Authorized, Ethical ou Inethical? In-Reply-To: <00af01c6e7ae$479cec30$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061004150358.0210ae00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:11 4/10/2006 +0200, you wrote: > >A player holds two touching cards (as king-queen), >he can play anyone of those or another one, >Q: When he "thinks" a while before playing and want to play a "high" card, >must he play >a) the biggest one (king) >b) the smallest one (the queen) >c) anyone of those two cards, >and if you says he must use a) or b), please explain accordin to something >like a Law, a Rule, a Way of doing accordin to ..., a Writing of ... The answer, in my philosophy, is "any card that wouldn't decieve opponents". Playing a card that one knows could decieve (in association with the tempo) is an impropriety (L72 ?). Usually, this would mean b) (especially when playing 4th to the trick) but there is no Law about it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061004/668c2264/attachment.htm From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 4 16:16:39 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:16:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Authorized, Ethical ou Inethical? References: <00af01c6e7ae$479cec30$0bb8ec0a@cbbolivier> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Laws Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 7:11 AM Subject: [blml] Authorized, Ethical ou Inethical? Hello, Someone asks me an old question and i want your advice : A player holds two touching cards (as king-queen), he can play anyone of those or another one, Q: When he "thinks" a while before playing and want to play a "high" card, must he play a) the biggest one (king) b) the smallest one (the queen) c) anyone of those two cards, and if you says he must use a) or b), please explain accordin to something like a Law, a Rule, a Way of doing accordin to ..., a Writing of ... Thanks, Olivix I suggest that it is a breach of propriety to intend to deceive an opponent if you have UI that could suggest it would be advantageous. I suggest that it is a breach of propriety to intend to deceive an opponent if in doing so you break tempo thereby alerting partner to the possible deviation from agreement. Intent in such situations rarely comes out- that is why it is a matter of propriety. It follows [whether or not intent is present] that it is appropriate to take the effort to avoid deviations [significant or substantial] from agreement if you fail to maintain good tempo or if partner has created UI that could suggest advantage in deviation. These principles are essentially embodied in L73. As such, it is a matter of propriety for a partnership to have a mastery of its agreements. Considering your example, once you have broken tempo you need to strive to play the systemic card. regards roger pewick From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 4 16:50:33 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:50:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <200610030158.SAA23119@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061004164808.021017b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:16 2/10/2006 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Yesterday, we opened 1NT and heard a 2D overcall, which turned out to > > have an illegal meaning. This was in a team match, and the board had > > not yet been played at the other table. What should the ruling have > > been? (The TD had us redeal, which was fine with us, but I have no idea > > whether it was technically correct.) It seems within TD's rights, but I don't like this. Suppose a pair plays that some non-essential opening (say, 2H) could be anything. That's an illegal convention. When they envision problems because the system deals badly with their current hand, they open 2H (not too often, of course). Problem solved. There should be, at the very least, a PP for isung an illegal convention Regards Alain From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 4 17:52:59 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:52:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:50:33 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20061004164808.021017b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200610041534.IAA06164@mailhub.irvine.com> > At 19:16 2/10/2006 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > > > Yesterday, we opened 1NT and heard a 2D overcall, which turned out to > > > have an illegal meaning. This was in a team match, and the board had > > > not yet been played at the other table. What should the ruling have > > > been? (The TD had us redeal, which was fine with us, but I have no idea > > > whether it was technically correct.) > > It seems within TD's rights, but I don't like this. > > Suppose a pair plays that some non-essential opening (say, 2H) could be > anything. That's an illegal convention. When they envision problems because > the system deals badly with their current hand, they open 2H (not too > often, of course). Problem solved. > There should be, at the very least, a PP for isung an illegal convention To clear up any possible confusion, the part you quoted was actually written by Steve Willner, not me. Anyway, I tend to agree with you, except that if a pair is using an illegal convention because (1) the convention regulations or charts involved are ambiguous or difficult to understand, so that they might reasonably think they're using a legal convention, or (2) the convention used to be legal but was recently made illegal, then a PP might not be appropriate---some other solution is needed. -- Adam From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Oct 4 18:35:42 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:35:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005b01c6e7d3$229e6740$2401a8c0@Karel3200> Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil You, West, hold: 9 A753 AKT865 K2 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 4S Pass Pass Dble Pass 5S Pass 5NT (1) Pass 6H Pass ? (2) (1) Do you agree with the 5NT call? If not, what call would you have made instead? +++ under pressure double. Can't see what the point to 5NT is. Your diamonds are stronger by tons and you protect CKx should you need to. I Bid 6D's. 5NT I would take as slam forcing sniffing around for 7. (2) What call do you make now? +++ Magic hand CA, SA, HKQxxxx no diamond loser with pd?? Never happenes - too many precise cards needed. What would 4NT have been RKC ?? I barely have an initial double, rubbish hearts, singleton spade, need CA from pd - not to mind what meaning pd attached to 5NT and is bidding accordingly ... I pass. K. From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Oct 4 18:58:52 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <200610041534.IAA06164@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061004164808.021017b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200610041534.IAA06164@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0610040958g7fa5bb4fma8db2990dfe5d09d@mail.gmail.com> > Anyway, I tend to agree with you, except that if a pair is using an > illegal convention because (1) the convention regulations or charts > involved are ambiguous or difficult to understand, so that they might > reasonably think they're using a legal convention, or (2) the > convention used to be legal but was recently made illegal, then a PP > might not be appropriate---some other solution is needed. > > -- Adam Adam brings up a very good point: In many cases players have no idea what is/is not legal to play at any given event. I'd be very hesitant about imposing proceedural penalties on players when the blame might rightfully lie with the local regulatory structure. Case in point - I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this infraction occured at an ACBL game that, more likely than not, occured within District 25. The ACBL is actually quite liberal regarding choice of methods that can be used to defend against the opponent's NT openings. However, a few year back that ACBL made these defenses a bit more restrictive, requiring that "Direct calls, other than 2C or double must have at least one known suit" As I recall, this change was somewhat controversial and the ACBL meadered back and forth before finally writing things in stone. This change peeved a few people, some of whom had the political clout to be able to get local exceptions carved into the rules. For example, within District 25, Howard Pitch was able to get an exception made that permited players to play "Pitch" over NT opening in direct seat. [The method is know as suction everywhere else in the world]. Unfortunately, these types of efforts create an awful lot of confusion. Admittedly, I haven't played in an ACBL event in five years or so, however, I was never quite sure what was/was not legal at any given tournament. Accordingly, I'd have a fair amount of sympathy for other players who don't understand what idiosyncratic version of the GCC is being enforced at any given point in time. -- "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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 5 00:50:34 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:50:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: When a positron meets its equal but opposite anti- particle, an electron, they annihilate each other. Does this also happen when authorised information meets an equal but opposite amount of unauthorised information? European Championships, Warsaw 2006, Appeal 4 Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil KQJ7643 2 7 Q765 9 AT5 A753 KQJT4 AKT865 3 K2 AJ84 82 986 QJ942 T93 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 4S Pass(1) Pass Dble Pass 5S Pass 5NT Pass 6H Pass 7H Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo Result: 13 tricks, NS -1510 The Facts: The NPC of North/South called the Director at the end of the match. East had taken a very long time before passing over 4S, and again in the next round of bidding. North/South objected to the double and to the raise to 7H. The Director: Ascertained that East had indeed taken a long time, and that West had acknowledged this at the table, and decided to allow the late call and rule that there had been unauthorized information. The Director consulted with a number of players, asking them what they would have done with the West hand (not mentioning the break in tempo, of course). All the players would have doubled, and all were thinking about raising to 7H, but not all eventually would have. When told about the hesitation, all players agreed that it made no difference, since all the information they needed was contained in the bid of 5S. Consequently, the Director ruled that there had been no logical alternative to the Double, and that the unauthorized information had not suggested the raise to 7H. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16A North/South appealed. Present: All players and the Captains and Coaches of both teams The Players: All concurred that there had been a break in tempo. East admitted to thinking for a long time. The captain of North/South, who had been sitting on the North/East side stated that he had looked at his watch after one minute and that five more minutes had gone by before East passed. West confirmed that the delay had been "a couple of minutes". The captain of East/West, who had also been sitting on the North/East side, called it "a couple of minutes" too. As to the alleged break in tempo in the second round of bidding,West did not agree that it had occurred. The tray may have returned "somewhat slower" but one has to accept that as normal at this level of bidding. The Captain of North/ South stated he had timed it to 4 minutes. The Director told the Committee that the table had not been in real time troubles, but that the match finished with only a 2 or 3 minutes left on the clock. For that reason, and because West did not dispute the break in tempo, he had accepted to consider the case even despite the late call. North/South, by way of their captain, stated that they did not contest that East had no Logical Alternatives to his double, and that they accepted that call. They did not accept however, that 5S should have shown the CA. With the same hand but only the CQ instead of the ace, East could also have bid 5S. The break in tempo helped in reducing that possibility. With the extra information, 7H became an "educated gamble". North/South pointed to the fact that not all players that had been consulted had raised to 7H, which surely must have meant that passing was a logical alternative. Combined with the undeniable unauthorized information, that must lead to an adjusted score. West stated that in order for East to bid 5S, he needed to have HKQ fifth and the two black aces. He had bid 5NT in order to find out what 5S was based on, and raised to seven when he found out it was based on hearts. He would have passed 6C. He did not believe his partner could have had a two-suited hand, since he would have bid 4NT with that. The Committee: Ruled that there had been a significant break in tempo by East on the first round of bidding (the Committee preferred to call it "4 or 5 minutes" to "a couple of minutes"), but not on the second round. The Committee found that 5S did indeed show a very great hand, and should be considered a grand slam invitation. The call was very close. But in the end, the feeling in the Committee prevailed that a break in tempo of 4-5 minutes is very long and contains substantial unauthorized information, and that a player ought to be bending backwards in trying not to take advantage of it. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to 6H by East, making 13 tricks, NS -1010. Deposit: Returned Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 5 02:11:11 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:11:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick Message-ID: It is commonly accepted in my neck of the woods (Rochester, NY) that a defender is permitted to point out to his partner that he has turned his card of the just completed trick the wrong way, so long as he does so "right away" (whatever that means). However, I am told by others, mostly not in the ACBL, that it is illegal to do so. I can find no law which explicitly addresses this question, no law that authorizes it and none that expressly forbid it. I did find, howver, that in minute #8 of its 24 September 1998 meeting, the WBFLC said "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." It appears to me, then, that a defender should not tell his partner that he has turned a card the wrong way, in that doing so is "extraneous", and not proper procedure. However, if a player does so, the act is no more an infraction than is the passing of UI by other means, for example by hesitating. The legal infraction, if one were to occur, would be the use of the extraneous information by its recipient (the player who had his card turned wrong). Am I right so far? Assuming I am, how the Hell is anyone supposed to tell that a player in fact did commit that infraction? If I'm right, both the local position (it's okay to tell him) and the "other" positions (that it is completely illegal to tell him) are wrong. But if I'm right, the law in this case is IMO very difficult, if not impossible, to administer. Personally, I hope someone can tell me (and point to a legal basis) either that I and the local position are both wrong, and that the "other" position is right. Failing that, that I'm right , and there really is an easy way to deal with it. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 5 02:39:39 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:39:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick References: Message-ID: <007201c6e816$bf216840$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" >(snip)> > It appears to me, then, that a defender should not tell his partner > that he has turned a card the wrong way, in that doing so is > "extraneous", and not proper procedure. However, if a player does so, > the act is no more an infraction than is the passing of UI by other > means, for example by hesitating. The legal infraction, if one were > to occur, would be the use of the extraneous information by its > recipient (the player who had his card turned wrong). > > Am I right so far? Not quite. The deliberate generation of UI to help partner (unlike a hesitation) is in itself an infraction of Law 73A1: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. > > Assuming I am, how the Hell is anyone supposed to tell that a player > in fact did commit that infraction? You mean by profiting from the UI. Impossible to tell, of course. > > If I'm right, both the local position (it's okay to tell him) and the > "other" positions (that it is completely illegal to tell him) are > wrong. But if I'm right, the law in this case is IMO very difficult, > if not impossible, to administer. Personally, I hope someone can tell > me (and point to a legal basis) either that I and the local position > are both wrong, and that the "other" position is right. Failing that, > that I'm right , and there really is an easy way to deal with it. > One does not help partner, and the ACBL's exercise of the option to do so in some situations is deplorable. This is not one of those situations, and the TD should lecture an offender with threat of a PP should the practice be repeated. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 5 02:50:36 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:50:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Who's in charge? Message-ID: <01EDDF5B-1699-476B-9915-5876328CD4D5@rochester.rr.com> In the minutes of its 11 January 2000 meeting, the WBFLC said, in minute 2, "Mr. Cohen drew attention to the disparity between the by- law of the WBF which requires the committee to interpret the laws and the statutes of the ACBL which prescribe that this power shall be exercised within its area of jurisdiction by the ACBL. It was agreed that the matter is one to be addressed by the by the Executive Council and Messrs. Kooijman, Cohen, Endicott, Polisner and Wignall were deputed to prepare a written submission to the Executive Council." Did anything ever come of that? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Oct 5 08:59:17 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:59:17 -0700 Subject: [blml] Who's in charge? References: <01EDDF5B-1699-476B-9915-5876328CD4D5@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <009401c6e84b$c7a35840$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > In the minutes of its 11 January 2000 meeting, the WBFLC said, in > minute 2, "Mr. Cohen drew attention to the disparity between the by- > law of the WBF which requires the committee to interpret the laws and > the statutes of the ACBL which prescribe that this power shall be > exercised within its area of jurisdiction by the ACBL. It was agreed > that the matter is one to be addressed by the by the Executive > Council and Messrs. Kooijman, Cohen, Endicott, Polisner and Wignall > were deputed to prepare a written submission to the Executive > Council." Did anything ever come of that? > The ACBL has always acted as if the WBFLC does not exist. Here is what the ACBL By-laws say: "There shall be an ACBL Laws Commission which will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission." The ACBL joined the WBF and agreed to abide by its by-laws, which say that the WBFLC is responsible for writing and interpreting the Laws. There is nothing to address, other than compliance by the ACBL with WBF By-laws. The ACBL should be barred from hosting any WBF event until it recognizes that the ACBLLC is subordinate to the WBFLC. One set of rules for the game of bridge, centrally controlled, that's what players want. Should their wish be ignored? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From geller at nifty.com Thu Oct 5 09:45:51 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:45:51 +0900 Subject: [blml] Who's in charge? In-Reply-To: <009401c6e84b$c7a35840$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <009401c6e84b$c7a35840$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200610050745.AA05701@geller204.nifty.com> I took a look at the relevant parts of the WBF Constitution: http://www.worldbridge.org/administration/constitution/constitution.asp Article 2 Purpose to establish standard laws for its contests adopting the International Code and supplementing it as may be required, but not inconsistent with it; and Bylaws: http://www.worldbridge.org/administration/constitution/by-laws.asp 8.8. Laws Committee The President shall appoint a Laws Committee and shall designate the Chairman of such Committee. The Committee shall consist of not less than seven members representing at least three Zones. The function and duty of this Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall make whatever changes in the laws it deems appropriate, subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. The Laws Committee shall fix its own rules of procedure and shall act as provided by such rules or by direction of the Executive. Thus nothing in the WBF Constitution or Bylaws obligates its members to follow WBFLC decisions for its own national contests. as "the international laws of bridge" are not necessarily binding on the ACBL. So whether or not one regards this situation as best (I agree with Marvin that one world-wide common set of laws/interpretation would be better) the ACBL isn't doing anything inconsistent with the WBF Constitution and ByLaws as they now stand. IIRC, the copyright to the Laws of Bridge were originally in the ACBL for the Western hemisphere and the Portland Club for the rest of the world. The latter has now assigned its rights to (?) WBF or EBU or ?, I'm not sure, but the ACBL still has its copyright I believe. FWIW I'd be happy to see global unification of laws but it would be nice if active ACBL members pushed for this. (I'm an American and still belong and pay dues, but I've lived in Japan for 22 years now.) Best, Bob Marvin French writes: > >From: "Ed Reppert" > >> In the minutes of its 11 January 2000 meeting, the WBFLC said, in >> minute 2, "Mr. Cohen drew attention to the disparity between the >by- >> law of the WBF which requires the committee to interpret the laws >and >> the statutes of the ACBL which prescribe that this power shall be >> exercised within its area of jurisdiction by the ACBL. It was >agreed >> that the matter is one to be addressed by the by the Executive >> Council and Messrs. Kooijman, Cohen, Endicott, Polisner and >Wignall >> were deputed to prepare a written submission to the Executive >> Council." Did anything ever come of that? >> >The ACBL has always acted as if the WBFLC does not exist. Here is >what the ACBL By-laws say: > >"There shall be an ACBL Laws Commission which will prepare the Laws >under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. >These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the >Commission." > >The ACBL joined the WBF and agreed to abide by its by-laws, which >say that the WBFLC is responsible for writing and interpreting the >Laws. There is nothing to address, other than compliance by the ACBL >with WBF By-laws. The ACBL should be barred from hosting any WBF >event until it recognizes that the ACBLLC is subordinate to the >WBFLC. > >One set of rules for the game of bridge, centrally controlled, >that's what players want. Should their wish be ignored? > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California >www.marvinfrench.com ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 5 09:57:31 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:57:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >It is commonly accepted in my neck of the woods (Rochester, NY) >that a defender is permitted to point out to his partner that >he has turned his card of the just completed trick the wrong >way, so long as he does so "right away" (whatever that means). >However, I am told by others, mostly not in the ACBL, that it >is illegal to do so. I can find no law which explicitly >addresses this question, no law that authorizes it and none >that expressly forbid it. [big snip] Law 65B: >>Keeping Track of the Ownership of Tricks >> >>1. Tricks Won >> >>If the player's side has won the trick, the card is pointed >>lengthwise toward his partner. >> >>2. Tricks Lost >> >>If the opponents have won the trick, the card is pointed >>lengthwise toward the opponents. Law 9A2(a): >>Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may >>call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the >>play period. Richard Hills: Failure to comply with Law 65B is an irregularity. Since a defender is not prohibited by Law 65 to draw attention to a Law 65B irregularity, Law 9A2(a) permits a defender to do so. _Dummy_, however, is specifically prohibited by Law 9B2(b)(1) from drawing declarer's attention to a Law 65B irregularity by declarer. Some players and National Bridge Organisations have suggested that in next year's Lawbook Law 65B gives a special exemption to dummy to allow dummy to do so "right away", that is before declarer's side plays to the next trick. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 5 15:55:28 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:55:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061005093931.02b97390@pop.starpower.net> At 08:11 PM 10/4/06, Ed wrote: >It is commonly accepted in my neck of the woods (Rochester, NY) that >a defender is permitted to point out to his partner that he has >turned his card of the just completed trick the wrong way, so long as >he does so "right away" (whatever that means). However, I am told by >others, mostly not in the ACBL, that it is illegal to do so. I can >find no law which explicitly addresses this question, no law that >authorizes it and none that expressly forbid it. I did find, howver, >that in minute #8 of its 24 September 1998 meeting, the WBFLC said >"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." > >It appears to me, then, that a defender should not tell his partner >that he has turned a card the wrong way, in that doing so is >"extraneous", and not proper procedure. However, if a player does so, >the act is no more an infraction than is the passing of UI by other >means, for example by hesitating. The legal infraction, if one were >to occur, would be the use of the extraneous information by its >recipient (the player who had his card turned wrong). > >Am I right so far? > >Assuming I am, how the Hell is anyone supposed to tell that a player >in fact did commit that infraction? > >If I'm right, both the local position (it's okay to tell him) and the >"other" positions (that it is completely illegal to tell him) are >wrong. But if I'm right, the law in this case is IMO very difficult, >if not impossible, to administer. Personally, I hope someone can tell >me (and point to a legal basis) either that I and the local position >are both wrong, and that the "other" position is right. Failing that, >that I'm right , and there really is an easy way to deal with it. The ACBL permits this practice. The placement of the turned card is prescribed by L65B, thus turning it the wrong way is an irregularity. L9A2(a) permits "...either defender [to] call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period". (Of course, everyone routinely violates L9B1(a) and L9B2 in this situation, but that is harmless.) It is, however, still an "extraneous" action, and the usual rules with respect to UI apply. If the player who has been informed that he misturned the trick would have had a logical alternative play given his (previously) incorrect count of the tricks, and his knowledge of the correct count might have suggested the play he took over its LA(s), he has violated L16A, and an adjustment is in order. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Oct 5 16:40:45 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:40:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Who's in charge? In-Reply-To: <009401c6e84b$c7a35840$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin L French writes: One set of rules for the game of bridge, centrally controlled, that's what players want. Should their wish be ignored? ______________________________________________________________ I fully agree. But our US friends are the only one not still using the metric system.... it is coming from elsewhwere.... Jus kidding. Happily, some ACBL members (Marv and me) think we need international Laws. Laval Du Breuil ACBL Star Teacher and TD Quebec City From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 5 17:51:39 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:51:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061005175039.020eabb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:50 5/10/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Consequently, the Director ruled that there had >been no logical alternative to the Double Did he really say that ? Did a vast majority of the players double when given the hand ?? From herman at hdw.be Thu Oct 5 18:27:31 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:27:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061005175039.020eabb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061005175039.020eabb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <45253273.7080608@hdw.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 08:50 5/10/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >>Consequently, the Director ruled that there had >>been no logical alternative to the Double > > > Did he really say that ? Did a vast majority of the players double when > given the hand ?? > You should read the total - before the "consequently" the opponents did not push for a ruling on the double, conceding that they considered it without LAs. Consequently, the Director ruled thusly. I don't believe the question was ever asked of the players. Nor did they comment out of themselves, probably. -- 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: 268.12.13/463 - Release Date: 4/10/2006 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 6 00:29:15 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 08:29:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills asks: >When a positron meets its equal but opposite anti- >particle, an electron, they annihilate each other. > >Does this also happen when authorised information >meets an equal but opposite amount of unauthorised >information? Director's ruling: >>... When told about the hesitation, all players >>agreed that it made no difference, since all the >>information they needed was contained in the bid >>of 5S. >> >>Consequently, the Director ruled that ... the >>unauthorized information had not suggested the >>raise to 7H. Richard Hills answers: In my opinion, given that there is a logical alternative to 7H of Pass, it does not matter that both the AI and the UI seem(1) to promise identical values. The UI still demonstrably suggests that 7H will be more successful than the other logical alternative of Pass, so under Law 16 it is irrelevant that the AI also demonstrably suggests that 7H will be more successful than Pass. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 (1) Although in this particular case it could be argued that the AI and UI are not identical, since the lengthy hesitation before passing demonstrably suggests that that Pass was a timid misbid. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 6 00:58:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Live exam question In-Reply-To: <4521C718.4040109@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Well, I see your point, but I still think this interpretation is > going too far when it has the effect of retracting an explicit > permission. I don't retract the permission to enquire of declarer. Indeed if the attention of partner is not drawn to his revoke by a question of declarer there is no problem, but if the effect of the question is to draw attention I'll decide it's a form of illegal communication between partners and impose revoke penalties according to the law. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 6 00:58:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: The thinking over 4S and the 5S bid are compatible with Ax,KT9xx,x,AQJxx. 5N must show a degree of interest in a grand and I am surprised that East bid only 6H at that point, and in tempo. A slow 6H bid would surely show extras in the H suit and render 7H illegal but since NS didn't suggest such a break I can't see anything in the UI to suggest bidding on over passing 6H. Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 6 05:16:45 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:16:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads assessment: >The thinking over 4S and the 5S bid are compatible >with Ax,KT9xx,x,AQJxx. The actual West's assessment of 5S: >>West stated that in order for East to bid 5S, he >>needed to have HKQ fifth and the two black aces. >>He did not believe his partner could have had a >>two-suited hand, since he would have bid 4NT with >>that. Tim West-Meads assessment: >5N must show a degree of interest in a grand and I >am surprised that East bid only 6H at that point, >and in tempo. The actual West's assessment of 5NT: >>He had bid 5NT in order to find out what 5S was >>based on, and raised to seven when he found out >>it was based on hearts. He would have passed 6C. Tim West-Meads assessment: >A slow 6H bid would surely show extras in the H >suit and render 7H illegal but since NS didn't >suggest such a break I can't see anything in the >UI to suggest bidding on over passing 6H. Richard Hills assessment: Since a peer of the East-West partnership, West himself, believes that East's 5S denies a two- suited hand, and that West's 5NT is not a grand slam try but instead a choice of slams query, it seems to me that Tim's conclusion is based on the false premise that Tim's style in high-level competitive slam auctions is uniformly consistent with the style of other experts. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 6 05:38:56 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:38:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who's in charge? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009401c6e84b$c7a35840$6501a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Marvin L. French asserted: >The ACBL has always acted as if the WBFLC does not exist. Here >is what the ACBL By-laws say: > >"There shall be an ACBL Laws Commission which will prepare the >Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will >be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised >periodically by the Commission." [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Marv's assertion is just silly. The ACBL By-laws state "will prepare", not "will *exclusively* prepare", thus permitting the ACBL to join with The Portland Club, the EBL and the WBF in *collectively* preparing the new Lawbook in consultation with each other. And, indeed, the ACBL Laws Commission is acting as if the WBF LC does exist, since this *collective* periodical review and revision is now 90% finished. Of course, as Law 90/90 states, "The first 90% of the work in redrafting the Lawbook takes 90% of the time. The remaining 10% of the work in redrafting the Lawbook takes the other 90% of the time." :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Fri Oct 6 08:54:06 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:54:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4525FD8E.7060807@hdw.be> Richard uses an interpretation which does not seem universally accepted: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills asks: > > >>When a positron meets its equal but opposite anti- >>particle, an electron, they annihilate each other. >> >>Does this also happen when authorised information >>meets an equal but opposite amount of unauthorised >>information? > > > Director's ruling: > > >>>... When told about the hesitation, all players >>>agreed that it made no difference, since all the >>>information they needed was contained in the bid >>>of 5S. >>> >>>Consequently, the Director ruled that ... the >>>unauthorized information had not suggested the >>>raise to 7H. > > > Richard Hills answers: > > In my opinion, given that there is a logical > alternative to 7H of Pass, it does not matter that > both the AI and the UI seem(1) to promise identical > values. > > The UI still demonstrably suggests that 7H will be > more successful than the other logical alternative > of Pass, so under Law 16 it is irrelevant that the > AI also demonstrably suggests that 7H will be more > successful than Pass. > I believe that a more accepted interpretation is that once there is AI of the same content as UI, the UI restrictions fall away. This is the interpretation needed when we are ruling in very simple cases of UI. Say your partner alerts your 2C Stayman and explains it as Stayman. You have UI that he has interpreted it as Stayman, and you also have AI that he should interpret it as Stayman. Surely you can make a case which insists that there are LA's to your next bid, and that this next bid is influenced by the UI. But we don't put restrictions on you, do we? I feel that the same must be true in the case above. If we decide that the 5S bid contains the same information as the hesitation, then we should rule that the UI has "dissapeared" and there are no longer restrictions on the player. (I'm talking hypothetically here - mind you!) -- 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: 268.12.13/463 - Release Date: 4/10/2006 From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Thu Oct 5 22:01:44 2006 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:01:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick Message-ID: <14755576.62801160078504539.JavaMail.www@wwinf1524> I think law 73 "communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves" supplant law 9....... So.... > Message du 05/10/06 02:39 > De : "Ed Reppert" > A : "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Copie ? : > Objet : [blml] Pointing out who won the trick > > It is commonly accepted in my neck of the woods (Rochester, NY) that > a defender is permitted to point out to his partner that he has > turned his card of the just completed trick the wrong way, so long as > he does so "right away" (whatever that means). However, I am told by > others, mostly not in the ACBL, that it is illegal to do so. I can > find no law which explicitly addresses this question, no law that > authorizes it and none that expressly forbid it. I did find, howver, > that in minute #8 of its 24 September 1998 meeting, the WBFLC said > "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." > > It appears to me, then, that a defender should not tell his partner > that he has turned a card the wrong way, in that doing so is > "extraneous", and not proper procedure. However, if a player does so, > the act is no more an infraction than is the passing of UI by other > means, for example by hesitating. The legal infraction, if one were > to occur, would be the use of the extraneous information by its > recipient (the player who had his card turned wrong). > > Am I right so far? > > Assuming I am, how the Hell is anyone supposed to tell that a player > in fact did commit that infraction? > > If I'm right, both the local position (it's okay to tell him) and the > "other" positions (that it is completely illegal to tell him) are > wrong. But if I'm right, the law in this case is IMO very difficult, > if not impossible, to administer. Personally, I hope someone can tell > me (and point to a legal basis) either that I and the local position > are both wrong, and that the "other" position is right. Failing that, > that I'm right , and there really is an easy way to deal with it. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20061005/052890ff/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 6 10:28:30 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:28:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4525FD8E.7060807@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I believe that a more accepted interpretation is that once there is >AI of the same content as UI, the UI restrictions fall away. > >This is the interpretation needed when we are ruling in very simple >cases of UI. Say your partner alerts your 2C Stayman and explains >it as Stayman. You have UI that he has interpreted it as Stayman, >and you also have AI that he should interpret it as Stayman. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, only an _unexpected_ alert and/or an _unexpected_ explanation creates UI. So, in my opinion, it is not a true analogy. Of course, pard's alert and explanation would be UI to you if you had had a senior moment and had suddenly forgotten that you were playing Stayman. :-) Herman De Wael: >I feel that the same must be true in the case above. If we decide >that the 5S bid contains the same information as the hesitation, >then we should rule that the UI has "disappeared" and there are no >longer restrictions on the player. > >(I'm talking hypothetically here - mind you!) Richard Hills: In the case above, there was unexpected UI created by pard's slow Pass, the unexpected UI did demonstrably suggest that you bid more rather than less, and after pard's next bid of 5S there were still two logical alternatives for you - Pass and 7H - on the final round of the auction. So my hypothetical argument is that UI from partner, once created, would only "disappear" if a later bid from partner causes demonstrably suggested logical alternatives to be identical to the only logical alternatives. Perhaps we are only debating semantics. Perhaps if the 5S call did indeed show identical values to the previous slow Pass, then 7H would indeed be the only logical alternative. Perhaps the real problem is that a somewhat wide-ranging 5S call was defined as top-of-the-range by the hesitation on the previous round. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 6 11:04:03 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:04:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4525FD8E.7060807@hdw.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061006105757.020f5d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:54 6/10/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I believe that a more accepted interpretation is that once there is AI >of the same content as UI, the UI restrictions fall away. I agree. One application is the use of a forcing pass (provided it is unambiguously forcing) after tempo. Both convey the meaning of doubt. Another is when both partner and opponents simultaneously transmit information (like enquiring for a revoke). >I feel that the same must be true in the case above. If we decide that >the 5S bid contains the same information as the hesitation, then we >should rule that the UI has "dissapeared" and there are no longer >restrictions on the player. I don't think the information is the same here, but your hypotheticodeductive formulation is right. Regards Alain From herman at hdw.be Fri Oct 6 11:39:38 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:39:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4526245A.8050105@hdw.be> Hello Richard, this is an interesting discussion, which is why I want to go through your argumentation: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > >>I believe that a more accepted interpretation is that once there is >>AI of the same content as UI, the UI restrictions fall away. >> >>This is the interpretation needed when we are ruling in very simple >>cases of UI. Say your partner alerts your 2C Stayman and explains >>it as Stayman. You have UI that he has interpreted it as Stayman, >>and you also have AI that he should interpret it as Stayman. > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, only an _unexpected_ alert and/or an _unexpected_ > explanation creates UI. So, in my opinion, it is not a true analogy. > The definition of UI says nothing about something being _unexpected_. I believe your argumentation is false here. > Of course, pard's alert and explanation would be UI to you if you had > had a senior moment and had suddenly forgotten that you were playing > Stayman. > > :-) > of course ;) > Herman De Wael: > > >>I feel that the same must be true in the case above. If we decide >>that the 5S bid contains the same information as the hesitation, >>then we should rule that the UI has "disappeared" and there are no >>longer restrictions on the player. >> >>(I'm talking hypothetically here - mind you!) > > > Richard Hills: > > In the case above, there was unexpected UI created by pard's slow > Pass, the unexpected UI did demonstrably suggest that you bid more > rather than less, and after pard's next bid of 5S there were still > two logical alternatives for you - Pass and 7H - on the final round of > the auction. > That is just a repeat of the case - nothing new here. Adding the word "unexpected" is only useful if that word were of any use. As I say, there is no need for UI to be "expected" or not. UI is UI. > So my hypothetical argument is that UI from partner, once created, > would only "disappear" if a later bid from partner causes demonstrably > suggested logical alternatives to be identical to the only logical > alternatives. > And that is precisely what I am trying to negate. This is the conclusion of your argument, which I am trying to disprove, not some starting point. Your premises are wrong (by their use of the word "unexpected"), so your conclusion is wrong as well. If UI can be negated by AI, then this is the case for all UI (expected or not), and the end result is that there are not L16 restrictions, and all alternatives (suggested or not) are available to the recipient of the A/UI. > Perhaps we are only debating semantics. Perhaps if the 5S call did > indeed show identical values to the previous slow Pass, then 7H would > indeed be the only logical alternative. Perhaps the real problem is > that a somewhat wide-ranging 5S call was defined as top-of-the-range > by the hesitation on the previous round. > Exactly, and I stand by the decision I helped to form in Warszawa, but only because we deemed the UI to be larger than the AI, not because it remains even in the presence of AI. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae -- 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: 268.13.0/464 - Release Date: 5/10/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 6 14:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Tim West-Meads assessment: > > >The thinking over 4S and the 5S bid are compatible > >with Ax,KT9xx,x,AQJxx. > > The actual West's assessment of 5S: > > >>West stated that in order for East to bid 5S, he > >>needed to have HKQ fifth and the two black aces. This is incompatible with West's 5N - since if East is showing that West can bid 7H straight away. I suspect West meant that bidding 5S followed by 6H must show at least that. OTOH: The Committee found that 5S did indeed show a very great hand, and should be considered a grand slam invitation. BTW I don't think KQ fifth and two aces is incompatible with having grand slam *interest* but one might be hesitant to bid 5S with a KQ 3rag suit. West's beliefs as to the meaning of 5S are irrelevant to the length of time it took to bid - it is what *East* believes the bid to show that will affect that. > >>He did not believe his partner could have had a > >>two-suited hand, since he would have bid 4NT with > >>that. > Tim West-Meads assessment: > > >5N must show a degree of interest in a grand and I > >am surprised that East bid only 6H at that point, > >and in tempo. > > The actual West's assessment of 5NT: > > >>He had bid 5NT in order to find out what 5S was > >>based on, and raised to seven when he found out > >>it was based on hearts. He would have passed 6C. Why is planning to pass 6C and bid 7H over 6H not a degree of interest in grand? > Tim West-Meads assessment: > > >A slow 6H bid would surely show extras in the H > >suit and render 7H illegal but since NS didn't > >suggest such a break I can't see anything in the > >UI to suggest bidding on over passing 6H. > > Richard Hills assessment: > > Since a peer of the East-West partnership, West > himself, believes that East's 5S denies a two- > suited hand, West might believe that - East clearly doesn't:) > and that West's 5NT is not a grand > slam try but instead a choice of slams query, it It can't be a "choice of slams" query if partner has (in his eyes) denied a 2 suiter. If he was planning to pass 6C nor is he playing partner for a strong 3 suiter. Thus he must believe that partner has a strong single suiter prepared to go to the 6 level and, having chosen to go via 5S rather than directly, must also have grand slam interest. Of course if West believes that the 6H bid now shows a strong single-suiter with H he has no LA to bidding 7H. > seems to me that Tim's conclusion is based on the > false premise that Tim's style in high-level > competitive slam auctions is uniformly consistent > with the style of other experts. I don't think "other experts" is correct usage since I'm not an expert player myself. West's testimony is self-serving (since it gives him no LA to 7H) and while it *may* be the gospel truth I believed a pinch of salt should be applied as to possible alternative interpretations to the auction (mainly because the evidence from the bidding says that East was not on the same page as West's explanations). BTW does anyone else find the following a bit curious: > But in the end, the feeling in the Committee > prevailed that a break in tempo of 4-5 minutes > is very long and contains substantial > unauthorized information Perhaps it's because I'm not an expert but after 20 seconds I know partner has "a problem" and can draw some inferences about the sort of hand he has. After a further 3m50secs I'm none the wiser - once he has broken tempo *at all* (and thus made UI available) he has made his own problem more complex because he has to plan the bidding knowing I have UI. I can't think of a single instance where the *length* of thought (either by partner or my opps) has given me additional clues about their holdings. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 6 14:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > In my opinion, given that there is a logical > alternative to 7H of Pass, it does not matter that > both the AI and the UI seem(1) to promise identical > values. Parsing UI is a two-step process. The first step is do identify the content value of the extraneous action, ie. "What do I know about partner's hand from the EA that I do not know from the legal auction?" and then "What action does that information suggest over another?" If partner alerts when you expect him to alert or thinks at point in the auction when you expect him to have to think (e.g. you've just made an undiscussed call and you know he'll need time to work out the meaning) the content value is zero. The content is also zero if the AI subsumes the UI. > The UI still demonstrably suggests that 7H will be > more successful than the other logical alternative > of Pass, so under Law 16 it is irrelevant that the > AI also demonstrably suggests that 7H will be more > successful than Pass. That doesn't matter if the AI and UI *promise* identical values. It might matter if it's a case of probability. e.g. The AI makes it 70% likely that pard has the H queen, the UI also makes it 70% likely that pard has the HQ *but based on different logic* thus the combined "identical" AI/UI make it 90% likely that pard has the HQ. Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 6 17:31:40 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:31:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain Message-ID: <452676DC.2090505@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Herman De Wael > I believe that a more accepted interpretation is that once there is AI > of the same content as UI, the UI restrictions fall away. I'd put it somewhat differently, though the result will often be the same as Herman's. 1) The AI determines the LA's. 2) UI that is the same as AI will seldom if ever suggest one LA over another. However, if in some rare case the UI does suggest one over another (perhaps in Tim's probableistic sense), the usual rules apply. From: "Tim West-Meads" > I can't think of a single instance where the *length* of thought > (either by partner or my opps) has given me additional clues about their > holdings. We've seen examples of that in the past, though I'm unable to offer one at this instant. I agree the length of break often isn't significant, but it can be. What I'm having trouble with in the 7H case is "suggested over another." Why does the long pause over 4S suggest extra strength even beyond what was shown by the cue and 6H bid? Couldn't a similar hand missing the C-A but with extra minor honors just as easily think for a long time after 4S? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 6 18:03:59 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:03:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention In-Reply-To: <200610041512.k94FCVIC008571@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610041512.k94FCVIC008571@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45267E6F.9000504@cfa.harvard.edu> [if the remedy for an illegal convention is to redeal] > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Suppose a pair plays that some non-essential opening (say, 2H) could be > anything. That's an illegal convention. When they envision problems because > the system deals badly with their current hand, they open 2H (not too > often, of course). Problem solved. Alain isn't devious enough. Whenever a villain has a bidding problem (provided the board hasn't been played before), he just explains one of partner's bids as something illegal. No need for prior arrangement or to sacrifice a perfectly useful 2H bid. From: "richard willey" > In many cases players have no idea > what is/is not legal to play at any given event. True. > "Direct calls, other than 2C or double must have at least one known suit" This is indeed the ACBL GCC rule over an opening 1NT. Notice it forbids the traditional 2NT "cue bid" showing a strong, unbalanced, but otherwise undefined hand. > within District 25, Howard Pitch was able to get an exception made > that permited players to play "Pitch" over NT opening in direct seat. > [The method is know as suction everywhere else in the world]. My case was indeed in D25 (though a sectional, not a regional). I've never heard of the exception before, thus proving Richard's first point. Neither (apparently) had the director, though the exception would not have been relevant in the actual case. (Opponents were playing 2D as an unspecified major.) From the absence of authoritative responses, it seems no one knows what the correct ACBL procedure is. I'll ask Memphis. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 18:07:13 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:07:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > When a positron meets its equal but opposite anti- > particle, an electron, they annihilate each other. > > Does this also happen when authorised information > meets an equal but opposite amount of unauthorised > information? > > European Championships, Warsaw 2006, Appeal 4 > > Imps > > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > KQJ7643 > 2 > 7 > Q765 > 9 AT5 > A753 KQJT4 > AKT865 3 > K2 AJ84 > 82 > 986 > QJ942 > T93 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 4S Pass(1) Pass > Dble Pass 5S Pass > 5NT Pass 6H Pass > 7H Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Break in tempo > > Result: 13 tricks, NS -1510 > > > The Facts: > > The NPC of North/South called the Director at the > end of the match. East had taken a very long time > before passing over 4S, and again in the next > round of bidding. > > North/South objected to the double and to the > raise to 7H. > > The Director: > > Ascertained that East had indeed taken a long > time, and that West had acknowledged this at the > table, and decided to allow the late call and > rule that there had been unauthorized > information. The Director consulted with a number > of players, asking them what they would have done > with the West hand (not mentioning the break in > tempo, of course). All the players would have > doubled, and all were thinking about raising to > 7H, but not all eventually would have. When told > about the hesitation, all players agreed that it > made no difference, since all the information > they needed was contained in the bid of 5S. > > Consequently, the Director ruled that there had > been no logical alternative to the Double, and > that the unauthorized information had not > suggested the raise to 7H. > > Ruling: Result Stands > > Relevant Laws: Law 16A > > North/South appealed. > > Present: All players and the Captains and Coaches > of both teams > > The Players: > > All concurred that there had been a break in > tempo. East admitted to thinking for a long time. > The captain of North/South, who had been sitting > on the North/East side stated that he had looked > at his watch after one minute and that five more > minutes had gone by before East passed. West > confirmed that the delay had been "a couple of > minutes". The captain of East/West, who had also > been sitting on the North/East side, called it > "a couple of minutes" too. > > As to the alleged break in tempo in the second > round of bidding,West did not agree that it had > occurred. The tray may have returned "somewhat > slower" but one has to accept that as normal at > this level of bidding. The Captain of North/ > South stated he had timed it to 4 minutes. > > The Director told the Committee that the table > had not been in real time troubles, but that the > match finished with only a 2 or 3 minutes left on > the clock. For that reason, and because West did > not dispute the break in tempo, he had accepted > to consider the case even despite the late call. > > North/South, by way of their captain, stated that > they did not contest that East had no Logical > Alternatives to his double, and that they > accepted that call. They did not accept however, > that 5S should have shown the CA. With the same > hand but only the CQ instead of the ace, East > could also have bid 5S. The break in tempo helped > in reducing that possibility. With the extra > information, 7H became an "educated gamble". > > North/South pointed to the fact that not all > players that had been consulted had raised to 7H, > which surely must have meant that passing was a > logical alternative. Combined with the undeniable > unauthorized information, that must lead to an > adjusted score. > > West stated that in order for East to bid 5S, he > needed to have HKQ fifth and the two black aces. > He had bid 5NT in order to find out what 5S was > based on, and raised to seven when he found out > it was based on hearts. He would have passed 6C. > He did not believe his partner could have had a > two-suited hand, since he would have bid 4NT with > that. > > The Committee: > > Ruled that there had been a significant break in > tempo by East on the first round of bidding (the > Committee preferred to call it "4 or 5 minutes" > to "a couple of minutes"), but not on the second > round. > > The Committee found that 5S did indeed show a > very great hand, and should be considered a > grand slam invitation. The call was very close. I fail to see how the TD came to his conclusion that AI negated UI when he didn't investigate [a] what the agreements were, and [b] what inferences were made available by the agreements and the inferences made available by the UI. As for me, if a W chose to X after partner read a novel I wouldn't quibble with it- even though I could. P, X, or 5D could be winning actions. An argument against X is what to do should partner takeout to 5C in the event he has xxxx-xxx-x-xxxxx- and S finds a double, and then a subsequent double of 5D- so minus 420 would start looking pretty good. The closest discussion as to bidding agreement concerned 5S- that it was a very great hand. But Which Very Great Hand [or hands]? Until that is known a sensible judgment can't be made of W assertion that it requires SA CA HKQxxx. Because if it indeed promised that then there is no logical alternative to 6D showing GS values in hearts missing the SA and CA. The actions of EW uncover the lie and the TD didn't make that finding. But what I wanted to speak about was the kaka of the proposition that there was AI pointing to GS values- because there was no such AI. East's original pass suggests that he doesn't have sufficient controls to enter the bidding. That suggests [to W once he hears 5S] that he doesn't have as many as two aces to go with his great hand. The pass followed by 5S suggests that his strong hand consists of good distribution. But what it really comes down to is that with no fact as to the agreements in effect it is untenable to assert, whether true or not, that AI provided the same inferences as UI. Translation- the TD was out to lunch. I am going to suggest an inference for the first trip to the library: E has the expectation for being plus but is worried that his side won't take at least 11 tricks- and regrets* not taking action. As for the second trip to the library- because he knows [by his own hesitation] his partner knows that that the X was made with UI available, E has extraneous information available [that the double was clearcut] to evaluate- thereby contains inferences that there was no speculation in the X- with the logical conclusion that at least twelve tricks are safe -hence 5S. *= I have substantial values that are useful but not proven regards roger pewick > But in the end, the feeling in the Committee > prevailed that a break in tempo of 4-5 minutes > is very long and contains substantial > unauthorized information, and that a player ought > to be bending backwards in trying not to take > advantage of it. > > The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to 6H by > East, making 13 tricks, NS -1010. > > Deposit: Returned > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 7 03:16:20 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 11:16:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 9A2(a): >>Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may >>call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the >>play period. Henri Defranchi >I think law 73 "communication between partners during the >auction and play shall be effected only by means of the >calls and plays themselves" supplant law 9....... So.... Randall Garrett (Lord Darcy stories): "Black magic is a matter of symbolism and intent." Richard Hills: Suppose that, in a particular partnership, the opening leader was accidentally careless, and always accidentally infracted Law 65B by turning the first trick the wrong way. Suppose that the opening leader's partner was usually somewhat accidentally unobservant, and only occasionally drew attention to the infraction, coincidentally only on those occasions when the opening leader's partner had a singleton and a desire to ruff. Yes indeed otherwise legal actions may be redefined as illegal if there is a black magic intent. But a Law 9 action is not automatically invalidated by Law 73 if there is no black magic intent, and if pard avoids use of any incidentally created UI. (See Eric Landau's earlier post on this thread.) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Oct 7 16:30:45 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:30:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Defenders asking each other Message-ID: <4527BA15.6040708@cfa.harvard.edu> I've had a note from Rusty Court, longtime (but now former) CTD of South Africa and founding CTD of Zone 8. Zone 8 allows defenders to ask each other. This applies in zonal competitions and most NCBOs, but the zone delegates to NCBOs the authority to forbid asking. Some of them do. Rusty also says that Zone 4 (Asia) used to allow asking, but his information may not be up to date. Here's what I think are the current zonal elections on L61B. Anyone with corrections or updates, please post to the list or contact me. Zone defenders may ask each other? 1 Europe no 2 North America yes 3 South America no 4 Asia yes? (information out of date) 5 Central Am/Caribbean no 6 Pacific/Asia no 7 South Pacific yes 8 Africa yes (but "no" in some NCBOs) From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Oct 7 19:34:36 2006 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 19:34:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007601c6ea37$efeb8b90$58493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed Reppert: > > >It is commonly accepted in my neck of the woods (Rochester, NY) > >that a defender is permitted to point out to his partner that > >he has turned his card of the just completed trick the wrong > >way, so long as he does so "right away" (whatever that means). > >However, I am told by others, mostly not in the ACBL, that it > >is illegal to do so. I can find no law which explicitly > >addresses this question, no law that authorizes it and none > >that expressly forbid it. > > [big snip] > > Law 65B: > > >>Keeping Track of the Ownership of Tricks > >> > >>1. Tricks Won > >> > >>If the player's side has won the trick, the card is pointed > >>lengthwise toward his partner. > >> > >>2. Tricks Lost > >> > >>If the opponents have won the trick, the card is pointed > >>lengthwise toward the opponents. > > Law 9A2(a): > > >>Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may > >>call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the > >>play period. > > Richard Hills: > > Failure to comply with Law 65B is an irregularity. Since a > defender is not prohibited by Law 65 to draw attention to a > Law 65B irregularity, Law 9A2(a) permits a defender to do so. > > _Dummy_, however, is specifically prohibited by Law 9B2(b)(1) > from drawing declarer's attention to a Law 65B irregularity by > declarer. Some players and National Bridge Organisations have > suggested that in next year's Lawbook Law 65B gives a special > exemption to dummy to allow dummy to do so "right away", that > is before declarer's side plays to the next trick. > Until the 1987 Lawbook Law 65 ended with: "Any player may request that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." So it seems no longer permitted. On the other hand there is Law74C4: "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurence, or to the number of tricks still required for success." Ben From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 8 01:42:18 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 09:42:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ben Schelen wrote: >Until the 1987 Lawbook Law 65 ended with: "Any player may request that >a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." > >So it seems no longer permitted. > >On the other hand there is Law 74C4: "commenting or acting during the >auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, >or to the number of tricks still required for success." Queensland CTD Reg Busch wrote (Australian Directors Bulletin, May 1995, page 20): >>If you ask me to quote the Law which forbids this, I can't because >>there isn't one. However, there is a basic philosophy underlying the >>Laws that players only have those rights which the Laws specifically >>grant them. If the Laws don't provide for a particular right, then >>that right does not exist. >> >>The 1975 Laws actually included a law which said: "Any player may >>request that a card incorrectly pointed may be turned in the proper >>direction." The 1987 Laws Committee made a considered and deliberate >>decision not to include this right in the 1987 Laws. In making this >>change it was not necessary to include a law saying "Players may not >>... etc". All that had to be done was to drop the above clause from >>the 1987 Laws. >> >>If dummy or a defender did alert partner to a card pointing the wrong >>way, he has committed an infraction. If the Director deemed that the >>information may have affected partner's play, he may award an >>adjusted score. For example: Defenders need only one more trick to >>defeat the contract, but the defender on lead has a trick pointed the >>wrong way, so may believe that they need two defensive tricks. >>Partner points out the error and now he cashes his Ace. The Director >>may well award an adjusted score. Richard Hills: I agree with the philosophy of Ben Schelen and Reg Busch. It seems to me that unlike other play irregularities (leads out of turn, revokes, penalty cards etc) a card turned the wrong way need not be rectified immediately, but instead rectification can wait until the end of play. Indeed, waiting till the end of play is the policy that I always follow as a defender when my pard has turned a card the wrong way, so as not to create any _unnecessary_ UI for partner. However, it seems to me that the apparent "legislation by omission" policy adopted by the 1987 Laws Committee has been ineffective. Some defenders assume that if Law 9 permits them to immediately draw attention to a lead out of turn, then Law 9 also permits them (without any adverse UI consequences) to immediately draw attention to an incorrectly pointed card. Therefore, I suggest that a new clause be added to the 2007 Law 65: "During play, declarer may request that an incorrectly pointed card be turned in the proper direction. However, neither dummy nor defenders may draw attention to an incorrectly pointed card during play, but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. If dummy or a defender infracts this clause, the Director may adjust the score under Law 16." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 8 04:09:59 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 21:09:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ben Schelen wrote: > >>Until the 1987 Lawbook Law 65 ended with: "Any player may request that >>a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." >> >>So it seems no longer permitted. >> >>On the other hand there is Law 74C4: "commenting or acting during the >>auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, >>or to the number of tricks still required for success." > > Queensland CTD Reg Busch wrote > (Australian Directors Bulletin, May 1995, page 20): > >>>If you ask me to quote the Law which forbids this, I can't because >>>there isn't one. However, there is a basic philosophy underlying the >>>Laws that players only have those rights which the Laws specifically >>>grant them. If the Laws don't provide for a particular right, then >>>that right does not exist. >>> >>>The 1975 Laws actually included a law which said: "Any player may >>>request that a card incorrectly pointed may be turned in the proper >>>direction." The 1987 Laws Committee made a considered and deliberate >>>decision not to include this right in the 1987 Laws. In making this >>>change it was not necessary to include a law saying "Players may not >>>... etc". All that had to be done was to drop the above clause from >>>the 1987 Laws. >>> >>>If dummy or a defender did alert partner to a card pointing the wrong >>>way, he has committed an infraction. If the Director deemed that the >>>information may have affected partner's play, he may award an >>>adjusted score. For example: Defenders need only one more trick to >>>defeat the contract, but the defender on lead has a trick pointed the >>>wrong way, so may believe that they need two defensive tricks. >>>Partner points out the error and now he cashes his Ace. The Director >>>may well award an adjusted score. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with the philosophy of Ben Schelen and Reg Busch. It seems to > me that unlike other play irregularities (leads out of turn, revokes, > penalty cards etc) a card turned the wrong way need not be rectified > immediately, but instead rectification can wait until the end of play. > > Indeed, waiting till the end of play is the policy that I always follow > as a defender when my pard has turned a card the wrong way, so as not > to create any _unnecessary_ UI for partner. > > However, it seems to me that the apparent "legislation by omission" > policy adopted by the 1987 Laws Committee has been ineffective. > > Some defenders assume that if Law 9 permits them to immediately draw > attention to a lead out of turn, then Law 9 also permits them (without > any adverse UI consequences) to immediately draw attention to an > incorrectly pointed card. > > Therefore, I suggest that a new clause be added to the 2007 Law 65: > > "During play, declarer may request that an incorrectly pointed card be > turned in the proper direction. However, neither dummy nor defenders > may draw attention to an incorrectly pointed card during play, but may > do so after play of the hand is concluded. If dummy or a defender > infracts this clause, the Director may adjust the score under Law 16." > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae There is a lot to be said for treating players the same. At the moment, I am having difficulty thinking of why declarer should be singled out and treated differently here. My initial impression is that players [and directors] will confuse 'who' has the right to draw attention and who doesn't. regards roger pewick From geller at nifty.com Sun Oct 8 05:04:28 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 12:04:28 +0900 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200610080304.AA05728@geller204.nifty.com> Roger Pewick writes: >There is a lot to be said for treating players the same. At the moment, I >am having difficulty thinking of why declarer should be singled out and >treated differently here. My initial impression is that players [and >directors] will confuse 'who' has the right to draw attention and who >doesn't. Because declarer is the sole controller of his hand and the dummy, there is no danger of UI. Plus rubber bridge tradition of dummy asking "no spades pard?" was respected. On the other hand the danger of UI was considered higher for defenders. You may not agree with this, but those were the reasons for treating defenders differently from the declarer-dummy pair. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From schuster at eduhi.at Sun Oct 8 08:16:17 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 08:16:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 04:09:59 +0200, Roger Pewick wrote: > There is a lot to be said for treating players the same. At the moment, > I > am having difficulty thinking of why declarer should be singled out and > treated differently here. My initial impression is that players [and > directors] will confuse 'who' has the right to draw attention and who > doesn't. > Richard's suggestion makes sense to me: it is desirable to have cards pointed the right way, and declarer is the only player who cannot create UI by drawing attention to a mistake. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From herman at hdw.be Sun Oct 8 10:16:11 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:16:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <452676DC.2090505@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <452676DC.2090505@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4528B3CB.3080302@hdw.be> Hello Steve, by trying to agree with me in different words, you are actually advocating the exact opposite of what I'm trying to say. Let's analyse: Steve Willner wrote: > From: Herman De Wael > >>I believe that a more accepted interpretation is that once there is AI >>of the same content as UI, the UI restrictions fall away. > > > I'd put it somewhat differently, though the result will often be the > same as Herman's. > > 1) The AI determines the LA's. > Good starting point. Without the AI, there are probably more LA's than with it. If there remains only one LA, then we have no problem, so let's assume that there remain 2 LA's: A and B. > 2) UI that is the same as AI will seldom if ever suggest one LA over > another. However, if in some rare case the UI does suggest one over > another (perhaps in Tim's probableistic sense), the usual rules apply. > So let's assume that the UI suggests A over B. Then the AI also suggests A over B. So with the AI, the player will choose A. Yet since this is also the suggested LA from UI, you will rule against him. I won't. Let's put it this way: You give the auction, without UI, to a number of players. 3 choose alternative A, 1 chooses B. That means that B is a LA. You now add the UI, and all four tell you that it does not alter their choice, even if they wanted to cheat. You would rule against this pair, I wouldn't. -- 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: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Oct 9 03:45:39 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:45:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain Message-ID: <4529A9C3.10301@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Herman De Wael > You give the auction, without UI, to a > number of players. 3 choose alternative A, 1 chooses B. That means > that B is a LA. You now add the UI, and all four tell you that it does > not alter their choice, even if they wanted to cheat. You would rule > against this pair, I wouldn't. If the UI doesn't alter anyone's choice, why does it suggest A over B? If it does suggest that, then yes, I will rule against the player who chooses A. That's what the Laws seem to me to require. I think this is a fairly rare situation, though. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 9 09:26:47 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:26:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4529A9C3.10301@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >I think this is a fairly rare situation, though. Richard Hills: I agree that UI completely identical to AI is rare. Steve Willner: >If the UI doesn't alter anyone's choice, why does >it suggest A over B? Richard Hills: But this question is not rare. Many players ask, "I was always going to choose the logical alternative of bidding 4S, so why should my receipt of UI from partner mean that my score is adjusted to reflect a choice of the other logical alternative of passing pard's slooow double of 4H?" :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Mon Oct 9 09:28:05 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:28:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <4529A9C3.10301@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <4529A9C3.10301@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4529FA05.80201@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: > From: Herman De Wael > >>You give the auction, without UI, to a >>number of players. 3 choose alternative A, 1 chooses B. That means >>that B is a LA. You now add the UI, and all four tell you that it does >>not alter their choice, even if they wanted to cheat. You would rule >>against this pair, I wouldn't. > > > If the UI doesn't alter anyone's choice, why does it suggest A over B? Because it does. That's possible, isn't it? And I did not say the I did not influence the choice, only that it did not alter the choice. Because there is AI also present which suggests A over B. > If it does suggest that, then yes, I will rule against the player who > chooses A. That's what the Laws seem to me to require. > And yet we don't rule that way. Not in the cases where the UI tells the player nothing new. As in the case of an expected alert or correct information given by partner. Or in the case of a long hesitation at a moment when such can be expected. Say they open 5C in first hand, and your partner thinks for 30". UI, yes, but is this not as can be expected? And do we not have AI to the same effect: partner is flabbergasted at the height of the opening. > I think this is a fairly rare situation, though. > I don't think it is. Or rather - the simple cases are very common, but you believe them to be so common that you don't see that they are in fact examples of this "rare situation". -- 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: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 From herman at hdw.be Mon Oct 9 10:48:49 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:48:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <452A0CF1.8030900@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner: > > >>I think this is a fairly rare situation, though. > > > Richard Hills: > > I agree that UI completely identical to AI is rare. > The situation we disagree upon may well be very rare. But there are many situations that we (and all the TD's around the world) agree upon, but which you don't acknowledge as being of this same type. Just think of all the correct explanations (which ARE UI) if you don't believe me. > Steve Willner: > > >>If the UI doesn't alter anyone's choice, why does >>it suggest A over B? > > > Richard Hills: > > But this question is not rare. > > Many players ask, "I was always going to choose the > logical alternative of bidding 4S, so why should my > receipt of UI from partner mean that my score is > adjusted to reflect a choice of the other logical > alternative of passing pard's slooow double of 4H?" > Now these are not the cases we are talking of. The slow double is UI, but there is no AI that provides the same information. So of course we need to rule, and if we think that passing is a LA, then we rule against. This slooow double shows doubt, and that is UI. There is no other information which also shows the doubt. In the original (the dutch 7H from Warsaw) the long hesitation showed a better hand than normal. But the 5S bid also showed a (much) better hand than normal. The first is UI, the second is AI. I believe that this AI negates the effects of the UI, and the partner becomes free to act again. Just to remain consequent, I stand by the AC decision that in the actual case, the UI was bigger than the AI, but as a general principle, other rulings are possible. > :-) > no need to :) - it's all very serious! -- 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: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 9 11:33:45 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:33:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <452676DC.2090505@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061009113115.021068c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:31 6/10/2006 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >From: "Tim West-Meads" > > I can't think of a single instance where the *length* of thought > > (either by partner or my opps) has given me additional clues about their > > holdings. > >We've seen examples of that in the past, though I'm unable to offer one >at this instant. I agree the length of break often isn't significant, >but it can be. I can offer one : if, after 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2S (relay), a player takes 5 seconds before answering 3H (say, maximum with 4 clubs), it could simply be that he thinks about whether his hand is a maximum ; if he takes a whole minute, you can bet he's struggling to remember his system. Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 9 12:06:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007601c6ea37$efeb8b90$58493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: Ben wrote: > Until the 1987 Lawbook Law 65 ended with: "Any player may request > that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." > > So it seems no longer permitted. On the other hand there is Law74C4: > "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call > attention to a significant occurence, or to the > number of tricks still required for success." Prior to 1987 the blanket provision of L65 would give permission to ask at any time. Law74c4 OTOH only makes it an offence if their is considered motive. The current laws are not in conflict with "It's generally OK to correct immediately, it's likely to be an offence if attention is drawn at a key moment (e.g. when pard appears to be trying to decide whether to cash the setting trick)". Note to Steve, I'm not suggesting mind-reading required here, just an adjusted score if the timing of the correction appears opportune and action is taken as a result. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 9 12:06:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <4528B3CB.3080302@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > > > So let's assume that the UI suggests A over B. Then the AI also > suggests A over B. So with the AI, the player will choose A. Yet > since this is also the suggested LA from UI, you will rule against > him. I won't. Let's put it this way: You give the auction, without > UI, to a number of players. 3 choose alternative A, 1 chooses B. That > means that B is a LA. You now add the UI, and all four tell you that > it does not alter their choice, even if they wanted to cheat. You > would rule against this pair, I wouldn't. You're a lucky man Herman - I don't think I've had such crystallised views from a consultation. I generally get a couple of players saying "Hmm it's close, I'll probably bid 7H but 6H could well be right". Even in your hypothetical situation the person who didn't change from option B will explain "That makes the grand look better but it's still only 90% rather than 75% - and playing with *** it's just not worth bidding 90% grands because if one goes off he's useless for the rest of the session, besides I don't expect this field to even come close". I'm no way criticising the consultation concept - but I find what people say, how they say it and why they choose the calls they do *far* more useful towards determining LAs and what is suggested by the UI than the actual selection of calls. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 9 12:06:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061009113115.021068c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain (and Steve) wrote: > > > >We've seen examples of that in the past, though I'm unable to offer > one >at this instant. I agree the length of break often isn't > significant,>but it can be. > > I can offer one : if, after 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2S (relay), a player > takes 5 seconds before answering 3H (say, maximum with 4 clubs), it > could simply be that he thinks about whether his hand is a maximum ; > if he takes a whole minute, you can bet he's struggling to remember > his system. Fair enough guys, my sentence was an overbid but I wrote in the context of the preceding sentence which contained the words "..but after 20 seconds I know..". I'll go with Alain's example of a short pause (5 secs or so) being likely hand evaluation related but I'd say anything from about 20 secs through ten minutes is a system memory struggle. Tim From herman at hdw.be Mon Oct 9 13:29:28 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:29:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <452A3298.3070103@hdw.be> Quite a good analysis, Tim, but: Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >>So let's assume that the UI suggests A over B. Then the AI also >>suggests A over B. So with the AI, the player will choose A. Yet >>since this is also the suggested LA from UI, you will rule against >>him. I won't. Let's put it this way: You give the auction, without >>UI, to a number of players. 3 choose alternative A, 1 chooses B. That >>means that B is a LA. You now add the UI, and all four tell you that >>it does not alter their choice, even if they wanted to cheat. You >>would rule against this pair, I wouldn't. > > > You're a lucky man Herman - I don't think I've had such crystallised > views from a consultation. I generally get a couple of players saying > "Hmm it's close, I'll probably bid 7H but 6H could well be right". > Even in your hypothetical situation the person who didn't change from > option B will explain "That makes the grand look better but it's still > only 90% rather than 75% - and playing with *** it's just not worth > bidding 90% grands because if one goes off he's useless for the rest of > the session, besides I don't expect this field to even come close". > With regards to the actual case, the TD told the AC that from his consultations, he received answers like "maybe 7H, maybe not", then when telling about the UI, the consultees said "does not make a difference". So indeed, you are right, it is more important to hear the players than to just poll them. And you are absolutely right that if a player says that the grand becomes a 90% one rather than a 75% one, that is enough to rule that the UI influences the decision. Better than to say that with or without the UI, 3 out of 4 bid the grand. The certainty of those 3 is also important. > I'm no way criticising the consultation concept - but I find what people > say, how they say it and why they choose the calls they do *far* more > useful towards determining LAs and what is suggested by the UI than the > actual selection of calls. > Indeed. > Tim > -- 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: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 9 16:00:25 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:00:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <452A0CF1.8030900@hdw.be> References: <452A0CF1.8030900@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> At 04:48 AM 10/9/06, Herman wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > I agree that UI completely identical to AI is rare. > >The situation we disagree upon may well be very rare. >But there are many situations that we (and all the TD's around the >world) agree upon, but which you don't acknowledge as being of this >same type. Just think of all the correct explanations (which ARE UI) >if you don't believe me. I think Herman is making the semantic error (for which I blame not Herman, but TFLB, which is far from precise in its use of the terms) of treating "unauthorized information" as a synonym for "extraneous information". But L16A ("Extraneous Information from Partner") 1 ("When Such Information Is Given") tells us that it is not; it allows "the opponents" to "dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed", which means that "extraneous information" may be "given" without "unauthorized information [having] been conveyed". Once we recognize that it is possible to receive "extraneous" information from partner without any "unauthorized" information having been conveyed, correct explanations of the partnership's methods would seem to be an obvious example of this. Other examples of EI from partner which do not convey UI might include, for example, his estimate of the partnership's current score, or his evaluation of the strength of the opponents. It is critical to recognize, however, that the manner in which "authorized" EI is transmitted may convey UI by its means or manner of transmission, as opposed to its content. "We're vul, pard" is harmless EI when you're pulling the cards out of the board, but will certainly convey UI when partner is in a huddle over a high-level decision. That doesn't make the vulnerability itself -- or "all the correct explanations" themselves -- UI. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 9 16:28:15 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:28:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick In-Reply-To: References: <007601c6ea37$efeb8b90$58493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061009101519.02a245e0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:06 AM 10/9/06, twm wrote: >Ben wrote: > > > Until the 1987 Lawbook Law 65 ended with: "Any player may request > > that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." > > > > So it seems no longer permitted. On the other hand there is Law74C4: > > "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call > > attention to a significant occurence, or to the > > number of tricks still required for success." > >Prior to 1987 the blanket provision of L65 would give permission to ask >at any time. Law74c4 OTOH only makes it an offence if their is >considered motive. The current laws are not in conflict with "It's >generally OK to correct immediately, it's likely to be an offence if >attention is drawn at a key moment (e.g. when pard appears to be trying >to decide whether to cash the setting trick)". Note to Steve, I'm not >suggesting mind-reading required here, just an adjusted score if the >timing of the correction appears opportune and action is taken as a >result. To sum it up, the fact itself may be AI, but the timing of one's bringing it to partner's attention may well convey the belief that the AI is particularly relevant *at that moment*, and *that's* UI. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From herman at hdw.be Mon Oct 9 17:35:56 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:35:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> References: <452A0CF1.8030900@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <452A6C5C.8010805@hdw.be> Eric tries to get around to agreeing with me without actually doing so, but I believe he is painting himself (and us) into a corner. Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:48 AM 10/9/06, Herman wrote: > > >>richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> >>>I agree that UI completely identical to AI is rare. >> >>The situation we disagree upon may well be very rare. >>But there are many situations that we (and all the TD's around the >>world) agree upon, but which you don't acknowledge as being of this >>same type. Just think of all the correct explanations (which ARE UI) >>if you don't believe me. > > > I think Herman is making the semantic error (for which I blame not > Herman, but TFLB, which is far from precise in its use of the terms) of > treating "unauthorized information" as a synonym for "extraneous > information". But L16A ("Extraneous Information from Partner") 1 > ("When Such Information Is Given") tells us that it is not; it allows > "the opponents" to "dispute the fact that unauthorized information > might have been conveyed", which means that "extraneous information" > may be "given" without "unauthorized information [having] been conveyed". > Eric tries to treat some pieces of UI as EI and therefor not unauthorized. But I believe he is wrong. OK, the lawbook names some things Extraneous Information, but only in describing some things, of which it then continues to say that they are either authorized or unauthorized. Nowhere in L16 does it say that some pieces of extraneous information are authorized. So by calling the things we are talking of (correct alerts and explanations and such) as "extraneous" information does not help us. L16 continues to define these as UI, and yet we don't rule against players who hear their partners explain correctly. Maybe the lawbook is deficient in this regard (no, certainly), but that does not mean that we need to make even stranger constructions in order to rule as we have done: UI which is also available to the player as AI does not carry L16 restrictions. Which is a sensible and easy way of saying this. > Once we recognize that it is possible to receive "extraneous" > information from partner without any "unauthorized" information having > been conveyed, correct explanations of the partnership's methods would > seem to be an obvious example of this. > Sadly, L16 does not tell us that some EI carries no AI. > Other examples of EI from partner which do not convey UI might include, > for example, his estimate of the partnership's current score, or his > evaluation of the strength of the opponents. > > It is critical to recognize, however, that the manner in which > "authorized" EI is transmitted may convey UI by its means or manner of > transmission, as opposed to its content. "We're vul, pard" > is harmless EI when you're pulling the cards out of the board, but > will certainly convey UI when partner is in a huddle over a high-level > decision. That doesn't make the vulnerability itself -- or "all the > correct explanations" themselves -- UI. > This goes without saying and does not add anything to the discussion at hand. -- 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: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 9 18:54:55 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:54:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <452A6C5C.8010805@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> <452A0CF1.8030900@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061009183638.020f4410@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:35 9/10/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Eric tries to get around to agreeing with me without actually doing >so, but I believe he is painting himself (and us) into a corner. IMOBO, the distinction made by Eric makes sense. There is intrinsic information : through bids and cards + system & style : always AI There is circumstantial information, e.g. scores on other deals, vulnerability : I'd say always AI, but please check. There is extraneous information : this could constitute AI (e.g. opponents' mannerisms) or UI (e.g. partner's mannerisms). It should be said somewhere that insisting on any item of AI (can) create UI. BTW, some examples I've seen describes as EI-non-UI are UI IMHO. For example, saying, before we pick our cards, that we're vulnerable may convey (voluntarily or not) some message like : "bid carefully for once" or "I don't believe you're hale and hearty, so that you might not notice it". This remembers me of one "code" I use with my favourite partner, and after reading all this, I wonder whether we may do so. When arriving at the table, one of us might say "cloudy table". This may be translated as "they're even more crazy as we are, so let's bid quietly". Of course, opps often ask what it means, and we explain it. Sometimes we explain it spontaneously. They usually laugh, but don't realize we're in earnest. How would you all classify this item of information ? Ah, yes, why "cloudy" ? Because some of our preempts and overcalls are rather lax. Those are indicated, in our notes, by an asterisk. Now, when it's cloudy, stars are out :-)) Best regards, Alain. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Oct 9 19:59:54 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:59:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain Message-ID: <452A8E1A.4060806@cfa.harvard.edu> From: Herman De Wael > Say they open 5C in first hand, and your partner thinks for 30". UI, > yes, but is this not as can be expected? Not really. My partners can usually decide in 10 s or perhaps 15 s at the most. The questions are whether more than one LA exists and if so, whether the extra 15-20 s suggests one over another. A better example would have been when the opponents use a convention we have never seen before, but it isn't a jump. Now partner will need at least 5 s (which is an eternity in a normal auction) to work out whether we have any relevant agreements. This pause is expected and will seldom say much about partner's hand -- in other words will seldom suggest one LA over another -- but in some cases it may do so. In those rare cases, the usual rules apply. > the simple cases are very common, but you believe them to > be so common that you don't see that they are in fact examples of this > "rare situation". The rare situation is for UI that is the same as AI yet it suggests one LA over another. Expected alerts, answers to questions, etc. seldom suggest one over another. > In the original (the dutch 7H from Warsaw) the long hesitation showed > a better hand than normal. But the 5S bid also showed a (much) better > hand than normal. The first is UI, the second is AI. Both UI and AI showed better than normal _for the pass over 4S_. What I don't understand is why the long hesitation over 4S shows a better than normal hand _for the subsequent 5S then 6H_ (thus suggesting 7H over pass). But this is a bridge judgment, not any question of how to apply the Laws. From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 10 00:52:44 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 23:52:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <007601c6ea37$efeb8b90$58493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: In message , Tim West-Meads writes >Ben wrote: > >> Until the 1987 Lawbook Law 65 ended with: "Any player may request >> that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." >> >> So it seems no longer permitted. On the other hand there is Law74C4: >> "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call >> attention to a significant occurence, or to the >> number of tricks still required for success." > >Prior to 1987 the blanket provision of L65 would give permission to ask >at any time. Law74c4 OTOH only makes it an offence if their is >considered motive. The current laws are not in conflict with "It's >generally OK to correct immediately, it's likely to be an offence if >attention is drawn at a key moment (e.g. when pard appears to be trying >to decide whether to cash the setting trick)". Note to Steve, I'm not >suggesting mind-reading required here, just an adjusted score if the >timing of the correction appears opportune and action is taken as a >result. > >Tim Would any of the following be an offence [1] "It's not your lead partner - you didn't win the last trick" as partner is about to pull a card from their hand. [2] "You won that trick partner". Partner is absent mindedly gazing around the room waiting for somebody else to lead. [3] "Who won that trick - you all appear to be claiming it" as I am in the process of turning my card over and deciding which way to turn it (I've actually turned it face down but am still holding it). -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 10 04:12:27 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:12:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <452A0CF1.8030900@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>no need to :) - it's all very serious!" Max Beerbohm (1872-1956): >Only the insane take themselves quite seriously." Richard Hills: On the other hand, insanity has been defined as "behaviour which differs significantly from the norm". Since it is normal for bridgeurs to take the game way too seriously ("How dare you ruff my ace, pard!"), then my significantly abnormal enjoyment of the absurd in bridge means that by definition I am also insane. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 10 08:25:21 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:25:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4529FA05.80201@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>Say they open 5C in first hand, and your >>partner thinks for 30". UI, yes, but is this >>not as can be expected? And do we not have AI >>to the same effect: partner is flabbergasted >>at the height of the opening. WBF Code of Practice, Guidelines for Rulings appendix, Number 5: >An ACBL appeals committee passed >comments that fit well with WBF thinking >in relation to what they called "hot seat" >auctions. It is desirable to exhibit extra >tolerance in relation to a "hesitation" when >a player encounters an unprecedented >situation in the auction. [screen-specific paragraph snipped] >An aspect that has special significance, >when a player meets a quite unusual >bidding situation and takes time to >deliberate, is how clearly it is apparent to >partner what is the nature of his problem. >In such a situation a player may have to >think from scratch what action is >appropriate, and it is not altogether rare >that he may have all three options - pass, >double (redouble), and bid, and a choice to >make. If a Director is inclined to find that >the partner's subsequent bid is suggested >by the breach of tempo, the first >consideration is to judge whether it can >truly be said that one action is suggested >over another, or whether the message >from the "hesitation" is unclear. A >sympathetic treatment of the law here >should be an aim and it is an area in which >regulating authorities may find it helpful to >give guidance. Richard Hills: Of course, the WBF Code of Practice is only semi-official advice, and its appendices are merely quasi-official advice. For example, I believe that while the English Bridge Union has adopted most of the main text of the CoP as an EBU regulation, the EBU does _not_ officially endorse any of the CoP's appendices. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 10 08:52:08 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:52:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c6ec38$9ad82ca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > West-Meads writes > >Ben wrote: > > > >> Until the 1987 Lawbook Law 65 ended with: "Any player may request > >> that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." > >> > >> So it seems no longer permitted. On the other hand there is Law74C4: > >> "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call > >> attention to a significant occurence, or to the > >> number of tricks still required for success." > > > >Prior to 1987 the blanket provision of L65 would give permission to ask > >at any time. Law74c4 OTOH only makes it an offence if their is > >considered motive. The current laws are not in conflict with "It's > >generally OK to correct immediately, it's likely to be an offence if > >attention is drawn at a key moment (e.g. when pard appears to be trying > >to decide whether to cash the setting trick)". Note to Steve, I'm not > >suggesting mind-reading required here, just an adjusted score if the > >timing of the correction appears opportune and action is taken as a > >result. > > > >Tim > > Would any of the following be an offence > > [1] "It's not your lead partner - you didn't win the last trick" as > partner is about to pull a card from their hand. > > [2] "You won that trick partner". Partner is absent mindedly gazing > around the room waiting for somebody else to lead. > > [3] "Who won that trick - you all appear to be claiming it" as I am in > the process of turning my card over and deciding which way to turn it > (I've actually turned it face down but am still holding it). IMO none of them would be an offence as such, but either of them _could_ convey UI as judged on the circumstances in the actual situation. (Exactly as explicitly stated regarding otherwise legal questions on opponents' auction.) Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 10 09:01:29 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:01:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061009183638.020f4410@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >This remembers me of one "code" I use with my favourite >partner, and after reading all this, I wonder whether we >may do so. > >When arriving at the table, one of us might say "cloudy >table". This may be translated as "they're even more >crazy as we are, so let's bid quietly". Of course, opps >often ask what it means, and we explain it. Sometimes we >explain it spontaneously. They usually laugh, but don't >realize we're in earnest. > >How would you all classify this item of information ? > >Ah, yes, why "cloudy" ? Because some of our preempts and >overcalls are rather lax. Those are indicated, in our >notes, by an asterisk. Now, when it's cloudy, stars are >out :-)) Richard Hills: When playing my idiosyncratic version of Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) against local Canberra experts who have played against my system many times before, I restrict my pre-alerts to this single warning: "We play lots of penalty doubles and not many negative doubles." On one occasion, this nil vul auction followed: Pard RHO Me LHO 1S 2C(1) Dble(2) All pass(3) (1) Stars-in-eyes lax overcall (2) Old-fashioned penalty double (3) +800 to the good guys The following week I met the same RHO, gave the same pre- alert, and received the response, "I remember - this time I will pay attention to your warning!" :-) Likewise, it seems to me that Alain and his partner are required by the principle of full disclosure to pre-alert *all* their opponents as to whether asterisks apply. (Law 75A and Law 40B.) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Oct 10 09:22:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Wright Wrote: > Would any of the following be an offence > > [1] "It's not your lead partner - you didn't win the last trick" as > partner is about to pull a card from their hand. > > [2] "You won that trick partner". Partner is absent mindedly gazing > around the room waiting for somebody else to lead. > > [3] "Who won that trick - you all appear to be claiming it" as I am > in the process of turning my card over and deciding which way to turn > it (I've actually turned it face down but am still holding it). None of the above appears to be an offence per se, all are extraneous actions and thus have the *potential* to convey UI about the person's hand. I admit I'm struggling to see how any suggestive UI could be read into any of the statements but one lives and learns. Tim From herman at hdw.be Tue Oct 10 10:05:40 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:05:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> References: <452A0CF1.8030900@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <452B5454.3000600@hdw.be> Yesterday, the following occured to me: I was second in hand, and started looking intently at my cards. After lots of thought, I opened 2Cl. In our system, this is either weak with both majors, or any semi-GF hand. After I'd done this, it seemed to me that I had given UI. Of course I was strong - why else would I need to think for so long. Now equally certainly, in the second round of bidding, I was to give AI to my partner that I was strong (by bidding when any weak hand would now pass). This is not any sort of "extraneous" information. It is UI, pure and simple. Yet the AI from the next round tells exactly the same thing. Is my partner burdened with L16 restrictions? Of course I mean after the second bid, of course he is restricted during the first round of bidding. -- 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: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 10 10:56:14 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:56:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <452B5454.3000600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c6ec49$f1c783b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Yesterday, the following occured to me: > > I was second in hand, and started looking intently at my cards. After > lots of thought, I opened 2Cl. In our system, this is either weak with > both majors, or any semi-GF hand. After I'd done this, it seemed to me > that I had given UI. Of course I was strong - why else would I need to > think for so long. Now equally certainly, in the second round of > bidding, I was to give AI to my partner that I was strong (by bidding > when any weak hand would now pass). > > This is not any sort of "extraneous" information. It is UI, pure and > simple. Yet the AI from the next round tells exactly the same thing. > Is my partner burdened with L16 restrictions? Of course I mean after > the second bid, of course he is restricted during the first round of > bidding. Yes, your partner has UI and must take care not to base his actions on this. But the UI is not what I believe you have in mind! Partner has the UI that your 2Cl opening bid was not obvious! In other words that you were on the edge of selecting another opening bid instead of 2Cl. Regards Sven From herman at hdw.be Tue Oct 10 11:11:46 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:11:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20061010183708.0599a080@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <452A0CF1.8030900@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> <452B5454.3000600@hdw.be> <6.2.0.14.2.20061010183708.0599a080@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <452B63D2.7040408@hdw.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 06:05 PM 10/10/2006, you wrote: > >> Yesterday, the following occured to me: >> >> I was second in hand, and started looking intently at my cards. After >> lots of thought, I opened 2Cl. In our system, this is either weak with >> both majors, or any semi-GF hand. After I'd done this, it seemed to me >> that I had given UI. Of course I was strong - why else would I need to >> think for so long. Now equally certainly, in the second round of >> bidding, I was to give AI to my partner that I was strong (by bidding >> when any weak hand would now pass). > > > I think Herman, we could perhaps assume that you were unsure > whether you had "either major", :)) > In fact, and just to prove that the UI was wrong, I later spent almost a minute deciding whether to open the 11-pointer with 4-4 in the majors with 1Cl or 2Cl. I also opened it 2Cl so the UI may be not so decisive after all. But still. > Tony (Sydney) > > > -- 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: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 10 11:30:06 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:30:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <452B5454.3000600@hdw.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> <452A0CF1.8030900@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061009091523.02b2f260@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061010112400.020fb3b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:05 10/10/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I was second in hand, and started looking intently at my cards. After >lots of thought, I opened 2Cl. In our system, this is either weak with >both majors, or any semi-GF hand. After I'd done this, it seemed to me >that I had given UI. Of course I was strong - why else would I need to >think for so long. Now equally certainly, in the second round of >bidding, I was to give AI to my partner that I was strong (by bidding >when any weak hand would now pass). > >This is not any sort of "extraneous" information. It is UI, pure and >simple. Yet the AI from the next round tells exactly the same thing. >Is my partner burdened with L16 restrictions? Of course I mean after >the second bid, of course he is restricted during the first round of >bidding. Of course, during the first round, he will have to preempt (you) fully with some length in the majors, which would be "bending backwards". The question, now, is "does there remain some UI uncovered by AI in the second round ?". My answer is "yes, but marginal" (i.e. you don't hold the pure Acol hand of AKQxxx and two outside tricks), so that it will seldom be relevant ... but it might, especially in slam bidding. BTW, we had the same concern with Gilles, and the solution seems to be that one should wait a little before doing any two-way opening, any version. Best regards Alain From herman at hdw.be Tue Oct 10 12:40:08 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:40:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <000001c6ec49$f1c783b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6ec49$f1c783b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <452B7888.9030203@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>Yesterday, the following occured to me: >> >>I was second in hand, and started looking intently at my cards. After >>lots of thought, I opened 2Cl. In our system, this is either weak with >>both majors, or any semi-GF hand. After I'd done this, it seemed to me >>that I had given UI. Of course I was strong - why else would I need to >>think for so long. Now equally certainly, in the second round of >>bidding, I was to give AI to my partner that I was strong (by bidding >>when any weak hand would now pass). >> >>This is not any sort of "extraneous" information. It is UI, pure and >>simple. Yet the AI from the next round tells exactly the same thing. >>Is my partner burdened with L16 restrictions? Of course I mean after >>the second bid, of course he is restricted during the first round of >>bidding. > > > Yes, your partner has UI and must take care not to base his actions on this. > But the UI is not what I believe you have in mind! > > Partner has the UI that your 2Cl opening bid was not obvious! In other words > that you were on the edge of selecting another opening bid instead of 2Cl. > Indeed, and of course. But that was not the UI I was talking about. When needing to decide whether or not to open 2Cl, it is simpler to decide if it is a weak version, than if it is a strong one. So if it takes 1 minute, partner knows (UI) that the 2Cl will be the strong version. That knowledge may of course not be used, but one round later, the bidding shows this out as well. So now the knowledge that it is strong has become AI. Of course, the knowledge that it was not an easy decision remains UI. What I am trying to point out is that there was UI, and that there is then AI. And that the combination of both means that there are no longer L16 restrictions (in the sense of knowing it is strong, not weak - the L16 restrictions about it being not easy remain). > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 10 15:22:12 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:22:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <007601c6ea37$efeb8b90$58493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061010091742.02b708c0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:52 PM 10/9/06, Steve wrote: >Would any of the following be an offence > >[1] "It's not your lead partner - you didn't win the last trick" as >partner is about to pull a card from their hand. > >[2] "You won that trick partner". Partner is absent mindedly gazing >around the room waiting for somebody else to lead. > >[3] "Who won that trick - you all appear to be claiming it" as I am in >the process of turning my card over and deciding which way to turn it >(I've actually turned it face down but am still holding it). I'll let the legal eagles thrash out the theory, but I can tell you this: Where I play, any of those remarks would be perfectly acceptable and cause no comment or action by the opponents. Anyone who called the director to complain about such actions would be considered by the vast majority of the players to be inappropriately disrupting the game. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 10 16:36:06 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:36:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061010091742.02b708c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <007601c6ea37$efeb8b90$58493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <6.1.1.1.0.20061010091742.02b708c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <660937DE-1F44-4FB5-B35B-1A20C3BBFC72@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I'll let the legal eagles thrash out the theory, but I can tell you > this: Where I play, any of those remarks would be perfectly > acceptable > and cause no comment or action by the opponents. Anyone who called > the > director to complain about such actions would be considered by the > vast > majority of the players to be inappropriately disrupting the game. Heh. Conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, if we want folks to keep playing this game, we don't want to disrupt too much their long cherished habits in playing. On the other hand, we want the game to be played by its rules, and I think we all here accept that most players are ignorant of most of the rules - so their long cherished habits, particularly in this case, may or may not be technically legal. If they're not, then either we educate the players about the rules and try to get them to change their habits, or we change the rules to make those habits legal. I'm not gonna argue about which method is "right", but I'll note that while the second method is certainly easier, I don't like it much. It feels too much like surrendering. And with a ten year (give or take) wait between law revisions, you're going to have a problem making sure everyone is on the same page if you take the "change the law" road. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 10 17:34:16 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:34:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c6ec38$9ad82ca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c6ec82$066ae450$3ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] *************************** "I work with so fine a brush as produces little effect after much labour." [Jane Austen] ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ For information. This topic has been ;laid before the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee by Ton Kooijman (who is now 'hors de PC' until late in November). I am in no doubt that removal of the relevant wording in 1987 was intended to remove the authority to draw attention to a mispointed card. However, I am thinking that the intention was poorly implemented since the authority appears to transfer to Law 9A2. (Mispointing the card is a failure to conform to correct procedure, ergo an irregularity - albeit perhaps not an infraction. I fail to find in the laws any prohibition of drawing attention to it.) I have invited my colleagues to address my reading of the position, correct me if there is something I have overlooked, and in any case sort out what the intention is to be at some future time and how to express this effectively. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:52 AM > > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > > West-Meads writes > > >Ben wrote: > > > > > >> Until the 1987 Lawbook Law 65 ended with: "Any player may request > > >> that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." > > >> > > >> So it seems no longer permitted. On the other hand there is Law74C4: > > >> "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call > > >> attention to a significant occurence, or to the > > >> number of tricks still required for success." > > > > > >Prior to 1987 the blanket provision of L65 would give permission to ask > > >at any time. Law74c4 OTOH only makes it an offence if their is > > >considered motive. The current laws are not in conflict with "It's > > >generally OK to correct immediately, it's likely to be an offence if > > >attention is drawn at a key moment (e.g. when pard appears to be trying > > >to decide whether to cash the setting trick)". Note to Steve, I'm not > > >suggesting mind-reading required here, just an adjusted score if the > > >timing of the correction appears opportune and action is taken as a > > >result. > > > > > >Tim > > > > Would any of the following be an offence > > > > [1] "It's not your lead partner - you didn't win the last trick" as > > partner is about to pull a card from their hand. > > > > [2] "You won that trick partner". Partner is absent mindedly gazing > > around the room waiting for somebody else to lead. > > > > [3] "Who won that trick - you all appear to be claiming it" as I am in > > the process of turning my card over and deciding which way to turn it > > (I've actually turned it face down but am still holding it). > > IMO none of them would be an offence as such, but either of them _could_ > convey UI as judged on the circumstances in the actual situation. > > (Exactly as explicitly stated regarding otherwise legal questions on > opponents' auction.) > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mustikka at charter.net Tue Oct 10 17:57:30 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:57:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: Positronic brain Message-ID: <003301c6ec84$ce0f5f70$d3095e47@DFYXB361> Sent to HDW only, in error. I meant it for the group. Raija D. >> >> What I am trying to point out is that there was UI, and that there is >> then AI. And that the combination of both means that there are no >> longer L16 restrictions (in the sense of knowing it is strong, not >> weak - the L16 restrictions about it being not easy remain). >> >>> Regards Sven > > > The UI, IMHO, is that Herman's partner has been informed that Herman had a > hand that was not a clear 2C (the strong version). In order to avoid > taking advantage of *this* UI, Herman's partner is legally restricted from > taking conservative views later in the bidding [he is not allowed to know > that opener may have borderline 2C opener] > > All in all, I find it bad taste and disrespectful to try to create a law > case for test purposes or for discussion purposes at the table. The > opponents and partner are not there to be the case builder's unpaid > actors. As you can see, I feel very strongly on this point. > > Raija D. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 10 22:07:06 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pointing out who won the trick In-Reply-To: <660937DE-1F44-4FB5-B35B-1A20C3BBFC72@rochester.rr.com> References: <007601c6ea37$efeb8b90$58493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <6.1.1.1.0.20061010091742.02b708c0@pop.starpower.net> <660937DE-1F44-4FB5-B35B-1A20C3BBFC72@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061010160451.02b39510@pop.starpower.net> At 10:36 AM 10/10/06, Ed wrote: >On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > I'll let the legal eagles thrash out the theory, but I can tell you > > this: Where I play, any of those remarks would be perfectly > > acceptable > > and cause no comment or action by the opponents. Anyone who called > > the > > director to complain about such actions would be considered by the > > vast > > majority of the players to be inappropriately disrupting the game. > >Heh. Conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, if we want folks to >keep playing this game, we don't want to disrupt too much their long >cherished habits in playing. On the other hand, we want the game to >be played by its rules, and I think we all here accept that most >players are ignorant of most of the rules - so their long cherished >habits, particularly in this case, may or may not be technically >legal. If they're not, then either we educate the players about the >rules and try to get them to change their habits, or we change the >rules to make those habits legal. I'm not gonna argue about which >method is "right", but I'll note that while the second method is >certainly easier, I don't like it much. It feels too much like >surrendering. And with a ten year (give or take) wait between law >revisions, you're going to have a problem making sure everyone is on >the same page if you take the "change the law" road. To be honest, I intended that first clause as somewhat sarcastic (I confess to being smilie-challenged). I really can't imagine why any of those actions should be illegal, or why anyone would want or expect them to be. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 10 22:29:52 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:29:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <452B7888.9030203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c6ecaa$d78438c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ......... > > Yes, your partner has UI and must take care not to base > > his actions on this. > > But the UI is not what I believe you have in mind! > > > > Partner has the UI that your 2Cl opening bid was not > > obvious! In other words > > that you were on the edge of selecting another opening > > bid instead of 2Cl. > > > > Indeed, and of course. > But that was not the UI I was talking about. > When needing to decide whether or not to open 2Cl, it is simpler to > decide if it is a weak version, than if it is a strong one. So if it > takes 1 minute, partner knows (UI) that the 2Cl will be the strong > version. That knowledge may of course not be used, but one round > later, the bidding shows this out as well. So now the knowledge that > it is strong has become AI. Of course, the knowledge that it was not > an easy decision remains UI. > > What I am trying to point out is that there was UI, and that there is > then AI. And that the combination of both means that there are no > longer L16 restrictions (in the sense of knowing it is strong, not > weak - the L16 restrictions about it being not easy remain). Indeed. And I believe we have a corroborating law in L26A which concerns UI from withdrawn calls referring to a particular suit (or suits). Until that suit is specified again in a call by the offender the information from the withdrawn call related to this suit is UI to his partner. Law 16A1 must be understood that afterwards that information is AI to the extent that the same information is repeated in the new call. We are absolutely in agreement here. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 11 05:32:40 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:32:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 12A1: The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. Law 12B: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. Richard Hills: These two Laws have remained unchanged(1) since the 1975 edition of the Lawbook. To the average club director, these two laws seem somewhat contradictory. Edgar Kaplan (at least) twice gave his interpretation of these two laws in Bridge World articles. However, those two Kaplanic interpretations were contradictory. The Bridge World, July 1975, pages 3-4: (4) Under the old [1963 - RJH] Laws, the director had a vaguely defined discretionary power to adjust a score after an irregularity, "when, in the Director's opinion, these Laws provide no penalty which will fully indemnify a non-offending contestant." The trouble was that this quotation was given, by different directors, a vast range of interpretations going all the way from, (a) "never adjust a score if the law does provide a penalty for the type of infraction committed," to (z) "always adjust the score if the penalty, in a particular instance, happens to work to the disadvantage of the innocent side". Almost all directors would adjust the score when a revoke showed a profit; still, an occasional director would not. Most directors would refuse an adjustment when a player who had barred partner by opening out of turn then stabbed at a contract, and got a lucky top; a scattered few would adjust the score. If a player, not hearing partner's bid, opened one club after partner had also opened the bidding, he could correct to two clubs without penalty - when he thereby reached a delicate slam, directors would split 50-50 over whether to admit the score. The consequence was that rulings would differ widely in virtually identical cases. And a player, told by the floor director that he could correct to two clubs without penalty, might later find himself penalized should he get a good result - the Chief Director might be a "z" man. No one could know what the law really was, for it was in each director's head not in the book. The new [1975 - RJH] Code firmly establishes interpretation "a" - the director's discretionary power is to be used in unusual cases not covered by law, or in applying those sections that make no mention of penalty (e.g. the Proprieties). When a law says what the penalty is to be (or says "no penalty"), that's that. Richard Hills: Therefore, Kaplan was saying that Law 12B was a primary Law which could not be over-ridden by what he interpreted as a residual secondary Law, Law 12A1. But nine years later Edgar stated the opposite, in effect saying "that's not that". The Bridge World, January 1984, pages 14-16: Suppose this is the trump suit around the table: DUMMY H J84 WEST EAST H A72 H K3 DECLARER H QT965 Declarer leads dummy's heart four to East's three and his own queen; West thinks it over for quite a while, then ducks with the two. He is not trying to fool anybody (everyone now knows he has the ace); he is merely putting himself in position to win the second round of trumps and lead a third round. Obviously, that will be a disaster here. However, before declarer can lead a second round of trumps towards the jack, East cleverly drops his heart king on the table. This becomes a penalty card. It must be played at the first opportunity, and declarer has several other options - but none of his options will force West to play his ace on partner's king. The great crash has been averted! [snip] The route to score adjustment seems blocked, since the appropriate laws do specify the indemnities for exposed cards and redundant doubles, indemnities that were assessed and paid. Remember, "The Director may not assign an adjusted score on the grounds that the penalty provided in these Laws is unduly severe or advantageous to either side". So, neither may a Committee. Must the injustice stand, then? No, an adjusted score may be assigned, since, "These Laws provide no indemnity to a non- offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law or propriety committed by an opponent." Richard Hills: Therefore, Kaplan was now saying that Law 12A1 was a primary Law which could over-ride what he now interpreted as a residual secondary Law, Law 12B. The problem with this 1984 interpretation of Law 12A1 is that it opened the floodgates for again no one to know what the law really was, and again for the law to be in each director's head not in the book. And after the 1987 and 1997 editions of the Lawbook, with the inclusion of "could have known" Laws such as Law 72B1, this 1984 interpretation of Law 12A1 as a primary Law seems to me to be no longer necessary. Whichever one of Kaplan's two contradictory interpretations of the interaction between Law 12A1 and Law 12B is correct, it seems to me that it would be useful if next year's Lawbook _explicitly_ clarifies which one should be used by bewildered local club TDs. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 (1) Pedant's footnote: The 1975 Law 12A1 did refer to "violation of law or propriety", but that was insurance against 1975 sea- lawyers who might otherwise have wriggled through a loophole of the Proprieties in the 1975 Lawbook lacking Law numbers. From geller at nifty.com Wed Oct 11 05:46:54 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:46:54 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200610110346.AA05756@geller204.nifty.com> No problem. L72B1 says ************************************************* Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. *********************************************** and that obviously applies here. -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes:: >Law 12A1: > >The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges >that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending >contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed >by an opponent. > >Law 12B: > >The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that >the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or >advantageous to either side. > >Richard Hills: > >These two Laws have remained unchanged(1) since the 1975 edition >of the Lawbook. To the average club director, these two laws >seem somewhat contradictory. Edgar Kaplan (at least) twice gave >his interpretation of these two laws in Bridge World articles. > >However, those two Kaplanic interpretations were contradictory. > >The Bridge World, July 1975, pages 3-4: > >(4) Under the old [1963 - RJH] Laws, the director had a vaguely >defined discretionary power to adjust a score after an >irregularity, "when, in the Director's opinion, these Laws >provide no penalty which will fully indemnify a non-offending >contestant." The trouble was that this quotation was given, by >different directors, a vast range of interpretations going all >the way from, (a) "never adjust a score if the law does provide >a penalty for the type of infraction committed," to (z) "always >adjust the score if the penalty, in a particular instance, >happens to work to the disadvantage of the innocent side". > >Almost all directors would adjust the score when a revoke showed >a profit; still, an occasional director would not. Most >directors would refuse an adjustment when a player who had >barred partner by opening out of turn then stabbed at a >contract, and got a lucky top; a scattered few would adjust the >score. If a player, not hearing partner's bid, opened one club >after partner had also opened the bidding, he could correct to >two clubs without penalty - when he thereby reached a delicate >slam, directors would split 50-50 over whether to admit the >score. The consequence was that rulings would differ widely in >virtually identical cases. And a player, told by the floor >director that he could correct to two clubs without penalty, >might later find himself penalized should he get a good result >- the Chief Director might be a "z" man. No one could know what >the law really was, for it was in each director's head not in >the book. > >The new [1975 - RJH] Code firmly establishes interpretation "a" >- the director's discretionary power is to be used in unusual >cases not covered by law, or in applying those sections that >make no mention of penalty (e.g. the Proprieties). When a law >says what the penalty is to be (or says "no penalty"), that's >that. > >Richard Hills: > >Therefore, Kaplan was saying that Law 12B was a primary Law >which could not be over-ridden by what he interpreted as a >residual secondary Law, Law 12A1. But nine years later Edgar >stated the opposite, in effect saying "that's not that". > >The Bridge World, January 1984, pages 14-16: > >Suppose this is the trump suit around the table: > > DUMMY > H J84 >WEST EAST >H A72 H K3 > DECLARER > H QT965 > >Declarer leads dummy's heart four to East's three and his own >queen; West thinks it over for quite a while, then ducks with >the two. He is not trying to fool anybody (everyone now knows >he has the ace); he is merely putting himself in position to >win the second round of trumps and lead a third round. >Obviously, that will be a disaster here. However, before >declarer can lead a second round of trumps towards the jack, >East cleverly drops his heart king on the table. This becomes >a penalty card. It must be played at the first opportunity, and >declarer has several other options - but none of his options >will force West to play his ace on partner's king. The great >crash has been averted! > >[snip] > >The route to score adjustment seems blocked, since the >appropriate laws do specify the indemnities for exposed cards >and redundant doubles, indemnities that were assessed and paid. >Remember, "The Director may not assign an adjusted score on the >grounds that the penalty provided in these Laws is unduly severe >or advantageous to either side". So, neither may a Committee. > >Must the injustice stand, then? No, an adjusted score may be >assigned, since, "These Laws provide no indemnity to a non- >offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law >or propriety committed by an opponent." > >Richard Hills: > >Therefore, Kaplan was now saying that Law 12A1 was a primary Law >which could over-ride what he now interpreted as a residual >secondary Law, Law 12B. > >The problem with this 1984 interpretation of Law 12A1 is that it >opened the floodgates for again no one to know what the law >really was, and again for the law to be in each director's head >not in the book. > >And after the 1987 and 1997 editions of the Lawbook, with the >inclusion of "could have known" Laws such as Law 72B1, this 1984 >interpretation of Law 12A1 as a primary Law seems to me to be no >longer necessary. > >Whichever one of Kaplan's two contradictory interpretations of >the interaction between Law 12A1 and Law 12B is correct, it seems >to me that it would be useful if next year's Lawbook _explicitly_ >clarifies which one should be used by bewildered local club TDs. > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae >National Training Branch >02 6225 6285 > >(1) Pedant's footnote: The 1975 Law 12A1 did refer to "violation >of law or propriety", but that was insurance against 1975 sea- >lawyers who might otherwise have wriggled through a loophole of >the Proprieties in the 1975 Lawbook lacking Law numbers. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 11 06:28:14 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:28:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200610110346.AA05756@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >No problem. L72B1 says >************************************************* >Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at >the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely >to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and >play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he >considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the >irregularity. >*********************************************** >and that obviously applies here. > >-Bob Richard Hills (current post): Indeed, that was part of my conclusion favouring Kaplan's earlier restricted 1975 interpretation of Law 12A1 as being a residual Law limited by the scope of the primary Law 12B. Richard Hills (initial post): >>And after the 1987 and 1997 editions of the Lawbook, with the >>inclusion of "could have known" Laws such as Law 72B1, this 1984 >>interpretation of Law 12A1 as a primary Law seems to me to be no >>longer necessary. Richard Hills (current post): The primary question I seek to discuss is whether an unfettered Law 12A1 is desirable. It seems to me that Kaplan was forced to change his mind on the scope of Law 12A1 between 1975 and 1984 because some creative "Probst cheats" found a loophole in the 1975 Lawbook, which loophole has now been plugged by the current Lawbook's Law 72B1. But are there any unaddressed loopholes in the 1997 Lawbook which require that Law 12A1 should be permitted to over-ride Law 12B? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From geller at nifty.com Wed Oct 11 08:07:44 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:07:44 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200610110607.AA05759@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >The primary question I seek to discuss is whether an unfettered Law >12A1 is desirable. It seems to me that Kaplan was forced to change >his mind on the scope of Law 12A1 between 1975 and 1984 because some >creative "Probst cheats" found a loophole in the 1975 Lawbook, which >loophole has now been plugged by the current Lawbook's Law 72B1. Yes. Also L72B2 states **************************************** A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay. *************************************** This is a question of fact, but I can't imagine a director or committee believing it was an accident. >But are there any unaddressed loopholes in the 1997 Lawbook which >require that Law 12A1 should be permitted to over-ride Law 12B? I don't think so. If the dropping of the king was REALLY accidental (lol) then 12B holds and the non-offenders are out of luck. -Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 11 08:33:57 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:33:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200610110607.AA05759@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >I don't think so. If the dropping of the king was REALLY >accidental (lol) then 12B holds and the non-offenders are >out of luck. > >-Bob Richard Hills: Non-offenders were out of luck in 1984; but in 2006 Lady Luck now smiles on the non-offenders. Under the current Lawbook's Law 72B1 the TD does not need to determine if the dropping of the king of trumps is or is not an accident. The TD merely has to determine the obvious fact that East could have known, at the time of the "accidental" exposure of the king of trumps, that this was likely to prevent West from crashing the trump king under the trump ace. Therefore neither Law 12B nor Law 12A1 need to be invoked in 2006 to resolve what was a difficult problem in 1984. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Wed Oct 11 09:23:11 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:23:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A and 12 B Message-ID: <007301c6ed06$1bd57b00$3ea1ec51@admin> If East drops the king of hearts he must have done this intentionally (or at least judged so). Normal laws are not applicable and East should be thrown out. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 11 10:01:28 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:01:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061009183638.020f4410@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >BTW, some examples I've seen describes as EI-non-UI are UI IMHO. For >example, saying, before we pick our cards, that we're vulnerable may >convey (voluntarily or not) some message like : "bid carefully for >once" or "I don't believe you're hale and hearty, so that you might >not notice it". Richard Hills: It seems to me that information transmitted to partner _between_ deals cannot be defined as Law 16A UI from partner (although of course such communication may be illegal for another reason, for example an agreement to use an illegal convention, or an agreement to conceal a partnership understanding). Otherwise it would be an infraction to remind partner of a forgotten agreement between deals. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Oct 11 10:30:21 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:30:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001701c6ed0f$7dbf28d0$4101a8c0@david> > Richard Hills (current post): > > The primary question I seek to discuss is whether an unfettered Law > 12A1 is desirable. It seems to me that Kaplan was forced to change > his mind on the scope of Law 12A1 between 1975 and 1984 because some > creative "Probst cheats" found a loophole in the 1975 Lawbook, which > loophole has now been plugged by the current Lawbook's Law 72B1. > > But are there any unaddressed loopholes in the 1997 Lawbook which > require that Law 12A1 should be permitted to over-ride Law 12B? > This case was discussed here before:- - 5 5 - K 6 4 - - - - 7 - 8 - 8 South is declarer in a No Trump contract and has lost the plot. West leads the SK and dummy is instructed to "play anything". When West objects, declarer can infer that West's remaining card is a H or D and therefore plays the C8 from hand. The conclusion was, if I remember correctly, that (only) L46B5 should be applied and that there was no redress for the real possibility that both H's would have been played on the SK. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/471 - Release Date: 10/10/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 11 10:56:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > The route to score adjustment seems blocked, since the > appropriate laws do specify the indemnities for exposed cards > and redundant doubles, indemnities that were assessed and paid. The route to score adjustment was *not* blocked. The "offence" for which no penalty was prescribed was the *deliberate* exposure of the HK (ie the TD could not rule that it had been dropped accidentally and adjust) and a score adjustment would be the least of the penalties imposed on OS. Post 1987 (in recognition of the increasing litigiousness of society) the TD was able to adjust for the irregularity of "dropping" the HK at a key moment without having to rule "cheating". However, I tend to agree with Richard that the existence of L72b1 means that I can't think of any circumstances where I would *need* to adjust under L12a1 (which doesn't necessarily mean I want that law removed, just that I currently lack the imagination!). Tim From lali808 at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 11:15:32 2006 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:15:32 -1000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B Message-ID: A similar thing happened this past week at club. LHO leads a stiff C and his partner ducks and declarer wins the trick. Then declarer leads a C to dummy and LHO is getting ready to trump and the RHO is quick to drop his A. The director is called and only gives the declarer the 3 options.... but 2 are not applicable since LHO is void. The 3rd option allows LHO to play a nontrump seeing as he now knows his partner has the A and his partner then plays another C for his partner to ruff. Ops get a good board and declarer gets a bad board because only one other table found the C ruff from the trick 1. Was the ruling correct? From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Oct 11 11:15:26 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:15:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1GXaBT-0tFjHs0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Richard Hills asked: > But are there any unaddressed loopholes in the 1997 Lawbook which > require that Law 12A1 should be permitted to over-ride Law 12B? Try this one ... 7 84 (3) J7 J6 -- 5 93 -- Q8 632 K9 98 -- 10 AQ10 South is declarer in 4 spades and has lost 1 trick. East to lead plays the DQ. West ruffs with the J and when South asks dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears from behind the C7. TD ! Regards Peter From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 11 12:26:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: <1GXaBT-0tFjHs0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter wrote: > Try this one ... > > 7 > 84 > (3) > J7 > > J6 -- > 5 93 > -- Q8 > 632 K9 > > 98 > -- > 10 > AQ10 > > South is declarer in 4 spades and has lost 1 trick. > East to lead plays the DQ. > West ruffs with the J and when South asks > dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears > from behind the C7. TD ! There has been an infraction of Law41D, it is known that concealing cards in dummy may well work to the player's advantage, we can adjust under L72b1. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 11 12:26:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c6ed0f$7dbf28d0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: David wrote: > This case was discussed here before:- > > - > 5 > 5 > - > K 6 > 4 - > - - > - 7 > > - > 8 > - > 8 > South is declarer in a No Trump contract and has lost the plot. > West leads the SK and dummy is instructed to "play anything". > When West objects, declarer can infer that West's remaining card > is a H or D and therefore plays the C8 from hand. There has been an infraction of Law45b, declarer may be deemed aware that his action would function as a discovery play. We may adjust under L72b1. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 11 12:26:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lali wrote: > A similar thing happened this past week at club. LHO leads a stiff C > and his partner ducks and declarer wins the trick. Then declarer > leads a C to dummy and LHO is getting ready to trump and the RHO is > quick to drop his A. The director is called and only gives the > declarer the 3 options.... but 2 are not applicable since LHO is void. > The 3rd option allows LHO to play a nontrump seeing as he now knows > his partner has the A and his partner then plays another C for his > partner to ruff. Ops get a good board and declarer gets a bad board > because only one other table found the C ruff from the trick 1. > > Was the ruling correct? Since the ruling neglected the application of red hot pokers to RHO's anatomy it sounds deficient to me! Whether an adjusted score would be in order depends on the exact hand - it is possible that had RHO not shown the ace prematurely his partner would have ruffed and the CA made a trick later for the same score. The red-hot disciplinary penalty on RHO will be applied regardless of any score adjustment. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 11 13:20:46 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:20:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: <1GXaBT-0tFjHs0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011131900.02100c20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:15 11/10/2006 +0200, Peter Eidt wrote: >Try this one ... > > 7 > 84 > (3) > J7 > >J6 -- >5 93 >-- Q8 >632 K9 > > 98 > -- > 10 > AQ10 > >South is declarer in 4 spades and has lost 1 trick. >East to lead plays the DQ. >West ruffs with the J and when South asks >dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears >from behind the C7. TD ! I'd say this is one easy. 1. All players are responsible for not noticing dummy has too few cards. No redress to anyone for that. 2. Dummy doesn't revoke and has no penalty card. Substitute D3 for C7. End. Regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Oct 11 14:56:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <000001c6ec49$f1c783b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Partner has the UI that your 2Cl opening bid was not obvious! In > other words that you were on the edge of selecting another opening bid > instead of 2Cl. The UI from the thinking does indeed only suggest some sort of borderline hand. The additional UI from the way Herman was studying his cards (and moving his lips as he counted his points*) suggests some sort of strong hand. If the auction subsequently gives Herman a chance to *show* the strong hand type then the UI about having a strong hand no longer suggests any particular action. The UI about having a borderline hand may still carry some key suggestive power. * OK, the bit about moving his lips is poetic licence but it is often possible to tell when partner has a strong hand. I've had to rule in the past of the basis of demeanour conveying info about the nature of the problem and doubtless will have to do so some time in the future. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 11 15:28:53 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:28:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6ed39$32fe1930$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Partner has the UI that your 2Cl opening bid was not obvious! In > > other words that you were on the edge of selecting another opening bid > > instead of 2Cl. > > The UI from the thinking does indeed only suggest some sort of > borderline hand. The additional UI from the way Herman was studying his > cards (and moving his lips as he counted his points*) suggests some sort > of strong hand. > > If the auction subsequently gives Herman a chance to *show* the strong > hand type then the UI about having a strong hand no longer suggests any > particular action. The UI about having a borderline hand may still > carry some key suggestive power. Why couldn't it be that he was on the edge of selecting an even stronger opening bid? We can tell that his opening bid was not clear cut, but we cannot immediately tell in what way he had a choice. So can (and cannot) his partner. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 11 15:42:56 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:42:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: References: <000001c6ec49$f1c783b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011153655.02106490@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:56 11/10/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >it is often possible to tell when partner has a strong hand. I've had to >rule in >the past of the basis of demeanour conveying info about the nature of >the problem and doubtless will have to do so some time in the future. This is essential. Tim's statement means the stop procedure is imperfect, as few players are able to exhibit the same face whether they have a valuable hand or not. And I do agree. I'm no more perfect than my fellow human players, and have solved this problem by *asking* over skip bids. This most of us can do without giving themselves away. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 11 16:00:21 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:00:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: References: <1GXaBT-0tFjHs0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061011093554.02a589d0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:26 AM 10/11/06, twm wrote: >Peter wrote: > > > Try this one ... > > > > 7 > > 84 > > (3) > > J7 > > > > J6 -- > > 5 93 > > -- Q8 > > 632 K9 > > > > 98 > > -- > > 10 > > AQ10 > > > > South is declarer in 4 spades and has lost 1 trick. > > East to lead plays the DQ. > > West ruffs with the J and when South asks > > dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears > > from behind the C7. TD ! > >There has been an infraction of Law41D, it is known that concealing >cards in dummy may well work to the player's advantage, we can adjust >under L72b1. Can we? L72B1 requires not merely that the infraction "may" damage the NOS, but that it "would be likely" to do so. ISTM that a hidden card in the dummy is as apt to work to the defenders' advantage as to the declarer's, and therefore fails to meet the threshhold required to apply L72B1. I'm not sure how to parse the letter of TFLB here, but in my experience no director would adjust in this situation. They might find that the damage to the NOS was "self-inflicted" by virtue of their failing to notice that dummy had the wrong number of cards. Or cite the "principle" that all three players are responsible for noticing that dummy's cards are misarranged. That is nowhere to be found in TFLB (perhaps it should be considered?), but is in some sense "suggested" by L64B3 (commonly stated as "dummy can't revoke"), and seems to be widely accepted. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 11 16:31:44 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:31:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <000001c6ed39$32fe1930$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011162554.01fab5d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:28 11/10/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Why couldn't it be that he was on the edge of selecting an even stronger >opening bid? We can tell that his opening bid was not clear cut, but we >cannot immediately tell in what way he had a choice. So can (and cannot) his >partner. There could be usable UI, though. Say you hold : xx - Axxx - x - AQxxxx And the bidding goes : ...2C - 2D - 3S, showing a strong spade bid (6 cards). YMMV, but I'd say the slam will be a good proposition if and only if partner holds a solid suit (and enough playing strength). Or change my example to any case where partner having a solid suit would be essential. However, partner won't usually have this, because he wasn't sure he had a 2C bid. No, he will not have more than a normal Acol 2-bid, because with that *and* a solid suit, most partners will decide to open the stronger version (I suppose it is 2D in Herman's system). Best regards, Alain. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 11 16:58:00 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:58:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] agreements Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I've heard of a case in the Belgian T4 Championships, which raises a general question. Screens were in use. The bidding began : (N) 1C (W) 3C. 1C = 3+ cards. In this part of the world, and at this level of play (bracket B), nearly everyone plays 3C asks for a stopper (promising solid diamonds) ; however, East was a diehard naturalist, and understood this as a natural, intermediate jump (it must be said that this pair plays 1C-2C as natural). Later in the bidding, East, still in the fog, made a conclusive 6C bid, taken by partner as void-showing. He explained it as such and bid 7D. South declined to lead a club, and a 28-IMP swing ensued (the contract at the other table was a mundane diamond partial). The ruling -on which the Jury is still out- must consider the following question : are standard conventions considered "on" as a default ? In which case West's explanations were faultless and East a lucky devil. Or should West have explained better, like "I guess he, too, plays this as stopper-showing" ? What are your feelings ? Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Wed Oct 11 17:00:25 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:25 +0900 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200610111500.AA05763@geller204.nifty.com> I don't think this is a laws question. Rather the answer depends on the alerting regulations set up by the particular sponsoring organization. -Bob Alain Gottcheiner writes: >Dear blmlists, > >I've heard of a case in the Belgian T4 Championships, which raises a >general question. > >Screens were in use. >The bidding began : (N) 1C (W) 3C. >1C = 3+ cards. > >In this part of the world, and at this level of play (bracket B), nearly >everyone plays 3C asks for a stopper (promising solid diamonds) ; however, >East was a diehard naturalist, and understood this as a natural, >intermediate jump (it must be said that this pair plays 1C-2C as natural). > >Later in the bidding, East, still in the fog, made a conclusive 6C bid, >taken by partner as void-showing. He explained it as such and bid 7D. South >declined to lead a club, and a 28-IMP swing ensued (the contract at the >other table was a mundane diamond partial). > >The ruling -on which the Jury is still out- must consider the following >question : are standard conventions considered "on" as a default ? In which >case West's explanations were faultless and East a lucky devil. Or should >West have explained better, like "I guess he, too, plays this as >stopper-showing" ? > >What are your feelings ? > >Best regards > > Alain > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 11 17:15:43 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:15:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <200610111500.AA05763@geller204.nifty.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011171342.027b5b20@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:00 12/10/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >I don't think this is a laws question. Rather the answer depends on >the alerting regulations set up by the particular sponsoring organization. Not really. The problem is not in the alert (a cue-bid is ofrten considered self-alerting), but rather in the explanation. So I'll rephrase it : "when explaining a bid -yours or his-, are you allowed -perhaps compelled- to assume "standard" is the agreement" ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 11 17:16:06 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:16:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: agreements Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011171603.027c01e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:15:43 +0200 >To: Robert Geller >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [blml] agreements >Cc: blml at rtflb.org > >At 00:00 12/10/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >>I don't think this is a laws question. Rather the answer depends on >>the alerting regulations set up by the particular sponsoring organization. > >Not really. The problem is not in the alert (a cue-bid is ofrten >considered self-alerting), but rather in the explanation. So I'll rephrase >it : "when explaining a bid -yours or his-, are you allowed -perhaps >compelled- to assume "standard" is the agreement" ? From geller at nifty.com Wed Oct 11 17:24:53 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:24:53 +0900 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011171603.027c01e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011171603.027c01e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200610111524.AA05765@geller204.nifty.com> >>At 00:00 12/10/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: >>>I don't think this is a laws question. Rather the answer depends on >>>the alerting regulations set up by the particular sponsoring organization. >> >>Not really. The problem is not in the alert (a cue-bid is ofrten >>considered self-alerting), but rather in the explanation. So I'll rephrase >>it : "when explaining a bid -yours or his-, are you allowed -perhaps >>compelled- to assume "standard" is the agreement" ? The laws say nothing about this. Whether or not (and how) you have to explain this is subject to the procedures set up by the sponsoring organization. If you're in Warsaw and you open 1C it's sufficient just to say "Polish club" (if that's what it is), but in other parts of the world you need to go into detail. The general principle of full disclosure of agreements is valid everywhere but each sponsoring organization or national federation sets up its own rules for how the disclosure is to be made. In the case of the Belgian natural 3C what are the procedures for explaining this (alert regulations) set up by the national federation of Belgoum? -Bob From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Oct 11 18:10:36 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:10:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B Message-ID: <1GXgfE-0SyjYm0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Eric wrote: > At 06:26 AM 10/11/06, twm wrote: > > > Peter wrote: > > > > > Try this one ... > > > > > > 7 > > > 84 > > > (3) > > > J7 > > > > > > J6 ? ? ? ? ? -- > > > 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? 93 > > > -- ? ? ? ? ? ? Q8 > > > 632 ? ? ? ? K9 > > > > > > 98 > > > -- > > > 10 > > > AQ10 > > > > > > South is declarer in 4 spades and has lost 1 trick. > > > East to lead plays the DQ. > > > West ruffs with the J and when South asks > > > dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears > > > from behind the C7. TD ! > > > > There has been an infraction of Law41D, it is known that concealing > > cards in dummy may well work to the player's advantage, we can > > adjust under L72b1. > > > > Can we? ?L72B1 requires not merely that the infraction "may" damage > the NOS, but that it "would be likely" to do so. ?ISTM that a hidden > card in the dummy is as apt to work to the defenders' advantage as to > the declarer's, and therefore fails to meet the threshhold required to > apply L72B1. > > I'm not sure how to parse the letter of TFLB here, but in my > experience no director would adjust in this situation. ?They might > find that the damage to the NOS was "self-inflicted" by virtue of > their failing to notice that dummy had the wrong number of cards. ?Or > cite the > "principle" that all three players are responsible for noticing that > dummy's cards are misarranged. ?That is nowhere to be found in TFLB > (perhaps it should be considered?), but is in some sense "suggested" > by L64B3 (commonly stated as "dummy can't revoke"), and seems to be > widely accepted. But is not accepted within the board of European (EBL) TDs. It is an infraction of dummy (Law 41 D) but there is no penalty prescribed for any infraction of Law 41 D. It is not a Law 72 B1 case - as Eric argued above - If the D3 would have stuck under a small heart, it would have resulted in a revoke and therefore in a Law 64 C case (allowing West to ruff low) So, all we have - and we need it - is Law 12 A1 ("the laws do not provide indemnity to the non- offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law by an opponent.") Peter From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Oct 11 18:24:21 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:24:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] agreements Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A6A@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: 11 October 2006 15:58 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [blml] agreements > are standard conventions considered "on" as a default ? _______________________________________________ I think this is a question for a partnership not for regulation. If West assumes that standard conventions are "on" and East assumes everything is natural unless explicitly agreed, then they have no agreement. If they have had a discussion "of course we play all the standard Belgian expert stuff" then they have an agreement (one which East did not understand or has forgotten). Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 11 23:39:49 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:39:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011171603.027c01e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c6ed7d$c758fa70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: agreements > > > >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:15:43 +0200 > >To: Robert Geller > >From: Alain Gottcheiner > >Subject: Re: [blml] agreements > >Cc: blml at rtflb.org > > > >At 00:00 12/10/2006 +0900, Robert Geller wrote: > >>I don't think this is a laws question. Rather the answer depends on > >>the alerting regulations set up by the particular sponsoring > organization. > > > >Not really. The problem is not in the alert (a cue-bid is ofrten > >considered self-alerting), but rather in the explanation. So I'll > rephrase > >it : "when explaining a bid -yours or his-, are you allowed -perhaps > >compelled- to assume "standard" is the agreement" ? No! "Standard" is no description, it is a reference to some more or less obscure set of definitions which your opponents cannot be assumed to know. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 11 23:45:24 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:45:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c6ed7e$8ef87e70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 11. oktober 2006 16:58 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] agreements > > Dear blmlists, > > I've heard of a case in the Belgian T4 Championships, which raises a > general question. > > Screens were in use. > The bidding began : (N) 1C (W) 3C. > 1C = 3+ cards. > > In this part of the world, and at this level of play (bracket B), nearly > everyone plays 3C asks for a stopper (promising solid diamonds) ; however, > East was a diehard naturalist, and understood this as a natural, > intermediate jump (it must be said that this pair plays 1C-2C as natural). > > Later in the bidding, East, still in the fog, made a conclusive 6C bid, > taken by partner as void-showing. He explained it as such and bid 7D. > South > declined to lead a club, and a 28-IMP swing ensued (the contract at the > other table was a mundane diamond partial). > > The ruling -on which the Jury is still out- must consider the following > question : are standard conventions considered "on" as a default ? In > which > case West's explanations were faultless and East a lucky devil. Or should > West have explained better, like "I guess he, too, plays this as > stopper-showing" ? > > What are your feelings ? My immediate feelings are that East/West is unable to show evidence of their agreements and thus the Director shall presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid (Law 75D2 footnote) Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Oct 12 04:57:06 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:57:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <452DAF02.3010204@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] > Screens were in use. > The bidding began : (N) 1C (W) 3C. > 1C = 3+ cards. > In this part of the world, and at this level of play (bracket B), > nearly everyone plays 3C asks for a stopper (promising solid > diamonds) ; however, East was a diehard naturalist, and > understood this as a natural, intermediate jump (it must be said > that this pair plays 1C-2C as natural). > Later in the bidding, East, still in the fog, made a conclusive > 6C bid, taken by partner as void-showing. He explained it as > such and bid 7D. South declined to lead a club, and a 28-IMP > swing ensued (the contract at the other table was a mundane > diamond partial). > The ruling -on which the Jury is still out- must consider the > following question : are standard conventions considered "on" as > a default ? In which case West's explanations were faultless and > East a lucky devil. Or should West have explained better, like > "I guess he, too, plays this as stopper-showing" ? [nige1] IMO, in the EBU, if you've no agreement about a call but you think it's conventional (eg asking for a stopper) or unusual (eg natural bid of opponent's suit) then you should you say "undiscussed but I I am happy to explain its *probable* meaning." [A] If you have no agreement but an opponent takes up your offer to speculate then partner doesn't have to correct a wrong guess by you; and opponents get redress only from a director who has been converted by Bobby Wolf's "convention disruption" crusade. [B] If, however, *you do have an agreement* but have wrongly explained it and your side declares the final contract, then partner must correct your misinformation before defenders make an opening lead. IMO, in Alain's case, provided that West truthfully explains 6C as "no agreement but likely to be a void", then N-S can expect no redress. However "void" unqualified would attract an adverse ruling IMO, a simpler, better but crueler law would be "If you don't know then you must guess. If you guess wrong it's *misinformation*. Under this rule defenders would get redress unless East's 6C was a deliberate psyche. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 12 05:27:36 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:27:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Old as the Hills (was Pointing out...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061010160451.02b39510@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >players are ignorant of most of the rules - so their >long cherished habits, particularly in this case, >may or may not be technically legal. If they're not, >then either we educate the players about the rules >and try to get them to change their habits, or we >change the rules to make those habits legal. [snip] Richard Hills: Since I am now as old as the Hills, my reflexes are not as quick as in my youth. Therefore, when as dummy I attempt to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand, sometimes my warning happens after declarer has played the wrong card, rather than before. Technically my belated warning is currently an infraction of Law 9. However, it is an infraction which can only benefit the defenders. Without my warning an inattentive defender may automatically follow to declarer's wrong lead when it is not to the defence's advantage to do so. Therefore, my suggested change to the rules to make this long cherished habit legal is -> Suggested 2007 new Law 42A4: "If declarer leads from the wrong hand, dummy may (as a courtesy to the defenders) immediately draw attention to that irregularity, thus awakening the defenders to their rights under Law 55." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 12 05:40:49 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:40:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c6ecaa$d78438c0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: >Indeed. And I believe we have a corroborating law in L26A which concerns >UI from withdrawn calls referring to a particular suit (or suits). > >Until that suit is specified again in a call by the offender the >information from the withdrawn call related to this suit is UI to his >partner. Richard Hills quibbles: The statement "specified again" is the former policy of Law 26; the current 1997 policy of Law 26 is "specified in the legal auction". That is, if the suit or suits concerned have been legally specified in a _prior_ call or calls, then there is not any Law 26 lead penalty for the withdrawn call. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 12 06:04:23 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:04:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote: >However, I tend to agree with Richard that the existence >of L72b1 means that I can't think of any circumstances >where I would *need* to adjust under L12a1 (which doesn't >necessarily mean I want that law removed, just that I >currently lack the imagination!). Richard Hills writes: Not quite what I am asserting. As TD, I am happy to use Law 12A1 _provided that_ Law 12B clearly does not apply. Peter Eidt wrote: >>Try this one ... >> >> 7 >> 84 >> (3) >> J7 >> >>J6 -- >>5 93 >>-- Q8 >>632 K9 >> >> 98 >> -- >> 10 >> AQ10 >> >>South is declarer in 4 spades and has lost 1 trick. >>East to lead plays the DQ. >>West ruffs with the J and when South asks >>dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears >>from behind the C7. TD ! Tim West-Meads wrote: >There has been an infraction of Law41D, it is known >that concealing cards in dummy may well work to the >player's advantage, we can adjust under L72b1. Richard Hills writes: I follow a simpler route, which does not require the doubtful assertion that dummy "could have known, at the time of the infraction" that displaying only 12 cards was more likely to damage the defending side than the declaring side. Law 41D does not have any penalty specified for its infraction, therefore the primary Law 12B does not apply, therefore the residual Law 12A1 does apply. And the Law 12A1 test is lesser than the Law 72B1 test; it merely asks the single question whether the defenders were damaged by the Law 41D infraction, not also a second question of "could have known". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 12 06:24:16 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:24:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1GXgfE-0SyjYm0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >"principle" that all three players are responsible for noticing that >dummy's cards are misarranged. ?That is nowhere to be found in TFLB >(perhaps it should be considered?), but is in some sense "suggested" >by L64B3 (commonly stated as "dummy can't revoke"), and seems to be >widely accepted. Richard Hills: No such principle. Law 64B3, which states, "The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand", is specifically subject to the over-riding Law 64C, which states, "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non- offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score". Ergo, a revealed error by dummy does not define both sides as two offending sides if that revealed error is initially unobserved. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Oct 12 09:32:28 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:32:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <452DEF8C.2050307@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Dear blmlists, > > I've heard of a case in the Belgian T4 Championships, which raises a > general question. > > Screens were in use. > The bidding began : (N) 1C (W) 3C. was 3C actually bid out of turn? > 1C = 3+ cards. > > In this part of the world, and at this level of play (bracket B), nearly > everyone plays 3C asks for a stopper (promising solid diamonds) ; however, > East was a diehard naturalist, and understood this as a natural, > intermediate jump (it must be said that this pair plays 1C-2C as natural). > > Later in the bidding, East, still in the fog, made a conclusive 6C bid, > taken by partner as void-showing. He explained it as such and bid 7D. South > declined to lead a club, and a 28-IMP swing ensued (the contract at the > other table was a mundane diamond partial). > > The ruling -on which the Jury is still out- must consider the following > question : are standard conventions considered "on" as a default ? In which > case West's explanations were faultless and East a lucky devil. Or should > West have explained better, like "I guess he, too, plays this as > stopper-showing" ? > > What are your feelings ? as often the case, the problem arose from east's ignorance of his duties about disclosure. as it appeared from your description, i think the pair had no agreement about the 3C bid, so he should have explained he had no agreement and that anyone's guess would be as good as his. if his guess could be helped by some piece of information such as the meaning of a 2C overcall or anything else, he should have offered them. as i understand the disclosing procedure, if he was guessing, he should say he was guessing, not giving the result of his guess and if he gave his opponents the false impression that he had strong agreements, was on solid ground and hid the fact that they were "in the fog", he was guilty of misinformation and opened the door to a possible score adjustment. i am somewhat lost with your description of east's and west's role. if the problem was with the explanation of the 6C bid and not 3C, i think it's the same thing about the pair not having any agreement about it. jpr > > Best regards > > Alain > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 12 10:27:03 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:27:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6edd8$32308fc0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asserted: > > >Indeed. And I believe we have a corroborating law in L26A which concerns > >UI from withdrawn calls referring to a particular suit (or suits). > > > >Until that suit is specified again in a call by the offender the > >information from the withdrawn call related to this suit is UI to his > >partner. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > The statement "specified again" is the former policy of Law 26; the > current 1997 policy of Law 26 is "specified in the legal auction". That > is, if the suit or suits concerned have been legally specified in a > _prior_ call or calls, then there is not any Law 26 lead penalty for the > withdrawn call. Sorry, I was inaccurate: Law 26 really says that unless the same suit is specified in the "legal auction". And the legal auction in this case consists of two parts: The calls prior to the irregularity and the calls subsequent to the irregularity. There is no limitation in Law 26 for avoiding lead penalties that the suit(s) specified in the withdrawn call must already have been specified in prior legal call(s); specifying such suit(s) in later legal call(s) should have the same effect. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 12 10:28:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061011093554.02a589d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > >There has been an infraction of Law41D, it is known that concealing > >cards in dummy may well work to the player's advantage, we can adjust > >under L72b1. > > Can we? L72B1 requires not merely that the infraction "may" damage > the NOS, but that it "would be likely" to do so. ISTM that a hidden > card in the dummy is as apt to work to the defenders' advantage as to > the declarer's, and therefore fails to meet the threshhold required > to apply L72B1. Eric, let me assure you that were I the sort of person to hide one of dummy's cards I'd know when to let it stay hidden and when to reveal it. If the position is such that the hidden card *did* work advantageously it is likely that the player could have foreseen the possibility. Basically anything that a clever cheat might try crosses my "could have known" threshold. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 12 10:55:49 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:55:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A6A@exchsvr1.npl.ad.loc al> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:24 11/10/2006 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >If West assumes that standard conventions are "on" and East >assumes everything is natural unless explicitly agreed, then >they have no agreement. If they have had a discussion >"of course we play all the standard Belgian expert stuff" >then they have an agreement (one which East did not >understand or has forgotten). This answer is very interesting. It raises some important points : 1. "I don't understand that agreement" doesn't necessarily mean "we've no agreement". Something TDs and ACs keep forgetting. 2. How does one ascertain the pair had an agreement of "standard on unless agreed" ? 3. If a pair says "for everything undiscussed, we follow the Kalamazoo Club system", and the players have different ideas of said system, do they have an agreement ? In particular, may a book on that system be used by the TD/AC to determine the agreements ? Similarly, if a pair agrees to use John Doe's system, may John's testimony be used to determine the pair's assumed agreements ? Best regards, Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 12 11:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > Not quite what I am asserting. As TD, I am happy to use > Law 12A1 _provided that_ Law 12B clearly does not apply. Then I misunderstood your previous posting - I thought you were suggesting that L12a1 was redundant. Peter's example was one where I'd use L12a1 if it existed (easier to explain) but be comfortable using L72 if it were removed. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 12 11:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Old as the Hills (was Pointing out...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Since I am now as old as the Hills, my reflexes > are not as quick as in my youth. Therefore, when > as dummy I attempt to prevent declarer leading > from the wrong hand, sometimes my warning happens > after declarer has played the wrong card, rather > than before. > > Technically my belated warning is currently an > infraction of Law 9. No it isn't. You were "try(ing) to prevent any irregularity by declarer" that is 100% legal under dummy's rights. That your attempt came too late successfully to prevent the infraction doesn't change one iota what you were trying to do (unless the TD is Yoda!). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 12 11:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061011164434.020f62c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > > Later in the bidding, East, still in the fog, made a conclusive 6C > bid, taken by partner as void-showing. He explained it as such and > bid 7D. South declined to lead a club, and a 28-IMP swing ensued (the > contract at the other table was a mundane diamond partial). I'm confused. West must surely have known that the sequence was undiscussed and must also have known (albeit from his hand) that 3C did not show solid D. He should thus have been acutely aware of the need to describe 6C as "Undiscussed, either void showing or 'to play' if the 3C was natural." It sounds to me as if West has been nobbled by the De Wael school of explanation! Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 12 15:52:11 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:52:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: References: <1GXgfE-0SyjYm0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061012093718.02a260d0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:24 AM 10/12/06, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau: > > >"principle" that all three players are responsible for noticing that > >dummy's cards are misarranged. That is nowhere to be found in TFLB > >(perhaps it should be considered?), but is in some sense "suggested" > >by L64B3 (commonly stated as "dummy can't revoke"), and seems to be > >widely accepted. > >No such principle. > >Law 64B3, which states, "The penalty for an established revoke does >not apply: if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced >on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a >card from dummy's hand", is specifically subject to the over-riding >Law 64C, which states, "When, after any established revoke, including >those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non- >offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the >damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score". > >Ergo, a revealed error by dummy does not define both sides as two >offending sides if that revealed error is initially unobserved. Quite so; as I wrote above, the "principle" in question "is nowhere to be found in TFLB". But: (a) It does seem to accord with many, perhaps most, players' "common sense". (b) It is widely cited and applied, notwithstanding that it doesn't exist. (c) Sophisticated adjudicators know it doesn't exist, but will enforce it "de facto" by ruling that the damage to the NOS was a direct consequence of their own failure to notice that dummy was short (or missorted), therefore "self-inflicted", subsequent but not consequent to dummy's infraction, no adjustment. That's theoretically a matter of judgment rather than law, but is well within the TDs/ACs authority. Given all that, we might ask if we'd be better off in the future if such a principle *were* to be found in TFLB. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From geller at nifty.com Thu Oct 12 16:21:58 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:21:58 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061012093718.02a260d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061012093718.02a260d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200610121421.AA05783@geller204.nifty.com> Actually a few months ago we had a case where dummy (South) had only 12 cards (she left her 13th card, the king of spades, in the board). After consulting overseas authorities we reached the following cconclusions. (1) First, there is Law 7B1 which requires players to count their cards correctly. Either South did not count them, or counted wrong, which is an infraction. (2) Second there is Law 41D. South is required to put down 13 cards in a particular way, and failed to do so. (3) Neither East nor West are responsible for checking that South is following the Laws, so E/W are non-offending. (4) Law 64B3 and Law 64C apply. But the defence might go wrong and lose a trick by not realising what cards are in dummy, even if there is no revoke. Since there is an infraction as above but no specified way of dealing with it Law 12A1 applies. -Bob Eric Landau writes: >At 12:24 AM 10/12/06, richard.hills wrote: > >>Eric Landau: >> >> >"principle" that all three players are responsible for noticing that >> >dummy's cards are misarranged. That is nowhere to be found in TFLB >> >(perhaps it should be considered?), but is in some sense "suggested" >> >by L64B3 (commonly stated as "dummy can't revoke"), and seems to be >> >widely accepted. >> >>No such principle. >> >>Law 64B3, which states, "The penalty for an established revoke does >>not apply: if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced >>on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a >>card from dummy's hand", is specifically subject to the over-riding >>Law 64C, which states, "When, after any established revoke, including >>those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non- >>offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the >>damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score". >> >>Ergo, a revealed error by dummy does not define both sides as two >>offending sides if that revealed error is initially unobserved. > >Quite so; as I wrote above, the "principle" in question "is nowhere to >be found in TFLB". > >But: > >(a) It does seem to accord with many, perhaps most, players' "common >sense". > >(b) It is widely cited and applied, notwithstanding that it doesn't exist. > >(c) Sophisticated adjudicators know it doesn't exist, but will enforce >it "de facto" by ruling that the damage to the NOS was a direct >consequence of their own failure to notice that dummy was short (or >missorted), therefore "self-inflicted", subsequent but not consequent >to dummy's infraction, no adjustment. That's theoretically a matter of >judgment rather than law, but is well within the TDs/ACs authority. > >Given all that, we might ask if we'd be better off in the future if >such a principle *were* to be found in TFLB. > > >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 12 16:29:12 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:29:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061011093554.02a589d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061012100309.02b6beb0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:28 AM 10/12/06, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > >There has been an infraction of Law41D, it is known that concealing > > >cards in dummy may well work to the player's advantage, we can adjust > > >under L72b1. > > > > Can we? L72B1 requires not merely that the infraction "may" damage > > the NOS, but that it "would be likely" to do so. ISTM that a hidden > > card in the dummy is as apt to work to the defenders' advantage as to > > the declarer's, and therefore fails to meet the threshhold required > > to apply L72B1. > >Eric, let me assure you that were I the sort of person to hide one of >dummy's cards I'd know when to let it stay hidden and when to reveal >it. If the position is such that the hidden card *did* work >advantageously it is likely that the player could have foreseen the >possibility. Basically anything that a clever cheat might try crosses >my "could have known" threshold. My opinion of the damage done to the game by the introduction into TFLB of all those lawyeresque "could haves" and "might haves" is well known in this forum (notwithstanding that I understand the necessity for lawmakers' having done so). And it is L72B1 that is most easily abused in this manner. If we accept that "anything that a clever cheat might try" crosses the threshhold for the application of L72B1, we might as well throw away all of the other laws prescribing adjustments for irregularities and just use L72B1 in every case. There isn't an irregularity in the book that a "clever cheat" might not try if he thought he might gain some advantage thereby. At least 99.99% of the time that dummy has a hidden or missorted card it is the result of an innocent error; it is an attempt at a "clever cheat" at most 0.01% of the time (and probably a lot less frequently). Guided by the "Scope" section, it behooves us to interpret the law in such a way as to optimize its effect on the 99.99+% of the cases rather than the 0.01-%. While I'm confident that Tim, were he attempting to cheat, would "know when to let it stay hidden and when to reveal it", I very much doubt that his expertise extends to projecting the play so accurately from the auction alone as to be able to arrange the dummy so that a hidden card would be revealed in the normal course of play at precisely the right moment to give maximum advantage to declarer. And I have no problem whatsoever stipulating that if dummy lays down his hand with a card hidden and then just happens to "find" the still-hidden card at some precise point when it works to his side's advantage for him to do so, that is sufficient to trigger L72B1. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 12 17:33:31 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:33:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A6A@exchsvr1.npl.ad.loc al> <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061012104108.02b53650@pop.starpower.net> At 04:55 AM 10/12/06, Alain wrote: >At 17:24 11/10/2006 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > > >If West assumes that standard conventions are "on" and East > >assumes everything is natural unless explicitly agreed, then > >they have no agreement. If they have had a discussion > >"of course we play all the standard Belgian expert stuff" > >then they have an agreement (one which East did not > >understand or has forgotten). I have a hard time believing this. Is "the standard Belgian expert stuff" really consensually and uniformly defined to the point where it can be called an agreement by virtue of merely being named? I can tell you this for sure: There is not a single soul who could tell you what constitutes "the standard American expert stuff". Any "agreement" to play *that* would be meaningless and would certainly not constitute what we mean by "a partnership agreement" in this context. >This answer is very interesting. It raises some important points : > >1. "I don't understand that agreement" doesn't necessarily mean "we've no >agreement". Something TDs and ACs keep forgetting. Not "understanding" an agreement isn't black or white. Agreements have tails: details, consequences to other agreements, presumed applicabilities, etc. No two players will take exactly the same calls in every situation; there is a large grey area where the "tails" of one's agreements can't be differentiated from matters of "style and judgment", and nobody, not even Meckstroth and Rodwell with their hundreds of pages of explicit agreements, is on the same page every time. There will always be a point at which "firm agreements" have "no agreement" tails. If I sit down to play with Alain and we decide to use Stayman and Jacoby transfers over 1NT openings, I don't think either of us would say "I don't understand that agreement". But that doesn't mean we know whether, say, we might use Stayman with both majors and a zero-count, or whether a new suit after a Jacoby transfer would be a one-round or game force. >2. How does one ascertain the pair had an agreement of "standard on >unless >agreed" ? That's easy. We ask them. >3. If a pair says "for everything undiscussed, we follow the Kalamazoo >Club >system", and the players have different ideas of said system, do they >have >an agreement ? That's for the TD or AC to decide -- as it always is when players believe they have an agreement but differ as to its substance. But the converse always holds. If they have the *same* "ideas of said system", then they have an agreement, even if that agreement is *not* the same one as is prescribed by the Kalamazoo Club system. >In particular, may a book on that system be used by the >TD/AC to determine the agreements ? Sure, if that sheds any light on the state of the agreement -- evidence is evidence. In a L75 case, where one partner follows the "Kalamazoo Club" book and the other deviates from it (in bid and explanation), their explicit "Kalamazoo Club" agreement should certainly be sufficient for us to use the book to determine whether to rule misbid or misexplanation. >Similarly, if a pair agrees to use John Doe's system, may John's >testimony >be used to determine the pair's assumed agreements ? If we really needed John Doe's testimony to determine what constituted his system, I'd probably be inclined to find that they really had no agreement, since their "system" is not sufficiently well-defined to provide any substance to that agreement (not unlike "the standard American expert stuff"). OTOH, if John Doe had system notes, or even a pre-existing convention card that he was prepared to identify as "his system", I would be likely accept that as evidence in the same situations where I would accept a book on the Kalamazoo Club. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 13 01:12:20 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:12:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4BC7D5BC-7E94-4D8C-B554-3E20996384A1@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 12, 2006, at 4:55 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > 1. "I don't understand that agreement" doesn't necessarily mean > "we've no > agreement". Something TDs and ACs keep forgetting. Not sure what you mean here, unless you're saying that if two people "agree" to play such and such, they have an agreement even if one of them doesn't know how to play such and such. This may or may not be a problem - see below. > 2. How does one ascertain the pair had an agreement of "standard on > unless > agreed" ? There is no "standard" - because the word means different things to different people - so that agreement is no agreement at all. > 3. If a pair says "for everything undiscussed, we follow the > Kalamazoo Club > system", and the players have different ideas of said system, do > they have > an agreement ? In particular, may a book on that system be used by the > TD/AC to determine the agreements ? > Similarly, if a pair agrees to use John Doe's system, may John's > testimony > be used to determine the pair's assumed agreements ? If a pair agree to play by a book (or by the methods espoused by a third player), they have an agreement to play by that book - if both have read it. If one of them hasn't read it, then he doesn't know the system (and so, *cannot* explain it properly). As in #1 above, if there are multiple possible interpretations of what a method is (for example, Ogust, generally, is a 2NT ask about opener's weak two bid, and the responses generally show some combination of weak or strong hand and weak or strong suit - but some people order the responses differently) then I would question whether they really have an agreement if they haven't discussed which way they're gonna go. IOW, if at the table N says "Ogust?", S says "okay", and it later transpires they're on different wavelengths vis-a-vis the meaning of opener's 3D rebid, I would question whether they had a complete agreement in the first place. What I don't know is whether that makes such a 3D bid situation one of misbid or misexplanation. I don't think a director can say "obviously misexplanation" just because either the way he plays it or the way one particular book has it, opener bid it "right". IOW, where players have different ideas what a bid means, I think the situation is usually one of misbid - though I would caution them to come to a firm agreement ASAP. There is other possible situations - both players have read the book, but the book is ambiguous about something, or one player has misinterpreted or misremembered it. That last is clearly misbid if he's the one bidding, or misexplanation if he's the one explaining. The others are less than clear to me. As a general principle, I think we want to require people to explain their agreements, but whether (or how much) we penalize them for misremembering, misunderstanding, or whatever should depend on the level of play - or perhaps the level of the players. Very unspecific, I know, but I'm not at all sure I can get more so. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 13 01:23:51 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:23:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Old as the Hills (was Pointing out...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6BF80409-CED8-42EA-9236-AD3EA0BE7FEC@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > No it isn't. You were "try(ing) to prevent any irregularity by > declarer" that is 100% legal under dummy's rights. That your attempt > came too late successfully to prevent the infraction doesn't change > one > iota what you were trying to do (unless the TD is Yoda!). I'm not Yoda, but... there is a point beyond which the attempt clearly cannot succeed, and at which dummy could have aborted his attempt. If the situation is at or beyond that point, it seems to me, then the attempt is illegal, whatever dummy's intentions or his rights. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 13 01:41:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061012100309.02b6beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > At least 99.99% of the time that dummy has a hidden or missorted card > it is the result of an innocent error; it is an attempt at a "clever > cheat" at most 0.01% of the time (and probably a lot less > frequently). Guided by the "Scope" section, it behooves us to > interpret the law in such a way as to optimize its effect on the > 99.99+% of the cases rather than the 0.01-%. In 90% of cases the accident is spotted or is neutral, in 7% of cases it works against declarer. 0.01%/3% is significant enough to register on my detectors. Besides, the fact that I am entitled to rule "could have known" in any given table layout doesn't mean that I will. The probability of something having been an accident varies between 100% for some of my players and 1% for others. Players with impeccable ethical records will get the benefit of the doubt, shysters and sharks will get "could have known" every time. > While I'm confident that Tim, were he attempting to cheat, would > "know when to let it stay hidden and when to reveal it", I very much > doubt that his expertise extends to projecting the play so accurately > from the auction alone as to be able to arrange the dummy so that a > hidden card would be revealed in the normal course of play at > precisely the right moment to give maximum advantage to declarer. That would be beyond my talents. But knocking a card aside while playing from dummy is easier (the card should be hidden under the longer of the middle two suits in order to maximise the chances for accidental exposure). Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 13 04:54:23 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:54:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Know thyself [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4521C447.2070200@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner (Illegal convention thread): >Anybody know what the ACBL rules are? [big snip] Richard Hills: "Know thyself," was inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. But is the ACBL a worshipper of Apollo? Does it know its own rules? The ACBL Competition and Conventions Committee, most recent meeting, Reno 22nd March 2004: "The question was raised whether an opening 4H or 4S when playing NAMYATS should require an Alert. The point was raised that we should be consistent to principle (i.e. in general, negative inferences do not require an Alert). The Committee was virtually unanimous in determining that such a call does not require an Alert." Current 2006 ACBL Alert Procedures: (http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html) "Natural opening bids at the three level or higher which convey an unusual message regarding HCP range or any other information which might be unexpected to the opponents must be Alerted. EXAMPLE: 4H, 4S openings which are natural but are weaker than might be expected because the partnership has some other method (an example is the Namyats convention) for showing a good 4H, 4S opening." :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 13 10:24:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Old as the Hills (was Pointing out...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6BF80409-CED8-42EA-9236-AD3EA0BE7FEC@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > > No it isn't. You were "try(ing) to prevent any irregularity by > > declarer" that is 100% legal under dummy's rights. That your > > attempt came too late successfully to prevent the infraction > > doesn't change one iota what you were trying to do (unless the TD > > is Yoda!). > > I'm not Yoda, but... there is a point beyond which the attempt > clearly cannot succeed, Indeed, for most people this point is some time after declarer has played because they don't know they are "too late". For the minority who actually know the law that point is when the card is held touching etc. > and at which dummy could have aborted his > attempt. This would normally be a second or so after the recognition point above - but Richard is a self-confessedly old man and I accept that his reaction time when it comes to stopping himself may be a little longer than that. > If the situation is at or beyond that point, it seems to me, > then the attempt is illegal, whatever dummy's intentions or his > rights. In occasional cases the infraction dummy is trying to prevent is the law72b1 infraction of declarer gaining an advantage when he could have known etc. Again recognition times and reaction times come into play but any advantage would be gained only when a defender plays so if one is trying to get in before that there's no problem. I don't deny that there are people out there who will say "You are in dummy" when it's too late AND they know it's too late in the hope that opps will not realise that they have the right to accept the (costly) wrong hand lead. Those people are *not* attempting to prevent an irregularity and I'll penalise them if I catch them at it. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 13 10:24:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061012141737.027c6780@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > 6C was bid, not by the guy who bid 3C, but by his partner, who, with > xx / xxx minors, believed in the "clubs" agreement. OK, I still confuzzled but I'm blaming you for giving this start to the auction! > The bidding began : (N) 1C (W) 3C. > 1C = 3+ cards. I thought you had put W instead of E but I now think you put N instead of S. This edges me towards the opinion that West had no reason to consider there was any ambiguity in meaning for the 6C bid. There are a number of people with whom I occasionally play duplicate under the meta-agreement that "anything not explicitly discussed is SJW standard". I'm aware that these players don't necessarily know every nuance of SJW standard but I don't know in which areas their lack of knowledge might lie. The consensus view of SJW standard isn't documented anywhere but a phone call to the club about any given sequence will get an authoritative answer (albeit that answer will occasionally be "no standard meaning"). Assuming there is a similar consensus as to "Belgian standard" and that this pair have a similar agreement then I'm ruling mistaken bid rather than MI. However, if the pair have a meta-agreement of "Everything undiscussed is natural" I'd rule MI not MB. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 13 10:24:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Positronic brain In-Reply-To: <452A3298.3070103@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > With regards to the actual case, the TD told the AC that from his > consultations, he received answers like "maybe 7H, maybe not", then > when telling about the UI, the consultees said "does not make a > difference". Now my inclination is to interpret that as being 100% agreement that the previous hesitations conveyed no information which would assist in the pass/7H decision (rather than there's some information conveyed but not enough to change my previous decision). Obviously the AC disagreed with that consensus but such is their right and presumably they made their decision based on close questioning of all the parties at the table (something the consultees did not have an opportunity to do). Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 13 14:28:52 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:28:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061012104108.02b53650@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A6A@exchsvr1.npl.ad.loc al> <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061013142236.027d21d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:33 12/10/2006 -0400, you wrote: >I have a hard time believing this. Is "the standard Belgian expert >stuff" really consensually and uniformly defined to the point where it >can be called an agreement by virtue of merely being named? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps there exists a standard Brussels stuff. Remember that Belgium is the size of New Jersey (and has less expert players). >I can tell you this for sure: There is not a single soul who could >tell you what constitutes "the standard American expert stuff". Any >"agreement" to play *that* would be meaningless and would certainly not >constitute what we mean by "a partnership agreement" in this context. However, it has been said BWS2000 (or any year) is an agreement. The last part was because, on a day when I left my CCs at home, we agreed to play "our teammates' system", which was well documented (incidentally, I wrote the documentation). We know they had spare CCs. We won the match. However, I had some qualms about possible misexplanations. Best regards, Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 13 16:19:06 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:19:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 12A1 and Law 12B In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061012100309.02b6beb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061013094022.02b766a0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:41 PM 10/12/06, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > At least 99.99% of the time that dummy has a hidden or missorted card > > it is the result of an innocent error; it is an attempt at a "clever > > cheat" at most 0.01% of the time (and probably a lot less > > frequently). Guided by the "Scope" section, it behooves us to > > interpret the law in such a way as to optimize its effect on the > > 99.99+% of the cases rather than the 0.01-%. > >In 90% of cases the accident is spotted or is neutral, in 7% of cases it >works against declarer. 0.01%/3% is significant enough to register on >my detectors. Besides, the fact that I am entitled to rule "could have >known" in any given table layout doesn't mean that I will. The >probability of something having been an accident varies between 100% for >some of my players and 1% for others. Players with impeccable ethical >records will get the benefit of the doubt, shysters and sharks will get >"could have known" every time. That, as I have argued on more than one prior occasion in this forum, is exactly the right approach. The analog of L73F2 in the 1975 Laws (Proprieties II.F.2) required the TD/AC to find "deliberately and improperly deceptive information" in order to adjust the score. In practice, it had become a no-op; TDs/ACs couldn't adjust without going on record as having accused someone of being "deliberately... deceptive", which was, in effect, an accusation of cheating, for which the accusers could be sued for defamation. (I don't know if there were any actual lawsuits filed, but do know that there were at least some threats to do so.) To foreclose that possibility, the wording was changed in 1987, to make it possible to adjust the score on the grounds that a player "could have known" that his action "could" be deceptive. That made it illegal to take the same action that a deliberate cheat would, without any consequent imputation that the offender was actually attempting to cheat. But that made the law, read literally, cast so wide a net that one could apply L73F2 to virtually any irregularity. And there are those (Tim clearly *not* among them) who would do just that, or at least come close. I firmly believe that the lawmakers' intention, in rewording that law, was not that it would be applied to players whom the TD/AC were convinced were not trying to cheat, but rather that it would be applied to playerq whom the TD/AC thought might be, without the need for proof that would stand up in court, thus protecting them from lawsuits. IMO, one should apply L73F2 when one believes that there is a significant possibility that the offender may have violated the pre-1975 wording of the law, being careful to justify their findings with reference to the current wording (so as not to leave themselves open to a lawsuit). In other words, to paraphrase Tim, the fact that you might be entitled under L73F2 to rule "could have known" doesn't necessarily mean that you should. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 13 16:57:39 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:57:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] agreements In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061013142236.027d21d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A6A@exchsvr1.npl.ad.loc al> <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20061013142236.027d21d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061013104601.02b76eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:28 AM 10/13/06, Alain wrote: >At 11:33 12/10/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >>I have a hard time believing this. Is "the standard Belgian expert >>stuff" really consensually and uniformly defined to the point where it >>can be called an agreement by virtue of merely being named? > >Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps there exists a standard Brussels stuff. >Remember that Belgium is the size of New Jersey (and has less expert >players). > >>I can tell you this for sure: There is not a single soul who could >>tell you what constitutes "the standard American expert stuff". Any >>"agreement" to play *that* would be meaningless and would certainly not >>constitute what we mean by "a partnership agreement" in this context. > >However, it has been said BWS2000 (or any year) is an agreement. Point taken, although Alain would have done better to cite BWS87 (the version prior to the current one), or stick to the (I assume hypothetical) "Kalamazoo Club". The current verions of BWS (actually BWS2001) is another kettle of fish. The Bridge World itself has stated that due to the way their polls were conducted, BWS2001 contains internal inconsistencies which, notwithstanding its usefulness as a "framework" for system discussion, prevent it from being a coherent, playable system as formally defined. Moreover, they introduced in BWS2001 the concept of "leaves" -- multiple possible meanings for various auctions subsumed by the overall system but subject to individual partnership agreement as to which "leaf" would be incorporated into the partnership's methods. So while calling "we play BWS2001" an agreement is certainly better than calling "we play the standard American expert stuff" so (there is at least *some* "official" definition of the former), it's still rather dicey. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Tue Oct 17 06:18:29 2006 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:18:29 +0300 Subject: [blml] test In-Reply-To: <000401c6ec82$066ae450$3ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000101c6ec38$9ad82ca0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000401c6ec82$066ae450$3ac487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <1644081636.20061017071829@yandex.ru> test From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 18 10:40:05 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:40:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] New version of Laws References: <45003ECD02D7EAC9@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000201c6f291$534924c0$35e8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott "You won't hear us saying 'in 2007'." > From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Oct 22 18:14:46 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:14:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge Message-ID: <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> I would argue that online bridge taking place in venues like Bridge Base Online and OKBridge are the future of the game. The number of tables played each day on BBO dwarfs the ACBL Nationals or any other large face to face tournament. Even if we exclude social tables, limiting ourselves to looking at relatively formal online competitions like tournaments, the online sites still post very respectable numbers. The dominance of the online sites is only going to increase with time. The online sites still enjoy scary growth rates while many face-to-face organizations are stagnating or even contracting. Most of the major bridge organization have recognized this sea change. Some, like the ACBL, are investigating online versions of sectional and regional level tournament with dramatic increases in masterpoints and, presumably a more "formal" competitions. Unfortunately, the Laws organizations don't seem to be following suit. The WBF produced and online versions of the Laws several years back, however, this effort seems to have sidestepped many of the most significant issues. I've tried to jump-start this discussion a couple times in the past, typically to resounding yawns. I suspect that the lack of excitement on the part of other members of this discussion list shows either lack of experience with the online game or, alternatively, lack of interest in the unique nature of this playing environment. We are already starting to see examples where the unique nature of online bridge is starting to create some unanticipated legal issues. I'd like to focus on one specific test case and ask for help about a ruling. Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing in an ACBL sectional. Partner and I are using Bridge Base Online's Full Disclosure application. (For anyone not used to BBO, Full Disclosure is an application that automates the alert/announcement process. BBO provides standard scripting files that document a number of different standard bidding systems. Players have the option of customizing these files. Alternatively, players can create their own files document more esoteric methods. Once a file has been loaded, its pretty much "fire and forget". These system will automatically generate an alert or announcement for any sequence that it knows about). Lets assume for the moment that partner and I agree to play Standard American Yellow Card and load the BBO's SAYC FD file. During the tournament, the following bidding sequence crops up. I open 1C - FD announces that this is a constructive opening, promising 3+ Clubs and 11+ HCP. Partner will typically open 1C with 3-3 in the minors and 1D with 4-4 in the minors LHO passes Partner bids 2N - FD announces that this is an invitational response, showing 11-12 HCP and denying a 4 card major) Here's the rub. Partner and I both think that 2NT is a forcing response, promising 13-15 HCPs. The FD file does not accurately describe our agreements, however, we agreed that this script documents our agreements. The opponents get annoyed and complain to the TD. How should one rule? Does this fall into the realm of a Concealed Partnership Understanding? Do concepts like damage factor in to the decision? How should this be handled? From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 22 20:14:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:14:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c6f605$f5f74450$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard willey > I would argue that online bridge taking place in venues like Bridge > Base Online and OKBridge are the future of the game. The number of > tables played each day on BBO dwarfs the ACBL Nationals or any other > large face to face tournament. Even if we exclude social tables, > limiting ourselves to looking at relatively formal online competitions > like tournaments, the online sites still post very respectable > numbers. The dominance of the online sites is only going to increase > with time. The online sites still enjoy scary growth rates while many > face-to-face organizations are stagnating or even contracting. Most > of the major bridge organization have recognized this sea change. > Some, like the ACBL, are investigating online versions of sectional > and regional level tournament with dramatic increases in masterpoints > and, presumably a more "formal" competitions. > > Unfortunately, the Laws organizations don't seem to be following suit. > The WBF produced and online versions of the Laws several years back, > however, this effort seems to have sidestepped many of the most > significant issues. I've tried to jump-start this discussion a couple > times in the past, typically to resounding yawns. I suspect that the > lack of excitement on the part of other members of this discussion > list shows either lack of experience with the online game or, > alternatively, lack of interest in the unique nature of this playing > environment. > > We are already starting to see examples where the unique nature of > online bridge is starting to create some unanticipated legal issues. > I'd like to focus on one specific test case and ask for help about a > ruling. > > Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing in an ACBL > sectional. Partner and I are using Bridge Base Online's Full > Disclosure application. (For anyone not used to BBO, Full Disclosure > is an application that automates the alert/announcement process. BBO > provides standard scripting files that document a number of different > standard bidding systems. Players have the option of customizing > these files. Alternatively, players can create their own files > document more esoteric methods. Once a file has been loaded, its > pretty much "fire and forget". These system will automatically > generate an alert or announcement for any sequence that it knows > about). > > Lets assume for the moment that partner and I agree to play Standard > American Yellow Card and load the BBO's SAYC FD file. During the > tournament, the following bidding sequence crops up. > > I open 1C - FD announces that this is a constructive opening, > promising 3+ Clubs and 11+ HCP. Partner will typically open 1C with > 3-3 in the minors and 1D with 4-4 in the minors > > LHO passes > > Partner bids 2N - FD announces that this is an invitational response, > showing 11-12 HCP and denying a 4 card major) > > Here's the rub. Partner and I both think that 2NT is a forcing > response, promising 13-15 HCPs. The FD file does not accurately > describe our agreements, however, we agreed that this script documents > our agreements. > > The opponents get annoyed and complain to the TD. > How should one rule? > > Does this fall into the realm of a Concealed Partnership > Understanding? Do concepts like damage factor in to the decision? > How should this be handled? Without any experience in playing online bridge I would still claim that if online bridge is to be considered "bridge" it must be played according to the existing rules for face to face bridge as far as possible. This means that you in your case have accidentally (I hope!) given your opponents incorrect information on your agreements and must be subject to precisely the same ruling(s) as you would receive in a face to face bridge party where you caused the same irregularity. In a situation where both players in the pair (independently) stated that their system declaration was correct while the facts revealed that they both deviated in the same way from this declaration in a particular call sequence I would definitely rule misinformation and concealed partnership understanding. I see absolutely no reason why online bridge should be treated any different from face to face bridge in such situations? Regards Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Oct 22 20:50:08 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:50:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <000001c6f605$f5f74450$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> <000001c6f605$f5f74450$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:14:48 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of richard willey <...> >> Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing in an ACBL >> sectional. Partner and I are using Bridge Base Online's Full >> Disclosure application. (For anyone not used to BBO, Full Disclosure >> is an application that automates the alert/announcement process. BBO >> provides standard scripting files that document a number of different >> standard bidding systems. Players have the option of customizing >> these files. Alternatively, players can create their own files >> document more esoteric methods. Once a file has been loaded, its >> pretty much "fire and forget". These system will automatically >> generate an alert or announcement for any sequence that it knows >> about). >> >> Lets assume for the moment that partner and I agree to play Standard >> American Yellow Card and load the BBO's SAYC FD file. During the >> tournament, the following bidding sequence crops up. >> >> I open 1C - FD announces that this is a constructive opening, >> promising 3+ Clubs and 11+ HCP. Partner will typically open 1C with >> 3-3 in the minors and 1D with 4-4 in the minors >> >> LHO passes >> >> Partner bids 2N - FD announces that this is an invitational response, >> showing 11-12 HCP and denying a 4 card major) >> >> Here's the rub. Partner and I both think that 2NT is a forcing >> response, promising 13-15 HCPs. The FD file does not accurately >> describe our agreements, however, we agreed that this script documents >> our agreements. >> >> The opponents get annoyed and complain to the TD. >> How should one rule? >> >> Does this fall into the realm of a Concealed Partnership >> Understanding? Do concepts like damage factor in to the decision? >> How should this be handled? > >Without any experience in playing online bridge I would still claim that if >online bridge is to be considered "bridge" it must be played according to >the existing rules for face to face bridge as far as possible. > >This means that you in your case have accidentally (I hope!) given your >opponents incorrect information on your agreements and must be subject to >precisely the same ruling(s) as you would receive in a face to face bridge >party where you caused the same irregularity. > >In a situation where both players in the pair (independently) stated that >their system declaration was correct while the facts revealed that they both >deviated in the same way from this declaration in a particular call sequence >I would definitely rule misinformation and concealed partnership >understanding. I see absolutely no reason why online bridge should be >treated any different from face to face bridge in such situations? > I think you may not have grasped all the implications of Richard's question, Sven. One very major difference between online bridge and F2F bridge is that it's the norm with online bridge, when playing with a pickup partner, to limit systems discussions to one or two lines, and resolve other problems as they go. In Richard's case, he and his partner have decided to play the online default system (at least on BBO and OKBridge). Now, Fred's "Full Disclosure" gadget is undoubtedly an advance when it comes to online alerting. However, in Richard's case, it is also demonstrably the case that Richard and his partner, in playing 2NT as 13-15 and forcing, *ARE* playing SAYC, and it is in fact the BBO "card" that would be wrong in describing the bid as 11-12 (for corroboration, please see the ACBL WWW site). The nearest situation in F2F bridge would probably be where a TD required a pair to play a simple system for whatever reason, but the cards he handed them contained a mistake somewhere in the continuations, and the pair did not spot that mistake before the situation occurred. It seems extremely harsh to judge a pair guilty of having a concealed partnership understanding when they're the ones playing the correct system. I certainly think that their opponents should need to have been damaged in order to receive any redress. Brian. From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 22 22:41:42 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:41:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c6f61a$7d2de460$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brian Meadows > Sent: 22. oktober 2006 20:50 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:14:48 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of richard willey > > <...> > >> Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing in an ACBL > >> sectional. Partner and I are using Bridge Base Online's Full > >> Disclosure application. (For anyone not used to BBO, Full Disclosure > >> is an application that automates the alert/announcement process. BBO > >> provides standard scripting files that document a number of different > >> standard bidding systems. Players have the option of customizing > >> these files. Alternatively, players can create their own files > >> document more esoteric methods. Once a file has been loaded, its > >> pretty much "fire and forget". These system will automatically > >> generate an alert or announcement for any sequence that it knows > >> about). > >> > >> Lets assume for the moment that partner and I agree to play Standard > >> American Yellow Card and load the BBO's SAYC FD file. During the > >> tournament, the following bidding sequence crops up. > >> > >> I open 1C - FD announces that this is a constructive opening, > >> promising 3+ Clubs and 11+ HCP. Partner will typically open 1C with > >> 3-3 in the minors and 1D with 4-4 in the minors > >> > >> LHO passes > >> > >> Partner bids 2N - FD announces that this is an invitational response, > >> showing 11-12 HCP and denying a 4 card major) > >> > >> Here's the rub. Partner and I both think that 2NT is a forcing > >> response, promising 13-15 HCPs. The FD file does not accurately > >> describe our agreements, however, we agreed that this script documents > >> our agreements. > >> > >> The opponents get annoyed and complain to the TD. > >> How should one rule? > >> > >> Does this fall into the realm of a Concealed Partnership > >> Understanding? Do concepts like damage factor in to the decision? > >> How should this be handled? > > > >Without any experience in playing online bridge I would still claim that > if > >online bridge is to be considered "bridge" it must be played according to > >the existing rules for face to face bridge as far as possible. > > > >This means that you in your case have accidentally (I hope!) given your > >opponents incorrect information on your agreements and must be subject to > >precisely the same ruling(s) as you would receive in a face to face > bridge > >party where you caused the same irregularity. > > > >In a situation where both players in the pair (independently) stated that > >their system declaration was correct while the facts revealed that they > both > >deviated in the same way from this declaration in a particular call > sequence > >I would definitely rule misinformation and concealed partnership > >understanding. I see absolutely no reason why online bridge should be > >treated any different from face to face bridge in such situations? > > > > I think you may not have grasped all the implications of > Richard's question, Sven. > > One very major difference between online bridge and F2F bridge is > that it's the norm with online bridge, when playing with a pickup > partner, to limit systems discussions to one or two lines, and > resolve other problems as they go. In Richard's case, he and his > partner have decided to play the online default system (at least > on BBO and OKBridge). > > Now, Fred's "Full Disclosure" gadget is undoubtedly an advance > when it comes to online alerting. However, in Richard's case, it > is also demonstrably the case that Richard and his partner, in > playing 2NT as 13-15 and forcing, *ARE* playing SAYC, and it is > in fact the BBO "card" that would be wrong in describing the bid > as 11-12 (for corroboration, please see the ACBL WWW site). > > The nearest situation in F2F bridge would probably be where a TD > required a pair to play a simple system for whatever reason, but > the cards he handed them contained a mistake somewhere in the > continuations, and the pair did not spot that mistake before the > situation occurred. > > It seems extremely harsh to judge a pair guilty of having a > concealed partnership understanding when they're the ones playing > the correct system. I certainly think that their opponents should > need to have been damaged in order to receive any redress. Well, I believe I _have_ grasped all the implications apparent from your comments. First of all let me say that in ruling in a case like this I would certainly take into consideration to what extent if any opponents were actually damaged. And when ruling CPU I would (of course) consider all circumstances and in a case like this only issue a warning and request an update, either to the documentation or to their published agreements. But the essential facts here are that they have provided opponents with information that does not match their actual agreements. Obviously their opponents must receive redress for any damage (if any) they can have suffered from this irregularity? Should we apply your logic then any pair that can claim insufficient time to establish their agreements at the beginning of the event can use that as an excuse to get away with misinformation to opponents even when they accidentally have the same understanding of an auction but their published agreements say differently. The comparison with F2F bridge using compulsory agreements as distributed by the TD is IMHO completely irrelevant. Our players here have not been forced to use any particular agreement, they made their own choice. When a TD hands out erroneous information of whatever kind then that is an error by him, and this error must be handled accordingly. When a pair decides upon agreements and hands out information on these agreements the responsibility that this information is correct must be their own? We have long tradition that the name of a convention alone is no acceptable description; the description shall show how the convention works. Regards Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Oct 23 01:06:08 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:06:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <000101c6f61a$7d2de460$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c6f61a$7d2de460$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:41:42 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: <...> > >Should we apply your logic then any pair that can claim insufficient time to >establish their agreements at the beginning of the event can use that as an >excuse to get away with misinformation to opponents even when they >accidentally have the same understanding of an auction but their published >agreements say differently. > If their published agreements were actually provided by the online service, and it is demonstrably the case that the pair *is* playing the correct agreement according to their stated system, then yes, I do think the pair ought to carry far less blame than if they themselves had incorrectly completed the documentation. >The comparison with F2F bridge using compulsory agreements as distributed by >the TD is IMHO completely irrelevant. Our players here have not been forced >to use any particular agreement, they made their own choice. > Well, it was the closest parallel I could come up with at short notice. The players agreed to play SAYC, and they *were* playing SAYC. >When a TD hands out erroneous information of whatever kind then that is an >error by him, and this error must be handled accordingly. > There's not a TD in "non-tournament" play on BBO, but I would suggest that incorrect documentation provided by the online service should fall into the category of TD error. >When a pair decides upon agreements and hands out information on these >agreements the responsibility that this information is correct must be their >own? We have long tradition that the name of a convention alone is no >acceptable description; the description shall show how the convention works. > OK, so let me suggest a scenario to you, and ask your advice. I am playing online, and find myself with a pickup partner whom I have never met before. Our agreements are the common "SAYC, pard?" "OK." Then I notice that my partner has loaded the SAYC file into Full Disclosure. What are my obligations? To refuse to play until I have checked every detail in the file (it's a time-consuming process)? To warn opponents that I don't necessarily agree with the documentation that partner has loaded? To refuse to play with that partner, or indeed any other partner who loads a file that I've not had chance to check? Some other course of action? (Note to Fred, if this e-mail comes to his attention. I've no grounds for suspecting that the BBO Basic, a.k.a. SAYC, card is actually incorrect). Brian. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 23 02:11:20 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:11:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c6f637$c6cdfb60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brian Meadows > <...> > Well, it was the closest parallel I could come up with at short > notice. The players agreed to play SAYC, and they *were* playing > SAYC. .............. > >When a pair decides upon agreements and hands out information on these > >agreements the responsibility that this information is correct must be > their > >own? We have long tradition that the name of a convention alone is no > >acceptable description; the description shall show how the convention > works. > > > > OK, so let me suggest a scenario to you, and ask your advice. > > I am playing online, and find myself with a pickup partner whom I > have never met before. Our agreements are the common "SAYC, > pard?" "OK." ............. I have only one single comment which also will serve as my answer: Is SAYC defined to the extent that absolutely every single user of that system anywhere in the world is playing exactly the same system with no difference, however tiny, from what other users of SAYC might be playing? If the answer to this question is "yes" then you may have a point, otherwise SAYC is definitely not a complete and unambiguous description of partnership agreements. Remember what I said that the name alone of a system or a convention is _not_, repeat _not_ a description that satisfies the requirements in Law 75. This fact is so much more important to remember when you meet players from outside your own local environment. Regards Sven From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Oct 23 02:56:52 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:56:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <000001c6f605$f5f74450$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven writes: This means that you in your case have accidentally (I hope!) given your opponents incorrect information on your agreements and must be subject to precisely the same ruling(s) as you would receive in a face to face bridge party where you caused the same irregularity. In a situation where both players in the pair (independently) stated that their system declaration was correct while the facts revealed that they both deviated in the same way from this declaration in a particular call sequence I would definitely rule misinformation and concealed partnership understanding. I see absolutely no reason why online bridge should be treated any different from face to face bridge in such situations? ____________________________________________________________________________ _ Fully agree. The case is the same as having filled a CC with your Pd some times ago agreeing that 1C - P - 2NT is 11-12 HPC. Later, you change the agreement to 13-15 HPC forgetting to correct you CCs. Oppns receive false information and Law 75 applies. When using an online device instead of a written CC, you have the same responsibility. The information given to oppns must be correct. Using and filling CCs, and such devices, is in regulations, under local authorities. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Oct 23 09:18:16 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:18:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <000801c6f637$c6cdfb60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c6f637$c6cdfb60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:11:20 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >I have only one single comment which also will serve as my answer: > >Is SAYC defined to the extent that absolutely every single user of that >system anywhere in the world is playing exactly the same system with no >difference, however tiny, from what other users of SAYC might be playing? > >If the answer to this question is "yes" then you may have a point, otherwise >SAYC is definitely not a complete and unambiguous description of partnership >agreements. > The sequence in question is certainly clearly defined, yes, but don't take my word for it. Quoting from the ACBL web site, http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf While there are no choices in the present day SAYC, except for an SAYC event in which everyone must play the method as written, a pair could use the SAYC as a base and make one or two modifications. If you do make a modification or two in an open game, you should announce that fact to the opponents ? if they think you are playing straight SAYC and they know SAYC, they would not know about your modifications. Now, there are holes in SAYC. Anyone who has tried to play the system for more than a few sessions is aware of that. To ask for an entire system to be fully defined is unrealistic, IMO - but that doesn't mean that what the documentation DOES define suddenly becomes null and void. >Remember what I said that the name alone of a system or a convention is >_not_, repeat _not_ a description that satisfies the requirements in Law 75. >This fact is so much more important to remember when you meet players from >outside your own local environment. > Quite. And this, IMO, is a point that would support Richard's (and my) views that the face to face laws, even with their additions meant for online bridge, do not adequately cover all of the situations that you meet in the online game. You remind me of law 75, but the *fact* of the matter is that "SAYC" *is*, repeat *IS*, taken as a full description of the default methods in the online game. To maintain otherwise is simply to ignore reality. It is far from unknown in online bridge to have four players at the table with no common language. Everyone who has played online more than a few times recognises "SAYC, pard", though. Brian. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 22 18:41:15 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:41:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] The purpose of an alert. Message-ID: <003a01c6f677$5a5f3d50$c3c887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "I presume you're mortal, and may err." ('The Lady of Pleasure', 1637.) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ In the course of deleting a lot of old blml material I came across this statement: "I think the purpose of an alert is (or should be?) to alert opponents that they should not assume anything." I believe it is open to Sponsoring Organizations to require an alert for any reason that they think sufficient. So I do not believe a general statement of the kind above is apposite to the discussion. The immediate purpose is to comply with a regulation. The purpose of the regulation is to make a provision for this manner of disclosure, as a matter of choice by the SO, in exercise of the power mentioned in Law 40B. To comment on the purpose of the alert calls for an awareness of the SO's reasons for making that choice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 23 10:56:00 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:56:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6f681$10a32820$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brian Meadows > >I have only one single comment which also will serve as my answer: > > > >Is SAYC defined to the extent that absolutely every single user of that > >system anywhere in the world is playing exactly the same system with no > >difference, however tiny, from what other users of SAYC might be playing? > > > >If the answer to this question is "yes" then you may have a point, > otherwise > >SAYC is definitely not a complete and unambiguous description of > partnership > >agreements. > > > > The sequence in question is certainly clearly defined, yes, but > don't take my word for it. Quoting from the ACBL web site, > http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf > > > While there are no choices in the present day SAYC, except for an > SAYC event in which everyone must play the method as written, a > pair could use the SAYC as a base and make one or two > modifications. If you do make a modification or two in an open > game, you should announce that fact to the opponents - if they > think you are playing straight SAYC and they know SAYC, they > would not know about your modifications. > > > Now, there are holes in SAYC. Anyone who has tried to play the > system for more than a few sessions is aware of that. To ask for > an entire system to be fully defined is unrealistic, IMO - but > that doesn't mean that what the documentation DOES define > suddenly becomes null and void. > > > >Remember what I said that the name alone of a system or a convention is > >_not_, repeat _not_ a description that satisfies the requirements in Law > 75. > >This fact is so much more important to remember when you meet players > from > >outside your own local environment. > > > Quite. And this, IMO, is a point that would support Richard's > (and my) views that the face to face laws, even with their > additions meant for online bridge, do not adequately cover all of > the situations that you meet in the online game. You remind me of > law 75, but the *fact* of the matter is that "SAYC" *is*, repeat > *IS*, taken as a full description of the default methods in the > online game. To maintain otherwise is simply to ignore reality. > > It is far from unknown in online bridge to have four players at > the table with no common language. Everyone who has played > online more than a few times recognises "SAYC, pard", though. You make my point exactly. "SAYC" is _not_ a complete and world-wide unambiguous description of agreements, simply because different players can have (and probably has) different understandings on details in that system. This does not prevent using "SAYC" as a description in environments where your opponents can be assumed to have the same understanding as you have on what "SAYC" means, but the moment at least one of the other three players is "unknown" to you this assumption no longer holds. The way I understand the situation the sponsoring organization for the online bridge in question has published a description of "SAYC"; this description then is a specification on how "SAYC" is to be understood in their events. This is their privilege! And be aware that this publication has a status similar to other regulations published for their events. The fact that certain parts of this publication can be contested as incorrect is irrelevant; when the term "SAYC" is used on that online bridge system this publication completely defines how "SAYC" shall be understood. It is your responsibility to make your opponents aware of your understanding on any detail in what you declare as "SAYC" wherever your understanding is different from the understanding published by the sponsoring organization even if you can prove that the published understanding is "incorrect". Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 23 14:10:42 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:10:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061023132002.02811400@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c6f69c$4308f770$6400a8c0@WINXP> I believe this message from Alain will not show up on blml for a while because he used html formatting. That seems to inevitably delay messages until they have been inspected and approved by a moderator. Please stick to plain text for messages on blml! There can be no doubt that a pair that uses an agreement in conflict with what they have declared on their system description is having a concealed partnership understanding. But depending on the circumstances the consequence of CPU need not necessarily be more severe than giving a warning to have their declaration corrected. (Opponents will of course be entitled to redress for any damage caused) In the case originally raised with this thread I should definitely just give such a warning. A different matter would be if they continued to use "SAYC" as their declaration without including any specification of their deviations from the "SAYC" understanding published by the sponsoring organization. And the basic question was if online bridge warranted a set of laws different from the existing laws on duplicate contract bridge. My view is that there is no need for such extra laws. The situation is similar to bridge with screens: The laws that become inapplicable are specifically exempted or altered in regulations by the sponsoring organization or simply ignored by the Director as being redundant. Sven -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] Sent: 23. oktober 2006 13:41 To: Sven Pran; blml Subject: Re: [blml] Online Bridge At 22:41 22/10/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: The comparison with F2F bridge using compulsory agreements as distributed by the TD is IMHO completely irrelevant. Our players here have not been forced to use any particular agreement, they made their own choice. Okay, I know more about Papuan languages than about BBO. But it seems natural, here, to rule, not on the basis of concealed agreement, but rather on the basis of misinformation, that is, wrong information on the CC. In a recent similar case, a pair of moderate players was found guilty of misinformation "only" when a lexical mixup made them write "Drury" in lieu of "Roudi" (2C relay over 1NT rebid) on their CC. They didn't play Drury, so there was misinformation. Cancel the overtrick, please correct the mention and check all others, no PP. I guess that down under, they might encounter the same problem -and the same decision- if somebody committed a lapsus calami in written explanations. "Concealed agreement" strongly implies "deliberate action" (or inaction), for example deciding to play A and write down B, and mischievous intent. This wasn't the case in my case, nor in your BBO case. In case of deciding a case, you could make a good case in favor of wooden cases. Try feeding that into your own automatical translation tool Best regards, ?? Alain PS : I seem to remember a case where a French pair wrote on their CC : "2C = transfer for spades" while it was "2 Coeurs". Okay, anybody that refuses to speak or write a second language should be quartered, but apart from that, would you deem them holders of some concealed? agreement ? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Oct 23 15:44:36 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:44:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <453CC744.7050907@NTLworld.com> [richard willey] > I would argue that online bridge taking place in venues like Bridge > Base Online and OKBridge are the future of the game. The number of > tables played each day on BBO dwarfs the ACBL Nationals or any other > large face to face tournament. Even if we exclude social tables, > limiting ourselves to looking at relatively formal online competitions > like tournaments, the online sites still post very respectable > numbers. The dominance of the online sites is only going to increase > with time. The online sites still enjoy scary growth rates while many > face-to-face organizations are stagnating or even contracting. Most > of the major bridge organization have recognized this sea change. > Some, like the ACBL, are investigating online versions of sectional > and regional level tournament with dramatic increases in masterpoints > and, presumably a more "formal" competitions. > > Unfortunately, the Laws organizations don't seem to be following suit. > The WBF produced and online versions of the Laws several years back, > however, this effort seems to have sidestepped many of the most > significant issues. I've tried to jump-start this discussion a couple > times in the past, typically to resounding yawns. I suspect that the > lack of excitement on the part of other members of this discussion > list shows either lack of experience with the online game or, > alternatively, lack of interest in the unique nature of this playing > environment. > > We are already starting to see examples where the unique nature of > online bridge is starting to create some unanticipated legal issues. > I'd like to focus on one specific test case and ask for help about a > ruling. > > Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing in an ACBL > sectional. Partner and I are using Bridge Base Online's Full > Disclosure application. (For anyone not used to BBO, Full Disclosure > is an application that automates the alert/announcement process. BBO > provides standard scripting files that document a number of different > standard bidding systems. Players have the option of customizing > these files. Alternatively, players can create their own files > document more esoteric methods. Once a file has been loaded, its > pretty much "fire and forget". These system will automatically > generate an alert or announcement for any sequence that it knows > about). > > Lets assume for the moment that partner and I agree to play Standard > American Yellow Card and load the BBO's SAYC FD file. During the > tournament, the following bidding sequence crops up. > > I open 1C - FD announces that this is a constructive opening, > promising 3+ Clubs and 11+ HCP. Partner will typically open 1C with > 3-3 in the minors and 1D with 4-4 in the minors > > LHO passes > > Partner bids 2N - FD announces that this is an invitational response, > showing 11-12 HCP and denying a 4 card major) > > Here's the rub. Partner and I both think that 2NT is a forcing > response, promising 13-15 HCPs. The FD file does not accurately > describe our agreements, however, we agreed that this script documents > our agreements. > > The opponents get annoyed and complain to the TD. > How should one rule? > > Does this fall into the realm of a Concealed Partnership > Understanding? Do concepts like damage factor in to the decision? > How should this be handled? [nige1] I agree with Richard Willey that, so far, on-line Bridge sites like BBO have made an excellent job of devising simple sensible popular rules. Mechanical errors such as insufficient bids, revokes, bids out of turn, and plays out of turn are prevented. Unauthorised information from tempo is less reliable because bad connections introduce random delays. Further improvement is possible by generating more random delays and presenting calls/plays by LHO and OXO only after RHO has made his call/play. Disclosure is facilitated and unauthorised information is reduced because the caller describes his own call and partner cannot see the explanation. "Full disclosure" is an amazing and brilliant further improvement. Ideally most on-line laws should be easily interpreted by a simple AI computer program. IMO, it is important that online laws be kept as simple and objective as possible. Hence, IMO, if you adopt a site's system (defined by the site convention card or its "full disclosure" equivalent) then *that is your agreement* -- just as if you agree "we play 2/1 according to Hardy's book" or "Acol according to Crowhurst's book". That is *still* your agreement, no matter that the authors have deviated from common practice. If you depart from that authority then you are flouting your agreement. More complex interpretations may involve unnecessary "mind-reading". On-line bridge laws should resist the trend towards sophistication and subjectivity apparent in face-to-face laws. Face-to-face bridge may already be a lost cause; but the popularity of on-line bridge is partly due to the untrammelled enjoyment made possible by its practical, objective, easy to learn and easy to understand, rules. From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Oct 23 16:10:38 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:10:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <453CC744.7050907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: More complex interpretations may involve unnecessary "mind-reading". On-line bridge laws should resist the trend towards sophistication and subjectivity apparent in face-to-face laws. Face-to-face bridge may already be a lost cause; but the popularity of on-line bridge is partly due to the untrammelled enjoyment made possible by its practical, objective, easy to learn and easy to understand, rules. ___________________________________________________________________ And don't forget most online bridge is played between four players for enjoyment. Then, it is a private game, like "at home", without any rules but the ones you all agree. I know (I was there from the beginning, more than 15 or 20 years ago...), it is more practical to have some system definitions and to do like duplicate face to face competition. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Oct 23 16:23:23 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:23:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <453CC744.7050907@NTLworld.com> References: <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> <453CC744.7050907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Oct 23, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Nigel wrote: > Hence, IMO, if you adopt a site's system (defined by the site > convention > card or its "full disclosure" equivalent) then *that is your > agreement* > -- just as if you agree "we play 2/1 according to Hardy's book" or > "Acol > according to Crowhurst's book". That is *still* your agreement, no > matter that the authors have deviated from common practice. Which, of course, begs the question "Which book?" > If you depart from that authority then you are flouting your > agreement. There is no law against that. Nor should there be. From herman at hdw.be Mon Oct 23 17:06:47 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:06:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: References: <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> <453CC744.7050907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <453CDA87.7060105@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Oct 23, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Nigel wrote: > > >>If you depart from that authority then you are flouting your >>agreement. > > > There is no law against that. Nor should there be. > But this only solves the question when one player deviates from the book. If one player makes a wrong call because he hasn't completely read the book, and the other interprets wrongly, because he has read it, then this is a misbid, not a misexplanation. OK. But the original posed a different question. What if both players correctly interpret the bid, even if it is differently explained in the system notes, and thus to the opponents. I cannot believe that if 2 players are on the same wavelength, there can be question of misbid. That is misexplanation, and the opponents should be recompensed. If 2 players rely on a third party (in this case, BBO themselves) to explain their system for them, and then that explanation turns out to be incorrect, it is still their responsability. They can complain to the third party, but the adjusted score will remain theirs. Compare it with a kibitzer who draws attention to their irregularity. Not their fault, perhaps, but still their bad score. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From adam at irvine.com Mon Oct 23 17:56:10 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:56:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:14:46 EDT." <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200610231536.IAA08541@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Willey wrote: > I would argue that online bridge taking place in venues like Bridge > Base Online and OKBridge are the future of the game. The number of > tables played each day on BBO dwarfs the ACBL Nationals or any other > large face to face tournament. I generally agree with your conclusion that online bridge is the future, but it doesn't help your case to use meaningless arguments. I think it's just as valid to say that the number of tables played each day in clubs all over the world dwarfs the ACBL Nationals or any other single large tournament. You're comparing apples and oranges, as far as I can tell. > Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing in an ACBL > sectional. Partner and I are using Bridge Base Online's Full > Disclosure application. (For anyone not used to BBO, Full Disclosure > is an application that automates the alert/announcement process. BBO > provides standard scripting files that document a number of different > standard bidding systems. Players have the option of customizing > these files. Alternatively, players can create their own files > document more esoteric methods. Once a file has been loaded, its > pretty much "fire and forget". These system will automatically > generate an alert or announcement for any sequence that it knows > about). > > Lets assume for the moment that partner and I agree to play Standard > American Yellow Card and load the BBO's SAYC FD file. During the > tournament, the following bidding sequence crops up. > > I open 1C - FD announces that this is a constructive opening, > promising 3+ Clubs and 11+ HCP. Partner will typically open 1C with > 3-3 in the minors and 1D with 4-4 in the minors > > LHO passes > > Partner bids 2N - FD announces that this is an invitational response, > showing 11-12 HCP and denying a 4 card major) > > Here's the rub. Partner and I both think that 2NT is a forcing > response, promising 13-15 HCPs. The FD file does not accurately > describe our agreements, however, we agreed that this script documents > our agreements. > > The opponents get annoyed and complain to the TD. > How should one rule? The same way as you'd rule if a pair in F2F bridge had a mismarked convention card, and an opponent became misinformed by looking at the CC without asking you a question. It looks like essentially the same situation to me. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Mon Oct 23 18:06:58 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:06:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:06:08 EDT." Message-ID: <200610231547.IAA08677@mailhub.irvine.com> Brian Meadows wrote: > I am playing online, and find myself with a pickup partner whom I > have never met before. Our agreements are the common "SAYC, > pard?" "OK." Then I notice that my partner has loaded the SAYC > file into Full Disclosure. What are my obligations? To refuse to > play until I have checked every detail in the file (it's a > time-consuming process)? Yes. If you're presenting a convention card to your opponents (which is essentially what this file is, right?), you're responsible for making sure it's correct. What on earth do you think the alternative would be? If you're going to give a CC to your opponents, but with a caveat that it's not guaranteed to be accurate, what would be the difference between giving them a CC and giving them an online copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls? A CC like that is going to be approximately as useful as the scrolls, because if the opponents can't count on it being true they're going to have to ask about everything anyway. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Mon Oct 23 23:12:00 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:12:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:10:42 +0200." <000201c6f69c$4308f770$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200610232052.NAA11793@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > Okay, I know more about Papuan languages than about BBO. > But it seems natural, here, to rule, not on the basis of concealed > agreement, but rather on the basis of misinformation, that is, wrong > information on the CC. It seems to me that we may have a problem with terminology and its connotations. I'm bringing this up because I've been involved in a short private e-mail discussion based on this thread that seems to revolve around this same point. Here's my point: Despite what Alain said, I do not see any legal difference between "concealed agreement" (or concealed partnership understanding) and "misinformation". If I've been given misinformation about the opponents' agreements, then their actual agreement is concealed from me. (This is *not* the same thing as saying "somebody has concealed their agreement from me".) The Laws do not speak about "concealed understanding" and "misinformation" as being two different things. Misinformation is handled by Laws 21 and 40C, period. *Deliberate* concealment is cheating, of course, but I don't think that was ever an issue. My impression is that Sven doesn't see the difference between the two, either. Maybe we need to throw this back to Richard, who first used the term: >> The opponents get annoyed and complain to the TD. >> How should one rule? >> Does this fall into the realm of a Concealed Partnership >> Understanding? Do concepts like damage factor in to the decision? >> How should this be handled? Richard, can you clarify? What, precisely, did you mean by asking whether an occurrence like this constitutes a Concealed Partnership Understanding? Did you mean something that goes beyond "misinformation"? Thanks in advance, -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 23 23:55:18 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:55:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <200610232052.NAA11793@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c6f6ed$edd5ed60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan ........... > Here's my point: Despite what Alain said, I do not see any legal > difference between "concealed agreement" (or concealed partnership > understanding) and "misinformation". If I've been given > misinformation about the opponents' agreements, then their actual > agreement is concealed from me. (This is *not* the same thing as > saying "somebody has concealed their agreement from me".) The Laws do > not speak about "concealed understanding" and "misinformation" as > being two different things. Misinformation is handled by Laws 21 and > 40C, period. *Deliberate* concealment is cheating, of course, but I > don't think that was ever an issue. My impression is that Sven > doesn't see the difference between the two, either. Oh sure I do! First of all: Misinformation exists whenever a player is given an incorrect description on opponents' agreements, for instance when one of the players in the pair has temporarily forgotten a particular agreement. Concealed partnership understanding exists whenever the description of a partnership agreement (or understanding) is not fully available to opponents. Both misinformation and concealed partnership understanding can occur accidentally or on purpose (i.e. deliberately). The latter is a serious offence and should be "prosecuted" with the greatest effort while the truly accidental misinformation or concealed partnership understanding is usually forgivable and the Director should judge each such case with great care avoiding over-reactions. Normally a warning to the offenders will be the best reaction (in addition of course to possible redress for damage to opponents) I consider (and have always considered) the case that started this thread to be accidental misinformation and also a case of accidentally concealed partnership agreements. But there can be no doubt that the responsibility for providing opponents with correct information remains with the players and that there is no excuse when they for instance just refer to "SAYC" that other players have an understanding of "SAYC" different from their own. Therefore it is clear to me that the ruling in this case must be that of misinformation and concealed partnership understanding with redress for any damage caused and a warning to provide opponents with correct information as the result. And the question of face to face or online bridge is IMHO completely irrelevant for this case. Regards Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Oct 24 04:25:45 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:25:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <200610232113.k9NLDVMQ000556@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610232113.k9NLDVMQ000556@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Adam Beneschan > Here's my point: Despite what Alain said, I do not see any legal > difference between "concealed agreement" (or concealed partnership > understanding) and "misinformation". There is a definite difference in the laws applied and their effect. "CPU" refers to a violation of L40B, while "MI" refers to violation of some part of L75. The effect of the difference is in the adjustment. A MI adjustment is based on opponents having received correct information, whereas a CPU adjustment is based on the call carrying a concealed agreement not having been made. (Read L40B with care.) The results will often differ. A year or two ago, I asked how one decided whether a particular infraction was CPU or MI. No one answered, and I don't see anything in the Laws that makes it clear. My own suggestion is that CPU applies to _advance_ disclosure (e.g. convention card or pre-announced agreements), whereas MI applies to "at the table" disclosure (alerts and explanations). The justification is that CPU (in my sense) denies opponents a chance to make suitable agreements, whereas MI denies them only a proper chance to choose a call within their existing framework. No one has either confirmed or disputed my suggestion, though, so perhaps the distinction is something else. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 24 09:26:31 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:26:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Two-way guess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps, dealer West, vul North-South You, South, hold: K73 954 J852 K96 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) X (2) Pass(3) Pass XX Pass 2C (4) ? (1) 11-14 (2) 15+ (3) Alerted and explained as requiring a redouble (4) Alerted and explained as ..... Your expert but idiosyncratic partner has forced you to adopt the following agreements in this situation: (a) Pass by you, South, would be non-forcing (b) 2NT by you, South, would be lebensohl (c) Double by you, South, would be penalties What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? First Guess -> ..... if 2C is alerted and explained as 5+ clubs? Second Guess -> ..... if 2C is alerted and explained as both minors (at least 4/4)? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Tue Oct 24 10:25:40 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:25:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610232113.k9NLDVMQ000556@cfa.harvard.edu> <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <453DCE04.7020001@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>From: Adam Beneschan >>Here's my point: Despite what Alain said, I do not see any legal >>difference between "concealed agreement" (or concealed partnership >>understanding) and "misinformation". > > > There is a definite difference in the laws applied and their effect. > "CPU" refers to a violation of L40B, while "MI" refers to violation of > some part of L75. The effect of the difference is in the adjustment. A > MI adjustment is based on opponents having received correct information, > whereas a CPU adjustment is based on the call carrying a concealed > agreement not having been made. (Read L40B with care.) The results > will often differ. > Steve is not speaking for the majority of directors. And I believe he is actually wrong. He tells us that MI is handled by L75, and CPU by L40. Forgetting for just one moment that those laws will be merged in the next lawbook (which can be taken as an indication that the lawmakers did not really want a distinction), we should read L75 (as well as L40) with care. Nowhere in L75 does it say what the TD should do with the MI. Only in the case of the player remarking his own MI is there a reference, and it is to L40. OTOH, L40 (C) does say clearly what the TD should do, and it is to award a AS, not to scrap the board. So Steve's reasoning is clearly wrong. MI and CPU are just two names for the same thing. > A year or two ago, I asked how one decided whether a particular > infraction was CPU or MI. No one answered, and I don't see anything in > the Laws that makes it clear. My own suggestion is that CPU applies to > _advance_ disclosure (e.g. convention card or pre-announced agreements), > whereas MI applies to "at the table" disclosure (alerts and > explanations). The justification is that CPU (in my sense) denies > opponents a chance to make suitable agreements, whereas MI denies them > only a proper chance to choose a call within their existing framework. > No one has either confirmed or disputed my suggestion, though, so > perhaps the distinction is something else. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 24 11:30:32 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:30:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <200610231547.IAA08677@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024112445.02813ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:06 23/10/2006 -0700, you wrote: > If you're going >to give a CC to your opponents, but with a caveat that it's not >guaranteed to be accurate, what would be the difference between giving >them a CC and giving them an online copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls? None. So you committed the infraction of inaccuracy (or absence) of CC. This is, by far, less serious than a concealed agreement : the former means you're a lunatic or a couldn't-care-less ; the latter that you're a cheat. So I still don't see why you should deal with the former by pretending it's the latter. And, by the way, there is also the person that doesn't understand the way the CC must be filled ; fro example, many write the meaning of their reactions to opps' 1NT overcall in the box "responses to 1NT overcall". Does that make them cheats ? Regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 24 15:11:55 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:11:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <453CDA87.7060105@hdw.be> References: <2da24b8e0610220914s30de7586n4a727c9090cccf14@mail.gmail.com> <453CC744.7050907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024150921.0281acb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:06 23/10/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >If 2 players rely on a third party (in this case, BBO themselves) to >explain their system for them, and then that explanation turns out to >be incorrect, it is still their responsability. They can complain to >the third party, but the adjusted score will remain theirs. Fully agree. But the way you put it means you rule misexplanation, as I would. Sven and others were willing to rule concealed agreement, i.e. voluntary misexplanation, and I'm still uncomfortable with that. Regards Alain From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue Oct 24 16:11:45 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:11:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds Message-ID: <453E1F21.3070707@cs.elte.hu> Teams, screens are used E/NS 2.....................................AK3 AK5...............................Q9 AJ983.............................KT7542 AJ92...............................K4 EW playing a relay system, their 1NT open is 12-16 4333, 4432 or 5332 (with minor) are the only possible distributions on 1st/2nd places. If 12, then good 12, if 16 then denies 4card Major. East did not forget the system, he explains the bidding (not his hand) correctly to his screenmate. the bidding went on: .......1N (12-16) 2C..2N (FG relay; any 4333) 3C..3D (relay, like Baron; exactly 3343) 4D..4H (declares diamonds as trumpsuit and optional rkc; good hand for diamond slam) 4S..5H (rkc; 2 keycard and the Q of trumps (maybe additonal length in trumps but now he had bidden exactli 4 card suit)) 6D..? (to play) At this moment the tray came back after a real tempobreak (West hesitated a little before the 6 diamonds), but about 10 to 15 seconds only. All the players agree the facts above. East bid 7D (TD!). What's your decision as TD or as AC? East explains his action that the 32 board match went on badly for them till then and he had more tricks than he promised before. regards Laci From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Oct 24 16:40:35 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:40:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds In-Reply-To: <453E1F21.3070707@cs.elte.hu> References: <453E1F21.3070707@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <453E25E3.5000500@t-online.de> Hi Laci, Laszlo Hegedus schrieb: > Teams, screens are used > E/NS > > 2.....................................AK3 > AK5...............................Q9 > AJ983.............................KT7542 > AJ92...............................K4 > > EW playing a relay system, their 1NT open is 12-16 4333, 4432 or 5332 > (with minor) are the only possible distributions on 1st/2nd places. If > 12, then good 12, if 16 then denies 4card Major. East did not forget the > system, he explains the bidding (not his hand) correctly to his > screenmate. the bidding went on: > > .......1N (12-16) > 2C..2N (FG relay; any 4333) > interesting choice.... If I had opened this 1NT (I probably wouldn`t, but that depends on several things) my choice of reply would be 3253 (eventually). Doesn?t matter for the problem, of course :-) > 3C..3D (relay, like Baron; exactly 3343) > 4D..4H (declares diamonds as trumpsuit and optional rkc; good hand for > diamond slam) > 4S..5H (rkc; 2 keycard and the Q of trumps (maybe additonal length in > trumps but now he had bidden exactli 4 card suit)) > 6D..? (to play) > > At this moment the tray came back after a real tempobreak (West > hesitated a little before the 6 diamonds), but about 10 to 15 seconds > only. All the players agree the facts above. East bid 7D (TD!). What's > your decision as TD or as AC? > Are you kidding? A BIT suggests that all KC are accounted for, so bidding on is more attractive than after a prompt 6D. I do _not_ buy into the "partner is looking at the D Queen and is thinking about what has happened" argument. If a KC is missing he bids 6D first and thinks later. Change the C Ace into the queen to see what an in-tempo 6D looks like..... > East explains his action that the 32 board match went on badly for them > till then and he had more tricks than he promised before. > Well, if this guy constantly underbid the playing strength of his hands I am not surprised that the match didn`t look too good... And if he wants to gamble he has to teach his partner to plan the auction in advance and bid in tempo. To hesitate over 5H shows lack of planning. He needs 2 KC for a grand slam (obviously). The best hands partner can have are Axx, Qxx, KQxx, KQx (7D is cold) or the same without one of the queens (slighly over 50% if the queen of diamonds is missing, less when lacking another queen). AKQ Jxx KQxx xxx gives no play at all, even 6 needs a decent lie of the cards. It should not be too difficult to ask yourself "what will I do opposite a 5D or 5H reply?" Regards Matthias > regards > Laci > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Tue Oct 24 16:37:16 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:37:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Two-way guess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453E251C.9010605@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Imps, dealer West, vul North-South >You, South, hold: > >K73 >954 >J852 >K96 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1NT(1) X (2) Pass(3) Pass >XX Pass 2C (4) ? > > >(a) Pass by you, South, would be non-forcing >(b) 2NT by you, South, would be lebensohl >(c) Double by you, South, would be penalties > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > >First Guess -> > >..... if 2C is alerted and explained as 5+ clubs? > >Second Guess -> > >..... if 2C is alerted and explained as both minors >(at least 4/4)? > > I'd double in both case. I did that in a team match some weak ago with a very similar hand and Jx in clubs and it was a terrible score for my team :( (but I didnt agree my partner's bid). I think, pass is normal bid as well. regards Laci From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 24 17:06:14 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:06:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <000801c6f637$c6cdfb60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024170443.027ff460@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:11 23/10/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >If the answer to this question is "yes" then you may have a point, otherwise >SAYC is definitely not a complete and unambiguous description of partnership >agreements. Granted. OTOH, since when is incomplete description treated as voluntarily incomplete, in absence of any such evidence ? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 24 17:38:18 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:38:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Two-way guess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9761C2CC-54F4-4226-B00C-530F411B8C63@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 24, 2006, at 3:26 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > (a) Pass by you, South, would be non-forcing > (b) 2NT by you, South, would be lebensohl > (c) Double by you, South, would be penalties > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > First Guess -> > > ..... if 2C is alerted and explained as 5+ clubs? > > Second Guess -> > > ..... if 2C is alerted and explained as both minors > (at least 4/4)? Probably pass in both cases. I would consider a double. From adam at tameware.com Tue Oct 24 18:15:38 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:15:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Casebook Posted Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Chicago2006.html -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 24 18:19:53 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:19:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:30:32 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20061024112445.02813ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200610241600.JAA21513@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > At 09:06 23/10/2006 -0700, you wrote: > > If you're going > >to give a CC to your opponents, but with a caveat that it's not > >guaranteed to be accurate, what would be the difference between giving > >them a CC and giving them an online copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls? > > None. So you committed the infraction of inaccuracy (or absence) of CC. > This is, by far, less serious than a concealed agreement : the former means > you're a lunatic or a couldn't-care-less ; the latter that you're a cheat. > So I still don't see why you should deal with the former by pretending it's > the latter. Of course you shouldn't. And to my knowledge, nobody in this thread has suggested that it should be. Richard's original post first used the term "concealed partnership understanding", but I don't believe he was asking whether people who post an incorrect "Full Disclosure" thing online should be considered cheats. I think a couple people here have read too much into those words, and the result has, for the most part, been a long argument about nothing between people who don't actually disagree about anything relevant. There may be a difference in connotation between "concealed partnership understanding" and "misinformation"; but except for Steve, most of us seem to think there's no difference in how they're handled according to the Laws; and I don't think Richard was asking about whether there should be any additional punishment (ranging from procedural or disciplinary penalty to suspension/expulsion for cheating). I haven't yet read all of Steve's post or Herman's counterargument. But *assuming* Herman is correct, then I think it's clear that the way to deal with the situation Richard originally described is that it's misinformation, and you adjust if there was damage; and to the question of whether it should be treated as MI or CPU, my answer would be, why should we care, since it appears not to make a difference in how we handle it? This is how things are handled by the current Laws, and I see no reason why any change in the Laws would be necessary to deal with this new way of disclosing agreements. -- Adam From Ron.Johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Oct 24 18:26:44 2006 From: Ron.Johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:26:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Two-way guess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610241626.k9OGQjFG023746@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > Imps, dealer West, vul North-South > You, South, hold: > > K73 > 954 > J852 > K96 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) X (2) Pass(3) Pass > XX Pass 2C (4) ? > > (1) 11-14 > (2) 15+ > (3) Alerted and explained as requiring a redouble Digression. I'm pretty sure that it was Bo-Yin Yang who pointed out that most pairs who play this method have a serious disclosure issue. How do they deal with the balanced junk? Because with 4-3-3-3 and little or nothing they have to choose whether to describe their hand as a one-suiter or a two-suiter (regardless of whether they're playing bid the one-suiter or the two-suiter first) And I need to know the answer to this in order to bid this one. My answer's going to be different if they've systemically denied holding 4-3-3-3 junk. > (4) Alerted and explained as ..... > > Your expert but idiosyncratic partner has forced you > to adopt the following agreements in this situation: > (a) Pass by you, South, would be non-forcing Pass is out IMO. Danger of being frozen out of the auction is too high. > (b) 2NT by you, South, would be lebensohl Hopefully we've discussed it more than this. Doesn't seem attractive regardless of explanation. > (c) Double by you, South, would be penalties Pure penalty or is partner expected to pull with shortness? Either agreement is sane. Double is particularly attractive if the balanced junk option is possible -- provided partner is expected to pull with a stiff or void. > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > First Guess -> > > ..... if 2C is alerted and explained as 5+ clubs? 2D > > Second Guess -> > > ..... if 2C is alerted and explained as both minors > (at least 4/4)? Double. How does this pair deal with 4-3-3-3 garbage? From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 24 18:38:23 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:38:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:25:45 EDT." <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <200610241618.JAA21706@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve wrote: > There is a definite difference in the laws applied and their effect. > "CPU" refers to a violation of L40B, while "MI" refers to violation of > some part of L75. The effect of the difference is in the adjustment. A > MI adjustment is based on opponents having received correct information, > whereas a CPU adjustment is based on the call carrying a concealed > agreement not having been made. (Read L40B with care.) The results > will often differ. My problem with this is that, after reading Law 40B with care, I can't imagine a case of MI that doesn't violate Law 40B. Any time the opponents are misinformed, we have an agreement that has not been properly disclosed. I don't see how you can have the first without the second. You're right that there seems to be some ambiguity about what should be considered to be the "irregularity"---the call or the misexplanation/failure to explain---and that this would affect how L12C2 is applied. But it sounds to me, from Herman's response, that this problem will be going away in the next edition of the Laws, so the point is moot. I haven't checked any of the WBFLC minutes to see if they address this issue. > A year or two ago, I asked how one decided whether a particular > infraction was CPU or MI. No one answered, and I don't see anything in > the Laws that makes it clear. My own suggestion is that CPU applies to > _advance_ disclosure (e.g. convention card or pre-announced agreements), > whereas MI applies to "at the table" disclosure (alerts and > explanations). I've always interpreted 40B, in particular the passage about "unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization", to apply to Alerts (among other things). In other words, Law 40B is about "full disclosure" in general and is *the* Law that underlies the requirement to fully disclose; it's not just about those agreements that need to be disclosed in advance or listed on CC's. Anyway, that's always been my interpretation. We can argue, but it appears to be a moot point anyway. -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Oct 24 23:20:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > There is a definite difference in the laws applied and their effect. > "CPU" refers to a violation of L40B, while "MI" refers to violation > of some part of L75. Technically I'm not sure there is such a legal entity as a "CPU". The term is only a heading and not actually part of the law. There's MI (which may lead to an adjustment if damage is caused) and in most cases is accidental. Sometimes we can (and do) rule that the MI was deliberate and impose a penalty (possibly involving rubber truncheons in the car park) independent of any damage. Sometimes there is MI which had it been revealed would constitute an illegal convention/agreement and in those cases many SOs specify penalties which must be imposed. As to the online case. Playing f2f one picks up opp's CC (which is broadly very like your own) at table one and hands it over to new opps at table 2. At a key point it differs from one's agreements and the opp reading it is damagingly misled. It is your fault - you didn't check that the CC given to opps represented your agreements. In the same way if you use an on-line CC short-cut which purports to be "SAYC" (which you have agreed to play) and quite obviously *isn't* then that too is your fault. Nobody but the pair is responsible for the accuracy of their CC. I don't think there was any malice in the example case (as there is no malice with most MI cases) - so it's a simple matter of adjusting the score if damage ensued. Tim From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Wed Oct 25 00:26:07 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:26:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds In-Reply-To: <453E25E3.5000500@t-online.de> References: <453E1F21.3070707@cs.elte.hu> <453E25E3.5000500@t-online.de> Message-ID: <453E92FF.3090406@cs.elte.hu> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >Hi Laci, > >Laszlo Hegedus schrieb: > > >>Teams, screens are used >>E/NS >> >>2.....................................AK3 >>AK5...............................Q9 >>AJ983.............................KT7542 >>AJ92...............................K4 >> >>EW playing a relay system, their 1NT open is 12-16 4333, 4432 or 5332 >>(with minor) are the only possible distributions on 1st/2nd places. If >>12, then good 12, if 16 then denies 4card Major. East did not forget the >>system, he explains the bidding (not his hand) correctly to his >>screenmate. the bidding went on: >> >>.......1N (12-16) >>2C..2N (FG relay; any 4333) >> >> >> > >interesting choice.... If I had opened this 1NT (I probably wouldn`t, >but that depends on several things) my choice of reply would be 3253 >(eventually). Doesn?t matter for the problem, of course :-) > > > >>3C..3D (relay, like Baron; exactly 3343) >>4D..4H (declares diamonds as trumpsuit and optional rkc; good hand for >>diamond slam) >>4S..5H (rkc; 2 keycard and the Q of trumps (maybe additonal length in >>trumps but now he had bidden exactli 4 card suit)) >>6D..? (to play) >> >>At this moment the tray came back after a real tempobreak (West >>hesitated a little before the 6 diamonds), but about 10 to 15 seconds >>only. All the players agree the facts above. East bid 7D (TD!). What's >>your decision as TD or as AC? >> >> >> > >Are you kidding? A BIT suggests that all KC are accounted for, so >bidding on is more attractive than after a prompt 6D. >I do _not_ buy into the "partner is looking at the D Queen and is >thinking about what has happened" argument. If a KC is missing he bids >6D first and thinks later. Change the C Ace into the queen to see what >an in-tempo 6D looks like..... > > So you judge 6D+1? Of course I feel the same. I adviced North to appeal. I can hardly imagine there is no UI if a normal player bids this grandslam when partner didn't checkback after the rkc. East was a good player by the way but not on this board. But I don't know which rule should I use? Is there any UI? Is there any infraction? WBF general condition of contest (25.3): "Law 16 (...) It is not considered that a delay of some 20 seconds is sufficient to convey UI". It seems to be clear. The TD's and the AC's decision was 7D made (deposit returned). All of them remarked, they didn't like it. Laci From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 24 23:46:44 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:46:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Chicago Casebook Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Concluding comments by Jeff Goldsmith: [snip] >Twice in this set, poll results rather surprised >me. I wonder about the procedures used to pick the >players for polls. In a regional AC case I heard >recently, a poll was taken and the results >astonished the whole AC. We asked who was polled; >it turned out that the four players consulted could >have been argued to be the four most conservative >expert players in the room. I don't claim that the >directors intentionally chose those four players to >get a desired result, but a representative sample >is not obtained with a poll size of four, and if >the sample is biased, poor results are obtained. >Again, I do not intend to imply that the results of >the polls in these cases are suspect; in fact, my >personal poll upheld the directors' poll results in >the one that surprised me the most. In that poll, >about half the players thought that the decision to >be made was not close. Those players were split >evenly between the two choices. AC members take >note: even if you have strong feelings that an >action is automatic, consider the possibility that >other players may feel very differently. Tournament >directors (TDs): try to avoid ACs with fewer than >five members to attempt to get multiple viewpoints. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 25 00:06:51 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:06:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:11:45 +0200." <453E1F21.3070707@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <200610242147.OAA24861@mailhub.irvine.com> Laszlo wrote: > Teams, screens are used > E/NS > > 2.....................................AK3 > AK5...............................Q9 > AJ983.............................KT7542 > AJ92...............................K4 > > EW playing a relay system, their 1NT open is 12-16 4333, 4432 or 5332 > (with minor) are the only possible distributions on 1st/2nd places. If > 12, then good 12, if 16 then denies 4card Major. East did not forget the > system, he explains the bidding (not his hand) correctly to his > screenmate. the bidding went on: > > .......1N (12-16) > 2C..2N (FG relay; any 4333) > 3C..3D (relay, like Baron; exactly 3343) > 4D..4H (declares diamonds as trumpsuit and optional rkc; good hand for > diamond slam) > 4S..5H (rkc; 2 keycard and the Q of trumps (maybe additonal length in > trumps but now he had bidden exactli 4 card suit)) > 6D..? (to play) > > At this moment the tray came back after a real tempobreak (West > hesitated a little before the 6 diamonds), but about 10 to 15 seconds > only. All the players agree the facts above. East bid 7D (TD!). What's > your decision as TD or as AC? The same decision as I'd make if EW were playing a very boring standard American system and had a hesitation Blackwood auction: Adjust to 6D making 7 and shoot East. This is how I'd decide regardless of what system they were playing. East's action is even more reprehensible here because he knows next to nothing about West's hand, and has no bridge reason, other than the hesitation, to believe that West has all the missing keycards. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 25 00:26:35 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:26:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Two-way guess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200610241626.k9OGQjFG023746@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>First Guess -> >> >>..... if 2C is alerted and explained as 5+ clubs? Ron Johnson: >2D Richard Hills: >>Second Guess -> >> >>..... if 2C is alerted and explained as both minors >>(at least 4/4)? Ron Johnson: >Double. > >How does this pair deal with 4-3-3-3 garbage? Richard Hills: Aussie Spring National Open Teams, Round 8, Board 18 (rotated 180 degrees for convenience) Dlr: W AJ9 Vul: N-S J87 KQ9 AJT3 8652 QT4 AKQT 632 643 AT7 Q2 8754 K73 954 J852 K96 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) X (2) Pass(3) Pass XX Pass 2C (4) 2NT(5) Pass 3C Pass 3NT(6) Pass Pass Pass (1) 11-14 (2) 15+ (3) Alerted and explained as requiring a redouble (4) Alerted and explained as 5+ clubs, but East-West were playing the popular Aussie convention SW1NE so East systemically was showing both minors. However, there is a hole in the SW1NE convention in that there is no systemic way to show 4-3-3-3 garbage, so East improvised. (5) Lebensohl. (6) Bidding 3NT via lebensohl promises a club stopper. North-South scored -100, losing the obvious 5 tricks. At the end of the hand, when the misinformation came to light, South called the TD, arguing that with the correct information a penalty double by South is more attractive (given South's diamond holding) rather than South's actual choice of aggressively pushing to a vulnerable game. After extensive consultation, the directors decided to adjust the score to +500 NS and -500 EW. (Law 12C3 is not normally available for use by directors in Australia.) Should the directors have split the score on the basis that South's force to game was wild or gambling, and by bidding 3NT then later trying for a penalty South was attempting to perpetrate a double shot? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 25 00:59:09 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:59:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <453E92FF.3090406@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Laszlo Hegedus: [snip] >But I don't know which rule should I use? >Is there any UI? >Is there any infraction? > >WBF general condition of contest (25.3): >"Law 16 (...) It is not considered that a >delay of some 20 seconds is sufficient to >convey UI". > >It seems to be clear. The TD's and the AC's >decision was 7D made (deposit returned). All >of them remarked, they didn't like it. Richard Hills: It does not seem so clear to me. WBF Code of Practice appendix, Guidelines for Rulings, number 4: "The request that players vary the tempo of returning the tray through the screen 'randomly' aims to avoid a situation where a player has needed time to think and this fact stands out because at other times the tray has always returned at regulation speed. At least some such situations, where it is possible a player could have had a judgement to make in the auction but did not take time, should be used to defer return of the tray in order to create uncertainty around the occasion when there has been a need for time to think." Since both sides apparently failed to abide by the WBF rule of "randomly" varying the tempo of the tray through the screen, as TD I would split the score, giving EW +940 and NS -1440. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 25 01:32:48 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:32:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:59:09 +1000." Message-ID: <200610242313.QAA25670@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > >WBF general condition of contest (25.3): > >"Law 16 (...) It is not considered that a > >delay of some 20 seconds is sufficient to > >convey UI". > > > >It seems to be clear. The TD's and the AC's > >decision was 7D made (deposit returned). All > >of them remarked, they didn't like it. > > Richard Hills: > > It does not seem so clear to me. > > WBF Code of Practice appendix, > Guidelines for Rulings, number 4: > > "The request that players vary the tempo of > returning the tray through the screen > 'randomly' aims to avoid a situation where > a player has needed time to think and this > fact stands out because at other times the > tray has always returned at regulation > speed. At least some such situations, where > it is possible a player could have had a > judgement to make in the auction but did > not take time, should be used to defer > return of the tray in order to create > uncertainty around the occasion when > there has been a need for time to think." > > Since both sides apparently failed to abide > by the WBF rule of "randomly" varying the > tempo of the tray through the screen, as TD > I would split the score, giving EW +940 and > NS -1440. Unfortunately, the CoC paragraph that Laszlo mentions doesn't refer to this guideline at all: "Law 16 - During the auction, when playing with screens, a breach of tempo may be identified by the slowness or speed with which the tray is returned. The players who receive the tray are the ones who can speak to any abnormality. Consequently it is an infraction if a player on the side of the screen where the breach occurred is the first to draw attention to it and the player forfeits for his side its non-offending status. It is not considered that a delay of some 20 seconds is sufficient to convey unauthorized information." It just says flat out, any delay of 20 seconds or less is not considered to convey UI---no reference to the above guideline, and no indication that a shorter delay, that is still clearly out of tempo relative to how the trays have previously been passed around, should be considered UI. This looks to me like a very serious omission in the WBF General Conditions of Contest, and I hope someone forwards Laszlo's story to them so that they can rectify this. And then they can shoot East. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 25 04:48:54 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:48:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061012104838.027c5480@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >1. "I don't understand that agreement" doesn't necessarily mean "we've >no agreement". Something TDs and ACs keep forgetting. [snip] Richard Hills: I disagree. In my opinion, an agreement is a _mutual_ understanding of _both_ partners, not a _unilateral_ assumption by _one_ partner. If one member of the partnership never understood the Kalamazoo Club system, then the partnership does not have an agreement to use the Kalamazoo Club system. Alain Gottcheiner: >3. If a pair says "for everything undiscussed, we follow the Kalamazoo >Club system", and the players have different ideas of said system, do >they have an agreement ? Richard Hills: In my opinion, no. If one partner thinks that they are playing the Kalamazee Club system, but the other partner thinks they are playing the Kalamazaa Club system, then at best the partnership has a partial agreement that they play the common-to-both-systems Kalamaz Club methods. Alain Gottcheiner: >In particular, may a book on that system be used by the TD/AC to >determine the agreements ? Richard Hills: Of course, it is possible that a member of a partnership may understand the Kalamazoo Club system, but _temporarily and infrequently forget_ their understanding. So _if both_ players read that book and _if both_ players initially understood that book, and _if both_ players mutually agreed to play by the book, but then one of those players _temporarily and infrequently_ forgot what that player had initially understood, _only then_ the book may be used to determine agreements. Therefore, in effect, the book has become the partnership's system notes. But if a player frequently forgets the Kalamazoo Club system, instead frequently bidding according to the Idiosyncratic Individual system, then those frequent forgets create an implicit partnership agreement. Law 75B: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed" Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 25 06:10:13 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:10:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200610242313.QAA25670@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >Unfortunately, the CoC paragraph that Laszlo mentions doesn't refer >to this guideline at all: > >"Law 16 - During the auction, when playing with screens, a breach of >tempo may be identified by the slowness or speed with which the tray >is returned. The players who receive the tray are the ones who can >speak to any abnormality. Consequently it is an infraction if a >player on the side of the screen where the breach occurred is the >first to draw attention to it and the player forfeits for his side >its non-offending status. It is not considered that a delay of some >20 seconds is sufficient to convey unauthorized information." Richard Hills: The above paragraph is on page 20 of the WBF CoC. But on page 21... WBF General Conditions of Contest, 25(e), fourth dot point, page 21: "Law 73D - During the auction period, after an opponent has acted quickly, it is proper to adjust the tempo back to normal by either delaying one's own call (place the bidding card faced, in front of, but not on, the tray) or by waiting before passing the tray. Further delay is allowed to randomise the movement of the tray." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 25 08:14:16 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:14:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Chicago Casebook Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00b801c6f7fc$ce654380$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> > Concluding comments by Jeff Goldsmith: > > [snip] > > >Twice in this set, poll results rather surprised > >me. I wonder about the procedures used to pick the > >players for polls. In a regional AC case I heard > >recently, a poll was taken and the results > >astonished the whole AC. We asked who was polled; > >it turned out that the four players consulted could > >have been argued to be the four most conservative > >expert players in the room. I don't claim that the > >directors intentionally chose those four players to > >get a desired result, but a representative sample > >is not obtained with a poll size of four, and if > >the sample is biased, poor results are obtained. > >Again, I do not intend to imply that the results of > >the polls in these cases are suspect; in fact, my > >personal poll upheld the directors' poll results in > >the one that surprised me the most. In that poll, > >about half the players thought that the decision to > >be made was not close. Those players were split > >evenly between the two choices. AC members take > >note: even if you have strong feelings that an > >action is automatic, consider the possibility that > >other players may feel very differently. Tournament > >directors (TDs): try to avoid ACs with fewer than > >five members to attempt to get multiple viewpoints. > A course in statistics isn't needed to understand that small sample sizes have very little significance. Player polls should never have been instituted and should be abolished. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 25 08:40:17 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:40:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL contains multitudes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The ACBL Competition and Conventions Committee, most recent meeting, Reno 22nd March 2004: >>>The question was raised whether an opening 4H >>>or 4S when playing NAMYATS should require an >>>Alert. The point was raised that we should be >>>consistent to principle (i.e. in general, >>>negative inferences do not require an Alert). >>> >>>The Committee was virtually unanimous in >>>determining that such a call does not require >>>an Alert. Grattan Endicott, "The purpose of an alert", blml posting 22nd October 2006: >>+=+ In the course of deleting a lot of old blml >>material I came across this statement: >> >> "I think the purpose of an alert is (or should >> be?) to alert opponents that they should not >> assume anything." >> >>I believe it is open to Sponsoring Organizations >>to require an alert for any reason that they >>think sufficient. >> >>So I do not believe a general statement of the >>kind above is apposite to the discussion. The >>immediate purpose is to comply with a >>regulation. The purpose of the regulation is to >>make a provision for this manner of disclosure, >>as a matter of choice by the SO, in exercise of >>the power mentioned in Law 40B. To comment on >>the purpose of the alert calls for an awareness >>of the SO's reasons for making that choice. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Chapter 1 Definition of an Alert in the Lawbook: >Alert - A notification, whose form may be >specified by a sponsoring organisation, to the >effect that opponents may be in need of an >explanation. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the Reno assertion that "negative inferences do not require an Alert" and the Endicott assertion "require an alert for any reason that they think sufficient" lack any congruence with the Lawful definitional phrase "opponents may be in need of an explanation". In my opinion, a Sponsoring Organisation which creates an arbitrary rule that special negative inferences need not be alerted is steering perilously close to infracting the Law 75A requirement that, "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents". Fortunately, as I noted in the first post on this thread, the ACBL powers-that-be ignored their subcommittee's recommendation, so the ACBL still requires special negative inferences to be alerted. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 25 09:36:05 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:36:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <453DCE04.7020001@hdw.be> References: <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> <200610232113.k9NLDVMQ000556@cfa.harvard.edu> <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061025092047.027cc1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:25 24/10/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >MI and CPU are just two names for the same thing. I can't buy that. The "C" in "CPU" is for "concealed". Concealing things is *voluntarily* keeping them from being known. This would constitute voluntary infraction to the Laws. The most serious offense, etc. While MI could originate from a lapsus, miscomprehension of partner's notes, of CC-filling principles, insufficient knowledge of the vevicular language etc. Not respecting correct procedure, OK, and subject to score adjustment, no doubt, but surely not the same kind of offense. Best regards, Alain From herman at hdw.be Wed Oct 25 09:38:55 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:38:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453F148F.7020809@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >>1. "I don't understand that agreement" doesn't necessarily mean "we've >>no agreement". Something TDs and ACs keep forgetting. > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree. In my opinion, an agreement is a _mutual_ understanding of > _both_ partners, not a _unilateral_ assumption by _one_ partner. If one > member of the partnership never understood the Kalamazoo Club system, > then the partnership does not have an agreement to use the Kalamazoo Club > system. > Richard may well be right, but it's totally unimportant. Since the opponents are entitled to know the agreements, even when "we agree to disagree", this should be told them. "I play Kalamazoo version A, but he prefers version B" is the only full explanation. Of course, no-one needs the full explanation, only the relevant bit. So "that bid means XXX according to Kalamazoo version B" or even "that bid means XXX" is what should have been said. Anything else, including "that bid means YYY because we have agreed to play Kalamazoo" is then MI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From herman at hdw.be Wed Oct 25 09:44:10 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:44:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061025092047.027cc1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> <200610232113.k9NLDVMQ000556@cfa.harvard.edu> <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20061025092047.027cc1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <453F15CA.3000100@hdw.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 10:25 24/10/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> MI and CPU are just two names for the same thing. > > > I can't buy that. The "C" in "CPU" is for "concealed". > Concealing things is *voluntarily* keeping them from being known. > This would constitute voluntary infraction to the Laws. The most serious > offense, etc. > But the verb is used in the passive form. Something which is "concealed" is something which is hidden, out of sight, not visible. Even if the use of the particular word "concealed" may indicate that somebody did the concealing, the outcome is the same - it is not seen. And in fact, somebody did do the concealing - it was not said, not written on the convention card, not alerted, or whatever. Every case of MI involves some "concealing". But the main argument in this debate are the facts that: -L40 and L75 do not specify any different adjustments; -the word concealed is in the heading, not the text. So while the additional infraction of "deliberately" concealing may involve additional penalties, the words CPU and MI are to be used interchangeably. > While MI could originate from a lapsus, miscomprehension of partner's > notes, of CC-filling principles, insufficient knowledge of the vevicular > language etc. Not respecting correct procedure, OK, and subject to score > adjustment, no doubt, but surely not the same kind of offense. > Yes, but the first offence is not to be called "CPU", but "deliberate hiding of PU" or simply put "cheating". > Best regards, > > Alain > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 25 11:37:30 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:37:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025192812.05de4450@mail.optusnet.com.au> OK, this occurred so recently that I remember it. However, I only remember that there were some contrary opinions, so I can't remember the "consensus". A fellow director has asked me the following: S -- H 9 5 D 5 C -- S 8 H 7 D 6 C -- S 5 H 10 D -- C Q three cards are left, hearts are trumps, declarer leads the club Q intending to discard the diamond 5 from dummy. However, West ruffs and declarer calls five..oh! 9 of hearts..all in one breath. I'm not allowing the change, so I only want supporting arguments please. And the same if he calls diam..oh!9 of hearts. OK? Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 25 11:47:27 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:47:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Claim procedure Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025193742.05e1bb00@mail.optusnet.com.au> I have a player who is a bit of a smart-arse. His claim procedure typically is to lay his cards on the table, saying "rest are mine", or "you get a club at the end". He thinks he is a good player, so against the average club player who asks for him to play on, he immediately refuses and calls the director (me) who gets to play the hand. Typically I have to explain to the aggrieved opponents that the player's tactics are not only legal, but actually mandated by the laws. I then have to go through the play which may be somewhat complex. "He is going to ruff a club in dummy, and ruff diamonds back to his hand. He apparently knows that there is only 1 diamond out, so the diamonds are going to be good etc.. " I know that he knows all this, it is evident even to me, but can I ask him to delay further claims until any opponents will be able to understand what is going on? Tony (Sydney) From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Oct 25 12:10:36 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:10:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] When does perverse become not normal? Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A7F@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Hearts are trumps, declarer has drawn two rounds and forgotten about H7. CA has been played. Declarer (North), in hand, claims he can ruff a spade in dummy. A K 8 J 6 - K J x Q J x x x x 7 - - x x x x x x x x x 9 10 4 8 x Q x x As far as I can see, the only line to lose a trick to H7 is to play a diamond after ruffing a spade and before playing trumps, so that West can pitch a club and later ruff the third club. This line seems perverse, but is it normal. 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 herman at hdw.be Wed Oct 25 12:30:55 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:30:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim procedure In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025193742.05e1bb00@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025193742.05e1bb00@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <453F3CDF.1080709@hdw.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > I have a player who is a bit of a smart-arse. His claim > procedure typically is to lay his cards on the table, saying > "rest are mine", or "you get a club at the end". He thinks he > is a good player, so against the average club player who > asks for him to play on, he immediately refuses and calls > the director (me) who gets to play the hand. Typically I > have to explain to the aggrieved opponents that the player's > tactics are not only legal, but actually mandated by the laws. > > I then have to go through the play which may be somewhat > complex. "He is going to ruff a club in dummy, and ruff > diamonds back to his hand. He apparently knows that there > is only 1 diamond out, so the diamonds are going to be good > etc.. " I know that he knows all this, it is evident even to me, > but can I ask him to delay further claims until any opponents > will be able to understand what is going on? > Well, maybe next time you might rule against him. Pretend to "not know" that there is only 1 diamond out. Ask him to explain that he knows this to the Appeal Committee. Maybe that will teach him. Or at least, tell him that you might rule like that the next time - and hope he's going to change his methods. > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From herman at hdw.be Wed Oct 25 12:34:40 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:34:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025192812.05de4450@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025192812.05de4450@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <453F3DC0.20102@hdw.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > OK, this occurred so recently that I remember it. > However, I only remember that there were some > contrary opinions, so I can't remember the > "consensus". > > A fellow director has asked me the following: > > S -- > H 9 5 > D 5 > C -- > > S 8 > H 7 > D 6 > C -- > > S 5 > H 10 > D -- > C Q > > three cards are left, hearts are trumps, declarer > leads the club Q intending to discard the diamond > 5 from dummy. However, West ruffs and declarer > calls five..oh! 9 of hearts..all in one breath. > I have alreeady once said that as soon as he opens his mouth, he has played a card. We may not yet know for certain which card, and L46 may apply in deciding which one it is (including the incontrovertibility of partial utterances). So if he says "five" he has played a five. The diamond or the heart, he can still choose (both might seem logical). No change allowed to the H9. > I'm not allowing the change, so I only want > supporting arguments please. And the same if > he calls diam..oh!9 of hearts. > Of course, since "diam" clearly indicates the D5. > OK? > Yes. > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From herman at hdw.be Wed Oct 25 14:03:10 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:03:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does perverse become not normal? In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A7F@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A7F@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <453F527E.4040308@hdw.be> Robin Barker wrote: > Hearts are trumps, declarer has drawn two rounds and forgotten about H7. > CA has been played. and there have been three revokes on that trick, presumably! > Declarer (North), in hand, claims he can ruff a spade in dummy. > OK, that seems like a completely valid claim, except for the forgotten H7. > A K 8 > J 6 > - > K J x > Q J x x x x > 7 - > - x x x > x x x x x x > 9 > 10 4 > 8 x > Q x x > > As far as I can see, the only line to lose a trick to H7 is to play a > diamond after ruffing a spade and before playing trumps, so that West > can pitch a club and later ruff the third club. > Congratulations Robin, that line is harder to find than one might think. I confess having trouble finding such lines in general. > This line seems perverse, but is it normal. > Well, let's suppose you are playing in Sydney, and you claim. The opponents object. Having just received from Tony a warning not to call him when opponents complain about one's claim, but rather to play it out, so now you play: - SA - S ruff and again you shows all the high cards. But maybe the opponents still haven't seen that the diamonds are being ruffed ("what do you do with those diamonds?"), so now - D ruff. one down! not so perverse at all! > Robin > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 25 14:23:26 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:23:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does perverse become not normal? In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A7F@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A7F@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <453F573E.5070909@t-online.de> Hello Robin, Robin Barker schrieb: > Hearts are trumps, declarer has drawn two rounds and forgotten about H7. > if you say so..... > CA has been played. > How? Discarded on a diamond?? I suspect this is a construed hand, in which case you might want to change that to lend it more credibility for teaching purposes. 8 hearts and 8 diamonds missing, 3 spades and one club.Not impossible, but pretty improbable. If this happened in real life...., well, anyone who discards the ace of clubs would also play a diamond first..... > Declarer (North), in hand, claims he can ruff a spade in dummy. > > A K 8 > J 6 > - > K J x > Q J x x x x > 7 - > - x x x > x x x x x x > 9 > 10 4 > 8 x > Q x x > > As far as I can see, the only line to lose a trick to H7 is to play a > diamond after ruffing a spade and before playing trumps, so that West > can pitch a club and later ruff the third club. > > This line seems perverse, but is it normal. > Hmmm. AK spade ruff (diamond discard on king of spades), diamond ruff, only high clubs and trumps left. Good, clean claim position (except that declarer claimed a bit earlier). I could imagine players doing this. Barely. Since it is not irrational it must be normal. Sort of. This is getting near to playing trumps from the bottom, but not quite the same. I would give the defence a trick. Regards Matthias > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 25 14:49:00 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:49:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <453F3DC0.20102@hdw.be> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025192812.05de4450@mail.optusnet.com.au> <453F3DC0.20102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025224804.04eb3440@mail.optusnet.com.au> Since Herman got in first on this unanimous only thread, I am afraid further correspondence is closed. Thank you At 08:34 PM 25/10/2006, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > OK, this occurred so recently that I remember it. > > However, I only remember that there were some > > contrary opinions, so I can't remember the > > "consensus". > > > > A fellow director has asked me the following: > > > > S -- > > H 9 5 > > D 5 > > C -- > > > > S 8 > > H 7 > > D 6 > > C -- > > > > S 5 > > H 10 > > D -- > > C Q > > > > three cards are left, hearts are trumps, declarer > > leads the club Q intending to discard the diamond > > 5 from dummy. However, West ruffs and declarer > > calls five..oh! 9 of hearts..all in one breath. > > > >I have alreeady once said that as soon as he opens his mouth, he has >played a card. We may not yet know for certain which card, and L46 may >apply in deciding which one it is (including the incontrovertibility >of partial utterances). >So if he says "five" he has played a five. The diamond or the heart, >he can still choose (both might seem logical). No change allowed to >the H9. > > > I'm not allowing the change, so I only want > > supporting arguments please. And the same if > > he calls diam..oh!9 of hearts. > > > >Of course, since "diam" clearly indicates the D5. > > > OK? > > > >Yes. > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Oct 25 15:13:27 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:13:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] When does perverse become not normal? Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A80@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> OK so I cocked up the East hand. Its a real deal from Bournemouth, South is an EBU TD. The end position is written on a piece of paper which I could show you if I hadn't been mugged last night - losing things more valuable than a hand for BLML! Robin -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus Sent: 25 October 2006 13:23 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] When does perverse become not normal? Hello Robin, Robin Barker schrieb: > Hearts are trumps, declarer has drawn two rounds and forgotten about H7. > if you say so..... > CA has been played. > How? Discarded on a diamond?? I suspect this is a construed hand, in which case you might want to change that to lend it more credibility for teaching purposes. 8 hearts and 8 diamonds missing, 3 spades and one club.Not impossible, but pretty improbable. If this happened in real life...., well, anyone who discards the ace of clubs would also play a diamond first..... > Declarer (North), in hand, claims he can ruff a spade in dummy. > > A K 8 > J 6 > - > K J x > Q J x x x x > 7 - > - x x x > x x x x x x > 9 > 10 4 > 8 x > Q x x > > As far as I can see, the only line to lose a trick to H7 is to play a > diamond after ruffing a spade and before playing trumps, so that West > can pitch a club and later ruff the third club. > > This line seems perverse, but is it normal. > Hmmm. AK spade ruff (diamond discard on king of spades), diamond ruff, only high clubs and trumps left. Good, clean claim position (except that declarer claimed a bit earlier). I could imagine players doing this. Barely. Since it is not irrational it must be normal. Sort of. This is getting near to playing trumps from the bottom, but not quite the same. I would give the defence a trick. Regards Matthias > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 herman at hdw.be Wed Oct 25 15:20:28 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:20:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does perverse become not normal? In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A80@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A80@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <453F649C.8080403@hdw.be> Robin Barker wrote: > OK so I cocked up the East hand. > > Its a real deal from Bournemouth, South is an EBU TD. > The end position is written on a piece of paper which > I could show you if I hadn't been mugged last night - > losing things more valuable than a hand for BLML! > > Robin > sad to hear it, Robin. Please just notice that both Mathias and me, despite laughing about the apparent jettison of, or revoke on, the CA, gave the deal a serious look. blml, please note that Mathias gave the same answer as I did - quite apparently independently! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From herman at hdw.be Wed Oct 25 15:22:45 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:22:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Announcing the ss Finland Message-ID: <453F6525.2060100@hdw.be> The birthday of bridge (Oct 31) is coming up again. As usual, we'll be holding the ss Finland challenge to honour this. Please contact me if you want details. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 25 16:02:59 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:02:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061025092047.027cc1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> <200610232113.k9NLDVMQ000556@cfa.harvard.edu> <453D79A9.9080800@cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20061025092047.027cc1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 25, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I can't buy that. The "C" in "CPU" is for "concealed". > Concealing things is *voluntarily* keeping them from being known. > This would constitute voluntary infraction to the Laws. The most > serious > offense, etc. > > While MI could originate from a lapsus, miscomprehension of partner's > notes, of CC-filling principles, insufficient knowledge of the > vevicular > language etc. Not respecting correct procedure, OK, and subject to > score > adjustment, no doubt, but surely not the same kind of offense. Law 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." Preface: "... when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained ..."), a violation will be penalized more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious indeed. Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not". If the Lawmakers had intended us to consider violating Law 40B "serious indeed", they would have said "must not" instead of the words they did use, "may not". Law 72B: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." Here, they did use "must not". A CPU, in the sense Alain is using the term, is a violation of Law 72B and should be treated as such. There is a difference between misinformation, which is the consequence of some failure on the part of the OS, and deliberately concealing an agreement, which is just one of the failures that might lead to MI. Absent intentional concealment, we should deal with MI via law 40B. Thus Law 40B concerns CPUs only indirectly, despite its header. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 25 16:06:59 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:06:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Claim procedure In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025193742.05e1bb00@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025193742.05e1bb00@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <087A0340-319E-4FA5-B44A-101901B37556@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 25, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > I know that he knows all this, it is evident even to me, > but can I ask him to delay further claims until any opponents > will be able to understand what is going on? Not legally. But... Law 68C: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." Your player's method of making a claim statement is not in accordance with this law, and he should be told so, and instructed to comply with it. If he then fails to do so, penalize him. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 25 17:35:14 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:35:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Claim procedure In-Reply-To: <453F3CDF.1080709@hdw.be> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025193742.05e1bb00@mail.optusnet.com.au> <6.2.0.14.2.20061025193742.05e1bb00@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061025172614.027c1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:30 25/10/2006 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > I have a player who is a bit of a smart-arse. His claim > > procedure typically is to lay his cards on the table, saying > > "rest are mine", or "you get a club at the end". He thinks he > > is a good player, so against the average club player who > > asks for him to play on, he immediately refuses and calls > > the director (me) who gets to play the hand. Typically I > > have to explain to the aggrieved opponents that the player's > > tactics are not only legal, but actually mandated by the laws. > > > > I then have to go through the play A claim shall be accompanied by a statement about the way the hand will be played. If the player didn't spontaneously do that, go throughout the play by playing badly. See the footnote in L70. > He apparently knows that there is only 1 diamond out, so the diamonds are going to be good > etc.. " Well, perhaps. But, if he didn't say anything about the line of play, he can be deemed not to know it. You see, "any line consistent with the statement" means "any line" when there is no statement. After you (force him to) slaughter a pair of deals, you can bet that he will explain in detail. Best regards, Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 25 17:52:13 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:52:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Two-way guess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200610241626.k9OGQjFG023746@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061025174841.027cb9c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:26 25/10/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Should the directors have split the score on the basis >that South's force to game was wild or gambling, and >by bidding 3NT then later trying for a penalty South >was attempting to perpetrate a double shot? Not at all. This could only be the case when South expects a probable infraction (e.g. after tempo). Here, there is nothing to suggest this. So how could South imagine a double shot plan could be used ? (this doesn't remove the fact that South's call is bad, but that's another story) NB : unless it's the first time responder held a (4333) type (and I doubt it), L75's proviso about repeated deviations does apply. Best regards. Alain. From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 25 18:03:34 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:03:34 -0700 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:10:13 +1000." Message-ID: <200610251543.IAA01666@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Adam Beneschan: > > >Unfortunately, the CoC paragraph that Laszlo mentions doesn't refer > >to this guideline at all: > > > >"Law 16 - During the auction, when playing with screens, a breach of > >tempo may be identified by the slowness or speed with which the tray > >is returned. The players who receive the tray are the ones who can > >speak to any abnormality. Consequently it is an infraction if a > >player on the side of the screen where the breach occurred is the > >first to draw attention to it and the player forfeits for his side > >its non-offending status. It is not considered that a delay of some > >20 seconds is sufficient to convey unauthorized information." > > Richard Hills: > > The above paragraph is on page 20 of the WBF CoC. But on page 21... > > WBF General Conditions of Contest, 25(e), fourth dot point, page 21: > > "Law 73D - During the auction period, after an opponent has acted > quickly, it is proper to adjust the tempo back to normal by either > delaying one's own call (place the bidding card faced, in front of, > but not on, the tray) or by waiting before passing the tray. Further > delay is allowed to randomise the movement of the tray." Hmmm. Most likely, as I understand the story, N-S have acted quickly throughout the whole auction. West has done nothing about it until his fifth bid, after a Blackwood response shows that his side holds all the key cards, at which time he suddenly decides this would be a good time to "adjust the tempo back to normal" which he has the right to do according to the above CoC paragraph. Is this *really* how the WBF wants directors to rule? If so, then they're the ones who should be shot. But I cannot believe that. I do think they need to put some kind of clarification in their CoC so as to avoid confusion in cases like this. -- Adam From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 25 18:10:57 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:10:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] impossible bid Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061025175240.027c2710@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, This strange sequence happened (between screens) to my teammates : pass 1C 3NT 4NT 6NT West isn't the kind of player to pass a fair 12-count, so the 3NT bid is "impossible" (especially playing IMR). Rather surprised by the bid, East bid 4NT "just to see what happens" on her 1345 19-count including a bare king, and the good slam was reached (+2 IMPs vs 6C in closed room). Asked about the sequence, a Belgian expert answered : "3NT means West miscounted her hand, and 4NT asks by how much". I'm not sure whether he was trying to look witty. Now, asked about the 3NT bid, East wouldn't have dared to answer that or anything - except, perhaps, "my partner bids 3NT whenever possible, and even sometimes when it isn't", which is true). But how could she then justify her 4NT bid ? Is she really allowed to assume her partner miscounted her hand ? Does Sherlock's motto apply here ? I insist that, on seeing the whole of her match, it makes no doubt that West was at the peak of her powers. Thank you for your opinion. Ah yes, the real story behind the deal. Well, West held a fair 14-count and was wondering whether to open a strong NT. On deciding she wouldn't open that, she had a slip of the mind and didn't open anything. Best regards, Alain From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 25 18:16:06 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:16:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] impossible bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:10:57 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20061025175240.027c2710@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200610251556.IAA01858@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > This strange sequence happened (between screens) to my teammates : > > pass 1C > 3NT 4NT > 6NT > > West isn't the kind of player to pass a fair 12-count, so the 3NT bid is > "impossible" (especially playing IMR). Rather surprised by the bid, East > bid 4NT "just to see what happens" on her 1345 19-count including a bare > king, and the good slam was reached (+2 IMPs vs 6C in closed room). > > Asked about the sequence, a Belgian expert answered : "3NT means West > miscounted her hand, and 4NT asks by how much". I'm not sure whether he was > trying to look witty. > > Now, asked about the 3NT bid, East wouldn't have dared to answer that or > anything - except, perhaps, "my partner bids 3NT whenever possible, and > even sometimes when it isn't", which is true). > But how could she then justify her 4NT bid ? Is she really allowed to > assume her partner miscounted her hand ? Does Sherlock's motto apply here ? > I insist that, on seeing the whole of her match, it makes no doubt that > West was at the peak of her powers. > > Thank you for your opinion. If we thought that there was some table action that East could have picked up on, then perhaps we could rule that the 4NT bid was suggested by UI---but with screens in use, this seems extremely unlikely. So I don't see any possible infraction here. -- Adam From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Wed Oct 25 18:22:43 2006 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:22:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. References: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025192812.05de4450@mail.optusnet.com.au> <453F3DC0.20102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c6f851$e98254f0$d3493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > OK, this occurred so recently that I remember it. > > However, I only remember that there were some > > contrary opinions, so I can't remember the > > "consensus". > > > > A fellow director has asked me the following: > > > > S -- > > H 9 5 > > D 5 > > C -- > > > > S 8 > > H 7 > > D 6 > > C -- > > > > S 5 > > H 10 > > D -- > > C Q > > > > three cards are left, hearts are trumps, declarer > > leads the club Q intending to discard the diamond > > 5 from dummy. However, West ruffs and declarer > > calls five..oh! 9 of hearts..all in one breath. > > > > I have alreeady once said that as soon as he opens his mouth, he has > played a card. We may not yet know for certain which card, and L46 may > apply in deciding which one it is (including the incontrovertibility > of partial utterances). > So if he says "five" he has played a five. The diamond or the heart, > he can still choose (both might seem logical). > The incontrovertibility of the utterance "five..oh!" shows that declarer is surprised that LHO ruffs. It is therefore irrefragable that he changed his mind. As Law 45C4(b) mentions "without pause for thought" I am not allowing the 9 of hearts. Declarer has to choose between the diamond or the heart 5. In the other situation the diamond has to be played. Ben From adam at irvine.com Wed Oct 25 18:34:52 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:34:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:37:30 +1000." <6.2.0.14.2.20061025192812.05de4450@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <200610251615.JAA02180@mailhub.irvine.com> Tony wrote: > OK, this occurred so recently that I remember it. > However, I only remember that there were some > contrary opinions, so I can't remember the > "consensus". > > A fellow director has asked me the following: > > S -- > H 9 5 > D 5 > C -- > > S 8 > H 7 > D 6 > C -- > > S 5 > H 10 > D -- > C Q > > three cards are left, hearts are trumps, declarer > leads the club Q intending to discard the diamond > 5 from dummy. However, West ruffs and declarer > calls five..oh! 9 of hearts..all in one breath. > > I'm not allowing the change, so I only want > supporting arguments please. And the same if > he calls diam..oh!9 of hearts. > > OK? No comment. -- Adam From tzimnoch at comcast.net Wed Oct 25 22:44:47 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:44:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Casebook Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b801c6f7fc$ce654380$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <00b801c6f7fc$ce654380$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <453FCCBF.7050903@comcast.net> Marvin French wrote: > A course in statistics isn't needed to understand that small sample > sizes have very little significance. Player polls should never have > been instituted and should be abolished. ACs, frequently being small in size, constitute a small sample of opinion. And sometimes opinion of a too strong caliber. If we can't trust a poll of players for their judgement, why should we trust the AC? What process do you suggest replace player polls? -Todd From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Oct 25 23:12:15 2006 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] impossible bid In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061025175240.027c2710@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002901c6f87a$3f8ea790$2101a8c0@Karel3200> +++ Fairly straight forward case of pd found another ace some place ... and bid to make up ... 4NT seems pretty obvious with a 19 count. Haven't we all at some stage miscounted and been thankful to get another chance ?? K. This strange sequence happened (between screens) to my teammates : pass 1C 3NT 4NT 6NT West isn't the kind of player to pass a fair 12-count, so the 3NT bid is "impossible" (especially playing IMR). Rather surprised by the bid, East bid 4NT "just to see what happens" on her 1345 19-count including a bare king, and the good slam was reached (+2 IMPs vs 6C in closed room). Asked about the sequence, a Belgian expert answered : "3NT means West miscounted her hand, and 4NT asks by how much". I'm not sure whether he was trying to look witty. Now, asked about the 3NT bid, East wouldn't have dared to answer that or anything - except, perhaps, "my partner bids 3NT whenever possible, and even sometimes when it isn't", which is true). But how could she then justify her 4NT bid ? Is she really allowed to assume her partner miscounted her hand ? Does Sherlock's motto apply here ? I insist that, on seeing the whole of her match, it makes no doubt that West was at the peak of her powers. Thank you for your opinion. Ah yes, the real story behind the deal. Well, West held a fair 14-count and was wondering whether to open a strong NT. On deciding she wouldn't open that, she had a slip of the mind and didn't open anything. Best regards, Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 25 23:20:34 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:20:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You and your partner have agreed to play a weak notrump and the lebensohl convention. Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. You, South, hold: Q63 93 KJ53 AK87 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1NT 1H 1S Pass ? 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Thu Oct 26 00:10:33 2006 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <25764.1161814233520.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: Oct 25, 2006 5:20 PM >To: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >You and your partner have agreed to play a >weak notrump and the lebensohl convention. > >Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. > >You, South, hold: > >Q63 >93 >KJ53 >AK87 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1NT >1H 1S Pass ? > >What call do you make? 2S. >What other calls do you consider making? I consider pass, but reject it. Partner is doing something by bidding rather than forcing the opponents to make a choice, and it may be abject poverty, but he might also have a complex hand and desire to get his suits in their natural order: KJ842 5 AQ642 Q9 - is 3S really better than getting to show your spades at the one-level? (Yeah, I know that leaves a lot of hearts out there, but partner still might have a hand where he wants to get those spades in before the three-level.) --JRM From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Oct 26 10:00:39 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:00:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45406B27.5060401@t-online.de> Hello Richard, if all these things happen to you... never a dull moment, eh? richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > You and your partner have agreed to play a > weak notrump and the lebensohl convention. > > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. > > You, South, hold: > > Q63 > 93 > KJ53 > AK87 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1NT > 1H 1S Pass ? > > What call do you make? > 2S > What other calls do you consider making? > None, but.... It seems to me that I may be under different sets of UI restrictions if a) partner bids 1S without a care in the world or b) the TD is summoned, the options and the consequences are explained and partner now bids 1S. If partner seems to have missed (or misread, written bidding?) my 1NT , I may have UI because of systemic information from 1 minor - 1H - 1S showing 5+ (for example). If, on the other hand, partner knew what he was dealing with he may well have only 4 spades (John`s two-suiter is a different logical explanation), since this is the hand type he cannot get across if no negative double of 2H is available (if he has limited values, with a stronger hand he has a cue available). Since partner will have a 4+card minor most of the time (if holding only 4 spades) a bid of 2C seems suggested (certainly debatable whether 2C is a LA at matchpoints). Is this AI or UI? I think it is AI, but I am not completely sure. At matchpoints I would always bid 2S. If partner now bids 3 of a minor (probably John`s two-suiter) I raise the minor. > > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 26 10:07:31 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:07:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds In-Reply-To: <200610251543.IAA01666@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061026100600.027cbd00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:03 25/10/2006 -0700, you wrote: >Hmmm. Most likely, as I understand the story, N-S have acted quickly >throughout the whole auction. West has done nothing about it until >his fifth bid, after a Blackwood response shows that his side holds >all the key cards, at which time he suddenly decides this would be a >good time to "adjust the tempo back to normal" which he has the right >to do according to the above CoC paragraph. Is this *really* how the >WBF wants directors to rule? Probably not. However, if I were on the opposite side, this would probably be the moment when I'd choose to apply a bit of random slow tempo. So, after all, the tempo doesn't reveal much. Regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Oct 26 10:05:19 2006 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:05:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] When does perverse become not normal? In-Reply-To: <453F649C.8080403@hdw.be> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120A80@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> <453F649C.8080403@hdw.be> Message-ID: <45406C3F.40202@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > blml, please note that Mathias gave the same answer as I did - quite > apparently independently! > > > well, I agreed with you on the five...err, 9 of hearts thing too. That makes two in a row. Is this a new record for us? ;-) Regards Matthias From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 26 10:14:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20061025224804.04eb3440@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony wrote: > Since Herman got in first on this unanimous only > thread, I am afraid further correspondence is closed. Then oops. Declarer called for the 509 of hearts (at least if I heard correctly what was typed). If the H509 happens to be in dummy it must be played (L45c4a). Assuming a normal pack this is unlikely to be the case and declarer has designated a card not in dummy. If only there were a law covering such situations. Oh, there is: L46b4 If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. Doesn't matter what declarer intended when he opened his mouth, advertent/inadvertent, change of mind or slip of tongue are all irrelevant. Dummy doesn't contain a H509, it won't contain a "fix of sparts" or an "acate" or any other gobbledegook card either. If declarer is (or may be) attempting to gain info from his RHO by making garbage calls from dummy then we can use "could have known" but using the law to try and forbid a reaction to LHO's play is just plain silly. Tim From herman at hdw.be Thu Oct 26 12:39:51 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:39:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45409077.2060502@hdw.be> This is a fundamental difference of opinion. My idea is that when declarer opens his mouth, the card has been played. Tim's idea is that only when the mouth is closed is the card played. Of course which such fundamental differences, the rulings will be totally different as well. Tony was wrong of course to expect any type of unanimity on blml. My only argument against Tim is that L46 clearly states what has to be done if the 5 of hearts happens to be the 6 (so that there are no 2 cards of the same rank on the table). "The 5" is, according to L46, a full indication of the 5 of diamonds. Apparently, in Tim's opinion, saying "the 5 ......... of spades" is still a way to get out from under that law. And don't counter that with any argument of "immediately", since L46 has no provisions for immediacy. I believe Tim is wrong, and I stand by my interpretation that as soon as a player opens his mouth, the card that he intended to name has been played. Tim West-Meads wrote: > Tony wrote: > > >>Since Herman got in first on this unanimous only >>thread, I am afraid further correspondence is closed. > > > Then oops. Declarer called for the 509 of hearts (at least if I heard > correctly what was typed). If the H509 happens to be in dummy it must > be played (L45c4a). Assuming a normal pack this is unlikely to be the > case and declarer has designated a card not in dummy. If only there > were a law covering such situations. > > Oh, there is: L46b4 If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the > call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. > > Doesn't matter what declarer intended when he opened his mouth, > advertent/inadvertent, change of mind or slip of tongue are all > irrelevant. Dummy doesn't contain a H509, it won't contain a "fix of > sparts" or an "acate" or any other gobbledegook card either. > > If declarer is (or may be) attempting to gain info from his RHO by > making garbage calls from dummy then we can use "could have known" but > using the law to try and forbid a reaction to LHO's play is just plain > silly. > > 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: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/497 - Release Date: 25/10/2006 From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 26 14:01:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <45409077.2060502@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Apparently, in Tim's opinion, > saying "the 5 ......... of spades" is still a way to get out from > under that law. If the player says "The 5 of spades" and the S5 is not in dummy then L46B5 applies. If the player says "The Five" and later adds "of Spades" then L46b2 applies. This isn't rocket science. It doesn't require mind-reading. Just ask each player what they heard. If the answer is "Five-oh-nine" (or indeed "the fine") then L46b5. If the answer is "The five.".."No the nine" then L46b2. The TD is required to establish facts and while not easy to represent in writing there will be differences in tonality (easily reported verbally) which determine which law subsection applies. > I believe Tim is wrong, and I stand by my interpretation that as soon > as a player opens his mouth, the card that he intended to name has > been played. So the player says "Hmm, the..". Which card is played? There is no bridge reason that declarer should not change his mind after seeing LHO's card and before completing his call and IMO only low-life scum would actually want declarer to be forced to play a card when he *clearly* hasn't designated one in this situation. It's the same as with spoken bidding where "Two hear.. spades" is purely a matter of possible UI and there is no question of applying L25/27 etc because the 2H bid hasn't been made. Tim From herman at hdw.be Thu Oct 26 15:18:48 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:18:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4540B5B8.9000007@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Apparently, in Tim's opinion, >>saying "the 5 ......... of spades" is still a way to get out from >>under that law. > > > If the player says "The 5 of spades" and the S5 is not in dummy then > L46B5 applies. If the player says "The Five" and later adds "of Spades" > then L46b2 applies. This isn't rocket science. It doesn't require > mind-reading. Just ask each player what they heard. If the answer is > "Five-oh-nine" (or indeed "the fine") then L46b5. If the answer is "The > five.".."No the nine" then L46b2. This is just plain silly. "The five .. no the nine" is not accepted but "The fi .. nine" is ? Then what about : "The fif .. nine" "The five .. nine" "The five of .. no the nine" and all things in between? > The TD is required to establish facts > and while not easy to represent in writing there will be differences in > tonality (easily reported verbally) which determine which law subsection > applies. > It may be clear, but you have not made clear where the cut-off lies. > >>I believe Tim is wrong, and I stand by my interpretation that as soon >>as a player opens his mouth, the card that he intended to name has >>been played. > > > So the player says "Hmm, the..". Which card is played? There is no > bridge reason that declarer should not change his mind after seeing > LHO's card and before completing his call and IMO only low-life scum > would actually want declarer to be forced to play a card when he > *clearly* hasn't designated one in this situation. indeed, *clearly* hasn't. But in all these cases, including "The ... no the nine", it is clear which card declarer intends to designate. And who do you call low-life scum? The TD that forced Lauria to play the card that he touched? And the sentence : "There is no bridge reason that declarer should not change his mind after seeing LHO's card and before completing his call" baffles me. What are we talking about here? Whether a card is played or not. Not whether it is logical or not to throw the D5 when LHO ruffs. We all know that is not logical. Yet, many players do it, including near-world-champions. And the laws do not allow a player to retract a played card simply because it is illogical to play it. > It's the same as with > spoken bidding where "Two hear.. spades" is purely a matter of possible > UI and there is no question of applying L25/27 etc because the 2H bid > hasn't been made. > You should know better. The laws for bidding and playing are fundamentally different. There is a L25A and L25B for bids, but nothing of the same manner for plays. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/497 - Release Date: 25/10/2006 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 26 15:16:46 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:16:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. References: <45409077.2060502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002101c6f901$130d4c80$7b8b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "This door is alarmed." "So am I." ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ Blml enjoys no exclusivity in the matter of ununanimity. +=+ ----------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. > > Tony was wrong of course to expect any type >of unanimity on blml. > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 26 15:48:50 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:48:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: References: <45409077.2060502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061026154116.027cfec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:01 26/10/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote: >So the player says "Hmm, the..". Which card is played? What about French ? " la ..." means he intended to play the Queen, since this is the only feminine denomination of a card. It could be the beginning of "l'As", however. Or "la petite" (the small one). But it could also be something else than a card name, for example : "la 4e, c'est bien ?a ?" (4th best, right ?) before playing from dummy on trick 1. What about calling a card from dummy to next trick : "small" ? It is incomplete, but is deemed to be the same suit. Then, what if "small ... spade" ? What about "ruff please" when the denomination is notrumps ? (it has happened before) Perhaps any designation or furmula other than those mentioned in L46 should be void. Best regards Alain >There is no >bridge reason that declarer should not change his mind after seeing >LHO's card and before completing his call and IMO only low-life scum >would actually want declarer to be forced to play a card when he >*clearly* hasn't designated one in this situation. It's the same as with >spoken bidding where "Two hear.. spades" is purely a matter of possible >UI and there is no question of applying L25/27 etc because the 2H bid >hasn't been made. > >Tim > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 26 15:47:02 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:47:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45406B27.5060401@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- --- 1NT >>1H 1S Pass ? Matthias Berghaus: >Hello Richard, > >if all these things happen to you... never a dull moment, eh? Richard Hills: These things do not just happen to me; I create them, since I was the North who chose to accept West's insufficient bid. :-) Matthias Berghaus: >It seems to me that I may be under different sets of UI >restrictions if > >a) partner bids 1S without a care in the world or > >b) the TD is summoned, the options and the consequences are >explained and partner now bids 1S. > >If partner seems to have missed (or misread, written bidding?) >my 1NT, I may have UI because of systemic information from 1 >minor - 1H - 1S showing 5+ (for example). Richard Hills: Another example is that pard may have thought that West was dealer, so pard's 1S was intended as an overcall, thus showing higher minimum values than a mere response of 1S promises. Matthias Berghaus: >If, on the other hand, partner knew what he was dealing with >he may well have only 4 spades (John's two-suiter is a >different logical explanation), since this is the hand type he >cannot get across if no negative double of 2H is available (if >he has limited values, with a stronger hand he has a cue >available). Since partner will have a 4+card minor most of the >time (if holding only 4 spades) a bid of 2C seems suggested >(certainly debatable whether 2C is a LA at matchpoints). Is >this AI or UI? I think it is AI, but I am not completely sure. Richard Hills: The fact that a player summoned the director is extraneous information, but if that player is a non-offending player does that necessarily mean that that summoning is authorised information to their partner? Indeed, is that summoning authorised information to the offending side? Matthias Berghaus: >At matchpoints I would always bid 2S. Richard Hills: As Eric Landau has noted, in the ACBL a pair is not allowed to change its methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid. This rule does not apply in Australia, but neither had my partner and I come to a specific agreement about this sequence, despite decades of system discussion. :-) Therefore my partner assumed that since we had a general agreement to use lebensohl after an overcall of 1NT, lebensohl also applied after an undercall of 1NT, so pard passed. The complete deal: AK97 Q62 AT92 J2 JT 8542 AKJ85 T74 876 Q4 QT3 9654 Q63 93 KJ53 AK87 Karapet the Free Armenian (who was sitting West) chose to follow the advice of the best experts, who opine that at matchpoints pairs it is compulsory to balance against low- level partscores. So, Karapet now sufficiently rebid 2H. I completed the description of my hand with a penalty double for +800 and a top. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 26 15:51:15 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:51:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <200610251615.JAA02180@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200610251615.JAA02180@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061026095001.02bfe290@pop.starpower.net> At 12:34 PM 10/25/06, Adam wrote: >Tony wrote: > > > OK, this occurred so recently that I remember it. > > However, I only remember that there were some > > contrary opinions, so I can't remember the > > "consensus". > > > > A fellow director has asked me the following: > > > > S -- > > H 9 5 > > D 5 > > C -- > > > > S 8 > > H 7 > > D 6 > > C -- > > > > S 5 > > H 10 > > D -- > > C Q > > > > three cards are left, hearts are trumps, declarer > > leads the club Q intending to discard the diamond > > 5 from dummy. However, West ruffs and declarer > > calls five..oh! 9 of hearts..all in one breath. > > > > I'm not allowing the change, so I only want > > supporting arguments please. And the same if > > he calls diam..oh!9 of hearts. > > > > OK? > >No comment. Same here. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 26 16:00:47 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:00:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Casebook Posted In-Reply-To: <453FCCBF.7050903@comcast.net> References: <00b801c6f7fc$ce654380$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <453FCCBF.7050903@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061026095451.02b89710@pop.starpower.net> At 04:44 PM 10/25/06, Todd wrote: >Marvin French wrote: > > A course in statistics isn't needed to understand that small sample > > sizes have very little significance. Player polls should never have > > been instituted and should be abolished. > >ACs, frequently being small in size, constitute a small >sample of opinion. And sometimes opinion of a too strong >caliber. If we can't trust a poll of players for their >judgement, why should we trust the AC? What process do you >suggest replace player polls? I don't think it really has anything to do with "trust". Rather, the justification for polling players is exactly what Marv says: "small sample sizes have very little significance". A course in statistics isn't needed to understand that a sample of the AC members' plus the consulted players' opinions will be larger, hence more statistically significant, than a sample of the AC members' opinions alone. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 26 16:05:31 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:05:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061026100417.02b7b740@pop.starpower.net> At 05:20 PM 10/25/06, richard.hills wrote: >You and your partner have agreed to play a >weak notrump and the lebensohl convention. > >Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. > >You, South, hold: > >Q63 >93 >KJ53 >AK87 > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1NT >1H 1S Pass ? > >What call do you make? 2S. >What other calls do you consider making? Pass. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 26 16:30:47 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:30:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid In-Reply-To: <45406B27.5060401@t-online.de> References: <45406B27.5060401@t-online.de> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061026101525.02b85980@pop.starpower.net> At 04:00 AM 10/26/06, Matthias wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > You and your partner have agreed to play a > > weak notrump and the lebensohl convention. > > > > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > Q63 > > 93 > > KJ53 > > AK87 > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- --- 1NT > > 1H 1S Pass ? > > > > What call do you make? > > > >2S > > > What other calls do you consider making? > >None, but.... >It seems to me that I may be under different sets of UI restrictions if >a) partner bids 1S without a care in the world or b) the TD is summoned, >the options and the consequences are explained and partner now bids 1S. >If partner seems to have missed (or misread, written bidding?) my 1NT , >I may have UI because of systemic information from 1 minor - 1H - 1S >showing 5+ (for example). If, on the other hand, partner knew what he >was dealing with he may well have only 4 spades (John`s two-suiter is a >different logical explanation), since this is the hand type he cannot >get across if no negative double of 2H is available (if he has limited >values, with a stronger hand he has a cue available). Since partner will >have a 4+card minor most of the time (if holding only 4 spades) a bid of >2C seems suggested (certainly debatable whether 2C is a LA at >matchpoints). Is this AI or UI? I think it is AI, but I am not >completely sure. > >At matchpoints I would always bid 2S. If partner now bids 3 of a minor >(probably John`s two-suiter) I raise the minor. Matthias raises an interesting point. My original reply to Richard assumed that partner deliberately chose to condone West's insufficient bid and bid over it. But it is also quite possible that he has mistaken the auction, and doesn't realize that there has been an insufficient bid. Clearly, if the table action suggests the latter, that is UI, and one is obligated to presume the former in choosing one's subsequent calls. But what about the opposite case, where it is clear from the table action that partner is attempting to send some message by making a fortuitously available but undefined call? If one has information from an extraneous source that partner does indeed know what the auction is, can that knowledge properly be treated as unauthorized for L16 purposes? FWIW, I would think not. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 26 16:52:43 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:52:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid In-Reply-To: References: <45406B27.5060401@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061026104041.02bf0eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:47 AM 10/26/06, richard.hills wrote: >As Eric Landau has noted, in the ACBL a pair is not allowed to >change its methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid. What the ACBL has actually said is that a pair is not allowed to have *any agreement whatsoever*, (presumably whether "changed" or not) regarding methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid. As I have often noted, this is a logical absurdity, *at best* tantamount to making it illegal to condone an insufficient bid. Indeed, most ACBL players do seem to think that it *is* illegal to condone an insufficient bid. How else can one explain the fact that most insufficient bids in the ACBL are followed, immediately upon being noted, by a correction to a sufficient bid, without the director first being called or any other allowance made for the possibility that the opponents might choose to condone it? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Ron.Johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Oct 26 17:40:36 2006 From: Ron.Johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:40:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Two-way guess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610261540.k9QFeaZK017310@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > Ron Johnson: > > >Double. > > > >How does this pair deal with 4-3-3-3 garbage? (As you might guess, I've been down this road before) > > Should the directors have split the score on the basis > that South's force to game was wild or gambling, Doesn't meet my definition of wild or gambling. Certainly reasonable at teams. At worst it's agressive, but there's nothing wrong with that at teams. But. > and > by bidding 3NT then later trying for a penalty South > was attempting to perpetrate a double shot? What are the "you're expected to protect yourself" regs? You play the method in question and are aware of the 4-3-3-3 issue. In practical terms, most players holding 4-3-3-3 garbage for the first time pass on the first round regardless of whether that will make their next bid a 2-suiter or a one suiter. I call it the pray for rain adjunct. What they're actually hoping is that somebody at the table will take a call so they don't have to. (Or maybe the game will be called on account of rain before it's their next turn) As I said, I'd have asked. Now I'm uncomfortable with the notion that you are in effect expected to assume MI. IOW I wouldn't advocate treating this as an attempted double-shot (and frankly I see no problem with double-shots in any case) Or perhaps to re-state: If their inadequate disclosure in effect gives you a free ride, I'm totally fine with it. From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 26 18:10:09 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:10:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:49:00 +1000." <6.2.0.14.2.20061025224804.04eb3440@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <200610261550.IAA14413@mailhub.irvine.com> Tony wrote: > Since Herman got in first on this unanimous only > thread, I am afraid further correspondence is closed. Well, since the subject line asked for "only unanimous comments", and since the body of your question said "only supporting arguments please", then by this logic I suppose you could have closed the correspondence before *anyone* responded. :-) The reason I said "No comment" before was because I really wanted to offer a non-supporting comment; but apparently that has been breached now. I do have a problem: > A fellow director has asked me the following: > > S -- > H 9 5 > D 5 > C -- > > S 8 > H 7 > D 6 > C -- > > S 5 > H 10 > D -- > C Q > > three cards are left, hearts are trumps, declarer > leads the club Q intending to discard the diamond > 5 from dummy. However, West ruffs and declarer > calls five..oh! 9 of hearts..all in one breath. We (a lot of us) seem to be assuming that the "five" referred to the diamond five, but can we prove that? It's plausible to suppose that declarer *did* notice the ruff, and then seeing the 9-5 or hearts in dummy simply slipped and named the wrong one at first. So why wouldn't we allow the change---unless we can determine, at the table, that declarer likely didn't notice the ruff and was about to call for the diamond? But none of us on BLML were at the table, so we can't know that. OK, some seem to think that seeing "five..oh! 9 of hearts" typed in is enough to divine declarer's thoughts. Not for me. Maybe I just don't possess as much psychic ability as other BLMLers. Or maybe it's because I'm using a deficient e-mail program. By the way, if I had been the declarer, the TD could have known that my "five" was *not* an attempt to play the diamond---because I almost never state the rank when discarding or leading a singleton from dummy, I'd just say "diamond". (Not that I expect the TD to know that when they rule.) As for Herman's interpretation: > I have alreeady once said that as soon as he opens his mouth, he has > played a card. We may not yet know for certain which card, and L46 may > apply in deciding which one it is (including the incontrovertibility > of partial utterances). > So if he says "five" he has played a five. This strikes me as being equivalent to saying "Law 45C4(b) doesn't exist in my law book". Perhaps I'm not understanding correctly. Of course, the real answer is that as soon as declarer noticed the ruff, she should have said "five..oh! sh*t" and then case law would have allowed her to play any card she pleased. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 26 18:49:38 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:49:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061026104041.02bf0eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c6f91e$bad03460$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................. > What the ACBL has actually said is that a pair is not allowed to have > *any agreement whatsoever*, (presumably whether "changed" or not) > regarding methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid. As I > have often noted, this is a logical absurdity, *at best* tantamount to > making it illegal to condone an insufficient bid. In an auction where the agreement on a particular bid depends only upon the number of steps from the last previous bid (e.g. Blackwood, some Vienna conventions and Strong club precision agreements) what is the ACBL attitude when there is an intervening insufficient bid? Take the following situation from advanced precision: 1C - pass - 1S - pass 2S - 2C - ? The convention (as I believe I remember from long time ago) is that one step (i.e. 2NT) now means "five or more small spades", two steps (i.e. 3C) "five spades headed by a single top honor", three steps "five spades headed by two top honors", four steps "six spades headed by a single top honor" and five steps "six spades headed by two top honors". One step over the IB of 2C is obviously Pass, two steps is double, three steps is 2D and so on. A similar situation exists over for instance Blackwood and various Blackwood-like conventions. Does ACBL allow the responder to accept an insufficient bid and answer his partner's bid according to the scale as "calculated" from the IB which now is the last previous legal bid? Or does ACBL require NOS, if they want to continue using their system, to reject the insufficient bid and allow OS to replace the IB with a completely destructive (for NOS only!) preemptive bid? The ACBL regulation quoted above (if the quotation is correct) just doesn't make sense, at least not to me. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Oct 26 21:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <4540B5B8.9000007@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote > Then what about : > "The fif .. nine" > "The five .. nine" > "The five of .. no the nine" > and all things in between? No card has been designated in any of the above (at least as I hear them). In all cases it will sound clear to opponents at the time that declarer has not finished his designation. If, when I question the players, I get indications of a significant time-delay between the two parts of the second example I will rule under L46b3b not L46b5. The difference is whether there is a full stop after "The five". One can hear that distinction even if it's difficult to type. > ndeed, *clearly* hasn't. > But in all these cases, including "The ... no the nine", it is clear > which card declarer intends to designate. But we don't care what card declarer *intends* to designate - we only care what card he actually designated (if any). > And who do you call low-life scum? The TD that forced Lauria to play > the card that he touched? According to the reports I recall the ruling was that Lauria was the low-life scum who lied about picking up a card to pull another one toward him. If you are saying that the TD ruled that a card (which was touched for the purposes of rearranging dummy) must be played then he is merely ignorant of the laws. That Lauria wasn't banned from future tournaments for lying to the TD/AC amazes me. Perhaps I misremember the basis of the ruling. > "There is no bridge reason that declarer should not change his mind > after seeing LHO's card and before completing his call" > baffles me. > What are we talking about here? Bridge, perhaps? Declarer is allowed to know what card LHO has played before choosing a card from dummy. He is allowed to play towards dummy with one intent and change his mind on seeing an unexpected card played. All I ask is that the measure is one of the degree of designation (relatively easy) rather than some bizarre and illegal attempt to identify intent. > > It's the same as with > > spoken bidding where "Two hear.. spades" is purely a matter of > > possible UI and there is no question of applying L25/27 etc because > > the 2H bid hasn't been made. > > > > You should know better. The laws for bidding and playing are > fundamentally different. There is a L25A and L25B for bids, but > nothing of the same manner for plays. It doesn't matter what laws are applied afterwards. It's about has a bid/designation been completed (and a good test is whether opps think declarer was in the middle of saying something or had finished so doing). L25 is simply not applicable after "Two har..Spades" because there is no 2H bid to be changed. Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 27 03:20:40 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:20:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] hesitation, less than 20 seconds In-Reply-To: <200610241507.k9OF7h5n008990@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610241507.k9OF7h5n008990@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45415EE8.7020602@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Laszlo Hegedus > At this moment the tray came back after a real tempobreak (West > hesitated a little before the 6 diamonds), but about 10 to 15 seconds > only. Just to summarize what others have already written: using screens, 10-15 s is rarely a tempo break. If in a specific case it is a break and is attributable to a known player, the usual UI rules apply. If it isn't a tempo break at all, then players are free to do whatever they want. The advantage of screens (or at least one advantage) is that tempo breaks are much rarer than without them. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 27 03:38:45 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:38:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <200610241534.k9OFY1C4014567@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610241534.k9OFY1C4014567@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45416325.5000107@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael >... we should read L75 (as well as L40) with care. > Nowhere in L75 does it say what the TD should do with the MI. > OTOH, L40 (C) does say clearly what the TD should do, and it is to > award a AS, not to scrap the board. Who said anything about scrapping the board? What a ridiculous idea. > So Steve's reasoning is clearly wrong. > MI and CPU are just two names for the same thing. Let's look again. Suppose North opens 1NT, by agreement 10-12, but through some fault of NS, EW are informed that it's 15-17. If we rule under L75 and L40C, the adjusted score is on the basis that North opens 1NT, and EW know the correct range. If instead -- for whatever reason -- we rule under L40B, the adjusted score is on the basis that North did not open with the illegal 1NT bid. The different laws applied will in general lead to different outcomes. It is convenient to name infractions. Infractions of L75 leading to L40C are called "MI," while infractions of L40B are called "CPU." If you want to call them something different, that's fine with me. The point is that there are two different results, depending on which infraction occurred. What I'm not sure of is when L40B should apply. I don't believe it is limited to intentional failures. The most famous case of "CPU" was the Polish pair who failed to file advance convention cards, but I don't believe they were intentionally trying to cheat. I've given my suggestion but am by no means certain it's correct. > From: Adam Beneschan > My problem with this is that, after reading Law 40B with care, I can't > imagine a case of MI that doesn't violate Law 40B. Going strictly by the text, you are right. Yet there is a difference: we see MI infractions often, CPU infractions almost never. That's why I've tried to tease out what the difference might be. My suggestion is based on some logic, I think, but no doubt there are other possibilities. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 27 03:43:45 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:43:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Illegal convention - ACBL Message-ID: <45416451.5030409@cfa.harvard.edu> Here's Mike Flader's reply to my question about use of an illegal convention in ACBL play. He replied fairly quickly, but because of ACBL email peculiarities, his message got dumped in my spam bucket, and I've only just now dug it out. The original question concerned team play, and Mr. Flader's first paragraph describes the actual ruling we received. > I suspect that there are a number of things that the table director > could do when a partnership is playing an illegal convention. One > solution is to prohibit the convention from being used in the future > and, since the board was not played at the other table, require a > redeal. > > If the board had been played at the other table, a redeal is not going > to be the best solution. Perhaps the best way to deal with a hand that > has been played at the other table is to allow the offender's opponents > to discuss what defenses they wish to use for the illegal convention > and permit the board to be played. If it turns out that there is still > damage as a direct result of the offender's using an illegal > convention, then, an adjusted score can be given. Of course, the > director tells the offenders to take the convention off their card. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 27 03:46:59 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:46:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <200610261511.k9QFBkVq014409@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610261511.k9QFBkVq014409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45416513.5090306@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Herman De Wael > This is a fundamental difference of opinion. > My idea is that when declarer opens his mouth, the card has been > played. Tim's idea is that only when the mouth is closed is the card > played. This is an accurate description of the different opinions. > I believe Tim is wrong, and I stand by my interpretation that as soon > as a player opens his mouth, the card that he intended to name has > been played. This appears impossible to rule without mind reading, so my view will be easy to guess. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 27 03:50:23 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:50:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid In-Reply-To: <200610261520.k9QFKiNA016411@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610261520.k9QFKiNA016411@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454165DF.7070403@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > What the ACBL has actually said is that a pair is not allowed to have > *any agreement whatsoever*, (presumably whether "changed" or not) > regarding methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid. As I reported four or five years ago, this rule is no longer in effect. The new rule is unclear, but it isn't so absurd as this one was. Personally, if it ever mattered, I'd just refer to the existing convention charts, which make no mention of any special restrictions after insufficient bids. For the OS, there is of course the effective restriction that withdrawn calls are UI. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Oct 27 03:54:21 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:54:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Chicago Casebook Posted In-Reply-To: <200610251443.k9PEhJTk001807@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610251443.k9PEhJTk001807@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454166CD.1060703@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Marvin French" > A course in statistics isn't needed to understand that small sample > sizes have very little significance. This is of course a _quantitative_ question. Depending on what you want to establish, polls may or may not be significant. More important, as someone pointed out in an earlier thread, it may be the reasoning, not the conclusion, that is important. > Player polls should never have been instituted and should be abolished. The advantage of player polls is that the person answering need not be biased by knowing about UI or what the successful action was. That's a real problem for ACs: members can see what was successful, and it's easy to convince oneself that one would always choose the successful action. From tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri Oct 27 04:05:28 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:05:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <45409077.2060502@hdw.be> References: <45409077.2060502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <45416968.6040901@comcast.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > I believe Tim is wrong, and I stand by my interpretation that as soon > as a player opens his mouth, the card that he intended to name has > been played. Being a fan of out-of-place analogies I say this situation is analogous to a player detaching a card from his hand but not putting it towards the table. Or catching himself in the act of playing a card and retracting it before it's visible. Holding oral designations of cards to a higher standard seems odd. -Todd From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Oct 27 06:30:26 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:30:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <45416513.5090306@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610261511.k9QFBkVq014409@cfa.harvard.edu> <45416513.5090306@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20061027142734.04365650@mail.optusnet.com.au> >I just knew that this would not lead to a unanimous vote. This worries me as I am also aware of the "no card in dummy", and the incomplete specification rules. In this case, I hoped to make it clear that the offender was quite prepared to declare that she was going to ditch a diamond until she saw the LHO ruff. So a clear change of mind? Carry on, >This is an accurate description of the different opinions. > > > I believe Tim is wrong, and I stand by my interpretation that as soon > > as a player opens his mouth, the card that he intended to name has > > been played. > >This appears impossible to rule without mind reading, so my view will be >easy to guess. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Oct 27 11:29:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20061027142734.04365650@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: > *From:* Tony Musgrove > *To:* blml at rtflb.org > *Date:* Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:30:26 +1000 > > >I just knew that this would not lead to a > unanimous vote. This worries me as I am > also aware of the "no card in dummy", and > the incomplete specification rules. > In this case, I hoped to make it clear that the > offender was quite prepared to declare that > she was going to ditch a diamond until she > saw the LHO ruff. So a clear change of mind? > > Carry on, The "change of mind" issue is important when applying L45c4b. But before we get to that law we must establish whether there is a "Named or Designated card". That is matter for L46b. OK, there's the bit at the start of L46b about "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" but that bit is irrelevant when L46b4 is being applied since there's no card designated to which a different intention might apply. As far as I am concerned clearly mangled designations are void while incomplete (or clearly two-step) designations are subject to the relevant other part of L46b. BTW, for an example of "incontrovertible" imagine there are several unimportant (non-trump) cards in dummy and one (important) trump. Declarer (mouth full of cake) gestures clearly towards the non-trumps indicating he doesn't care which of them is discarded. I apply L46b5 expect that defenders may not designate the trump (since declarer's intention not to play a trump was otherwise incontrovertible). Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 27 15:53:31 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:53:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid In-Reply-To: <000001c6f91e$bad03460$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061026104041.02bf0eb0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c6f91e$bad03460$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061027094803.02bc8800@pop.starpower.net> At 12:49 PM 10/26/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau >................. > > What the ACBL has actually said is that a pair is not allowed to have > > *any agreement whatsoever*, (presumably whether "changed" or not) > > regarding methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid. As I > > have often noted, this is a logical absurdity, *at best* tantamount to > > making it illegal to condone an insufficient bid. > >In an auction where the agreement on a particular bid depends only >upon the >number of steps from the last previous bid (e.g. Blackwood, some Vienna >conventions and Strong club precision agreements) what is the ACBL >attitude >when there is an intervening insufficient bid? I don't know. I'd be very surprised if the ACBL has actually adressed this. >Take the following situation from advanced precision: >1C - pass - 1S - pass >2S - 2C - ? > >The convention (as I believe I remember from long time ago) is that >one step >(i.e. 2NT) now means "five or more small spades", two steps (i.e. 3C) >"five >spades headed by a single top honor", three steps "five spades headed >by two >top honors", four steps "six spades headed by a single top honor" and five >steps "six spades headed by two top honors". > >One step over the IB of 2C is obviously Pass, two steps is double, three >steps is 2D and so on. > >A similar situation exists over for instance Blackwood and various >Blackwood-like conventions. > >Does ACBL allow the responder to accept an insufficient bid and answer his >partner's bid according to the scale as "calculated" from the IB which now >is the last previous legal bid? Or does ACBL require NOS, if they want to >continue using their system, to reject the insufficient bid and allow >OS to >replace the IB with a completely destructive (for NOS only!) >preemptive bid? Again, I don't think anyone knows the answer to this. >The ACBL regulation quoted above (if the quotation is correct) just >doesn't >make sense, at least not to me. That's what I've been saying all along: the regulation just doesn't make sense, whether to me, to Sven, or to anyone else, including its purveyors. Consequently, nobody can figure out how to apply it properly or sensibly. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Oct 27 16:17:53 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:17:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. References: Message-ID: <000601c6f9d2$b12a5df0$4101a8c0@david> Declarer nominates "A small ..." at which point he is interrupted by a cry from dummy "your hand partner". (a) Has a card been nominated , if so which one? (b) If you require declarer to complete his designation, can he nominate a non existant card. What law are you applying here? (c) Has dummy committed an infraction by drawing attention to an irregularity? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.427 / Virus Database: 268.13.14/501 - Release Date: 26/10/2006 20:15 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 27 16:34:31 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:34:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. References: Message-ID: <005001c6f9d5$2ef77f40$e9c387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense, Lie in three words, health, peace, and competence." -~ Alexander Pope. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ There are a number of questions the Director has to resolve. The level of proof required is 'the balance of probabilities' - the preponderance of the evidence he is able to collect. First, let us be clear that 'the 5' does not designate a card within the meaning of 45C4(a). But it is a 'designation' within the meaning* of 45C4(b). So the Director must judge whether there has been a change of an 'inadvertent' (i.e. unintended) designation within the terms of 45C4(b). Second, if the Director rules that 'the 5' was not inadvertent - was an intended utterance - or that the change of designation did not meet the criterion of 'without pause for thought', he moves into Law 46B3. Third, he must then determine whether 3(a) applies - here I believe the card was not a lead. If that is so, or if there is no card in dummy to fit the requirements of (a), he moves to 3(b). Finally he then applies 46B3(b). At each stage the law tells him explicitly how he is to rule on the basis of the evidence he has collected.and his judgement of the balance of probabilities. Personally I think there has been too much 'mouth' invoked in this thread, instead of law. Further, the Director is required to rule equally for a representative of the 'low-life scum' as for any other player - both in regard to the merits of his/her case and in regard to the application of Law 74A1. [* compare 'designates' etc. in Law 46.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. > Herman wrote: > > > I believe Tim is wrong, and I stand by my > > interpretation that as soon as a player opens > > his mouth, the card that he intended to name > > has been played. > > So the player says "Hmm, the..". Which card > is played? There is no bridge reason that declarer > should not change his mind after seeing LHO's > card and before completing his call and IMO > only low-life scum would actually want declarer > to be forced to play a card when he *clearly* > hasn't designated one in this situation. It's the > same as with spoken bidding where "Two hear .. spades" is purely a matter of possible UI and > there is no question of applying L25/27 etc > because the 2H bid hasn't been made. > > Tim > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 27 18:45:27 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:45:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <45406B27.5060401@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061027183141.02108510@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:47 26/10/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >The fact that a player summoned the director is extraneous >information, but if that player is a non-offending player does >that necessarily mean that that summoning is authorised >information to their partner? Indeed, is that summoning >authorised information to the offending side? I'd say it's no information, since he is compelled to do so. Voluntarily condoning the insufficient call by bidding directly is disallowed. To the contrary, the fact that North didn't bark, er, summon, would be information although it would seldom be usable, as there might be many reasons for it, as former posts tell us. Note that, even if conventions over insufficient bids are disallowed, there are agreements that aren't conventions ... If I had bid 2D over 1S, expecting it to be read as fit-showing, would it be allowed ? The reason for that meanng is that we have a general treatment (not a convention, unless I misunderstood the definitions) that "a new-suit bid over partner's competitive signoff, by a limited hand, is always fit-showing" and I expect 1S to be a signoff (the reason why North condoned 1H). >The complete deal: > > AK97 > Q62 > AT92 > J2 >JT 8542 >AKJ85 T74 >876 Q4 >QT3 9654 > Q63 > 93 > KJ53 > AK87 > >Karapet the Free Armenian (who was sitting West) chose to >follow the advice of the best experts, who opine that at >matchpoints pairs it is compulsory to balance against low- >level partscores. So, Karapet now sufficiently rebid 2H. > >I completed the description of my hand with a penalty double >for +800 and a top. You would most probably have scored the same had you disallowed West's 1H bid, but it's a nice story. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Oct 28 03:25:59 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:25:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061027183141.02108510@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >Voluntarily condoning the insufficient call by >bidding directly is disallowed. Richard Hills: Incorrect. The Laws specifically allow a player to bid directly over an irregularity without drawing attention to it. The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says: "When these Laws say that a player 'may' do something ('any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction'), the failure to do it is not wrong." And, of course, the word "may" also appears in Law 27A: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls." Eric Landau noted: >>Indeed, most ACBL players do seem to think >>that it *is* illegal to condone an >>insufficient bid. How else can one explain >>the fact that most insufficient bids in the >>ACBL are followed, immediately upon being >>noted, by a correction to a sufficient bid, >>without the director first being called or >>any other allowance made for the possibility >>that the opponents might choose to condone >>it? Richard Hills: There are similar immediate correction habits amongst Aussie bunnies. At my table West started an attempt to correct his insufficient bid to 2H before I stopped him, informing him that I accepted his 1H bid. But at least in Australia bunnies are in fact aware that a condonation of an insufficient bid is legal. It is just that Aussie bunnies are locked in the mindset that accepting an insufficient bid "must" be poor strategy - why give an opponent a free shot at more bidding room? - not realising that more bidding room might sometimes be useful for the non-offending side. Since an Aussie bunny would never condone an insufficient bid, an infracting bunny opponent naturally falls into a habit of saving time by automatically and immediately correcting their insufficient bid. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From adam at irvine.com Sat Oct 28 03:39:36 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:39:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:25:59 +1000." Message-ID: <200610280119.SAA01078@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Eric Landau noted: > > >>Indeed, most ACBL players do seem to think > >>that it *is* illegal to condone an > >>insufficient bid. How else can one explain > >>the fact that most insufficient bids in the > >>ACBL are followed, immediately upon being > >>noted, by a correction to a sufficient bid, > >>without the director first being called or > >>any other allowance made for the possibility > >>that the opponents might choose to condone > >>it? > > Richard Hills: > > There are similar immediate correction habits > amongst Aussie bunnies. > > At my table West started an attempt to correct > his insufficient bid to 2H before I stopped > him, informing him that I accepted his 1H bid. > > But at least in Australia bunnies are in fact > aware that a condonation of an insufficient > bid is legal. It is just that Aussie bunnies > are locked in the mindset that accepting an > insufficient bid "must" be poor strategy - why > give an opponent a free shot at more bidding > room? - not realising that more bidding room > might sometimes be useful for the non-offending > side. > > Since an Aussie bunny would never condone an > insufficient bid, an infracting bunny opponent > naturally falls into a habit of saving time by > automatically and immediately correcting their > insufficient bid. I doubt that it's necessary to imagine this sort of reasoning takes place---i.e. people correct the bid because they think condoning the bid is illegal (Eric) or because they think it would be illogical and poor strategy (Richard). I'll bet that the "thinking" is more along the lines of, "I did something wrong and I have to fix it". That's human nature kicking in, unless you're trained to do otherwise. And since insufficient bids are very rarely condoned, and too many opponents just tell them "insufficient" and give them a chance to correct without calling the director, that training often doesn't take place. Anyway, that's my theory. Personally, I think it's best just to call the TD right away when an opponent makes an insufficient bid. Don't tell them it's insufficient, until after you've called the TD and stopped play. Most of the bunnies *will* know not to do anything until the TD gives them instructions. Hopefully. -- Adam From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Oct 28 19:04:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <005001c6f9d5$2ef77f40$e9c387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > First, let us be clear that 'the 5' does not designate > a card within the meaning of 45C4(a). Before that let us be clear that if declarer has said simply "The five." the case is wholly uninteresting. There is a designated card and we have ruled out (on this occasion) inadvertency - no disagreement. It is cases where declarer has said something which is *not* a legal designation (like 509, fi.ne, sparts, or somesuch) that cause Herman and I to disagree. > Further, the > Director is required to rule equally for a representative > of the 'low-life scum' as for any other player That's just twaddle. If you know you are dealing with players who routinely lie to the TD and/or their opponents you will often rule differently than when dealing with honest players. > both in > regard to the merits of his/her case and in regard to > the application of Law 74A1. L74a1 doesn't apply to the TD - nevertheless it's not a term one would use lightly when giving a ruling, albeit relatively benign if one is in the process of expelling a pair for cheating and and quite possibly perfectly acceptable in the robust nature of internet discourse. In the situation as initially described there will be people who called the TD simply because they didn't know what was supposed to happen. There are also people who know that declarer should (because there was no legal designation) be allowed to designate his chosen card but who hope to con/brow-beat the TD into forcing a play onto declarer. Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 07:57:41 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:57:41 +1300 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority Message-ID: <2a1c3a560610282357u45d08be2nc4304d19757240cb@mail.gmail.com> Hi What is a reasonable time to expect a national authority to deal with an appeal? Or should I say what is unreasonable? Overnight? 1 week? 1 month? 3months? 6 months? 1 year? something longer? Is there a principle of natural justice that should govern the timeliness of dealing with an appeal? Thanks Wayne From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 29 11:41:52 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:41:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority References: <2a1c3a560610282357u45d08be2nc4304d19757240cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c6fb47$10929710$abcf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 6:57 AM Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority > Hi > > What is a reasonable time to expect a national > authority to deal with an appeal? > > Or should I say what is unreasonable? > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 29 10:52:29 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:52:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. References: Message-ID: <000201c6fb47$0f368980$abcf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Only unanimous comments please > > It is cases where declarer has said something which > is *not* a legal designation (like 509, fi.ne, sparts, > or somesuch) that cause Herman and I to disagree. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Further, the >> Director is required to rule equally for a representative >> of the 'low-life scum' as for any other player > > That's just twaddle. If you know you are dealing with players who > routinely lie to the TD and/or their opponents you will often rule > differently than when dealing with honest players. > From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 12:20:07 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:20:07 +1300 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority In-Reply-To: <000301c6fb47$10929710$abcf403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560610282357u45d08be2nc4304d19757240cb@mail.gmail.com> <000301c6fb47$10929710$abcf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@mail.gmail.com> On 29/10/06, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Alas, the hours we waste in work > And similar inconsequence, > Friends, I beg you do not shirk > Your daily task of indolence." > ~ Donald Robert Perry Marquis. > > ===================================== > > +=+ The laws of the game specify no particular time scale. > It is for national authorities to make known their procedures. > Because we are dealing with the rules of a game to which > players consent and subordinate themselves in participating, > I doubt that natural justice calls for more than the rules > provide. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -------------------------------------- They also specify no particular time frame for an ordinary appeal. Does the same logic apply there? Surely there is an implicit assumption that the appeal will be heard in a timely manner. Afterall the outcome of an appeal is to get a correct result on a board. If the appeal is not heard in a timely manner then it will be impossible to publish results. Wayne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 6:57 AM > Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority > > > > Hi > > > > What is a reasonable time to expect a national > > authority to deal with an appeal? > > > > Or should I say what is unreasonable? > > > > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 30 03:45:36 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:45:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Statue of Justice (was Only unanimous ...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c6fb47$0f368980$abcf403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>>Further, the Director is required to rule equally for a >>>>representative of the 'low-life scum' as for any other >>>>player. Tim West-Meads: >>>That's just twaddle. If you know you are dealing with >>>players who routinely lie to the TD and/or their opponents >>>you will often rule differently than when dealing with honest >>>players. Grattan Endicott: >>I abide by the 'twaddle' that the Director must be impartial. >>He is entitled to evaluate the balance of probabilities but >>not to do so on the basis solely of his personal opinion of >>the player. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Indeed, statues of the goddess of Justice commonly portray her with a blindfold for the very reason that justice must be impartial. An example of such an impartial ruling was briefly discussed in this earlier blml thread -> EBL 2005 disciplinary hearing 1: [snip] >West turned to North (under the screen) and asked "Why did you >lie?". North demanded an apology, which West refused to give. [snip] >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. [snip] >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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 30 08:13:33 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:13:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows asserted: >Surely there is an implicit assumption that the appeal will be heard >in a timely manner. Afterall the outcome of an appeal is to get a >correct result on a board. If the appeal is not heard in a timely >manner then it will be impossible to publish results. Richard Hills notes: There is not even an implicit assumption that the National Authority must hear all appeals to it. The WBF Code of Practice states: "It is legitimate for the national authority to set some limitation on matters that it will hear; it is a widespread practice, commended by the WBF, that the national authority will not review value judgements except where the appeal committee has made a judgement that can have no basis in its findings of the facts of a case. Debatable matters of law and/or regulation are valid questions for the national authority." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 08:59:29 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:59:29 +1300 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560610292359i5be4eadm187823ac30072bf4@mail.gmail.com> On 30/10/06, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne Burrows asserted: > > >Surely there is an implicit assumption that the appeal will be heard > >in a timely manner. Afterall the outcome of an appeal is to get a > >correct result on a board. If the appeal is not heard in a timely > >manner then it will be impossible to publish results. > > Richard Hills notes: > > There is not even an implicit assumption that the National Authority > must hear all appeals to it. The WBF Code of Practice states: > > "It is legitimate for the national authority to set some limitation > on matters that it will hear; it is a widespread practice, commended > by the WBF, that the national authority will not review value > judgements except where the appeal committee has made a judgement > that can have no basis in its findings of the facts of a case. > Debatable matters of law and/or regulation are valid questions for > the national authority." > Fair enough Richard. Although I do not agree with that position although I guess I have to accept it. The law gives an unqualified right of appeal it seems wrong to me for a national association to reject what is a player's right. However the issue I am raising relates to an appeal that has been accepted by the National Authority. When that has happened what is their responsibility to reach a decision in a timely manner? Wayne From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 30 10:45:32 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:45:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@immi.gov.au> <2a1c3a560610292359i5be4eadm187823ac30072bf4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002c01c6fc08$3f188fb0$7f9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense, Lie in three words, health, peace, and competence." -~ Alexander Pope. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ I do not see, Wayne, how you could expect either of us to comment upon a live situation governed by the regulations and practices of the NBO in question (which I assume to be NZ.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Fair enough Richard. Although I do not agree with that position > although I guess I have to accept it. The law gives an unqualified > right of appeal it seems wrong to me for a national association to > reject what is a player's right. > > However the issue I am raising relates to an appeal that has been > accepted by the National Authority. When that has happened what is > their responsibility to reach a decision in a timely manner? > > Wayne > From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 11:03:26 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:03:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01c6fc08$3f188fb0$7f9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@immi.gov.au> <2a1c3a560610292359i5be4eadm187823ac30072bf4@mail.gmail.com> <002c01c6fc08$3f188fb0$7f9a87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560610300203j5bec6cbcwcb05a8db97b3bfac@mail.gmail.com> On 30/10/06, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ***************************** > "Reason's whole pleasure, all the > joys of sense, > Lie in three words, health, peace, > and competence." > -~ Alexander Pope. > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > > +=+ I do not see, Wayne, how you could expect either > of us to comment upon a live situation governed by the > regulations and practices of the NBO in question > (which I assume to be NZ.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have not mentioned any live situation. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 30 11:41:20 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:41:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061027183141.02108510@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061030113908.0211cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:25 28/10/2006 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Incorrect. The Laws specifically allow a >player to bid directly over an irregularity >without drawing attention to it. > >At my table West started an attempt to correct >his insufficient bid to 2H before I stopped >him, informing him that I accepted his 1H bid. I have some problems with this pair of interventions ; as soon as West starts an attempt to correct, the attention has been drawn to the incorrection ; so the TD shall be summoned. Shan't he ? From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 30 15:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Statue of Justice (was Only unanimous ...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > >>I abide by the 'twaddle' that the Director must be impartial. > >>He is entitled to evaluate the balance of probabilities but > >>not to do so on the basis solely of his personal opinion of > >>the player. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed, statues of the goddess of Justice commonly portray her > with a blindfold for the very reason that justice must be > impartial. Justice may be blind but she is not required to be ignorant. A TD who bases rulings on his personal likes/dislikes of players is being impartial. A TD who uses his knowledge of players' previously demonstrated ethics in assessing the facts is being both impartial and fair. Some rulings (although not many IME) do come down to "Who are you going to believe?" > An example of such an impartial ruling was briefly discussed in > this earlier blml thread -> I'm not sure I see the relevance. Calling another player a liar at the bridge table is a clear breach of L74 even if one has complete video evidence which proves the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Had the accusation been made privately to the TD (or indeed stated as opinion during an appeal) an investigation into the truth of the allegation might be considered possible/necessary. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Oct 30 17:46:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Statue of Justice (was Only unanimous ...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wrote: > A TD who bases rulings on his personal likes/dislikes of players is > being impartial. ^^^ NOT Sorry for any confusion! Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 30 23:57:16 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:57:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 9A2(b)(1) or (2)? (was Only unanimous) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c6f9d2$b12a5df0$4101a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Barton: >Declarer nominates "A small ..." at which point he >is interrupted by a cry from dummy "your hand >partner". > >(a) Has a card been nominated , if so which one? > >(b) If you require declarer to complete his > designation, can he nominate a non existent > card. What law are you applying here? > >(c) Has dummy committed an infraction by drawing > attention to an irregularity? Richard Hills: Very interesting question. Law 9A2(b)(2) permits dummy to prevent declarer's irregularity. Law 9A2(b)(1) prohibits dummy from drawing attention to an irregularity. But in this case the declarer has _partially_ committed an irregularity. The Laws are silent as to whether dummy may attempt to prevent declarer from committing the other part of the irregularity, or whether dummy is prohibited from drawing attention to the fact that part of an irregularity has already been committed. For what it is worth, my belief is that a partial irregularity is not an irregularity. For example, Australia uses written bidding. Aussie directors rule that if someone writes "2" on the bidding pad, then realises that they are about to bid out of turn, the "2" is not a bid out of turn, but merely unauthorised information to partner. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 30 02:28:31 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:28:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority References: <2a1c3a560610282357u45d08be2nc4304d19757240cb@mail.gmail.com><000301c6fb47$10929710$abcf403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c6fc83$47b7c8e0$1d0ee150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal to National Authority >> >> +=+ The laws of the game specify no particular time scale. >> It is for national authorities to make known their procedures. >> Because we are dealing with the rules of a game to which >> players consent and subordinate themselves in participating, >> I doubt that natural justice calls for more than the rules >> provide. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> -------------------------------------- > > They also specify no particular time frame for an ordinary appeal. > Does the same logic apply there? > > Surely there is an implicit assumption that the appeal will be heard > in a timely manner. Afterall the outcome of an appeal is to get a > correct result on a board. If the appeal is not heard in a timely > manner then it will be impossible to publish results. > > Wayne << +=+ In my opinion, yes; the timescale for an ordinary appeal is a matter for the regulations and procedures of the SO. It is not unknown when an appeal is deferred to next morning for results to be published subject to the outcome of the appeal. In some circumstances these timescales can be extended beyond 'next morning' (even to a matter of days in one or two events with special conditions). As for appeals to the national authority, I am quite sure that different authorities adopt different time scales and different procedures. I think they do provide information on their several procedures, constituting regulations if formulated regulations on the subject are not issued. I do think it is a matter for them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From anne at baa-lamb.co.uk Tue Oct 31 04:11:33 2006 From: anne at baa-lamb.co.uk (Anne Jones) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:11:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority References: <2a1c3a560610282357u45d08be2nc4304d19757240cb@mail.gmail.com><000301c6fb47$10929710$abcf403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@mail.gmail.com> <000201c6fc83$47b7c8e0$1d0ee150@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601c6fc9a$45d814f0$0f550d52@AnnesComputer> WBU met with an occurence a while ago and decided on a protocol. WBU L&EC is the NA in Wales. At a particuler event in Wales, the WBU L&EC is always present. It was felt that rulings and appeals at this event, if deferred to a ruling of the L&EC would likely be considered on site. This presents a situation which is not available to players at other events. It was decided that any appeal to the Nat Authority, if heard, would not affect the published results on the day. WBU L&EC does not hear appeals of value judgements, but those on points of principle are entertained. http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Wayne Burrows" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal to National Authority > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Alas, the hours we waste in work > And similar inconsequence, > Friends, I beg you do not shirk > Your daily task of indolence." > ~ Donald Robert Perry Marquis. > > ===================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal to National Authority > > > >>> >>> +=+ The laws of the game specify no particular time scale. >>> It is for national authorities to make known their procedures. >>> Because we are dealing with the rules of a game to which >>> players consent and subordinate themselves in participating, >>> I doubt that natural justice calls for more than the rules >>> provide. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> -------------------------------------- >> >> They also specify no particular time frame for an ordinary appeal. >> Does the same logic apply there? >> >> Surely there is an implicit assumption that the appeal will be heard >> in a timely manner. Afterall the outcome of an appeal is to get a >> correct result on a board. If the appeal is not heard in a timely >> manner then it will be impossible to publish results. >> >> Wayne > << > +=+ In my opinion, yes; the timescale for an ordinary > appeal is a matter for the regulations and procedures > of the SO. It is not unknown when an appeal is > deferred to next morning for results to be published > subject to the outcome of the appeal. In some circumstances > these timescales can be extended beyond 'next morning' > (even to a matter of days in one or two events with > special conditions). > As for appeals to the national authority, I am quite > sure that different authorities adopt different time scales > and different procedures. I think they do provide information > on their several procedures, constituting regulations if > formulated regulations on the subject are not issued. I do > think it is a matter for them. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 31 07:32:23 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:32:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c6fc83$47b7c8e0$1d0ee150@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >In some circumstances these timescales can be >extended beyond 'next morning' (even to a matter >of days in one or two events with special >conditions). [snip] Richard Hills: Indeed, in one small Aussie bridge club which meets only once a week, it has exercised its option under Law 79C to extend the correction period from the default of 30 minutes to seven days. Therefore, its Law 92B appeal period is correspondingly 7 days and 30 minutes. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Mon Oct 30 23:23:02 2006 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:23:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen Message-ID: <200610302223.k9UMN4QS008424@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Dummy north has: B85 - - 98 Declarer asks for the five of clubs, to which east contributes the Queen. Declarer now discovers his error and remarks that he meant to play the five of spades. TD! What fate befalls the Queen? (Crossposted from the dutch forum, where this case elicited disappointingly few comments) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061030/a2fa1464/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 31 08:38:43 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:38:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <200610302223.k9UMN4QS008424@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <000501c6fcbf$97f97920$6400a8c0@WINXP> [Sven:] Message format altered by me from html to plain text! -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Andre Steffens Sent: 30. oktober 2006 23:23 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen Dummy north has: B85 - - 98 ? Declarer asks for the five of clubs, to which east contributes the Queen. Declarer now discovers his error and remarks that he meant to play the five of spades. TD! What fate befalls the Queen? (Crossposted from the dutch forum, where this case elicited disappointingly few comments) [Sven:] Law 46B4: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. So east has actually "led" his Queen of clubs out of turn, declarer may accept this "lead", or the Queen becomes a major penalty card. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Oct 31 10:24:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000501c6fcbf$97f97920$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Law 46B4: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is > void and declarer may designate any legal card. > > So east has actually "led" his Queen of clubs out of turn, declarer > may accept this "lead", or the Queen becomes a major penalty card. There are other possibilities. Did dummy (hearing the "clubs" part of the call) place a club in the played position? The Q may be withdrawn without penalty (L45D). Did declarer articulate carelessly such that his opponent might easily have heard 9/8/small/top rather than 5? (afraid my Dutch isn't up to that one). Could declarer have known, at the time of his irregularity, that calling for a non-existent club would likely induce RHO to produce a penalty card? Generally I'd expect a declarer who wasn't trying it on to request a waiver of the penalty card provisions. In the latter two cases (and assuming no request for a penalty waiver) the CQ becomes an MPc but we adjust the result after the hand to that which would likely have been obtained had the irregularity not occurred (L72b1). There are also possibilities relating to the defender having exposed the CQ deliberately in an attempt to avoid his partner crashing it under the A/K next round but these are more remote. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 31 10:40:07 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:40:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <200610302223.k9UMN4QS008424@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061031103254.02107e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:23 30/10/2006 +0100, =?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?= wrote: >Dummy north has: >B85 >- >- >98 > >Declarer asks for the five of clubs, to which east contributes the Queen. >Declarer now discovers his error and remarks that he meant to play the >five of spades. TD! >What fate befalls the Queen? The five of clubs is not in dummy, which means no card has been legally called. The Queen has therefore been played OOT. Apply corresponding penalties ... but adjust the score for N/S, because South's departure from correct procedure is (or at least could be) the cause of East's error. This is similar to the following case (a classical of Belgian exams) : declarer South has to lead to the next trick, but he calls for a master card from an entryless dummy. East plays to the trick before anybody can correct South's mistake. The correct answer was : give East whole discredit for his careless condoning, and adjust South's score based on L72B1 and L12C2. This could be a difference of several tricks if there are more than one master card in dummy, or if a squeeze develops. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061031/85146fd3/attachment-0001.htm From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 31 11:29:51 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:29:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c6fcd7$80227d70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Law 46B4: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is > > void and declarer may designate any legal card. > > > > So east has actually "led" his Queen of clubs out of turn, declarer > > may accept this "lead", or the Queen becomes a major penalty card. > > There are other possibilities. Did dummy (hearing the "clubs" part of > the call) place a club in the played position? The Q may be withdrawn > without penalty (L45D). If Dummy actually placed a card in the played position (it doesn't matter which card!) then of course Law 45D applies and the QC can be withdrawn without any penalty. This is however not how I understood the OP; the way he wrote I understood that East played his QC in response to the call for 5C from Dummy and that Dummy hadn't gotten around to "play" any card yet. > Did declarer articulate carelessly such that his opponent might easily > have heard 9/8/small/top rather than 5? (afraid my Dutch isn't up to > that one). If Dummy hadn't responded by placing a card in the played position then I'm afraid this doesn't matter so in that case my first ruling is correct: The QC is prematurely led. > Could declarer have known, at the time of his irregularity, that calling > for a non-existent club would likely induce RHO to produce a penalty > card? Generally I'd expect a declarer who wasn't trying it on to > request a waiver of the penalty card provisions. This is a too far shot for me to believe in. > In the latter two cases (and assuming no request for a penalty waiver) > the CQ becomes an MPc but we adjust the result after the hand to that > which would likely have been obtained had the irregularity not occurred > (L72b1). I don't accept this logic. The way we have been told the story I rule as a fact that Declarer has simply provided a misnomer. > There are also possibilities relating to the defender having exposed the > CQ deliberately in an attempt to avoid his partner crashing it under the > A/K next round but these are more remote. And irrelevant as the QC becomes a major penalty card (unless as admitted if Dummy actually had placed a card in the played position) Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 31 16:33:50 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:33:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <200610302223.k9UMN4QS008424@smtp30.hccnet.nl> References: <200610302223.k9UMN4QS008424@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Andre Steffens wrote: > Dummy north has: > B85 > - > - > 98 > > Declarer asks for the five of clubs, to which east contributes the > Queen. Whether dummy placed any card in the played position is not in evidence, so until the answer to that is clarified, rulings must be based on the assumption he did not. > Declarer now discovers his error and remarks that he meant to play > the five of spades. TD! Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." But also Law 45C4(b): "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought ... " Declarer did change his designation without pause for thought. And that was the point at which the table became aware of his irregularity - at which point the CQ had already been played. So which of these laws takes precedence? It seems to me that the latter should take precedence - see below. > What fate befalls the Queen? Law 45B: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card". Therefore, as soon as the card is called, it is next player's turn to play. CQ is neither a play out of turn, nor a lead to the next trick. However... Law 45C1: "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick". The CQ is a played card. Law 45C4(b): "... 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". But dummy had not put any card in the played position. Does this matter? Law 45B says "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table" so I would say it does not matter. East was induced to play a card by declarer's play. That declarer's play was itself an infraction does not seem relevant. Could declarer have known that defenders could be damaged by the erroneous call(Law 72B1)? Certainly he could have - how could he not? But that does not affect the immediate fate of the CQ - it only affects whether there might be a score adjustment later. It seems that either we allow East to withdraw his card, or we rule that he is required to have noticed that the declarer has committed an irregularity, required to call attention to that irregularity, and required to take no further action (such as playing the CQ) until the TD has ruled on the irregularity. There is nothing in law that requires any of that, save that *if* attention is called to an irregularity, TD must be called, and no further action can take place until he rules (Law 9). Conclusion: Law 45C4(b) applies - East may withdraw his CQ without penalty. Note: if dummy did place a club in the played position, the case for 45C4(b) is, IMO, even stronger. From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Tue Oct 31 16:43:37 2006 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:43:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000001c6fcdf$f8569c10$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <000001c6fd03$562c4970$1410a8c0@FK27.local> Dummy did not play any card yet. From adam at irvine.com Tue Oct 31 18:12:42 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:12:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:23:02 +0100." <200610302223.k9UMN4QS008424@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <200610311652.IAA08396@mailhub.irvine.com> Andre wrote: > Dummy north has: > B85 > - > - > 98 I assume dummy's high spade was the Jack. Please use A, K, Q, J to denote the honors on this list, especially since there are some letters that have *different* meanings in two different non-English languages (V=queen in Dutch, V=jack in French comes to mind). > Declarer asks for the five of clubs, to which east contributes the Queen. > Declarer now discovers his error and remarks that he meant to play the five > of spades. TD! [Dummy had not placed any card in the played position.] > What fate befalls the Queen? > (Crossposted from the dutch forum, where this case elicited disappointingly > few comments) A couple of Laws that seem relevant that haven't been mentioned in this thread: (1) Law 47E1: "A lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if the leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead...". Now, isn't the *exact* case we're facing. Instead, we have a lead out of turn that was made because an opponent mistakenly informed him that a card was played from dummy and it was his turn to *play*. (This may be a bit of a stretch; but when declarer calls a card from dummy, even a card that doesn't exist, I think it's reasonable to rule that this tells declarer's RHO that dummy has played and thus it's now RHO's turn to play.) Anyway, if you accept this small stretch, then it would seem that it would seem odd to treat the situations so differently---someone who is misinformed that it's his turn to lead can take the card back without penalty, someone who is misinformed that it's his turn to play gets stuck with a MPC. Of course, in *both* cases the one who played out of turn should have been paying attention. But why so much moreso in the above case than in the lead-out-of-turn case? Is there really a reason to penalize one error more heavily than the other? So this seems like an omission from the Laws (to add to the list of 3,728,331,965,307,325 existing omissions, all of which I hope get addressed in the next edition of the Laws). But we do have a way to deal with such omissions, specifically with infractions that carry no penalty but damage the opponents ... (2) Law 84E. Using this, we could make the CQ a penalty card, but (if it's not waived) adjust the score afterwards if this damages East-West. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 31 22:27:53 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:27:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6fd33$6cca8950$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Oct 30, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Andre Steffens wrote: > > > Dummy north has: > > B85 > > - > > - > > 98 > > > > Declarer asks for the five of clubs, to which east contributes the > > Queen. > > Whether dummy placed any card in the played position is not in > evidence, so until the answer to that is clarified, rulings must be > based on the assumption he did not. > > > Declarer now discovers his error and remarks that he meant to play > > the five of spades. TD! > > Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is > void and declarer may designate any legal card." But also > Law 45C4(b): "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent > designation if he does so without pause for thought ... " > > Declarer did change his designation without pause for thought. And > that was the point at which the table became aware of his > irregularity - at which point the CQ had already been played. So > which of these laws takes precedence? It seems to me that the latter > should take precedence - see below. > > > What fate befalls the Queen? > > Law 45B: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card". > Therefore, as soon as the card is called, it is next player's turn to > play. CQ is neither a play out of turn, nor a lead to the next trick. > However... > Law 45C1: "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his > partner to see its face must be played to the current trick". The CQ > is a played card. > Law 45C4(b): "... 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". > But dummy had not put any card in the played position. Does this > matter? Law 45B says "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the > card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table" > so I would say it does not matter. At this place in your reasoning I must remind you that Declarer called a card that was not in Dummy. According to Law 46B4 this call is void. East "followed suit" to a card that was not led nor could it be led simply because that card did not exist in Dummy. That makes his play of DC a lead out of turn. East was induced to play a card by > declarer's play. That declarer's play was itself an infraction does > not seem relevant. There had not been any play (lead) to the trick in question when the QC was played. Declarer's call was void and Dummy had not placed any card in the played position. > Could declarer have known that defenders could be > damaged by the erroneous call(Law 72B1)? Certainly he could have - > how could he not? But that does not affect the immediate fate of the > CQ - it only affects whether there might be a score adjustment later. First of all you must decide if there has been a play from Dummy, and in this case it has not. East cannot just "follow suit" because he believes that Declarer has called a card. > It seems that either we allow East to withdraw his card, or we rule > that he is required to have noticed that the declarer has committed > an irregularity, required to call attention to that irregularity, and > required to take no further action (such as playing the CQ) until the > TD has ruled on the irregularity. There is nothing in law that > requires any of that, save that *if* attention is called to an > irregularity, TD must be called, and no further action can take place > until he rules (Law 9). > > Conclusion: Law 45C4(b) applies - East may withdraw his CQ without > penalty. > > Note: if dummy did place a club in the played position, the case for > 45C4(b) is, IMO, even stronger. Definitely not, but in that case Law 45D applies. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 31 22:30:39 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:30:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061030113908.0211cec0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills noted: >>Incorrect. The Laws specifically allow a >>player to bid directly over an irregularity >>without drawing attention to it. [snip] >>At my table West started an attempt to correct >>his insufficient bid to 2H before I stopped >>him, informing him that I accepted his 1H bid. [snip] Alain Gottcheiner quibbled: >I have some problems with this pair of >interventions ; as soon as West starts an >attempt to correct, the attention has been >drawn to the incorrection ; so the TD shall be >summoned. Shan't he ? Richard Hills counter-quibbles: In my opinion, acceptance of an irregularity is not the same as drawing attention to an irregularity. Likewise, in my opinion, prevention of a future irregularity is not the same as drawing attention to a previous irregularity. So the action I took at the table was to: (a) prevent West from committing the future irregularity of a premature correction of an insufficient bid, and (b) exercise my Law 27A right to "treat as legal" West's past irregularity of an insufficient bid. Anyway, once West's insufficient 1H is "treated as legal", the irregularity has disappeared, so the Law 9B1(a) requirement to summon is no longer applicable. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 31 22:35:01 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:35:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <200610311652.IAA08396@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000101c6fd34$6c411890$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan ............. > A couple of Laws that seem relevant that haven't been mentioned in > this thread: > > (1) Law 47E1: "A lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if > the leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn > to lead...". > > Now, isn't the *exact* case we're facing. Instead, we have a lead out > of turn that was made because an opponent mistakenly informed him that > a card was played from dummy and it was his turn to *play*. (This may > be a bit of a stretch; but when declarer calls a card from dummy, even > a card that doesn't exist, I think it's reasonable to rule that this > tells declarer's RHO that dummy has played and thus it's now RHO's > turn to play.) This is stretching Law 47E1 far too far. This law concerns the situation where a player says to one of his opponents. "It is your lead" or words to that effect. Law 47E1 can never apply to any other play than a lead to a trick. Thus the rest of this argument (below) falls apart. Sven > > Anyway, if you accept this small stretch, then it would seem that it > would seem odd to treat the situations so differently---someone who is > misinformed that it's his turn to lead can take the card back without > penalty, someone who is misinformed that it's his turn to play gets > stuck with a MPC. Of course, in *both* cases the one who played out > of turn should have been paying attention. But why so much moreso in > the above case than in the lead-out-of-turn case? Is there really a > reason to penalize one error more heavily than the other? So this > seems like an omission from the Laws (to add to the list of > 3,728,331,965,307,325 existing omissions, all of which I hope get > addressed in the next edition of the Laws). But we do have a way to > deal with such omissions, specifically with infractions that carry no > penalty but damage the opponents ... > > (2) Law 84E. Using this, we could make the CQ a penalty card, but (if > it's not waived) adjust the score afterwards if this damages > East-West. > > -- Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Oct 31 23:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000601c6fcd7$80227d70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > If Dummy actually placed a card in the played position (it doesn't > matter which card!) then of course Law 45D applies and the QC can be > withdrawn without any penalty. This is however not how I understood > the OP; the way he wrote I understood that East played his QC in > response to the call for 5C from Dummy and that Dummy hadn't gotten > around to "play" any card yet. That is what I thought was the probable case, but I wasn't sure enough not to consider the alternatives. > > Did declarer articulate carelessly such that his opponent might > > easily have heard 9/8/small/top rather than 5? (afraid my Dutch > >isn't up to that one). > > If Dummy hadn't responded by placing a card in the played position > then I'm afraid this doesn't matter so in that case my first ruling > is correct: The QC is prematurely led. Calling for a card not in dummy is an irregularity. Calling for a card not in dummy in a way which can be easily misheard is an irregularity which a "cunning" declarer knows damn well can work to his advantage (and which carries no risk). > > Could declarer have known, at the time of his irregularity, that > > calling > > for a non-existent club would likely induce RHO to produce a penalty > > card? Generally I'd expect a declarer who wasn't trying it on to > > request a waiver of the penalty card provisions. > > This is a too far shot for me to believe in. So, in this end position (S trumps) declarer needs all the tricks: Q85 - - 98 - immat xx x Qx Jx x x T Please tell me what you think is the best line for the contract? Hint: nothing ethical is going to work. If, as TD, you do nothing to protect players from such Alcatraz positions you allow the cheats to walk all over the game. There aren't *many* of such players around but the only way to ensure that there aren't more is to keep an eye out for nefarious situations and apply L72b1 assiduously when they arise. This won't affect the ethical players because they have already said something like "It doesn't seem fair that I should benefit from calling the wrong card" to which the TD may reply "Would you like to ask me to waive the penalty then?" > > There are also possibilities relating to the defender having > > exposed the CQ deliberately in an attempt to avoid his partner > > crashing it under the A/K next round but these are more remote. > > And irrelevant as the QC becomes a major penalty card So what? There are positions where it doesn't matter that the CQ is an MPC but it does matter that pard might crash it (which the PC rules cannot force him to do). Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 31 23:46:10 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:46:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c6fd3e$5c4938a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ........... > So, in this end position (S trumps) declarer needs all the tricks: > > Q85 > - > - > 98 > - > immat xx > x > Qx > > Jx > x > x > T > > Please tell me what you think is the best line for the contract? > Hint: nothing ethical is going to work. > > If, as TD, you do nothing to protect players from such Alcatraz > positions you allow the cheats to walk all over the game I see no possibility for an Alcatraz coup here? sven