From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 1 00:29:22 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:29:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>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. 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. 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?" 1997 Law 81C8: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." Richard Hills: Edgar Kaplan gave as an example of "for cause" a situation where declarer accidentally split coffee in a defender's lap, thus "causing" the defender to expose a card. It seems to me that declarer accidentally calling for a non-existent card from dummy is a similar "cause". However, it seems to me that the 1997 version of Law 81C8 is flawed by including the caveat "upon the request of the non- offending side". So, if an Alcatraz declarer "accidentally" calls for a non- existent card from dummy, then I join Tim in suspecting that that Alcatraz declarer might possibly exercise their 1997 right to decline to request a Law 81C8 waiver. :-( Therefore, if I was the El Supremo of the WBF :-), I would delete "upon the request of the non-offending side" from the 2008 version of Law 81C8. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From henk at amsterdamned.org Wed Nov 1 01:01:01 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:01:01 +0100 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 Wed Nov 1 01:01:01 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for October 2006 Posts From ----- ---- 43 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 34 twm (at) cix.co.uk 31 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 22 herman (at) hdw.be 19 svenpran (at) online.no 17 ehaa (at) starpower.net 15 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 15 adam (at) irvine.com 10 geller (at) nifty.com 10 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 7 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 6 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 5 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 4 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 4 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 4 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 4 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 3 picatou (at) uqss.uquebec.ca 3 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 3 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 3 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 2 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 karel (at) esatclear.ie 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 defranchi.henri (at) wanadoo.fr 2 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 2 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 2 Ron.Johnson (at) CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 B.Schelen (at) IAE.NL 1 vitoldbr (at) yandex.ru 1 schuster (at) eduhi.at 1 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 1 mustikka (at) charter.net 1 lali808 (at) gmail.com 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 blml (at) wrightnet.demon.co.uk 1 anne (at) baa-lamb.co.uk 1 adam (at) tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 1 01:27:48 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 11:27:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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. Sven Pran: >I see no possibility for an Alcatraz coup here? Richard Hills: Tim did not refer to a specific Alcatraz Coup, rather he was using the general term "such Alcatraz positions" - that is, what used to be known by the euphemism "coffee-housing". As a Norwegian, perhaps Sven is unaware of the etymology of the name of the specific Alcatraz Coup. It was named after the former San Francisco prison Alcatraz, due to the connotation that a perpetrator of an Alcatraz Coup deserved to be locked up there. Similarly, in Tim's constructed endgame, the Alcatraz-ish declarer can call for the "five of clubs" from dummy. The Alcatraz-ish dummy carefully delays playing a card, and the coffee-housed East carelessly "follows" with the queen of clubs. If Sven was TD, Sven would rule that East's queen of clubs was a lead out of turn. The Alcatraz-ish declarer would refuse to accept the lead out of turn. TD Sven would now rule that the queen of clubs was a major penalty card. Now the Alcatraz-ish declarer would call for the "five of spades" from dummy, East would be forced to discard the queen of clubs, and the contract would make. In response to an earlier suggestion that the TD should rule under the could-have-known Law 72B1, Sven previously posted: "This is a too far shot for me to believe in." Ergo, if Sven was TD, his unbelievable ruling would see the Alcatraz-ish partnership laughing all the way to the bank robbery. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 1 04:53:04 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:53:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000001c6fd33$6cca8950$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6fd33$6cca8950$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1C3B1F46-CEC7-427D-9294-E5536792254B@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 31, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > 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. So your position is that Law 46B4 takes precedence over law 45C4(b)? What is the legal basis for this position? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 1 04:54:00 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:54:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000001c6fd33$6cca8950$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6fd33$6cca8950$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FBE492F-107C-4DBE-B7E3-3B98D4CEB15D@rochester.rr.com> On Oct 31, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > East cannot just "follow suit" because he believes > that Declarer has called a card. Declarer *did* call a card. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 1 04:58:51 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:58:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000001c6fd33$6cca8950$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6fd33$6cca8950$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <77B7F0E0-2B39-4F92-BE0F-96A34FC97A08@rochester.rr.com> I said, inter alia: >> 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). How, Sven, do you counter this argument? Or do you say that we do indeed require a player to have noticed that an irregularity has occurred, and to call attention thereto (or, presumably, sit and do nothing until someone else does)? If the latter, what is the legal basis of this position? From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 09:55:07 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:55:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c6fd93$6efeccd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >I see no possibility for an Alcatraz coup here? > > Richard Hills: > > Tim did not refer to a specific Alcatraz Coup, rather he was > using the general term "such Alcatraz positions" - that is, > what used to be known by the euphemism "coffee-housing". > > As a Norwegian, perhaps Sven is unaware of the etymology of > the name of the specific Alcatraz Coup. It was named after > the former San Francisco prison Alcatraz, due to the > connotation that a perpetrator of an Alcatraz Coup deserved > to be locked up there. I had the pleasure of visiting Alcatraz in September 2001. I am also familiar with the tactics that are usually referred to by this name and I see no reason to refer to Alcatraz with the scenario described here. Instead I see every reason to ask East why he paid so little attention to the game that he didn't even notice no card had been played from Dummy when he "contributed" his own QC to the trick? > Similarly, in Tim's constructed endgame, the Alcatraz-ish > declarer can call for the "five of clubs" from dummy. The > Alcatraz-ish dummy carefully delays playing a card, and the > coffee-housed East carelessly "follows" with the queen of > clubs. > > If Sven was TD, Sven would rule that East's queen of clubs > was a lead out of turn. Of course I would. Declarer has not called for any card that could be led from Dummy. Dummy has not placed any card in the played position. If East "thinks" he has heard a call for a card that existed in Dummy then why can he be so sure Declarer did not say to Dummy something like: "Can you get me a coffee please?" (although not in so many words). The Alcatraz-ish declarer would > refuse to accept the lead out of turn. TD Sven would now > rule that the queen of clubs was a major penalty card. Now > the Alcatraz-ish declarer would call for the "five of spades" > from dummy, East would be forced to discard the queen of > clubs, and the contract would make. > > In response to an earlier suggestion that the TD should rule > under the could-have-known Law 72B1, Sven previously posted: > > "This is a too far shot for me to believe in." > > Ergo, if Sven was TD, his unbelievable ruling would see the > Alcatraz-ish partnership laughing all the way to the bank > robbery. Is it normal in your environments that RHO "follows suit" to a card led from Dummy in response to a call from Declarer before Dummy places that card in the played position or otherwise indicates a positive response to the call? I have never seen that happen when the called card does not exist in Dummy. And even when the called card is available in Dummy I have only seen it happen when that play is obvious to everyone. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 09:59:39 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:59:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <77B7F0E0-2B39-4F92-BE0F-96A34FC97A08@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c6fd94$10661330$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > I said, inter alia: > > >> 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). > > How, Sven, do you counter this argument? Or do you say that we do > indeed require a player to have noticed that an irregularity has > occurred, and to call attention thereto (or, presumably, sit and do > nothing until someone else does)? If the latter, what is the legal > basis of this position? I require East to pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) to be aware that no card has been played from Dummy and thus does not play his own card to that trick. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 10:06:47 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:06:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <3FBE492F-107C-4DBE-B7E3-3B98D4CEB15D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c6fd95$10491fe0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Oct 31, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > East cannot just "follow suit" because he believes > > that Declarer has called a card. > > Declarer *did* call a card. Declarer called for a non-existing (in Dummy) card. That call is void. (Or if East did not hear clearly what was said by Declarer then East may have mistaken Declarer's call for coffee as the call for a card.) Dummy did not place any card in a played position or otherwise indicate that a card was played. The fact is that no card has been played from Dummy, and East has little if any excuse for being unaware of that fact. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 10:20:38 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:20:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <1C3B1F46-CEC7-427D-9294-E5536792254B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c6fd96$feb53cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Oct 31, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > 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. > > So your position is that Law 46B4 takes precedence over law 45C4(b)? Of course it does. > What is the legal basis for this position? L46B4 applies without any judgment in all cases where Declarer calls a card that is not in Dummy. L45C4(b) applies depending on judgment when Declarer makes a slip of the tongue and calls an available card but immediately corrects this call to a call for another card. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 1 12:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 11:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000201c6fd3e$5c4938a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > 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? Call for the "five of clubs". Partner will co-operate by reaching* for (but not actually putting in the played position) the C9 and RHO will play the Q slightly prematurely. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. As with other Alcatraz-type positions there's no guarantee of success but some chance is better than none at all. *My Alcatraz-like opponents are slightly more on the ball than Richard's (linguistic variations may make different card combinations slightly more/less effective - thus in German it works a bit better to call for the six and have partner select (but not play) the 8. And yes it is fairly common in my games to play on the call of the card rather than dummy's execution - to hesitate may give UI to partner, AI to declarer or be misleading if one holds a singleton. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 1 13:49:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:49 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Therefore, if I was the El Supremo of the WBF :-), I would > delete "upon the request of the non-offending side" from the > 2008 version of Law 81C8. Would this make much difference to the way you rule these scenarios? I know that my (even marginally) ethical players will say things like "It doesn't seem fair that I should benefit from calling the wrong card." and when told they can ask me to waive the penalty will make that request. They feel just as guilty as had they spilt coffee in someone's lap. In fact even Alcatraz-ish players will request a waiver after I have explained (as part of my ruling) that I'll be looking at the hand later under L72b1. The difference being that the A-ish players have now been warned that I'm onto them and know they'd be ill-advised to try coffee-housing in *my* games unless they believe they are one hell of a lot more devious than I can imagine. If they don't ask for a waiver I see little difference between waiving the penalty as TD and adjusting the score under L72b1. "You could have known that throwing coffee into X's lap stands a good chance of creating penalty cards." If the layout is such that a penalty card makes no difference to the result then both L72b1 and the waiver are irrelevant. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 13:58:37 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:58:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6fdb5$72428db0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > > 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? > > Call for the "five of clubs". Partner will co-operate by reaching* for > (but not actually putting in the played position) the C9 and RHO will > play the Q slightly prematurely. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. As > with other Alcatraz-type positions there's no guarantee of success but > some chance is better than none at all. > > *My Alcatraz-like opponents are slightly more on the ball than Richard's > (linguistic variations may make different card combinations slightly > more/less effective - thus in German it works a bit better to call for > the six and have partner select (but not play) the 8. > > And yes it is fairly common in my games to play on the call of the card > rather than dummy's execution - to hesitate may give UI to partner, AI > to declarer or be misleading if one holds a singleton. Without ascertaining that the called card is available in Dummy so that L46B4 does not apply? That is only too bad for the opponent who just violated L74B1. If Dummy takes any action whatsoever indicating that he is selecting a particular card in response to something declarer says I rule that he is actually "playing" that card. It is not uncommon in the environments where I use to come that Dummy (when Declarer calls a card) sometimes for instance just puts a finger on the card Declarer has called in order to mark that card as the card played (without really "moving" it). I see no problem with that. In the case we are discussing Dummy has not taken any action of any kind. Then when declarer's call is void no card has been played from Dummy. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 1 15:36:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000001c6fdb5$72428db0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Without ascertaining that the called card is available in Dummy so > that L46B4 does not apply? That is only too bad for the opponent who > just violated L74B1. Hence the benefit to declarer of deliberately mumbling a little over the card rank - particularly when the five/nine are phonetically similar. If the player who played the CQ tells me it's his own fault, that declarer spoke clearly but he just wasn't paying attention I have no problem ruling the CQ as a PC. L72b1 is there for when declarer (with or without dummy assistance) has contributed to the confusion. > If Dummy takes any action whatsoever indicating that he is selecting a > particular card in response to something declarer says I rule that he > is actually "playing" that card. Under which law? Dummy will tell you that he was reaching for the C5 and only touched the 9 briefly when he realised it wasn't there (or to look for the C5 underneath it). Please don't tell me it is an irregularity for dummy to try and find the card declarer has requested. > In the case we are discussing Dummy has not taken any action of any > kind. So sometimes the ploy works without any assistance from dummy. The fact remains that declarer has committed an irregularity in a situation I know (and he can know) may prove advantageous. You want to let declarer get away with it, I don't. BTW, we were *not* told that dummy had "done nothing", albeit we have discovered that dummy has not played a card. We have to investigate whether dummy did anything (such as reaching for the club suit, or touching a card there). An alternative tactic is for dummy to knock his pen onto the floor and say "hang on, on it's way" while retrieving it - giving ample scope for the next player to be misled. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 1 16:08:31 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:08:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000301c6fd94$10661330$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c6fd94$10661330$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7624E3BC-C8C5-4C16-B43E-C83F505E4086@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 1, 2006, at 3:59 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I require East to pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) > to be > aware that no card has been played from Dummy and thus does not > play his own > card to that trick. "No card has been played from dummy" "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card" Declarer named a card. Seems to me a card has been played. Unless... "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void" Do you assert that this law says that declarer's play is void instantly, without anyone calling attention to the irregularity, and without anyone calling the TD? If East, in playing CQ, has violated Law 74B1 in addition to other laws, do you penalize him for it (exclusive of whatever action you take in regard to his violation of any other law)? If not, why not? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 1 16:12:44 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000401c6fd95$10491fe0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c6fd95$10491fe0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2006, at 4:06 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > (Or if East did not hear clearly what was said by Declarer then > East may > have mistaken Declarer's call for coffee as the call for a card.) Oh, come on. This is a bit ridiculous. > Dummy did not place any card in a played position or otherwise > indicate that > a card was played. So what? Which law says such action by dummy is necessary for a card to have been played? > The fact is that no card has been played from Dummy, and East has > little if > any excuse for being unaware of that fact. That's two facts. Although I'm not so sure the first one, at least, *is* a fact. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 1 16:19:26 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:19:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000501c6fd96$feb53cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c6fd96$feb53cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2006, at 4:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > L46B4 applies without any judgment in all cases where Declarer > calls a card > that is not in Dummy. > > L45C4(b) applies depending on judgment when Declarer makes a slip > of the > tongue and calls an available card but immediately corrects this > call to a > call for another card. So laws which require no judgement take precedence over laws which require judgement. Is this true in all cases? Where in the laws or in jurisprudence is this principle laid down? From adam at irvine.com Wed Nov 1 17:51:14 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:51:14 -0800 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:13:00 GMT." Message-ID: <200611011630.IAA20685@mailhub.irvine.com> Tim wrote: > *My Alcatraz-like opponents are slightly more on the ball than Richard's > (linguistic variations may make different card combinations slightly > more/less effective - thus in German it works a bit better to call for > the six and have partner select (but not play) the 8. I don't see how "sechs" and "acht" would sound anything alike. "Zwei" and "drei" might be a better example. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 20:05:40 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:05:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c6fde8$b93becb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > > If Dummy takes any action whatsoever indicating that he is selecting a > > particular card in response to something declarer says I rule that he > > is actually "playing" that card. > > Under which law? Dummy will tell you that he was reaching for the C5 > and only touched the 9 briefly when he realised it wasn't there (or to > look for the C5 underneath it). Please don't tell me it is an > irregularity for dummy to try and find the card declarer has requested. In which case I expect Dummy to terminate his action with a request to Declarer for clarification. > > > In the case we are discussing Dummy has not taken any action of any > > kind. > > So sometimes the ploy works without any assistance from dummy. The fact > remains that declarer has committed an irregularity in a situation I > know (and he can know) may prove advantageous. You want to let declarer > get away with it, I don't. If the circumstances make me judge that Declarer acted deliberately I shall come down on him like a ton of bricks. However, my experience is that such cases almost always are accidental. > > BTW, we were *not* told that dummy had "done nothing", albeit we have > discovered that dummy has not played a card. I do not know what you have read on this thread, I have read that East played his QC to the trick immediately after Declarer called the 5C (which was not in Dummy at all) without awaiting any action by Dummy. We have to investigate > whether dummy did anything (such as reaching for the club suit, or > touching a card there). An alternative tactic is for dummy to knock his > pen onto the floor and say "hang on, on it's way" while retrieving it - > giving ample scope for the next player to be misled. Please spare me intricate speculations. Any activity that positively indicates Declarer and Dummy are engaged in some kind of a deliberate plot will just bounce back on them. Without such indications I shall assume a misnomer by Declarer being void under Law 46B4 and hold East responsible for his own failure in playing to the trick before a lead has been made from Dummy. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 20:10:21 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:10:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c6fde9$6079a530$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Nov 1, 2006, at 4:20 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > L46B4 applies without any judgment in all cases where Declarer > > calls a card > > that is not in Dummy. > > > > L45C4(b) applies depending on judgment when Declarer makes a slip > > of the > > tongue and calls an available card but immediately corrects this > > call to a > > call for another card. > > So laws which require no judgement take precedence over laws which > require judgement. Is this true in all cases? Where in the laws or in > jurisprudence is this principle laid down? Isn't that obvious? When possibly two different laws can be applied, one is unconditional and the other is conditional, you first apply the unconditional law and then see if there is any reason left to apply also the other? Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 20:17:47 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:17:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <7624E3BC-C8C5-4C16-B43E-C83F505E4086@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c6fdea$6b383c60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Nov 1, 2006, at 3:59 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I require East to pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) > > to be > > aware that no card has been played from Dummy and thus does not > > play his own > > card to that trick. > > "No card has been played from dummy" > > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card" > > Declarer named a card. Seems to me a card has been played. Unless... > > "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void" > > Do you assert that this law says that declarer's play is void > instantly, without anyone calling attention to the irregularity, and > without anyone calling the TD? Of course I do. Declarer has called a card that cannot be played because it doesn't exist in Dummy, what else is there to do? There is a remote similarity to a situation where a player bids "two pins" in an auction. That bid doesn't exist but his call is made in the same way as if such a bid exists. Do you rule that he has made a bid? I don't. > If East, in playing CQ, has violated Law 74B1 in addition to other > laws, do you penalize him for it (exclusive of whatever action you > take in regard to his violation of any other law)? If not, why not? I shall tell him to pay attention to the game. Note that I consider this to be a warning - the mildest form of a procedure penalty. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 1 20:26:54 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:26:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c6fdeb$b0b96600$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Nov 1, 2006, at 4:06 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > (Or if East did not hear clearly what was said by Declarer then > > East may > > have mistaken Declarer's call for coffee as the call for a card.) > > Oh, come on. This is a bit ridiculous. It is indeed. But it does illustrate the ridiculous consequences that may arise if a player assumes too much with every sound that might come from an opponent. > > Dummy did not place any card in a played position or otherwise > > indicate that > > a card was played. > > So what? Which law says such action by dummy is necessary for a card > to have been played? None. But Declarer's call for a card that doesn't exist in Dummy is void and causes no card to be considered played. And Dummy's lack of action to indicate that any card is played prevents the use of Law 45D. Therefore no card has been "played", not by Declarer neither by Dummy. > > > The fact is that no card has been played from Dummy, and East has > > little if > > any excuse for being unaware of that fact. > > That's two facts. Although I'm not so sure the first one, at least, > *is* a fact. Then maybe _you_ can show which law establishes that a card has been "played" from Dummy? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 1 23:03:03 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:03:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c6fd94$10661330$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >I require East to pay sufficient attention to the >game (Law 74B1) to be aware that no card has been >played from Dummy and thus does not play his own >card to that trick. Richard Hills: I require declarer to pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1) so as not make a void call of a card which is not in dummy. Given that declarer's infraction of Law 74B1 partly _caused_ East's subsequent infraction of Law 74B1, it seems to me that this clearly fits the _for cause_ criterion of Law 81C8. So if declarer requests that East's club queen not be a penalty card, the TD should so rule. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 2 00:22:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 00:22:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c6fe0c$a4c8e610$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > >I require East to pay sufficient attention to the > >game (Law 74B1) to be aware that no card has been > >played from Dummy and thus does not play his own > >card to that trick. > > Richard Hills: > > I require declarer to pay sufficient attention to > the game (Law 74B1) so as not make a void call of a > card which is not in dummy. > > Given that declarer's infraction of Law 74B1 partly > _caused_ East's subsequent infraction of Law 74B1, > it seems to me that this clearly fits the _for > cause_ criterion of Law 81C8. So if declarer > requests that East's club queen not be a penalty > card, the TD should so rule. Unless I see some evidence to the contrary I shall assume that Declarer's call for a card not in Dummy is a slip of the tongue or maybe even a temporary slip of the mind (he may for instance have forgotten that he had already in an earlier trick played the card he called). I have seen that happen many times, it is forgivable and it cannot justify East's insufficient attention to the game when he as a consequence "leads" his QC without even waiting to ascertain that a card can be (or appears to be) "played" from Dummy. Frankly I shall suspect that East had his mind at a completely different place but I shall not bother to guess where (I don't really care). East's lead of QC definitely does not qualify as a slip of anything (hand, tongue or mind) and it cannot be excused as a consequence solely from a void call made by Declarer when no further action is taken by Declarer or Dummy. And all those futile attempts to find new excuses for East to lead out of turn is becoming boring, I doubt if I shall bother to make any more comments on this matter. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 2 02:21:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:21:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c6fde8$b93becb0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>If the circumstances make me judge that Declarer acted >>deliberately I shall come down on him like a ton of >>bricks. However, my experience is that such cases >>almost always are accidental. Law 72B2: >A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if >there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay. Richard Hills: So it seems to me that Sven agrees that declarer calling for a card not in dummy is not only a void call, but also an infraction of Law. However, it seems to me that either Sven is arguing: (a) if the TD deems an infraction of Law is an accident, the TD should never apply the "could have known" provisions of Law 72B1, or (b) East's error was in no way caused by declarer's earlier error, so Law 72B1 is not relevant. If option (b) is the correct determination of the basis of Sven's approach, then it seems to me that the hypothetical "ton of bricks" ruling by Sven would be: (x) a disciplinary penalty on declarer, but (y) East would still be deemed to have led out of turn, so the queen of clubs would remain a major penalty card. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 2 03:49:04 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:49:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000501c6fde9$6079a530$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c6fde9$6079a530$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5B0D2550-55A3-4451-8CD1-05EB5D8EBC0A@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 1, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Isn't that obvious? Nope. > When possibly two different laws can be applied, one is > unconditional and > the other is conditional, you first apply the unconditional law and > then see > if there is any reason left to apply also the other? Says who? :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 2 04:00:48 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:00:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <000701c6fdeb$b0b96600$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c6fdeb$b0b96600$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <67E504B7-5708-4E20-8520-34EBFAD3DADF@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 1, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> The fact is that no card has been played from Dummy, and East has >>> little if >>> any excuse for being unaware of that fact. >> >> That's two facts. Although I'm not so sure the first one, at least, >> *is* a fact. > > Then maybe _you_ can show which law establishes that a card has been > "played" from Dummy? Someone pointed out, on another forum, that Law 45B says that Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming *the* card (emphasis mine). The use of "the" here means that the card named must be in dummy. Therefore, I withdraw my argument that calling for *a* card from dummy is a play, whether the card is in dummy or not. That being the case, I must agree that law 46B4 applies, as does law 74B1, and the CQ must be a major penalty card (law 49). Note that this does not mean that I concur with your arguments for the position. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 2 04:03:18 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:03:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94765590-E870-4571-B0C5-D1B623756714@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 1, 2006, at 5:03 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > I require declarer to pay sufficient attention to > the game (Law 74B1) so as not make a void call of a > card which is not in dummy. > > Given that declarer's infraction of Law 74B1 partly > _caused_ East's subsequent infraction of Law 74B1, > it seems to me that this clearly fits the _for > cause_ criterion of Law 81C8. So if declarer > requests that East's club queen not be a penalty > card, the TD should so rule. I infer here, possibly incorrectly, that Richard believes the director should inform declarer that he can ask that the penalty be waived. I don't disagree with that idea. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 2 04:05:43 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:05:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c6fe0c$a4c8e610$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c6fe0c$a4c8e610$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <68123EAA-A379-46B4-9532-3CAF52CF6321@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 1, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Unless I see some evidence to the contrary I shall assume that > Declarer's > call for a card not in Dummy is a slip of the tongue or maybe even a > temporary slip of the mind (he may for instance have forgotten that > he had > already in an earlier trick played the card he called). I have seen > that > happen many times, it is forgivable and it cannot justify East's > insufficient attention to the game when he as a consequence "leads" > his QC > without even waiting to ascertain that a card can be (or appears to > be) > "played" from Dummy. > > Frankly I shall suspect that East had his mind at a completely > different > place but I shall not bother to guess where (I don't really care). > East's > lead of QC definitely does not qualify as a slip of anything (hand, > tongue > or mind) and it cannot be excused as a consequence solely from a > void call > made by Declarer when no further action is taken by Declarer or Dummy. > > And all those futile attempts to find new excuses for East to lead > out of > turn is becoming boring, I doubt if I shall bother to make any more > comments > on this matter. Fine, you do that. But you cannot, IMO, decide that East's inattention to the game is more criminal than declarer's. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 2 04:30:08 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:30:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <94765590-E870-4571-B0C5-D1B623756714@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>it seems to me that this clearly fits the _for >>cause_ criterion of Law 81C8. So if declarer >>requests that East's club queen not be a penalty >>card, the TD should so rule. Ed Reppert: >I infer here, possibly incorrectly, that Richard >believes the director should inform declarer that >he can ask that the penalty be waived. I don't >disagree with that idea. :-) Law 10C1: When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 2 07:03:32 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 01:03:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D8F8B16-B514-41B0-99DA-7E3EEE2BCDBB@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:30 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 10C1: > > When these Laws provide an option after an > irregularity, the Director shall explain all the > options available. Law 81C8: The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: ... 8. Waiver of Penalties to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. Are there penalties in the laws which are not "for cause"? IAC, it would seem that in many if not most cases TD should explain this option to the NOS, yet I have never seen it done. Why is that? From geller at nifty.com Thu Nov 2 07:08:19 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:08:19 +0900 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1D8F8B16-B514-41B0-99DA-7E3EEE2BCDBB@rochester.rr.com> References: <1D8F8B16-B514-41B0-99DA-7E3EEE2BCDBB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200611020608.AA06062@geller204.nifty.com> Ed Reppert writes: >The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: >... >8. Waiver of Penalties >to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of >the non-offending side. > >Are there penalties in the laws which are not "for cause"? > >IAC, it would seem that in many if not most cases TD should explain >this option to the NOS, yet I have never seen it done. Why is that? Because in a KO event you're giving away your own team's points only, but in any other event (pairs, rount robin or swiss teams, etc.) you are giving your points to the opponents (fair enough if you think it warrants it) but you are at the same time helping out your opponents at the expense of the rest of the field, who have no say in the matter. The provision for waiving of penalties dates back to rubber bridge or whist (fair enough there, it's your own money you're giving away) but isn't really appropriate for a tourney. -Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 2 08:27:06 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:27:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200611020608.AA06062@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 81C8: >>>The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: >>>... >>>8. Waiver of Penalties >>>to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the >>>request of the non-offending side. Ed Reppert asked: >>Are there penalties in the laws which are not "for cause"? Richard Hills replies: Maybe Law 81C8 is poorly drafted, but the intent of the WBF LC was that the _waive_ of the penalties should be "for cause", not that the penalty itself lacked a cause. Ed Reppert asked: >>IAC, it would seem that in many if not most cases TD should >>explain this option to the NOS, yet I have never seen it done. >> >>Why is that? Bob Geller asserted: >Because in a KO event you're giving away your own team's points >only, but in any other event (pairs, round robin or swiss teams, >etc.) you are giving your points to the opponents (fair enough if >you think it warrants it) but you are at the same time helping >out your opponents at the expense of the rest of the field, who >have no say in the matter. The provision for waiving of >penalties dates back to rubber bridge or whist (fair enough there, >it's your own money you're giving away) but isn't really >appropriate for a tourney. Richard Hills replies: In my opinion, Bob's answer is not quite correct. In general Bob's philosophy is correct, and indeed Bob's philosophy is embodied in the six clauses of Law 72A. Law 72A3: >>>Waiving of Penalties >>> >>>In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative, >>>waive a penalty for an opponent?s infraction, even if he feels >>>that he has not been damaged (but he may ask the Director to do >>>so - see Law 81C8). Richard Hills: The key difference between a rubber bridge waiving of penalties and a duplicate bridge waiving of penalties are the two caveats "for cause" and "at his [the TD's] discretion". Although some blmlers such as Tim West-Meads disagree, the general interpretation is that the TD needs more of a cause than "I like my opponents, so please waive the penalty" for the TD to exercise their discretion. Kaplan had the hard line interpretation that the non-offending side should have partly caused the offending side's infraction before a penalty is waived by the director. My personal wetter interpretation is that a cause could be a little old lady with Parkinson's disease accidentally knocking over her card holder and exposing 13 cards. In that case, as TD, I would also exercise my discretion to waive the 13 penalty cards upon request of the non-offending declarer. There was a notorious ACBL appeal, previously discussed on blml, when an over-competitive declarer refused to request a waiver in the above circumstances. Only a creative interpretation of the Lawbook by the ACBL TD stymied declarer's unsporting behaviour. (Which is another reason I suggest that "upon the request of the non-offending side" be deleted from the 2008 Law 81C8. Such a deletion would help eliminate the bad habit of some TDs to rule by the maxim, "If you do not like what a Law says, search for another Law".) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 2 09:45:55 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:45:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <45416325.5000107@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610241534.k9OFY1C4014567@cfa.harvard.edu> <45416325.5000107@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4549B043.6090508@hdw.be> Hello Steve, Steve Willner wrote: >>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. > You did, by saying that the board should be scored 40/40. Or something. Or anything. Anything else than an AS. If you advocate giving an AS, then you are of the same opinion as me, namely that there is no difference between MI and CPU. > >>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. > But what would you do if you say that NS do not open 1NT? Isn't that the same as "scrapping the board"? > 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. > No there are not. Nowhere in L40B is there mention of any way for the TD to deal with the infraction. Only L40C applies, and this is my reason for calling CPU and MI the same thing. Tell me what ruling you give for the people who are, through your reasoning, not allowed to open 1NT? > 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. > But even the Polish pair (about whom I believe the ruling to be totally incorrect) were adjusted under L40C. Far too harshly IMO, but still on the basis of L40C. It's the only one that applies. A pair open 1NT, and they are playing this as 12-14, which is allowed under the CoC. For some different reasons: 1) they forget to alert 2) they forget to announce 3) they play in a non-alertable environment and they forgot to pre-announce 4) their CC is marked wrongly (15-17) 5) their CC is marked wrongly (12-14 on the interior, nothing on the exterior) 6) a wrong CC is on the table 7) they are playing "SAYC" but believe that includes weak NT. 8) the partner forgets that they are playing 12-14 and explains as 15-17 9 - 278) anything else (we've all seen them) When do you call this CPU and when MI? Let's suppose that the bidding concludes pass-3NT-all pass Now if you rule MI, let's assume that the ruling is the changing of one trick, because the opening lead might be different. What are you going to rule if you decide it's CPU? And why? And how are you going to decide which of the above is which? > >>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. > Apart from deliberate cheating, I don't see what CPU's can be either. And even deliberate cheating will be dealt with by using L40C, plus some additional procedural penalty. Of course we are not talking about illegal use of conventions here. We are simply talking about insufficient explanations. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/497 - Release Date: 25/10/2006 From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 2 09:49:58 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:49:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <45416968.6040901@comcast.net> References: <45409077.2060502@hdw.be> <45416968.6040901@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4549B136.2010201@hdw.be> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > 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. > Not necessarily higher, other. And it does not seem odd to me. The standard between declarer and defender is also different. And "higher" on defender. Out-of-place analogy indeed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/497 - Release Date: 25/10/2006 From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 2 09:50:52 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:50:52 +0100 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: <4549B16C.8030607@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: > > This appears impossible to rule without mind reading, so my view will be > easy to guess. > "The fi- eh no the nine of hearts" No mind reading required, Steve! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. 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 Nov 2 09:53:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:53 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c6fe0c$a4c8e610$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Unless I see some evidence to the contrary I shall assume that > Declarer's call for a card not in Dummy is a slip of the tongue or > maybe even a temporary slip of the mind (he may for instance have > forgotten that he had already in an earlier trick played the card he > called). Law73d1 contains the following exhortation: 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. If we are told the layout we will be able to determine whether either the "variant call" or the "premature tempo" falls into the category of such positions. And thus we will know whether it was declarer or defender who was under a deeper obligation to avoid an irregularity. On a visceral level I remain deeply suspicious that a declarer who has caused the problem "inadvertently" hasn't taken the opportunity to request a waiver of the PC. Do people genuinely believe that they should be getting advantage from making this sort of mistake? > Frankly I shall suspect that East had his mind at a completely > different place but I shall not bother to guess where (I don't > really care). East's lead of QC definitely does not qualify as a > slip of anything (hand, tongue or mind) and it cannot be excused as > a consequence solely from a void call made by Declarer when no > further action is taken by Declarer or Dummy. How do we know that "no further action was taken"? We haven't asked. How long did dummy spend "taking no further action" and what was dummy doing during that time? Did East perhaps have a singleton club and fear breaking tempo? How did South describe what happened (there may be clues there as to his intent)? Is South careless and clueless or is he a player for whom such a mistake is extremely untypical? Is East widely known to play on the call of a card rather than dummy placing it such that South has a good expectation that making a void call will induce an error? Why do I bother? The original posting contained neither texture nor detail. There's not enough information in it to know whether or not N/S might be "bad guys". My belief is that Andre asked the question because he felt that the mis-call (whether deliberate or accidental) *was* causal in relation to East's mistake and that he wanted to know his legal options in that situation. I have tried to highlight both the options and the clues he might look for in choosing amongst those options. Sven seems to have started from the position "It's all East's fault and I'm not even going to bother investigating whether South might be to blame". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 2 09:54:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1D8F8B16-B514-41B0-99DA-7E3EEE2BCDBB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed asks: > Are there penalties in the laws which are not "for cause"? I doubt it. But there are many situations where, as TD, I would believe that there was insufficient "cause" to justify me giving a waiver. I might not bother explaining the request option if I knew I wasn't going to grant it. I've had a TD (who may still read this list) turn down a waiver request because I couldn't think of a decent "for cause" at the time. Tim From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 2 10:01:33 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:01:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <000601c6f9d2$b12a5df0$4101a8c0@david> References: <000601c6f9d2$b12a5df0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <4549B3ED.4030107@hdw.be> David Barton wrote: > 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? My opinion: yes a card has been played, no we don't know which one yet. In that sense it has not been designated, in anothe sense, the designation has simply not been completed. > (b) If you require declarer to complete his designation, > can he nominate a non existant card. What law are > you applying here? I don't allow him to nominate a non-existant card, as I won't believe (yes' that's mind-reading) that he intended this at the start. > (c) Has dummy committed an infraction by drawing > attention to an irregularity? > Yes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.23/513 - Release Date: 2/11/2006 From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Nov 2 11:19:52 2006 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:19:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] SAYC Message-ID: <4549C648.8020307@aol.com> What is SAYC? I don't find it on the abbreviation list. Perhaps Standard American Yellow Card? But what, if correct, does that mean? Thanks, JE From henk at ripe.net Thu Nov 2 11:35:50 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:35:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] SAYC In-Reply-To: <4549C648.8020307@aol.com> References: <4549C648.8020307@aol.com> Message-ID: <4549CA06.8090003@ripe.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > What is SAYC? I don't find it on the abbreviation list. Perhaps > Standard American Yellow Card? Yes. > But what, if correct, does that mean? It is a version of Standard American (5 card majors, 15-17 NT, some popular conventions) often used by non-established partnerships in online bridge. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't believe grown engineers are afraid of a dot. (Ed Lewis) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Nov 2 13:13:35 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:13:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge Message-ID: <4549E0EF.9030302@NTLworld.com> [Laval Dubreuil] > 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. [Nigel] Like Laval I was an early convert to on-line Bridge. Bill Adoerfer (DecNet guru) was a pioneer. He modified VTX so that we at Digital could play real-time on-line Bridge. The display was monochrome and character-based but the layout was similar to Bridge Base On-line. On 08-Sep-1988, Bill Adoerfer set up a 12 board Chicago Exhibition Match - the first live test of his on-line system. Bill and Joe Neumister (at different American locations) played against Stuart Maurice and me (at different UK locations). Bill's system worked perfectly. The UK won the first on-line Bridge World Championship :):) I posted commentaries on all the boards to the Digital Notes conference on Bridge. A little later, Stuart and I won another on-line challenge match. I disagree with Laval, however, that on-line bridge is less formal than face-to-face. Our first matches were enormous fun but deadly serious. On BBO, at any given time, there are many serious tournaments in progress and I am currently involved in an enjoyable knock-out teams competition against many other teams. On-line rules may be simple and easy to understand but they are more complete than and as well defined as face-to-face rules. Ultimately, the programs themselves can help to provide precise unambiguous definitions. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Nov 2 13:29:29 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:29:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. Message-ID: <4549E4A9.8030800@NTLworld.com> [Tony Musgrove] > 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: > H 9 5 > D 5 > S 8 > H 7 > D 6 > S 5 > H 10 > 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? [nige1] I'm not allowing the change. And the same if he calls diam..oh!9 of hearts. OK? From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 2 14:05:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Although some blmlers such as Tim West-Meads disagree, the general > interpretation is that the TD needs more of a cause than "I like my > opponents, so please waive the penalty" for the TD to exercise their > discretion. Once "cause" has been given, however pathetic :), the TD has no option but to exercise his discretion one way or another. There are some clubs in which I direct where the players simply won't call a TD if they know he won't waive and where the general consensus is that "we don't want to win that way". Thus I don't require TDs to accept pathetic excuses but do think we have the *option* of so doing. Basically the more serious the competition the better the cause I require. Tim From picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Nov 2 15:00:50 2006 From: picatou at uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:00:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] SAYC In-Reply-To: <4549C648.8020307@aol.com> Message-ID: SAYC (Standard American Yellow Card) is a "modern" version of the Standard American bidding system designed in 90s by ACBL to help occasional partners in tournaments. The system should have die but was saved by Online bridge. It was the only "simple" available system and became the international language for occasional partners on Ok-Bridge. The original description was made by ACBL: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf Anna Marsh from England produce the first simple and complete description for OK-Bridge players. http://www.annam.co.uk/sayc01.htm Many school of bridge this side of the pound (like mine), use SAYC as basic teaching approach. Though, you use a modern version named the "Grant Standard). Laval Du Breuil Ecole de bridge Picatou Quebec City -----Message d'origine----- De : blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]De la part de JffEstrsn at aol.com Envoye : 2 novembre, 2006 05:20 A : blml at amsterdamned.org Objet : [blml] SAYC What is SAYC? I don't find it on the abbreviation list. Perhaps Standard American Yellow Card? But what, if correct, does that mean? Thanks, JE _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 2 15:41:41 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:41:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1D8F8B16-B514-41B0-99DA-7E3EEE2BCDBB@rochester.rr.com> References: <1D8F8B16-B514-41B0-99DA-7E3EEE2BCDBB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061102093550.02d67730@pop.starpower.net> At 01:03 AM 11/2/06, Ed wrote: >On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:30 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Law 10C1: > > > > When these Laws provide an option after an > > irregularity, the Director shall explain all the > > options available. > >Law 81C8: > >The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: >... >8. Waiver of Penalties >to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of >the non-offending side. > >Are there penalties in the laws which are not "for cause"? I think we are expected to read "for cause" as modifying "waive" rather than "penalties". >IAC, it would seem that in many if not most cases TD should explain >this option to the NOS, yet I have never seen it done. Why is that? The easy answer is just that most (ACBL, which I believe to be Ed's context) TDs aren't sufficiently conversant with the laws to realize that they should do this. In any case, though, it is impractical to bring up L81C8 when making a ruling except in the case where the TD sees "cause" and is prepared "at his discretion" to grant the waiver request. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Thu Nov 2 15:35:10 2006 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:35:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another dutch club Queen References: Message-ID: <00c101c6fe8d$9200af00$e6493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> > > > Without ascertaining that the called card is available in Dummy so > > that L46B4 does not apply? That is only too bad for the opponent who > > just violated L74B1. > > Hence the benefit to declarer of deliberately mumbling a little over the > card rank - particularly when the five/nine are phonetically similar. > This reminds me what happended two weeks ago again in the Netherlands. Teams play. During the play of the 10th board declarer, who is german, played a card from dummy by naming "karo". Up to that moment not any german word had been used, because declarer is living in the Netherlands for a long time. The player to dummy's left understood "klaveren", that sounds more or less as club in dutch. As there was only one club card in dummy, the player to dummy's left played the club Queen. After that he looked at the table and saw that a diamond card had been moved forward. He asked what is goinig on and miss Understanding had made here appearance. The director was summoned and decided that the club Queen was a PC. Ben From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 2 16:02:09 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:02:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43008D3C-3B70-44B6-8E21-89C996668BF0@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 2, 2006, at 2:27 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Maybe Law 81C8 is poorly drafted, but the intent of the WBF LC was > that the _waive_ of the penalties should be "for cause", not that > the penalty itself lacked a cause. If that's the case, then "maybe" is an underbid. :-) > In my opinion, Bob's answer is not quite correct. In general Bob's > philosophy is correct, and indeed Bob's philosophy is embodied in > the six clauses of Law 72A. Well, maybe. Except for the "protect the field" part. > The key difference between a rubber bridge waiving of penalties and > a duplicate bridge waiving of penalties are the two caveats "for > cause" and "at his [the TD's] discretion". > > Although some blmlers such as Tim West-Meads disagree, the general > interpretation is that the TD needs more of a cause than "I like my > opponents, so please waive the penalty" for the TD to exercise their > discretion. > > Kaplan had the hard line interpretation that the non-offending side > should have partly caused the offending side's infraction before a > penalty is waived by the director. > > My personal wetter interpretation is that a cause could be a little > old lady with Parkinson's disease accidentally knocking over her > card holder and exposing 13 cards. In that case, as TD, I would > also exercise my discretion to waive the 13 penalty cards upon > request of the non-offending declarer. Works for me. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 2 16:05:17 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:05:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another dutch club Queen In-Reply-To: <00c101c6fe8d$9200af00$e6493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> References: <00c101c6fe8d$9200af00$e6493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <1E02DFB2-E026-48FC-B70E-221A827F8B3A@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 2, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Ben Schelen wrote: > Teams play. > During the play of the 10th board declarer, who is german, played a > card > from dummy by naming "karo". Up to that moment not any german word > had been > used, because declarer is living in the Netherlands for a long time. > The player to dummy's left understood "klaveren", that sounds more > or less > as club in dutch. > As there was only one club card in dummy, the player to dummy's > left played > the club Queen. > After that he looked at the table and saw that a diamond card had > been moved > forward. > He asked what is goinig on and miss Understanding had made here > appearance. > The director was summoned and decided that the club Queen was a PC. I don't suppose declarer asked that the penalty be waived. I wonder if he was aware he could do so. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 2 16:08:06 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:08:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] SAYC In-Reply-To: <4549C648.8020307@aol.com> References: <4549C648.8020307@aol.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061102095158.02d5da00@pop.starpower.net> At 05:19 AM 11/2/06, Jeff wrote: >What is SAYC? I don't find it on the abbreviation list. Perhaps >Standard American Yellow Card? Correct. >But what, if correct, does that mean? SAYC was the product of an attempt by the ACBL to hold events in which everyone would play the same methods. A committee was appointed to come up with those methods. They were supposed to devise an essentially natural system based on standard American practice, incorporating only the most widely known and used conventions. But instead they incorporated a whole bunch of their individual favorites, some of which were rather unusual, even odd. The result was an unplayable system with some obvious holes (e.g., IIRC, the auction 1NT-P-2S-P- demands a 3C rebid, with 2NT left undefined and therefore an illegal bid in an SAYC event). Although SAYC events proved unpopular and are no longer held, SAYC remains the "official standard" system of the ACBL. Because it's there, it has been adopted as the common default system for ad hoc partnerships playing on line. But even ad hoc partnerships know unplayability and holes in the system when they see them, and have their own ideas about how to cope with the flaws in SAYC so as to render it "common-sensical". So these days it is no longer generally regarded as a fixed system to be played exactly as written, but rather as a framework within which the details are left to the partnership, essentially the new "Standard American", albeit rather more tightly defined than than SA, which has come to encompass such a wide range of methodological choices (covering, for example, both four-card major and five-card major systems) as to be virtually meaningless. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 23:30:40 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:30:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <200610272140.k9RLeDRf017597@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610272140.k9RLeDRf017597@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454A7190.9020508@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Tony Musgrove > In this case, I hoped to make it clear that the > offender ... "Offender?" What is the infraction? > So a clear change of mind? "Change of mind" is only relevant if declarer has in fact designated a card. The question in this thread is when, exactly, the designation gets made. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 2 23:37:47 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:37:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200610312141.k9VLfmjD029962@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610312141.k9VLfmjD029962@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454A733B.6070109@cfa.harvard.edu> I don't know anything about "natural justice," but as a matter of good business practice, I'd think most NCBOs would, shortly after receiving an appeal, notify the appellants that it was received and say when it will be decided. > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > 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. Extending the correction period (L79C) to a week is common for clubs in the ACBL. I have not heard of any that extend the appeal period (L92B). In general, clubs don't post formal policies, but I wouldn't expect an appeal to be considered unless the director has been notified before the appellants depart the site. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 00:03:35 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:03:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <200611021512.kA2FCf0q002756@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611021512.kA2FCf0q002756@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454A7947.6060603@cfa.harvard.edu> SW>Who said anything about scrapping the board? What a ridiculous idea. > From: Herman De Wael > You did, by saying that the board should be scored 40/40. Herman This is not like you. It is not nice to make up stories about what other people have said (or written in this case). I never wrote anything of the sort, and I don't see how anything I did write can be misunderstood as suggesting any such thing. > If you advocate > giving an AS, then you are of the same opinion as me, namely that > there is no difference between MI and CPU. And this is false as well. I think the Laws require giving adjusted scores in both cases, but they will in general be _different_ adjusted scores. (Of course in some specific case they might lead to the same result.) Please take a little more care. SW> Suppose North opens 1NT, by agreement 10-12, but SW>through some fault of NS, EW are informed that it's 15-17. If... SW> we rule under L40B, the adjusted score is on the basis that North SW> did not open with the illegal 1NT bid. > But what would you do if you say that NS do not open 1NT? Isn't that > the same as "scrapping the board"? Not at all, though some SO's may (illegally in my view) mandate that. You give a L12C2 AssAS on the basis that North opens something else (or passes). The "something else" may not fit the NS system; if not, too bad for them. Let them give proper disclosure next time. If this is what you meant by "scrapping the board," then I apologize and ask you to write more clearly. Of course applying L12C2 may not be easy when the illegal call is an opening bid, but that's nothing unusual for BLML. If the illegal call comes later in the auction, there's less of a problem. No matter how hard a particular case might be, I don't see why one should refuse to apply the laws as written. > Nowhere in L40B is there mention of any way for the > TD to deal with the infraction. Come on, Herman, you know better than that. Apply L12A1, then L12C2, just as you do in any other case where there's an infraction with no specified penalty. The key point -- which L40B tells you -- is that the improperly-disclosed call is itself illegal. You know as well as I do what that implies when you get to L12C2. As Herman notes, we still have the question no one can answer: which types of improper disclosure violate L40B. I've given my suggestion (which I think may have come from EK -- anyway, I doubt it's original), but I don't think the answer is clear. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 00:09:15 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:09:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] SAYC In-Reply-To: <200611021514.kA2FE24t003016@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611021514.kA2FE24t003016@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454A7A9B.8080203@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Jeff Easterson > Standard American Yellow Card? Others have given good answers, but let me add a couple of details: 1. The ACBL distributes (present tense intended) convention cards that are, in fact, yellow and marked with SAYC agreements. I have one around here somewhere. 2. There are now different (though similar) bidding systems labelled "SAYC" but created by different organizations. Examples include ACBL SAYC, okbridge SAYC, BBO SAYC, and probably others. If you need to agree with someone, make sure you both have the same version in mind. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 3 00:12:33 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:12:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200611021523.kA2FN2G4004781@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611021523.kA2FN2G4004781@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454A7B61.4060108@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > There was a notorious ACBL appeal, previously discussed on blml, > when an over-competitive declarer refused to request a waiver... Are you thinking of the Albuquerque "declarer with a large bandage" case? If so, I've never understood that one. Declarer accidentally dropped a card, and it should have been picked up without penalty. But that one was WBF (Olympiad), not ACBL. If you have a different case in mind, please give a few details. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 3 00:46:27 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:46:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <454A733B.6070109@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200610312141.k9VLfmjD029962@cfa.harvard.edu> <454A733B.6070109@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Nov 2, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > In general, clubs don't post formal policies, Even though, according to the ACBL, they're supposed to. :-( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 3 02:43:44 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:43:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 50 caveat (was Clubbed Queen) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <454A7B61.4060108@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>There was a notorious ACBL appeal, previously discussed on blml, >>when an over-competitive declarer refused to request a waiver... Steve Willner: >Are you thinking of the Albuquerque "declarer with a large >bandage" case? If so, I've never understood that one. Declarer >accidentally dropped a card, and it should have been picked up >without penalty. But that one was WBF (Olympiad), not ACBL. > >If you have a different case in mind, please give a few details. Richard Hills: As requested, a 2004 blml posting by me is attached. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 * * * [blml] ACBL Long Beach 2003 casebook appeal 37 Richard Hills posting on Monday 3 May 2004 subsequent discussion available on the blml archives at: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/ [snip] >>The Facts: 4S went down one, +50 >>for N/S. The opening lead was a low >>heart. South, as she led to trick two, >>knocked over her card holder, briefly >>exposing her cards to the rest of the >>players at the table. She covered >>them quickly and pulled them into >>her lap. E/W called the Director who >>said they believed North had seen >>South's cards. The Director applied >>Law 50, instructing the players that >>South's prematurely exposed (but not >>led) cards would not be treated as >>penalty cards and to resume play. He >>remained at the table and monitored >>the play, which he reported went as >>shown in the diagram. At the end of >>the play, the Director was satisfied >>that there had been no damage from >>the briefly exposed cards (Law 16) >>and allowed the table result to stand. [snip] Casebook panellist Grattan Endicott: >Unless knocking over the card holder was >deemed a purposeful action there was no >infraction. South did not act to make UI >available, it occurred adventitiously. If >North saw anything significant as the >outcome of the accident, Law 16B would >apply. Everything the Director did was >within the powers the relevant law gives, >regardless of spirit, and I have no >inclination to challenge the Director's >conclusions in addressing the question of >whether North had UI and took advantage >of it. Richard James Hills: It seems to me that Grattan Endicott has misinterpreted Law 16B. Law 16B refers to "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins", but this case was about seeing 13 of partner's cards after the auction had finished and the play had begun. Casebook panellist Jeff Goldsmith: >I didn't know that Law 50 allows Directors >to judge that an exposed card provides no >penalty. Law 50B says "a card.....exposed >inadvertently.....becomes a minor penalty >card," which suggests to me that Law 50 >was misapplied, but I think it would be a >good thing if Law 50 could be applied as it >was, particularly with respect to >handicapped players. [snip] Richard James Hills: It seems to me that Jeff Goldsmith has correctly interpreted Law 50. It seems to me that the Law 50 caveat, "unless the Director designates otherwise", is subject to the Law 49 restriction, "Except in the normal course of play or application of law". That is, in my opinion, the TD cannot arbitrarily designate that a prematurely exposed card is not a penalty card, but the TD must have some Lawful justification for so ruling. For example, a ruling pursuant to footnote number 19 of Law 68, "If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards....." would be a valid reason for the TD to "designate otherwise". I do, however, agree with Jeff Goldsmith's suggestion that the actual TD ruling should be made specifically legal in the 2006 versions of Law 49 and Law 50. From tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri Nov 3 02:52:59 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:52:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <4549B16C.8030607@hdw.be> References: <200610261511.k9QFBkVq014409@cfa.harvard.edu> <45416513.5090306@cfa.harvard.edu> <4549B16C.8030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <454AA0FB.8060304@comcast.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: >>This appears impossible to rule without mind reading, so my view will be >>easy to guess. > > "The fi- eh no the nine of hearts" > > No mind reading required, Steve! Are you sure you don't need to distinguish between "the fi-" being a slip of the tongue or a change of mind? Are you willing to rule the same way in both cases? -Todd From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 3 04:02:26 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:02:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <454A733B.6070109@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >In general, clubs don't post formal policies, but I wouldn't >expect an appeal to be considered unless the director has >been notified before the appellants depart the site. Richard Hills: In general, I agree with Steve's expectation, but a small club may have special circumstances. For example, if a small club meets on rented premises with a Cinderella clause that all must depart by midnight, a playing TD might not have the time to give an accurate (with polling of peers) Law 16 ruling on logical alternatives before the potential appellants, and everyone else, have to leave. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 3 10:58:13 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:58:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <454A7947.6060603@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611021512.kA2FCf0q002756@cfa.harvard.edu> <454A7947.6060603@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454B12B5.5000703@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: > SW>Who said anything about scrapping the board? What a ridiculous idea. > > >>From: Herman De Wael >>You did, by saying that the board should be scored 40/40. > > > Herman > > This is not like you. It is not nice to make up stories about what > other people have said (or written in this case). I never wrote > anything of the sort, and I don't see how anything I did write can be > misunderstood as suggesting any such thing. > Please Steve, accept my apologies if I have misrepresented you; See below. > >>If you advocate >>giving an AS, then you are of the same opinion as me, namely that >>there is no difference between MI and CPU. > > > And this is false as well. I think the Laws require giving adjusted > scores in both cases, but they will in general be _different_ adjusted > scores. (Of course in some specific case they might lead to the same > result.) > OK Steve, I accept that this is your position. I do not believe any adjustment for CPU (your interpretation) can be given that is not an ArtAS (see below) which is why I talk of "scrapping the board". Please accept that this was meant as a shortcut. I am very interested in seeing how you can be giving AS for CPU. Again, see below. > Please take a little more care. > > SW> Suppose North opens 1NT, by agreement 10-12, but > SW>through some fault of NS, EW are informed that it's 15-17. If... > SW> we rule under L40B, the adjusted score is on the basis that North > SW> did not open with the illegal 1NT bid. > > >>But what would you do if you say that NS do not open 1NT? Isn't that >>the same as "scrapping the board"? > > > Not at all, though some SO's may (illegally in my view) mandate that. I am pleased that you see this as being illegal. > You give a L12C2 AssAS on the basis that North opens something else (or > passes). The "something else" may not fit the NS system; if not, too > bad for them. Let them give proper disclosure next time. > And this is where I believe you are wrong. You cannot impose on a pair that is playing one system a bid which is not in that system. OK, the law is worded very strangely: "you are not allowed to use methods that the opponents don't know", but that same law does not tell the TD what to do if they do use such methods. Or wait, look again: yes it does : L40C. > If this is what you meant by "scrapping the board," then I apologize and > ask you to write more clearly. > > Of course applying L12C2 may not be easy when the illegal call is an > opening bid, but that's nothing unusual for BLML. If the illegal call > comes later in the auction, there's less of a problem. No matter how > hard a particular case might be, I don't see why one should refuse to > apply the laws as written. > Which is what I am doing : applying L40C. The way we've been doing it since times immemorial. Maybe the laws are badly written, but that does not mean we should start doing something else than that which all TD's have been doing all the time. > >> Nowhere in L40B is there mention of any way for the >>TD to deal with the infraction. > > > Come on, Herman, you know better than that. Apply L12A1, then L12C2, > just as you do in any other case where there's an infraction with no > specified penalty. The key point -- which L40B tells you -- is that the > improperly-disclosed call is itself illegal. You know as well as I do > what that implies when you get to L12C2. > No I don't. If a call is illegal, how can I use L12C2 (or L12C3, on my side of the pond) ? I cannot imagine what "would have happened" is the call had not been made, since the pair have no other system available. The only thing I can then do is apply L12C1. Which is where we came in, by me calling that "scrapping the board". > As Herman notes, we still have the question no one can answer: which > types of improper disclosure violate L40B. I've given my suggestion > (which I think may have come from EK -- anyway, I doubt it's original), > but I don't think the answer is clear. > I see no reason whatsoever to make a distinction between CPU and MI. In both cases (your distinction, not mine), the pair have been using a convention that the opponents did not know about. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 3 11:01:28 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:01:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <454AA0FB.8060304@comcast.net> References: <200610261511.k9QFBkVq014409@cfa.harvard.edu> <45416513.5090306@cfa.harvard.edu> <4549B16C.8030607@hdw.be> <454AA0FB.8060304@comcast.net> Message-ID: <454B1378.1020208@hdw.be> Todd M. Zimnoch wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >>Steve Willner wrote: >> >>>This appears impossible to rule without mind reading, so my view will be >>>easy to guess. >> >>"The fi- eh no the nine of hearts" >> >>No mind reading required, Steve! > > > Are you sure you don't need to distinguish between "the fi-" > being a slip of the tongue or a change of mind? Are you > willing to rule the same way in both cases? > Of course you need to make that distinction. However, Steve is suggesting this requires mind reading. I am certain that a TD is able to make the distinction without turning to mind reading. Our keyboards are not equipped to add to "the fi-" the numerous levels of intonation and timing that make it possible for someone who does not even know how bridge is played (let alone an experienced TD) to make this distinction. We're all human, and we pick up on all those things. > -Todd > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Nov 3 12:49:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:49 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 50 caveat (was Clubbed Queen) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > That is, in my opinion, the TD cannot > arbitrarily designate that a prematurely > exposed card is not a penalty card, but the > TD must have some Lawful justification for > so ruling. Some laws are not in the little blue book. If the TD has reason to believe that a book ruling would conflict with superior legislation such as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) he would be well advised to take that into account. Ideally NAs would have regulations in place which were sensitive to such national legislation. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Nov 3 12:49:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:49 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <454A7947.6060603@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > The key point -- which L40B tells you -- is that the > improperly-disclosed call is itself illegal. Personally I would only rule the opening bid *itself* illegal if the bidder had made the call knowing it had been (or would be) improperly disclosed (particularly germane in cases where proper disclosure would render the bid illegal under SO L40D regs). In cases where the bidder believes that the bid *will* be properly disclosed "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" my ruling will be based on damage to the NOS from the improper disclosure rather than illegality of the bid itself. If you wish you may assume I'm doing this on the basis that bidder has a "reasonable expectation" that the bid will be understood by opponents when his partner makes the anticipated alert/announcement/explanation (or opps look at his CC). I acknowledge that this isn't exactly what L40b says but it's an approach that hasn't given me any problems (and seems a reasonable interpretation of what the various disclosure regulations are trying to achieve). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Nov 3 12:49:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:49 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <454B1378.1020208@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Our > keyboards are not equipped to add to "the fi-" the numerous levels of > intonation and timing that make it possible for someone who does not > even know how bridge is played Then such a person might be well advised to start with Law 1 "Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. The suits rank downward in the order Spades (), Hearts (), Diamonds (), Clubs (). The cards of each suit rank downward in the order Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2." Having looked there and discovered that the "fi-er" is not a rank (at least in an English-speaking game") he would be able to work out that L46b3 does not apply. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Nov 3 12:49:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:49 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Clubbed Queen In-Reply-To: <200611011630.IAA20685@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote > I don't see how "sechs" and "acht" would sound anything alike. Thus speaks a man who has never heard my attempts at German:) "Das Acht" with a glottal stop instead of a T sounds (when I say it) not unlike "Das Sechs" with elision of the first two S's and the final sibilant largely suppressed. I happy using Zwei/Drei as a better example or perhaps going for the French six/dix. The principle I was trying to embrace was that the chances of the ploy working are increased by the choice of phonetically similar cards. I apologise if my example was linguistically inept (perhaps German cards get to have sex and the confusion is harder to achieve than I thought). Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 3 13:25:44 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Only unanimous comments please. In-Reply-To: <454B1378.1020208@hdw.be> References: <454AA0FB.8060304@comcast.net> <200610261511.k9QFBkVq014409@cfa.harvard.edu> <45416513.5090306@cfa.harvard.edu> <4549B16C.8030607@hdw.be> <454AA0FB.8060304@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061103130218.0211f6d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:01 3/11/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Of course you need to make that distinction. However, Steve is >suggesting this requires mind reading. I am certain that a TD is able >to make the distinction without turning to mind reading. Our keyboards >are not equipped to add to "the fi-" the numerous levels of intonation >and timing that make it possible for someone who does not even know >how bridge is played (let alone an experienced TD) to make this >distinction. Well, the case we didn't cover is the one where a player voluntarily calls for an inexistent card, for another purpose than deceiving, causing an Alcatraz coup, or any other culpable reason. I launched a thread, here, some years ago, about Cooper echoes (playing an abnormally high card from dummy to tell partner the contract's copacetic). Does one have to mention it on the CC ? Are you allowed to falsecard that signal, especially at matchpoints, where defenders might want to limit you to your contract ? Etc. Sometimes, as with every other signal, you haven't the right cards at your disposal. Say dummy holds a singleton deuce. A partner of mine once decided to circumvent the problem by calling for "a high plum". Dummy shall play one's highest card in the suit, namely the deuce, so the designation's legal. Now say dummy's holding is 84, and the 8 unexpectedly plays a role in the deal. What are you going to do ? We toyed with the idea of calling "the five". However, it might confuse RHO (and we could know it might, so L72B could be called up). Same if we called for "the four and a half". Most of the time, however, against opponents in good mood, it won't be a problem. But now, I read that, if we call for the 5, dummy puts the 4 on the table, and RHO shrugs and plays a card, it will be OOT. From there, everything could happen. Looks like we'll need to find another way to signal ;-) Best regards Alain From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 3 15:36:43 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:36:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454B53FB.5060406@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Steve wrote: > > >>The key point -- which L40B tells you -- is that the >>improperly-disclosed call is itself illegal. > > > Personally I would only rule the opening bid *itself* illegal if the > bidder had made the call knowing it had been (or would be) improperly > disclosed (particularly germane in cases where proper disclosure would > render the bid illegal under SO L40D regs). This parenthesis is totally wrong. At least if I may draw out of it the specific point Tim is trying to make. Forgive me if I get this wrong Tim, but even if it is not your point, it is something that we need to distinguish clearly. We are not talking in this thread about illegal systems. If a system is illegal, then the law to deal with it is L40D. It does not matter if the system is correctly explained or not. It does not matter whether the "concealment" is active or not (although that may affect the penalties imposed, of course). When we are talking about CPU, we are _NOT_ talking about illegal systems or conventions. Those can be dealt with. So that being said, let us only consider legal systems. Let's look again at what Tim says, without the parenthesis: > Personally I would only rule the opening bid *itself* illegal if the > bidder had made the call knowing it had been (or would be)improperly > disclosed. So, if a player makes a call, and it is wrongly explained (or whatever), not only are you going to investigate whether the pair did this intentionally (now _this_ requires mind-reading), but you are also going to make your AS dependent on the result of this investigation? While all the while having nothing else to guide you but L40A and L40C? Which do not make such a distinction. > In cases where the bidder > believes that the bid *will* be properly disclosed "in accordance with > the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" my ruling will be based > on damage to the NOS from the improper disclosure rather than illegality > of the bid itself. If you wish you may assume I'm doing this on the > basis that bidder has a "reasonable expectation" that the bid will be > understood by opponents when his partner makes the anticipated > alert/announcement/explanation (or opps look at his CC). > > I acknowledge that this isn't exactly what L40b says but it's an > approach that hasn't given me any problems (and seems a reasonable > interpretation of what the various disclosure regulations are trying to > achieve). > So, Tim, you have two possible interpretations: -mine, in which CPU and MI are the same; -yours, in which there is some difference between the two. And while I am using L40C to argue for mine, you freely admit that L40B does not really support yours. Maybe your approach is then wrong? You say this approach has not given you any problems. Could you please then cite one case in which you have ruled CPU, and the ruling you gave, and in what way it differed from a MI L40C ruling. And please, in a case where the system used was not prohibited. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 01:17:11 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:17:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200611031624.kA3GOAZA009658@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611031624.kA3GOAZA009658@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454BDC07.2080804@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > For example, if a small club meets on rented premises with a > Cinderella clause that all must depart by midnight, a playing > TD might not have the time to give an accurate (with polling > of peers) Law 16 ruling on logical alternatives before the > potential appellants, and everyone else, have to leave. Clubs are free to do whatever they want, but I am surprised if many clubs allow an appeal to be _requested_ long after the session is over. Once an appeal requested, there may be many reasons for it not to be _decided_ right away. Either way, there's no problem with the Laws as long as the rules are the same for all players in the session. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sat Nov 4 01:46:17 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:46:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <200611031625.kA3GPsdH010186@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611031625.kA3GPsdH010186@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454BE2D9.20101@cfa.harvard.edu> >>SW> Suppose North opens 1NT, by agreement 10-12, but >>SW>through some fault of NS, EW are informed that it's 15-17. If... >>SW> we rule under L40B, the adjusted score is on the basis that North >>SW> did not open with the illegal 1NT bid. SW>You give a L12C2 AssAS on the basis that North opens something else (or SW>passes). > From: Herman De Wael > And this is where I believe you are wrong. You cannot impose on a pair > that is playing one system a bid which is not in that system. There are frequent cases where a player is not allowed to choose what he considers the optimum bid. Examples include having UI, or being unable to double after an IB, or at the extreme, being barred on account of some infraction. This is just another example. In the example case, figure out what North would do if 1NT is illegal. Probably with 10 points he would pass; with 12, he might open 1m or something. Then you figure out what happens after that. This may not be easy -- I did write earlier that illegal opening bids will be difficult -- but it's just a case of bridge judgment for the TD (and maybe AC). If the illegal call is not an opening bid, the judgment will typically be a lot easier. The basic point is to apply L12C2. > OK, the > law is worded very strangely: "you are not allowed to use methods that > the opponents don't know", but that same law does not tell the TD what > to do if they do use such methods. Or wait, look again: yes it does : > L40C. L12A1 and then 12C2 seem perfectly clear. L40C is a different matter. > Which is what I am doing : applying L40C. The way we've been doing it > since times immemorial. Certainly L40C rulings are far more common than L40B ones, but I can't believe L40B is in the book if it is never supposed to apply. We can (and I would like to) discuss exactly when 40B should apply, but I don't think there's any doubt what to do when it's violated. > I see no reason whatsoever to make a distinction between CPU and MI. I can, but my version (or rather, the version I've read about) may not be correct. The logical occasion (to me) is when improper disclosure deprives the opponents an opportunity to agree on methods. That was why I suggested applying 40B for failures of required _advance_ disclosure. My example above may not be a good one -- I wanted to keep things simple -- but imagine an SO where mini-NT is rare. So they create a rule that if you use mini, you have to tell the opponents at the start of the round, and the opponents can agree on a special defense. (I am not saying such a rule is wise, but it's conceivable.) If NS fail to follow this rule, EW who play, say DONT against everyone else's strong NT are deprived of a potential penalty double. A mere MI adjustment could be inadequate to protect them. A more practical example in the ACBL would be a pair who play multi but fail to provide the required written defenses. Even if they alert the 2D bid and explain it fully, opponents who have no agreements over multi are helpless. How do you propose to protect them? (Assume multi is legal in the event; it's only the disclosure that's at fault.) And of course we have the actual example of the Polish pair who failed to file CCs in advance. > From: "Tim West-Meads" > Personally I would only rule the opening bid *itself* illegal if the > bidder had made the call knowing it had been (or would be) improperly > disclosed (particularly germane in cases where proper disclosure would > render the bid illegal under SO L40D regs). If you make it "could have known...likely," I don't think this is so far from my view. I certainly agree that a missing alert or some such is ordinary MI, not a L40B infraction. Pending further discussion, I would rule L40B against players who fail to provide advance disclosure even if they genuinely didn't realize it was required. Take a typical foreign pair who show up for an ACBL event, open their multi as always, and had no idea they were supposed to provide any special printout. I feel sorry for them, but don't we have to protect their opponents? From herman at hdw.be Sat Nov 4 11:48:31 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 11:48:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <454BE2D9.20101@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611031625.kA3GPsdH010186@cfa.harvard.edu> <454BE2D9.20101@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <454C6FFF.1070600@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>>SW> Suppose North opens 1NT, by agreement 10-12, but >>>SW>through some fault of NS, EW are informed that it's 15-17. If... >>>SW> we rule under L40B, the adjusted score is on the basis that North >>>SW> did not open with the illegal 1NT bid. > > > SW>You give a L12C2 AssAS on the basis that North opens something else (or > SW>passes). > > >>From: Herman De Wael >>And this is where I believe you are wrong. You cannot impose on a pair >>that is playing one system a bid which is not in that system. > > > There are frequent cases where a player is not allowed to choose what he > considers the optimum bid. Examples include having UI, or being unable > to double after an IB, or at the extreme, being barred on account of > some infraction. This is just another example. > But it is a totally crazy example. In cases like UI, there is either a logical alternative, or there is not. So you can give the hand to a player and ask him what he would do. If he gives you 2 possibilities, then you have your alternative bid. But in the case we are discussing, you will give the hand (a balanced 16 count, say) and he will come up with only one answer. "No, you're not allowed to bid 1NT", you say. "are we playing 15-17?" "yes, but you're still not allowed to open 1NT". "Go away", he'll say. There is simply no other bid possible, so how are you going to give an AS? The only alternatives is an ArtAS, and that is precisely what I said you would be giving, and where you were angry that I said you were scrapping the board. > In the example case, figure out what North would do if 1NT is illegal. > Probably with 10 points he would pass; with 12, he might open 1m or > something. Then you figure out what happens after that. This may not > be easy -- I did write earlier that illegal opening bids will be > difficult -- but it's just a case of bridge judgment for the TD (and > maybe AC). If the illegal call is not an opening bid, the judgment will > typically be a lot easier. The basic point is to apply L12C2. > Which is exactly what I'm applying, after the use of L40C. In fact what all this boils down to, is how to interpret L40C and L12C. "had the irregularity not occurred". Wez are merely discussing what the irregularity is. Nothing tells us that it is what I believe it is, except the fact that all directors have been doing this for all these years. I believe it is the fact of non-disclosure. You believe the irregularity is the use of the convention in the first place. OK, maybe you are right in principle, but lots of directors have been doing the opposite for a long time. Why change that into a system in which you create two extra problems for yourself: - deciding when to rule CPU and when MI; - deciding how to find an AS after a pair have used their own system; > >>OK, the >>law is worded very strangely: "you are not allowed to use methods that >>the opponents don't know", but that same law does not tell the TD what >>to do if they do use such methods. Or wait, look again: yes it does : >>L40C. > > > L12A1 and then 12C2 seem perfectly clear. L40C is a different matter. > > >>Which is what I am doing : applying L40C. The way we've been doing it >>since times immemorial. > > > Certainly L40C rulings are far more common than L40B ones, but I can't > believe L40B is in the book if it is never supposed to apply. We can > (and I would like to) discuss exactly when 40B should apply, but I don't > think there's any doubt what to do when it's violated. > I think we apply L40B all the time. We cannot do otherwise, since L75 will not tell us what to do, only L40C does - and that necessitates a breach of L40B. So, all cases of MI come through L40B. Why would you need to have L40B creating two different infractions? > >>I see no reason whatsoever to make a distinction between CPU and MI. > > > I can, but my version (or rather, the version I've read about) may not > be correct. The logical occasion (to me) is when improper disclosure > deprives the opponents an opportunity to agree on methods. That was why > I suggested applying 40B for failures of required _advance_ disclosure. I agree, but I don't believe you need 2 different infractions for that. I want to give an example, but I see that you do as well: > My example above may not be a good one -- I wanted to keep things > simple -- but imagine an SO where mini-NT is rare. So they create a > rule that if you use mini, you have to tell the opponents at the start > of the round, and the opponents can agree on a special defense. (I am > not saying such a rule is wise, but it's conceivable.) If NS fail to > follow this rule, EW who play, say DONT against everyone else's strong > NT are deprived of a potential penalty double. A mere MI adjustment > could be inadequate to protect them. > No it does not. L40C tells the TD to award an AS if he believes opponents are damaged - and they are. So you award an AS based on the bids as they have happened, combined with some sensible defensive methods for NOS. In your example, I could imagine giving NOS 1NTX minus whatever. > A more practical example in the ACBL would be a pair who play multi but > fail to provide the required written defenses. Even if they alert the > 2D bid and explain it fully, opponents who have no agreements over multi > are helpless. How do you propose to protect them? (Assume multi is > legal in the event; it's only the disclosure that's at fault.) And of > course we have the actual example of the Polish pair who failed to file > CCs in advance. > In the Multi case, it is quite possible to award some AS based on NOS having good methods. The Polish case was a mistake, so we don't need to go there. > >>From: "Tim West-Meads" >>Personally I would only rule the opening bid *itself* illegal if the >>bidder had made the call knowing it had been (or would be) improperly >>disclosed (particularly germane in cases where proper disclosure would >>render the bid illegal under SO L40D regs). > > > If you make it "could have known...likely," I don't think this is so far > from my view. I certainly agree that a missing alert or some such is > ordinary MI, not a L40B infraction. Pending further discussion, I would > rule L40B against players who fail to provide advance disclosure even if > they genuinely didn't realize it was required. Take a typical foreign > pair who show up for an ACBL event, open their multi as always, and had > no idea they were supposed to provide any special printout. I feel > sorry for them, but don't we have to protect their opponents? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Nov 4 18:51:52 2006 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:51:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] dutch queen Message-ID: <454CD338.4030406@aol.com> Am not Dutch and don't speak the language. What is the dutch name for diamonds? Is it also karo? This might influence a decision. JE From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Nov 4 19:55:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <454B53FB.5060406@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > We are not talking in this thread about illegal systems. If a system > is illegal, then the law to deal with it is L40D. Perhaps. IMO knowing the system would be illegal provides motive for attempting to conceal an agreement. Thus it is, again IMO, possible for a player to contravene *both* L40b and L40d in the same bid. The adjustment for contravening L40d is largely prescribed (for me) by EBU regs. The additional penalty for concealment is a matter of TD discretion. > So, if a player makes a call, and it is wrongly explained (or > whatever), not only are you going to investigate whether the pair did > this intentionally I generally won't "investigate" for intentionality, I'll have the possibility in the back of my mind and take things further only if something has raised my suspicions. >(now _this_ requires mind-reading), You have me confused with someone else:) I've got no problem at all with requiring "mind-reading" TDs. Of course I don't think of it as "mind-reading". I think TDs need to listen carefully when the "facts" are being explained and assess the truthfulness of the various parties and make a judgement as a result. It's not a skill requirement unique to TDs. Loss adjusters, recruiters, policemen, purchasing managers and many other jobs require similar skills. > but you are > also going to make your AS dependent on the result of this > investigation? The adjusted score I award will be based on the likely damage whether I think the concealment was active or accidental. The penalties I impose (lots or none) are a different matter. > So, Tim, you have two possible interpretations: > -mine, in which CPU and MI are the same; > -yours, in which there is some difference between the two. I think my position is that a there is no legal entity of a "CPU". To me there is MI (common and we adjust for any damage), acts of accidental concealment by players who should, IMO, know better (fairly rare but a small penalty is in order) and acts of deliberate concealment (very rare a large penalty is in order). > You say this approach has not given you any problems. Could you > please then cite one case in which you have ruled CPU I'm afraid I can't. Acts of deliberate concealment are sufficiently rare that I haven't encountered one when TDing. Ruling damage from an unalerted transfer where transferrer expected his partner to alert is an example of a "disclosure" breach of L40b where I have always judged the failure to alert accidental and thus never felt the need to rule the transfer bid itself illegal (while always believing I have the *option* of so doing). The agreement to transfer was on the CC and in that sense "fully and freely available to opponents" so I do see it as a breach of L40b rather than L75a. Tim From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sat Nov 4 21:18:25 2006 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:18:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] dutch queen In-Reply-To: <000001c70043$80f8db30$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200611042018.kA4KIOWP025753@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Dutch<->German Klaveren<->Teff Ruiten<->Karo Harten<->Coeur Schoppen<-> Pik -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens Jeff Easterson Verzonden: zaterdag 4 november 2006 20:01 Aan: blml at amsterdamned.org Onderwerp: [blml] dutch queen Am not Dutch and don't speak the language. What is the dutch name for diamonds? Is it also karo? This might influence a decision. JE _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at ripe.net Sat Nov 4 21:26:19 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:26:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] dutch queen In-Reply-To: <454CD338.4030406@aol.com> References: <454CD338.4030406@aol.com> Message-ID: <454CF76B.3040308@ripe.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Am not Dutch and don't speak the language. What is the dutch name for > diamonds? Is it also karo? This might influence a decision. JE In Dutch, Diamonds are Ruiten, Clubs are Klaveren (and Harten for Hearts, Schoppen voor Spades). Ruiten sounds completely different from Karo, Klaveren bears some very vague resemblance to Karo. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't believe grown engineers are afraid of a dot. (Ed Lewis) From herman at hdw.be Sun Nov 5 09:58:50 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 09:58:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454DA7CA.1020808@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>We are not talking in this thread about illegal systems. If a system >>is illegal, then the law to deal with it is L40D. > > > Perhaps. IMO knowing the system would be illegal provides motive for > attempting to conceal an agreement. Thus it is, again IMO, possible for > a player to contravene *both* L40b and L40d in the same bid. > The adjustment for contravening L40d is largely prescribed (for me) by > EBU regs. The additional penalty for concealment is a matter of TD > discretion. > Precisely. My point is that we don't need to create an artificial distinction between CPU and MI in order to deal with deliberately trying to conceal illegal conventions. > >>So, if a player makes a call, and it is wrongly explained (or >>whatever), not only are you going to investigate whether the pair did >>this intentionally > > > I generally won't "investigate" for intentionality, I'll have the > possibility in the back of my mind and take things further only if > something has raised my suspicions. > You are correct - because you are only dealing with the problem of cheating. Steve however, wants to deal with the problem not just out of a concept of cheating, but also out of a concept of having to rule differently. > >>(now _this_ requires mind-reading), > > > You have me confused with someone else:) I've got no problem at all > with requiring "mind-reading" TDs. Of course I don't think of it as > "mind-reading". I think TDs need to listen carefully when the "facts" > are being explained and assess the truthfulness of the various parties > and make a judgement as a result. It's not a skill requirement unique > to TDs. Loss adjusters, recruiters, policemen, purchasing managers and > many other jobs require similar skills. > I was directing the comment about mind reading not specifically at you, Tim. > >>but you are >>also going to make your AS dependent on the result of this >>investigation? > > > The adjusted score I award will be based on the likely damage whether I > think the concealment was active or accidental. The penalties I impose > (lots or none) are a different matter. > > >>So, Tim, you have two possible interpretations: >>-mine, in which CPU and MI are the same; >>-yours, in which there is some difference between the two. > > > I think my position is that a there is no legal entity of a "CPU". > To me there is MI (common and we adjust for any damage), acts of > accidental concealment by players who should, IMO, know better (fairly > rare but a small penalty is in order) and acts of deliberate concealment > (very rare a large penalty is in order). > Then we are in complete agreement, and I apologize for calling the second position yours. Steve seems to be the one most behind this second position. > >>You say this approach has not given you any problems. Could you >>please then cite one case in which you have ruled CPU > > > I'm afraid I can't. Acts of deliberate concealment are sufficiently > rare that I haven't encountered one when TDing. Ruling damage from an > unalerted transfer where transferrer expected his partner to alert is an > example of a "disclosure" breach of L40b where I have always judged the > failure to alert accidental and thus never felt the need to rule the > transfer bid itself illegal (while always believing I have the *option* > of so doing). The agreement to transfer was on the CC and in that sense > "fully and freely available to opponents" so I do see it as a breach of > L40b rather than L75a. > > Tim > But if you believe the concealment to be deliberate - how do you rule? MI and redress for damage plus an additional PP for the concealment? Then we agree. But I'm afraid Steve doesn't. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Nov 5 11:55:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <454DA7CA.1020808@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > But if you believe the concealment to be deliberate - how do you rule? > MI and redress for damage plus an additional PP for the concealment? > Then we agree. We are close to agreeing. I'm normally ruling MI arising from a breach of the *disclosure* requirements of L40b, I not sure but I thought that you were ruling MI for a breach of L75 (or maybe L40c). I still retain the option of ruling the bid itself illegal should I ever deem the concealment both deliberate and premeditated. I think we are both ruling the additional PP under L90a. Perhaps it doesn't matter much if we are giving the same adjustment under slightly different laws. > But I'm afraid Steve doesn't. Steve, IMO, is the most open-minded poster on this list. His initial posting was (I thought) a question rather than a statement of a position. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 6 12:50:07 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:50:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] dutch queen In-Reply-To: <454CD338.4030406@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061106124733.027cb3b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:51 4/11/2006 +0100, you wrote: >Am not Dutch and don't speak the language. What is the dutch name for >diamonds? Is it also karo? This might influence a decision. JE No univocal answer to that one. The official name is "ruiten", but you'll occasionally hear "karo" (as well as "sansatout") in the Netherlands, which means the word shouldn't have been totally unknown of them, and the Flemish often use "koeken". Best regards Alain From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 6 13:36:19 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:36:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@immi.gov.au> <2a1c3a560610292359i5be4eadm187823ac30072bf4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c701a5$2ad40c80$91ad87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ My view is that the National Authority bears a responsibility to deal with the appeal in the manner prescribed in its regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > 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? > ------------------------------------------------- and, later: > I have not mentioned any live situation. From adam at irvine.com Mon Nov 6 17:30:34 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:30:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] dutch queen In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:18:25 +0100." <200611042018.kA4KIOWP025753@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <200611061609.IAA12548@mailhub.irvine.com> Andre wrote: > Dutch<->German > Klaveren<->Teff > Ruiten<->Karo > Harten<->Coeur > Schoppen<-> Pik Hearts are "Coeur" in German? Seriously? I'd be surprised that the Germans would use a French word when they have a perfectly good German one available...... I really don't know---I've never played bridge in Germany. I've never even been to Germany. Actually, the time I played in the Vancouver B.C. (Canada) NABC was the only time I've even been out of the U.S., not counting Tijuana, which doesn't really count. It would just seem surprising to me that the Germans wouldn't use their own word. -- Adam From andre.kriner at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 17:35:15 2006 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre Kriner) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:35:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] dutch queen In-Reply-To: <200611061609.IAA12548@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200611061609.IAA12548@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200611061735.15939.andre.kriner@gmail.com> On Monday 06 November 2006 17:30, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Andre wrote: > > Dutch<->German > > Klaveren<->Teff > > Ruiten<->Karo > > Harten<->Coeur > > Schoppen<-> Pik > > Hearts are "Coeur" in German? Seriously? I'd be surprised that the > Germans would use a French word when they have a perfectly good > German one available...... We indeed use Coeur, which left me confused the first few times I played at a club. Also, instead of "Treff" most other cardgames use "Kreuz". Andre From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 6 18:47:38 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:47:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] dutch queen In-Reply-To: <200611061735.15939.andre.kriner@gmail.com> References: <200611061609.IAA12548@mailhub.irvine.com> <200611061609.IAA12548@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061106182523.027cb8c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:35 6/11/2006 +0100, Andre Kriner wrote: >We indeed use Coeur, which left me confused the first few times I played >at a club. >Also, instead of "Treff" most other cardgames use "Kreuz". There might be the beginning of an explanation : history of cards. France was the first country to use abstract symbols for suits. Their influence was therefore pretty important. Former cards showed objects, as they still do e.g. in traditional Spanish packs or Tarot packs. Contrary to what happens in many other fields of human activity, the Germans didn't coin their own words, something they're pretty good at. I've also heard Hungarians use German forms of French names. Another hint comes from Esperanto, which uses German/French names too (piko, kero, karoo, trefo), rather than object names. Spades : originally swords, spears or halberds . The heads or blades were stylized into the present form. The French "pique" means "spearhead". The Dutch "schoppen" means "spade blade" IIRC. Hearts : originally cups. The heart form isn't very far off. Diamonds : the most complicated : originally either coins (Spanish word : denero) or crossbow quarrels (same etymology as French "carreau") whence the form ; "carreau" also means "square" (e.g. floor tile, checked fabric) or "window pane" ; hence the litteral Dutch traduction as "ruiten" (window pane). Clubs : originally clubs. The clover (Dutch klaveren) form perhaps comes from the association with shillelagh. The stylized form orignally was thinner, hence the idea of a cross (German Kreuz). The reason why clubs, not diamonds, usually represent money, would be interesting to investigate. Best regards Alain From schoderb at msn.com Mon Nov 6 14:14:53 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 08:14:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appeal to National Authority [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560610290320w28786593w52a305e684939a78@immi.gov.au><2a1c3a560610292359i5be4eadm187823ac30072bf4@mail.gmail.com> <000401c701a5$2ad40c80$91ad87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Amen! Kojak from Grattan Endicott +=+ My view is that the National Authority bears a responsibility to deal with the appeal in the manner prescribed in its regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061106/8747fe45/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 6 18:51:07 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:51:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: Belgian TD exam question Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061106185045.0343aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:47:08 +0100 >To: Andr? Steffens >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: Re: Belgian TD exam question > >At 21:11 3/11/2006 +0100, Andr? > >> >>I am sorry to mail you unasked, but this case for the Belgian TD exam you >>mentioned interests me. Could you send me the question and its answer? >>I am not sure if your preferred language is French or Dutch, so I stick >>to English for now ;-) > >Try esperanto. > >This is how the case looks like. I can't remember the exact lie of the >cards, as it happened about 20 years ago. > >x Axxx >xx Axxxx >Kxx Jxxx >AKQJ10xx --- > >1C 1H >3C 3NT > >Eke pika regxo ... sorry, the lead is the king of spades. Declarer grabs >the Ace, thinks for a while, then calls for CA. North carelessly follows suit. > >According to L72B1, declarer's score shall be corrected to 3NT minus >whatever is suitable, unless DA lies in front of the king and spades are >4-4 (which, of course, was not the case in said deal : the right score was >- 7). > >But, since North's neglectfulness caused his bad score, he keeps it. > >Best regards, > > Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061106/fa450da6/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 6 18:56:03 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:56:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] dutch queen In-Reply-To: <200611061609.IAA12548@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061106185202.034361a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:30 6/11/2006 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Hearts are "Coeur" in German? Seriously? Seriously. Except that they usually pronounce it with a rather closed "oeu" sound, like their "?", while the French use a more open sound, not unlike the hesitating "er". The contrary is true of "carreau" : closed "o" in French, like in "close", open "o" in Dutch, like in "hop". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 6 22:33:23 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:33:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Belgian TD exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061106185045.0343aec0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >x Axxx >xx Axxxx >Kxx Jxxx >AKQJ10xx --- > >1C 1H >3C 3NT > >Eke pika regxo ... sorry, the lead is the king of spades. >Declarer grabs the Ace, thinks for a while, then calls for >CA. North carelessly follows suit. > >According to L72B1, declarer's score shall be corrected to >3NT minus whatever is suitable, unless DA lies in front of >the king and spades are 4-4 (which, of course, was not the >case in said deal : the right score was - 7). > >But, since North's neglectfulness caused his bad score, he >keeps it. Richard Hills: I disagree with the last sentence. The infraction was not merely East leading from the wrong hand, but also East leading from the wrong hand when East "could have known" that this may hugely benefit the East-West side. Therefore North-South get the score they would have gained if East's "could have known" infraction had not occurred, unless North's action in automatically following suit to the lead from dummy is deemed to be irrational, wild or gambling. WBF Code of Practice, page 5: "If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction." But in this case North "carelessly" followed suit, not "irrationally" followed suit. (In the footnote to the claim laws, "careless or inferior" is deemed to be "normal", not "irrational".) Ergo, the score should have been adjusted to 3NT -7 for both sides. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Nov 7 08:17:27 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 08:17:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian TD exam question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1GhLD5-0E2Jn60@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > [snip] > > >x ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Axxx > >xx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Axxxx > >Kxx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Jxxx > >AKQJ10xx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--- > > > >1C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1H > >3C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3NT > > > >Eke pika regxo ... sorry, the lead is the king of spades. > >Declarer grabs the Ace, thinks for a while, then calls for > >CA. North carelessly follows suit. > > > >According to L72B1, declarer's score shall be corrected to > >3NT minus whatever is suitable, unless DA lies in front of > >the king and spades are 4-4 (which, of course, was not the > >case in said deal : the right score was - 7). > > > >But, since North's neglectfulness caused his bad score, he > >keeps it. > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree with the last sentence. ?The infraction was not > merely East leading from the wrong hand, but also East > leading from the wrong hand when East "could have known" > that this may hugely benefit the East-West side. > > Therefore North-South get the score they would have gained > if East's "could have known" infraction had not occurred, > unless North's action in automatically following suit to > the lead from dummy is deemed to be irrational, wild or > gambling. Peter Eidt: I disagree with this sentence. North is bound to Law 53 A: "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead [...] if the player next in rotation [...] plays to the irregular lead [...]" In this law there's nothing about "irrationally plays to the irregular play" or the like. So, NS get the table score while for the declarer we apply Law 72 B1 as he did gain through the irregularity. > > WBF Code of Practice, page 5: > > "If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own > damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not > receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the > damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, > should be awarded the score that it would have been > allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction." > > But in this case North "carelessly" followed suit, not > "irrationally" followed suit. ?(In the footnote to the > claim laws, "careless or inferior" is deemed to be > "normal", not "irrational".) ?Ergo, the score should have > been adjusted to 3NT -7 for both sides. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 7 13:53:29 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:53:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian TD exam question In-Reply-To: <1GhLD5-0E2Jn60@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061107135137.021147c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> > > >North is bound to Law 53 A: >"Any lead faced out of turn may be treated >as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead >[...] if the player next in rotation [...] plays to >the irregular lead [...]" >In this law there's nothing about "irrationally >plays to the irregular play" or the like. >So, NS get the table score while for the >declarer we apply Law 72 B1 as he did >gain through the irregularity. We need to be more precise. Gaining from the irregularity isn't enough to adjust the score if serendipitous. L72B1 applies when serendipity may not be assumed. Best regards Alain. From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 7 21:34:24 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:34:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board Message-ID: Playing in a multiple teams event, North and East between them managed to foul a board to as to make it unplayable at that table. The TD ruled that board would be void for that match. When the board was played on the other table, one of the pairs got into a stupid contract and scored -1400. The team that got the good score was not amused to have the board voided. But they accepted the TD's ruling and at the end of the session they end up as the winners. In the pub afterwards, one of the winning team wondered if the ruling should have been something different. He felt that it seemed wrong to be deprived of a good score. He said that if it had been a straight match between the two teams there would have been no choice but to void the board. There would have been an option to redeal it; but the "good score" would have to be lost. However, as it was multiple teams, he felt that there was a case for giving an assigned score based for the fouled table based on the average of the other seven tables. I wasn't sure, so I'm asking here. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 7 22:45:06 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 08:45:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Belgian TD exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1GhLD5-0E2Jn60@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Therefore North-South get the score they would >>have gained if East's "could have known" >>infraction had not occurred, unless North's >>action in automatically following suit to the >>lead from dummy is deemed to be irrational, wild >>or gambling. Peter Eidt: >I disagree with this sentence. > >North is bound to Law 53 A: > >"Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a >correct lead. It becomes a correct lead [...] if >the player next in rotation [...] plays to the >irregular lead [...]" > >In this law there's nothing about "irrationally >plays to the irregular play" or the like. > >So, NS get the table score while for the >declarer we apply Law 72 B1 as he did gain >through the irregularity. Richard Hills: I disagree with this application of Law. In my opinion, this is the sequence of application of Law: Law 44G: "The player who has won the trick leads to the next trick." Declarer infracted Law 44G by leading from the entryless dummy when the closed hand had won the previous trick. WBF Code of Practice, page 5: "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." In the instant prior to the Law 44G infraction, Law 53A was neither applicable nor relevant. 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." Since Law 44G does not provide an indemnity to the non-offending side for its infraction, the Director can use Law 12A1 to adjust the score for the non-offending side (while using the "could have known" Law 72B1 to adjust the score of, and award a procedural penalty to, the offending side). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 7 23:58:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:58:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Wright: >Playing in a multiple teams event, North and East between >them managed to foul a board to as to make it unplayable >at that table. > >The TD ruled that board would be void for that match. Law 6D3: Subject to Law 22A, there must be a new shuffle and a redeal when required by the Director for any reason compatible with the Laws (but see Law 86C). Law 86C: The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. Instead, he awards an adjusted score. Richard Hills: If the fouled board was not discovered until the teams compared scores, then the TD's ruling of an average to both sides (zero imps = "void") was a correct ruling, given that both sides were offending sides. If, however, the discovery of the fouled board was during the match, then a better ruling would be a redeal for those two teams involved only. In the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge, although the boards are theoretically identical for all the 200-odd tables in play, teams are clustered in groups of six, and each theoretically identical set of boards circulate in those six tables. Therefore, if a board is played in a so-called "fouled" state one table of a match, e.g. by the North and East hands being interchanged, it is possible that the identically North and East interchanged "fouled" board is played at the other table of a match, thus permitting a valid comparison of scores. Law 87A: "A board is considered to be 'fouled' if the Director determines that one or more cards were misplaced in the board, in such manner that contestants who should have had a direct score comparison did not play the board in identical form." Richard Hills: If the two teams involved ("a direct score comparison") play the same board, it does not matter that the rest of the field are playing the board with different North and East cards. Steve Wright: >However, as it was multiple teams, he felt that there was a >case for giving an assigned score based for the fouled >table based on the average of the other seven tables. Chapter 1 Definitions: "An assigned adjusted score is awarded to one side, or to both sides, to be the result of the deal in place of the result actually obtained after an irregularity." Richard Hills: Since no result was actually obtained, an assigned score is not legal. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Nov 8 08:52:56 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:52:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian TD exam question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1GhiEy-2ER1Xs0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> sorry Richard, but this sounds as we can abolish Law 53 A as well as some other laws. Of course every LOOT is an infraction. Your suggestion below means that you let play them out (with the application of Law 53 A) and, if the score is worse than the expectation prior to the infraction, then you adjust via Law 72 B1, or 12 A1, and 12 Cx. (??) This can't be right - and this is not what the laws say. LHO of offender has in many cases the right to waive penalties and has very often the choise to accept the infringing call (Laws 25 B1, 27 A, 29 A, 53 A, 55 A). And you won't in any cases, where you give him the option to accept or decline the infringing call and his choice doesn't work well for his side, give him an adjustment afterwards, will you ? astonished Peter > Richard Hills: > > >>Therefore North-South get the score they would > >>have gained if East's "could have known" > >>infraction had not occurred, unless North's > >>action in automatically following suit to the > >>lead from dummy is deemed to be irrational, wild > >>or gambling. > > Peter Eidt: > > >I disagree with this sentence. > > > >North is bound to Law 53 A: > > > >"Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a > >correct lead. It becomes a correct lead [...] if > >the player next in rotation [...] plays to the > >irregular lead [...]" > > > >In this law there's nothing about "irrationally > >plays to the irregular play" or the like. > > > >So, NS get the table score while for the > >declarer we apply Law 72 B1 as he did gain > >through the irregularity. > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree with this application of Law. ?In my > opinion, this is the sequence of application of > Law: > > Law 44G: > > "The player who has won the trick leads to the > next trick." > > Declarer infracted Law 44G by leading from the > entryless dummy when the closed hand had won > the previous trick. > > WBF Code of Practice, page 5: > > "Damage exists when, in consequence of the > infraction, an innocent side obtains a table > result less favourable than would have been the > expectation in the instant prior to the > infraction." > > In the instant prior to the Law 44G infraction, > Law 53A was neither applicable nor relevant. > > 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." > > Since Law 44G does not provide an indemnity to > the non-offending side for its infraction, the > Director can use Law 12A1 to adjust the score > for the non-offending side (while using the > "could have known" Law 72B1 to adjust the score > of, and award a procedural penalty to, the > offending side). From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Nov 8 10:41:18 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:41:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120AA1@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Steve Wright Sent: 07 November 2006 20:34 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board Playing in a multiple teams event, North and East between them managed to foul a board to as to make it unplayable at that table. The TD ruled that board would be void for that match. When the board was played on the other table, one of the pairs got into a stupid contract and scored -1400. The team that got the good score was not amused to have the board voided. But they accepted the TD's ruling and at the end of the session they end up as the winners. In the pub afterwards, one of the winning team wondered if the ruling should have been something different. He felt that it seemed wrong to be deprived of a good score. ----- In EBU-land we would give protection if the other table got an exceptional result; but only if the side with the good result was not all at fault for the board being unplayable. In your case North and East are both a fault so there would be no adjustment. The regulations do not distinguish between multiple teams and head-to-head matches. The result that would be awarded for the fouled board would be the normal result on the board (e.g. a making game) and the assigned score would be the IMPs for the normal result against the exceptional result. 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 Nov 8 11:13:01 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:13:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4551ADAD.7020107@hdw.be> Hello Steve, this is something that the CoC should address. I have often suggested that standard CoC should contain a paragraph about what to do if on one of the tables of a match no score can be obtained, or if the two scores obtained are not on comparable deals. It is my opinion that one should resolve this in the following manner: -for every board played, at both tables, a par score is determined, and this score is deducted from the table score. The two differences are then added and the sum translated into IMPs. On every normal board, the exact value of the par score is unimportant, since it will cancel out with the same par score at the other table. On a fouled board, the 2 par scores can be determined only by difference - thus, if aboard is fouled by the vulnerability only, scores of +650 and +420 can be compared and the difference be given as 1IMP. If one table gets an ArtAS, that table could be given a difference of +100 (Av+) or -100 (Av-), while at the other the table score (+1400) is compared to a par score (say +400), to yield 1100 or 900 and 15 or 14 IMPs. The par score can of course be determined by some butler average if the boards are played in more than one match, or by the TD on his own. In many cases, the TD will conclude that nothing particular happened and that the par score equals the table score (rendering only the +100 from the other table into the classical 3IMPs) Steve Wright wrote: > Playing in a multiple teams event, North and East between them managed > to foul a board to as to make it unplayable at that table. > > The TD ruled that board would be void for that match. > > When the board was played on the other table, one of the pairs got into > a stupid contract and scored -1400. The team that got the good score was > not amused to have the board voided. But they accepted the TD's ruling > and at the end of the session they end up as the winners. > > In the pub afterwards, one of the winning team wondered if the ruling > should have been something different. He felt that it seemed wrong to be > deprived of a good score. > > He said that if it had been a straight match between the two teams there > would have been no choice but to void the board. There would have been > an option to redeal it; but the "good score" would have to be lost. > > However, as it was multiple teams, he felt that there was a case for > giving an assigned score based for the fouled table based on the average > of the other seven tables. > > I wasn't sure, so I'm asking here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Wed Nov 8 14:18:14 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:18:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian TD exam Message-ID: <01f301c70338$5995f440$3ea1ec51@admin> I would use laws 72 B 2, 84 E and 91. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 9 00:11:46 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:11:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4551ADAD.7020107@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael suggested: [snip] >I have often suggested that standard CoC should contain a >paragraph about what to do if on one of the tables of a >match no score can be obtained, or if the two scores >obtained are not on comparable deals. > >It is my opinion that one should resolve this in the >following manner: [snip] >On a fouled board, the 2 par scores can be determined >only by difference - thus, if a board is fouled by the >vulnerability only, scores of +650 and +420 can be >compared and the difference be given as 1 IMP. [snip] Richard Hills responds: It seems to me that such a CoC would be illegal, as it would be directly contrary to the Law 87 condition of "play the board in identical form". Whether or not the same game is reached at both tables after a fouling of vulnerability, differing vuls remain relevant to bidding decisions. For example, take this imps decision which arose last Sunday at the Tumbarumba Teams. Imps Dlr: South Vul: East-West <<<=== hint, hint :-) You, North, hold: 62 A AQJ52 KJ542 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1S Pass 2D Pass 3D 4H 5D Pass Pass 5H ? What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 9 07:00:21 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:00:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Belgian TD exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1GhiEy-2ER1Xs0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: >>This can't be right - and this is not what the >>laws say. Hans-Olof Hall?n: >I would use laws 72B2, 84E and 91. Peter Eidt: >>LHO of offender has in many cases the right to >>waive penalties and has very often the choice >>to accept the infringing call (Laws 25B1, 27A, >>29A, 53A, 55A). Richard Hills: (Also Law 35B, Law 47E2(a), Law 48B1, Law 54A, Law 54B, Law 60A1.) Peter Eidt: >>And you won't in any cases, where you give him >>the option to accept or decline the infringing >>call and his choice doesn't work well for his >>side, give him an adjustment afterwards, will >>you? >> >>astonished >>Peter Richard Hills: In my personal opinion, I think that Hans-Olof Hall?n and John (MadDog) Probst have a better grasp on the equity required by Law than Peter Eidt does. MadDog's signature question is, "What would a cheat do?" Suppose in the stem case of an entryless dummy, with 3NT either making or failing by seven tricks, it was the last board of a barometered Howell movement. With this one board to play, declarer's side is in first place, and the defending side is in second place. Declarer knows that scoring a bottom for 3NT -7 is just enough to win the event, _provided that_ the defenders also score a bottom letting 3NT make after a Law 53A split-score ruling by the hypothetical TD Peter Eidt. An ethical and attentive declarer plays legally, gives the defenders their top, and scores the silver medal while the defenders get the gold medal. A declarer who is either a cheat, or who is alternatively luckily inattentive at just the right moment, "accidentally" leads from the entryless dummy, with a cheat hoping for a split-score ruling of a bottom for both sides. Hypothetical TD Peter Eidt gives the luckily inattentive declarer the gold medal, but hypothetical TDs Hans-Olof Hall?n, John (MadDog) Probst and Richard Hills ensure that the defenders gain their equitable gold medal. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Not astonished, Lamont Cranston From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 9 09:13:07 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:13:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4552E313.8000309@hdw.be> You have to keep two things separate, Richard. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael suggested: > > [snip] > > >>I have often suggested that standard CoC should contain a >>paragraph about what to do if on one of the tables of a >>match no score can be obtained, or if the two scores >>obtained are not on comparable deals. >> >>It is my opinion that one should resolve this in the >>following manner: > > > [snip] > > >>On a fouled board, the 2 par scores can be determined >>only by difference - thus, if a board is fouled by the >>vulnerability only, scores of +650 and +420 can be >>compared and the difference be given as 1 IMP. > > > [snip] > > Richard Hills responds: > > It seems to me that such a CoC would be illegal, as it > would be directly contrary to the Law 87 condition of > "play the board in identical form". > But the problem we are solving is not the one of "playing the board in identical form" but the one of "scoring two boards played once each in slightly different forms". There is no Law that says that a CoC cannot have a paragraph devoted to this problem. Current CoC have such a paragraph: the board shall be scored +3,0 or -3 depending on the circumstances. Other paragraphs should be possible. > Whether or not the same game is reached at both tables > after a fouling of vulnerability, differing vuls remain > relevant to bidding decisions. > Of course they are - but my example was there for a case in which the TD determines that the vulnerability did not affect the outcome. In the CoC that I envisage, the TD should really be searching for a par score at both tables. This might be difficult. But by saying that the par scores are 200 points different, the TD can simply arrive at a difference of 30. > For example, take this imps decision which arose last > Sunday at the Tumbarumba Teams. > > Imps > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West <<<=== hint, hint :-) > > You, North, hold: > > 62 > A > AQJ52 > KJ542 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > 1S Pass 2D Pass > 3D 4H 5D Pass > Pass 5H ? > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > Of course this would not be a candidate for an easy decision on the "par" front. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 9 14:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Law 6D3: > > Subject to Law 22A, there must be a new shuffle and a > redeal when required by the Director for any reason > compatible with the Laws (but see Law 86C). IMO there are other considerations in a multiple teams event. There is a possibility of the new deal being a big swing potential board in an otherwise flat set (giving possible advantage to one offender or the other). I don't object to ordering a redeal but I don't think it is compulsory for the TD so to do if he prefers to rule the hand void. I'm assuming there's no possibility of a deliberate foul at the -1400 table being involved (e.g. the teams are using different physical boards). Tim From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 9 10:51:54 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:51:54 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Belgian_TD_exam_questio?= =?iso-8859-1?q?n____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= References: Message-ID: <4552FA3A.000007.95395@CERAP-MATSH1> Suppose in the stem case of an entryless dummy, with 3NT either making or failing by seven tricks, it was the last board of a barometered Howell movement. With this one board to play, declarer's side is in first place, and the defending side is in second place. Declarer knows that scoring a bottom for 3NT -7 is just enough to win the event, _provided that_ the defenders also score a bottom letting 3NT make after a Law 53A split-score ruling by the hypothetical TD Peter Eidt. An ethical and attentive declarer plays legally, gives the defenders their top, and scores the silver medal while the defenders get the gold medal. A declarer who is either a cheat, or who is alternatively luckily inattentive at just the right moment, "accidentally" leads from the entryless dummy, with a cheat hoping for a split-score ruling of a bottom for both sides. Hypothetical TD Peter Eidt gives the luckily inattentive declarer the gold medal, but hypothetical TDs Hans-Olof Hall?n, John (MadDog) Probst and Richard Hills ensure that the defenders gain their equitable gold medal. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? IBTD. The Laws and their application use the principle that - either you prove that the player cheats, and expel him ; - or you start with the principle that he doesn't, and that every error will be either inadvertent or a miscomprehension of the Laws. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061109/b18b464e/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061109/b18b464e/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20845 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061109/b18b464e/attachment-0001.gif From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Nov 9 20:01:23 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:01:23 +1300 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board In-Reply-To: <4551ADAD.7020107@hdw.be> References: <4551ADAD.7020107@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560611091101g76070c20g22d4f777b63a990f@mail.gmail.com> On 08/11/06, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hello Steve, > > this is something that the CoC should address. > > I have often suggested that standard CoC should contain a paragraph > about what to do if on one of the tables of a match no score can be > obtained, or if the two scores obtained are not on comparable deals. > > It is my opinion that one should resolve this in the following manner: > > -for every board played, at both tables, a par score is determined, > and this score is deducted from the table score. The two differences > are then added and the sum translated into IMPs. > On every normal board, the exact value of the par score is > unimportant, since it will cancel out with the same par score at the > other table. > On a fouled board, the 2 par scores can be determined only by > difference - thus, if aboard is fouled by the vulnerability only, > scores of +650 and +420 can be compared and the difference be given as > 1IMP. It is extremely simplistic to assume that +650 vul is 1 IMP better than +420 not vul. Wayne From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 9 20:48:48 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:48:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Belgian_TD_exam_questio?= =?iso-8859-1?q?n____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <4552FA3A.000007.95395@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <4552FA3A.000007.95395@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <2EB0CE51-7DC2-403D-A909-087B1EB2493D@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 9, 2006, at 4:51 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > The Laws and their application use the principle that > - either you prove that the player cheats, and expel him ; > - or you start with the principle that he doesn't, and that every > error will be either inadvertent or a miscomprehension of the Laws. > Then what is the point of the "could have known" provision in several laws? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 10 01:14:19 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:14:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 6D3: >>Subject to Law 22A, there must be a new shuffle and a >>redeal when required by the Director for any reason >>compatible with the Laws (but see Law 86C). Tim West-Meads: >IMO there are other considerations in a multiple teams >event. There is a possibility of the new deal being a >big swing potential board in an otherwise flat set >(giving possible advantage to one offender or the >other). WBF Code of Practice, page 4: "No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants in the outcome." Tim West-Meads: >I don't object to ordering a redeal but I don't think >it is compulsory for the TD so to do if he prefers to >rule the hand void. Richard Hills: Of course a redeal is not compulsory. For example, the tight schedule of a tournament may mean that there is not enough time to conveniently redeal and replay a board. But while most people play bridge in order to yell at their partners, some people play bridge for the fun of bidding and playing. For the benefit of fun lovers, the Laws are structured to minimise the number of voided boards (for example Law 15C). Therefore, if enough time is available, a TD should prefer to order a redeal rather than award an average to both sides. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 10 02:40:01 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:40:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4552E313.8000309@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >But the problem we are solving is not the one of "playing >the board in identical form" but the one of "scoring two >boards played once each in slightly different forms". Richard Hills: In my opinion, a board being "slightly different" is analogous to a woman being "slightly pregnant". Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 10 09:18:07 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:18:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560611091101g76070c20g22d4f777b63a990f@mail.gmail.com> References: <4551ADAD.7020107@hdw.be> <2a1c3a560611091101g76070c20g22d4f777b63a990f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <455435BF.2090905@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 08/11/06, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>Hello Steve, >> >>this is something that the CoC should address. >> >>I have often suggested that standard CoC should contain a paragraph >>about what to do if on one of the tables of a match no score can be >>obtained, or if the two scores obtained are not on comparable deals. >> >>It is my opinion that one should resolve this in the following manner: >> >>-for every board played, at both tables, a par score is determined, >>and this score is deducted from the table score. The two differences >>are then added and the sum translated into IMPs. >>On every normal board, the exact value of the par score is >>unimportant, since it will cancel out with the same par score at the >>other table. >>On a fouled board, the 2 par scores can be determined only by >>difference - thus, if aboard is fouled by the vulnerability only, >>scores of +650 and +420 can be compared and the difference be given as >>1IMP. > > > It is extremely simplistic to assume that +650 vul is 1 IMP better > than +420 not vul. > We all know that, and we also know that there are boards that are extremely simplistic. By giving the TD the option of scoring this board +1IMP, we bring the game to something the players can understand. What they cannot understand is that such a board is scrapped. Of course there is no problem with scrapping a board of this nature. No-one loses or gains anything. Maybe I should have given a different example. Suppose the 2 and 3 of clubs are exchanged between the hands of declarer and dummy. Not the same board, we should rule. OK, so by my proposed CoC, we determine a par score for both versions of the board. Would it not be normal for the TD to rule that the par scores on both versions are equal, and that therefore the outcome of the board is the same as if it had been scored normally? Don't you think that both teams would agree with such a ruling (always of course after inverstigating that overtaking the 2 with the 3 is not a factor of a winning play?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 10 09:19:53 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:19:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45543629.7050101@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > >>But the problem we are solving is not the one of "playing >>the board in identical form" but the one of "scoring two >>boards played once each in slightly different forms". > > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, a board being "slightly different" is > analogous to a woman being "slightly pregnant". > Completely wrong analogy, Richard. Boards can differ by a little (a 2 and 3 exchanged), something more (an ace and King exchanged) or a lot. You're not helping. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 10 09:50:37 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:50:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4552E313.8000309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c704a5$4c8ef260$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > But the problem we are solving is not the one of "playing the board in > identical form" but the one of "scoring two boards played once each in > slightly different forms". There is no Law that says that a CoC cannot > have a paragraph devoted to this problem. Current CoC have such a > paragraph: the board shall be scored +3,0 or -3 depending on the > circumstances. Other paragraphs should be possible. > > > Whether or not the same game is reached at both tables > > after a fouling of vulnerability, differing vuls remain > > relevant to bidding decisions. > > > > Of course they are - but my example was there for a case in which the > TD determines that the vulnerability did not affect the outcome. In > the CoC that I envisage, the TD should really be searching for a par > score at both tables. This might be difficult. But by saying that the > par scores are 200 points different, the TD can simply arrive at a > difference of 30. When a board is played with vulnerability and/or dealer different from how it is marked it is still "identical" to the same board as played correctly at the other table(s). The players at that table have committed an irregularity which should be handled according to relevant laws (not Law 87). For instance a score recorded as 420 on a vulnerable board must simply be corrected to 620. If however, one board for some reason has been marked incorrectly on vulnerability or dealer (or both) then that board is no longer "identical" to the other copies of the same board that are marked correctly, exactly as if two cards have been exchanged in one of the copies, and the Director is not at liberty to judge if the difference "did matter". He must apply Law 87. Any CoC that says otherwise is clearly illegal as being in direct conflict with Law 87. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 10 11:13:00 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:13:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45543629.7050101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c704b0$ce37d830$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 10. november 2006 09:20 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Herman De Wael: > > > > > >>But the problem we are solving is not the one of "playing > >>the board in identical form" but the one of "scoring two > >>boards played once each in slightly different forms". > > > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In my opinion, a board being "slightly different" is > > analogous to a woman being "slightly pregnant". > > > > Completely wrong analogy, Richard. Boards can differ by a little (a 2 > and 3 exchanged), something more (an ace and King exchanged) or a lot. Irrelevant. The Director is not at liberty to judge if a difference as little as a 2 and a 3 exchanged is material. Even with that little difference the boards are NOT identical and the Director must apply Law 87. (And any CoC that says different is illegal) Sven From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 10 11:54:02 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:54:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c704a5$4c8ef260$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c704a5$4c8ef260$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45545A4A.2070106@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>But the problem we are solving is not the one of "playing the board in >>identical form" but the one of "scoring two boards played once each in >>slightly different forms". There is no Law that says that a CoC cannot >>have a paragraph devoted to this problem. Current CoC have such a >>paragraph: the board shall be scored +3,0 or -3 depending on the >>circumstances. Other paragraphs should be possible. >> >> >>>Whether or not the same game is reached at both tables >>>after a fouling of vulnerability, differing vuls remain >>>relevant to bidding decisions. >>> >> >>Of course they are - but my example was there for a case in which the >>TD determines that the vulnerability did not affect the outcome. In >>the CoC that I envisage, the TD should really be searching for a par >>score at both tables. This might be difficult. But by saying that the >>par scores are 200 points different, the TD can simply arrive at a >>difference of 30. > > > When a board is played with vulnerability and/or dealer different from how > it is marked it is still "identical" to the same board as played correctly > at the other table(s). The players at that table have committed an > irregularity which should be handled according to relevant laws (not Law > 87). For instance a score recorded as 420 on a vulnerable board must simply > be corrected to 620. > > If however, one board for some reason has been marked incorrectly on > vulnerability or dealer (or both) then that board is no longer "identical" > to the other copies of the same board that are marked correctly, exactly as > if two cards have been exchanged in one of the copies, and the Director is > not at liberty to judge if the difference "did matter". He must apply Law > 87. > > Any CoC that says otherwise is clearly illegal as being in direct conflict > with Law 87. > > Regards Sven > Before writing something like this, Sven, please re-read L87 again. L87A just defines a fouled board. No change there. L87B clearly does not talk of team play, or it is completely senseless. And in talking about pair play, the Law itself refers to the CoC. In fact, the score of +3/-3 in team play is not mentioned in L87B. How can you then say that CoC which tries to establish a more equitable score for each team should be illegal? I really don't understand where some of you are coming from! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 10 12:47:31 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:47:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c704b0$ce37d830$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c704b0$ce37d830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <455466D3.9060007@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > (And any CoC that says different is illegal) > answered in another thread. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 10 12:56:57 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:56:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45545A4A.2070106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000601c704bf$53c62e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > When a board is played with vulnerability and/or dealer different from > how > > it is marked it is still "identical" to the same board as played > correctly > > at the other table(s). The players at that table have committed an > > irregularity which should be handled according to relevant laws (not Law > > 87). For instance a score recorded as 420 on a vulnerable board must > simply > > be corrected to 620. > > > > If however, one board for some reason has been marked incorrectly on > > vulnerability or dealer (or both) then that board is no longer > "identical" > > to the other copies of the same board that are marked correctly, exactly > as > > if two cards have been exchanged in one of the copies, and the Director > is > > not at liberty to judge if the difference "did matter". He must apply > Law > > 87. > > > > Any CoC that says otherwise is clearly illegal as being in direct > conflict > > with Law 87. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > Before writing something like this, Sven, please re-read L87 again. > > L87A just defines a fouled board. No change there. > > L87B clearly does not talk of team play, or it is completely > senseless. And in talking about pair play, the Law itself refers to > the CoC. > In fact, the score of +3/-3 in team play is not mentioned in L87B. > > How can you then say that CoC which tries to establish a more > equitable score for each team should be illegal? > > I really don't understand where some of you are coming from! I might return that "compliment". Law 87 does not say anything about the form of an event; in fact this is not any question for law 87 at all. Law 87 establishes the absolute requirement for any scoring in bridge that the boards to be scored must have been played under identical circumstances, which is they must be identical: All four hands must contain exactly the same 13 cards as the corresponding hands played at other tables. The vulnerabilities must be identical as must be the dealer on the board. If not all these conditions are satisfied then the boards are not identical and cannot be compared for scoring purposes - period. What L87B does is to advice how to score boards that have been played in one version at some tables and another version at other tables where normally all the results should be scored against each other. Obviously this does not apply to teams matches (except for butler scoring across the entire field). L87 implies an absolute prohibition against calculating any score from the comparison of two boards that are unequal in any respect, however minute the difference. No CoC is allowed to override this prohibition (L80F). Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 10 13:14:54 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:14:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Belgian_TD_exam__questi?= =?iso-8859-1?q?o_n____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <2EB0CE51-7DC2-403D-A909-087B1EB2493D@rochester.rr.com> References: <4552FA3A.000007.95395@CERAP-MATSH1> <4552FA3A.000007.95395@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061110131303.0290c120@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:48 9/11/2006 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Nov 9, 2006, at 4:51 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > The Laws and their application use the principle that > > - either you prove that the player cheats, and expel him ; > > - or you start with the principle that he doesn't, and that every > > error will be either inadvertent or a miscomprehension of the Laws. > > > >Then what is the point of the "could have known" provision in several >laws? According to my teacher, it allows us to say to the offender : "if you were a cheat, you'd have acted in the same way and that's the penalty for it ; we assume you aren't but, since you did the same, the penalty would be the same, except that no disciplinary action is needed ... this time" From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 10 14:14:31 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:14:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c704bf$53c62e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000601c704bf$53c62e30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45547B37.5080003@hdw.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>I really don't understand where some of you are coming from! > > > I might return that "compliment". > Yes, let's talk this one through. You'll see where I'm coming from. > Law 87 does not say anything about the form of an event; in fact this is not > any question for law 87 at all. > "he divides the scores into 2 groups" quite senseless in a match with only two tables. But let's proceed. > Law 87 establishes the absolute requirement for any scoring in bridge that > the boards to be scored must have been played under identical circumstances, > which is they must be identical: All four hands must contain exactly the > same 13 cards as the corresponding hands played at other tables. The > vulnerabilities must be identical as must be the dealer on the board. > No, L87A defines what a fouled board is, not how it is scored. L87B says that the TD shall divide the scores into 2 groups, and then nothing more. Nothing is being said about the board not being able to be scored. In fact, L87B says that the TD shall score the board. So your sentence above is not correct. The board is "scored". > If not all these conditions are satisfied then the boards are not identical > and cannot be compared for scoring purposes - period. > Yes, but that does not mean the board cannot be "scored". > What L87B does is to advice how to score boards that have been played in one > version at some tables and another version at other tables where normally > all the results should be scored against each other. Obviously this does not > apply to teams matches (except for butler scoring across the entire field). > No, L87B gives no such advice at all. The boards shall be divided into groups and each group shall be "scored" separately, but no advice is given other than to look up the regulations. > L87 implies an absolute prohibition against calculating any score from the > comparison of two boards that are unequal in any respect, however minute the > difference. No CoC is allowed to override this prohibition (L80F). > You might believe that L87 implies this, I don't. And what I am doing is not "comparing two boards that are unequal". I compare each sub-board against a par-score. All I am doing is writing a regulation about how many IMPs are to be given to either teams. L87 says nothing in this regard other than looking up regulations. At present, most regulations say that the scores will be +3/0/-3 or some other numbers. I merely write a different regulation. I see nothing in L87 that prohibits me from doing so. Please consider this post closely Sven, and don't be afraid to change your mind once in a while. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Fri Nov 10 15:05:07 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:05:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Foulde Board Message-ID: <005201c704d1$3bfa8be0$3ea1ec51@admin> To Richard Hills. You cannot compare 650 (vul) with 420 (non vul). The bidding could have been different depending on whether you are vul or not. From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 10 15:53:56 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:53:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45547B37.5080003@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000701c704d8$0e1a9a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Quote from EBL Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 (Law 87 was not changed in 1997 so this commentary is still fully relevant!): 87.1 Primarily in regard to pairs events, this Law is concerned to separate from the general scoring those tables which have played a board with one or more of the cards misplaced so that the hands, although thirteen cards each, did not correspond to the hands as generally played. (Even the exchange of two very small cards in the same suit requires the operation of this law; it is not open to any suggestion in such a case that it "did not matter".) 87.2 The sponsoring organization is required to produce regulations as to the method of computing the match points on that board for the pairs who have played the unintended distribution of the cards to the hands. 87.3 Conditions of contest for competitions often deal with the case of fouled boards in team events. 87.4 Directors faced with a fouled board should bear in mind the provisions of Law 7B and Laws 90B6 and 90B7. In Norway we have interpreted this to say that the Director is never at liberty to judge if the difference "did not matter", and this applies regardless of whether the event is for teams or pairs. Acknowledged that Law 87 is written primarily (not "exclusively"!) for pairs events but it just does not make sense to allow scoring of a fouled board against a regular board in one but not in the other type of event. Either the results from two boards are comparable for scoring or they are not. What difference can the type of event make in this respect? (Even in pairs events Law 87B is not applicable if only one table has played the fouled board!) Consequently we always cancel a fouled board in an event for teams (unless of course the identically fouled board has been played in both rooms) because there is no other board to compare it to for scoring. (The irregularity can hardly ever be discovered in time to order a redeal.) How to score the results within the same group of fouled boards is a matter of regulation, To score the result from a single instance of a fouled board together with the results from the other boards is not. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 10. november 2006 14:15 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hello Sven, > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> > >>I really don't understand where some of you are coming from! > > > > > > I might return that "compliment". > > > > Yes, let's talk this one through. You'll see where I'm coming from. > > > Law 87 does not say anything about the form of an event; in fact this is > not > > any question for law 87 at all. > > > > "he divides the scores into 2 groups" quite senseless in a match with > only two tables. But let's proceed. > > > Law 87 establishes the absolute requirement for any scoring in bridge > that > > the boards to be scored must have been played under identical > circumstances, > > which is they must be identical: All four hands must contain exactly the > > same 13 cards as the corresponding hands played at other tables. The > > vulnerabilities must be identical as must be the dealer on the board. > > > > No, L87A defines what a fouled board is, not how it is scored. > L87B says that the TD shall divide the scores into 2 groups, and then > nothing more. Nothing is being said about the board not being able to > be scored. In fact, L87B says that the TD shall score the board. So > your sentence above is not correct. The board is "scored". > > > If not all these conditions are satisfied then the boards are not > identical > > and cannot be compared for scoring purposes - period. > > > > Yes, but that does not mean the board cannot be "scored". > > > What L87B does is to advice how to score boards that have been played in > one > > version at some tables and another version at other tables where > normally > > all the results should be scored against each other. Obviously this does > not > > apply to teams matches (except for butler scoring across the entire > field). > > > > No, L87B gives no such advice at all. The boards shall be divided into > groups and each group shall be "scored" separately, but no advice is > given other than to look up the regulations. > > > L87 implies an absolute prohibition against calculating any score from > the > > comparison of two boards that are unequal in any respect, however minute > the > > difference. No CoC is allowed to override this prohibition (L80F). > > > > You might believe that L87 implies this, I don't. > And what I am doing is not "comparing two boards that are unequal". I > compare each sub-board against a par-score. > > All I am doing is writing a regulation about how many IMPs are to be > given to either teams. L87 says nothing in this regard other than > looking up regulations. At present, most regulations say that the > scores will be +3/0/-3 or some other numbers. I merely write a > different regulation. I see nothing in L87 that prohibits me from > doing so. > > Please consider this post closely Sven, and don't be afraid to change > your mind once in a while. > > > Sven > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Fri Nov 10 16:55:00 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:55:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Foulde Board References: <005201c704d1$3bfa8be0$3ea1ec51@admin> Message-ID: This whole subject is making me get sick. I think our laws are clear that you can't compare apples to oranges to arrive at scores. I have never done so, even when the hands differed only slightly. Now we have these self-styled gurus who are going to change our game by a bunch of convoluted reasoning and "what MIGHT have happened." I agree with you 100%. Best regards, Kojak, ----- Original Message ----- From: Hans-Olof Hall?n To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:05 AM Subject: [blml] Foulde Board To Richard Hills. You cannot compare 650 (vul) with 420 (non vul). The bidding could have been different depending on whether you are vul or not. _______________________________________________ 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/20061110/24bd42fc/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Nov 11 00:41:01 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 10:41:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Foulde Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hans-Olof Hall?n: >>To Richard Hills. >> >>You cannot compare 650 (vul) with 420 (non vul). The bidding >>could have been different depending on whether you are vul >>or not. William Schoder: >This whole subject is making me get sick. I think our laws >are clear that you can't compare apples to oranges to arrive >at scores. I have never done so, even when the hands >differed only slightly. Now we have these self-styled gurus >who are going to change our game by a bunch of convoluted >reasoning and "what MIGHT have happened." I agree with you >100%. > >Best regards, Kojak, Richard Nixon: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear." Richard Hills: I agree 100% with Hans-Olof, Kojak and Sven. It is the one and only Herman De Wael (not myself) who is comparing apples to oranges. Vulnerability was highly significant in an unusual way in the example I gave in the parallel thread: Imps Dlr: South Vul: East-West <<<=== hint, hint :-) You, North, hold: 62 A AQJ52 KJ542 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1S Pass 2D Pass 3D 4H 5D Pass Pass 5H ? What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? * * * In a competitive auction, when your opponents are vulnerable and your side is not, the normal strategy when you own the balance of power is to double rather than bid on. However, in this particular auction, your vul against not opponent is deliberately sticking his head into the noose, which suggests either: (a) West is a deranged over-bidder, or (b) West expects to make 5Hx. As it happens, both (a) and (b) were true, since I was West: Board 3 Dlr: South Vul: East-West 62 A AQJ52 KJ542 KQ8 5 KQJT86532 974 --- T764 Q A9863 AJT9743 --- K983 T7 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Richard Dorothy 1S Pass 2D Pass 3D 4H 5D Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass 5S X XX All pass North incorrectly thought that East-West was the side sacrificing, so redoubled for -200. But the redouble merely cost one imp, since the much more straightforward auction at the other table saw South open 4S and West then overcall 5H. Since, on the other-table auction, North's information was that West was _hoping_ to make 5H, not necessarily _expecting_ to make 5H, North decided to "take the money" with a penalty double. Unlucky. Of course, Kojak's critique of me as a self-styled guru with convoluted reasoning is also 100% correct, since if I had eschewed my too-clever first round pass with a nine card suit, I may well have scored +850 in 5Hx to flatten the board. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 11 01:55:34 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:55:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Foulde Board References: <005201c704d1$3bfa8be0$3ea1ec51@admin> Message-ID: <000001c70530$2533a860$35e8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000701c704d8$0e1a9a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45559D28.4040507@hdw.be> Sven, you continue to bring forth very correct argumentation and then draw the wrong conclusions: Sven Pran wrote: > Quote from EBL Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 (Law > 87 was not changed in 1997 so this commentary is still fully relevant!): > Indeed it is fully relevant, thanks for digging it up. > 87.1 Primarily in regard to pairs events, this Law is concerned to separate > from the general scoring those tables which have played a board with one or > more of the cards misplaced so that the hands, although thirteen cards each, > did not correspond to the hands as generally played. (Even the exchange of > two very small cards in the same suit requires the operation of this law; it > is not open to any suggestion in such a case that it "did not matter".) > "Primarily in regards to pairs events" > 87.2 The sponsoring organization is required to produce regulations as to > the method of computing the match points on that board for the pairs who > have played the unintended distribution of the cards to the hands. > > 87.3 Conditions of contest for competitions often deal with the case of > fouled boards in team events. > You see: the CoC deals with this. L87 does not. > 87.4 Directors faced with a fouled board should bear in mind the provisions > of Law 7B and Laws 90B6 and 90B7. > Indeed. And I do. > In Norway we have interpreted this to say that the Director is never at > liberty to judge if the difference "did not matter", and this applies > regardless of whether the event is for teams or pairs. Indeed, and I do not. > Acknowledged that Law > 87 is written primarily (not "exclusively"!) for pairs events but it just > does not make sense to allow scoring of a fouled board against a regular > board in one but not in the other type of event. > > Either the results from two boards are comparable for scoring or they are > not. What difference can the type of event make in this respect? (Even in > pairs events Law 87B is not applicable if only one table has played the > fouled board!) > And indeed, the two (different) boards are not compared to one another. > Consequently we always cancel a fouled board in an event for teams (unless No! This consequence does not follow. > of course the identically fouled board has been played in both rooms) > because there is no other board to compare it to for scoring. (The > irregularity can hardly ever be discovered in time to order a redeal.) > > How to score the results within the same group of fouled boards is a matter > of regulation, To score the result from a single instance of a fouled board > together with the results from the other boards is not. > Whyever not? I don't really see why I am not allowed to write a regulation that results in the score for team A to be +7 IMPs and team B -5 IMPs. After all, currently a regulation is in force that results in team A getting -3 IMPs and team B +3 IMPs. Have you fully understood what I am saying? It has happened in Menton, for example. Duplicated boards were in use, but no particular care was made to insure that the two tables of the same match were playing the same set of boards. So when a wrongly duplicated set made it to one area of the playing room, lots of matches were affected. Let's look at one instance. Let's say that at one table, board version 1 was on the table. NS, of team A, bid and make a slam. At the other table of the same match, board version 2 was played (no similarity whatsoever to version 1). At that table, NS for team B bid to game, but EW for team A sacrifice to 5C (doubled one down). Under the current regulations, the board is simply cancelled and the match counts one board less. Actually, at Menton, this left some matches with very few regular boards and these matches were replayed. Under my proposed regulation, I am allowed to rule as follows: on version 1, team A score +980. only 20% of the room are in slam, the others in game, so I rule the par score to be (20%x980 + 80%x480) +580. Team A score +400. on version 1, team A score +100 (to NS). only 10?of the room have found the sacrifice, so the par score becomes (90%x420 + 10%x100) +390. Team A score +290. So the total for team A is +690 = +12 IMPs. I have not compared the two boards to one another, but I have used comparisons to other boards that were completely the same. Surely you see that a score of +12 to team A is more equitable than one of 0IMPs under these circumstances. Please drop your pride and admit that such a regulation is possible, maybe even advisable. But surely not illegal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se Sat Nov 11 11:06:26 2006 From: hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:06:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fouled board Message-ID: <006d01c70579$2a78f3e0$3ea1ec51@admin> I seem to be mistaken. I am sorry if I have offended you, Richard Hills. Please, forgive me. From svenpran at online.no Sat Nov 11 12:36:03 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:36:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45559D28.4040507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c70585$91d800b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven, you continue to bring forth very correct argumentation and then > draw the wrong conclusions: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > Quote from EBL Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 > (Law > > 87 was not changed in 1997 so this commentary is still fully relevant!): > > > > Indeed it is fully relevant, thanks for digging it up. > > > 87.1 Primarily in regard to pairs events, this Law is concerned to > separate > > from the general scoring those tables which have played a board with one > or > > more of the cards misplaced so that the hands, although thirteen cards > each, > > did not correspond to the hands as generally played. (Even the exchange > of > > two very small cards in the same suit requires the operation of this > law; it > > is not open to any suggestion in such a case that it "did not matter".) > > > > "Primarily in regards to pairs events" > > > 87.2 The sponsoring organization is required to produce regulations as > to > > the method of computing the match points on that board for the pairs who > > have played the unintended distribution of the cards to the hands. > > > > 87.3 Conditions of contest for competitions often deal with the case of > > fouled boards in team events. > > > > You see: the CoC deals with this. L87 does not. > > > 87.4 Directors faced with a fouled board should bear in mind the > provisions > > of Law 7B and Laws 90B6 and 90B7. > > > > Indeed. And I do. > > > In Norway we have interpreted this to say that the Director is never at > > liberty to judge if the difference "did not matter", and this applies > > regardless of whether the event is for teams or pairs. > > Indeed, and I do not. > > > Acknowledged that Law > > 87 is written primarily (not "exclusively"!) for pairs events but it > just > > does not make sense to allow scoring of a fouled board against a regular > > board in one but not in the other type of event. > > > > Either the results from two boards are comparable for scoring or they > are > > not. What difference can the type of event make in this respect? (Even > in > > pairs events Law 87B is not applicable if only one table has played the > > fouled board!) > > > > And indeed, the two (different) boards are not compared to one another. > > > Consequently we always cancel a fouled board in an event for teams > (unless > > No! This consequence does not follow. > > > of course the identically fouled board has been played in both rooms) > > because there is no other board to compare it to for scoring. (The > > irregularity can hardly ever be discovered in time to order a redeal.) > > > > How to score the results within the same group of fouled boards is a > matter > > of regulation, To score the result from a single instance of a fouled > board > > together with the results from the other boards is not. > > > > Whyever not? > > I don't really see why I am not allowed to write a regulation that > results in the score for team A to be +7 IMPs and team B -5 IMPs. > > After all, currently a regulation is in force that results in team A > getting -3 IMPs and team B +3 IMPs. > > Have you fully understood what I am saying? Yes, and I wonder how you can, without any bothering about whether one or both teams are fully, partly or not at fault write that the current regulations dictate a score of +/- three imps to the two teams? Very seldom if ever can you blame any of the pairs at a table for playing a fouled board; usually they are both not at fault. But this is no reason to introduce a split score in a match for team by giving both teams +3 imps. And as replay with a substitute board is specifically prohibited in Law 86C we end up with just canceling the fouled board as the most natural consequence. > It has happened in Menton, for example. Duplicated boards were in use, > but no particular care was made to insure that the two tables of the > same match were playing the same set of boards. So when a wrongly > duplicated set made it to one area of the playing room, lots of > matches were affected. I despise such lousy practices. When we have team championship finals, team premier leagues or other high quality events for teams we always assure that the same physical boards are moved between the two tables in the same match. Anything else would be unthinkable here. > Let's look at one instance. > > Let's say that at one table, board version 1 was on the table. NS, of > team A, bid and make a slam. At the other table of the same match, > board version 2 was played (no similarity whatsoever to version 1). At > that table, NS for team B bid to game, but EW for team A sacrifice to > 5C (doubled one down). > > Under the current regulations, the board is simply cancelled and the > match counts one board less. Actually, at Menton, this left some > matches with very few regular boards and these matches were replayed. So much for Menton, I do indeed wonder about the quality of those that were responsible for that event? > Under my proposed regulation, I am allowed to rule as follows: > on version 1, team A score +980. only 20% of the room are in slam, the > others in game, so I rule the par score to be (20%x980 + 80%x480) > +580. Team A score +400. > on version 1, team A score +100 (to NS). only 10?of the room have > found the sacrifice, so the par score becomes (90%x420 + 10%x100) > +390. Team A score +290. > So the total for team A is +690 = +12 IMPs. > > I have not compared the two boards to one another, but I have used > comparisons to other boards that were completely the same. > > Surely you see that a score of +12 to team A is more equitable than > one of 0IMPs under these circumstances. > > Please drop your pride and admit that such a regulation is possible, > maybe even advisable. But surely not illegal. I would never in my whole life have imagined that you (as I believe to be a serious and experienced director) fancy what we call "Facit Bridge" (Scoring boards against par scores) in serious events of quality! One of the finer issues with teams play is that your results depend only on how you and your teammates together perform against your opponents. What happens in other matches is completely irrelevant. Don't worry about my pride. In this case I am only reflecting the official policy in Norway. Incidentally I have failed to see any support at all for your view in the other postings on this thread? Could it be that you are on a dead end track? Sven From schoderb at msn.com Sat Nov 11 13:18:13 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:18:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Foulde Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: I apologize to you, Mr. Hills, -- in no way did I think about you when I sent my missive about gurus. In fact, your "bridge" postings are most always correct and ad rem to the game -- some of your "Legal" postings have made me wonder at times if you are ignoring the forest because of all those trees in the way. On balance, however, your contributions are most valid. I'm sorry that this doesn't apply to others, some of whom have positions within their NBOs and Zones that make them dangerous to our game. I resent using the laws to "look around and let's see if we can find something to make the obvious wrong" as exercises in sophistry and ego. I'll be more careful and direct when shooting from the hip in the future. Best regards, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Foulde Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hans-Olof Hall?n: >>To Richard Hills. >> >>You cannot compare 650 (vul) with 420 (non vul). The bidding >>could have been different depending on whether you are vul >>or not. William Schoder: >This whole subject is making me get sick. I think our laws >are clear that you can't compare apples to oranges to arrive >at scores. I have never done so, even when the hands >differed only slightly. Now we have these self-styled gurus >who are going to change our game by a bunch of convoluted >reasoning and "what MIGHT have happened." I agree with you >100%. > >Best regards, Kojak, Richard Nixon: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear." Richard Hills: I agree 100% with Hans-Olof, Kojak and Sven. It is the one and only Herman De Wael (not myself) who is comparing apples to oranges. Vulnerability was highly significant in an unusual way in the example I gave in the parallel thread: Imps Dlr: South Vul: East-West <<<=== hint, hint :-) You, North, hold: 62 A AQJ52 KJ542 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 1S Pass 2D Pass 3D 4H 5D Pass Pass 5H ? What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? * * * In a competitive auction, when your opponents are vulnerable and your side is not, the normal strategy when you own the balance of power is to double rather than bid on. However, in this particular auction, your vul against not opponent is deliberately sticking his head into the noose, which suggests either: (a) West is a deranged over-bidder, or (b) West expects to make 5Hx. As it happens, both (a) and (b) were true, since I was West: Board 3 Dlr: South Vul: East-West 62 A AQJ52 KJ542 KQ8 5 KQJT86532 974 --- T764 Q A9863 AJT9743 --- K983 T7 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Richard Dorothy 1S Pass 2D Pass 3D 4H 5D Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass 5S X XX All pass North incorrectly thought that East-West was the side sacrificing, so redoubled for -200. But the redouble merely cost one imp, since the much more straightforward auction at the other table saw South open 4S and West then overcall 5H. Since, on the other-table auction, North's information was that West was _hoping_ to make 5H, not necessarily _expecting_ to make 5H, North decided to "take the money" with a penalty double. Unlucky. Of course, Kojak's critique of me as a self-styled guru with convoluted reasoning is also 100% correct, since if I had eschewed my too-clever first round pass with a nine card suit, I may well have scored +850 in 5Hx to flatten the board. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Nov 11 22:45:20 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:45:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45559D28.4040507@hdw.be> References: <000701c704d8$0e1a9a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45559D28.4040507@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 11/11/06, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven, you continue to bring forth very correct argumentation and then > draw the wrong conclusions: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > Quote from EBL Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 (Law > > 87 was not changed in 1997 so this commentary is still fully relevant!): > > > > Indeed it is fully relevant, thanks for digging it up. > > > 87.1 Primarily in regard to pairs events, this Law is concerned to separate > > from the general scoring those tables which have played a board with one or > > more of the cards misplaced so that the hands, although thirteen cards each, > > did not correspond to the hands as generally played. (Even the exchange of > > two very small cards in the same suit requires the operation of this law; it > > is not open to any suggestion in such a case that it "did not matter".) > > > > "Primarily in regards to pairs events" > > > 87.2 The sponsoring organization is required to produce regulations as to > > the method of computing the match points on that board for the pairs who > > have played the unintended distribution of the cards to the hands. > > > > 87.3 Conditions of contest for competitions often deal with the case of > > fouled boards in team events. > > > > You see: the CoC deals with this. L87 does not. > > > 87.4 Directors faced with a fouled board should bear in mind the provisions > > of Law 7B and Laws 90B6 and 90B7. > > > > Indeed. And I do. > > > In Norway we have interpreted this to say that the Director is never at > > liberty to judge if the difference "did not matter", and this applies > > regardless of whether the event is for teams or pairs. > > Indeed, and I do not. > > > Acknowledged that Law > > 87 is written primarily (not "exclusively"!) for pairs events but it just > > does not make sense to allow scoring of a fouled board against a regular > > board in one but not in the other type of event. > > > > Either the results from two boards are comparable for scoring or they are > > not. What difference can the type of event make in this respect? (Even in > > pairs events Law 87B is not applicable if only one table has played the > > fouled board!) > > > > And indeed, the two (different) boards are not compared to one another. > > > Consequently we always cancel a fouled board in an event for teams (unless > > No! This consequence does not follow. > > > of course the identically fouled board has been played in both rooms) > > because there is no other board to compare it to for scoring. (The > > irregularity can hardly ever be discovered in time to order a redeal.) > > > > How to score the results within the same group of fouled boards is a matter > > of regulation, To score the result from a single instance of a fouled board > > together with the results from the other boards is not. > > > > Whyever not? > > I don't really see why I am not allowed to write a regulation that > results in the score for team A to be +7 IMPs and team B -5 IMPs. > > After all, currently a regulation is in force that results in team A > getting -3 IMPs and team B +3 IMPs. > > Have you fully understood what I am saying? > > It has happened in Menton, for example. Duplicated boards were in use, > but no particular care was made to insure that the two tables of the > same match were playing the same set of boards. So when a wrongly > duplicated set made it to one area of the playing room, lots of > matches were affected. > > Let's look at one instance. > > Let's say that at one table, board version 1 was on the table. NS, of > team A, bid and make a slam. At the other table of the same match, > board version 2 was played (no similarity whatsoever to version 1). At > that table, NS for team B bid to game, but EW for team A sacrifice to > 5C (doubled one down). > > Under the current regulations, the board is simply cancelled and the > match counts one board less. Actually, at Menton, this left some > matches with very few regular boards and these matches were replayed. > > Under my proposed regulation, I am allowed to rule as follows: > on version 1, team A score +980. only 20% of the room are in slam, the > others in game, so I rule the par score to be (20%x980 + 80%x480) > +580. Team A score +400. > on version 1, team A score +100 (to NS). only 10?of the room have > found the sacrifice, so the par score becomes (90%x420 + 10%x100) > +390. Team A score +290. > So the total for team A is +690 = +12 IMPs. Herman, Herman, Herman. You can never compute an artificial, non-existent score. You have to compute the IMP-difference for each score, do the precentages on the IMPs,and add up. Given that you were allowed to make such a regulation, the score should be: Version 1: Team A score: 80% of 11 IMPs (IMP-difference between game and slam), equals 8.8 IMPs Version 2: Team A score: 90% of 8 IMPs (IMP-difference between game and save), equals 7.2 IMPs. Team A wind 8.8+7.2 IMPs, or 16 IMPs totally. However, deciding par on a board for a whole field, and then saying that this is the par for a single table, is totally insane. To decide par for one table, you had to know the bidding system of both involved pairs, their evalutation technic and more. Even if only 20% of the field bid to a slam, for some pairs it would be an absolute certainty to bid to the same slam. And for others it would be absolutely impossible to reach the same slam. So, even if one considered your regulation legal, it would be far from advisable. And I can tell you for sure, I would never agree to play a tournament under such a regulation. If it is impossible to compare my score, then please don't implement methods where my bidding and/or playing skills are immaterial to my result. I will have nothing of it. That just isn't bridge. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > I have not compared the two boards to one another, but I have used > comparisons to other boards that were completely the same. > > Surely you see that a score of +12 to team A is more equitable than > one of 0IMPs under these circumstances. > > Please drop your pride and admit that such a regulation is possible, > maybe even advisable. But surely not illegal. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 12 04:46:25 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:46:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] Foul de Lawbook (was Board) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hans-Olof Hall?n: >>I seem to be mistaken. I am sorry if I have offended you, Richard Hills. >>Please, forgive me. William Schoder: >I apologize to you, Mr. Hills, -- in no way did I think about you when I >sent my missive about gurus. In fact, your "bridge" postings are most >always correct and ad rem to the game -- some of your "Legal" postings >have made me wonder at times if you are ignoring the forest because of >all those trees in the way. On balance, however, your contributions are >most valid. I'm sorry that this doesn't apply to others, some of whom >have positions within their NBOs and Zones that make them dangerous to >our game. I resent using the laws to "look around and let's see if we can >find something to make the obvious wrong" as exercises in sophistry and >ego. I'll be more careful and direct when shooting from the hip in the >future. > >Best regards, > >Kojak Richard Hills: No offence was taken guys; you may have missed the smiley :-) at the end of my last posting, which posting was partly an exercise in self- deprecating humour. (In my opinion, such poking fun at yourself is the best form of humour.) However, Kojak has raised an interesting "forest and trees" point which I believe is worthy of further debate on this list. In the November 1999 editorial of the Bridge World, blmler (and now ACBL Laws Commission member) Adam Wildavsky was quoted: "What we should strive for is consistent implementation of the rules, along with continuous efforts to educate the players and to clarify and to simplify the rules. When the players lose confidence in the system, we are faced with extraordinary statements such as this one (from the annals of the Daily Bulletins of various Trails, Volume 5, Number 9): 'Before play began, the [two] captains agreed to let the bridge at the table decide the victor rather than technicalities or appeals.' "What could this possibly mean? What are the laws of the game but technicalities? Perhaps the players believe they can divine some intrinsic 'spirit of the laws', and let it guide their actions, but the proper way to determine the intention of the laws is to read them." Ergo, I believe that it is the responsibility of the TD to follow those "trees" and give rulings in accordance with what the laws actually say. If the TD's letter-of-the-law rulings are contrary to the "forest", otherwise known as the "intrinsic spirit of the laws", then the WBF LC can join Cassius in saying: "Men at some times are master of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our directors' rulings, But in ourselves, since they are underlings." The only times when the "forest" / "intrinsic spirit of the laws" can be relevant are at those times when the WBF LC is conducting its decennial revision of what the Lawbook actually says. If the 2008 Lawbook does not say what the WBF LC intends it to say, then beware the ides of March. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 13 05:32:03 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:32:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c70585$91d800b0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: >Very seldom if ever can you blame any of the pairs at >a table for playing a fouled board; usually they are >both not at fault. But this is no reason to introduce >a split score in a match for team by giving both >teams +3 imps. And as replay with a substitute board >is specifically prohibited in Law 86C we end up with >just cancelling the fouled board as the most natural >consequence. Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, Sven's assertion of "no reason" is incorrect in _multiple_ imp teams and/or imp pairs. A few years ago, in Australia's most prestigious imp pairs event, each table in the 12-table round-final (with victory point scoring) had its own set of duplicated boards for each 14-board match. But at one table during one of those matches, nine of the boards did not comply with Law 2. Since the sponsoring organisation (not the players) was at fault for the fouled boards, both sides at that table were awarded +3 imps for each fouled board, a net of +27 imps for each side, resulting in a split VP score in that match which saw both sides "win". Of course, in a _knockout_ imps match, +3 imps to both sides does not split the score. But if in a knockout match nine boards were discovered to be fouled during the final scoreup, it seems to me that nine redeals and replays would be permissible. It seems to me that the Law 86C prohibition on a redeal when the result is known applies only to a _single_ fouled board, not to _many_ fouled boards. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Mon Nov 13 10:34:21 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:34:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000701c704d8$0e1a9a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45559D28.4040507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <45583C1D.4060302@hdw.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > > Herman, Herman, Herman. You can never compute an artificial, > non-existent score. Yet this is what we do when scoring Butler. Why do you insist that something is "not done" when I propose a new method of scoring. > You have to compute the IMP-difference for each > score, do the precentages on the IMPs,and add up. > That is indeed how some methods work. Not this one though. > Given that you were allowed to make such a regulation, the score should be: > Version 1: > Team A score: 80% of 11 IMPs (IMP-difference between game and slam), > equals 8.8 IMPs > Version 2: > Team A score: 90% of 8 IMPs (IMP-difference between game and save), > equals 7.2 IMPs. > > Team A wind 8.8+7.2 IMPs, or 16 IMPs totally. > I arrived at 14 IMPs, and I believe that would better reflect the phenomenon that we all know that when we do something good on the sam board at both tables, the net result is less than we would have if it had happened in two different boards. Also, my method insures that if you apply the same method to two boards that are completely the same, the result is the same as in ordinary scoring. Your formula does not do that. Which is why I like this method. There is no different formula for a fouled board of for a normal one. > However, deciding par on a board for a whole field, and then saying > that this is the par for a single table, is totally insane. > Why should this be insane? > To decide par for one table, you had to know the bidding system of > both involved pairs, their evalutation technic and more. Even if only > 20% of the field bid to a slam, for some pairs it would be an absolute > certainty to bid to the same slam. And for others it would be > absolutely impossible to reach the same slam. > Of course you would need to look at all those things. Did I ever say that you would not? > So, even if one considered your regulation legal, it would be far from > advisable. That is another matter entirely. Do you want the score for that board that I mentioned to be +14/-14 or +3/+3? Which is the more advisable result? > And I can tell you for sure, I would never agree to play a tournament > under such a regulation. > Whyever not? Your score would be better suited to your actual play! > If it is impossible to compare my score, then please don't implement > methods where my bidding and/or playing skills are immaterial to my > result. I will have nothing of it. That just isn't bridge. > Who said that your bidding or playing skills are not taken into account? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From schoderb at msn.com Mon Nov 13 13:45:23 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:45:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Below in a snip from R. Hills we find sanity. There is a law. There is a problem. The law covers that problem. We apply the law. Law 86C is specific to one board. It takes into consideration that if a team knows what it needs on a single board to win a match there will be little "bridge" played in a replay. It does NOT by any sane application of reason mean that we should devise spurious and arcane schemes for when 9 boards are fouled as they appear to have done in Australia. Hills' suggestion of a 9 board replay makes sense to the laws (Law 12 A first paragraph) and makes bridge sense. The lack of that kind of reasoning is where we end up with two captains making a kind of remark about "let's win or lose at the table and not by penalties, rulings, etc." or some such. The thinking in that remark -as inappropriate as it is - shows lack of respect and confidence in the past performance of the TDs in question. It also -- taking H. DeWael's proposals and thinking into account -- exemplify what I was talking about when I referenced 'looking for something to produce an argument when one does not exist.' and thereby show brilliance. Kojak > snipped: > Richard Hills quibbles: > > > Of course, in a _knockout_ imps match, +3 imps to both > sides does not split the score. But if in a knockout > match nine boards were discovered to be fouled during > the final scoreup, it seems to me that nine redeals > and replays would be permissible. It seems to me that > the Law 86C prohibition on a redeal when the result is > known applies only to a _single_ fouled board, not to > _many_ fouled boards. > > > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 16:26:11 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:26:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45583C1D.4060302@hdw.be> References: <000701c704d8$0e1a9a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45559D28.4040507@hdw.be> <45583C1D.4060302@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 13/11/06, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > > > > > > Herman, Herman, Herman. You can never compute an artificial, > > non-existent score. > > Yet this is what we do when scoring Butler. Why do you insist that > something is "not done" when I propose a new method of scoring. I know that, and I apologize for being somewhat categoric there. Butler isn't a good scoring method, normalized cross-imps is preferable. But the difference normally isn't big > > > You have to compute the IMP-difference for each > > score, do the precentages on the IMPs,and add up. > > > > That is indeed how some methods work. Not this one though. But since the IMP-scale is not linear, your method doesn't really make sense. Just compare to MP scoring. Giving a score 20% above 480 in a field wher 80% made 480 and 20% made 980 would mean nearly 80% on the board for the pair involved. While giving 20% of the MP score for 980 added to 80% of the MP-score for 480 would give a totally different result. And I've spotted an error in my computing below. Since both results involve half the match, the total should have been halved, that is: the total should be 8 IMP's to team A on the board, not 16. > > > Given that you were allowed to make such a regulation, the score should be: > > Version 1: > > Team A score: 80% of 11 IMPs (IMP-difference between game and slam), > > equals 8.8 IMPs > > Version 2: > > Team A score: 90% of 8 IMPs (IMP-difference between game and save), > > equals 7.2 IMPs. > > > > Team A wind 8.8+7.2 IMPs, or 16 IMPs totally. > > > > I arrived at 14 IMPs, and I believe that would better reflect the > phenomenon that we all know that when we do something good on the sam > board at both tables, the net result is less than we would have if it > had happened in two different boards. > > Also, my method insures that if you apply the same method to two > boards that are completely the same, the result is the same as in > ordinary scoring. Your formula does not do that. Which is why I like > this method. There is no different formula for a fouled board of for a > normal one. > > > However, deciding par on a board for a whole field, and then saying > > that this is the par for a single table, is totally insane. > > > > Why should this be insane? Look at what I said below. > > > To decide par for one table, you had to know the bidding system of > > both involved pairs, their evalutation technic and more. Even if only > > 20% of the field bid to a slam, for some pairs it would be an absolute > > certainty to bid to the same slam. And for others it would be > > absolutely impossible to reach the same slam. > > > > Of course you would need to look at all those things. Did I ever say > that you would not? Maybe you meant to look at those things. However, nothing at all in your post suggest any of the sort. On the contrary, your post strongly implied the opposite, since you didn't mention it at all. > > > So, even if one considered your regulation legal, it would be far from > > advisable. > > That is another matter entirely. Do you want the score for that board > that I mentioned to be +14/-14 or +3/+3? Which is the more advisable > result? Herman, if you don't understand that deciding a par score for both tables in these circumstances is quite impossilbe, so be it. I'll not argue with you over that, since there's no point to it. If the two tables have played different boards, there's no comparable results. And the board should be scrapped for this match. The board should be scored in a way that reflect who's at fault for this - that is: +3/+3, +3/-3 or -3/-3 IMP's. > > > And I can tell you for sure, I would never agree to play a tournament > > under such a regulation. > > > > Whyever not? Your score would be better suited to your actual play! It would not, since my teammates didn't play the same board as I did. Nobody knows what might have happened if both tables played the same board. And the only thing that counts in team play is what you and your teammates did - at the same board. Let me tell you what happened to me at one board in the Norwegian Premier League this weekend. Our opponents had a double fit in the majors, my partner a minor 2-suiter and I had diamond support and Q9 of clubs. Both sides where vulnerable. Our opponents where cold for 4 hearts and we could be held to 9 tricks in diamonds. So the optimal result would be to play 5 diamonds doubled in our direction, down 2. That is 500 our opponents. What happened was that I became delaerer in 4Dx. After the correct lead and 2nd trick switch, my RHO fell asleep, and miscounted their defencive tricks. He let a low club lead from dummy go to my queen, and I made the contract, for +710. A BIG result for us. And a huge score in the butler scoring. But we played teams, and in our match we did in fact lose 4 IMP's since our teammates had doubled 3 diamonds. And also ducked the club from dummy, since playing for the club queen with his partner was the only way to beat 3Dx. In retrospect, raising with the club king would have won us 2 IMP's. This only illustrates the problems you'll run into when using your method. Please don't! -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > If it is impossible to compare my score, then please don't implement > > methods where my bidding and/or playing skills are immaterial to my > > result. I will have nothing of it. That just isn't bridge. > > > > Who said that your bidding or playing skills are not taken into account? > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 13 19:37:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:37 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > >IMO there are other considerations in a multiple teams > >event. There is a possibility of the new deal being a > >big swing potential board in an otherwise flat set > >(giving possible advantage to one offender or the > >other). > > WBF Code of Practice, page 4: > > "No account is to be taken of the interests of other > contestants in the outcome." Taken from the code of practice relating to appeals just after a statement about how only a contestant directly involved in the board may appeal. Not exactly relevant IMO. In the "new deal" case it's not even the interests of other contestants which is of concern - I'm trying to minimise the risk of either of the parties who offended by spoiling the board from gaining thereby. Indeed even if it is a time issue which prevents a redeal that time issue mostly only exists because of the "interests of other contestants". Tim From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 01:50:52 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:50:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. Message-ID: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> We have 3 "Club TD's" (Posting here I had to put these quotes ;) ) at the club who know a bit about the rules. They are also playing at the club tournement and as a consequence they don't have the required time to direct. MP's: S/All South opens 1NT (15-17) and West passes. Then South corrects to 1C and West (one of the playing TD's) tells South that by making this change he will score a maximum of 40%. The other TD's are not called because they are busy playing. West tells the table he keeps his rights and bids 1S. South has 4=4=3=2 and 14 HCP. NS play 5 card majors and 4 card diamonds, making 1C the systematic bid with this hand. The final contract is 3NT by South and this makes for an absulote top because EW don't cash their Club tricks (East had a 6-card Club) When entering the score West sees that this will be a zero for them and calls you. Asking South why he changed 1NT to 1C he tells you that he mispulled, but this is not really convincing to you. This is all info I remember. Hope it is sufficient. How do you rule? Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's? Thanks, Koen From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 14 03:13:01 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:13:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. References: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <002301c70792$76ee8030$6400a8c0@rota> Koen writes: > We have 3 "Club TD's" (Posting here I had to put these quotes ;) ) at > the club who know a bit about the rules. They are also playing at the > club tournement and as a consequence they don't have the required time > to direct. > > MP's: S/All > South opens 1NT (15-17) and West passes. > Then South corrects to 1C and West (one of the playing TD's) tells South > that by making this change he will score a maximum of 40%. The other > TD's are not called because they are busy playing. West tells the table > he keeps his rights and bids 1S. This is an error under L25B. South is not allowed to change his call after West has passed, unless he mispulled. (If he did mispull, he is allowed to correct under L25A with no penalty.) When there is a TD at the table and the ruling is mechanical (as L25B should be), there is no need to call another playing TD, particularly since this might spoil the board for another table. I would thus rule that both sides fulfilled their obligation to call the TD for an irregularity. The TD (West) made an incorrect ruling, so we use L82C. That is, we determine the likely results if South had been required to open 1NT with the 1C call treated as UI, and give both sides the most favorable result that is likely. > South has 4=4=3=2 and 14 HCP. NS play 5 card majors and 4 card diamonds, > making 1C the systematic bid with this hand. > The final contract is 3NT by South and this makes for an absulote top > because EW don't cash their Club tricks (East had a 6-card Club) We need to see the hands to determine the likely results. For example, if South had opened 1NT, would East have been able to double a 2C bid to get a club lead against the eventual 3NT contract? If so, we might adjust to 3NT going down, or if both double and pass are likely calls, adjust to 3NT going down for E-W and 3NT making for N-S. The 1C bid is AI to E-W, and would still be AI if the ruling had been correct. It's just unlucky that it deterred E-W from attacking clubs. (I don't believe that South could have known that the error would work to his advantage.) > When entering the score West sees that this will be a zero for them and > calls you. > Asking South why he changed 1NT to 1C he tells you that he mispulled, > but this is not really convincing to you. > > This is all info I remember. Hope it is sufficient. How do you rule? > Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's? Yes, it matters. If players make a ruling at their table without calling the TD, then both sides have infracted L9B, and when we adjust to what would happen with a correct TD ruling, we treat both sides as offending. The adjustment might then be to 3NT going down for N-S and 3NT making for E-W. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 14 04:09:24 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:09:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <002301c70792$76ee8030$6400a8c0@rota> References: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> <002301c70792$76ee8030$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <2ED014AF-8339-4FF3-8D61-B148E61C78EB@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 13, 2006, at 9:13 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > When there is a TD at the table and the ruling is mechanical (as > L25B should > be), there is no need to call another playing TD, particularly > since this > might spoil the board for another table. I would thus rule that > both sides > fulfilled their obligation to call the TD for an irregularity. > >> Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's? > > Yes, it matters. If players make a ruling at their table without > calling > the TD, then both sides have infracted L9B, and when we adjust to > what would > happen with a correct TD ruling, we treat both sides as offending. > The > adjustment might then be to 3NT going down for N-S and 3NT making > for E-W. IMO, the *first* rule for a playing TD is that he should *never* make a ruling at his own table (or at his team's other table in a team game) if there is another TD available. From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 04:30:37 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:30:37 -0600 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. References: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> <002301c70792$76ee8030$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Grabiner" To: "koen" ; Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. > Koen writes: > >> We have 3 "Club TD's" (Posting here I had to put these quotes ;) ) at >> the club who know a bit about the rules. They are also playing at the >> club tournement and as a consequence they don't have the required time >> to direct. >> >> MP's: S/All >> South opens 1NT (15-17) and West passes. >> Then South corrects to 1C and West (one of the playing TD's) tells South >> that by making this change he will score a maximum of 40%. The other >> TD's are not called because they are busy playing. West tells the table >> he keeps his rights and bids 1S. > > This is an error under L25B. South is not allowed to change his call > after > West has passed, unless he mispulled. (If he did mispull, he is allowed > to > correct under L25A with no penalty.) > > When there is a TD at the table and the ruling is mechanical (as L25B > should > be), there is no need to call another playing TD, particularly since this > might spoil the board for another table. I would thus rule that both > sides > fulfilled their obligation to call the TD for an irregularity. > > The TD (West) made an incorrect ruling, so we use L82C. That is, we > determine the likely results if South had been required to open 1NT with > the > 1C call treated as UI, and give both sides the most favorable result that > is > likely. > >> South has 4=4=3=2 and 14 HCP. NS play 5 card majors and 4 card diamonds, >> making 1C the systematic bid with this hand. >> The final contract is 3NT by South and this makes for an absulote top >> because EW don't cash their Club tricks (East had a 6-card Club) > > We need to see the hands to determine the likely results. For example, if > South had opened 1NT, would East have been able to double a 2C bid to get > a > club lead against the eventual 3NT contract? If so, we might adjust to > 3NT > going down, or if both double and pass are likely calls, adjust to 3NT > going > down for E-W and 3NT making for N-S. > > The 1C bid is AI to E-W, and would still be AI if the ruling had been > correct. It's just unlucky that it deterred E-W from attacking clubs. (I > don't believe that South could have known that the error would work to his > advantage.) > >> When entering the score West sees that this will be a zero for them and >> calls you. >> Asking South why he changed 1NT to 1C he tells you that he mispulled, >> but this is not really convincing to you. >> >> This is all info I remember. Hope it is sufficient. How do you rule? >> Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's? > > Yes, it matters. If players make a ruling at their table without calling > the TD, then both sides have infracted L9B, and when we adjust to what > would > happen with a correct TD ruling, we treat both sides as offending. The > adjustment might then be to 3NT going down for N-S and 3NT making for E-W. I think that the muck is a bit deeper. I believe that the role of W here is that of player [there being other club directors in the room] that makes an incorrect ruling by a player. As W alludes to the 40% provision of L25B4b it can be inferred that L25A has not been satisfied [NS did not protest it] for correcting a call without penalty. I conclude that the 1C call was not a correction. As W has called subsequent 1N then 1C is not permitted [L25B] to be a change of call. What it is an IB that is a COOT. Ruling that it is a change of call does not change the fact that it is a COOT. Apparently the auction continued whereby W condoned [L27A & L29A] S's COOT/IB without penalty by his own behest and misunderstanding. L11A speaks somewhat to the matter of the NOS misleading the OS by making a table ruling- the effect being that EW suffer at west's own hand [or mouth as may be]. As such there are no 'rights' to reserve by W. As the COOT was condoned without penalty there is very little recourse to EW- namely if an infraction of L16 took place. However, since 1N was legal, and 1C was legalized by condoning then there were no calls canceled that provide UI so UI would need to derive from a different source. Anyway, EW had the opportunity to benefit from NS poor bidding so the question of damage is mute. And EW can moan and groan about their culpability in what led to result stands. regards roger pewick ps Things would be much different had W not accepted the 1C. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 14 04:35:55 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:35:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. References: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com><002301c70792$76ee8030$6400a8c0@rota> <2ED014AF-8339-4FF3-8D61-B148E61C78EB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002f01c7079e$34d72290$6400a8c0@rota> Ed Reppert writes: > On Nov 13, 2006, at 9:13 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> When there is a TD at the table and the ruling is mechanical (as >> L25B should >> be), there is no need to call another playing TD, particularly >> since this >> might spoil the board for another table. I would thus rule that >> both sides >> fulfilled their obligation to call the TD for an irregularity. >> >>> Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's? >> >> Yes, it matters. If players make a ruling at their table without >> calling >> the TD, then both sides have infracted L9B, and when we adjust to >> what would >> happen with a correct TD ruling, we treat both sides as offending. >> The >> adjustment might then be to 3NT going down for N-S and 3NT making >> for E-W. > > IMO, the *first* rule for a playing TD is that he should *never* make > a ruling at his own table (or at his team's other table in a team > game) if there is another TD available. If there were a non-playing TD, I would agree, but with the other TD's playing, there is the risk of making the board unplayable. When a ruling is automatic (lead out of turn, insufficient bid, established revoke), it doesn't do much harm for the TD to make a ruling at his own table, particularly at a club game. L25B should have been an automatic ruling; West could have looked it up in the book and said, "You may not change your call, and the 1C bid you tried to correct it to is UI to your partner." (He would then need to call another TD later if the UI might have been an issue, but that could wait until the other TD's had played the board.) This still doesn't excuse West for not getting the ruling correct, but a non-playing TD could have made the same error equally well. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 14 08:00:58 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:00:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >>>IMO there are other considerations in a multiple teams >>>event. There is a possibility of the new deal being a >>>big swing potential board in an otherwise flat set >>>(giving possible advantage to one offender or the >>>other). WBF Code of Practice, page 4: >>"No account is to be taken of the interests of other >>contestants in the outcome." Tim West-Meads: >Taken from the code of practice relating to appeals just >after a statement about how only a contestant directly >involved in the board may appeal. Not exactly relevant >IMO. > >In the "new deal" case it's not even the interests of >other contestants which is of concern - I'm trying to >minimise the risk of either of the parties who offended >by spoiling the board from gaining thereby. Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Law 72A5: "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Tue Nov 14 09:52:13 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:52:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000701c704d8$0e1a9a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45559D28.4040507@hdw.be> <45583C1D.4060302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <455983BD.90109@hdw.be> Harald, there are a few points here worth commenting on: Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >> That is indeed how some methods work. Not this one though. > > > But since the IMP-scale is not linear, your method doesn't really make > sense. > Which is exactly why my method is needed - because the IMP-scale is not linear. We use the IMP scale on normal boards as well. Let's say that at one table your opponents reach a reasonable slam. You find the killing lead however. At the other table, your partners bid the grand, and then make it by some squeeze play. Now you have two great results, which each should gain you some 12 IMPs, but since the IMP-scale is not linear, you win only 16 or so. That's the kind of result I wanted to keep in my method. > Just compare to MP scoring. Giving a score 20% above 480 in a field > wher 80% made 480 and 20% made 980 would mean nearly 80% on the board > for the pair involved. While giving 20% of the MP score for 980 added > to 80% of the MP-score for 480 would give a totally different result. > Indeed it does - but just do the sums in my method and you'll see that this is no argument against this method. > And I've spotted an error in my computing below. Since both results > involve half the match, the total should have been halved, that is: > the total should be 8 IMP's to team A on the board, not 16. > From which I wish to conclude one thing : that you agree with me that a score of 8,12 or 16 IMPs is preferable to one of +3. >> >> Of course you would need to look at all those things. Did I ever say >> that you would not? > > > Maybe you meant to look at those things. However, nothing at all in > your post suggest any of the sort. On the contrary, your post strongly > implied the opposite, since you didn't mention it at all. > No, my post started with what I thought was a method I had already explained once, and concluded with a shortcut is special cases such as the one which inspired the original. I hope it is cleared up that I do not intend to always use the shortcut. It is up to the TD to decide. >> >> That is another matter entirely. Do you want the score for that board >> that I mentioned to be +14/-14 or +3/+3? Which is the more advisable >> result? > > > Herman, if you don't understand that deciding a par score for both > tables in these circumstances is quite impossilbe, so be it. "impossible" certainly not. "difficult" probably. "too difficult" maybe. > I'll not > argue with you over that, since there's no point to it. If the two > tables have played different boards, there's no comparable results. Yes there are. For at least one of the two, in many tournaments these days, there are lots of comparable results. > And the board should be scrapped for this match. The board should be > scored in a way that reflect who's at fault for this - that is: +3/+3, > +3/-3 or -3/-3 IMP's. > What is this "should"? Why? Because we've always done so? Why "should" a perfectly valid result be totally unused in the match. You've just won this grand slam on a double squeeze and you gain nothing for it, because of something that happened at the other table, and for which not even your teammates are to blame? >> >> > And I can tell you for sure, I would never agree to play a tournament >> > under such a regulation. >> > >> >> Whyever not? Your score would be better suited to your actual play! > > > It would not, since my teammates didn't play the same board as I did. > Nobody knows what might have happened if both tables played the same > board. And the only thing that counts in team play is what you and > your teammates did - at the same board. > Why is that the only thing that counts? Because we've always done it like that? Don't be so conservative! You're far too young to be stuck in ancient ways, Harald! > Let me tell you what happened to me at one board in the Norwegian > Premier League this weekend. > Please do. > Our opponents had a double fit in the majors, my partner a minor > 2-suiter and I had diamond support and Q9 of clubs. Both sides where > vulnerable. Our opponents where cold for 4 hearts and we could be held > to 9 tricks in diamonds. So the optimal result would be to play 5 > diamonds doubled in our direction, down 2. That is 500 our opponents. > > What happened was that I became delaerer in 4Dx. After the correct > lead and 2nd trick switch, my RHO fell asleep, and miscounted their > defencive tricks. He let a low club lead from dummy go to my queen, > and I made the contract, for +710. A BIG result for us. And a huge > score in the butler scoring. But we played teams, and in our match we > did in fact lose 4 IMP's since our teammates had doubled 3 diamonds. > And also ducked the club from dummy, since playing for the club queen > with his partner was the only way to beat 3Dx. In retrospect, raising > with the club king would have won us 2 IMP's. > OK, so you got a good score, and your partners got a bad score. And the outcome close to zero. > This only illustrates the problems you'll run into when using your method. > Please don't! > But that is not a problem - that is just the way bridge goes. If your partners had seen their board scrapped, they get 60% in a pair's tournament. Nobody then asks if they could not have made the blunder they now made. Of course we shall never know what had happened if the board had not been fouled. But in many cases we do know what "has happened". Two tables have played boards, and the scores obtained do not in any way reacht the final result of the match. While it is possible for a regulation to allow those scores to matter. I have often received questions like this one. People wonder why there is no better way of scoring fouled boards in teams. That is because they feel the current regulation is unfair. I offer a method which produces a result which is a fairer reflection of what happened at the table. You can take it or leave it, but don't dismiss it off-hand. Consider the advantages before you count the disadvantages. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Tue Nov 14 09:54:47 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:54:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <2ED014AF-8339-4FF3-8D61-B148E61C78EB@rochester.rr.com> References: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> <002301c70792$76ee8030$6400a8c0@rota> <2ED014AF-8339-4FF3-8D61-B148E61C78EB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <45598457.8000405@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > IMO, the *first* rule for a playing TD is that he should *never* make > a ruling at his own table (or at his team's other table in a team > game) if there is another TD available. > Very unhelpful post, Ed. It happened. Now deal with it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Nov 14 10:08:55 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:08:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFBC7A@rama.Micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of koen > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:51 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. > > We have 3 "Club TD's" (Posting here I had to put these quotes ;) ) at > the club who know a bit about the rules. They are also playing at the > club tournement and as a consequence they don't have the required time > to direct. > > MP's: S/All > South opens 1NT (15-17) and West passes. > Then South corrects to 1C and West (one of the playing TD's) tells South > that by making this change he will score a maximum of 40%. The other > TD's are not called because they are busy playing. West tells the table > he keeps his rights and bids 1S. > South has 4=4=3=2 and 14 HCP. NS play 5 card majors and 4 card diamonds, > making 1C the systematic bid with this hand. > The final contract is 3NT by South and this makes for an absulote top > because EW don't cash their Club tricks (East had a 6-card Club) > When entering the score West sees that this will be a zero for them and > calls you. > Asking South why he changed 1NT to 1C he tells you that he mispulled, > but this is not really convincing to you. > > This is all info I remember. Hope it is sufficient. How do you rule? > Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's? > Thanks, > Koen Well, there are two possibilities. Either South mispulled, or he did not. If South mispulled, then he replaces 1NT by 1C and players continue as if nothing happened (but Wests initial pass is UI to NS). If South didn't mispull, then he is also too late in correcting, since West already passed. So actually South has made a bid out of turn in that case (and an insufficient one at that), but West, bidding 1S, has accepted that, and again bidding continues as if nothing happened. So in either case, nothing needs to be done afterward. Except giving the customary talk about summoning the TD on any trouble. -- Martin Sinot From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Nov 14 10:47:46 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:47:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFBC7A@rama.Micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFBC7A@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <455990C2.6090804@hdw.be> Sinot Martin wrote: > > Well, there are two possibilities. Either South mispulled, or he did > not. > If South mispulled, then he replaces 1NT by 1C and players continue as > if nothing happened (but Wests initial pass is UI to NS). If South > didn't mispull, then he is also too late in correcting, since West > already passed. So actually South has made a bid out of turn in that > case (and an insufficient one at that), but West, bidding 1S, has > accepted that, and again bidding continues as if nothing happened. So in > either case, nothing needs to be done afterward. Except giving the > customary talk about summoning the TD on any trouble. > Martin gives a correct analysis of the ruling that needs to be given. He is wrong about the customary talk however. The OS have fulfilled, IMO, their obligation of calling the TD. It is not up to them to question the right of the playing CTD to rule at his own table. If his ruling had been correct, nothing further would be heard from this. No customary talk needed. The NOS have also fulfilled their task of calling the TD, by ruling themselves. The ruling turns out to be wrong, and if any damage had arisen from this, L82C can solve this. However, the CTD, acting as "player" has committed an irregularity by ruling without consulting. I rule that as "player" he could have known that the ruling given by the "TD", without consulting, could be wrong. If any advantage is gained by this (such as the L82C ruling in his fabour as NOS), I rule by L84E that this advantage be turned back. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 14 11:44:29 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:44:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <455990C2.6090804@hdw.be> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFBC7A@rama.Micronas.com> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520502BFBC7A@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061114113752.02e82930@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:47 14/11/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > (Martin) If South mispulled, then he replaces 1NT by 1C and players > continue as > > if nothing happened (but Wests initial pass is UI to NS). > >Martin gives a correct analysis of the ruling that needs to be given. >He is wrong about the customary talk however. >The OS have fulfilled, IMO, their obligation of calling the TD. It is >not up to them to question the right of the playing CTD to rule at his >own table. If his ruling had been correct, nothing further would be >heard from this. No customary talk needed. Perhaps, Herman, you will call me unhelpful, but I'm strongly, in this case, in favor of ruling "mispull". A player who made a wrong bid will not be eager to correct it (and be liable to L25B restrictions) if it is only a very slight misdecription, as it happens to be here (only 1 HCP short and pattern is OK - we've all made it on purpose umpteen times). A very short thought about it will tell him it's right to shut up (and pretend thereafter his ten of plums prompted him to reevaluate). Therefore, I rule that the correction was made "without pause for thinking", hence allowed without further need to rule, except for UI that LHO hadn't an obvious overcall of 1NT. If we ruled "misbid", I'd be on Herman's side, but it seems offroads in this case. Best regards, Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Nov 14 11:46:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: > > "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Primarily, yes. But the laws also allow for punishment of or prevention of advantage to offenders. > Law 72A5: > > "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid > the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it > is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play > advantageous to their side, even though they thereby > appear to profit through their own infraction." Which would be relevant if the TD *chose* to allow a redeal. It does not mean that the TD is *required* to allow a redeal. Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 14 12:29:13 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:29:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061114113752.02e82930@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c707e0$1c6ea330$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............ > Perhaps, Herman, you will call me unhelpful, but I'm strongly, in this > case, in favor of ruling "mispull". > > A player who made a wrong bid will not be eager to correct it (and be > liable to L25B restrictions) if it is only a very slight misdecription, as > it happens to be here (only 1 HCP short and pattern is OK - we've all made > it on purpose umpteen times). A very short thought about it will tell him > it's right to shut up (and pretend thereafter his ten of plums prompted > him > to reevaluate). > Therefore, I rule that the correction was made "without pause for > thinking", hence allowed without further need to rule, except for UI that > LHO hadn't an obvious overcall of 1NT. The ruling of "misbid" or "mispull" is a matter of judgement which must be based on the impressions the Director receives from the players (and possibly spectators) at the table on what really happened, body language and so on. >From the given description I get the impression that South had originally counted his HCP to 15 and then suddenly discovered that he had in fact made a "miscount" (or he could also have thought for a moment that their 1NT opening range included 14HCP). On realizing his error he then wanted to change his opening bid accordingly. This assumption seems corroborated by the players. Consequently I would rule "change of mind", and as others have already correctly stated the changed bid (1C) then was an OBOOT which was condoned by his LHO. Therefore my ruling would have been that the table result stands. (The 40% limitation does of course not apply!) The curious fact is that if we should instead rule "mispull" then we would still end up with exactly the same result: The table result stands! Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 14 12:35:47 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:35:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061114123125.0211a9d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:46 14/11/2006 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: > > > > "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Remembers me of a deal in a Dutch tournament, against an Eastern European team with approximative knowledge of English : 1C p 2C* 3H x p p p I enquired about the double and got as an answer : "punishment". It was :-( From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 14 13:32:06 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:32:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <000001c707e0$1c6ea330$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061114113752.02e82930@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061114132042.02114330@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:29 14/11/2006 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >The ruling of "misbid" or "mispull" is a matter of judgement which must be >based on the impressions the Director receives from the players (and >possibly spectators) at the table on what really happened, body language and >so on. Granted. > >From the given description I get the impression that South had originally >counted his HCP to 15 and then suddenly discovered that he had in fact made >a "miscount" (or he could also have thought for a moment that their 1NT >opening range included 14HCP). On realizing his error he then wanted to >change his opening bid accordingly. But this looks strange. When a player using a strong club system corrects 1S to 1C, it is quite probable he remembered his system a second too late (an example given by Rubens IIRC) ; when a player corrects 1NT to 1C, the following are the most obvious possibilities : 1 he remembered he was playing strong NT for once (or saw the vulnerability). 2. he miscounted and pertains to the Walrus gang (for who else would be willing to encur penalties for the sake of correcting a marginal misdescription). 3. he mispulled. # 1 can be checked from the player's habits and partners. It isn't said, in this case, that it's a possible interpretation, so I discard it. # 2 is less probable than # 3 IMOBO. So there should be a mild to moderate presumption for # 3 over # 2. Of course the table feel could change that, but I'd rather be pretty certain of my interpretation before I do. Also, remember that some BB's have the 1NT card where other models have the 1C card. Best regards Alain From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 14 16:16:54 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:16:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <000001c707e0$1c6ea330$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c707e0$1c6ea330$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The ruling of "misbid" or "mispull" is a matter of judgement which > must be > based on the impressions the Director receives from the players (and > possibly spectators) at the table on what really happened, body > language and > so on I agree, but... the playing TD who made the table ruling was, I think, biased by the fact he was involved as a player. Calling another TD (preferably one who has already played or will not play the board) would mitigate that possible bias. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 14 18:09:40 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:09:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061114123125.0211a9d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005301c70815$940094f0$769c87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; Cc: "Gilles Piret" ; Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I enquired about the double and got as > an answer : "punishment". > It was :-( > +=+ Gott strafe Gottcheiner +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 14 18:48:55 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:48:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fowl (was foul) de Lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005401c70815$94dbd9c0$769c87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Foul de Lawbook (was Board) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Hills: >No offence was taken guys; you may have missed the > smiley :-) at the end of my last posting, which posting > was partly an exercise in self-deprecating humour. (In > my opinion, such poking fun at yourself is the best form > of humour.) > +=+ Don't think twice about it. Kojak himself is one of our most eminent gurus - one of the alternative meanings of which is 'a popular expert' - and though we don't often admit it we are frequently poking fun at ourselves, be it inadvertently. +=+ ---------- \x/ ------------------------------------- >However, Kojak has raised an interesting "forest and trees" >point which I believe is worthy of further debate on this list. ------------ \x/ ---------------------------------- >"Men at some times are master of their fates: >The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our directors' rulings, >But in ourselves, since they are underlings." > The only times when the "forest" / "intrinsic spirit of the >laws" can be relevant are at those times when the WBF >LC is conducting its decennial revision of what the >Lawbook actually says. If the 2008 Lawbook does not > say what the WBF LC intends it to say, then beware >the ides of March. +=+ I am currently researching the hides of March, the ones in unfrequented remote bird sanctuaries where the distant echoes of 'do they really mean that?' or 'what do they really mean?' will not disturb the watchers. I have just booked my flights to and, importantly, from Shanghai where the confection is to be served to the overlords. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 14 22:42:08 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:42:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061114132042.02114330@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c70835$bc8992d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ........... > > >From the given description I get the impression that South had > originally > >counted his HCP to 15 and then suddenly discovered that he had in fact > made > >a "miscount" (or he could also have thought for a moment that their 1NT > >opening range included 14HCP). On realizing his error he then wanted to > >change his opening bid accordingly. > > But this looks strange. When a player using a strong club system corrects > 1S to 1C, it is quite probable he remembered his system a second too late > (an example given by Rubens IIRC) ; when a player corrects 1NT to 1C, the > following are the most obvious possibilities : > > 1 he remembered he was playing strong NT for once (or saw the > vulnerability). > 2. he miscounted and pertains to the Walrus gang (for who else would be > willing to encur penalties for the sake of correcting a marginal > misdescription). > 3. he mispulled. > > # 1 can be checked from the player's habits and partners. It isn't said, > in > this case, that it's a possible interpretation, so I discard it. > # 2 is less probable than # 3 IMOBO. So there should be a mild to moderate > presumption for # 3 over # 2. > Of course the table feel could change that, but I'd rather be pretty > certain of my interpretation before I do. > > Also, remember that some BB's have the 1NT card where other models have > the > 1C card. I don't believe I have ever come across a BB with the 1NT card to be grabbed at the upper right corner. That is where we grab the 1C card and nothing else? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 14 22:48:09 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:48:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c70836$932489d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > The ruling of "misbid" or "mispull" is a matter of judgement which > > must be > > based on the impressions the Director receives from the players (and > > possibly spectators) at the table on what really happened, body > > language and > > so on > > I agree, but... the playing TD who made the table ruling was, I > think, biased by the fact he was involved as a player. Calling > another TD (preferably one who has already played or will not play > the board) would mitigate that possible bias. That is of course true, but we must accept the fact that they had no non-playing director. How many clubs can afford to have that for their regular events? The positive side of this situation is that provided the playing director was able to distinguish his duties as director from his interests and bias as player then he was in the best possible position to have a correct impression for his judgement. I would still expect him to seek consent from the other three players at the table to his understanding of the facts. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 14 23:23:07 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:23:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Fowl (was foul) de Lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005401c70815$94dbd9c0$769c87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Kojak: >>>There is a law. There is a problem. The law covers >>>that problem. We apply the law. [snip] >>>The lack of that kind of reasoning is where we end >>>up with two captains making a kind of remark about >>>"let's win or lose at the table and not by penalties, >>>rulings, etc." or some such. The thinking in that >>>remark - as inappropriate as it is - shows lack of >>>respect and confidence in the past performance of the >>>TDs in question. >>> >>>It also -- taking H. DeWael's proposals and thinking >>>into account -- exemplify what I was talking about >>>when I referenced 'looking for something to produce >>>an argument when one does not exist.' and thereby >>>show brilliance. Herman De Wael: >>I offer a method which produces a result which is a >>fairer reflection of what happened at the table. You >>can take it or leave it, but don't dismiss it off- >>hand. Consider the advantages before you count the >>disadvantages. Richard Hills: If Herman's method is meant by the WBF LC to be illegal, then that is a supreme disadvantage which should be considered first. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am currently researching the hides of March, >the ones in unfrequented remote bird sanctuaries where >the distant echoes of 'do they really mean that?' or >'what do they really mean?' will not disturb the watchers. >I have just booked my flights to and, importantly, from >Shanghai where the confection is to be served to the >overlords. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: And I suspect that the 2008 confection will mostly lack the "six blind men and elephant" flavour of the 1997 confection, thus greatly reducing the quantity of any brilliant arguments about "what do they really mean"? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 15 00:20:03 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:20:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <000101c70836$932489d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c70836$932489d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <22B937D7-87A4-438E-88B3-AD7067103D94@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 14, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > That is of course true, but we must accept the fact that they had no > non-playing director. How many clubs can afford to have that for their > regular events? Different strokes - of half a dozen or so clubs here in Rochester, *one* regularly has a playing director - and that club is losing ground. > The positive side of this situation is that provided the playing > director > was able to distinguish his duties as director from his interests > and bias > as player then he was in the best possible position to have a correct > impression for his judgement. I would still expect him to seek > consent from > the other three players at the table to his understanding of the > facts. It might have helped in this case if he'd RTFLB before ruling, too. :-) From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 01:01:21 2006 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (koen) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:01:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Summary and additional questions? 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> References: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <455A58D1.9040109@hotmail.com> First of all thanks for the answers! Summary: - If Law 25A applies then South can change his call and West's initial pass is UI for EW. - If law 25A does not apply (1NT not inadvertent) then Law 25B can not applied because LHO already made a call. - As a result the 1C call is a COOT. And West's 1S bid did accept this COOT. and therefor no UI or penalty. Questions/comment: - West made his 1S bid after "reserving his rights" as a playing CTD. Does that not change anything to the ruling? Probably not as he would have to give South a clear overview of his rights. - "A player who made a wrong bid will not be eager to correct it (and be liable to L25B restrictions) if it is only a very slight misdecription,.." => You have to take into account that this South player does not have any idea about the laws to know the consequences of the change of his call. Thanks all for the answers! (I ruled that result of 3NT stands. Not so much on the rules given by you, but at least my final ruling seems to be correct. I did let the result stand because I felt that West did not give sufficient info by telling the OS that they could score max 40%. And therefor not calling another TD who gave all options for S made the change of the call accepted.). Thanks, Koen koen wrote: >We have 3 "Club TD's" (Posting here I had to put these quotes ;) ) at >the club who know a bit about the rules. They are also playing at the >club tournement and as a consequence they don't have the required time >to direct. > >MP's: S/All >South opens 1NT (15-17) and West passes. >Then South corrects to 1C and West (one of the playing TD's) tells South >that by making this change he will score a maximum of 40%. The other >TD's are not called because they are busy playing. West tells the table >he keeps his rights and bids 1S. >South has 4=4=3=2 and 14 HCP. NS play 5 card majors and 4 card diamonds, >making 1C the systematic bid with this hand. >The final contract is 3NT by South and this makes for an absulote top >because EW don't cash their Club tricks (East had a 6-card Club) >When entering the score West sees that this will be a zero for them and >calls you. >Asking South why he changed 1NT to 1C he tells you that he mispulled, >but this is not really convincing to you. > >This is all info I remember. Hope it is sufficient. How do you rule? >Does it matter that West is one of the club TD's? >Thanks, >Koen > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 15 01:59:22 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:59:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Summary and additional questions? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <455A58D1.9040109@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Koen: >>First of all thanks for the answers! >> >>Summary: >>- If Law 25A applies then South can change his call and West's >>initial pass is UI for EW. [snip] WBF LC minutes 30th August 2000, item 6: [snip] >(Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over the player's first call >Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply). [snip] Law 16C1: >For the non-offending side, all information arising from a >withdrawn action is authorised, whether the action be its own or >its opponents'. Richard Hills: Since West withdrew their initial pass because South changed their initial call, East-West are a non-offending side, so West's withdrawn pass is authorised information for East-West. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 15 03:57:52 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:57:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <200611041738.kA4HcWbV019685@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611041738.kA4HcWbV019685@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <455A8230.8040305@cfa.harvard.edu> Sorry, I've been unable to respond for awhile. I think we are pretty near the end of this topic, though. > From: Herman De Wael > Why would you need to have L40B creating two different infractions? I'm assuming there's a reason. As far as I can tell, all your rulings would be exactly the same if L40B were deleted from the book. SW> imagine an SO [which has] a SW> rule that if you use mini [NT], you have to tell the opponents at the start SW>of the round, and the opponents can agree on a special defense. [Opponents are not so informed, and they have no penalty double.] > L40C tells the TD to award an AS if he believes > opponents are damaged - and they are. So you award an AS based on the > bids as they have happened, combined with some sensible defensive > methods for NOS. > In your example, I could imagine giving NOS 1NTX minus whatever. This pretty much sums up our disagreement. You are forced to invent some defensive methods for the NOS, while I think L40B says that the 1NT bid itself is illegal. Do we at least agree that this is not a normal MI infraction? In a normal MI case, NOS would be stuck with their existing agreements, but they would be assumed to know all the opponents' true agreements. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 15 07:18:15 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:18:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Summary and additional questions? 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <455A58D1.9040109@hotmail.com> References: <455912EC.9050604@hotmail.com> <455A58D1.9040109@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <49C08F32-65D8-435B-A270-B2117435C1F1@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:01 PM, koen wrote: > West made his 1S bid after "reserving his rights" as a playing CTD. > Does that not change anything to the ruling? Probably not as he would > have to give South a clear overview of his rights. I would like to know what rights West thought he was reserving. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 15 09:15:41 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:15:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <000001c70835$bc8992d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061114132042.02114330@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061115091306.02a39ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:42 14/11/2006 +0100, you wrote: > > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >I don't believe I have ever come across a BB with the 1NT card to be grabbed >at the upper right corner. That is where we grab the 1C card and nothing >else? I did. We've got two kinds of BB in our club, one of which has 1NT at the upper right (or rather, upper rear) and there have been mispulls more than once. I wonder, what would a BB for lefthanders look like ? Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 15 09:16:22 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:16:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Multiple Teams : Fouled Board [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <455983BD.90109@hdw.be> References: <000701c704d8$0e1a9a60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45559D28.4040507@hdw.be> <45583C1D.4060302@hdw.be> <455983BD.90109@hdw.be> Message-ID: On 14/11/06, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald, there are a few points here worth commenting on: > > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > >> > >> That is indeed how some methods work. Not this one though. > > > > > > But since the IMP-scale is not linear, your method doesn't really make > > sense. > > > > Which is exactly why my method is needed - because the IMP-scale is > not linear. We use the IMP scale on normal boards as well. > Let's say that at one table your opponents reach a reasonable slam. > You find the killing lead however. > At the other table, your partners bid the grand, and then make it by > some squeeze play. Now you have two great results, which each should > gain you some 12 IMPs, but since the IMP-scale is not linear, you win > only 16 or so. That's the kind of result I wanted to keep in my method. > > > Just compare to MP scoring. Giving a score 20% above 480 in a field > > wher 80% made 480 and 20% made 980 would mean nearly 80% on the board > > for the pair involved. While giving 20% of the MP score for 980 added > > to 80% of the MP-score for 480 would give a totally different result. > > > > Indeed it does - but just do the sums in my method and you'll see that > this is no argument against this method. > > > And I've spotted an error in my computing below. Since both results > > involve half the match, the total should have been halved, that is: > > the total should be 8 IMP's to team A on the board, not 16. > > > > From which I wish to conclude one thing : that you agree with me that > a score of 8,12 or 16 IMPs is preferable to one of +3. YOU might wish to conclude that. I don't agree:-) > > >> > >> Of course you would need to look at all those things. Did I ever say > >> that you would not? > > > > > > Maybe you meant to look at those things. However, nothing at all in > > your post suggest any of the sort. On the contrary, your post strongly > > implied the opposite, since you didn't mention it at all. > > > > No, my post started with what I thought was a method I had already > explained once, and concluded with a shortcut is special cases such as > the one which inspired the original. > > I hope it is cleared up that I do not intend to always use the > shortcut. It is up to the TD to decide. > > >> > >> That is another matter entirely. Do you want the score for that board > >> that I mentioned to be +14/-14 or +3/+3? Which is the more advisable > >> result? > > > > > > Herman, if you don't understand that deciding a par score for both > > tables in these circumstances is quite impossilbe, so be it. > > "impossible" certainly not. "difficult" probably. "too difficult" maybe. > > > I'll not > > argue with you over that, since there's no point to it. If the two > > tables have played different boards, there's no comparable results. > > Yes there are. For at least one of the two, in many tournaments these > days, there are lots of comparable results. > > > And the board should be scrapped for this match. The board should be > > scored in a way that reflect who's at fault for this - that is: +3/+3, > > +3/-3 or -3/-3 IMP's. > > > > What is this "should"? Why? Because we've always done so? > Why "should" a perfectly valid result be totally unused in the match. > You've just won this grand slam on a double squeeze and you gain > nothing for it, because of something that happened at the other table, > and for which not even your teammates are to blame? Since the board has not been played by my teammates and opponents at the other table, the only interesting result on the board is missing - the one our score should be compared to. There's no comparable result. What in fact happened on the board in other matches, or what's the "par" on the board is of no consequence. What matters in a head to head teams match is the scores achieved at the two tables. If I or my teammates haven't played the board, I'm quite happy with A+ (+3 IMP's) when this is not our fault. > > >> > >> > And I can tell you for sure, I would never agree to play a tournament > >> > under such a regulation. > >> > > >> > >> Whyever not? Your score would be better suited to your actual play! > > > > > > It would not, since my teammates didn't play the same board as I did. > > Nobody knows what might have happened if both tables played the same > > board. And the only thing that counts in team play is what you and > > your teammates did - at the same board. > > > > Why is that the only thing that counts? Because we've always done it > like that? Don't be so conservative! You're far too young to be stuck > in ancient ways, Harald! Come on, Herman. That's the only thing that counts because that's how this kind of competition work. It's got nothing to do with how we've always done it, conservativism or ancient ways. I'll take "far too young" as a compliment:-) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > Let me tell you what happened to me at one board in the Norwegian > > Premier League this weekend. > > > > Please do. > > > Our opponents had a double fit in the majors, my partner a minor > > 2-suiter and I had diamond support and Q9 of clubs. Both sides where > > vulnerable. Our opponents where cold for 4 hearts and we could be held > > to 9 tricks in diamonds. So the optimal result would be to play 5 > > diamonds doubled in our direction, down 2. That is 500 our opponents. > > > > What happened was that I became delaerer in 4Dx. After the correct > > lead and 2nd trick switch, my RHO fell asleep, and miscounted their > > defencive tricks. He let a low club lead from dummy go to my queen, > > and I made the contract, for +710. A BIG result for us. And a huge > > score in the butler scoring. But we played teams, and in our match we > > did in fact lose 4 IMP's since our teammates had doubled 3 diamonds. > > And also ducked the club from dummy, since playing for the club queen > > with his partner was the only way to beat 3Dx. In retrospect, raising > > with the club king would have won us 2 IMP's. > > > > OK, so you got a good score, and your partners got a bad score. And > the outcome close to zero. > > > This only illustrates the problems you'll run into when using your method. > > Please don't! > > > > But that is not a problem - that is just the way bridge goes. If your > partners had seen their board scrapped, they get 60% in a pair's > tournament. Nobody then asks if they could not have made the blunder > they now made. > > Of course we shall never know what had happened if the board had not > been fouled. > > But in many cases we do know what "has happened". Two tables have > played boards, and the scores obtained do not in any way reacht the > final result of the match. While it is possible for a regulation to > allow those scores to matter. > > I have often received questions like this one. People wonder why there > is no better way of scoring fouled boards in teams. That is because > they feel the current regulation is unfair. I offer a method which > produces a result which is a fairer reflection of what happened at the > table. You can take it or leave it, but don't dismiss it off-hand. > Consider the advantages before you count the disadvantages. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From herman at hdw.be Wed Nov 15 09:46:23 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:46:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Online Bridge In-Reply-To: <455A8230.8040305@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611041738.kA4HcWbV019685@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <455A8230.8040305@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <455AD3DF.5050200@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: > Sorry, I've been unable to respond for awhile. I think we are pretty > near the end of this topic, though. > > >>From: Herman De Wael >>Why would you need to have L40B creating two different infractions? > > > I'm assuming there's a reason. As far as I can tell, all your rulings > would be exactly the same if L40B were deleted from the book. > Maybe they would yes. In the sense that L40 and L75 are basically saying the same thing. But your point is that since there are 2 laws, they should define different infractions. My point is that since both laws point to the same correction (via L40C), the two infractions (if indeed there are 2) are exactly the same. > SW> imagine an SO [which has] a > SW> rule that if you use mini [NT], you have to tell the opponents at > the start > SW>of the round, and the opponents can agree on a special defense. > [Opponents are not so informed, and they have no penalty double.] > > >>L40C tells the TD to award an AS if he believes >>opponents are damaged - and they are. So you award an AS based on the >>bids as they have happened, combined with some sensible defensive >>methods for NOS. >>In your example, I could imagine giving NOS 1NTX minus whatever. > > > This pretty much sums up our disagreement. You are forced to invent > some defensive methods for the NOS, while I think L40B says that the 1NT > bid itself is illegal. > > Do we at least agree that this is not a normal MI infraction? In a > normal MI case, NOS would be stuck with their existing agreements, but > they would be assumed to know all the opponents' true agreements. > Indeed these are 2 different infractions, since the timing of the non-disclosure is not the same. But I don't agree that there are 2 different AS. There are 2 different table outcomes, but the AS will be the same. Let's go through the example, indeed. At the first table, N opens 1NT, and S doesn't alert. E bids 2C and EW play 2H+1. When it is revealed that there has been a non-alerted (but alertable, in that tournament) mini NT, E calls the director and explains that over a weak NT they play double for majors, frequently left in with sufficient values. The TD rules 1NTX-1. At the second table, N opens 1NT, and S alerts. When asked, S explains that it is mini-NT. E now calls the TD and states that if he had known that before the round started, he could have given his partner his favourite defence against this. The TD rules that play should continue, E bids 2C (majors), and W goes to 4H. one down. Here too, the TD will rule 1NTX-1. Do you see that the outcome of the ruling will be similar in many cases? Here, it need not be. If NS are not vulnerable, there will be no adjustment at the first table, because there EW were bluffed out of their non-making game by the MI. But the basic AS structure is still the same. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Nov 15 21:15:17 2006 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:15:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem Message-ID: <455B7555.5020104@aol.com> Ahoy blmlers! This is not a TD or rules problem; rather one of behaviour and I'd be interested in a few opinions (punishment? if yes, severity thereof). The story was recounted to me by a lady acquaintance; I wasn't there -- but let us assume her story is accurate. She was playing in a provincial French club near her place of (partial, some months of the year) residence. She plays there occasionally, She is a player of discreet playing strength, middle class at most and very charming. She also is reserved and does not like to make waves. She was playing (at table) against the strongest pair in the club (in provincial French clubs this does not mean much), two elderly gentleman, one of whom was the expresident of the club. The TD was very inexperienced. She was first to call and passed. LHO opened 1 diam. (5 card majors, strong NT, everything basically natural), her partner doubled and RHO bid 2 spades. This was weak but that was only ascertained later, is however quite normal in the club I think. The lady (not vul) held a 4-5-1-3 distribution with Qxxx in spades, Jxxxx in hearts, and Kxx in clubs. The single diam. was a small one. She passed, not necessarily a popular decision I suspect, 3 hearts is surely an alternative. LHO bid 3 diam., partner passed as did RHO and she now bid 3 hearts. Great uproar at the table, her partner had hesitated before passing said the opponents. The lady hadn't noticed (I said she was only a discreet player). TD was called. He repeatedly asked the lady if her partner had passed and she repeatedly said she didn't know, she had been concentrating on her cards, planning possible future action. Okay, as corollary to the rule "if it hesitates, shoot it" I think any sensible TD assumes there was a hesitation (wouldn't hurt to look at the hand of partner, which TD did not do). If a player claims to not have noticed then either he/she was asleep, dead or protecting partner, not wanting to "betray" him. That is my experience at this level. But, in my opinion irrelevant, let us assume there was a hesitation. The question is now only if 3 hearts is an almost automatic bid (assuming a pass in the previous round) or if there is a logical alternative (pass). In my opinion 3 hearts is automatic but that is not the point of this. TD said to continue play/bidding. LHO doubled 3 hearts and the lady made 9 tricks (after it was passed out). Her partner had something like AJ10x in spades, KQ10 in hearts (or she had the 10) xxx in diamonds and Q10x in clubs. (Spades were 5-1.) After play the gentleman LHO who was N or S scored the hand as 3 hearts making, -140 for NS. The lady said it had been doubled. The gentleman said he knew this but refused to score it as doubled after the hesitation. He was quite adamant about this and refused to call the TD. The lady (who didn't want to make waves and cause any problems as a foreigner) did not call either so the score was recorded as 140. Now we finally get to my question. Assuming that you, as TD, had been called, or was informed in some way of the occurrence, what would you do? (I don'tmean about the result, I mean what would you do or say to the gentleman who scored it.) Procedural penalty? How high? More draconic action? The action of the gentleman is really mind-boggling, unheard of. He refuses to record a result as played at table, willfully records a different result (score difference of (for him) 75% or 0%), and does not call the TD. How do you treat him as TD? Your reactions would interest me. Ciao, JE From mustikka at charter.net Wed Nov 15 22:00:41 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:00:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem References: <455B7555.5020104@aol.com> Message-ID: <000801c708f9$1c5eeb10$3ed75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:15 PM Subject: [blml] almost TD problem > Ahoy blmlers! This is not a TD or rules problem; rather one of > behaviour and I'd be interested in a few opinions (punishment? if yes, > severity thereof). > The story was recounted to me by a lady acquaintance; I wasn't there -- > but let us assume her story is accurate. > She was playing in a provincial French club near her place of (partial, > some months of the year) residence. She plays there occasionally, She > is a player of discreet playing strength, middle class at most and very > charming. She also is reserved and does not like to make waves. She > was playing (at table) against the strongest pair in the club (in > provincial French clubs this does not mean much), two elderly gentleman, > one of whom was the expresident of the club. The TD was very > inexperienced. > She was first to call and passed. LHO opened 1 diam. (5 card majors, > strong NT, everything basically natural), her partner doubled and RHO > bid 2 spades. This was weak but that was only ascertained later, is > however quite normal in the club I think. The lady (not vul) held a > 4-5-1-3 distribution with Qxxx in spades, Jxxxx in hearts, and Kxx in > clubs. The single diam. was a small one. She passed, not necessarily a > popular decision I suspect, 3 hearts is surely an alternative. LHO bid > 3 diam., partner passed as did RHO and she now bid 3 hearts. Great > uproar at the table, her partner had hesitated before passing said the > opponents. The lady hadn't noticed (I said she was only a discreet > player). TD was called. He repeatedly asked the lady if her partner had > passed and she repeatedly said she didn't know, she had been > concentrating on her cards, planning possible future action. Okay, as > corollary to the rule "if it hesitates, shoot it" I think any sensible > TD assumes there was a hesitation (wouldn't hurt to look at the hand of > partner, which TD did not do). If a player claims to not have noticed > then either he/she was asleep, dead or protecting partner, not wanting > to "betray" him. That is my experience at this level. But, in my > opinion irrelevant, let us assume there was a hesitation. The question > is now only if 3 hearts is an almost automatic bid (assuming a pass in > the previous round) or if there is a logical alternative (pass). In my > opinion 3 hearts is automatic but that is not the point of this. TD > said to continue play/bidding. LHO doubled 3 hearts and the lady made 9 > tricks (after it was passed out). Her partner had something like AJ10x > in spades, KQ10 in hearts (or she had the 10) xxx in diamonds and Q10x > in clubs. (Spades were 5-1.) > After play the gentleman LHO who was N or S scored the hand as 3 hearts > making, -140 for NS. The lady said it had been doubled. The gentleman > said he knew this but refused to score it as doubled after the > hesitation. He was quite adamant about this and refused to call the TD. > The lady (who didn't want to make waves and cause any problems as a > foreigner) did not call either so the score was recorded as 140. > Now we finally get to my question. Assuming that you, as TD, had been > called, or was informed in some way of the occurrence, what would you > do? (I don'tmean about the result, I mean what would you do or say to > the gentleman who scored it.) Procedural penalty? How high? More > draconic action? The action of the gentleman is really mind-boggling, > unheard of. He refuses to record a result as played at table, willfully > records a different result (score difference of (for him) 75% or 0%), > and does not call the TD. How do you treat him as TD? Your reactions > would interest me. Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml This person (I cannot make myself call him a gentleman) intentionally wrote a wrong score on the scoresheet. Un-f-believable arrogance! There were three other people at the table. One of them should have called the TD. But this really does not address your question. I will let the experienced TD's on blml to make suggestions on how to deal with this after the fact. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 15 22:38:19 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:38:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <455B7555.5020104@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: [snip] >She was playing (at table) against the strongest pair in the club (in >provincial French clubs this does not mean much), two elderly gentleman, >one of whom was the expresident of the club. The TD was very >inexperienced. [snip] >After play the gentleman LHO who was N or S scored the hand as 3 hearts >making, -140 for NS. The lady said it had been doubled. The gentleman >said he knew this but refused to score it as doubled after the >hesitation. He was quite adamant about this and refused to call the TD. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, this list discusses the Laws of Duplicate Bridge as played at bridge clubs. This list does not discuss the Laws of Houserules Bridge as played at bullying clubs where the ex-president makes up his own rules on the spot. :-( :-( :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 15 22:53:40 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:53:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061115091306.02a39ec0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >We've got two kinds of BB in our club, one of which has 1NT at the >upper right (or rather, upper rear) and there have been mispulls >more than once. > >I wonder, what would a BB for lefthanders look like ? Richard Hills: The Canberra Bridge Club has bidding boxes for lefthanders. To avoid confusion, the lefthanded bidding cards are in orange boxes while the standard righthanded bidding cards are in red boxes. For both types of boxes the 1C card is at the upper right rear. The difference between the two is that the big symbols on the lefthanded bidding cards are rotated 180 degrees. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 15 23:32:08 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:32:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <455B7555.5020104@aol.com> Message-ID: <001501c70905$e2ece190$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Ahoy blmlers! This is not a TD or rules problem; rather one of > behaviour and I'd be interested in a few opinions (punishment? if yes, > severity thereof). > The story was recounted to me by a lady acquaintance; I wasn't there -- > but let us assume her story is accurate. Hearsay is always almost impossible to judge. > She was playing in a provincial French club near her place of (partial, > some months of the year) residence. She plays there occasionally, She > is a player of discreet playing strength, middle class at most and very > charming. She also is reserved and does not like to make waves. She > was playing (at table) against the strongest pair in the club (in > provincial French clubs this does not mean much), two elderly gentleman, > one of whom was the expresident of the club. The TD was very > inexperienced. >From this I assume we are discussing a club where the social event is at least as important as bridge of quality? > She was first to call and passed. LHO opened 1 diam. (5 card majors, > strong NT, everything basically natural), her partner doubled and RHO > bid 2 spades. This was weak but that was only ascertained later, is > however quite normal in the club I think. Yes we would expect so, the normal call with at least 10 HCP is redouble. The lady (not vul) held a > 4-5-1-3 distribution with Qxxx in spades, Jxxxx in hearts, and Kxx in > clubs. The single diam. was a small one. She passed, not necessarily a > popular decision I suspect, 3 hearts is surely an alternative. 3H is absolutely an alternative with 6 HCP and good support to partner who must be assumed to have both majors for his double. She definitely created later trouble for herself in passing. > LHO bid > 3 diam., partner passed as did RHO and she now bid 3 hearts. Great > uproar at the table, her partner had hesitated before passing said the > opponents. In bride of quality there is a compulsory 10 seconds "stop" interval after all calls on level three and higher in competitive auctions. Whether this is a competitive auction or not can be discussed. I think it is, and in that case her partner who had doubled was entitled to such a pause after the 3D call. I said above that my impression here is of a more "social" bridge club so I wouldn't stress the point of a missing "stop" too much; but then again nor would I pay too much attention to a possible hesitation unless it was excessive and speculative. The lady hadn't noticed (I said she was only a discreet > player). TD was called. He repeatedly asked the lady if her partner had > passed and she repeatedly said she didn't know, she had been > concentrating on her cards, planning possible future action. I suppose TD asked if her partner had hesitated (not "passed"). Her answer is OK in social bridge, not so acceptable in bridge of quality. > Okay, as > corollary to the rule "if it hesitates, shoot it" I think any sensible > TD assumes there was a hesitation (wouldn't hurt to look at the hand of > partner, which TD did not do). If a player claims to not have noticed > then either he/she was asleep, dead or protecting partner, not wanting > to "betray" him. That is my experience at this level. But, in my > opinion irrelevant, let us assume there was a hesitation. The question > is now only if 3 hearts is an almost automatic bid (assuming a pass in > the previous round) or if there is a logical alternative (pass). In my > opinion 3 hearts is automatic but that is not the point of this. As I said, I think she created this trouble for herself in passing on the previous round. Pass is certainly (IMO) a logical alternative now, but then again "for this level of players"? > TD said to continue play/bidding. At this time TD, in addition to saying "play on" (which he correctly did) should have instructed the players to call him again if they felt damaged by the alleged hesitation and subsequent auction. > LHO doubled 3 hearts and the lady made 9 > tricks (after it was passed out). Her partner had something like AJ10x > in spades, KQ10 in hearts (or she had the 10) xxx in diamonds and Q10x > in clubs. (Spades were 5-1.) > After play the gentleman LHO who was N or S scored the hand as 3 hearts > making, -140 for NS. The lady said it had been doubled. The gentleman > said he knew this but refused to score it as doubled after the > hesitation. He was quite adamant about this and refused to call the TD. And this is completely unacceptable regardless of the level of the club. Her LHO now violated almost every law in the book and should have been told so, not by the players but by the Director. There is no excuse for any of the four players at the table for not calling the Director in this situation. > The lady (who didn't want to make waves and cause any problems as a > foreigner) did not call either so the score was recorded as 140. > Now we finally get to my question. Assuming that you, as TD, had been > called, or was informed in some way of the occurrence, what would you > do? (I don'tmean about the result, I mean what would you do or say to > the gentleman who scored it.) Procedural penalty? How high? More > draconic action? The action of the gentleman is really mind-boggling, > unheard of. He refuses to record a result as played at table, willfully > records a different result (score difference of (for him) 75% or 0%), > and does not call the TD. How do you treat him as TD? Your reactions > would interest me. Ciao, JE First of all I (as a Director) would do absolutely nothing unless I were called again to the table or was alerted by commotion so severe that I would approach the table on my own initiative. So let me assume that I now find myself at the table: 1: I would ask what is going on requesting a statement or confirmation from each of the four players individually. 2: I would tell North who is responsible for recording results to record the table result on the board exactly as obtained. I would remind him that no player may under any circumstance assess any penalty or adjustment. The only person who may make any ruling in bridge is the Director on duty. 3: If North or South at this time then demands an adjustment of the obtained result on the board I would inform them that this request comes too late, they should know that TD must be summoned immediately when play is completed and that they may not take any further action like recording an adjusted score before the Director arrives at the table. By taking such action they have already forfeited their rights to any redress. (And even if I should consider an adjustment the alternative would in case be to assess the result North/South would have obtained in their contract of 3D; allowing them to withdraw their double is out of question.) 4: If this ends the story I would leave it there, but if commotion continues I would order them to stop quarreling and concentrate on their bridge; and if that doesn't help I would (if even another warning doesn't stop the commotion) give a PP in the order of 100% of the top score on a single board. Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Nov 16 00:05:15 2006 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:05:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost td problem 2 Message-ID: <455B9D2B.6040701@aol.com> Thanks for the input; probably more will come. To clarify a few points: yes the TD asked if there had been a hesitation ("pass" was typo that I didn't catch when rereading). Naturally someone should have called the TD. The lady in question was afraid to, the partner of the willfully misscoring fellow appears to have agreed with him and I don't know about the partner of my lady acquaintance. But she and her partner are, as far as I know, not terribly experienced players and were conscious of being guests in a foreign club and there were some linguistic limitations as well. None of this excuses their pusillanimity (there's a word creation for you!) of course. Naturally, when she told me the story I immediately told her that playing duplicate bridge carries certain obligations. Such as not falling asleep at the table so as to naturally be aware of any hesitation, particularly the partner's, and that it was 100% necessary to call the TD in such a case, allowing the opponents to get away with such an action, "if you want a top so much, okay" does not only give the opponents a top (or good score) but affects all other competitors and falsifies the result. The club was licensed by the French federation and awarded MPs, so it was hardly social bridge and surely subject to the rules of bridge and civilised behaviour. I think most of the ruling is obvious. What inspired my enquiry was the personal speculation as to what I, as TD, should have done. Only a warning (with explanation) is too little I think, even a most severe warning. The culprit was an experienced player. I think a procedural penalty is necessary but don't know how massive it would have been. I also considered reporting the whole incident to the national federation (or at least threatening to do so) but, of course, I wasn't there. As to hearsay: yes, of course, you can't be certain but that was not the point. Assuming that things were as reported and you were the TD, what would you have done? That is what I wanted to know. To Sven: No, as far as I know the social aspect is unimportant at said club, the opponents were described as being very intense and ambitious. Yes, I also immediately said that 3 hearts would probably have been better than pass after the 2 spade bid. I don't know if there was a stop before 2 spades (probably was since it wasn't mentioned) but that is really irrelevant I think since the (probable) hesitation of partner which was the cause of the discussion was after the 3 diam. bid. I also think that it was a competitive auction but then there are hesitations in such auctions as well, only the time-limit of normal tempo is somewhat increased. I, of course, told her that she was obliged to call the TD as soon as the trouble started, but timid players against veteran players can cause the timid player to not do so. Incidentally, I assume that the opponents were not only more experienced but also more proficient players which makes their transgression all the more serious. I agree with your 4 points at end of your email; was pondering further steps (such as procedural penalty) without commotion or further problems. As one of the other correspondents wrote, "un-f-believable arrogance" (and he didn't even mention that it was willful falsification of a result!). Thus I was pondering what I'd do after carrying out your 4 steps. Ciao, JE From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 16 00:36:34 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:36:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem [SEC=PERSONAL] References: Message-ID: <000001c7090f$07627180$6fc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] almost TD problem [SEC=PERSONAL] > Jeff Easterson: > > [snip] > >>She was playing (at table) against the strongest > pair in the club (in provincial French clubs this > does not mean much), two elderly gentleman, one > of whom was the expresident of the club. The TD > was very inexperienced. > > [snip] > >>After play the gentleman LHO who was N or S > scored the hand as 3 hearts making, -140 for NS. > The lady said it had been doubled. The gentleman >>said he knew this but refused to score it as doubled > after the hesitation. He was quite adamant about > this and refused to call the TD. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, this list discusses the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge as played at bridge clubs. > > This list does not discuss the Laws of Houserules > Bridge as played at bullying clubs where the > ex-president makes up his own rules on the spot. > > :-( :-( :-( > Grattan Endicott: +=+ First, the Director would be standing ready etc. per Law 16C2. Second the extremely polite gentleman who had protested obviously did not feel the score should be challenged since he did not recall the Director at the end of the hand. Sadly he has misrecorded the 'agreed- upon' score 'inadvertently' and it should be corrected per 79C. Should the polite gentleman protest this to the Director and inform him that he had deliberately entered an incorrect score because he considered there had been use of UI, the Director would rule the board under Law 16 (as he thinks appropriate) and also apply a procedural penalty under Laws 72A6, 79B and 90A to the gentleman. Since the offence is aggravated I would see nothing untoward in a penalty of, say, 25% of a board at minimum. Some might say more or much more. Well that would be my opinion, anyway, just in case anyone is really wondering how to deal with the matter under the laws of the game. Life is tough for Directors who are unsure of themselves in the presence of erring ex-Presidents, but they learn. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 16 00:48:32 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:48:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost td problem 2 In-Reply-To: <455B9D2B.6040701@aol.com> Message-ID: <001601c70910$8f64e7b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson .............. > The club was licensed by the French federation and awarded MPs, so it > was hardly social bridge and surely subject to the rules of bridge and > civilised behaviour. Not necessarily, I know several "licensed" clubs that have a rather relaxed relation to the laws of duplicate contract bridge. They live happily in their own world, so let them. > I think most of the ruling is obvious. What > inspired my enquiry was the personal speculation as to what I, as TD, > should have done. Only a warning (with explanation) is too little I > think, even a most severe warning. The culprit was an experienced > player. Then just tell him "You should know better with your experience". I think a procedural penalty is necessary but don't know how > massive it would have been. My experience is that you do not pull out the big ammunition if they listen to and accept your warning. > To Sven: No, as far as I know the social aspect is unimportant at said > club, the opponents were described as being very intense and ambitious. Commented above ................ > I agree with your 4 points at end of your email; was pondering further > steps (such as procedural penalty) without commotion or further > problems. As one of the other correspondents wrote, "un-f-believable > arrogance" (and he didn't even mention that it was willful falsification > of a result!). Thus I was pondering what I'd do after carrying out your > 4 steps. If the four steps are not sufficient to calm down the players the next should be a formal complaint to the board of the club and a request that they take action. If the Director feels for it I would advice that he makes it clear he will not continue serving the club as Director under such circumstances. If even that does not help then for God's sake quit that club. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 16 02:07:29 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:07:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <001501c70905$e2ece190$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001501c70905$e2ece190$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Nov 15, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Hearsay is always almost impossible to judge. Which is why it's not admissible in courts of law. :-) > In bride of quality there is a compulsory 10 seconds "stop" > interval after > all calls on level three and higher in competitive auctions. > Whether this is > a competitive auction or not can be discussed. I think it is, and > in that > case her partner who had doubled was entitled to such a pause after > the 3D > call. > > I said above that my impression here is of a more "social" bridge > club so I > wouldn't stress the point of a missing "stop" too much; but then > again nor > would I pay too much attention to a possible hesitation unless it was > excessive and speculative. While I agree with that second paragraph, I've never heard of this compulsory stop, unless there was a skip bid, which in this case there was not. Certainly there's no regulation requiring it in the ACBL (don't know about France, or Norway for that matter). > The lady hadn't noticed (I said she was only a discreet >> player). TD was called. He repeatedly asked the lady if her >> partner had >> passed and she repeatedly said she didn't know, she had been >> concentrating on her cards, planning possible future action. > > I suppose TD asked if her partner had hesitated (not "passed"). > > Her answer is OK in social bridge, not so acceptable in bridge of > quality. Not okay? Are you assuming she was lying? Or is concentrating on one's cards and planning one's future actions paying insufficient attention to the game? >> Okay, as corollary to the rule "if it hesitates, shoot it" I think >> any sensible >> TD assumes there was a hesitation (wouldn't hurt to look at the >> hand of >> partner, which TD did not do). This was a comment by the original poster... I like to think I'm a sensible TD, and I don't now, never have, and never will buy the "if it hesitates, shoot it" argument. As for looking at the hand, you don't do that while it's still in play. >> If a player claims to not have noticed >> then either he/she was asleep, dead or protecting partner, not >> wanting >> to "betray" him. That is my experience at this level. But, in my >> opinion irrelevant, let us assume there was a hesitation. The >> question >> is now only if 3 hearts is an almost automatic bid (assuming a >> pass in >> the previous round) or if there is a logical alternative (pass). >> In my >> opinion 3 hearts is automatic but that is not the point of this. > > As I said, I think she created this trouble for herself in passing > on the > previous round. Pass is certainly (IMO) a logical alternative now, > but then > again "for this level of players"? If 3 hearts is "automatic" then pass is not an LA. That said, I agree that it is, not considering the level of play. As for whether there was a hesitation, if the player concerned agreed she'd hesitated, or was not sure, I'd say she did. >> TD said to continue play/bidding. > > At this time TD, in addition to saying "play on" (which he > correctly did) > should have instructed the players to call him again if they felt > damaged by > the alleged hesitation and subsequent auction. Yep. >> After play the gentleman LHO who was N or S scored the hand as 3 >> hearts >> making, -140 for NS. The lady said it had been doubled. The gentleman >> said he knew this but refused to score it as doubled after the >> hesitation. He was quite adamant about this and refused to call >> the TD. > > And this is completely unacceptable regardless of the level of the > club. Her > LHO now violated almost every law in the book and should have been > told so, > not by the players but by the Director. There is no excuse for any > of the > four players at the table for not calling the Director in this > situation. LHO is a cheat, pure and simple. I would treat him as such. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 16 02:15:00 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:15:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] almost td problem 2 In-Reply-To: <455B9D2B.6040701@aol.com> References: <455B9D2B.6040701@aol.com> Message-ID: <4B52569A-5F46-4033-B97B-EE22B18FD71D@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 15, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I agree with your 4 points at end of your email; was pondering further > steps (such as procedural penalty) without commotion or further > problems. As one of the other correspondents wrote, "un-f-believable > arrogance" (and he didn't even mention that it was willful > falsification > of a result!). Thus I was pondering what I'd do after carrying out > your > 4 steps. Ciao, JE Heh. On first reading the story, my initial reaction was that some of my neighbors would suggest the TD "bust a cap in his ass". I suspect that's a bit harsh. :-) I rather like Sven's 100% of a top PP. 25% is too small (here in the ACBL, that's the 'standard' PP). From roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr Thu Nov 16 02:19:35 2006 From: roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:19:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost td problem 2 References: <455B9D2B.6040701@aol.com> Message-ID: <001201c7091d$47b1e190$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Roger Eymard : ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:05 AM Subject: [blml] almost td problem 2 > Thanks for the input; probably more will come. To clarify a few points: > yes the TD asked if there had been a hesitation ("pass" was typo that I > didn't catch when rereading). Naturally someone should have called the > TD. The lady in question was afraid to, the partner of the willfully > misscoring fellow appears to have agreed with him and I don't know about > the partner of my lady acquaintance. But she and her partner are, as far > as I know, not terribly experienced players and were conscious of being > guests in a foreign club and there were some linguistic limitations as > well. None of this excuses their pusillanimity (there's a word creation > for you!) of course. Naturally, when she told me the story I > immediately told her that playing duplicate bridge carries certain > obligations. Such as not falling asleep at the table so as to naturally > be aware of any hesitation, particularly the partner's, and that it was > 100% necessary to call the TD in such a case, allowing the opponents to > get away with such an action, "if you want a top so much, okay" does not > only give the opponents a top (or good score) but affects all other > competitors and falsifies the result. > The club was licensed by the French federation and awarded MPs, so it > was hardly social bridge and surely subject to the rules of bridge and > civilised behaviour. I think most of the ruling is obvious. What > inspired my enquiry was the personal speculation as to what I, as TD, > should have done. Only a warning (with explanation) is too little I > think, even a most severe warning. The culprit was an experienced > player. I think a procedural penalty is necessary but don't know how > massive it would have been. I also considered reporting the whole > incident to the national federation (or at least threatening to do so) > but, of course, I wasn't there. As to hearsay: yes, of course, you > can't be certain but that was not the point. Assuming that things were > as reported and you were the TD, what would you have done? That is what > I wanted to know. > To Sven: No, as far as I know the social aspect is unimportant at said > club, the opponents were described as being very intense and ambitious. > Yes, I also immediately said that 3 hearts would probably have been > better than pass after the 2 spade bid. I don't know if there was a > stop before 2 spades (probably was since it wasn't mentioned) but that > is really irrelevant I think since the (probable) hesitation of partner > which was the cause of the discussion was after the 3 diam. bid. I also > think that it was a competitive auction but then there are hesitations > in such auctions as well, only the time-limit of normal tempo is > somewhat increased. > I, of course, told her that she was obliged to call the TD as soon as > the trouble started, but timid players against veteran players can cause > the timid player to not do so. Incidentally, I assume that the > opponents were not only more experienced but also more proficient > players which makes their transgression all the more serious. > I agree with your 4 points at end of your email; was pondering further > steps (such as procedural penalty) without commotion or further > problems. As one of the other correspondents wrote, "un-f-believable > arrogance" (and he didn't even mention that it was willful falsification > of a result!). Thus I was pondering what I'd do after carrying out your > 4 steps. Ciao, JE > As a TD , appointed to direct official events of the French Bridge Federation, as well as directing occasionally as a volunteer playing TD in regular tournaments of my Club - probably quite similar to the one cited -, I agree of course with points 1 to 3 of Sven Pran's analysis. But such a willful falsification of a result, if attested, would be certainly reported (by myself if not by the Club Directing Board) to the relevant disciplinary instance, and lead to the appropriate penalty, which may include, among other penalties, the interdiction for the culprit to enter any bridge event pertaining to the FFB (including any local club tournament in France), during a definite period. Active zero tolerance of such behaviours is the constant policy of the FFB for bridge events which pertain to her - that is, for which MPs are awarded by her. And I would certainly not write here the word qualifying this man, despite the freedom generally allowed in the posts :-( > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 16 02:43:54 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:43:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <008a01c70920$d1cdaff0$ceba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense, Lie in three words, health, peace, and competence." -~ Alexander Pope. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ Curious. I would have expected reversible bidding cards. ~ G ~ +=+ --------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >We've got two kinds of BB in our club, one of which has 1NT at the > >upper right (or rather, upper rear) and there have been mispulls > >more than once. > > > >I wonder, what would a BB for lefthanders look like ? > > Richard Hills: > > The Canberra Bridge Club has bidding boxes for lefthanders. To > avoid confusion, the lefthanded bidding cards are in orange boxes > while the standard righthanded bidding cards are in red boxes. > > For both types of boxes the 1C card is at the upper right rear. > > The difference between the two is that the big symbols on the > lefthanded bidding cards are rotated 180 degrees. > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Nov 16 03:28:15 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:28:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem References: <455B7555.5020104@aol.com> Message-ID: <007001c70926$e2d95690$6400a8c0@rota> Jeff Easterson writes: > After play the gentleman LHO who was N or S scored the hand as 3 hearts > making, -140 for NS. The lady said it had been doubled. The gentleman > said he knew this but refused to score it as doubled after the > hesitation. He was quite adamant about this and refused to call the TD. > The lady (who didn't want to make waves and cause any problems as a > foreigner) did not call either so the score was recorded as 140. > Now we finally get to my question. Assuming that you, as TD, had been > called, or was informed in some way of the occurrence, what would you > do? This wasn't an ACBL event, but the ACBL does have a standard set of discplinary regulations at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/CurrentCode.pdf, which is useful as a guideline. One of the listed offenses is "intentionally [changing] a score or any information that could result in awarding incorrect masterpoints," and the standard penalty is a suspension of 180 days to one year. That would apply at a tournament; this was a club game, and it would be appropriate for the club director to suspend the player from that club (possibly not for a full 180 days) and report the event to the national disciplinary committee. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 16 05:20:12 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:20:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007001c70926$e2d95690$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Grabiner: [snip] >That would apply at a tournament; this was a club >game, and it would be appropriate for the club >director to suspend the player from that club >(possibly not for a full 180 days) [snip] Richard Hills: A director's Law 91A power to suspend is limited to the current session (or any part thereof). Of course, the Definition of "session" merely states that it is "an extended period of play" specified by the sponsoring organisation, so a sponsoring organisation could run an event in which each session was 180 days long. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 16 09:45:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:45:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c7095b$a4803cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ............. > > In bride of quality there is a compulsory 10 seconds "stop" > > interval after > > all calls on level three and higher in competitive auctions. > > Whether this is > > a competitive auction or not can be discussed. I think it is, and > > in that > > case her partner who had doubled was entitled to such a pause after > > the 3D > > call. > > > > I said above that my impression here is of a more "social" bridge > > club so I > > wouldn't stress the point of a missing "stop" too much; but then > > again nor > > would I pay too much attention to a possible hesitation unless it was > > excessive and speculative. > > While I agree with that second paragraph, I've never heard of this > compulsory stop, unless there was a skip bid, which in this case > there was not. Certainly there's no regulation requiring it in the > ACBL (don't know about France, or Norway for that matter). WBF regulation. > > > The lady hadn't noticed (I said she was only a discreet > >> player). TD was called. He repeatedly asked the lady if her > >> partner had > >> passed and she repeatedly said she didn't know, she had been > >> concentrating on her cards, planning possible future action. > > > > I suppose TD asked if her partner had hesitated (not "passed"). > > > > Her answer is OK in social bridge, not so acceptable in bridge of > > quality. > > Not okay? Are you assuming she was lying? Or is concentrating on > one's cards and planning one's future actions paying insufficient > attention to the game? No, I am saying that she was "paying insufficient attention to the game" (Law 74B1). ............. > >> After play the gentleman LHO who was N or S scored the hand as 3 > >> hearts > >> making, -140 for NS. The lady said it had been doubled. The gentleman > >> said he knew this but refused to score it as doubled after the > >> hesitation. He was quite adamant about this and refused to call > >> the TD. > > > > And this is completely unacceptable regardless of the level of the > > club. Her > > LHO now violated almost every law in the book and should have been > > told so, > > not by the players but by the Director. There is no excuse for any > > of the > > four players at the table for not calling the Director in this > > situation. > > LHO is a cheat, pure and simple. I would treat him as such. We (almost) never use the word "cheat" in Norway and certainly do not accept players to use that word. Ruling without saying comes a long way. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 16 11:14:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <455B7555.5020104@aol.com> Message-ID: Is the guillotine still available to French TDs? If not "tant pis" as they say. The behaviour attributed to the ex-president (who should be an exemplar of good behaviour) of the club is an abhorrent attempt to use his power and status to bully another player. Were I TD I'd have him in front of the club disciplinary committee and I'd request an independent representative of the French NA to be in attendance at the hearing. Maybe I won't make any friends, maybe I won't ever work as a TD again (or play) in that club but such is life. As Grattan said a TD's life isn't supposed to be easy! On a couple of other points - I regard 3H now as clear cut. The lady was willing to defend 2S holding Qxxx but not 3D holding a singleton. That's how many average players think and they would universally find a 3H bid on the given hand. There is no obligation (at any level) to be aware of partner's hesitations. The lady was not "paying insufficient attention" she was thinking about her own hand. In a low-level game the answer "I'm terribly sorry - I didn't notice but I'm sure opps are correct" is perfectly acceptable. My own answer would be "I'm sure opps are correct and obviously I was under UI restrictions whether I noticed or not". I don't want players being forced to lie about having noticed a hesitation they were in fact unaware of and I never interpret "I didn't notice" as a dispute of the hesitation. Finally I find it difficult to believe the TD was unaware of the xPres's character and he really should have returned at the end of the hand (or indeed stood by throughout) to check up on things. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 16 12:23:18 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:23:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem References: Message-ID: <00c801c70975$bf5300a0$96ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense, Lie in three words, health, peace, and competence." -~ Alexander Pope. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] almost TD problem > > > Finally I find it difficult to believe the TD was unaware > of the xPres's character and he really should have > returned at the end of the hand (or indeed stood by > throughout) to check up on things. > +=+ I agree - but I do not wish to open the door to argument that this was a TD's error. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 16 17:45:57 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:45:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <000001c7095b$a4803cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c7095b$a4803cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0409CF49-334F-4925-B45F-7C9A7B92F034@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 16, 2006, at 3:45 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > WBF regulation. Interesting. I couldn't find it on the WBF site. Be that as it may, such a regulation only applies in WBF events, or other events where the SO has adopted the regulation. >>> The lady hadn't noticed (I said she was only a discreet >>>> player). TD was called. He repeatedly asked the lady if her >>>> partner had >>>> passed and she repeatedly said she didn't know, she had been >>>> concentrating on her cards, planning possible future action. >>> >>> I suppose TD asked if her partner had hesitated (not "passed"). >>> >>> Her answer is OK in social bridge, not so acceptable in bridge of >>> quality. >> >> Not okay? Are you assuming she was lying? Or is concentrating on >> one's cards and planning one's future actions paying insufficient >> attention to the game? > > > No, I am saying that she was "paying insufficient attention to the > game" > (Law 74B1). She said she was concentrating on her cards and planning her future actions. You say she was paying insufficient attention to the game. What else is one to conclude but that doing the former equates to the latter? Or must a person who wishes to play bridge be able to both do the former *and* pay close attention to everything happening at the table? >> LHO is a cheat, pure and simple. I would treat him as such. > > We (almost) never use the word "cheat" in Norway and certainly do > not accept > players to use that word. Ruling without saying comes a long way. Oh, dear. I've called a spade a spade. How Politically Incorrect! Shame on me! I should be shot at dawn! Pfui. Note: I did *not* say I would explicitly call this player a cheat in making a ruling. I said I would treat him as one. As David G pointed out, that means (in the ACBL) he gets at least a 180 day suspension. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 16 17:50:03 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:50:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008a01c70920$d1cdaff0$ceba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <008a01c70920$d1cdaff0$ceba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:43 PM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Curious. I would have expected > reversible bidding cards. ~ G ~ +=+ I've watched left-handers trying to deal with "standard" (ie, right- handed) bidding cards. They end up twisting their wrists into an uncomfortable position in an effort to get the cards facing the right way. Or else they don't bother, and just put the cards down "backwards", which can confuse others. From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 16 18:31:28 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:31:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <0409CF49-334F-4925-B45F-7C9A7B92F034@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c709a5$0d61b730$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert .............. > > No, I am saying that she was "paying insufficient attention to the > > game" > > (Law 74B1). > > She said she was concentrating on her cards and planning her future > actions. You say she was paying insufficient attention to the game. > What else is one to conclude but that doing the former equates to the > latter? Or must a person who wishes to play bridge be able to both do > the former *and* pay close attention to everything happening at the > table? So she was concentrating on her cards and planning her future actions so intensively that she wouldn't even know when it became her turn to call the next time? Is that paying sufficient attention to the game? Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 16 19:09:26 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:09:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <000001c709a5$0d61b730$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c709a5$0d61b730$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7BC94E7C-9C78-41A4-B6AB-FF8EE87D28C0@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > So she was concentrating on her cards and planning her future > actions so > intensively that she wouldn't even know when it became her turn to > call the > next time? 1. don't put words in my mouth. 2. so somebody needs a reminder when it's their turn to call. Big deal. 3. as someone else pointed out, no law requires one to notice one's partner's hesitations. Including Law 74B1. 4. I do not believe that in all your years of directing, you've never had a player tell you they weren't aware of a hesitation by partner. Nor do I believe that you gave all such players PPs for violating law 74B1. Am I wrong? From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 16 19:45:36 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:45:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <7BC94E7C-9C78-41A4-B6AB-FF8EE87D28C0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c709af$67f16ab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > So she was concentrating on her cards and planning her future > > actions so > > intensively that she wouldn't even know when it became her turn to > > call the > > next time? > > 1. don't put words in my mouth. It was a question. > 2. so somebody needs a reminder when it's their turn to call. Big deal. Rather common in less serious bridge, not so common in higher quality bridge. > 3. as someone else pointed out, no law requires one to notice one's > partner's hesitations. Including Law 74B1. > 4. I do not believe that in all your years of directing, you've never > had a player tell you they weren't aware of a hesitation by partner. > Nor do I believe that you gave all such players PPs for violating law > 74B1. Am I wrong? No. And in all my years I cannot recall a single situation where a player claimed that (s)he didn't _know_! In serious events I have never had any such situation and in more social bridge I do not bother. The usual statement (when there is a disagreement) is that s(he) didn't _notice_ any hesitation, not that I give much weight to such statements anyway. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 16 23:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <000201c709af$67f16ab0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > The usual statement (when there is a disagreement) is that s(he) > didn't _notice_ any hesitation, not that I give much weight to such > statements anyway. A player saying he didn't notice a hesitation is NOT disputing the hesitation - he is saying that it is purely a matter for his opponents and partner to agree/disagree. In order to dispute a hesitation the player must make a positive statement to the effect that no hesitation has occurred. When ruling we make it clear that the law is concerned only with whether UI was made available - not whether it was noticed. This deals with the c**** who claims not to have noticed as easily as with the nice lady who genuinely didn't notice. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 16 23:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <00c801c70975$bf5300a0$96ab87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > Finally I find it difficult to believe the TD was unaware > > of the xPres's character and he really should have > > returned at the end of the hand (or indeed stood by > > throughout) to check up on things. > > > +=+ I agree - but I do not wish to open the door > to argument that this was a TD's error. ~ G ~ +=+ Procedurally I believe "standing ready" covers TDs who asks to be called back at the end of the hand if there is a problem. I wouldn't accept that the TD not being there was a procedural error and I don't believe L82c could possibly be used to exonerate the offender in any way in this case. My observation on what he "should" have done was intended as a human one rather than a legal one. Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 02:52:10 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:52:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem In-Reply-To: <200611161708.kAGH8A5h010125@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611161708.kAGH8A5h010125@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <455D15CA.5080903@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > Is the guillotine still available to French TDs? I just want to "third" what Tim and David have written. Deliberately falsifying a score is a serious offense, far beyond the level of a mere PP or even disqualification for the event. I'm not sure what the exact procedure would be here in the ACBL, let alone in France, but I expect it would involve both the club's and the local unit's disciplinary committees. Of course the player would be accorded proper procedures and a chance for rebuttal before any penalty (in addition to the disqualification) was imposed. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 17 02:57:06 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:57:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Summary and additional questions? 1NT-P..correct 1C-1S .. In-Reply-To: <200611151533.kAFFXCMG011988@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611151533.kAFFXCMG011988@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <455D16F2.1000103@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: koen > Summary: > - If Law 25A applies then South can change his call and West's initial > pass is UI for EW. Backwards: AI for EW, UI for NS. But if it's really a L25A case, the initial call will carry no useful information for anybody. > - If law 25A does not apply (1NT not inadvertent) then Law 25B can not > applied because LHO already made a call. Correct. > - As a result the 1C call is a COOT. This seems bizarre to me. If it's an attempt to correct the original call but not allowed, then it's just extraneous. Of course it's AI to opponents, UI to partner, and it will in this case carry useful information. > Questions/comment: > - West made his 1S bid after "reserving his rights" as a playing CTD. > Does that not change anything to the ruling? Probably not as he would > have to give South a clear overview of his rights. Correct. "Reserving rights" is a very misleading term at best. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 17 08:36:35 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:36:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0409CF49-334F-4925-B45F-7C9A7B92F034@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>>In bridge of quality there is a compulsory 10 seconds >>>>"stop" interval after all calls on level three and >>>>higher in competitive auctions. Richard Hills: So in Australia, which lacks a "Stop!" regulation, bridge of quality is never played? Ed Reppert: >>>I've never heard of this compulsory stop, unless there >>>was a skip bid, which in this case there was not. >>>Certainly there's no regulation requiring it in the ACBL >>>(don't know about France, or Norway for that matter). Sven Pran: >>WBF regulation. Ed Reppert: >Interesting. I couldn't find it on the WBF site. Richard Hills: I agree with Ed. Sven's "quality bridge" regulation is not currently included in the WBF General Conditions of Contest. (Of course, it may be a repealed WBF regulation and/or a WBF special regulation specific to a particular previous event.) Ed Reppert: >Be that as it may, such a regulation only applies in WBF >events, or other events where the SO has adopted the >regulation. Richard Hills: Indeed, an assertion that a blmler's local norms must be "quality bridge" norms should require a reasoned argument, not merely a statement that the WBF does or has done it that way, so it must be right for all SOs at all times. Sven Pran: >>We (almost) never use the word "cheat" in Norway and >>certainly do not accept players to use that word. Ruling >>without saying comes a long way. Ed Reppert: >Oh, dear. I've called a spade a spade. How Politically >Incorrect! Shame on me! I should be shot at dawn! > >Pfui. > >Note: I did *not* say I would explicitly call this player >a cheat in making a ruling. I said I would treat him as >one. Richard Hills: Yes, ignorance of the Law is no excuse. The ex-President obviously sincerely believes that the Lawbook states, "Law 94 - CHANGE OF SCORE BY A PLAYER "When a contract is reached after UI, and that contract is doubled, the score stands if the contract fails. But, if the contract succeeds, in lieu of calling the Director an opponent may change the score to what the result of the contract would be if it had not been doubled. See Law 77." :-) But this sincere and non-cheating ex-President gets the same ruling (as earlier outlined by Grattan) as a cheat would get. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 18 02:28:21 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:28:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <008a01c70920$d1cdaff0$ceba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000401c70ab1$58464d80$338e403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:43 PM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ Curious. I would have expected >> reversible bidding cards. ~ G ~ +=+ > Reppert: > I've watched left-handers trying to deal with "standard" > (ie, right- handed) bidding cards. They end up twisting > their wrists into an uncomfortable position in an effort > to get the cards facing the right way. Or else they don't > bother, and just put the cards down "backwards", which can confuse others. > Endicott: +=+ If you turn a bidding card over, taking the RH edge of the card in doing so and placing it to the left. Could you then lay out on it the information from the other side of the card in a manner satisfactory to a left-handed player? +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 18 06:20:41 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:20:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c70ab1$58464d80$338e403e@Mildred> References: <008a01c70920$d1cdaff0$ceba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000401c70ab1$58464d80$338e403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6D356CCF-12E4-433D-B7A8-552266F8C88A@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:28 PM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ If you turn a bidding card over, taking the RH edge > of the card in doing so and placing it to the left. Could > you then lay out on it the information from the other side > of the card in a manner satisfactory to a left-handed > player? +=+ Ah! Two sided cards! I do believe that would work. But then how would Mrs. Guggenheim look up the proper score? :-) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Nov 18 11:26:54 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:26:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders In-Reply-To: <6D356CCF-12E4-433D-B7A8-552266F8C88A@rochester.rr.com> References: <008a01c70920$d1cdaff0$ceba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000401c70ab1$58464d80$338e403e@Mildred> <6D356CCF-12E4-433D-B7A8-552266F8C88A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <1GlNPS-0X6k5o0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> > > +=+ If you turn a bidding card over, taking the RH edge > > of the card in doing so and placing it to the left. Could > > you then lay out on it the information from the other side > > of the card in a manner satisfactory to a left-handed > > player? +=+ > > Ah! Two sided cards! I do believe that would work. But then how would > Mrs. Guggenheim look up the proper score? :-) She should use BridgeMates ... they will do the work for her ;-) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 19 22:54:44 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:54:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders References: <008a01c70920$d1cdaff0$ceba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><000401c70ab1$58464d80$338e403e@Mildred><6D356CCF-12E4-433D-B7A8-552266F8C88A@rochester.rr.com> <1GlNPS-0X6k5o0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000b01c70c3c$8f6a54f0$62d7403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders >> > +=+ If you turn a bidding card over, taking the RH edge >> > of the card in doing so and placing it to the left. Could >> > you then lay out on it the information from the other side >> > of the card in a manner satisfactory to a left-handed >> > player? +=+ >> >> Ah! Two sided cards! I do believe that would work. But >>. then how would Mrs. Guggenheim look up the proper > > score? :-) > > She should use BridgeMates ... they will do the work for > her > > ;-) > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 19 22:54:44 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:54:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders References: <008a01c70920$d1cdaff0$ceba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><000401c70ab1$58464d80$338e403e@Mildred><6D356CCF-12E4-433D-B7A8-552266F8C88A@rochester.rr.com> <1GlNPS-0X6k5o0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000601c70c44$5f4f2400$3ee0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding box for lefthanders >> > +=+ If you turn a bidding card over, taking the RH edge >> > of the card in doing so and placing it to the left. Could >> > you then lay out on it the information from the other side >> > of the card in a manner satisfactory to a left-handed >> > player? +=+ >> >> Ah! Two sided cards! I do believe that would work. But >>. then how would Mrs. Guggenheim look up the proper > > score? :-) > > She should use BridgeMates ... they will do the work for > her > > ;-) > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 13:56:23 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:56:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <0409CF49-334F-4925-B45F-7C9A7B92F034@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 17/11/06, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven Pran: > > >>>>In bridge of quality there is a compulsory 10 seconds > >>>>"stop" interval after all calls on level three and > >>>>higher in competitive auctions. > > Richard Hills: > > So in Australia, which lacks a "Stop!" regulation, bridge > of quality is never played? > > Ed Reppert: > > >>>I've never heard of this compulsory stop, unless there > >>>was a skip bid, which in this case there was not. > >>>Certainly there's no regulation requiring it in the ACBL > >>>(don't know about France, or Norway for that matter). > > Sven Pran: > > >>WBF regulation. > > Ed Reppert: > > >Interesting. I couldn't find it on the WBF site. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Ed. Sven's "quality bridge" regulation is not > currently included in the WBF General Conditions of Contest. And it never has been. This is a Norwegian regulation which has been in effect since September 2002. >From then our Stop regulation include Stop in competitive auctions from the 3-level and upwards in addition to skip bids. I've never heard of any other jurisdiction having a similar regulation. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > (Of course, it may be a repealed WBF regulation and/or a WBF > special regulation specific to a particular previous event.) > > Ed Reppert: > > >Be that as it may, such a regulation only applies in WBF > >events, or other events where the SO has adopted the > >regulation. > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed, an assertion that a blmler's local norms must be > "quality bridge" norms should require a reasoned argument, > not merely a statement that the WBF does or has done it > that way, so it must be right for all SOs at all times. > > Sven Pran: > > >>We (almost) never use the word "cheat" in Norway and > >>certainly do not accept players to use that word. Ruling > >>without saying comes a long way. > > Ed Reppert: > > >Oh, dear. I've called a spade a spade. How Politically > >Incorrect! Shame on me! I should be shot at dawn! > > > >Pfui. > > > >Note: I did *not* say I would explicitly call this player > >a cheat in making a ruling. I said I would treat him as > >one. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, ignorance of the Law is no excuse. The ex-President > obviously sincerely believes that the Lawbook states, > > "Law 94 - CHANGE OF SCORE BY A PLAYER > > "When a contract is reached after UI, and that contract is > doubled, the score stands if the contract fails. But, if > the contract succeeds, in lieu of calling the Director an > opponent may change the score to what the result of the > contract would be if it had not been doubled. See Law 77." > > :-) > > But this sincere and non-cheating ex-President gets the > same ruling (as earlier outlined by Grattan) as a cheat > would get. > > > 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 20 15:35:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:35:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] almost TD problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c70cb1$2d6ab0e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran ........ > > I agree with Ed. Sven's "quality bridge" regulation is not > > currently included in the WBF General Conditions of Contest. > > And it never has been. > This is a Norwegian regulation which has been in effect since September > 2002. > >From then our Stop regulation include Stop in competitive auctions > from the 3-level and upwards in addition to skip bids. > I've never heard of any other jurisdiction having a similar regulation. > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran Thanks for the clarification; I have always believed this was part of the translation from WBF regulations that was used for the last revision of the Norwegian regulations. One note: When I use the term "quality bridge" it has nothing to do with the words in the regulations but to indicate that at lower level bridge we accept much which is unaccepted in top level bridge. One example is lack of obedience to the stop rules. Regards Sven From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 20 19:36:48 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:36:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties Message-ID: Hypothetical auction The auction starts 1NT (1D) The TD is called. After determining that an opening 1D is natural, but a 2D overcall of 1NT shows Spades and a minor, he rules under 27B2 (after LHO declines the option to accept). At no time did Offender state what he intended his 1D bid to mean. The TD never asked what he intended it to be. Was that correct? The auction now continues; (Pass) Pass (Pass). What lead penalties apply? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 20 20:49:29 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:49:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Fowl (was foul) de Lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898): "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." Richard Hills: Let's mix in another metaphor -> The Law of the Rings: The Two Texts Starring Grattan Endicott as Frodo John Wignall as Gandalf Anna Gudge as Arwen William Schoder as Aragorn and featuring blml as Smeagol/Gollum The split personality Smeagol/Gollum was mostly treacherous. And blml postings are mostly rubbish. But even a treacherous guide to Mordor was better than no guide at all. While Grattan recently revealed that blml discussion about Law 65 had prompted the WBF LC drafting committee to consider fine-tuning that Law. Special effects are now being locked in for the final movie, "The Law of the Rings: The Return of the Kojak", which will receive its world premiere in Shanghai in October 2007. Therefore, if any blmler has a (perhaps rubbish, but perhaps not) belief that a particular aspect of the 1997 Lawbook is ambiguous or leads to an unintended consequence, then the time to debate such a special effect is now. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 20 22:03:28 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:03:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve Wright: >Hypothetical auction > >The auction starts > >1NT (1D) > >The TD is called. After determining that an opening 1D is >natural, but a 2D overcall of 1NT shows Spades and a minor, >he rules under 27B2 (after LHO declines the option to >accept). > >At no time did Offender state what he intended his 1D bid >to mean. The TD never asked what he intended it to be. Was >that correct? > >The auction now continues; > >(Pass) Pass (Pass). > >What lead penalties apply? Law 26B: For other withdrawn calls, (penalty) declarer may prohibit offender's partner from leading any one suit* at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the lead. * Declarer specifies the suit when offender's partner first has the lead. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 20 22:26:53 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:26:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A08F90B-DF33-461C-8608-6FCF2E4C1CCB@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 20, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > Hypothetical auction > > The auction starts > > 1NT (1D) > > The TD is called. After determining that an opening 1D is natural, > but a > 2D overcall of 1NT shows Spades and a minor, he rules under 27B2 > (after > LHO declines the option to accept). > > At no time did Offender state what he intended his 1D bid to mean. The > TD never asked what he intended it to be. Was that correct? IMO, yes. > The auction now continues; > > (Pass) Pass (Pass). > > What lead penalties apply? To the opening lead, none. When (if) opening leader's partner gains the lead, declarer may require or forbid him to lead a diamond, and may continue to do one or the other so long as that player retains the lead. Law 26A2. Note: I suppose someone might say he could also require or forbid the lead of a spade, on the grounds that 2D would have shown spades, but I don't buy it. This would be based on the parenthetical (or one particular specified suit), and Spades is only "specified" if offender intended to bid 2D - in which case (a) why didn't he attempt to immediately correct his inadvertent 1D under Law 25A, and (b) why didn't he correct his IB to 2S? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 20 22:32:42 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:32:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24FB3F94-5D39-4E3F-BE7D-B69BFB0B7B99@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 20, 2006, at 4:03 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 26B: The withdrawn call (1D) referred to a specific suit: diamonds. Therefore, Law 26A2 applies, rather than 26B. Okay, I'm assuming opening 1D is natural in OS' system, but I think that's a reasonable assumption, on the evidence we were given. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Nov 20 22:58:18 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:58:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >To: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:03:28 +1100 > >Steve Wright: > > >Hypothetical auction > > > >The auction starts > > > >1NT (1D) > > > >The TD is called. After determining that an opening 1D is > >natural, but a 2D overcall of 1NT shows Spades and a minor, > >he rules under 27B2 (after LHO declines the option to > >accept). > > > >At no time did Offender state what he intended his 1D bid > >to mean. The TD never asked what he intended it to be. Was > >that correct? > > > >The auction now continues; > > > >(Pass) Pass (Pass). > > > >What lead penalties apply? > >Law 26B: > >For other withdrawn calls, (penalty) declarer may prohibit >offender's partner from leading any one suit* at his first >turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition >to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the >lead. > >* Declarer specifies the suit when offender's partner >first has the lead. > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills, amicus curiae In the auction 1N-1D the 1D call having been canceled where offender becomes a defender, his partner becomes subject to L26 lead penalties at his next turn to lead. The penalties are related to the agreement to the canceled call [1D]. presumably since an IB is illegal there is no agreement to an insufficient bid of 1D. So, I suggest that the context of 1D is that of an opening bid of 1D [given as natural] or a legal overcall of 1D [which presumably would be natural]. I suggest that L26A provides the prescription for the penalty. regards roger pewick _________________________________________________________________ Fixing up the home? Live Search can help http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 21 00:02:07 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:02:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <24FB3F94-5D39-4E3F-BE7D-B69BFB0B7B99@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Law 26B: Ed Reppert: >The withdrawn call (1D) referred to a specific suit: diamonds. >Therefore, Law 26A2 applies, rather than 26B. Okay, I'm >assuming opening 1D is natural in OS' system, but I think >that's a reasonable assumption, on the evidence we were given. Richard Hills: The point of Steve Wright's initial posting was that the withdrawn insufficient bid referred either to diamonds, or to spades and a minor, depending on whether the intent of the offender was to open the bidding or to overcall over 1NT. And, indeed, it was because the insufficient bid was possibly conventional that Law 27B2 was applied to the offender. Since an ambiguous insufficient bid does not refer to any specific suit, it seems to me that Law 26B (Other Withdrawn Calls) applies, rather than Law 26A (Call Related to a Specific Suit). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 21 00:28:07 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:28:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills (parallel thread "Fowl de Lawbook"): [snip] >>Therefore, if any blmler has a (perhaps rubbish, >>but perhaps not) belief that a particular aspect >>of the 1997 Lawbook is ambiguous or leads to an >>unintended consequence, then the time to debate >>such a special effect is now. Roger Pewick: [snip] >presumably since an IB is illegal there is no >agreement to an insufficient bid of 1D. [snip] Richard Hills: "Presumably"? A classic example of a particular aspect of the 1997 Lawbook being ambiguous. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 21 00:52:12 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:52:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c70cfe$e635cae0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............. > The point of Steve Wright's initial posting was that the > withdrawn insufficient bid referred either to diamonds, or to > spades and a minor, depending on whether the intent of the > offender was to open the bidding or to overcall over 1NT. > > And, indeed, it was because the insufficient bid was possibly > conventional that Law 27B2 was applied to the offender. > > Since an ambiguous insufficient bid does not refer to any > specific suit, it seems to me that Law 26B (Other Withdrawn > Calls) applies, rather than Law 26A (Call Related to a Specific > Suit). All this is very fine, but it does not answer the important question: If the IB was intended as a conventional call (i.e. a 2D overcall over the 1NT opening bid) how come the offender selected to pass rather than for instance to bid his spade suit? I think the evidence here clearly indicates that the IB was never intended as anything else but a (natural) opening bid of 1D. And if we shall be technical: No 2D bid has been withdrawn. The withdrawn call is 1D which (on its face) refers to just Diamonds; that is the fact on which the Director must base his ruling. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 21 00:54:16 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:54:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0C6B73DD-4B3F-4146-9986-80F932B2B943@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 20, 2006, at 6:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> Law 26B: > > Ed Reppert: > >> The withdrawn call (1D) referred to a specific suit: diamonds. >> Therefore, Law 26A2 applies, rather than 26B. Okay, I'm >> assuming opening 1D is natural in OS' system, but I think >> that's a reasonable assumption, on the evidence we were given. > > Richard Hills: > > The point of Steve Wright's initial posting was that the > withdrawn insufficient bid referred either to diamonds, or to > spades and a minor, depending on whether the intent of the > offender was to open the bidding or to overcall over 1NT. Was it? Steve asked whether the TD's not asking what the bidder intended was correct. I guess your answer would be "no". Mine, OTOH... :-) > And, indeed, it was because the insufficient bid was possibly > conventional that Law 27B2 was applied to the offender. No, Law 27B2 was applied because the lowest sufficient bid in diamonds was conventional. > Since an ambiguous insufficient bid does not refer to any > specific suit, it seems to me that Law 26B (Other Withdrawn > Calls) applies, rather than Law 26A (Call Related to a Specific > Suit). 1D, in the offender's system, presumably refers to diamonds. In the words of Law 26 1D *specifies* diamonds. Law 26A starts "if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits..." The withdrawn call *did* relate to a specified suit - diamonds. Note that offender's intent is not relevant, only the systemic meaning of the bid made and withdrawn matters. Ergo, Law 26A, and in particular Law 26A2 (because he did not specify diamonds in the legal auction, he passed) applies. QED. :-) From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Nov 21 02:04:26 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:04:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 Message-ID: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> AQ954 Q 52 AQ762 10 J7 109762 A853 9864 A1073 983 J105 K8632 KJ4 KQJ K4 W N E S 1S P 4D P 4H P 4N P 5D P 6S all pass opening lead C8 result N-S +1430 Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and was informed by N ONLY that 4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good trumps 4H showed a H control 4N also showed a H control 5D showed a D control It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards. If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment. If the explanations had been given in accordance with the "...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1, then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a red suit lead MAY have been selected. What are your views? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.14.8/539 - Release Date: 19/11/2006 19:10 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 21 03:14:38 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:14:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties In-Reply-To: <200611201940.kAKJeGjE011357@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611201940.kAKJeGjE011357@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4562610E.7030107@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Steve Wright > 1NT (1D) > > The TD is called. After determining that an opening 1D is natural, [and offender passes, then 1NT is passed out] Lead penalties relate to diamonds (L26A2) and apply to offender's partner (not the opening leader in this case). Notice that L26A refers to "the withdrawn call" -- in this case 1D -- not to some different call that never existed. > At no time did Offender state what he intended his 1D bid to mean. The > TD never asked what he intended it to be. Was that correct? Yes. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 21 04:51:15 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:51:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c70cfe$e635cae0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >All this is very fine, but it does not answer the important >question: If the IB was intended as a conventional call >(i.e. a 2D overcall over the 1NT opening bid) how come the >offender selected to pass rather than for instance to bid >his spade suit? > >I think the evidence here clearly indicates that the IB was >never intended as anything else but a (natural) opening bid >of 1D. > >And if we shall be technical: No 2D bid has been withdrawn. >The withdrawn call is 1D which (on its face) refers to just >Diamonds; that is the fact on which the Director must base >his ruling. Richard Hills: First Scenario: Dlr: North Vul: East-West North opens 1NT, East undercalls 1D but intended to overcall 2D, which overcall by partnership agreement would show spades and a minor. East actually holds 5/5 in spades and clubs. But if East had opened 1D, or if East had overcalled 1D over North's 1C opening bid, then that 1D call would have been natural. After East's undercall, South (salivating somewhat) refuses to accept the undercall. East observes South's salivation, observes the vulnerability, observes that their initial intention of a 2D overcall was with minimum values in the East-West partnership style, so elects to change their mind by converting their insufficient bid to a pass. South now bids 3NT, and all pass. 3NT will make 10 or 11 tricks depending on the Director's application of Law 26. How should you rule? Second Scenario: As above, except that South does not salivate, East does bid 2D, South still bids 3NT passed out. 3NT will still make 10 or 11 tricks depending on the Director's application of Law 26. How should you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 21 09:56:16 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:56:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000001c70d4a$e7c2c1f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > > AQ954 > Q > 52 > AQ762 > > 10 J7 > 109762 A853 > 9864 A1073 > 983 J105 > > K8632 > KJ4 > KQJ > K4 > > W N E S > 1S > P 4D P 4H > P 4N P 5D > P 6S all pass > > opening lead C8 result N-S +1430 > > Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and > was informed by N ONLY that > 4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good trumps > 4H showed a H control > 4N also showed a H control > 5D showed a D control > > It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB > and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards. > > If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that > once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations > had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment. > > If the explanations had been given in accordance with the > "...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1, > then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a > red suit lead MAY have been selected. > > What are your views? Major issue: At the (preliminary) end of the auction before the opening lead is made (even face down) both presumed declarer and dummy has the duty to "alert" defenders of any explanation they believe is wrong. (Note that this duty applies only to presumed declarer and dummy, their opponents must wait until end of play before giving such corrections). So in this case if South realizes that 4N indeed showed heart control he acted correctly, but if he still believes that their agreement is that 4N is RKCB he has given defenders misinformation by keeping his mum shut. So the question TD must consider is whether this misinformation could have caused West to stay away from a lead in a red suit. Depending on his judgement of this question he will either adjust or let the table result stand. Regards Sven From herman at hdw.be Tue Nov 21 09:59:32 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:59:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties In-Reply-To: <9A08F90B-DF33-461C-8608-6FCF2E4C1CCB@rochester.rr.com> References: <9A08F90B-DF33-461C-8608-6FCF2E4C1CCB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4562BFF4.5090501@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Nov 20, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > > >>Hypothetical auction >> >>The auction starts >> >>1NT (1D) >> >>The TD is called. After determining that an opening 1D is natural, >>but a >>2D overcall of 1NT shows Spades and a minor, he rules under 27B2 >>(after >>LHO declines the option to accept). >> >>At no time did Offender state what he intended his 1D bid to mean. The >>TD never asked what he intended it to be. Was that correct? > > > IMO, yes. > IMO, no. Although the TD should not ask "what do you have in your hand", he should try to find out what the reason was for the error. It could be : - I did not see the 1NT - I thought I saw 1C - I thought 1D was higher than 1NT - I wanted to bid 2D and mispulled - I wanted to bid 2D, mispulled, and did not change it when I saw that it was 1D those (and perhaps some others) will yield different rulings. > >>The auction now continues; >> >>(Pass) Pass (Pass). >> >>What lead penalties apply? > depends on the meaning of 1D. > > To the opening lead, none. When (if) opening leader's partner gains > the lead, declarer may require or forbid him to lead a diamond, and > may continue to do one or the other so long as that player retains > the lead. Law 26A2. Note: I suppose someone might say he could also > require or forbid the lead of a spade, on the grounds that 2D would > have shown spades, but I don't buy it. This would be based on the > parenthetical (or one particular specified suit), and Spades is only > "specified" if offender intended to bid 2D - in which case (a) why > didn't he attempt to immediately correct his inadvertent 1D under Law > 25A, and (b) why didn't he correct his IB to 2S? > Ed agrees that it depends on the original meaning, yet he did not ask that meaning. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw at hdw.be Tue Nov 21 10:03:17 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:03:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4562C0D5.1000209@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>>Law 26B: > > > Ed Reppert: > > >>The withdrawn call (1D) referred to a specific suit: diamonds. >>Therefore, Law 26A2 applies, rather than 26B. Okay, I'm >>assuming opening 1D is natural in OS' system, but I think >>that's a reasonable assumption, on the evidence we were given. > > > Richard Hills: > > The point of Steve Wright's initial posting was that the > withdrawn insufficient bid referred either to diamonds, or to > spades and a minor, depending on whether the intent of the > offender was to open the bidding or to overcall over 1NT. > > And, indeed, it was because the insufficient bid was possibly > conventional that Law 27B2 was applied to the offender. > No it was not - it was because the raised bid would be conventional. At that point it does not matter what 1D intended, since 2D is conventional, there can be no correction to 2D. I believe it is a good thing that this distinction has dissapeared. Yet, the TD is still not out of the problem, since he needs to know what 1D intended in order to decide upon the 26A or 26B. > Since an ambiguous insufficient bid does not refer to any > specific suit, it seems to me that Law 26B (Other Withdrawn > Calls) applies, rather than Law 26A (Call Related to a Specific > Suit). > I believe the TD must investigate and then rule accordingly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Tue Nov 21 10:05:18 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:05:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0C6B73DD-4B3F-4146-9986-80F932B2B943@rochester.rr.com> References: <0C6B73DD-4B3F-4146-9986-80F932B2B943@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4562C14E.3050309@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > No, Law 27B2 was applied because the lowest sufficient bid in > diamonds was conventional. > I should have read this before jumping in with the same answer. > > 1D, in the offender's system, presumably refers to diamonds. In the > words of Law 26 1D *specifies* diamonds. > > Law 26A starts "if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or > suits..." > > The withdrawn call *did* relate to a specified suit - diamonds. Note > that offender's intent is not relevant, only the systemic meaning of > the bid made and withdrawn matters. Ergo, Law 26A, and in particular > Law 26A2 (because he did not specify diamonds in the legal auction, > he passed) applies. QED. :-) > But there is no "the systemic meaning", since we don't know if the 1D was from the auction pass-1D or 1C-1D (to name just two). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 21 10:17:11 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:17:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c70d4d$d3a27230$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Subject: Re: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sven Pran: > > >All this is very fine, but it does not answer the important > >question: If the IB was intended as a conventional call > >(i.e. a 2D overcall over the 1NT opening bid) how come the > >offender selected to pass rather than for instance to bid > >his spade suit? > > > >I think the evidence here clearly indicates that the IB was > >never intended as anything else but a (natural) opening bid > >of 1D. > > > >And if we shall be technical: No 2D bid has been withdrawn. > >The withdrawn call is 1D which (on its face) refers to just > >Diamonds; that is the fact on which the Director must base > >his ruling. > > Richard Hills: > > First Scenario: > > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > North opens 1NT, East undercalls 1D but intended to overcall > 2D, which overcall by partnership agreement would show > spades and a minor. East actually holds 5/5 in spades and > clubs. > > But if East had opened 1D, or if East had overcalled 1D over > North's 1C opening bid, then that 1D call would have been > natural. > > After East's undercall, South (salivating somewhat) refuses > to accept the undercall. East observes South's salivation, > observes the vulnerability, observes that their initial > intention of a 2D overcall was with minimum values in the > East-West partnership style, so elects to change their > mind by converting their insufficient bid to a pass. > South now bids 3NT, and all pass. 3NT will make 10 or 11 > tricks depending on the Director's application of Law 26. > > How should you rule? Without any mind reading attempt. The facts: East has made an IB and corrected this to pass. As the retracted bid (1D) on its face is natural TD should apply Laws 27B2 and 26A1 (with lead restrictions on Diamonds). > > Second Scenario: > > As above, except that South does not salivate, East does > bid 2D, South still bids 3NT passed out. 3NT will still > make 10 or 11 tricks depending on the Director's > application of Law 26. > > How should you rule? Apparently Law 25A. >From the description I must assume that East states (without any pause for thought) that he intended to bid 2D and that his IB was a mispull. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 21 10:31:28 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:31:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4562C14E.3050309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c70d4f$d2d8f5c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] ........... > > 1D, in the offender's system, presumably refers to diamonds. In the > > words of Law 26 1D *specifies* diamonds. > > > > Law 26A starts "if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or > > suits..." > > > > The withdrawn call *did* relate to a specified suit - diamonds. Note > > that offender's intent is not relevant, only the systemic meaning of > > the bid made and withdrawn matters. Ergo, Law 26A, and in particular > > Law 26A2 (because he did not specify diamonds in the legal auction, > > he passed) applies. QED. :-) > > > > But there is no "the systemic meaning", since we don't know if the 1D > was from the auction pass-1D or 1C-1D (to name just two). Doesn't 1D in both cases incontrovertibly refer to Diamonds and Diamonds only? (Assuming a natural system) Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 21 10:58:55 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:58:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000201c70d53$fc1aa600$d2d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:04 AM Subject: [blml] L20F1 > AQ954 > Q > 52 > AQ762 > > 10 J7 > 109762 A853 > 9864 A1073 > 983 J105 > > K8632 > KJ4 > KQJ > K4 > > W N E S > 1S > P 4D P 4H > P 4N P 5D > P 6S all pass > > opening lead C8 result N-S +1430 > > Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and > was informed by N ONLY that > 4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good trumps > 4H showed a H control > 4N also showed a H control > 5D showed a D control > > It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB > and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards. > > If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that > once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations > had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment. > > If the explanations had been given in accordance with the > "...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1, > then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a > red suit lead MAY have been selected. > > What are your views? > From roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr Tue Nov 21 11:38:14 2006 From: roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:38:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <001c01c70d59$269cd010$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:04 AM Subject: [blml] L20F1 > AQ954 > Q > 52 > AQ762 > > 10 J7 > 109762 A853 > 9864 A1073 > 983 J105 > > K8632 > KJ4 > KQJ > K4 > > W N E S > 1S > P 4D P 4H > P 4N P 5D > P 6S all pass > > opening lead C8 result N-S +1430 > > Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and > was informed by N ONLY that > 4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good trumps > 4H showed a H control > 4N also showed a H control > 5D showed a D control > > It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB > and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards. > > If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that > once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations > had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment. > > If the explanations had been given in accordance with the > "...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1, > then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a > red suit lead MAY have been selected. > > What are your views? Roger Eymard : Questions and answers seem to have happened after the final pass. So L20F2 applies, and does not contain any requirement as to who explains what are NS agreements. L75D2 does apply, and if there is a proof that the meanings of 4NT and 5D have been given in accordance with the actual agreement, I don't see any duty for South to correct North's explanations, nor any basis for a score adjustment. OTOH, if *by agreement*, 4NT does not *show* a H control, so that 5D does not *show* a D control, (nor deny a C control - did 4H promise or deny any other control ?), South must correct North's explanation, so that the leader know that neither D control nor C control have been shown in the bidding. L12 applies... 100 for EO and a warning to NS for not calling the TD and for a breach of Chapter VII requirements. From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Nov 21 11:48:56 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:48:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70d4a$e7c2c1f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001301c70d5a$a4b2afa0$4101a8c0@david> >> On Behalf Of David Barton >> >> AQ954 >> Q >> 52 >> AQ762 >> >> 10 J7 >> 109762 A853 >> 9864 A1073 >> 983 J105 >> >> K8632 >> KJ4 >> KQJ >> K4 >> >> W N E S >> 1S >> P 4D P 4H >> P 4N P 5D >> P 6S all pass >> >> opening lead C8 result N-S +1430 >> >> Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and >> was informed by N ONLY that >> 4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good trumps >> 4H showed a H control >> 4N also showed a H control >> 5D showed a D control >> >> It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB >> and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards. >> >> If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that >> once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations >> had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment. >> >> If the explanations had been given in accordance with the >> "...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1, >> then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a >> red suit lead MAY have been selected. >> >> What are your views? Sven > Major issue: At the (preliminary) end of the auction before the opening > lead > is made (even face down) both presumed declarer and dummy has the duty to > "alert" defenders of any explanation they believe is wrong. > > (Note that this duty applies only to presumed declarer and dummy, their > opponents must wait until end of play before giving such corrections). > > So in this case if South realizes that 4N indeed showed heart control he > acted correctly, but if he still believes that their agreement is that 4N > is > RKCB he has given defenders misinformation by keeping his mum shut. > > So the question TD must consider is whether this misinformation could have > caused West to stay away from a lead in a red suit. Depending on his > judgement of this question he will either adjust or let the table result > stand. > > Regards Sven > There was no question of misinformation. However it was entirely possible that North realised that South was uncertain about the system agreements, and assumed responsibilty for giving the explanations to prevent the misunderstanding emerging (at least until the hand was over). In other words North could have known that his failure to abide by the "normally given by partner" provision of L20F1 could work to his advantage. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date: 20/11/2006 21:20 From herman at hdw.be Tue Nov 21 12:02:53 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:02:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c70d4f$d2d8f5c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c70d4f$d2d8f5c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4562DCDD.8050504@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>The withdrawn call *did* relate to a specified suit - diamonds. Note >>>that offender's intent is not relevant, only the systemic meaning of >>>the bid made and withdrawn matters. Ergo, Law 26A, and in particular >>>Law 26A2 (because he did not specify diamonds in the legal auction, >>>he passed) applies. QED. :-) >>> >> >>But there is no "the systemic meaning", since we don't know if the 1D >>was from the auction pass-1D or 1C-1D (to name just two). > > > Doesn't 1D in both cases incontrovertibly refer to Diamonds and Diamonds > only? (Assuming a natural system) > > Sven > In this case, it does. I was replying to the more general assertion that the intent were irrelevant, only the systemic meaning. There is no "_the_ systemic meaning" without knowing the intent. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 21 12:43:40 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:43:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <001301c70d5a$a4b2afa0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000301c70d62$4c05c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > >> > >> AQ954 > >> Q > >> 52 > >> AQ762 > >> > >> 10 J7 > >> 109762 A853 > >> 9864 A1073 > >> 983 J105 > >> > >> K8632 > >> KJ4 > >> KQJ > >> K4 > >> > >> W N E S > >> 1S > >> P 4D P 4H > >> P 4N P 5D > >> P 6S all pass > >> > >> opening lead C8 result N-S +1430 > >> > >> Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and > >> was informed by N ONLY that > >> 4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good trumps > >> 4H showed a H control > >> 4N also showed a H control > >> 5D showed a D control > >> > >> It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB > >> and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards. > >> > >> If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that > >> once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations > >> had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment. > >> > >> If the explanations had been given in accordance with the > >> "...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1, > >> then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a > >> red suit lead MAY have been selected. > >> > >> What are your views? > > > Sven > > Major issue: At the (preliminary) end of the auction before the opening > > lead > > is made (even face down) both presumed declarer and dummy has the duty > to > > "alert" defenders of any explanation they believe is wrong. > > > > (Note that this duty applies only to presumed declarer and dummy, their > > opponents must wait until end of play before giving such corrections). > > > > So in this case if South realizes that 4N indeed showed heart control he > > acted correctly, but if he still believes that their agreement is that > 4N > > is > > RKCB he has given defenders misinformation by keeping his mum shut. > > > > So the question TD must consider is whether this misinformation could > have > > caused West to stay away from a lead in a red suit. Depending on his > > judgement of this question he will either adjust or let the table result > > stand. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > There was no question of misinformation. However it was entirely possible > that North realised that South was uncertain about the system agreements, > and assumed responsibilty for giving the explanations to prevent the > misunderstanding > emerging (at least until the hand was over). In other words North could > have > known that his failure to abide by the "normally given by partner" > provision > of L20F1 could work to his advantage. The question is indeed that of misinformation. North's possible motives for giving the complete explanation of the auction is irrelevant; South has his independent duty to make his understanding of the agreements known to his opponents. There is a discrepancy between the explanations given by North and South's apparent understanding of the 4NT bid. If South believes that his understanding is correct he has given misinformation to opponents by not saying anything. And unless the Director finds sufficient evidence to a fact that South's understanding was incorrect and that he was right in not saying anything to correct North's explanation then he must rule misinformation. (See also Grattan's comments). If the TD rules misinformation he must consider that East/West has falsely been given the information that South has Diamond control and that West may have been led away from a Diamond lead from this information. (The fact that South indeed has such control is in this situation irrelevant!) Consequently an adjustment to 6S-1 is not far away. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 21 13:25:14 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:25:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4562DCDD.8050504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .......... > > Doesn't 1D in both cases incontrovertibly refer to Diamonds and Diamonds > > only? (Assuming a natural system) > > > > Sven > > > > In this case, it does. > I was replying to the more general assertion that the intent were > irrelevant, only the systemic meaning. There is no "_the_ systemic > meaning" without knowing the intent. Really? If the Director finds that the call does not necessarily refer to a specific suit (or suits) then (and only then) does he apply Law 26B. We all know that the player's own statement (for instance on his intent or lack of intent) alone has little weight when evaluating evidence of facts. If a systemic meaning of the withdrawn bid exists according to which this bid does not refer to specific suit(s) then the Director should apply Law 26B even if the player states that this meaning was not his intention unless this statement is corroborated by other evidence. Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 21 14:58:26 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:58:26 -0600 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 6:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .......... >> > Doesn't 1D in both cases incontrovertibly refer to Diamonds and >> > Diamonds >> > only? (Assuming a natural system) >> > >> > Sven >> > >> >> In this case, it does. >> I was replying to the more general assertion that the intent were >> irrelevant, only the systemic meaning. There is no "_the_ systemic >> meaning" without knowing the intent. > > Really? > > If the Director finds that the call does not necessarily refer to a > specific > suit (or suits) then (and only then) does he apply Law 26B. > > We all know that the player's own statement (for instance on his intent or > lack of intent) alone has little weight when evaluating evidence of facts. > > If a systemic meaning of the withdrawn bid exists according to which this > bid does not refer to specific suit(s) then the Director should apply Law > 26B even if the player states that this meaning was not his intention > unless > this statement is corroborated by other evidence. > > Sven When Steve initiated this thread I believed that he was delving into dealing with the anomaly in L26 in the case where the canceled call had known suits plus unknown suits. The dilemma being that L26B provides penalizing the existence of unknown suits while L26A does not. And conversely, L26B does not provide for penalizing known suits as extensively as L26A. And, L26B being exclusive of L26A. However, the chosen example did not lend itself to demonstrate it. In that vein I alter the case to the auction 2N-2D...... It doesn't take much of an imagination to believe that the context of 2D in the auction is [a] 1N-2D* where 2D= a known suit plus an unknown suit; or [b] to the auction P-2D. In the case where 2D is canceled is it the place of the TD to rule what happened was the first case, or, the second, or, both? One thing I believe is that the TD should not clarify for the partner what [as in which case exists] offender was trying to communicate. And in this scenario I believe that it is correct to rule that it can't be decided which case occurred and thus to penalize on the basis of both. Now, the point that I believe Steve was out to make was that when a canceled call has a known plus an unknown suit L26A specifies that it applies and that L26B specifies that it does not. Note the language of 26 A and B. The condition of 26A is that the call specifies one or more suits; yet does not make additional provisions when unspecified suits accompany- thereby including such calls under 26A provisions. And L26B provides for canceled calls to the exclusion of canceled calls that contain a specified suit- and since the 2D call was included in 26A it is not provided for in 26B. But since Steve hasn't protested yet that we missed his point then perhaps I presumed incorrectly. regards roger pewick From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 21 15:46:39 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:46:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> <001c01c70d59$269cd010$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <004801c70d7e$a613e2f0$ccbf87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Eymard" To: "David Barton" ; Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > Roger Eymard : > > Questions and answers seem to have happened > after the final pass. So L20F2 applies, and does > not contain any requirement as to who explains > what are NS agreements. < +=+ An interesting thought. There is an intention that replies should be given as in 20F1 but the drafting is sloppy. 20F2 is silent on the question of who should reply; but that creates no authority for extending the provision so that either partner may reply. When the law was drafted it was meant to be understood that the only statement made on the point should still govern who should respond. Your interpretation demonstrates that the drafters should have been more explicit to avoid confusion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 21 16:05:42 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:05:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000301c70d62$4c05c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004901c70d7e$a6fda6b0$ccbf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense, Lie in three words, health, peace, and competence." -~ Alexander Pope. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > > > If South believes that his understanding is correct he > has given misinformation to opponents by not saying > anything. And unless the Director finds sufficient > evidence to a fact that South's understanding was > incorrect and that he was right in not saying anything > to correct North's explanation then he must rule > misinformation. (See also Grattan's comments). > > If the TD rules misinformation he must consider that > East/West has falsely been given the information that > South has Diamond control and that West may have > been led away from a Diamond lead from this > information. (The fact that South indeed has such > control is in this situation irrelevant!) > > Consequently an adjustment to 6S-1 is not far away. > +=+ I would rule misinformation unless I found a clear statement on the CC (or in system notes) supporting North's explanations. What a correctly informed West might then lead is another question; some of the time he might still lead a club*. A weighted adjustment could be right (ruling out a trump lead, one light 66% of the time - two suits from three - or 75% of the time - nine cards from twelve - would occupy my thoughts). ~ G ~ +=+ *no suits would be mentioned in a correct explanation. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 21 17:38:35 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:38:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <001301c70d5a$a4b2afa0$4101a8c0@david> References: <000001c70d4a$e7c2c1f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001301c70d5a$a4b2afa0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:48 AM, David Barton wrote: > However it was entirely possible > that North realised that South was uncertain about the system > agreements, > and assumed responsibilty for giving the explanations to prevent the > misunderstanding > emerging (at least until the hand was over). In other words North > could have > known that his failure to abide by the "normally given by partner" > provision > of L20F1 could work to his advantage. If I believed that, I would ask North why he rather than South gave the explanation. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 21 17:50:36 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:50:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <004801c70d7e$a613e2f0$ccbf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> <001c01c70d59$269cd010$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <004801c70d7e$a613e2f0$ccbf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <86CE48CA-A193-4AB9-B57F-04530B8E7C90@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 21, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > An interesting thought. There is an intention > that replies should be given as in 20F1 but the > drafting is sloppy. 20F2 is silent on the question > of who should reply; but that creates no authority > for extending the provision so that either partner may > reply. When the law was drafted it was meant to be > understood that the only statement made on the > point should still govern who should respond. Your > interpretation demonstrates that the drafters should > have been more explicit to avoid confusion. I would agree with the suggestion the drafting was sloppy. :-) Be that as it may, we are left with an ambiguity, and since the LC has not clarified it, we're on our own. It's true that 20F2 being silent does not imply that either partner may answer, but nor does it imply that only the bidder's partner may answer. "The laws are designed to define correct procedure", but in this case the laws have failed - we have no idea, save your (probably correct, but that's irrelevant) opinion. We have two possibilities, neither of which, IMO, is more "right" than the other, given the words of the law. IMO, the LC should clarify this ASAP - and make damn sure it's clear in the next version of the laws. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 21 19:28:23 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:28:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70d4a$e7c2c1f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001301c70d5a$a4b2afa0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000101c70db7$684fe070$eea2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > There was no question of misinformation. >>> +=+ To form a judgement we need to know precisely what evidence the Director obtained to establish that there was no misinformation. In a situation like this where it is 'convenient' for South to be 'reminded' by partner that he has forgotten system, the statements of the players alone do not suffice. The ruling goes against N/S unless they can produce documentary confirmation of the accuracy of North's explanation. You have repeatedly asserted this was the case: but what was the physical evidence to establish it? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 21 23:24:15 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:24:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In message , Roger Pewick writes > >When Steve initiated this thread I believed that he was delving into dealing >with the anomaly in L26 in the case where the canceled call had known suits >plus unknown suits. The dilemma being that L26B provides penalizing the >existence of unknown suits while L26A does not. And conversely, L26B does >not provide for penalizing known suits as extensively as L26A. And, L26B >being exclusive of L26A. However, the chosen example did not lend itself to >demonstrate it. In that vein I alter the case to the auction 2N-2D...... > > > >It doesn't take much of an imagination to believe that the context of 2D in >the auction is [a] 1N-2D* where 2D= a known suit plus an unknown >suit; or [b] to the auction P-2D. > > > >In the case where 2D is canceled is it the place of the TD to rule what >happened was the first case, or, the second, or, both? > > > >One thing I believe is that the TD should not clarify for the partner what >[as in which case exists] offender was trying to communicate. And in this >scenario I believe that it is correct to rule that it can't be decided which >case occurred and thus to penalize on the basis of both. > > > >Now, the point that I believe Steve was out to make was that when a canceled >call has a known plus an unknown suit L26A specifies that it applies and >that L26B specifies that it does not. Note the language of 26 A and B. The >condition of 26A is that the call specifies one or more suits; yet does not >make additional provisions when unspecified suits accompany- thereby >including such calls under 26A provisions. And L26B provides for >canceled calls to the exclusion of canceled calls that contain a specified >suit- and since the 2D call was included in 26A it is not provided for in >26B. > > > >But since Steve hasn't protested yet that we missed his point then perhaps I >presumed incorrectly. > > > >regards > >roger pewick This all came about when my wife asked me about lead penalties. In a brain dead moment I couldn't remember what lead penalties applied here. I now accept that the lead penalties apply to the insufficient bid (in this case the natural 1D) as opposed to the conventional lowest sufficient bid (2D showing Spades and a minor). Having though about this further, I was actually interested in two issues. ISSUE 1: Offending player gave no indication as to why he made an insufficient bid. Question 1A: Was the TD correct *NOT* to investigate? Question 1B: If he should investigate, should he automatically send offenders partner from the table in order to prevent UI? We appear to have split opinions on 1A. Nobody has yet to mention 1B. ISSUE 2: The concept of withdrawn calls having known and unknown suits. Lets take a different example. Dealer is North and West opens 2S out of turn. 2S is weak, spades and a minor. North has the bid cancelled and starts the auction, which goes like this: North East South West 2NT Pass[1] 3NT Pass[2] [1] Forced to pass - see L31B [2] Declines to stick his neck out! Question 2A: East is on lead. What lead penalties do you apply? I think we are all happy that the option should include ban or insist on a spade. Question 2B: What about the minors? Can he ban a minor? Can he insist on a minor? Question 2B: If you go down the route of L26B can you ban the lead of a heart? If so, is that fair? I would be happy to rule: [a] Ban/insist on a spade [b] Ban a minor But do the laws support such a view? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 22 00:09:32 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:09:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > I would be happy to rule: > [a] Ban/insist on a spade > [b] Ban a minor > But do the laws support such a view? IMO, no. You apply 26A or 26B. You can't apply both. In this case, a suit was specified (spades). That we know the bidder has another suit is not relevant, because he didn't specify which suit it is. So 26A applies, in particular 26A2. Declarer can require or prohibit the lead of a spade. If he chooses to do neither, East can lead whatever he wants - declarer cannot require or prohibit the lead of a minor suit. Suppose the cancelled bid showed a major and a minor. Now declarer has no option - he can't constrain East's lead. If he could, then logically he could tell East he can't lead at all! :-) From roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr Wed Nov 22 00:28:55 2006 From: roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:28:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david><001c01c70d59$269cd010$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <004801c70d7e$a613e2f0$ccbf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001501c70dc4$d0474030$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > 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. > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Eymard" > To: "David Barton" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:38 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > >> Roger Eymard : >> >> Questions and answers seem to have happened >> after the final pass. So L20F2 applies, and does >> not contain any requirement as to who explains >> what are NS agreements. > < > +=+ An interesting thought. There is an intention > that replies should be given as in 20F1 but the > drafting is sloppy. 20F2 is silent on the question > of who should reply; but that creates no authority > for extending the provision so that either partner may > reply. When the law was drafted it was meant to be > understood that the only statement made on the > point should still govern who should respond. Your > interpretation demonstrates that the drafters should > have been more explicit to avoid confusion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Roger Eymard : When an answer to a question asked after the final pass does not show the agreement of the pair, the other player (dummy or declarer) must correct the explanation. So, at that precise moment, both players are entitled to explain, and I don't see why the provision of L20F1 should apply to L20F2 in the next draft of TFLB. There is no danger of UI between declarer and dummy, and any way of avoiding any consequence of MI on defenders' play seems appropriate. IMO, it could be inserted in L20F2 that both declarer and dummy are entitled to answer a question by a defender, not only at the moment of the lead, but, may be, even for a question asked during the play. That would not increase the risk of UI, and that would decrease the risk of MI. L75D should be redrafted accordingly. Regards From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Nov 22 08:35:44 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:35:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 22/11/06, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > > > I would be happy to rule: > > [a] Ban/insist on a spade > > [b] Ban a minor > > But do the laws support such a view? > > IMO, no. You apply 26A or 26B. You can't apply both. > > In this case, a suit was specified (spades). That we know the bidder > has another suit is not relevant, because he didn't specify which > suit it is. So 26A applies, in particular 26A2. > > Declarer can require or prohibit the lead of a spade. If he chooses > to do neither, East can lead whatever he wants - declarer cannot > require or prohibit the lead of a minor suit. > > Suppose the cancelled bid showed a major and a minor. Now declarer > has no option - he can't constrain East's lead. If he could, then > logically he could tell East he can't lead at all! :-) Huh?? Now we're clearly in Law 26B territory. Declarer can prohibit the lead in one specified suit - declarer specifies this suit the first time offenders partner gains the lead (including the opening lead). -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From herman at hdw.be Wed Nov 22 09:58:24 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:58:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45641130.5080003@hdw.be> Despite Harald already having answered, I would like to do so as well in order to stress that this is very clear territory, and we need to be very certainly on the same track in this one: Ed Reppert wrote: > On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > 2S out of turn, meaning spades and a minor > >>I would be happy to rule: >>[a] Ban/insist on a spade >>[b] Ban a minor >>But do the laws support such a view? > > > IMO, no. You apply 26A or 26B. You can't apply both. > indeed - and this applies both to the suits being banned or required AND to the fact that in L26A the offender can get out from the lead penalties by repeating the suit, while in L26B, he cannot. > In this case, a suit was specified (spades). That we know the bidder > has another suit is not relevant, because he didn't specify which > suit it is. So 26A applies, in particular 26A2. > Yes, this is relevant. The bid did not "relate to a specified suit". L26B applies. This means that there will be the possibility of banning any suit (not of requiring spades), and offender cannot change those lead penalties by bidding spades again, for example. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 22 11:27:59 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:27:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c70e20$e26cc530$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Nov 21, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > > > I would be happy to rule: > > [a] Ban/insist on a spade > > [b] Ban a minor > > But do the laws support such a view? > > IMO, no. You apply 26A or 26B. You can't apply both. Harald and Herman have both given very good comments, but I am not quite sure they are "complete". The situation is explicitly covered in the EBL Commentary to the 1987 Laws (from which Law 26 was continued unchanged in 1997) where we find: In (?26.3): [The Director] must place [the withdrawn call] in one of two categories - either: (a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than one suit all of which were specified; or (b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit. Examples: a 2NT overcall showing both minors is in category (a) but a cue-bid showing spades and a minor is in category (b). And in (?26.8): Where the Director is dealing with a category (b) case - see ?26.3 preceding - he has only one option to offer to declarer at the point when the offender's partner first has the lead. Declarer may name a suit of his choosing (and only one) and require that it shall not be led so long as the offender's partner now retains the lead. Notice the implications of this: Declarer may not request a lead in Spades (or in any other specified suit). But he is free to specify the suit which shall not be led; in this case he may even forbid a lead in Hearts although this suit was not among the suits involved in the withdrawn call! Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 22 12:35:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <86CE48CA-A193-4AB9-B57F-04530B8E7C90@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > IMO, the LC should clarify this ASAP - and make damn sure it's clear > in the next version of the laws. OK, but might I just say that, with a complex auction, I find it one hell of a lot easier to follow if a single opponent does all the explaining rather than having two opps popping in and out like jack-in-a-boxes. Tim From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Nov 22 13:00:03 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:00:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70d4a$e7c2c1f0$6400a8c0@WINXP><001301c70d5a$a4b2afa0$4101a8c0@david> <000101c70db7$684fe070$eea2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002c01c70e2d$becaafe0$4101a8c0@david> >> There was no question of misinformation. >>>> > +=+ To form a judgement we need to know precisely > what evidence the Director obtained to establish that > there was no misinformation. In a situation like this where > it is 'convenient' for South to be 'reminded' by partner that > he has forgotten system, the statements of the players alone > do not suffice. The ruling goes against N/S unless they > can produce documentary confirmation of the accuracy of > North's explanation. You have repeatedly asserted this was > the case: but what was the physical evidence to establish it? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The story behind this is that the incident occured recently against my partner and I. We were assured that the explanations given were in accordance with their system, so we shrugged and moved onto the next board. It was only some time later that I began to wonder whether there was any grounds for an adjustment based simply on the failure to comply with the proper procedure given in L20F1. Additionally any ruling based on actual or deemed misinformation would be routine and hence of little interest. I am inviting comments on a (now hypothetical) incident where the director was able to confirm the system agreements and Case A - North's decision to give the explanation was entirely innocent Case B - North gave the explanation in order to prevent a possible misunderstanding coming to light. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.14.12/545 - Release Date: 21/11/2006 22:36 From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 22 14:51:00 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:51:00 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__L20F1?= References: <002c01c70e2d$becaafe0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <456455C3.000007.11211@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : David Barton I am inviting comments on a (now hypothetical) incident where the director was able to confirm the system agreements and Case A - North's decision to give the explanation was entirely innocent Case B - North gave the explanation in order to prevent a possible misunderstanding coming to light. If North gives explanations without being asked to do so, Case B shall apply L72B and the whole caboodle. If North explains on request, then we can't avoid cases of misunderstanding prevention, but many of them will be avoided if we decide to use the deWael principle. I know it's not in the rules, but it suppresses case B risks altogether. I have to declare that I used this principle twice in the last 6 months or so, and in both cases, opponents, while a little baffled by the procedure, considered it quite ethical. Perhaps it's time to suggest its use officially Another idea would be to make provisions for written explanations by the player making the bid (perhaps only on TD's request) when it appears that one's partner hesitates about the meaning of former bids. I'm sorry if I overlooked something in this thread ; due to change of mailing software, I lost a number of mails. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061122/c908f318/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061122/c908f318/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37976 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061122/c908f318/attachment-0001.gif From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Nov 22 15:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <002c01c70e2d$becaafe0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: David Barton wrote: > > I am inviting comments on a (now hypothetical) incident where > the director was able to confirm the system agreements and > > Case A - North's decision to give the explanation was entirely > innocent > > Case B - North gave the explanation in order to prevent a possible > misunderstanding coming to light. IMO B is basically a subset of A. Opps are not entitled to know there has been a misunderstanding and North is innocent of any offence in preventing it from coming to light. Of course if North is aware that partner has a propensity to forget this part of the system he will (in most jurisdictions) disclose that relevant partnership experience when explaining the auction. In EBULand the mandatory requirement to conceal partner's forgetfulness from opponents (OB3b10) probably makes approach A illegal and approach B (with no mention of the forgetfulness) mandatory. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 22 19:15:28 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:15:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Nov 22, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Huh?? > Now we're clearly in Law 26B territory. > Declarer can prohibit the lead in one specified suit - declarer > specifies this suit the first time offenders partner gains the lead > (including the opening lead). Sorry, fuzzy thinking. I was extrapolating the "Spades and a minor" case from Steve's suggestion declarer could ban a spade lead or a lead of either minor to a major and a minor, where declarer could, if Steve were correct, ban a lead of either major *and* ban a lead of either minor. Clearly, in my last example case, 26B applies, and declarer can ban lead of any one suit. In the spades and a minor case, though, there is one specified suit, and we apply 26A2 to that suit (spades). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 22 19:17:22 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:17:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c70e20$e26cc530$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c70e20$e26cc530$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <246C9C79-9964-4984-B98E-BC8BA8C128AB@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 22, 2006, at 5:27 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > The situation is explicitly covered in the EBL Commentary to the > 1987 Laws > (from which Law 26 was continued unchanged in 1997) where we find: I disagree with the commentary. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 22 19:19:37 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:19:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <002c01c70e2d$becaafe0$4101a8c0@david> References: <000001c70d4a$e7c2c1f0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <001301c70d5a$a4b2afa0$4101a8c0@david> <000101c70db7$684fe070$eea2403e@Mildred> <002c01c70e2d$becaafe0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <0C9C8D31-303F-4DDC-9ECF-46BB3800821B@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 22, 2006, at 7:00 AM, David Barton wrote: > Case B - North gave the explanation in order to prevent a possible > misunderstanding coming to light. North is a cheat. Take him out back and bust his kneecaps. :-/ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 22 19:23:01 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:23:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14F31D05-4F3E-4B5F-8E6A-905D01B4D54F@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 22, 2006, at 9:13 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > IMO B is basically a subset of A. Opps are not entitled to know there > has been a misunderstanding and North is innocent of any offence in > preventing it from coming to light. Hm. Perhaps my last post, though tongue in cheek, was a bit hasty. I'll have to think about it for a few days. My first reaction to this though is that the first part of that second sentence is true, but I'm not so sure about the second. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 22 22:16:23 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:16:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >OK, but might I just say that, with a complex >auction, I find it one hell of a lot easier to >follow if a single opponent does all the >explaining rather than having two opps popping >in and out like jack-in-a-boxes. Richard Hills: When I have been declarer, and questions have been asked by my LHO preparatory to them selecting their opening lead, I have often infracted Law 20F1 by explaining both sides of my partnership's complex auction. Note that the auction period does not conclude until the opening lead is faced. Oops, strike those two previous paragraphs. I have not infracted Law 20F1, since it does not apply to the auction period, but rather to that portion of the auction period before the final pass. Law 20F2 applies to the auction period after the final pass, and to the play period. Perhaps Edgar Kaplan knew what he was doing when he omitted the words "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question" from Law 20F2. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Nov 22 23:26:50 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:26:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000801c70e85$4e0be4b0$4101a8c0@david> > Tim West-Meads: > >>OK, but might I just say that, with a complex >>auction, I find it one hell of a lot easier to >>follow if a single opponent does all the >>explaining rather than having two opps popping >>in and out like jack-in-a-boxes. > > Richard Hills: > > When I have been declarer, and questions have > been asked by my LHO preparatory to them > selecting their opening lead, I have often > infracted Law 20F1 by explaining both sides of > my partnership's complex auction. > > Note that the auction period does not conclude > until the opening lead is faced. > > Oops, strike those two previous paragraphs. I > have not infracted Law 20F1, since it does not > apply to the auction period, but rather to that > portion of the auction period before the final > pass. > > Law 20F2 applies to the auction period after > the final pass, and to the play period. > > Perhaps Edgar Kaplan knew what he was doing > when he omitted the words "replies should > normally be given by the partner of a player > who made a call in question" from Law 20F2. > > :-) > > I am having some problems here with the distinction between L20F1 and L20F2. (a) Until the opening lead has been faced it is not possible to determine that the final pass has occured. (b) The authority to ask about relevent calls available but not made is contained in L20F1. Surely you cannot claim that this is not available when considering an opening lead. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.14.12/545 - Release Date: 21/11/2006 22:36 From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 22 23:29:48 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:29:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c70e85$b83dde10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ........... > Richard Hills: > > When I have been declarer, and questions have > been asked by my LHO preparatory to them > selecting their opening lead, I have often > infracted Law 20F1 by explaining both sides of > my partnership's complex auction. > > Note that the auction period does not conclude > until the opening lead is faced. > > Oops, strike those two previous paragraphs. I > have not infracted Law 20F1, since it does not > apply to the auction period, but rather to that > portion of the auction period before the final > pass. > > Law 20F2 applies to the auction period after > the final pass, and to the play period. > > Perhaps Edgar Kaplan knew what he was doing > when he omitted the words "replies should > normally be given by the partner of a player > who made a call in question" from Law 20F2. And don't forget Law 75D2, the effect of which is that both presumed declarer and presumed dummy either of which has made a call that is incorrectly explained by the respective partner is responsible for correcting such incorrect information. Regards Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 23 03:45:25 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:45:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <200611221640.kAMGeD3w016729@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611221640.kAMGeD3w016729@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45650B45.4070200@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Barton" > I am inviting comments on a (now hypothetical) incident where > the director was able to confirm the system agreements and > > Case A - North's decision to give the explanation was entirely > innocent > > Case B - North gave the explanation in order to prevent a possible > misunderstanding coming to light. Whatever you rule here, it should be the same in both cases. You can't tell the difference between A and B without mind reading. You can, if you wish, rule differently depending on whether there was or was not a misunderstanding. If you do that, you should be prepared to rule psychs the same as misbids. Personally, I'd prefer _not_ to rule this way but would rather keep things simple: opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of agreements and partnership experience, nothing more. Nevertheless, I can see why others might disagree. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 23 03:54:52 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:54:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200611221727.kAMHR13I029725@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611221727.kAMHR13I029725@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45650D7C.6090607@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > The situation is explicitly covered in the EBL Commentary to the 1987 Laws > (from which Law 26 was continued unchanged in 1997) where we find: > > In (?26.3): [The Director] must place [the withdrawn call] in one of two > categories - either: > (a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than one suit > all of which were specified; or > (b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, one or more > of the suits in question was an unspecified suit. > Examples: a 2NT overcall showing both minors is in category (a) but a > cue-bid showing spades and a minor is in category (b). Thanks for finding this. I'm surprised, though. We discussed this on BLML some years ago, and I don't recall the EBL Commentary being mentioned. Are the Examples from the Commmentary itself, or are they your interpretation? My memory of the earlier discussion was that most people thought the "spades and a minor" situation was in category (a), but my memory is not to be trusted. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 23 03:57:27 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:57:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200611211549.kALFnp3C019548@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611211549.kALFnp3C019548@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45650E17.6030308@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > And if we shall be technical: No 2D bid has been withdrawn. The withdrawn > call is 1D which (on its face) refers to just Diamonds; that is the fact on > which the Director must base his ruling. This seems to me the only point. We cannot possibly know the intention -- even if the player blurts it out, he may be "acting" -- so rule on the plain facts. When the Laws text is clear, I don't think you can go very wrong by following it. From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 22 15:52:17 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:52:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c70eb1$91c70cd0$04000100@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > In message , Roger Pewick > writes >> >>When Steve initiated this thread I believed that he was delving into >>dealing >>with the anomaly in L26 in the case where the canceled call had known >>suits >>plus unknown suits. The dilemma being that L26B provides penalizing the >>existence of unknown suits while L26A does not. And conversely, L26B does >>not provide for penalizing known suits as extensively as L26A. And, L26B >>being exclusive of L26A. However, the chosen example did not lend itself >>to >>demonstrate it. In that vein I alter the case to the auction 2N-2D...... >> >> >> >>It doesn't take much of an imagination to believe that the context of 2D >>in >>the auction is [a] 1N-2D* where 2D= a known suit plus an unknown >>suit; or [b] to the auction P-2D. >> >> >> >>In the case where 2D is canceled is it the place of the TD to rule what >>happened was the first case, or, the second, or, both? >> >> >> >>One thing I believe is that the TD should not clarify for the partner what >>[as in which case exists] offender was trying to communicate. And in this >>scenario I believe that it is correct to rule that it can't be decided >>which >>case occurred and thus to penalize on the basis of both. Not convinced. Once a penalty is paid, and the TD must make that decision, any colateral profit for the OS is legally theirs. John >> >> >> >>Now, the point that I believe Steve was out to make was that when a >>canceled >>call has a known plus an unknown suit L26A specifies that it applies and >>that L26B specifies that it does not. Note the language of 26 A and B. >>The >>condition of 26A is that the call specifies one or more suits; yet does >>not >>make additional provisions when unspecified suits accompany- thereby >>including such calls under 26A provisions. And L26B provides for >>canceled calls to the exclusion of canceled calls that contain a specified >>suit- and since the 2D call was included in 26A it is not provided for in >>26B. >> >> >> >>But since Steve hasn't protested yet that we missed his point then perhaps >>I >>presumed incorrectly. >> >> >> >>regards >> >>roger pewick > > This all came about when my wife asked me about lead penalties. In a > brain dead moment I couldn't remember what lead penalties applied here. > I now accept that the lead penalties apply to the insufficient bid (in > this case the natural 1D) as opposed to the conventional lowest > sufficient bid (2D showing Spades and a minor). > > Having though about this further, I was actually interested in two > issues. > > ISSUE 1: Offending player gave no indication as to why he made an > insufficient bid. > > Question 1A: Was the TD correct *NOT* to investigate? > > Question 1B: If he should investigate, should he automatically send > offenders partner from the table in order to prevent UI? > > We appear to have split opinions on 1A. Nobody has yet to mention 1B. > > ISSUE 2: The concept of withdrawn calls having known and unknown suits. > > Lets take a different example. > > Dealer is North and West opens 2S out of turn. 2S is weak, spades and a > minor. North has the bid cancelled and starts the auction, which goes > like this: > > North East South West > 2NT Pass[1] 3NT Pass[2] > > [1] Forced to pass - see L31B > [2] Declines to stick his neck out! > > Question 2A: East is on lead. What lead penalties do you apply? > > I think we are all happy that the option should include ban or insist on > a spade. > > Question 2B: What about the minors? Can he ban a minor? Can he insist on > a minor? > > Question 2B: If you go down the route of L26B can you ban the lead of a > heart? If so, is that fair? > > I would be happy to rule: > [a] Ban/insist on a spade > [b] Ban a minor > But do the laws support such a view? > > -- > Steve Wright > Leicester, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 22 15:55:36 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:55:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: Message-ID: <000301c70eb1$91deda90$04000100@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > David Barton wrote: >> >> I am inviting comments on a (now hypothetical) incident where >> the director was able to confirm the system agreements and >> >> Case A - North's decision to give the explanation was entirely >> innocent >> >> Case B - North gave the explanation in order to prevent a possible >> misunderstanding coming to light. > > IMO B is basically a subset of A. Opps are not entitled to know there > has been a misunderstanding and North is innocent of any offence in > preventing it from coming to light. Of course if North is aware that > partner has a propensity to forget this part of the system he will (in > most jurisdictions) disclose that relevant partnership experience when > explaining the auction. In EBULand the mandatory requirement to conceal > partner's forgetfulness from opponents (OB3b10) probably makes approach > A illegal and approach B (with no mention of the forgetfulness) mandatory. Be that as it may, I told Max Bavin about this illegal regulation and that I was ignoring it. He agreed that this was, at the very least, acceptable. It is fundamental to jurisprudence that you can't make a regulation contrary to Law. I've sometimes wondered, when next I go to court to protest a parking ticket, that I should ask the beak "When was Magna Carta repealed?" cheers John > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 22 15:59:47 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:59:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: Message-ID: <000401c70eb1$91efa370$04000100@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > Ed wrote: >> IMO, the LC should clarify this ASAP - and make damn sure it's clear >> in the next version of the laws. > > OK, but might I just say that, with a complex auction, I find it one > hell of a lot easier to follow if a single opponent does all the > explaining rather than having two opps popping in and out like > jack-in-a-boxes. Both Tim and I believe that where there is a conflict between MI and UI, the MI MUST be corrected, regardless of the creation of UI. I personally take this to extremes and await the wrath of the TD. An ethical partnership is particularly careful to avoid use of UI, and accepts that sometimes its creation is necessary in order to correct MI. It then becomes the problem for the OS to resolve the UI as best it can. John > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 23 09:09:20 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:09:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45650D7C.6090607@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611221727.kAMHR13I029725@cfa.harvard.edu> <45650D7C.6090607@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 23/11/06, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The situation is explicitly covered in the EBL Commentary to the 1987 Laws > > (from which Law 26 was continued unchanged in 1997) where we find: > > > > In (?26.3): [The Director] must place [the withdrawn call] in one of two > > categories - either: > > (a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than one suit > > all of which were specified; or > > (b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, one or more > > of the suits in question was an unspecified suit. > > Examples: a 2NT overcall showing both minors is in category (a) but a > > cue-bid showing spades and a minor is in category (b). > > Thanks for finding this. I'm surprised, though. We discussed this on > BLML some years ago, and I don't recall the EBL Commentary being > mentioned. Are the Examples from the Commmentary itself, or are they > your interpretation? > > My memory of the earlier discussion was that most people thought the > "spades and a minor" situation was in category (a), but my memory is not > to be trusted. That discussion must have occured before I entered the list. Those exaples are from the Commentary itself, not Sven's interpretation. And that interpretation of the law is in accordance whith teaching on bridge law in Europe since time immemorial. This aspect of withdrawn calls showing more than one suit - and all had to be specified ain the withdrawn call and shown later in the auction was clearer in the 1975 laws than in the 1987 and 1997 laws. The law reads: if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and if that suit was specified by the same player, there is no lead penalty I think it's still clear how this is meant, but (those suits) could have been included after "that suit" to make it absolutely certain for all. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 23 09:20:43 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:20:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000401c70d68$191d9f00$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <456559DB.3040303@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Nov 22, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > > declarer can ban lead of any one suit. In the spades and a minor > case, though, there is one specified suit, and we apply 26A2 to that > suit (spades). > _______________________________________________ No Ed, we don't. This is a very clear case. If any suit is unknown, L26B applies. This is the stuff of very simple first grade TD exams. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 23 09:29:06 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:29:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <000401c70eb1$91efa370$04000100@john> References: <000401c70eb1$91efa370$04000100@john> Message-ID: <45655BD2.5000305@hdw.be> John Probst wrote: > > > Both Tim and I believe that where there is a conflict between MI and UI, the > MI MUST be corrected, regardless of the creation of UI. I personally take > this to extremes and await the wrath of the TD. An ethical partnership is > particularly careful to avoid use of UI, and accepts that sometimes its > creation is necessary in order to correct MI. It then becomes the problem > for the OS to resolve the UI as best it can. John > > Both you and Tim believe wrongly. L75D2 states categorically that in the simple case of partner misexplaning (MI) the player shall NOT correct the error before the final pass (obviously in order not to give UI). Also, L20F1 states that replies should normally be given by the partner. Again, if the Lawmakers would have felt that MI is more of a problem than UI, this law would have been written differently. I conclude that it was the intention of the lawmakers all along that UI should be avoided and MI be left for the TD to deal with, not the other way around. This is a very basic piece of laws philosophy and so we need to read the intentions of the lawmakers at a very basic level. I believe that I have correctly interpreted the intentions of all lawmakers since the early 1930's. At some point in that decade, the firsst lawmakers were faced with the problem about who should give the answers: the bidder or his partner. When they chose that the bidder should give the answer, they decided on what the basic philosophy ought to be. None of the subsequent steps have changed that basis, IMO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 23 09:56:39 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:56:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45650D7C.6090607@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000701c70edd$4a10ba40$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The situation is explicitly covered in the EBL Commentary to the 1987 > Laws > > (from which Law 26 was continued unchanged in 1997) where we find: > > > > In (?26.3): [The Director] must place [the withdrawn call] in one > > of two categories - either: > > (a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than > > one suit all of which were specified; or > > (b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, > > one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit. > > Examples: a 2NT overcall showing both minors is in category (a) > > but a cue-bid showing spades and a minor is in category (b). > > Thanks for finding this. I'm surprised, though. We discussed this on > BLML some years ago, and I don't recall the EBL Commentary being > mentioned. Are the Examples from the Commmentary itself, or are they > your interpretation? My quotations, including the "Examples", are exact word for word except for the words within brackets []. These are resolving the local references "he" and "it". My own interpretation is what I wrote as "Notice the implications" (not included above) And just to be mentioned for the authority of the Commentary: The authors were Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 23 10:11:23 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:11:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <45655BD2.5000305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > L75D2 states categorically that in the simple case of partner > misexplaning (MI) the player shall NOT correct the error before the > final pass (obviously in order not to give UI). > Also, L20F1 states that replies should normally be given by the > partner. Again, if the Lawmakers would have felt that MI is more of a > problem than UI, this law would have been written differently. Except that during the period after the final pass and facing the opening lead both presumed declarer and dummy are responsible for correcting any MI then may have noticed from their partner. This includes the duty to explain a player's own call. I assume this is the reason why the text to the effect that explanation of a call shall normally be given by the partner to the player who made that call is not repeated in Law 75D2 (where such text would indeed be meaningless!). Regards Sven From roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr Thu Nov 23 11:08:46 2006 From: roger-eymard at wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:08:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000401c70eb1$91efa370$04000100@john> <45655BD2.5000305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <007801c70ee7$5d1b6860$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > John Probst wrote: > >> >> >> Both Tim and I believe that where there is a conflict between MI and UI, >> the >> MI MUST be corrected, regardless of the creation of UI. I personally take >> this to extremes and await the wrath of the TD. An ethical partnership >> is >> particularly careful to avoid use of UI, and accepts that sometimes its >> creation is necessary in order to correct MI. It then becomes the problem >> for the OS to resolve the UI as best it can. John >> >> > > Both you and Tim believe wrongly. > L75D2 states categorically that in the simple case of partner > misexplaning (MI) the player shall NOT correct the error before the > final pass (obviously in order not to give UI). > Also, L20F1 states that replies should normally be given by the > partner. Again, if the Lawmakers would have felt that MI is more of a > problem than UI, this law would have been written differently. > > I conclude that it was the intention of the lawmakers all along that > UI should be avoided and MI be left for the TD to deal with, not the > other way around. > > This is a very basic piece of laws philosophy and so we need to read > the intentions of the lawmakers at a very basic level. I believe that > I have correctly interpreted the intentions of all lawmakers since the > early 1930's. At some point in that decade, the firsst lawmakers were > faced with the problem about who should give the answers: the bidder > or his partner. When they chose that the bidder should give the > answer, they decided on what the basic philosophy ought to be. None of > the subsequent steps have changed that basis, IMO. Roger Eymard : After the (presumed) final pass, uncorrected MI does have consequences on the play. If the auction does not restart because of the correction of MI (most of the cases), to allow any of (presumed) declarer or (presumed) dummy to explain, and therefore to exchange UI about the bidding while correcting MI would have no consequence, except that the play would not suffer of any previous MI. In the rare case of a restarting auction, ethical players and TD would take the UI into account for the new bids, but again, the play would no more suffer of any MI. IMO, accepting that MI remains in order to avoid UI after the (presumed) final pass is making the play a game for the TD, instead of a game for the players... :-( From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 23 11:13:54 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:13:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45657462.6030203@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > >>L75D2 states categorically that in the simple case of partner >>misexplaning (MI) the player shall NOT correct the error before the >>final pass (obviously in order not to give UI). >>Also, L20F1 states that replies should normally be given by the >>partner. Again, if the Lawmakers would have felt that MI is more of a >>problem than UI, this law would have been written differently. > > > Except that during the period after the final pass and facing the opening > lead both presumed declarer and dummy are responsible for correcting any MI > then may have noticed from their partner. This includes the duty to explain > a player's own call. > But that just proves my point. The lawmakers have made certain that as soon as the problem with regards to UI is no longer active (because one of the playes of that side is no longer active - becoming dummy), the MI has to be corrected. Can you see a better proof that the lawmakers thought UI was worse than MI? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 23 10:53:20 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:53:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <000401c70eb1$91efa370$04000100@john> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061123104356.02a31be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:59 22/11/2006 +0000, John Probst wrote: >Both Tim and I believe that where there is a conflict between MI and UI, the >MI MUST be corrected, regardless of the creation of UI. I personally take >this to extremes and await the wrath of the TD. An ethical partnership is >particularly careful to avoid use of UI, and accepts that sometimes its >creation is necessary in order to correct MI. It then becomes the problem >for the OS to resolve the UI as best it can. John I believe that when there is a conflict between MI and UI, the Laws should provide for MI not being corrected, possibly even amplified, to avoid creating UI, because : - correcting MI before the lead is usually easier than dealing with UI ; - most OS will find it less unpleasant to have their score changed based on MI (which is bona fide) rather than on UI (which always carries some suspicions) ; - "it's up to the OS to deal with the UI" isn't a good idea, because many can't, and above all, because every AC has its own idea about what is "using UI" and what is not ; therefore this procedure is laid open to arbitrariness - hence resentment. To the contrary, what is MI and what is not can be ascertained with all due objectivity. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061123/7a550c24/attachment.htm From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 23 11:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <45655BD2.5000305@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > L75D2 states categorically that in the simple case of partner > misexplaning (MI) the player shall NOT correct the error before the > final pass (obviously in order not to give UI). Yes, there are simple cases where L75d2 applies. There are also cases where partner says "I can't remember exactly but..". In such cases I will offer to tell opps the actual agreement - trusting partner to handle the UI should opps accept. There also cases where partner has described the agreement recognisably to one who already knows it but in a way which might be misunderstood by someone who doesn't know it. Again I see no problem checking that it has not been misunderstood (one isn't correcting the explanation). > Also, L20F1 states that replies should normally be given by the > partner. Normally does not mean always. The law quite obviously envisages circumstances where the bidder not his partner will explain - even if it doesn't state which circumstances those are. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 23 13:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Ré&. : Re: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <45658D5F.00000B.90521@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > AG : By all means, do so. But do it in writing. Which I'm happy to do, providing only that opps provide the pen I have almost invariably forgotten to have with me at the table :) Tim From john at asimere.com Thu Nov 23 14:38:51 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:38:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061123104356.02a31be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005b01c70f04$b69173e0$04000100@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "John Probst" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > At 14:59 22/11/2006 +0000, John Probst wrote: > > >>Both Tim and I believe that where there is a conflict between MI and UI, >>the >>MI MUST be corrected, regardless of the creation of UI. I personally take >>this to extremes and await the wrath of the TD. An ethical partnership is >>particularly careful to avoid use of UI, and accepts that sometimes its >>creation is necessary in order to correct MI. It then becomes the problem >>for the OS to resolve the UI as best it can. John > > I believe that when there is a conflict between MI and UI, the Laws should > provide for MI not being corrected, possibly even amplified, to avoid > creating UI, because : > - correcting MI before the lead is usually easier than dealing with UI ; > - most OS will find it less unpleasant to have their score changed based > on > MI (which is bona fide) rather than on UI (which always carries some > suspicions) ; Indeed Alain, i am happy with this, but once my side has created a problem, I personally carry no resentment, regardless of the outcome. I'm probably in a minority though. Tim I think, holds the same view. John > - "it's up to the OS to deal with the UI" isn't a good idea, because many > can't, and above all, because every AC has its own idea about what is > "using UI" and what is not ; therefore this procedure is laid open to > arbitrariness - hence resentment. To the contrary, what is MI and what is > not can be ascertained with all due objectivity. > > Best regards, > > Alain -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 23 14:50:50 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:50:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45657462.6030203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004201c70f06$88d0e380$069e87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > But that just proves my point. The lawmakers > have made certain that as soon as the problem > with regards to UI is no longer active (because > one of the playes of that side is no longer active > - becoming dummy), the MI has to be corrected. > Can you see a better proof that the lawmakers > thought UI was worse than MI? > +=+ I have been trying to recall if it is said anywhere in the Laws that it is illegal to create UI. To give MI on the other hand is a breach of correct procedure. It is true that the Laws require a player not to correct his partner's misexplanation until the due time under Law 75D2. That is absolute. However in giving explanations of partner's subsequent calls he is required to disclose partnership experience as well as any special information arising from partnership agreement. It is common for the discrepancy then to become manifest, in which event the Director may be summoned. (A 'manifest' irregularity is not the same as an irregularity merely suspected.) Considerations of UI do not affect the operation of Laws 20, 75C and 75D. If UI arises it is handled under Law 16A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 23 15:00:41 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:00:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4565A989.4020509@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>L75D2 states categorically that in the simple case of partner >>misexplaning (MI) the player shall NOT correct the error before the >>final pass (obviously in order not to give UI). > > > Yes, there are simple cases where L75d2 applies. There are also cases > where partner says "I can't remember exactly but..". In such cases I > will offer to tell opps the actual agreement - trusting partner to > handle the UI should opps accept. There also cases where partner has > described the agreement recognisably to one who already knows it but in > a way which might be misunderstood by someone who doesn't know it. > Again I see no problem checking that it has not been misunderstood (one > isn't correcting the explanation). > I am not talking about rulings, I am talking about basic philosophy. I use the examples of L75 and L20 to show how I believe the lawmakers view the problems between MI and UI. Your actions as stated above are in direct conflict with L75D. This means that if there is UI given to your partner, I shall, as TD, not only be very harsh on him, but extremely harsh. You have deliberately provided UI, and have done so in circumstances where the laws explicitely say that you cannot do so. I am happy that you can trust your partner enough not to deal with UI, but look at it from this point: He says "it's either A or B". You say "it's B". If your partner now bids according to B, I will rule that he should have bid differently - even if by guessing A he might have done the same bid. But if you allow him to guess unhindered, he may choose the correct bid without me changing it. It's a lose-lose situation. > >>Also, L20F1 states that replies should normally be given by the >>partner. > > > Normally does not mean always. The law quite obviously envisages > circumstances where the bidder not his partner will explain - even if it > doesn't state which circumstances those are. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Nov 23 16:36:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <4565A989.4020509@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > It's a lose-lose situation. Not to me it isn't. As far as I am concerned it's better for opps to be properly informed than for me to get a good score on the hand. Often pard won't have any logical alternatives *and* opps will be fully informed - a win-win. Offering to clarify partner's explanation doesn't break L75c. Answering an opponent's question should they chose to accept that offer doesn't break L75c either. If anybody (including me or pard) is fussed about the UI issue then pard can leave the the table while I explain or I can (as Alain suggested) write a note. Bear in mind that in saying "I can't remember" pard has not given any MI (UI to me of course). Opps are still entitled to the info about our agreements (and I might be able to simply point to the relevant part of the CC) but it's not a "normal" situation so it's OK for the answer to come from the bidder even under L20f1. Tim From john at asimere.com Thu Nov 23 16:13:58 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:13:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45657462.6030203@hdw.be> <004201c70f06$88d0e380$069e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001001c70f6f$598603d0$04000100@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > 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. > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > You do agree that this is a minefield, Grattan? I find it one of the most difficult points of Law to interpret. "Thou SHALST NOT create MI" vs "Thou SHALST NOT correct MI" (in certain circumsatnces) and "Thou MAYST create UI" (but partner has to be ultra careful). The words of the Law I understand, but what was the intention of the LawMaker - and "How do we play Bridge?" ? cheers John > >> But that just proves my point. The lawmakers >> have made certain that as soon as the problem >> with regards to UI is no longer active (because >> one of the playes of that side is no longer active >> - becoming dummy), the MI has to be corrected. >> Can you see a better proof that the lawmakers >> thought UI was worse than MI? >> > +=+ I have been trying to recall if it is said anywhere > in the Laws that it is illegal to create UI. To give MI > on the other hand is a breach of correct procedure. > It is true that the Laws require a player not to > correct his partner's misexplanation until the due time > under Law 75D2. That is absolute. However in > giving explanations of partner's subsequent calls he > is required to disclose partnership experience as well > as any special information arising from partnership > agreement. It is common for the discrepancy then > to become manifest, in which event the Director > may be summoned. (A 'manifest' irregularity is not > the same as an irregularity merely suspected.) > Considerations of UI do not affect the operation > of Laws 20, 75C and 75D. If UI arises it is handled > under Law 16A. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Nov 24 04:36:50 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 03:36:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> References: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <456668D2.50709@NTLworld.com> [David Barton] AQ954 Q 52 AQ762 10 J7 109762 A853 9864 A1073 983 J105 K8632 KJ4 KQJ K4 W N E S 1S P 4D P 4H P 4N P 5D P 6S all pass opening lead C8 result N-S +1430 Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and was informed by N ONLY that 4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good trumps 4H showed a H control 4N also showed a H control 5D showed a D control It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards. If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment. If the explanations had been given in accordance with the "...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1, then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a red suit lead MAY have been selected. [Grattan Endicott] ===================================== +=+ There has certainly been a breach of correct procedure. However, if that irregularity has not led to opponent being misinformed as to the true agreement there are no grounds for score adjustment. (A Law 90 penalty on North is not ruled out but I do not think that is much of an answer). What we should be looking at is the quality of the evidence as to which is the correct explanation. The Director should require strong evidence of misbid rather than misexplanation; after all, South has accepted North's version of system very meekly, making no attempt to 'correct' it before the opening lead is made. That should be tested, and any doubt at all should lead to a ruling of misexplanation. The mere fact that South changed his mind, having heard North's view, is not sufficient; examine CC and system notes if available for positive corroboration. [Nige1] David Barton says that we are to accept North-South's assurance that North correctly described their system. It still seems wrong, however, that a pair can make such a huge gain by "flouting correct procedure". Previously, in South's position, members of my team have volunteered that they have bid under a misunderstanding and have confessed what they thought the auction meant. It seems that they were masochists, suffering from delusions about the spirit of the law. IMO the law should be tightened up ... [A] to simplify "correct procedure" and define it more accurately and [B] to define most "deviations from correct procedure" and "irregularities" as punishable "infractions" -- or [C] At least to ensure that you cannot gain by deviating from correct procedure. Another example... [I] It should be illegal to lead to the next trick while there are still card(s) exposed that belong to the current trick (unless you are making a claim). [II] Even if that is not itself a punishable infraction, you should not be allowed to *gain* an advantage by so-doing - for example if declarer, oblivious to your lead, is tidying up the dummy during the current trick, a card that he touches should not be deemed a played card to the next trick. From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 23 18:07:28 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:07:28 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__L20F1?= References: Message-ID: <4565D54F.000001.21825@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- De : Tim West-Meads Date : 23/11/2006 17:10:38 A : blml at rtflb.org Sujet : Re: [blml] L20F1 >As far as I am concerned it's better for opps to be properly informed than for me to get a good score on the hand. Yet there are other pairs in the room, whose score will be affected by any correction of mine (and opponents'). So, if it is at all possible to avoid arbitral socres, it'll be a good idea. I claim (but YMMV) that allowing for continued MI in lieu of UI does this. > If anybody (including me or pard) is fussed about the UI issue then pard can leave the the table while I explain or I can (as Alain suggested) write a note. This works when parner says he doesn't know about the meaning of my bids ; when he brazenly gives a wrong explanation, it won't work, because the mere fact that I ask him to leave the table (of proceed to write an explanation) is a hint that his explanation was wrong. Well, more than a mere hint. So those two cases should be handled very differently. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061123/fce76db1/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061123/fce76db1/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37976 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061123/fce76db1/attachment-0001.gif From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 24 13:36:33 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:36:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45657462.6030203@hdw.be><004201c70f06$88d0e380$069e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001001c70f6f$598603d0$04000100@john> Message-ID: <007b01c70fc5$504dabf0$859387d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ Yes, it is a minefield. My current belief is that neither partner is entitled to learn from his partner's explanation that there is a misunderstanding between them. Each should continue bidding and explaining his partner's calls on the basis of his own understanding (on which he has based his earlier calls). Only when the bidding is unmistakably unhinged can he learn from that of the problem. But I have an uneasy feeling there is somewhere an instruction or guidance to players that they should explain according to system correctly, but continue to call on the basis of their own understanding. I was wondering how loosely worded that might be on the subject of gaining awareness. It worried me that it might be in the 1992 Commentary, but what it says there is "He must carefully avoid making use of that unauthorized information and must not base any action upon it. He can act upon knowledge which he obtains unmistakably from the subsequent bidding or play." So it appears my mind has remained unreasonably consistent upon the subject. Damage to opponents through an incorrect explanation is to be redressed by score adjustment. Of course I cannot comment on the 2008 Laws. I do not even know at this juncture whether they will (or can) resolve the question. They are still in malleable condition. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > > > You do agree that this is a minefield, Grattan? > I find it one of the most difficult points of Law > to interpret. "Thou SHALST NOT create MI" vs "Thou > SHALST NOT correct MI" (in certain circumsatnces) > and "Thou MAYST create UI" (but partner has to be > ultra careful). The words of the Law I understand, > but what was the intention of the LawMaker - and > "How do we play Bridge?" ? > cheers John > > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 24 17:45:40 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:45:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <001d01c70d08$fd3050d0$4101a8c0@david> <456668D2.50709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001601c70fe8$10152900$a4aa87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > > [Nige1] > > David Barton says that we are to accept > North-South's assurance that North correctly > described their system. > +=+ I do not understand David to have said that. Surely he is saying that the Director pursued enquiry and found evidence to support what the players were saying. these are 'heavy' circumstances and the words alone of the two players are not sufficient proof of the agreement. If corroboration is not to be found on the CC the Director will rule for E/W. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From herman at hdw.be Fri Nov 24 18:44:32 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:44:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <007b01c70fc5$504dabf0$859387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45657462.6030203@hdw.be><004201c70f06$88d0e380$069e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001001c70f6f$598603d0$04000100@john> <007b01c70fc5$504dabf0$859387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45672F80.1040307@hdw.be> Grattan touches on the subjects dealt with by the "DeWaelSchool". He knows what I think about this issue. If necessary and wanted, I will explain (to him and to others) why I believe it is fundamental that the principles of the DeWaelSchool be put into practice in the next set of laws - any other principles will lead to unsolvable dilemnae! 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. > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > +=+ Yes, it is a minefield. My current belief is that > neither partner is entitled to learn from his partner's > explanation that there is a misunderstanding > between them. Each should continue bidding and > explaining his partner's calls on the basis of his own > understanding (on which he has based his earlier > calls). Only when the bidding is unmistakably > unhinged can he learn from that of the problem. > But I have an uneasy feeling there is somewhere an > instruction or guidance to players that they should > explain according to system correctly, but continue > to call on the basis of their own understanding. I was > wondering how loosely worded that might be on the > subject of gaining awareness. It worried me that it > might be in the 1992 Commentary, but what it says > there is "He must carefully avoid making use of that > unauthorized information and must not base any > action upon it. He can act upon knowledge which > he obtains unmistakably from the subsequent bidding > or play." So it appears my mind has remained > unreasonably consistent upon the subject. Damage > to opponents through an incorrect explanation is to > be redressed by score adjustment. > Of course I cannot comment on the 2008 Laws. > I do not even know at this juncture whether they > will (or can) resolve the question. They are still in > malleable condition. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Nov 25 00:27:36 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 10:27:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007b01c70fc5$504dabf0$859387d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Yes, it is a minefield. My current belief is that >neither partner is entitled to learn from his >partner's explanation that there is a >misunderstanding between them. Each should continue >bidding and explaining his partner's calls on the >basis of his own understanding (on which he has based >his earlier calls). Only when the bidding is >unmistakably unhinged can he learn from that of the >problem. > >But I have an uneasy feeling there is somewhere an >instruction or guidance to players that they should >explain according to system correctly, but continue >to call on the basis of their own understanding. [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Grattan's "uneasy feeling" is indeed how the Lawbook should be interpreted. Law 40E2 footnote: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory ....." Richard Hills: This footnote seems to me to say that if a player has misremembered their partnership agreement, that player must continue bidding on the basis of their own misunderstanding if their memory gets jogged by pard's correct explanation to an opponent. Law 75C: "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ....." Law 75D1: "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director ....." Richard Hills: These two Laws seem to me to say that the requirement to accurately describe the partnership agreement is absolute - it does not matter that the reason you are accurately describing the partnership agreement is because of a memory jog from partner's explanation. An example of how I applied Grattan's "uneasy feeling" occurred in the Aussie Spring Nationals a few years ago. My partner and I, who normally played the strong club Symmetric Relay system (system notes emailed on request) decided to try out a Forcing Pass system. (The ABF permits HUM systems such as Forcing Pass to be used in its major national teams events.) On one deal I picked up as dealer a boring flat six count. The system bid was a "fert" 1D opening bid, but I temporarily forgot that we were not playing our traditional Symmetric Relay, so automatically opened with a natural Pass. Now pard alerted and explained my Pass as showing 15+ hcp. Oops. For the rest of the auction, I obeyed Law 75C by correctly explaining partner's calls according to our current Forcing Pass partnership agreement. But I also obeyed the Law 40E2 footnote by bidding on the basis that partner's calls and my calls were in accordance with our former Symmetric Relay agreement. We eventually reached a three-level partscore in a non-fit for -250. But virtue was rewarded, since because I had meticulously obeyed Law 75C the opponents did not have any reason to select a penalty double. Needless to say, our partnership agreement to play Forcing Pass was quickly abandoned, and we have reverted to playing the boring but effective Symmetric Relay system. :-) Grattan Endicott: >Of course I cannot comment on the 2008 Laws. >I do not even know at this juncture whether they >will (or can) resolve the question. They are still >in malleable condition. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ H. H. Asquith (1852-1928), British Prime Minister from 1908 to 1916: "We had better wait and see." Richard Hills: This phrase was used repeatedly in speeches in 1910, referring to the rumour that the House of Lords was to be flooded with new Liberal peers to ensure the passage of the Finance Bill. Ironically, despite Asquith neutering the House of Lords by arranging the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911, he later joined it when he was created Earl of Oxford and Asquith in 1925. In a different context, that of psychic bidding, John (MadDog) Probst noted that another example of "poacher turned gamekeeper" is one Grattan Endicott. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Nov 25 01:56:27 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:56:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c70e85$4e0be4b0$4101a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Barton: >I am having some problems here with the distinction >between L20F1 and L20F2. > >(a) Until the opening lead has been faced it is not >possible to determine that the final pass has >occurred. [snip] Law 75D2: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy..." Law 20B1: "Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent (failure to alert promptly to a conventional call or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organisation, is deemed misinformation), provided that his partner has not subsequently called." Law 17E: "The auction period ends ... when after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced..." Richard Hills: I agree with David. Since Law 20B1 permits the restarting of the auction after three passes in rotation have followed any call, the phrase "final pass" is a misnomer - the wording in Law 20F1 and in Law 75D2 perhaps should be: "presumed final pass (see Law 20B1)" Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Nov 25 02:35:18 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:35:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c70eb1$91deda90$04000100@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: EBU 2006 Orange Book clause 3 B 10: >>"If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a >>particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed >>nor acted upon. This is an exception to the principle >>explained in 3 A 2 and is a change in policy with this >>Orange Book." John (MadDog) Probst: >Be that as it may, I told Max Bavin about this illegal >regulation and that I was ignoring it. He agreed that this >was, at the very least, acceptable. It is fundamental to >jurisprudence that you can't make a regulation contrary to >Law. [snip] Richard Hills: Earlier this year I was invited to proofread the draft of the 2006 Orange book, and made the attached suggestions to the then EBU secretary Nick Doe. Nick Doe courteously stated: "Thanks, Richard. "I will ensure that the suggestion is considered. "Regards, "Nick" However, a senior English Bridge Union administrator emulated the "Man of Steel" style of the current Aussie Prime Minister: "I cannot speak for Nick, but I would suggest that this is not the correct forum or way to discuss this clause. 3 B 10 has been discussed more than once at L&E meetings, and the regulation says exactly what the L&E want it to say. If you disagree the best way to address that is by direct correspondence to the L&E, rather than including objections as part of what should by now be a non-controversial proof- reading exercise. "FWIW I don't like it either, but that isn't the point. The L&E will be hearing from me separately." But I agree with MadDog that "the point" is to prevent the creation of an illegal regulation, with nuanced protocol on how to achieve that aim being a secondary consideration. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 * * * Hi, Nick. You wrote: >In principle matters of wording are settled, although there is of >course no objection to highlighting any solecisms, infelicities, >apparent contradictions or instances of lack of clarity. However, >it would be appreciated if you would confine any such comments to >matters which you consider important rather than marginal. In my opinion, there is an apparent contradiction between Law 75B, which states, "...habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed..." and the 2006 Orange Book clause 3 B 10: "If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon. This is an exception to the principle explained in 3 A 2 and is a change in policy with this Orange Book." I suggest that additional clarification should be added to clause 3 B 10, for example: * * * But if a member of a partnership has such a high frequency of forgetting a particular notional agreement, so that the notional agreement ceases to be the actual partnership agreement, then it would be advisable for that partnership to abandon that particular notional agreement. See also: Orange Book clause 10 A 2. Because, if the frequency of partner forgetting a particular agreement is very high, then the TD may rule that the original notional partnership agreement has been replaced by a different actual implicit partnership agreement (Law 75B). Example: A partnership originally had the notional agreement that an overcall of 2C over an opponent's 1NT opening bid was the Landy convention, showing both majors. But when a player in that partnership overcalled 2C, only 50% of the time did the player hold both majors; the other 50% of the time the player held a long club suit. In that case the TD would rule that the actual implicit partnership agreement was that 2C was a two-way convention, showing either both majors or a club suit. Sometimes the actual implicit partnership agreement would be an illegal convention, in which case the TD would rule in accordance with the EBU White Book clause 40.3. See also: Orange Book clause 10 A 1. From herman at hdw.be Sat Nov 25 09:56:46 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:56:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4568054E.4030304@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > > An example of how I applied Grattan's "uneasy feeling" > occurred in the Aussie Spring Nationals a few years > ago. > > My partner and I, who normally played the strong club > Symmetric Relay system (system notes emailed on > request) decided to try out a Forcing Pass system. > (The ABF permits HUM systems such as Forcing Pass to > be used in its major national teams events.) > > On one deal I picked up as dealer a boring flat six > count. The system bid was a "fert" 1D opening bid, > but I temporarily forgot that we were not playing > our traditional Symmetric Relay, so automatically > opened with a natural Pass. > > Now pard alerted and explained my Pass as showing 15+ > hcp. Oops. > > For the rest of the auction, I obeyed Law 75C by > correctly explaining partner's calls according to our > current Forcing Pass partnership agreement. But I > also obeyed the Law 40E2 footnote by bidding on the > basis that partner's calls and my calls were in > accordance with our former Symmetric Relay agreement. > > We eventually reached a three-level partscore in a > non-fit for -250. But virtue was rewarded, since > because I had meticulously obeyed Law 75C the > opponents did not have any reason to select a penalty > double. > Richard's actions were admirable. And then again, should only be called normal. But think again, Richard. What if, in stead of having agreed to play the Relay, you had been the one in the right after all? You hear your partner misdescribe, and of course, you still bid according to what you know your system is. But what do you explain? If you explain his bids according to what you know your system is, he will notice that he has misdescribed your opening. You are then in direct violation of L75D2. And if you've stopped thinking about that one - then please tell me what you should do if, after hearing his explanation, you have absolutely no idea about the system you have actually agreed upon? If your actions should be different in the first case and the second, then what do you do in the third? Yes, I know, DwS all again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From john at asimere.com Sat Nov 25 13:27:41 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:27:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45657462.6030203@hdw.be><004201c70f06$88d0e380$069e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001001c70f6f$598603d0$04000100@john><007b01c70fc5$504dabf0$859387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <45672F80.1040307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003d01c7108d$19e9bbd0$04000100@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 >dilemnae! Herman wins the MadDog impenetrability prize for November, thus breaking Grattan's unbroken tradition Grattan, you need to return to the OED, dear boy :) John From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Nov 25 16:24:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <001601c70fe8$10152900$a4aa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I do not understand David to have said that. > Surely he is saying that the Director pursued enquiry > and found evidence to support what the players > were saying. these are 'heavy' circumstances and the > words alone of the two players are not sufficient > proof of the agreement. No problem with that. > If corroboration is not to > be found on the CC the Director will rule for E/W. But with this I disagree. The pair may provide supporting evidence in other ways such as "We both play the same system with X, you can ask him what the bids show." Or "X was in the bar with us when we discussed this.." or "We had a similar auction (when pard didn't forget) against XY last week". Perhaps the TD can establish that one player rather than the other is responsible for all system agreements. Perhaps there's an EMail between the two with a time and date header, perhaps...etc. Basically if the evidence (in whatever form) strongly supports the assertion that North gave a correct explanation and that South would realise that on hearing it then the TD will rule in favour of NS. Tim From mandache at free.fr Sat Nov 25 17:29:56 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:29:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment Message-ID: <1164472196.45686f8426839@imp7-g19.free.fr> Hello all, South, declarer in 4S, won the 7 first tricks and lost T8 to East's DK. The remaining cards: - - Q864 8 Q8 - - Q A7 5 Q JT7 963 - T9 - East leads the CJ, South ruffs with the S3 and West overruffs with the S8. For some reason, TD is near and sees the revoke. 1. TD sais to West, "You still have Clubs." West plays the CQ to T9, H8 is a MPC and South wins his 10 tricks. NS mark 4S=. 2. TD shuts up, the card play ends and no player noticed the revoke. Before they mark, TD draws their attention to it, applies L64A and EW get a two tricks penalty. NS mark 4S+1. 3. TD shuts up further more, still no player notices the revoke. NOS declares to the next board or the turn ends and now TD draws the attention to the revoke, applies L64B4 or 5 and C and the result stands. NS mark 4S-1. I have been taught TD should follow point 3: L81C6 is applied in the least interfering way possible. Nevertheless, ISTM that none of the three scenarios contradicts the laws, so there are three perfectly legal possible results. I am either dead wrong or not, but extremely puzzled anyway. Can you help me out of this state? (I can hardly imagine being the first one to walk this path, but with no thread name it is difficult to find something in the archives.) Best regards, Manuela From svenpran at online.no Sat Nov 25 18:33:50 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:33:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment In-Reply-To: <1164472196.45686f8426839@imp7-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000101c710b7$df2ebbf0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache > Subject: [blml] a matter of moment > > Hello all, > > South, declarer in 4S, won the 7 first tricks and lost T8 to East's DK. > The > remaining cards: > - > - > Q864 > 8 > Q8 - > - Q > A7 5 > Q JT7 > 963 > - > T9 > - > East leads the CJ, South ruffs with the S3 and West overruffs with the S8. > For some reason, TD is near and sees the revoke. > 1. TD sais to West, "You still have Clubs." West plays the CQ to T9, > H8 is a MPC and South wins his 10 tricks. NS mark 4S=. It is highly improper by the TD to interfere with the play at this moment. He now has prevented the revoke from becoming established and that is none of his business. > 2. TD shuts up, the card play ends and no player noticed the revoke. > Before they mark, TD draws their attention to it, applies L64A and EW > get a two tricks penalty. NS mark 4S+1. Even at this time it is highly improper by the TD to interfere. The time limit specified in Laws 64B4 and 64B5 has not expired. > 3. TD shuts up further more, still no player notices the revoke. NOS > declares to the next board or the turn ends and now TD draws the > attention to the revoke, applies L64B4 or 5 and C and the result stands. > NS mark 4S-1. This is the correct procedure, except that the table result shall not stand automatically. The Director shall apply Law 64C and assign an adjusted score if he finds this necessary to "restore equity". Here the table result represents indeed equity so no adjustment is warranted. > I have been taught TD should follow point 3: L81C6 is applied in the least > interfering way possible. Nevertheless, ISTM that none of the three > scenarios contradicts the laws, so there are three perfectly legal > possible results. > I am either dead wrong or not, but extremely puzzled anyway. Can you help > me out of this state? (I can hardly imagine being the first one to walk > this path, but with no thread name it is difficult to find something in > the archives.) What you have overlooked is that TD did not become aware of the revoke in his capacity as Director but in his position as a spectator. So initially the relevant law is Law 76. Only after the time limit applicable in Law 64B has expired should TD apply his duty under Law 81C6: "to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Nov 25 20:17:35 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:17:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <456896CF.7040207@NTLworld.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061125/6683f038/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Nov 25 20:38:32 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:38:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <000301c70eb1$91deda90$04000100@john> References: <000301c70eb1$91deda90$04000100@john> Message-ID: <45689BB8.3090900@NTLworld.com> [John Probst] Be that as it may, I told Max Bavin about this illegal regulation and that I was ignoring it. He agreed that this was, at the very least, acceptable. It is fundamental to jurisprudence that you can't make a regulation contrary to Law. I've sometimes wondered, when next I go to court to protest a parking ticket, that I should ask the beak "When was Magna Carta repealed?" cheers [nigel] It intrigues me that John and Tim again [A] Disagree with an EBU regulation. [B] Disobey it. [C] Refuse to enforce it. [D] Have official approval for all this from the highest authority. (but the regulation still remains in place for hoi polloi). [E] Have gone on public record to tell us about it. In almost any other field of legislation, if law-enforcers behaved this way and failed to overturn such legislation, they would resign or be sacked :( Only in the surreal world of Bridge Rules does all this make moral sense :) From brian at meadows.pair.com Sat Nov 25 21:04:38 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:04:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <45689BB8.3090900@NTLworld.com> References: <000301c70eb1$91deda90$04000100@john> <45689BB8.3090900@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:38:32 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: <...> > >In almost any other field of legislation, if law-enforcers behaved this way and failed to overturn such legislation, they would resign or be sacked :( > >Only in the surreal world of Bridge Rules does all this make moral sense :) > Well, if we're moving into the field of player opinions (Nigel's frequently mentions that he's just a player) then I'll say that I'm all for any TD who has the balls to ignore local regulations **which clearly contravene the Laws of the game**. The people who ought to resign or be sacked are the people responsible for making the contradictory regulation(s) in the first place. I agree with Nigel's comments about the surreal world of Bridge Rules, though. There's such a thing as too much devolution of authority. Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 26 02:43:58 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:43:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4568054E.4030304@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >But what do you explain? > >If you explain his bids according to what you know your >system is, he will notice that he has misdescribed your >opening. You are then in direct violation of L75D2. William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (slightly modified): "Why, Herman he doth bestride the narrow blml Like a Colossus; and we petty men Walk about under his huge postings, and peep about To find ourselves dishonourable rulings." Law 75D2: ".....nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made....." Law 20F1: "During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request* a full explanation of the opponents' auction ..... replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)." Law 75C: "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement....." William Schoder (Kojak), "Law 24" thread, 5th June 2006: [snip] >>For over 50 years I have been taught that when there >>exists a specific Law dealing with an infraction it >>takes precedence over any other Law which may appear >>to apply. [snip] Richard Hills: Law 75C is a specific Law dealing with the prevention of the infraction of misinformation. Therefore, following Kojak's words of wisdom, I argue that Law 75C takes precedence over Law 75D2 to the extent of any possible inconsistency between these two Laws. Herman De Wael: >And if you've stopped thinking about that one - then >please tell me what you should do if, after hearing his >explanation, you have absolutely no idea about the >system you have actually agreed upon? If your actions >should be different in the first case and the second, >then what do you do in the third? > >Yes, I know, DwS all again. Richard Hills: This last puzzle is an easy one to solve. If both before and after partner's explanation I cannot remember which of two possible systems we have agreed to play, and then an opponent asks me for an explanation of partner's call, I follow clause 7.7 of the ABF Alert regulation: "If you know that partner's call is alertable but you have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The Director should be called immediately. His normal action would be to send you away from the table and have your partner explain the meaning of the call." As for my own calls, if before partner's explanation I cannot remember which of two possible systems we have agreed to play, then partner's explanation is UI to me, so I "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". Law 16A. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 26 03:17:21 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:17:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <456896CF.7040207@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Law 75B: >>A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, >>so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but >>habitual violations within a partnership may create >>implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)...... Nigel Guthrie: >.....our agreements remain our agreements whether or not we >remember them. Our deviations are just errors not underhand >attempts to modify of our agreements. I see no problem >provided that we always assume that partner has remembered >and never acts in a way that allows for a suspected lapse >of memory. That is what the Orange Book seems to propose >and it seems reasonable to me..... Oscar Wilde, De Profundis: "Dear Friend, a man who has studied law to its highest degree is a brilliant lawyer, for a brilliant lawyer has studied law to its highest degree." Richard Hills: Both Oscar and Nigel are begging the question, petitio principii. The point that Nigel is debating is whether our notional agreements metamorphose into different implicit agreements if we habitually forget our notional agreements. If this metamorphosis does take place, as Law 75B implies, then I do see a problem. Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: "The strongest word, 'must' ('before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards'), indicates that violation is regarded as serious." Richard Hills: Since Law 75B uses the strongest word - "implicit agreements, which _must_ be disclosed" - it seems to me that the Orange Book clause 3B10, which prohibits disclosure of an implicit agreement created by habitual memory lapses, is a seriously illegal regulation. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Nov 26 06:08:08 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 05:08:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45692138.4090708@NTLworld.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061126/2342916a/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 26 07:07:27 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:07:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <45692138.4090708@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000401c71121$26b29820$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Nigel ............ [Richard Hills quotes Law 45C3] A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer **except for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards**, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched. [nige2] An Italian declarer claimed to be doing that when he was turning over dummy's card played to the current trick. Unfortunately, during this process, an American defender led to the next trick. The Director and Committee judged that another card in dummy, which declarer touched during the current trick, had to be played to the next trick. Grattan Endicott and others assured those, who worried about he ruling, that it is a paradigm of current law. Sven: Unfortunately this description of what happened is in direct conflict with what we have been told earlier: The Italian declarer was so convinced West would cash his Queen of spades on his lead towards the end of the play of the last board in the match that he "deliberately" placed a low spade from dummy into a played position (i.e. on top of the previously card played from dummy, a card that had not been turned face down), only to discover that East won the trick with another small spade. When he discovered his disastrous mistake he claimed that he had not really played that small spade from dummy; he wanted to play the Ten of spades (which would have secured the trick), a claim that was rejected both by TD and AC. Regards Sven ? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Nov 26 07:41:16 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:41:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c71121$26b29820$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c71121$26b29820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4569370C.1020709@NTLworld.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061126/f643724e/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Sun Nov 26 07:54:27 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:54:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <4569370C.1020709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c71127$b71175c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Nigel ............ My question remains: *under future law*, should you be allowed to lead to the next trick, before the current trick is quitted (without claiming).? If so, should law should define how many tricks can simultaneously be on the go? IMO, the law should clearly forbid playing to the next trick before the current trick is quitted. Sven: Oh dear, oh dear, that would prohibit my favorite way of claiming: Rapidly playing the remaining cards one at a time (without awaiting defenders' plays to each trick) to make it quite clear in what sequence I intend to take the remaining tricks. In the Italian case Dummy had for some reason only known to himself left the table at the time of the incident. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Nov 26 08:41:29 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:41:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c71127$b71175c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000901c71127$b71175c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <45694529.5030604@NTLworld.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061126/2701f89a/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Nov 26 08:50:23 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:50:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: References: <000301c70eb1$91deda90$04000100@john> <45689BB8.3090900@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4569473F.8070307@NTLworld.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061126/975f6b91/attachment.htm From herman at hdw.be Sun Nov 26 10:19:01 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:19:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45695C05.3030403@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Law 75C is a specific Law dealing with the prevention of > the infraction of misinformation. Therefore, following > Kojak's words of wisdom, I argue that Law 75C takes > precedence over Law 75D2 to the extent of any possible > inconsistency between these two Laws. > This argument has been going around before. I argue that L75D2 uses stronger language ("in any manner") and therefore takes precedence. Oh, and drop the "any possible inconsistency". If you are still not convinced that your actions break L75D2, then there is no hope for you. There is a definite inconsistence between these two laws, and you or I shall fail to convince the other of the precedence. Only the WBF LC can do that. I urge them to take my view, for the good of the game. Meanwhile, I accept that you can do as you wish, provided you allow me to act as I wish. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Nov 26 13:18:34 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:18:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001c71159$fc7b77a0$5aae87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills: < > Since Law 75B uses the strongest word - "implicit agreements, > which _must_ be disclosed" - it seems to me that the Orange > Book clause 3B10, which prohibits disclosure of an implicit > agreement created by habitual memory lapses, is a seriously > illegal regulation. > +=+ I do not think this is actually what the Orange Book states. The agreement, whatever it is, must be disclosed; the fact that it has arisen from partner's memory lapses should not be disclosed. If the original agreement has been discarded in favour of an implicit agreement created by 'partnership experience' of habitual violations, the original agreement is null and should not be introduced; if partner is wayward and cannot be relied upon to follow one route rather than the other consistently, no effective agreement can be said to exist. Until the original agreement has been superseded through habitual violation partner's lapses take him outside of the partnership's clearly established agreements and there should be no mention of alternative possible meanings - the player must not take account of the possibility of his partner's failure to follow the agreement in his own actions. When one partner is acting upon one understanding and the other partner upon another no amount of disclosure of this will alter the opponents' rights to redress; it is not one player's understanding of his agreements that opponents are entitled to know, it is the mutual (explicit or implicit) agreement of the partnership of which they must be informed. Law 75 is all about 'partnership' agreements and Law 40 refers to disclosure of a 'partnership' understanding. When a Director meets a situation in which one partner has understood the meaning of a call one way and the other partner differently, either of these meanings (or quite possibly neither) may prove to be the partnership agreement. Attempts by one player to clear the matter up before the Director gets to them only complicate the situation that the Director has to deal with. His concerns are "does this partnership have an agreement?", "what is the agreement?" and "have opponents received incorrect information as to the agreement, or been told of an agreement that does not exist? - and, if so, have they been damaged thereby?" The Laws are quite explicit in requiring players to wait until a specified moment to clear up misexplanations and the lawgivers had reasons for this; players should not be superimposing their own opinions upon the operation of the Laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Nov 26 16:33:00 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:33:00 -0600 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001001c71159$fc7b77a0$5aae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 6:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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. > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:17 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Richard Hills: > < >> Since Law 75B uses the strongest word - "implicit agreements, >> which _must_ be disclosed" - it seems to me that the Orange >> Book clause 3B10, which prohibits disclosure of an implicit >> agreement created by habitual memory lapses, is a seriously >> illegal regulation. >> > +=+ I do not think this is actually what the Orange Book states. > The agreement, whatever it is, must be disclosed; the fact that it > has arisen from partner's memory lapses should not be disclosed. > If the original agreement has been discarded in favour of an implicit > agreement created by 'partnership experience' of habitual violations, > the original agreement is null and should not be introduced; if partner > is wayward and cannot be relied upon to follow one route rather > than the other consistently, no effective agreement can be said to > exist. Until the original agreement has been superseded through > habitual violation partner's lapses take him outside of the partnership's > clearly established agreements and there should be no mention of > alternative possible meanings - the player must not take account of > the possibility of his partner's failure to follow the agreement in his > own actions. When one partner is acting upon one understanding > and the other partner upon another no amount of disclosure of this > will alter the opponents' rights to redress; it is not one player's > understanding of his agreements that opponents are entitled to know, > it is the mutual (explicit or implicit) agreement of the partnership of > which they must be informed. It is very difficult to communicate when the words chosen to joust with are the wrong words. For example there is the term implicit agreement. It has been used in law. And in discussions it has been used in ways that don't make good sense. Namely in the case where a partnership has concurred on the communication that a particular sequence provides while on the other hand a member often forgets it at the time he makes the crucial call in the sequence. Which is to say that the partnership has an implicit agreement that a member frequently forgets. Well, that is nonsense. The pair wants to employ the sequence in one manner so it is wrong to impute a multi-way agreement where there is no system to make it work. Now for an instance of correct usage of implicit agreement. A pair that chooses the 2/1 GF system has an implicit agreement that 1M-P-1N* is forcing one round which frequently requires opener to rebid a 2 card club suit. 1N forcing is implied by choosing the system. Implicit suggests that there is knowing, as distinct from having uncertainty, from the act itself that this time he forgot ,or, this time he remembered. This is what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say- im?plic?it (?m-pl?s"?t) adj. 1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject. 2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: "Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self" (Patricia Hampl). 3. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning: implicit trust. [Latin implicitus, variant of implic?tus, past participle of implic?re, to entangle. See IMPLICATE.] --im?plic"it?ly adv. --im?plic"it?ness n. Now, there is a word that is ideally suited for the use given to implicit all these years: tac?it (t?s"?t) adj. 1. Not spoken: indicated tacit approval by smiling and winking. 2.a. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements: Management has given its tacit approval to the plan. b. Law. Arising by operation of the law rather than through direct expression. 3. Archaic. Not speaking; silent. [Latin tacitus, silent, past participle of tac?re, to be silent.] --tac"it?ly adv. --tac"it?ness n. regards roger pewick >Law 75 is all about 'partnership' > agreements and Law 40 refers to disclosure of a 'partnership' > understanding. > When a Director meets a situation in which one partner has > understood the meaning of a call one way and the other partner > differently, either of these meanings (or quite possibly neither) may > prove to be the partnership agreement. Attempts by one player > to clear the matter up before the Director gets to them only > complicate the situation that the Director has to deal with. His > concerns are "does this partnership have an agreement?", "what > is the agreement?" and "have opponents received incorrect > information as to the agreement, or been told of an agreement > that does not exist? - and, if so, have they been damaged thereby?" > The Laws are quite explicit in requiring players to wait until a > specified moment to clear up misexplanations and the lawgivers > had reasons for this; players should not be superimposing their > own opinions upon the operation of the Laws. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 26 21:56:42 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:56:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c71159$fc7b77a0$5aae87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Since Law 75B uses the strongest word - "implicit agreements, >>which _must_ be disclosed" - it seems to me that the Orange >>Book clause 3B10, which prohibits disclosure of an implicit >>agreement created by habitual memory lapses, is a seriously >>illegal regulation. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I do not think this is actually what the Orange Book >states. [big snip] Richard Hills: Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I overegged the pudding. Indeed, my initial proofreading comment to the EBU was to suggest the addition of a clarification to Orange Book clause 3B10, not the abolition of Orange Book clause 3B10. (And the big snip from Grattan's posting does provide such a clarification.) John (MadDog) Probst: >>>Be that as it may, I told Max Bavin about this illegal >>>regulation and that I was ignoring it. He agreed that this >>>was, at the very least, acceptable. It is fundamental to >>>jurisprudence that you can't make a regulation contrary to >>>Law. [snip] EBU Appeals Casebook 2004, number 3, appeal to the EBU National Authority, and consequent EBU Law and Ethics Committee ruling: "The L&E considered an appeal to the National Authority from the 2004 Brighton Summer Congress. The appellant was heard in person. "The appeal concerned the meaning, and the legality, of the regulations in the Orange Book which restrict the distributions on which natural 1NT openings are permitted to the following:- "At Level 2:- * balanced hands (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 and 5-3-3-2 shapes) * semi-balanced hands (5-4-2-2 and 6-3-2-2 shapes) "At Levels 3 and 4:- * balanced or semi-balanced hands (as above) * 4-4-4-1 hands (with a singleton of any rank) * 5-4-3-1 hands (with a singleton honour only) "The L&E decided:- * that the appeal raised a question of principle and that the deposit would therefore be returned; * that the regulations are not ambiguous: they do prohibit the opening of 1NT by agreement on 5-4-3-1 hands with a low singleton; * that the regulations are legal because:- * the L&E has the right to regulate conventions under Law 40D; * the wording of the definition of convention in the Laws, and in particular the use of the words "willingness to play", provides sufficient latitude that an opening bid of 1NT, made by agreement on a hand which is neither balanced nor semibalanced, may be judged to fall within the definition of a conventional call; and * the L&E has so judged; * the appeal would therefore be dismissed. "The L&E decided that the implications of this appeal should be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, to allow all L&E members to contribute to the discussion. In particular the following propositions should be discussed:- * that players entering events submit themselves to the published regulations, and should be expected to comply with them even though there may be doubt as to their legality; * that players seeking to challenge regulations should do so by approaching the L&E via correspondence, rather than via the appeals process; and * that the L&E should encourage such approaches in cases of difficulty." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 27 01:09:43 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:09:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment Message-ID: <456A2CC7.3070102@cfa.harvard.edu> >> - >> - >> Q864 >> 8 >> Q8 - >> - Q >> A7 5 >> Q JT7 >> 963 >> - >> T9 >> - [Spades trump, East leads C-J, South trumps, West revokes by playing S-8] From: "Sven Pran" >> 3. TD shuts up further more, still no player notices the revoke. NOS >> declares to the next board or the turn ends and now TD draws the >> attention to the revoke, applies L64B4 or 5 and C and the result stands. >> NS mark 4S-1. > > This is the correct procedure, except that the table result shall not stand > automatically. The Director shall apply Law 64C and assign an adjusted score > if he finds this necessary to "restore equity". Here the table result > represents indeed equity so no adjustment is warranted. While I agree with Sven about the procedure, it looks to me as though a L64C adjustment to 4S= might be warranted in some cases. If West follows suit, South will presumably lead a diamond, and some Wests might duck. The chance of that is a matter for TD judgement, and we would need to see the rest of the play just for starters, but if this is "likely" or "at all probable," the result is obvious. (If L12C3 is enabled, the TD might assign a weighted score.) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Nov 27 02:33:51 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:33:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment In-Reply-To: <1164472196.45686f8426839@imp7-g19.free.fr> References: <1164472196.45686f8426839@imp7-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <456A407F.4000800@NTLworld.com> [Manuela Mandache] > South, declarer in 4S, won the 7 first tricks and lost T8 to East's > DK. The > remaining cards: > - > - > Q864 > 8 > Q8 - > - Q > A7 5 > Q JT7 > 963 > - > T9 > - > East leads the CJ, South ruffs with the S3 and West overruffs with the > S8. For > some reason, TD is near and sees the revoke. > 1. TD sais to West, "You still have Clubs." West plays the CQ to T9, > H8 is a MPC > and South wins his 10 tricks. NS mark 4S=. > 2. TD shuts up, the card play ends and no player noticed the revoke. > Before they > mark, TD draws their attention to it, applies L64A and EW get a two tricks > penalty. NS mark 4S+1. > 3. TD shuts up further more, still no player notices the revoke. NOS > declares to > the next board or the turn ends and now TD draws the attention to the > revoke, > applies L64B4 or 5 and C and the result stands. NS mark 4S-1. > > I have been taught TD should follow point 3: L81C6 is applied in the least > interfering way possible. Nevertheless, ISTM that none of the three > scenarios > contradicts the laws, so there are three perfectly legal possible > results. I am > either dead wrong or not, but extremely puzzled anyway. Can you help > me out of > this state? (I can hardly imagine being the first one to walk this > path, but > with no thread name it is difficult to find something in the archives.) > [nige1] Excellent question Manuela! In almost any other legal context, if you witness a blatant infraction, then your duty is to report it (at least); and if you are a law-enforcer then your prime duty is to uphold and enforce the law :) Only in the surreal context of Bridge Rules, are you prevented from reporting wrong-doing to the authorities; and if you are a law-enforcer, are you expected to permit an infraction to proceed, right under your nose, that you can easily prevent (: In such a surreal context, it is only to be expected, that identical infractions attract different rulings (as here) depending on the whim of the law-enforcer (: The lesson for the player is to choose a section where the director is a friend :) TFLB should probably make this clear :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 27 02:57:59 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:57:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c710b7$df2ebbf0$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Manuela Mandache: [snip] >>East leads the CJ, South ruffs with the S3 and West overruffs >>with the S8. For some reason, TD is near and sees the revoke. [snip] >>3. TD shuts up further more, still no player notices the >>revoke. NOS declares to the next board or the turn ends and >>now TD draws the attention to the revoke, applies L64B4 or 5 >>and C and the result stands. NS mark 4S-1. Sven Pran: >This is the correct procedure, except that the table result >shall not stand automatically. The Director shall apply Law >64C and assign an adjusted score if he finds this necessary to >"restore equity". [snip] >What you have overlooked is that TD did not become aware of >the revoke in his capacity as Director but in his position as >a spectator. So initially the relevant law is Law 76. [snip] Law 76B: "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director." Law 72B3: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." Richard Hills: Because of the existence of Law 72B3, I think that Sven Pran does not go far enough in advising the silence of the lambs. I suggest that any spectator (TD or otherwise) must _not_, during the correction period, point out that a revoke has occurred. For those who quote Law 81C6 "Director's Duties and Powers - Errors", note the word "normally" in the prologue to that Law. It is not "normal" for a TD to wear a second hat as a spectator. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 27 05:27:54 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:27:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <456A407F.4000800@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Only in the surreal context of Bridge Rules, are you >prevented from reporting wrong-doing to the authorities; >and if you are a law-enforcer, are you expected to permit >an infraction to proceed, right under your nose, that you >can easily prevent (: Richard Hills: "Only"??? In my opinion, a spectator "catching" a revoke at bridge is analogous to a spectator "catching" a six at cricket. In both cases, the Laws of the game rule that the action of the spectator has no effect on the score. Of course, given the dismal performance of the English cricket team in the first Ashes test, perhaps the England selectors should choose 11 spectators from the Barmy Army of English fans as the team to play the second Ashes test. Come on Aussie, come on, come on. Come on Aussie, come on. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 27 05:54:22 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:54:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45695C05.3030403@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>>You do agree that this is a minefield, Grattan? >>>I find it one of the most difficult points of Law >>>to interpret. "Thou SHALST NOT create MI" vs "Thou >>>SHALST NOT correct MI" (in certain circumstances) >>>and "Thou MAYST create UI" (but partner has to be >>>ultra careful). The words of the Law I understand, >>>but what was the intention of the LawMaker - and >>>"How do we play Bridge?" ? Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Yes, it is a minefield. [big snip] >> Of course I cannot comment on the 2008 Laws. >>I do not even know at this juncture whether they >>will (or can) resolve the question. They are still >>in malleable condition. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael: [snip] >There is a definite inconsistency between these >two laws [Law 75C & Law 75D2], and you or I shall >fail to convince the other of the precedence. Only >the WBF LC can do that. I urge them to take my >view, for the good of the game. > >Meanwhile, I accept that you can do as you wish, >provided you allow me to act as I wish. Ian Mayes, The Guardian, 13th November 2006: "But what we are involved in here is the war on error and, following Mr Bush's example, we shall seek out errorists and bring them to justice." Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Nov 27 07:27:19 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:27:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <456A8547.80708@NTLworld.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061127/a06654bb/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 27 07:34:35 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:34:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 45C3 (was 20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45692138.4090708@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>if declarer, oblivious to your lead, is tidying up >>>the dummy during the current trick, a card that he >>>touches should not be deemed a played card to the >>>next trick. Richard Hills quotes Law 45C3: >>A card in the dummy must be played if it has been >>deliberately touched by declarer **except for the >>purpose of arranging dummy's cards**, or of reaching a >>card above or below the card or cards touched. Nigel Guthrie: >An Italian declarer claimed to be doing that [big snip] Richard Hills: The operative word is "claimed". When the facts are disputed, Law 85 applies. As this particular Bermuda Bowl case has been somewhat of a hobby-horse for Nigel over many months and many postings, it may be useful to examine how the actual Appeals Committee used Law 85 and Law 45C3 to resolve the disputed facts. * * * Appeals Committee: "J. Auken (Chair), J. Damiani, G. Endicott, A. Maas, J.-P. Meyer." Ruling: "5Dx -2. NS -300." Appellants: "NS appealed." Present: "All four players and both Captains." The Players: "North said that he had picked up the small Spade to 'cover the King' and demonstrated his meaning. His intention was to play the Queen. East said he had heard the seven named and both East and West had seen declarer touch the seven of Spades, West playing the ten. Declarer had protested that he was playing the Queen." The Committee: "Enquired of declarer whether he had named the card he was playing and he said he had not. Indeed it seems unlikely he would be instructing dummy who is not at the table and it is reasonable to believe the naming of the card was by the vu-graph caller. Requested the Chief Director to explain the law to them, which he did by reading from the law book. The relevant law says: "'45C3 A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched.'" The Committee's Decision: "Declarer had touched the seven and it was not evident to the committee that declarer had touched the card for the purpose either of adjusting dummy's cards or of reaching for the Queen. (By the above law picking up the card in order to place it on top of a played card commits North to playing the card.) The Committee had not heard anything in the evidence that persuaded it the Director's ruling was incorrect. Accordingly the director's ruling was upheld." Deposit: "Returned." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 27 08:35:50 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:35:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment References: <456A2CC7.3070102@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <005401c711fc$e34a8110$6ea687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense, Lie in three words, health, peace, and competence." -~ Alexander Pope. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a matter of moment > > (If L12C3 is enabled, the TD might assign a weighted score.) > +=+ Quibble. The right statement should be "provided L12C3 is not deactivated". ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 27 08:48:48 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:48:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005501c711fc$e42cf1d0$6ea687d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > > [snip] > > >What you have overlooked is that TD did not > >become aware of the revoke in his capacity as > >Director but in his position as a spectator. So > >initially the relevant law is Law 76. > +=+ A tournament director appointed to direct a tournament never has the status of 'spectator' in that tournament. He remains at all times a director. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 27 10:03:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:03:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45657462.6030203@hdw.be><004201c70f06$88d0e380$069e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001001c70f6f$598603d0$04000100@john><007b01c70fc5$504dabf0$859387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><45672F80.1040307@hdw.be> <003d01c7108d$19e9bbd0$04000100@john> Message-ID: <008b01c71203$0fee8440$6ea687d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > > >dilemnae! > > Herman wins the MadDog impenetrability prize for > November, thus breaking Grattan's unbroken tradition > > Grattan, you need to return to the OED, dear boy :) John > +=+ I tend to use the Shorter Oxford (why is its every edition "New"?), 'The New Oxford Dictionary of English', Collins, and particularly Chambers. All four advise that 'dilemma' was introduced to the English language circa 1500-1529 AD, beyond which I have only a renewed awareness that it would have been good to take classical Greek. The Latin transition is no more than that. Ah, how I have deprived myself of linguistic resources! But I am versed in English. ~ G ~ +=+ From herman at hdw.be Mon Nov 27 10:52:06 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:52:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20F1 In-Reply-To: <003d01c7108d$19e9bbd0$04000100@john> References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45657462.6030203@hdw.be><004201c70f06$88d0e380$069e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001001c70f6f$598603d0$04000100@john><007b01c70fc5$504dabf0$859387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <45672F80.1040307@hdw.be> <003d01c7108d$19e9bbd0$04000100@john> Message-ID: <456AB546.4010707@hdw.be> John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > > >>dilemnae! > > > Herman wins the MadDog impenetrability prize for November, thus breaking > Grattan's unbroken tradition > Ever weary of finding someone believe me infallible, I must confess to having erred. There is no N in dilemma, and the word being originally greek, the plural should be dilemmata, if anything else than simple dilemmas. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 27 11:01:22 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:01:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005501c711fc$e42cf1d0$6ea687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000401c7120a$fff6dd50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott .............. > > [snip] > > > > >What you have overlooked is that TD did not > > >become aware of the revoke in his capacity as > > >Director but in his position as a spectator. So > > >initially the relevant law is Law 76. > > > +=+ A tournament director appointed to direct a > tournament never has the status of 'spectator' in that > tournament. He remains at all times a director. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This statement leads to some very interesting implications: Law 81C6: [The Director's duties and powers normally include] to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. If the Director is present at the table from being summoned he is of course there in his capacity as a director. This will often be the case when a player has a penalty card or is under special restrictions due to some other irregularity. In such cases the players have every right to expect the Director assisting them from committing further irregularities. But when the director is noticing events at a table maybe even without the players at that table being aware of his presence? I read your statement to say that if the Director while accidentally watching the play like any other spectator becomes aware of an irregularity happening or about to happen he shall take immediate action and interfere with the activities at that table in order to prevent or rectify the irregularity? This will in many situations mean preventing the non-offending side from executing their legal rights after opponents' irregularity and also the offending side from limiting the consequences of their irregularity as best they can. Some irregularities coming to my mind include call out of turn, insufficient bid, lead or play out of turn and revoke. Say that the Director notices a player about to lift an insufficient bid from the bid box. If his insufficient bid is completed the next player will have the option of getting extra bid space in the auction. Is it the duty of the Director to prevent this option for the non-offending side? Say that the Director notices a revoke before it is established. Is it the duty of the Director to deprive the non-offending side of their right to delay calling attention to the revoke until it becomes established? Say that the Director becomes aware of an established revoke but that no player on the non-offending side has called attention to it. Is it the duty of the Director to take any action before expiration of the time limit in Laws 64B4 and 64B5? Shall the penalty for the revoke (except for restoring equity) in that case be waived or not? When I was trained to become a director back in 1980 I was told by the instructor the importance of realizing the distinction between acting as director and acting as spectator. I still feel that this distinction is important. Regards Sven From sarahamos at onetel.net Mon Nov 27 12:15:37 2006 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:15:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20F1 References: <000001c70edf$595be900$6400a8c0@WINXP> <45657462.6030203@hdw.be><004201c70f06$88d0e380$069e87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001001c70f6f$598603d0$04000100@john><007b01c70fc5$504dabf0$859387d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><45672F80.1040307@hdw.be><003d01c7108d$19e9bbd0$04000100@john> <008b01c71203$0fee8440$6ea687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001201c71215$5d582760$f06a2b54@oakdene1> wow ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > 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. > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Probst" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:44 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] L20F1 >> >> >> >dilemnae! >> >> Herman wins the MadDog impenetrability prize for >> November, thus breaking Grattan's unbroken tradition >> >> Grattan, you need to return to the OED, dear boy :) John >> > +=+ I tend to use the Shorter Oxford (why is its every > edition "New"?), 'The New Oxford Dictionary of English', > Collins, and particularly Chambers. All four advise that > 'dilemma' was introduced to the English language circa > 1500-1529 AD, beyond which I have only a renewed > awareness that it would have been good to take classical > Greek. The Latin transition is no more than that. Ah, how > I have deprived myself of linguistic resources! But I am > versed in English. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > wow and I always thought I had been told your mother tongue was was Grattanese Mike > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 12:50:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c71159$fc7b77a0$5aae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grttn wrote: > Law 75 is all about 'partnership' agreements Of course it is. Oh, wait a minute there's that bit in L75C about disclosing "information conveyed to him through partnership agreement *or partnership experience*". So in fact Law75 is all about agreements apart from the bits which relate to experience. Whether it's "Ostensibly promises 6 but I know partner often does it in with only 5" Or "Ostensibly promises hearts but partner sometimes bids it with diamonds" doesn't invalidate either the experience or requirement to disclose. Of course in each case there is additional shared partnership experience as to *when* (from experience) partner is most likely to have 5 (or have diamonds). In the former case the "when" is likely to revolve around seat/vulnerability - which one can explain. In the latter case one knows the frequency and times are based on partner's forgetfulness - it is nigh on impossible to inform opponents correctly without also explaining the tendency to forget. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 12:50:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c7120a$fff6dd50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I read your statement to say that if the Director while accidentally > watching the play like any other spectator becomes aware of an > irregularity happening or about to happen he shall take immediate > action and interfere with the activities at that table in order to > prevent or rectify the irregularity? I didn't see a universal need for *immediacy* in Grattan's comment. Obviously if attention has already been drawn I'd take action because the TD should be called. However, the last time I saw a revoke (which went unnoticed at the table) I waited until the provisions of L64b4 had expired and then rectified the board by adjusting under L64C. NB, I saw the revoke because I was, in my role as TD, checking that play at that table wasn't falling behind the clock (or maybe waiting to put a board on the table). The nuances are such that I'm fully behind Grattan in saying that the TD is NEVER a spectator while on duty. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 12:54:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] a matter of moment In-Reply-To: <005401c711fc$e34a8110$6ea687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > > (If L12C3 is enabled, the TD might assign a weighted score.) > > > +=+ Quibble. The right statement should be "provided L12C3 > is not deactivated". ~ G ~ +=+ Follow-up quibble. Is it not the case that "deactivated" applies to ACs whilst "activated" applies to TDs? Tim "It's only idle chatter, ..." WSGilbert. From herman at hdw.be Mon Nov 27 12:59:49 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:59:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour Division case one Message-ID: <456AD335.9050103@hdw.be> Last saturday, I directed one of the days of the Belgian top division. I had four interesting cases, three of which I wish to share with you (the fourth being an intricate 12C3 decision - weights to be determined, which would lead us too far). This is the first one: NT contract, dummy has AKJxxx5 of diamonds. Declarer leads a diamond, and LHO inserts the queen. (the play would be very interesting if the diamond led had been a small one, meaning LHO had inserted the queen just to induce the safety play - but in actual fact the led diamond was the 10, and LHO had no option but to cover) Anyway, declarer knows his safety plays and calls for the five. Meanwhile however, declarer had taken the ace (and even turned it around), and RHO had played the 2 to the presumed ace. Upon hearing "the five", RHO now also plays the 3 of diamonds. Now they call me. All the facts are undisputed. Declarer had not noticed the ace being played, had called for the five to be played under the queen, and RHO had clearly played the 2 to the ace and 3 to the 5. A few things are clear: - the five has been played, not the ace - RHO could be allowed to change his play to the trick But how do we rule the D3 not a penalty card. At the table, there was no problem. I told them I was looking for a way not to make the D3 a penalty card, and dummy told me "we did not call you" (indeed defenders did) "we do not want a penalty card, go away". It may well be the best way to rule that there are only penalty cards if the TD rules there are, and here he should rule there are none. There is of course one option. Rule that RHO can change his card to the D5, and suggest that he change the D2 into the D3. After that, the D2 does not become a PC. But that only works in certain cases, and would not work if RHO had only one diamond. What did I overlook? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Mon Nov 27 13:08:18 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:08:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two Message-ID: <456AD532.20801@hdw.be> The second case from last saturday is a strange one. Declarer calls me, during the play of the hand. He asks "I would like to know if that call was alerted on the other side of the screen". I told him he was not allowed to ask this. I based this ruling on the fact that he had no use for the information about the meaning of the call. He had received an explanation from his screen-mate, and if that was wrong, I would rule in his favour. But if I let him ask his other opponent also about the meaning, he receives more information than he is entitled to (IMO), namely the hand of that opponent - and the fact that they are on a different wavelength or not. I suppose many of you will not agree, but I'm used to that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Mon Nov 27 13:12:44 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:12:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case three Message-ID: <456AD63C.1000707@hdw.be> The third case from last saturday is the one I feel least certain about. A player calls me: "I am about to be declarer, and I would like to tell the opponent on lead (on the other side of the screen) the meaning of my calls, since I am afraid my partner has misexplained them". I ruled that he was not allowed to do that. In the end, there was no problem. His partner had indeed misunderstood the calls at first, but he had subsequently understood and explained the calls correctly. This is the one I am least certain about. Without screens, declarer is obliged to correct mistaken explanations before the lead. Here, he does not know if they were mistaken, but should he be allowed to protect himself nevertheless? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 27 14:17:59 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:17:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case three In-Reply-To: <456AD63C.1000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001d01c71226$76a63610$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ....... > The third case from last saturday is the one I feel least certain about. > > A player calls me: > "I am about to be declarer, and I would like to tell the opponent on > lead (on the other side of the screen) the meaning of my calls, since > I am afraid my partner has misexplained them". > > I ruled that he was not allowed to do that. > > In the end, there was no problem. His partner had indeed misunderstood > the calls at first, but he had subsequently understood and explained > the calls correctly. > > This is the one I am least certain about. Without screens, declarer is > obliged to correct mistaken explanations before the lead. Here, he > does not know if they were mistaken, but should he be allowed to > protect himself nevertheless? This is clearly a matter of regulation and not of law. Unless the situation is mentioned in the applicable regulations, and bearing in mind the purpose of screens I would rule that presumed declarer should be permitted to ascertain that both opponents have received correct information before making their faced opening lead. However I tend to rule that Law 21B1 shall not apply after information correcting misinformation has been passed across the screen. Instead Law 21B3 shall apply in such cases. Disclaimer: I have not inspected our Norwegian regulations on the use of screens and the opinion expressed above is my own private. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 27 14:32:26 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:32:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c71228$7aaf7760$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > I read your statement to say that if the Director while accidentally > > watching the play like any other spectator becomes aware of an > > irregularity happening or about to happen he shall take immediate > > action and interfere with the activities at that table in order to > > prevent or rectify the irregularity? > > I didn't see a universal need for *immediacy* in Grattan's comment. > Obviously if attention has already been drawn I'd take action because > the TD should be called. However, the last time I saw a revoke (which > went unnoticed at the table) I waited until the provisions of L64b4 had > expired and then rectified the board by adjusting under L64C. > > NB, I saw the revoke because I was, in my role as TD, checking that play > at that table wasn't falling behind the clock (or maybe waiting to put a > board on the table). The nuances are such that I'm fully behind Grattan > in saying that the TD is NEVER a spectator while on duty. Do I understand you correct that in your opinion the TD shall never interfere with activities at the table in an attempt to prevent an irregularity (except when the very purpose of his presence at the table is to assist the players in correct procedures), but that he shall execute the relevant procedures afterwards regardless of how he became aware of an irregularity? This implies that he for instance shall not in any way react on a revoke of which he becomes aware in any other way than by being summoned to the table, until after the provisions of Laws 64B4 and 64B5 have expired. I fully agree with such opinion which in my view is just another (and maybe better) way of describing that the director has the role of a spectator when he notices events in the room without being summoned. Regards Sven From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 27 14:07:02 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:07:02 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A__Belgian_Honour_division_case_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?three?= References: <456AD63C.1000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: <456AE2F4.00001D.83871@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- A player calls me: "I am about to be declarer, and I would like to tell the opponent on lead (on the other side of the screen) the meaning of my calls, since I am afraid my partner has misexplained them". I ruled that he was not allowed to do that. AG : Screens are made to limit the amount of inconvenience from several kinds of incorrections. It would be very strange indeed if their presence magnified it in that case, which isn't that uncommon. Opponents are allowed to check whether the explanations on both sides were coherent. To disallow declarer to do so would have one main effect : create the need for an arbitral score where it won't be needed in the absence of screens. It wouldn't help equity or fairness in any way. Helping everyone (including the TD) to let the board be played without inconvenience is to be encouraged. In view of the governing principle : save the board in all equity and with as little inference from the TD as possible", a principle that IMOCO is at least as strong as the laws. Also in the spirit of L75D, last line : to tell opponents one thinks partner s explanation wasn't correct is compulsory. That's exactly what declarer suggested. He should only tell "there could have been a mistake in my partner's explanations" ; then opponents are allowed to exercise their L40 rights. Would the opponents have declined declarer's suggestion ? Whether this should be allowed to defenders raises once again the struggle of MI and UI, so I won't try and walk on this slippery surface once again. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061127/f02d85c4/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1458 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061127/f02d85c4/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 37976 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061127/f02d85c4/attachment-0001.gif From john at asimere.com Mon Nov 27 14:42:49 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:42:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001e01c71228$7aaf7760$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002701c71229$edee3940$04000100@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] We are taught in the EBU that we must not react unless summoned and that we must restore equity, no matter how we find out. Thus i restore the equity in a revoke case, but don't interfere with play. I got this wrong the first time it happened. Thinking out loud, if I saw cheating I would still not react until the hand was over. John. > This implies that he for instance shall not in any way react on a revoke > of > which he becomes aware in any other way than by being summoned to the > table, > until after the provisions of Laws 64B4 and 64B5 have expired. > > I fully agree with such opinion which in my view is just another (and > maybe > better) way of describing that the director has the role of a spectator > when > he notices events in the room without being summoned. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 27 14:45:47 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:45:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour Division case one In-Reply-To: <456AD335.9050103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001f01c7122a$58942a20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > NT contract, dummy has AKJxxx5 of diamonds. > Declarer leads a diamond, and LHO inserts the queen. > (the play would be very interesting if the diamond led had been a > small one, meaning LHO had inserted the queen just to induce the > safety play - but in actual fact the led diamond was the 10, and LHO > had no option but to cover) > Anyway, declarer knows his safety plays and calls for the five. > > Meanwhile however, declarer had taken the ace (and even turned it ??? Dummy I assume? > around), and RHO had played the 2 to the presumed ace. Upon hearing > "the five", RHO now also plays the 3 of diamonds. > Now they call me. > > All the facts are undisputed. Declarer had not noticed the ace being > played, had called for the five to be played under the queen, and RHO > had clearly played the 2 to the ace and 3 to the 5. > > A few things are clear: > - the five has been played, not the ace > - RHO could be allowed to change his play to the trick > > But how do we rule the D3 not a penalty card. > > At the table, there was no problem. I told them I was looking for a > way not to make the D3 a penalty card, and dummy told me "we did not > call you" (indeed defenders did) "we do not want a penalty card, go away". > > It may well be the best way to rule that there are only penalty cards > if the TD rules there are, and here he should rule there are none. > > There is of course one option. Rule that RHO can change his card to > the D5, and suggest that he change the D2 into the D3. After that, the > D2 does not become a PC. But that only works in certain cases, and > would not work if RHO had only one diamond. > > What did I overlook? Frankly I believe you must have overlooked the last clause in Law 45D: "...withdraw without penalty..." What is the problem? Why should either D2 or D3 become a penalty card? (If RHO "plays" his D3 to what he might believe is a lead of D5 from Dummy to the next trick that lead with subsequent play from RHO is void as well) Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 27 14:50:41 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:50:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two In-Reply-To: <456AD532.20801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002601c7122b$073424e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 27. november 2006 13:08 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two > > The second case from last saturday is a strange one. > > Declarer calls me, during the play of the hand. > > He asks "I would like to know if that call was alerted on the other > side of the screen". > > I told him he was not allowed to ask this. > > I based this ruling on the fact that he had no use for the information > about the meaning of the call. He had received an explanation from his > screen-mate, and if that was wrong, I would rule in his favour. > > But if I let him ask his other opponent also about the meaning, he > receives more information than he is entitled to (IMO), namely the > hand of that opponent - and the fact that they are on a different > wavelength or not. > > I suppose many of you will not agree, but I'm used to that. Not me, I fully agree! Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 27 15:24:28 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:24:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment References: Message-ID: <003401c71231$af19ce70$03ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense, Lie in three words, health, peace, and competence." -~ Alexander Pope. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a matter of moment > Grattan wrote: > > > > > > (If L12C3 is enabled, the TD might assign > > > a weighted score.) > > > > > +=+ Quibble. The right statement should be > > > "provided L12C3 is not deactivated". > > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Follow-up quibble. Is it not the case that > "deactivated" applies to ACs whilst "activated" > applies to TDs? > > Tim > > "It's only idle chatter, ..." > WSGilbert. > +=+ 12C3 is activated by the Law. The tap is on. Regulations may turn it off. +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 27 15:36:18 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:36:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003501c71231$aff2a240$03ba87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grttn wrote: > > > Law 75 is all about 'partnership' agreements > > Of course it is. Oh, wait a minute there's that bit in L75C about > disclosing "information conveyed to him through partnership agreement *or > partnership experience*". So in fact Law75 is all about agreements apart > from the bits which relate to experience. > > Whether it's "Ostensibly promises 6 but I know partner often does it in > with only 5" Or "Ostensibly promises hearts but partner sometimes bids > it with diamonds" doesn't invalidate either the experience or > requirement to disclose. Of course in each case there is additional > shared partnership experience as to *when* (from experience) partner is > most likely to have 5 (or have diamonds). In the former case the "when" > is likely to revolve around seat/vulnerability - which one can explain. > In the latter case one knows the frequency and times are based on > partner's forgetfulness - it is nigh on impossible to inform opponents > correctly without also explaining the tendency to forget. > +=+ In the situation the agreement has become, implicitly through experience, '5 or 6 hearts or may show diamonds'. In a tournament where the System Regulations do not allow of such a bid action may be taken against the use of the bid when it has reached a level that calls for disclosure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 17:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour Division case one In-Reply-To: <456AD335.9050103@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > But how do we rule the D3 not a penalty card. Have I misunderstood something - this sounds like L45D The D2 was "a card played after the error but before attention was drawn" and thus may be withdrawn without penalty. The D3 was "a card played after ..etc" (declarer calling the D5 doesn't draw attention to the previous infraction) and thus may be withdrawn. After withdrawing both cards defender makes whatever play he wishes (which might be neither the 2 nor 3 or either of them). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 17:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two In-Reply-To: <456AD532.20801@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I based this ruling on the fact that he had no use for the > information about the meaning of the call. I can think of two reasons why one might ask. One might be worried about the need to "protect oneself" against a TD ruling that one should have suspected a possible non-alert or one might be about to give an explanation of partner's call which hinges on his awareness of the alertability the opposing call. I agree that on having been told that if it matters you will rule in his favour he no longer needs to know. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 17:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case three In-Reply-To: <456AD63C.1000707@hdw.be> Message-ID: > A player calls me: > "I am about to be declarer, and I would like to tell the opponent on > lead (on the other side of the screen) the meaning of my calls, since > I am afraid my partner has misexplained them". > > I ruled that he was not allowed to do that. And I don't understand why. The moment has arrived for declarer to correct a misexplanation. He (presumably) has reason to believe that his opponent has received a misexplanation. The laws require a correction even if declarer doesn't realise there has been an ME (ie we will include "likely outcomes had the ME been corrected at the proper time" within our possible adjusted scores. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 17:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c71228$7aaf7760$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Do I understand you correct that in your opinion the TD shall never > interfere with activities at the table in an attempt to prevent an > irregularity (except when the very purpose of his presence at the > table is to assist the players in correct procedures), but that he > shall execute the relevant procedures afterwards regardless of how > he became aware of an irregularity? I don't think that is what I said. For example if I hear players at a table discussing what to do after an IB I will go and give a ruling (attention has been drawn - I should have been called). OTOH if a player makes an IB (and I notice) and nobody says anything (it just gets condoned) I wouldn't interfere at the time [will cross check for "could have known" later]. > This implies that he for instance shall not in any way react on a > revoke of which he becomes aware in any other way than by being > summoned to the table, until after the provisions of Laws 64B4 and > 64B5 have expired. Yes, that one is clear IMO. > I fully agree with such opinion which in my view is just another (and > maybe better) way of describing that the director has the role of a > spectator when he notices events in the room without being summoned. Unlike a spectator the TD has a duty to rectify damage. Thus if I happen to notice a case of damage-causing MI *unnoticed by opponents* I believe I have a duty to "interfere" after the hand while if opps are aware of the MI but choose not to call me I'll assume they don't consider themselves damaged. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 27 17:12:49 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:12:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two References: <002601c7122b$073424e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004d01c7123f$4eb54290$03ba87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sent: 27. november 2006 13:08 > > To: blml > > Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two > > > > The second case from last saturday is a strange one. > > > > Declarer calls me, during the play of the hand. > > > > He asks "I would like to know if that call was alerted on the other > > side of the screen". > > > > I told him he was not allowed to ask this. > > > > I based this ruling on the fact that he had no use for the information > > about the meaning of the call. He had received an explanation from his > > screen-mate, and if that was wrong, I would rule in his favour. > > > > But if I let him ask his other opponent also about the meaning, he > > receives more information than he is entitled to (IMO), namely the > > hand of that opponent - and the fact that they are on a different > > wavelength or not. > > > > I suppose many of you will not agree, but I'm used to that. > > Not me, I fully agree! > > Regards Sven > +=+ EBL regulation with screens: "At no time prior to completion of the hand may there be communication between a player on one side of the screen and a player on the other side of the screen concerning the auction or explanations given and received". Parallel WBF regulation: "At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 27 17:15:11 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:15:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001e01c71228$7aaf7760$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004e01c7123f$4fbdd8f0$03ba87d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Sven wrote: > > > > > I read your statement to say that if the Director while accidentally > > > watching the play like any other spectator becomes aware of an > > > irregularity happening or about to happen he shall take immediate > > > action and interfere with the activities at that table in order to > > > prevent or rectify the irregularity? > > > > I didn't see a universal need for *immediacy* in Grattan's comment. > > Obviously if attention has already been drawn I'd take action because > > the TD should be called. However, the last time I saw a revoke (which > > went unnoticed at the table) I waited until the provisions of L64b4 had > > expired and then rectified the board by adjusting under L64C. > > > > NB, I saw the revoke because I was, in my role as TD, checking that play > > at that table wasn't falling behind the clock (or maybe waiting to put a > > board on the table). The nuances are such that I'm fully behind Grattan > > in saying that the TD is NEVER a spectator while on duty. > > Do I understand you correct that in your opinion the TD shall never > interfere with activities at the table in an attempt to prevent an > irregularity (except when the very purpose of his presence at the table is > to assist the players in correct procedures), but that he shall execute the > relevant procedures afterwards regardless of how he became aware of an > irregularity? > > This implies that he for instance shall not in any way react on a revoke of > which he becomes aware in any other way than by being summoned to the table, > until after the provisions of Laws 64B4 and 64B5 have expired. > > I fully agree with such opinion which in my view is just another (and maybe > better) way of describing that the director has the role of a spectator when > he notices events in the room without being summoned. > > Regards Sven > +=+ I am not sure what I am reading here. One, the status of the Director is always 'Director', never 'spectator'. Two, did someone suggest that the Director, by his own extraneous action - seeking to prevent an irregularity, should interfere with the outcome of the board? Anyone who thinks that should read the lawbook again. It does not authorize the Director to intervene to prevent an irregularity in the play. Only when the players are acting under his instructions should he ensure that they do so correctly. It is no part of the Director's role to participate in the play until he is required to deal with an irregularity that has occurred. It is inappropriate for the Director to change the course of play at one table, by an action not authorized in the laws, when like risks may go unchecked by him at others. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 17:36:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003501c71231$aff2a240$03ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ In the situation the agreement has become, implicitly through > experience, '5 or 6 hearts or may show diamonds'. And I don't have a problem explaining that part of it in similar words. The problem is explaining (despite knowing the answer) the situations in which partner is likely to hold diamonds (a perfectly reasonable question for opps to ask). I would also add that the majority of OB readers (and probably of the writers!) seem to believe that the regulation forbids them saying "may show diamonds" rather than requiring "may show diamonds" but forbidding the reason why. Note also that "may show diamonds if he has forgotten again" gives opponents warning of the UI implications while the prohibition on that part of the explanation actually makes it illegal to warn opps that partner has UI. > In a tournament > where the System Regulations do not allow of such a bid action may > be taken against the use of the bid when it has reached a level that > calls for disclosure. If the system isn't permitted by regulation then the case is often trivial, I agree. But the example of a 2D overcall of (or indeed response to) 1N showing either D or H is legal in (almost) all EBU competitions so that's a red herring with regards to disclosure. Tim From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 27 17:54:19 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:54:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c7123f$4fbdd8f0$03ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002d01c71244$ae9b2df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott ............. > +=+ I am not sure what I am reading here. One, the status of the Director > is always 'Director', never 'spectator'. Two, did someone suggest that > the Director, by his own extraneous action - seeking to prevent an > irregularity, should interfere with the outcome of the board? Anyone > who thinks that should read the lawbook again. It does not authorize > the Director to intervene to prevent an irregularity in the play. Only > when the players are acting under his instructions should he ensure that > they do so correctly. It is no part of the Director's role to participate > in > the play until he is required to deal with an irregularity that has > occurred. > It is inappropriate for the Director to change the course of play at one > table, by an action not authorized in the laws, when like risks may go > unchecked by him at others. > ~ G ~ +=+ On reading this I am sure that we are in complete agreements on the role and duty of the Director whether he observes events accidentally or from being summoned to a table. But we use different terms to justify the same conclution. The essential point is that Law 81B6 [to rectify an error or irregularity] does _not_ authorize or require the director to interfere with the activities at a table where he notices some irregularity; only to take the appropriate actions after the board has been completed. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 27 18:29:19 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:29:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two In-Reply-To: References: <456AD532.20801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061127182529.0285f8a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:08 27/11/2006 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >Herman wrote: > > > I based this ruling on the fact that he had no use for the > > information about the meaning of the call. > >I can think of two reasons why one might ask. One might be worried >about the need to "protect oneself" against a TD ruling that one should >have suspected a possible non-alert or one might be about to give an >explanation of partner's call which hinges on his awareness of the >alertability the opposing call. I had a similar case (no screens). I knew about their system, partner didn't. YT 1C 2C 2S alert 2C is self-alertable. Question about 2S. Partner : "tell me what 2C means and I'll tell you what 2S means". I coudn't ask about 2C, that would have been a "pro question", wouldn't it ? Now, insert screens ... it all depends on whether 2C was duly alerted (no self-alert in this case). Best regards Alain From mustikka at charter.net Mon Nov 27 18:35:23 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:35:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002d01c71244$ae9b2df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c7124a$6baf29f0$3ed75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > ............. >> +=+ I am not sure what I am reading here. One, the status of the Director >> is always 'Director', never 'spectator'. Two, did someone suggest that >> the Director, by his own extraneous action - seeking to prevent an >> irregularity, should interfere with the outcome of the board? Anyone >> who thinks that should read the lawbook again. It does not authorize >> the Director to intervene to prevent an irregularity in the play. Only >> when the players are acting under his instructions should he ensure that >> they do so correctly. It is no part of the Director's role to participate >> in >> the play until he is required to deal with an irregularity that has >> occurred. >> It is inappropriate for the Director to change the course of play at one >> table, by an action not authorized in the laws, when like risks may go >> unchecked by him at others. >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > On reading this I am sure that we are in complete agreements on the role > and > duty of the Director whether he observes events accidentally or from being > summoned to a table. > > But we use different terms to justify the same conclution. > > The essential point is that Law 81B6 [to rectify an error or irregularity] > does _not_ authorize or require the director to interfere with the > activities at a table where he notices some irregularity; only to take the > appropriate actions after the board has been completed. > > Regards Sven > I have followed this thread with interest, but... If one table has the benefit of having a TD so close by that the TD is in a position to observe the play at that table AND the TD had the right to call attention and give redress for infractions without being called, then that table is put in a different status than the rest of the tables in the room - unless there is a "resident TD" present at every table, watching and catching irregularities or infractions. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 27 18:44:41 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:44:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002d01c71244$ae9b2df0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <004e01c7123f$4fbdd8f0$03ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061127184104.02859710@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:54 27/11/2006 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >The essential point is that Law 81B6 [to rectify an error or irregularity] >does _not_ authorize or require the director to interfere with the >activities at a table where he notices some irregularity; only to take the >appropriate actions after the board has been completed. IBTD ; L81B6 says the TD's intervention must be "within the correction time according to L79C" (NB : re-translation from French). L79C says said time expires half an hour after the deal was completed (unless stated otherwise) ; it doesn't say whether this period begins before- or upon completion of the board. For L79C, corrections will always make sense *after*, but it isn't explicitly said that this transfers to other cases. Best regards Alain From mandache at free.fr Mon Nov 27 22:27:14 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:27:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: a matter of moment Message-ID: <1164662834.456b583282366@imp7-g19.free.fr> Quoting Tim West-Meads : > For example if I hear players at a > table discussing what to do after an IB I will go and give a ruling > (attention has been drawn - I should have been called). > You pass by a table and hear, "It's an IB." - "Ooops, sorry.", and the time you turn you find on the table 2N pass 3D pass... and of course Os play transfers on 1N and 2N. What do you do? For the first "federal" tournament I was directing (about 14 months ago...) I passed by a table and heard defender 1: "It's Clubs, pard." - defender 2: "Oh, I still have Clubs." - declarer: "I was starting to get worried...", and they went on happily. Should I have brought the law upon them? Best regards, Manuela ----- End forwarded message ----- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 27 22:33:28 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:33:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c7123f$4fbdd8f0$03ba87d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >It is inappropriate for the Director to change the course of play at >one table, by an action not authorized in the laws, when like risks >may go unchecked by him at others. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: But is it appropriate for the Director to create equity at one table, by a Law 81C6 and Law 64C ruling authorized in the laws, when like risks may go unchecked by her at other tables, due to successful applications of Law 72B3 by offending sides at other tables? Law 72B3 (Infraction of Law - Inadvertent Infraction): "There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation)." Richard Hills: Long-standing posters and lurkers on blml know that Law 72B3 is the Law that I detest most. But as long as Law 72B3 remains in the Lawbook, it should not be undermined by the Director arbitrarily kibitzing a particular table. For example, suppose that this Nigellian hypothetical exists. The Director is friendly with a particular pair who never revoke, but who also never notice an inadvertent revoke by their opponents. The Director has some spare time, so she elects to amuse herself by kibitzing a table, and "normally" enough chooses her friends' table. In American League baseball, the "normal" baseball team-of-nine is augmented by a Designated Hitter who hits on behalf of the pitcher. In the example above, the "normal" pair-of-two would be augmented by a Designated Revoke-Spotter. :-) What exactly does the Law 81C6 word "normally" constrain? Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 27 23:24:11 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:24:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1164662834.456b583282366@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Manuela Mandache: [snip] >For the first "federal" tournament I was directing (about 14 >months ago...) I passed by a table and heard defender 1: "It's >Clubs, pard." - defender 2: "Oh, I still have Clubs." - declarer: >"I was starting to get worried...", and they went on happily. > >Should I have brought the law upon them? Scope and Interpretation: "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." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Nov 27 23:47:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1164662760.456b57e8ab1eb@imp7-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: > *From:* Manuela Mandache > *To:* twm at cix.co.uk > *Date:* Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:26:00 +0100 > > Quoting Tim West-Meads : > > > For example if I hear players at a > > table discussing what to do after an IB I will go and give a ruling > > (attention has been drawn - I should have been called). > > > > You pass by a table and hear, "It's an IB." - "Ooops, sorry.", and > the time you turn you find on the table 2N pass 3D pass... and of > course Os play transfers on 1N and 2N. What do you do? NOS has condoned the change and potentially forfeited the right to penalise. Had NOS requested a ruling (and it wasn't a basic L25a correction) and asked that I waive the penalty because 2D and 3D mean the same thing I would have granted their request. I'll attend the table check that it wasn't a case of OS telling NOS that a deliberate bid can be corrected without penalty. > For the first "federal" tournament I was directing (about 14 months > ago...) I passed by a table and heard defender 1: "It's Clubs, > pard." - defender 2: "Oh, I still have Clubs." - declarer: "I was > starting to get worried...", and they went on happily. Should I have > brought the law upon them? I'd attend the table. I'd approach slowly to give NOS time to condone the correction of the revoke should that be their desire. 81C6 requires me to rectify damage from irregularities - it doesn't require me to impose penalties. Tim From john at asimere.com Mon Nov 27 16:44:43 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:44:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003501c71231$aff2a240$03ba87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001c01c7127d$f70b3fb0$04000100@john> Thanks, Grattan. Much as I'd expected. This is how I believe the Law HAS to be interpreted. best, John >> > +=+ In the situation the agreement has become, implicitly through > experience, '5 or 6 hearts or may show diamonds'. In a tournament > where the System Regulations do not allow of such a bid action may > be taken against the use of the bid when it has reached a level that > calls for disclosure. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 28 03:54:03 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:54:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Impenetrability prize [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c71215$5d582760$f06a2b54@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>>>dilemnae! John (MadDog) Probst: >>>>Herman wins the MadDog impenetrability prize for >>>>November, thus breaking Grattan's unbroken tradition Herman De Wael: >>>Ever weary of finding someone believe me infallible, I must >>>confess to having erred. There is no N in dilemma, and the >>>word being originally greek, the plural should be dilemmata, >>>if anything else than simple dilemmas. John (MadDog) Probst: >>>>Grattan, you need to return to the OED, dear boy :) John Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I tend to use the Shorter Oxford (why is its every >>edition "New"?), 'The New Oxford Dictionary of English', >>Collins, and particularly Chambers. All four advise that >>'dilemma' was introduced to the English language circa >>1500-1529 AD, beyond which I have only a renewed >>awareness that it would have been good to take classical >>Greek. The Latin transition is no more than that. Ah, how >>I have deprived myself of linguistic resources! But I am >>versed in English. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Mike Amos: >wow and I always thought I had been told your mother tongue >was Grattanese Richard Hills: I know Symmetric Relay, English Acol, and the Ghestem pox; In my comment'ry on casebooks I've a pretty taste for paradox, I quote in elegiacs all revokes of Heliogabalus, When claiming I can state peculiarities parabolous; I can tell undoubted squeezes from pseudo-squeeze epiphanies, I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes! Then I can hum a ruling of which I've heard the players panic for, And whistle all the airs from that infernal book Kaplanic Law. Chorus: And whistle all the airs from that infernal book Kaplanic Law, While waiting for the airs from that infernal book Grattanic Law Next year the airs from that infernal book Grattaaaaaaaanic Law. Richard Hills: Then I can write on appeal forms in Babylonic cuneiform, And cite the inconsistencies of exegeses scarce uniform: In short, in casebook comment'ry, and as proof-reading editor, I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor. Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Nov 28 04:05:16 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:05:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Justice down under In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <456BA76C.3060604@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] > For example, suppose that this Nigellian hypothetical exists. The > Director is friendly with a particular pair who never revoke, but > who also never notice an inadvertent revoke by their opponents. The > Director has some spare time, so she elects to amuse herself by > kibitzing a table, and "normally" enough chooses her friends' table. > Here is a more typical example :) :) JUSTICE DONE - AND SEEN TO BE DONE - AT KANGAROO COURT TEAMS :) In the last 8-board match of a multiple teams championship, the Chimp and the Hog need a a massive score to win the event. They are pitted against the Toucan and the Walrus, who are out of contention; and want to get it over and go home. The table is surrounded by partisan kibitzers, who betted heavily on the Chimp's team. The Chimp and Hog have already downed a few drinks in premature celebration of their impending victory; so they are getting a bit careless. On the first board, as declarer, the Walrus cashes his aces and kings and concedes the rest. There is no play of the remaining cards that will allow the defence to take any trick but the Chimp accepts the concession. On the second board the Hog is is two down in his redoubled partscore but the Chimp enters the score as making on the pick-up slip and the Toucan signs it. The Chimp continues in like manner until the penultimate board when the Chimp declares a small slam with a trump suit of KJ97 in hand, opposite doubleton 32. He leads twice from an entryless dummy to pick up QT8 of trumps on his right. After all this, the last board is a bit of an anticlimax. The chimp declares 7S. The Walrus leads the Ace of hearts but the Chimp ruffs it (revoking in the process) and then makes an invalid claim for the remaining tricks. "It's a pleasure to meet a pair of fast players." chortles the Toucan. The kibitzers are delighted that they are forbidden from reporting the Chimp's lapses. The director, however, shocked by the results on the first few deals, is worried that hands may have been misboarded. He rushes up, just in time to witness the last two boards. He also has a bet on the Chimp so he is relieved that he too may adopt the role of wise monkey :) Champagne and Cherry Brandy all round :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 28 05:29:45 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:29:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] a matter of moment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Raija: I have followed this thread with interest, but... If one table has the benefit of having a TD so close by that the TD is in a position to observe the play at that table AND the TD had the right to call attention and give redress for infractions without being called, then that table is put in a different status than the rest of the tables in the room - unless there is a "resident TD" present at every table, watching and catching irregularities or infractions. >From the "Claim in Sofia" thread, April 2005 -> John (MadDog) Probst: >>>English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on screen (I >>>usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in scratching my back >>>on the top corner of the screen). Overheard at the table, all players >>>knew I was there. >>> >>>"Was it down one or two?" >>>"No idea, how about -75?" >>>"TD won't like it. Toss you for it" >>> >>>"Down two, ok" >>>"Yes" Sven Pran: >>And the "KNEW" you were there !!!!! Indeed. 8-) John (MadDog) Probst: >ok, we all know each other very well, and the teams are great personal >friends anyway. They know that I would have intervened if I had thought >it appropriate, but as far as I can see a bridge result was obtained and >I was not called to the table. As I recall after the result was written >down one of them winked at me, I said "I didn't hear a TD call" and >there was a nod from round the table. > >As Herman says, once they had called on the next hand the matter was >over, why should I interfere in their game when I'm not asked to? Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From herman at hdw.be Tue Nov 28 10:07:56 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:07:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Honour division case two In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061127182529.0285f8a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <456AD532.20801@hdw.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20061127182529.0285f8a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <456BFC6C.6000607@hdw.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 16:08 27/11/2006 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>Herman wrote: >> >> >>>I based this ruling on the fact that he had no use for the >>>information about the meaning of the call. >> >>I can think of two reasons why one might ask. One might be worried >>about the need to "protect oneself" against a TD ruling that one should >>have suspected a possible non-alert or one might be about to give an >>explanation of partner's call which hinges on his awareness of the >>alertability the opposing call. > > > I had a similar case (no screens). I knew about their system, partner didn't. > > YT > 1C 2C 2S alert > > 2C is self-alertable. > Question about 2S. Partner : "tell me what 2C means and I'll tell you what > 2S means". > I coudn't ask about 2C, that would have been a "pro question", wouldn't it ? > > Now, insert screens ... it all depends on whether 2C was duly alerted (no > self-alert in this case). > Of course, but in that case, all you need to know is if your screen-mate has "forgotten to alert". So you ask of your screen-mate what 2C means, there is no need to ask it from the other side. If your screen-mate misexplains, and by consequence you misinterpret (and misexplain) your partner's call, the TD will rule MI in your favour. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Tue Nov 28 14:23:33 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:23:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day Message-ID: <456C3855.7090706@hdw.be> I have no quote generator, so when I find an appropriate one, I make a separate message of it: "It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that." GH Hardy -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 28 16:04:23 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:04:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day In-Reply-To: <456C3855.7090706@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061128155812.0280f020@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:23 28/11/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I have no quote generator, so when I find an appropriate one, I make a >separate message of it: > >"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By >definition, there are already enough people to do that." GH Hardy Hardy is also the man who, on explaining the "ex falso quodlibet" principle (from a falsity, you may deduce anything), was challenged to prove that Mr. Whatsisname was the Pope, given the premiss that 2+2=5. He proceeded to do it in the following way : "From 2+2=5, substract 2 from both members. You get 2=3. Now, Mr. Whatsisname, the Pope and Yours Truly are three people, hence two (because 2=3). Since I'm not the Pope, Mr. Whatsisname is." From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 26 21:40:05 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:40:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001001c71159$fc7b77a0$5aae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000401c7130a$d6063440$c4a1403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] For example there is the term implicit agreement. It has been used in law. And in discussions it has been used in ways that don't make good sense. Namely in the case where a partnership has concurred on the communication that a particular sequence provides while on the other hand a member often forgets it at the time he makes the crucial call in the sequence. Which is to say that the partnership has an implicit agreement that a member frequently forgets. Well, that is nonsense. The pair wants to employ the sequence in one manner so it is wrong to impute a multi-way agreement where there is no system to make it work. +=+ If an agreement is made and subsequently one partner becomes aware that the other frequently fails to conform to it, the agreement they made may no longer be considered a partnership understanding. It is implicitly voided. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 28 18:17:51 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:17:51 -0600 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001001c71159$fc7b77a0$5aae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000401c7130a$d6063440$c4a1403e@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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: "Roger Pewick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:33 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > For example there is the term implicit agreement. It has been used in > law. > And in discussions it has been used in ways that don't make good sense. > Namely in the case where a partnership has concurred on the communication > that a particular sequence provides while on the other hand a member often > forgets it at the time he makes the crucial call in the sequence. Which > is > to say that the partnership has an implicit agreement that a member > frequently forgets. > > Well, that is nonsense. The pair wants to employ the sequence in one > manner > so it is wrong to impute a multi-way agreement where there is no system to > make it work. > > +=+ If an agreement is made and subsequently one partner becomes > aware that the other frequently fails to conform to it, the agreement > they made may no longer be considered a partnership understanding. > It is implicitly voided. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I was suggesting that the word is ill chosen. The use here of implicit is not one that suits it. There is another word, tacit, that is suited for the use, though I am not ready to concur in the subject matter in which it is used. regards roger pewick From jjlbridge at free.fr Tue Nov 28 23:25:06 2006 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:25:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? Message-ID: <456CB742.6070209@free.fr> Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by phone if necessary). 2D - 2S - 3S - 4S - 4NT - 5C - 5D X - - ?? not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : 2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything else of even remote value. The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. He therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table). I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called (he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? Jean-Jacques. -- From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 29 00:00:49 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:00:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <456CB742.6070209@free.fr> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Jacques Lafay" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:25 PM Subject: [blml] 25 something ? > Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs > with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by > phone if necessary). > > 2D - 2S - > 3S - 4S - > 4NT - 5C - > 5D X - - > ?? > > not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : > > 2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S > natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked > about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, > probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything > else of even remote value. > > The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that > responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under > the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. He > therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed > as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of > players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be > changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was > actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S > was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table). > > I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do > something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called > (he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing > the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although > not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? > > Jean-Jacques. imo when a player in pass out position returns [at his turn to call] his cards to the box rather than overtly making a call he has passed. In the case described [as it was at his own misunderstanding] L21A specifies there is no indemnity. And L39 specifies should he thereafter call, that call is canceled. Not withstanding the ominous 'Until LHO calls' [L25B]. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 29 00:48:21 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:48:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <456CB742.6070209@free.fr> Message-ID: <001301c71347$afbe5280$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Lafay > Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs > with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by > phone if necessary). > > 2D - 2S - > 3S - 4S - > 4NT - 5C - > 5D X - - > ?? > > not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : > > 2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S > natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked > about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, > probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything > else of even remote value. > > The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that > responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under > the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. He > therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed > as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of > players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be > changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was > actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S > was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table). > > I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do > something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called > (he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing > the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although > not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? Law 21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. I would rule that he passed and that his pass was NOT inadvertent, it was based on his own misunderstanding, and that's it. Although removing the bidding cards for an assumed final pass is incorrect procedure, it is so commonly used that I shall not accept the technical argument to the effect that the player doing so did not intend to pass if it was his turn to call. If he becomes aware of his mistake before the opening lead is made I would allow him a Law 25B change of call {it will probably be L25B2(b)2, after which he cannot receive a score greater than average minus}. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 29 03:33:14 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:33:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <456C3855.7090706@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael quote: >>I have no quote generator, so when I find an >>appropriate one, I make a separate message of it: >> >>"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be >>in the majority. By definition, there are >>already enough people to do that." >> >>GH Hardy Richard Hills counter-quote: >Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, >The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch, >page 299: > >"There have been a few sparse times and places - >and we are hoping that the twenty-first century >will host a few of them - in which onlookers are >more ready to believe a disputant who is unsure, >than one who is certain. But in today's politics, >changing your mind in response to new evidence is >seen as a weakness. When he was Vice-Chancellor >at Warwick University, the biologist Sir Brian >Follett remarked: 'I don't like scientists on my >committees. You don't know where they'll stand >on any issue. Give them some more data, and they >change their minds!' He understood the joke: >most politicians wouldn't even realise it _was_ a >joke." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From tkooij at tiscali.nl Wed Nov 29 07:35:38 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:35:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day In-Reply-To: <456C3855.7090706@hdw.be> Message-ID: This probably means that if reacting I have to disagree with this quote. ton &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Subject: [blml] quote of the day I have no quote generator, so when I find an appropriate one, I make a separate message of it: "It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that." GH Hardy -- Herman DE WAEL From tkooij at tiscali.nl Wed Nov 29 08:32:08 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:32:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <001301c71347$afbe5280$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Interesting case which I had myself a very long time ago (30?). I made a similar decision as the described one, which went to our national appeal committee. This committee decided that taking away the bidding cards can not be considered as a pass, unless it is meant as a pass. So the auction is not closed then. I still consider that decision as a better one than mine, which means that I do not agree with the answers given. The fact that play continued of course complicates it, but I restrict myself to the question: 'did the player pass?' No, he didn't; my opinion for a very long time (30 years?). Another strange case. We play teams competitions somewhere. For a long range of years consisting of 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A match is played without realising this, so they play 28 boards. What should be done? I am mainly interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic solution. The regulations do touch the problem of playing less boards (which is possible) but (of course) not this case. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: woensdag 29 november 2006 0:48 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Lafay > Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs > with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by > phone if necessary). > > 2D - 2S - > 3S - 4S - > 4NT - 5C - > 5D X - - > ?? > > not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : > > 2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S > natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked > about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, > probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything > else of even remote value. > > The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that > responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under > the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. He > therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed > as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of > players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be > changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was > actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S > was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table). > > I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do > something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called > (he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing > the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although > not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? Law 21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. I would rule that he passed and that his pass was NOT inadvertent, it was based on his own misunderstanding, and that's it. Although removing the bidding cards for an assumed final pass is incorrect procedure, it is so commonly used that I shall not accept the technical argument to the effect that the player doing so did not intend to pass if it was his turn to call. If he becomes aware of his mistake before the opening lead is made I would allow him a Law 25B change of call {it will probably be L25B2(b)2, after which he cannot receive a score greater than average minus}. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From herman at hdw.be Wed Nov 29 09:28:27 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:28:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <20061129074200.0A6BD42C140@hitweb> References: <20061129074200.0A6BD42C140@hitweb> Message-ID: <456D44AB.3040509@hdw.be> I agree with Ton: ton kooijman wrote: > Interesting case which I had myself a very long time ago (30?). I made a > similar decision as the described one, which went to our national appeal > committee. This committee decided that taking away the bidding cards can not > be considered as a pass, unless it is meant as a pass. So the auction is not > closed then. The fact that we allow people to take away their bidding cards in stead of making a final pass, and rule that this is a pass, does not mean that anyone who takes away their bidding cards has passed. That would mean that every auction contains four extra passes. So indeed, this player has not passed and the bidding is technically not over. Depending on when he realizes this, he shall be allowed to make a further call. Since he only realized this when the play was half-way, there is not a lot we can do. Technically, we have seen 20 cards during the auction, but since the defenders cannot be expected to know the bidding was not over, I suppose I rule that "declarer" has accepted that play is under way and therefor rule the contract to stand. > I still consider that decision as a better one than mine, which means that I > do not agree with the answers given. > > The fact that play continued of course complicates it, but I restrict myself > to the question: 'did the player pass?' No, he didn't; my opinion for a very > long time (30 years?). > > Another strange case. We play teams competitions somewhere. For a long range > of years consisting of 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in > small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A match is played without > realising this, so they play 28 boards. What should be done? > I am mainly interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic solution. > The regulations do touch the problem of playing less boards (which is > possible) but (of course) not this case. > > ton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: woensdag 29 november 2006 0:48 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > > >>On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Lafay >>Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs >>with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by >>phone if necessary). >> >>2D - 2S - >>3S - 4S - >>4NT - 5C - >>5D X - - >>?? >> >>not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : >> >>2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S >>natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked >>about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, >>probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything >>else of even remote value. >> >>The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that >>responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under >>the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. He >>therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed >>as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of >>players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be >>changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was >>actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S >>was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table). >> >>I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do >>something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called >>(he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing >>the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although >>not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? > > > Law 21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his > own misunderstanding. > > I would rule that he passed and that his pass was NOT inadvertent, it was > based on his own misunderstanding, and that's it. > > Although removing the bidding cards for an assumed final pass is incorrect > procedure, it is so commonly used that I shall not accept the technical > argument to the effect that the player doing so did not intend to pass if it > was his turn to call. > > If he becomes aware of his mistake before the opening lead is made I would > allow him a Law 25B change of call {it will probably be L25B2(b)2, after > which he cannot receive a score greater than average minus}. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Wed Nov 29 09:31:59 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:31:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another strange case from Ton (was 25 something ?) In-Reply-To: <20061129074200.0A6BD42C140@hitweb> References: <20061129074200.0A6BD42C140@hitweb> Message-ID: <456D457F.9060302@hdw.be> ton kooijman wrote: > Another strange case. We play teams competitions somewhere. For a long range > of years consisting of 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in > small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A match is played without > realising this, so they play 28 boards. What should be done? > I am mainly interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic solution. > The regulations do touch the problem of playing less boards (which is > possible) but (of course) not this case. > Presumably the regulations stipulate that 24 boards are to be played, but not which boards those must be (not even the board numbers). Since we cannot therefor judge which 4 boards are supernumeral, there are but two options : cancel the whole match or simply let all the boards stand (and apply the correct VP-scale, since I presume that there is a regulation saying what to do if only 16 boards are played?). Normally, the CTD has the power to rule on whatever the regulations do not cover, so he should chose either of these alternatives. > ton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: woensdag 29 november 2006 0:48 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > > >>On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Lafay >>Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs >>with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by >>phone if necessary). >> >>2D - 2S - >>3S - 4S - >>4NT - 5C - >>5D X - - >>?? >> >>not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : >> >>2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S >>natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked >>about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, >>probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything >>else of even remote value. >> >>The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that >>responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under >>the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. He >>therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed >>as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of >>players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be >>changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was >>actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S >>was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table). >> >>I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do >>something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called >>(he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing >>the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although >>not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? > > > Law 21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his > own misunderstanding. > > I would rule that he passed and that his pass was NOT inadvertent, it was > based on his own misunderstanding, and that's it. > > Although removing the bidding cards for an assumed final pass is incorrect > procedure, it is so commonly used that I shall not accept the technical > argument to the effect that the player doing so did not intend to pass if it > was his turn to call. > > If he becomes aware of his mistake before the opening lead is made I would > allow him a Law 25B change of call {it will probably be L25B2(b)2, after > which he cannot receive a score greater than average minus}. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 29 09:14:57 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:14:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] quote of the day References: <20061129065913.021B01C006A3@mwinf3214.me.freeserve.com> Message-ID: <006401c71391$1fb15710$90a287d9@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. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton kooijman" To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] quote of the day > This probably means that if reacting I have to disagree with this quote. > > ton > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& > > Subject: [blml] quote of the day > > I have no quote generator, so when I find an appropriate one, I make a > separate message of it: > > "It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By > definition, there are already enough people to do that." GH Hardy > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > +=+ "Hain't we got all the fools in the town on our side? and ain't that a big enough majority in any town?" [Huckleberry Finn] +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 29 09:32:52 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:32:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <20061129075022.9E21A1C01244@mwinf3203.me.freeserve.com> Message-ID: <006501c71391$209156d0$90a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "You must remember this, a kiss is still a kiss, A sigh is just a sigh, The fundamental things apply, As times go by." (Herman Hupfeld) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton kooijman" To: "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > > Another strange case. We play teams competitions > somewhere. For a long range of years consisting of > 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in > small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A > match is played without realising this, so they play > 28 boards. What should be done? I am mainly > interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic > solution. The regulations do touch the problem of > playing less boards (which is possible) but (of > course) not this case. > +=+ 1. Sack the committee/official who introduced this fundamental change without announcing it in bold headlines. 2. Order the match replayed. 3. Quote Hupfeld. ~ G ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Nov 29 12:43:48 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:43:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Impenetrability prize [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <456D7274.6060002@NTLworld.com> > [Richard Hills] > > I know Symmetric Relay, English Acol, and the Ghestem pox; > In my comment'ry on casebooks I've a pretty taste for paradox, > I quote in elegiacs all revokes of Heliogabalus, > When claiming I can state peculiarities parabolous; > I can tell undoubted squeezes from pseudo-squeeze epiphanies, > I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes! > Then I can hum a ruling of which I've heard the players panic for, > And whistle all the airs from that infernal book Kaplanic Law. > > Chorus: > > And whistle all the airs from that infernal book Kaplanic Law, > While waiting for the airs from that infernal book Grattanic Law > Next year the airs from that infernal book Grattaaaaaaaanic Law. > > Richard Hills: > > Then I can write on appeal forms in Babylonic cuneiform, > And cite the inconsistencies of exegeses scarce uniform: > In short, in casebook comment'ry, and as proof-reading editor, > I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor. > > > Season's greetings > > [nige1] Hilarious stuff, Richard, Happy Chrismas all. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Nov 29 12:55:40 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <006501c71391$209156d0$90a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20061129075022.9E21A1C01244@mwinf3203.me.freeserve.com> <006501c71391$209156d0$90a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <456D753C.8090101@NTLworld.com> > [ton kookiman] > >> Another strange case. We play teams competitions >> somewhere. For a long range of years consisting of >> 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in >> small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A >> match is played without realising this, so they play >> 28 boards. What should be done? I am mainly >> interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic >> solution. The regulations do touch the problem of >> playing less boards (which is possible) but (of >> course) not this case. >> >> [grattan endicott] > +=+ 1. Sack the committee/official who introduced > this fundamental change without announcing it in bold > headlines. > 2. Order the match replayed. > 3. Quote Hupfeld. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > [nige1] To sack a legal administrator for hiding significant changes in obscure missives would create an uncomfortable precedent for WBFLC which has steadfastly refused to incorporate such changes directly into a web-published version of TFLB :) In this case, IMO, you should first find out whether the same team was wining after 24 boards as after 28. If so, I think you should let the result stand. OK OK I realise that is just a pragmatic solution. From herman at hdw.be Wed Nov 29 14:45:39 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:45:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties In-Reply-To: <9A08F90B-DF33-461C-8608-6FCF2E4C1CCB@rochester.rr.com> References: <9A08F90B-DF33-461C-8608-6FCF2E4C1CCB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <456D8F03.2010400@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Nov 20, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > > >>Hypothetical auction >> >>The auction starts >> >>1NT (1D) >> >>The TD is called. After determining that an opening 1D is natural, >>but a >>2D overcall of 1NT shows Spades and a minor, he rules under 27B2 >>(after >>LHO declines the option to accept). >> >>At no time did Offender state what he intended his 1D bid to mean. The >>TD never asked what he intended it to be. Was that correct? > > > IMO, yes. > IMO, no. Although the TD should not ask "what do you have in your hand", he should try to find out what the reason was for the error. It could be : - I did not see the 1NT - I thought I saw 1C - I thought 1D was higher than 1NT - I wanted to bid 2D and mispulled - I wanted to bid 2D, mispulled, and did not change it when I saw that it was 1D those (and perhaps some others) will yield different rulings. > >>The auction now continues; >> >>(Pass) Pass (Pass). >> >>What lead penalties apply? > > > To the opening lead, none. When (if) opening leader's partner gains > the lead, declarer may require or forbid him to lead a diamond, and > may continue to do one or the other so long as that player retains > the lead. Law 26A2. Note: I suppose someone might say he could also > require or forbid the lead of a spade, on the grounds that 2D would > have shown spades, but I don't buy it. This would be based on the > parenthetical (or one particular specified suit), and Spades is only > "specified" if offender intended to bid 2D - in which case (a) why > didn't he attempt to immediately correct his inadvertent 1D under Law > 25A, and (b) why didn't he correct his IB to 2S? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 29 15:21:22 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:21:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties In-Reply-To: <456D8F03.2010400@hdw.be> References: <9A08F90B-DF33-461C-8608-6FCF2E4C1CCB@rochester.rr.com> <9A08F90B-DF33-461C-8608-6FCF2E4C1CCB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061129151051.01fbb0a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:45 29/11/2006 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Although the TD should not ask "what do you have in your hand", he >should try to find out what the reason was for the error. >It could be : >- I did not see the 1NT >- I thought I saw 1C >- I thought 1D was higher than 1NT (very funny - wouldn't believe him - AG) >- I wanted to bid 2D and mispulled >- I wanted to bid 2D, mispulled, and did not change it when I saw that >it was 1D On could add : - I wanted to bid 2C and mispulled (the second card on the edge of the pack too, but in the wrong direction) - I wanted to call the TD (orange in color) And more cases could arise when there were two or more calls before the one under question. The problem is, answering the TD's question will create UI that could have been avoided. Answering it away from the table will let the TD create UI by giving his ruling. Perhaps that thing about distinguishing between natural and artificial should be amended to : "when it can't be ascertained what the intention of the player was, treat as natural", since no specific UI has been created. Best regards Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 29 15:31:30 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:31:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <20061129074200.0A6BD42C140@hitweb> <456D44AB.3040509@hdw.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? >I agree with Ton: > > ton kooijman wrote: >> Interesting case which I had myself a very long time ago (30?). I made a >> similar decision as the described one, which went to our national appeal >> committee. This committee decided that taking away the bidding cards can >> not >> be considered as a pass, unless it is meant as a pass. So the auction is >> not >> closed then. > > The fact that we allow people to take away their bidding cards in > stead of making a final pass, and rule that this is a pass, does not > mean that anyone who takes away their bidding cards has passed. That > would mean that every auction contains four extra passes. When the condition is set that the player is in pass out chair and he restores his cards to the box, then there are no more turns remaining for the other players. I find it curious that the AC invokes the principle 'can't' when humans can indeed intercede with legislation that says 'can'. The normal path for this 'can't' business arrives at the situation where a player takes a 3S bid from the box and puts it where his other calls have been made, but, lo and behold later in the auction it turns out that no 3S bid could havebeen made as the player hadn't meant to bid it. there is a great amount of good to be said for accountability. The putting of a 3S on the table at his turn is every bit an action of bidding [irrespective of intent]; and the removal of bidding cards at his turn in the passout position is an action too [irrespective of intent] that looks like a pass. The law recognizes euphemisms in calling dummy's cards- high; club; ten- that specify the course of action even though the player may have misunderstood what he has done. There are other contexts- such as bidding boxes where euphemism can exist. Such accomodations of the human animal improve the progress of the game. regards roger pewick > So indeed, this player has not passed and the bidding is technically > not over. Depending on when he realizes this, he shall be allowed to > make a further call. > > Since he only realized this when the play was half-way, there is not a > lot we can do. Technically, we have seen 20 cards during the auction, > but since the defenders cannot be expected to know the bidding was not > over, I suppose I rule that "declarer" has accepted that play is under > way and therefor rule the contract to stand. > >> I still consider that decision as a better one than mine, which means >> that I >> do not agree with the answers given. >> >> The fact that play continued of course complicates it, but I restrict >> myself >> to the question: 'did the player pass?' No, he didn't; my opinion for a >> very >> long time (30 years?). >> >> Another strange case. We play teams competitions somewhere. For a long >> range >> of years consisting of 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in >> small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A match is played >> without >> realising this, so they play 28 boards. What should be done? I have a couple of thoughts. One not vey relevant- Did the TD contribute to the situation as by putting out boards for 28 rather than 24? The relevant one is that when a team plays 28 boards have they not played 24? As the CoC specify the playing of 24 has not that condition been met? >> I am mainly interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic >> solution. >> The regulations do touch the problem of playing less boards (which is >> possible) but (of course) not this case. >> >> ton >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Sven Pran >> Sent: woensdag 29 november 2006 0:48 >> To: blml >> Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? >> >> >>>On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Lafay >>>Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs >>>with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by >>>phone if necessary). >>> >>>2D - 2S - >>>3S - 4S - >>>4NT - 5C - >>>5D X - - >>>?? >>> >>>not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : >>> >>>2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S >>>natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked >>>about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, >>>probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything >>>else of even remote value. >>> >>>The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that >>>responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under >>>the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. He >>>therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed >>>as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of >>>players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be >>>changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was >>>actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S >>>was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table). >>> >>>I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do >>>something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called >>>(he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing >>>the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although >>>not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? >> >> >> Law 21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of >> his >> own misunderstanding. >> >> I would rule that he passed and that his pass was NOT inadvertent, it was >> based on his own misunderstanding, and that's it. >> >> Although removing the bidding cards for an assumed final pass is >> incorrect >> procedure, it is so commonly used that I shall not accept the technical >> argument to the effect that the player doing so did not intend to pass if >> it >> was his turn to call. >> >> If he becomes aware of his mistake before the opening lead is made I >> would >> allow him a Law 25B change of call {it will probably be L25B2(b)2, after >> which he cannot receive a score greater than average minus}. >> >> Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 29 17:05:42 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:05:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001001c71159$fc7b77a0$5aae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <000401c7130a$d6063440$c4a1403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <008001c713d0$38b59ca0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 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: "Roger Pewick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:33 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > For example there is the term implicit agreement. It has been used in > law. > And in discussions it has been used in ways that don't make good sense. > Namely in the case where a partnership has concurred on the communication > that a particular sequence provides while on the other hand a member often > forgets it at the time he makes the crucial call in the sequence. Which > is > to say that the partnership has an implicit agreement that a member > frequently forgets. > > Well, that is nonsense. The pair wants to employ the sequence in one > manner > so it is wrong to impute a multi-way agreement where there is no system to > make it work. > > +=+ If an agreement is made and subsequently one partner becomes > aware that the other frequently fails to conform to it, the agreement > they made may no longer be considered a partnership understanding. > It is implicitly voided. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ IMO there is no difference between frequent failure to remember, and frequent choice to break the agreement In both cases one should alert, state the agreement and then explain the partnership history. My regular partners alert my no-trump overcalls and explain "15-17, but sometimes a joke, often with long hearts" Tim explains my non-vul overcalls of 1NT as "That suit or the suit above, but more frequently the suit bid" I'm meant to apply a parity metric to decide which call to make, but often forget. He might just as well tell them that I sometimes forget, which would be far more helpful. Any competent TD can handle the UI implications which are the same in both cases, as the alert is sufficient to wake me up, but the opponents are entitled *absolutely* to know what's going on. I'd find it difficult to suggest that either situation is an agreement, explict, implicit or complicit - my partners and I do NOT have any such agreements. cheers john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Nov 29 17:11:53 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:11:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <20061129075022.9E21A1C01244@mwinf3203.me.freeserve.com><006501c71391$209156d0$90a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <456D753C.8090101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <009301c713d1$15ed3bf0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? 15A1. > >> [ton kookiman] >> >>> Another strange case. We play teams competitions >>> somewhere. For a long range of years consisting of >>> 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in >>> small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A >>> match is played without realising this, so they play >>> 28 boards. What should be done? I am mainly >>> interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic >>> solution. The regulations do touch the problem of >>> playing less boards (which is possible) but (of >>> course) not this case. >>> >>> > [grattan endicott] >> +=+ 1. Sack the committee/official who introduced >> this fundamental change without announcing it in bold >> headlines. >> 2. Order the match replayed. >> 3. Quote Hupfeld. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> >> > [nige1] > To sack a legal administrator for hiding significant changes in obscure > missives would > create an uncomfortable precedent for WBFLC which has steadfastly > refused to incorporate > such changes directly into a web-published version of TFLB :) > > In this case, IMO, you should first find out whether the same team was > wining after 24 boards > as after 28. If so, I think you should let the result stand. OK OK I > realise that is just a > pragmatic solution. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 29 17:18:32 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:18:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001a01c713d2$052b4450$6400a8c0@WINXP> There is an interesting situation developing from what we have discussed so far (and I have had this situation occurring in real life!): A player believes he is in turn to make the last PASS and just takes back all his bid cards only to be told by the other players that his LHO has his turn for another call. So his bid cards are of course restored on the table and he shall make his call properly in this turn. Is this player now allowed to make any other call than PASS? I cannot imagine any possible reason for him to make such a different call at this time other than that he has "changed his mind"! So to answer my own question above: In my honest opinion this player shall absolutely not be allowed to call anything but PASS in this situation! Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > Sent: 29. november 2006 15:32 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:28 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > > > >I agree with Ton: > > > > ton kooijman wrote: > >> Interesting case which I had myself a very long time ago (30?). I made > a > >> similar decision as the described one, which went to our national > appeal > >> committee. This committee decided that taking away the bidding cards > can > >> not > >> be considered as a pass, unless it is meant as a pass. So the auction > is > >> not > >> closed then. > > > > The fact that we allow people to take away their bidding cards in > > stead of making a final pass, and rule that this is a pass, does not > > mean that anyone who takes away their bidding cards has passed. That > > would mean that every auction contains four extra passes. > > When the condition is set that the player is in pass out chair and he > restores his cards to the box, then there are no more turns remaining for > the other players. > > I find it curious that the AC invokes the principle 'can't' when humans > can > indeed intercede with legislation that says 'can'. The normal path for > this > 'can't' business arrives at the situation where a player takes a 3S bid > from the box and puts it where his other calls have been made, but, lo and > behold later in the auction it turns out that no 3S bid could havebeen > made > as the player hadn't meant to bid it. > > there is a great amount of good to be said for accountability. The > putting > of a 3S on the table at his turn is every bit an action of bidding > [irrespective of intent]; and the removal of bidding cards at his turn in > the passout position is an action too [irrespective of intent] that looks > like a pass. The law recognizes euphemisms in calling dummy's cards- > high; > club; ten- that specify the course of action even though the player may > have > misunderstood what he has done. There are other contexts- such as bidding > boxes where euphemism can exist. Such accomodations of the human animal > improve the progress of the game. > > regards > roger pewick > > > So indeed, this player has not passed and the bidding is technically > > not over. Depending on when he realizes this, he shall be allowed to > > make a further call. > > > > Since he only realized this when the play was half-way, there is not a > > lot we can do. Technically, we have seen 20 cards during the auction, > > but since the defenders cannot be expected to know the bidding was not > > over, I suppose I rule that "declarer" has accepted that play is under > > way and therefor rule the contract to stand. > > > >> I still consider that decision as a better one than mine, which means > >> that I > >> do not agree with the answers given. > >> > >> The fact that play continued of course complicates it, but I restrict > >> myself > >> to the question: 'did the player pass?' No, he didn't; my opinion for a > >> very > >> long time (30 years?). > >> > >> Another strange case. We play teams competitions somewhere. For a long > >> range > >> of years consisting of 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in > >> small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A match is played > >> without > >> realising this, so they play 28 boards. What should be done? > > I have a couple of thoughts. One not vey relevant- Did the TD contribute > to > the situation as by putting out boards for 28 rather than 24? > > The relevant one is that when a team plays 28 boards have they not played > 24? As the CoC specify the playing of 24 has not that condition been met? > > >> I am mainly interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic > >> solution. > >> The regulations do touch the problem of playing less boards (which is > >> possible) but (of course) not this case. > >> > >> ton > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > >> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > >> On Behalf Of Sven Pran > >> Sent: woensdag 29 november 2006 0:48 > >> To: blml > >> Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > >> > >> > >>>On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Lafay > >>>Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs > >>>with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by > >>>phone if necessary). > >>> > >>>2D - 2S - > >>>3S - 4S - > >>>4NT - 5C - > >>>5D X - - > >>>?? > >>> > >>>not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : > >>> > >>>2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S > >>>natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked > >>>about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, > >>>probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything > >>>else of even remote value. > >>> > >>>The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought that > >>>responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was under > >>>the impression that the auction was over, and that he was playing 5D. > He > >>>therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course normally viewed > >>>as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the vast majority of > >>>players) unaware of the various possibilities where a "call" can be > >>>changed, he did not try to change anything when he realized he was > >>>actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a loss of 14IMPs (6S > >>>was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at the other table). > >>> > >>>I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to do > >>>something when he realized what was going on : he did not really called > >>>(he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that removing > >>>the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, although > >>>not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? > >> > >> > >> Law 21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of > >> his > >> own misunderstanding. > >> > >> I would rule that he passed and that his pass was NOT inadvertent, it > was > >> based on his own misunderstanding, and that's it. > >> > >> Although removing the bidding cards for an assumed final pass is > >> incorrect > >> procedure, it is so commonly used that I shall not accept the technical > >> argument to the effect that the player doing so did not intend to pass > if > >> it > >> was his turn to call. > >> > >> If he becomes aware of his mistake before the opening lead is made I > >> would > >> allow him a Law 25B change of call {it will probably be L25B2(b)2, > after > >> which he cannot receive a score greater than average minus}. > >> > >> Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Nov 29 18:26:42 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:26:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <456D753C.8090101@NTLworld.com> References: <20061129075022.9E21A1C01244@mwinf3203.me.freeserve.com><006501c 71391$209156d0$90a287d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <456D753C.8090101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <456DC2D2.9030209@meteo.fr> Nigel a ?crit : >>[ton kookiman] >> >> >>>Another strange case. We play teams competitions >>>somewhere. For a long range of years consisting of >>>28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in >>>small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A >>>match is played without realising this, so they play >>>28 boards. What should be done? I am mainly >>>interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic >>>solution. The regulations do touch the problem of >>>playing less boards (which is possible) but (of >>>course) not this case. >>> >>> > > [grattan endicott] > >>+=+ 1. Sack the committee/official who introduced >>this fundamental change without announcing it in bold >>headlines. >> 2. Order the match replayed. >> 3. Quote Hupfeld. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> >> > > [nige1] > To sack a legal administrator for hiding significant changes in obscure > missives would > create an uncomfortable precedent for WBFLC which has steadfastly > refused to incorporate > such changes directly into a web-published version of TFLB :) > > In this case, IMO, you should first find out whether the same team was > wining after 24 boards > as after 28. If so, I think you should let the result stand. OK OK I > realise that is just a > pragmatic solution. maybe but which 24? the 24 first played? did they play the boards in the same chronological order at both tables? jpr > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 29 18:29:50 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:29:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <001a01c713d2$052b4450$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001a01c713d2$052b4450$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <114885B7-72E4-4FB2-923C-8BE221718B6B@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Is this player now allowed to make any other call than PASS? I cannot > imagine any possible reason for him to make such a different call > at this > time other than that he has "changed his mind"! > > So to answer my own question above: In my honest opinion this > player shall > absolutely not be allowed to call anything but PASS in this situation! I would think Law 25B would apply. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 29 18:55:40 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:55:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties In-Reply-To: <45650D7C.6090607@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611221727.kAMHR13I029725@cfa.harvard.edu> <45650D7C.6090607@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061129124858.02be24d0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:54 PM 11/22/06, Steve wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The situation is explicitly covered in the EBL Commentary to the > 1987 Laws > > (from which Law 26 was continued unchanged in 1997) where we find: > > > > In (?26.3): [The Director] must place [the withdrawn call] in one > of two > > categories - either: > > (a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than > one suit > > all of which were specified; or > > (b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, one > or more > > of the suits in question was an unspecified suit. > > Examples: a 2NT overcall showing both minors is in category (a) but a > > cue-bid showing spades and a minor is in category (b). > >Thanks for finding this. I'm surprised, though. We discussed this on >BLML some years ago, and I don't recall the EBL Commentary being >mentioned. Are the Examples from the Commmentary itself, or are they >your interpretation? > >My memory of the earlier discussion was that most people thought the >"spades and a minor" situation was in category (a), but my memory is not >to be trusted. Apparently the EBL, and, it would seem, the majority in this forum, interpret L26A as though it read "if the withdrawn call related *only* to a specified suit or suits..." IMO, that is a sensible interpretation, and the law should be rewritten as such in the next FLB. Similarly, "if that suit..." should probably read "if all such suits..." in L26A1, and "if any such suit..." in L26A2. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 29 20:03:53 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:03:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <114885B7-72E4-4FB2-923C-8BE221718B6B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c713e9$1eeacac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Is this player now allowed to make any other call than PASS? I cannot > > imagine any possible reason for him to make such a different call > > at this > > time other than that he has "changed his mind"! > > > > So to answer my own question above: In my honest opinion this > > player shall > > absolutely not be allowed to call anything but PASS in this situation! > > I would think Law 25B would apply. Yeah, fair enough. Regards Sven From rob.bosman at eds.com Wed Nov 29 17:38:32 2006 From: rob.bosman at eds.com (Bosman, Rob) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:38:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? Message-ID: <757B82DC6E57C34CB1FBB4313687AB9A03A8454D@nlspm203.emea.corp.eds.com> Message: 2 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:55:40 +0000 From: Nigel Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? To: BLML Message-ID: <456D753C.8090101 at NTLworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed [ton kookiman] Another strange case. We play teams competitions somewhere. For a long range of years consisting of 28 boards. This year on page 43 (or whatever) in small letters it says that 24 boards are played. A match is played without realising this, so they play 28 boards. What should be done? I am mainly interested in a legal approach and less in a pragmatic solution. The regulations do touch the problem of playing less boards (which is possible) but (of course) not this case. [grattan endicott] +=+ 1. Sack the committee/official who introduced this fundamental change without announcing it in bold headlines. 2. Order the match replayed. 3. Quote Hupfeld. ~ G ~ +=+ [nige1] To sack a legal administrator for hiding significant changes in obscure missives would create an uncomfortable precedent for WBFLC which has steadfastly refused to incorporate such changes directly into a web-published version of TFLB :) In this case, IMO, you should first find out whether the same team was wining after 24 boards as after 28. If so, I think you should let the result stand. OK OK I realise that is just a pragmatic solution. Rob Bosman The obvious formal response IMHO should be that the match was supposed to be over 24 boards in two half matches of 12 where they played 14, so boards 13/14 and 27/28 should be cancelled as the regulations did not require the teams to play these as part of their match, whatever players do in their free time is their problem - but now you're going to tell me that boards were shared between matches so that they did not start with board 1, but with board 4 or alike? I was close to making the same mistake in the matches in this competition I am responsible for, it was only because I argued the published starting times of my matches (I thought there was not enough time scheduled between two matches) that I was made aware that we were supposed to play 24 rather than 28... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061129/128de02d/attachment.htm From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Wed Nov 29 22:08:29 2006 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:08:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000001c713f1$025046d0$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200611292108.kATL8Udv009135@smtp10.hccnet.nl> A different take on this "stowing away of the bidding cards means pass": 1NT(pass)2NT*(pass) 3C (dbl) pass(pass) 2NT was a transfer for diamonds 3C showed good diamond support. West hadn't seen the red double card on the red table and thought that his parter had a mental lapse in passing 3C, but of course he stowed his cards away, which by the other players on the table was understood as a final pass. Only after the play of the hand West became aware of the fact that he had played 3C doubled! TD!!!! From jjlbridge at free.fr Wed Nov 29 23:19:26 2006 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:19:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <456D7AFD.3070500@ffbridge.net> References: <456CB742.6070209@free.fr> <456D7AFD.3070500@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <456E076E.6080406@free.fr> Jean-Fran?ois Chevalier a ?crit : > Jean-Jacques Lafay a ?crit : >> Here is what happened yesterday (Teams, high level but played in clubs >> with no director immediately available, although one can be reached by >> phone if necessary). >> >> 2D - 2S - >> 3S - 4S - >> 4NT - 5C - >> 5D X - - >> ?? >> >> not that it matters very much, but here is the meaning : >> >> 2D was (french style) forcing to game, 2S showed a major Ace, 3S >> natural, 4S a fit but nothing else interesting to mention, 4NT asked >> about kings, 5C showed (as expected) none, 5D was a further enquiry, >> probably related to the SQ, pass over the double of 5D denied anything >> else of even remote value. >> >> The trouble is that opener did not notice LHO's double and thought >> that responder had a (very) blind spot and had passed 5D ! So he was >> under the impression that the auction was over, and that he was >> playing 5D. He therefore removed his bidding cards, which is of course >> normally viewed as meaning "pass". As a matter of fact, he is (as the >> vast majority of players) unaware of the various possibilities where a >> "call" can be changed, he did not try to change anything when he >> realized he was actually playing in 5D *doubled*, went 3 down for a >> loss of 14IMPs (6S was on thanks to the 2-2 split, but was not bid at >> the other table). >> >> I was wondering what the ruling should be if the player had tried to >> do something when he realized what was going on : he did not really >> call (he did not even know he had to call !), so if we judge that >> removing the bidding card is a "pass", then it should be inadvertent, >> although not a "slip of the hand", shouldn't it ? >> >> Jean-Jacques. >> > The french regulation is very clear: the player had pass. > The change of call is possible under 25B but only if the opening lead is > not faced (end of the auction period). Well, yes, he passed, the same way that when you put a 1S card on the table you bid 1S. However if there was a piece of chewing-gum on the 1H card you intended to pull, applying 25A is clear, because there is no correlation between the intent (bidding 1H) and the action (bidding 1S). Why should it be different here ? Just because the action meant "pass" doesn't preclude it from being inadvertent, so that 25A applies... Jean-Jacques. Private PS : N'h?site pas ? d?velopper, il para?t que tu dois bosser ton anglais ;-) -- From herman at hdw.be Wed Nov 29 23:44:04 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:44:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000001c713e9$1eeacac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c713e9$1eeacac0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <456E0D34.3060708@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Ed Reppert >>On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>Is this player now allowed to make any other call than PASS? I cannot >>>imagine any possible reason for him to make such a different call >>>at this >>>time other than that he has "changed his mind"! >>> >>>So to answer my own question above: In my honest opinion this >>>player shall >>>absolutely not be allowed to call anything but PASS in this situation! >> >>I would think Law 25B would apply. > > > Yeah, fair enough. > But, apart from that, I would rule that this person HAD in fact passed. Which is of course not the same situation as the one Ton described. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 30 00:51:35 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:51:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <456E0D34.3060708@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c71411$4da6b900$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > >>>Is this player now allowed to make any other call than > >>>PASS? I cannot imagine any possible reason for him to > >>>make such a different call at this time other than > >>>that he has "changed his mind"! > >>> > >>>So to answer my own question above: In my honest > >>>opinion this player shall absolutely not be allowed > >>>to call anything but PASS in this situation! > >> > >>I would think Law 25B would apply. > > > > > > Yeah, fair enough. > > > > But, apart from that, I would rule that this person HAD in fact passed. > Which is of course not the same situation as the one Ton described. Really? Could you please do me the favour and explain why this player shall be ruled to have passed while the other player had not? They both believed they were in the position of making the closing PASS and they both behaved in exactly the same way by collecting their bid cards and restoring them to the bid box. I'm sorry but I am unable to see any legal difference here. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 30 02:57:45 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:57:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <757B82DC6E57C34CB1FBB4313687AB9A03A8454D@nlspm203.emea.corp.eds.com> Message-ID: <002701c71423$0d209b00$5f04e150@Mildred> Re: [blml] 25 something ? Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? To: BLML Message-ID: <456D753C.8090101 at NTLworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed [nige1] To sack a legal administrator for hiding significant changes in obscure missives would create an uncomfortable precedent for WBFLC which has steadfastly refused to incorporate such changes directly into a web-published version of TFLB :) In this case, IMO, you should first find out whether the same team was wining after 24 boards as after 28. If so, I think you should let the result stand. OK OK I realise that is just a pragmatic solution. > +=+ There are two fatal flaws here. 1. Nigel assumes, incorrectly, that the WBFLC has control of the policy in relation to web publication of its decisions. 2. We do not know how the auction and play of the later hands in a 24 board match might have been affected if the players were aware that the match would end after 24 boards. We do not know to what extent players dwelt on their strategies knowing they had until the 28th board to recover ground. The so-say remedies that move the goalposts are inherently unfair. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From tkooij at tiscali.nl Thu Nov 30 07:24:43 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:24:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000001c71411$4da6b900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven: They both believed they were in the position of making the closing PASS ...... ton: That is not the case. In the case described and the one I had a long time ago the player thought the auction being closed by three passes from LHO, partner and RHO. That is the crux of the case. ton From svenpran at online.no Thu Nov 30 10:29:17 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:29:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <200611300734.kAU7Y7qM005646@mail23.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of ton kooijman > Sven: > > They both believed they were > in the position of making the closing PASS ...... > > > ton: > > That is not the case. In the case described and the one I had a long time > ago the player thought the auction being closed by three passes from LHO, > partner and RHO. > That is the crux of the case. > > ton Oops, sure - yes that is indeed a difference! So what is the legal effect of discovering after the play that the auction was never "closed" while all the other players at the table assumed that the player in question in fact made his closing PASS while he believed three passes in a row had already been made by the other players? At every event I experience a lot of auctions that technically are never "closed" because the last player to PASS just collects his bid cards. This is so common that I could imagine a desirable change of the laws legalizing this practice. Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 30 10:30:12 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:30:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <20061130064825.E27991C0086C@mwinf3106.me.freeserve.com> Message-ID: <009d01c71467$0f0e9770$71ae87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "You must remember this, a kiss is still a kiss, A sigh is just a sigh, The fundamental things apply, As times go by." (Herman Hupfeld) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton kooijman" To: "'Sven Pran'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > > Sven: > > They both believed they were > in the position of making the closing PASS ...... > > > ton: > > That is not the case. In the case described > and the one I had a long time ago the player > thought the auction being closed by three > passes from LHO, partner and RHO. > That is the crux of the case. > > ton > +=+ Sven, Was it the case that each believed the other was making the final pass? ~ G ~ +=+ From tkooij at tiscali.nl Thu Nov 30 12:01:26 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:01:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > On Behalf Of ton kooijman > Sven: > > They both believed they were > in the position of making the closing PASS ...... > > > ton: > > That is not the case. In the case described and the one I had a long time > ago the player thought the auction being closed by three passes from LHO, > partner and RHO. > That is the crux of the case. > > ton Oops, sure - yes that is indeed a difference! So what is the legal effect of discovering after the play that the auction was never "closed" while all the other players at the table assumed that the player in question in fact made his closing PASS while he believed three passes in a row had already been made by the other players? Ton: The nice thing here is that no other player assumed that the player in question made a closing pass: The player made a cue bid (5?)on the way to 6 or 7 spades, LHO doubled, partner passed, RHI passed and he, in a blackout assuming the auction being closed asked his partner: 'have you become ill?' and put his bidding cards in his box. His LHO within a split second made the first lead. I don't have a clear answer on your question what the legal effect of this irregularity has to be. I tend to give an artificial adjusted score. A similar situation exists when playing with screens the tray isn't pushed through the aperture completely. One side bids up to 4S, tray to the other side where partner cuebids 5? and next player passes. Tray back but this call isn't visible at the other side and they expect the auction to be closed. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 30 13:46:34 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:46:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004101c7147d$a8bfd440$6c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "You must remember this, a kiss is still a kiss, A sigh is just a sigh, The fundamental things apply, As times go by." (Herman Hupfeld) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > > So what is the legal effect of discovering after > the play that the auction was never "closed" > while all the other players at the table assumed > that the player in question in fact made his closing > PASS while he believed three passes in a row > had already been made by the other players? > > At every event I experience a lot of auctions that > technically are never "closed" because the last > player to PASS just collects his bid cards. This > is so common that I could imagine a desirable > change of the laws legalizing this practice. > +=+ I could envisage a footnote saying that, with bidding boxes and subject to regulation, a player whose pass will close the auction is deemed to have passed if he removes his calls. 'Subject to regulation' because regulation may provide that the calls be left in situ whilst explanations are given before the opening lead is faced. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 30 14:52:27 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:52:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> Message-ID: <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be> Now Ton's story becomes a bit more complicated ... ton kooijman wrote: > > The nice thing here is that no other player assumed that the player in question made a closing pass: The player made a cue bid (5???)on the way to 6 or 7 spades, LHO doubled, partner passed, RHI passed and he, in a blackout assuming the auction being closed asked his partner: 'have you become ill?' and put his bidding cards in his box. His LHO within a split second made the first lead. > The way the original was worded, the player in question did not make a distinction between the "picking up bidding cards because the bidding is over (4th hand)" and the "picking up cards to indicate a final pass (3rd hand)". So while the player did not in fact pass, his opponents could not be blamed for thinking the bidding was over and to make a lead. In this version however, the player adds a comment "Have you gone mad?" which should indicate, even to his partner, that he did not see the double. In such a case, I would allow the partner to say "the bidding is not over" and prevent opponents from leading. If sufficiently clear, I might even rule that opening leader should be sufficiently awake to realize that (presumed) declarer had not in fact wanted to pass, ergo his assumption that picking up the bidding cards meant passing was wrong and that he was therefor at fault for leading, and consider penalizing him for it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 30 15:39:48 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:39:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000001c71411$4da6b900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <456E0D34.3060708@hdw.be> <000001c71411$4da6b900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061130093027.02e17100@pop.starpower.net> At 06:51 PM 11/29/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >........... > > >>>Is this player now allowed to make any other call than > > >>>PASS? I cannot imagine any possible reason for him to > > >>>make such a different call at this time other than > > >>>that he has "changed his mind"! > > >>> > > >>>So to answer my own question above: In my honest > > >>>opinion this player shall absolutely not be allowed > > >>>to call anything but PASS in this situation! > > >> > > >>I would think Law 25B would apply. > > > > > > Yeah, fair enough. > > > > But, apart from that, I would rule that this person HAD in fact passed. > > Which is of course not the same situation as the one Ton described. > >Really? > >Could you please do me the favour and explain why this player shall be >ruled >to have passed while the other player had not? They both believed they >were >in the position of making the closing PASS and they both behaved in >exactly >the same way by collecting their bid cards and restoring them to the bid >box. I'm sorry but I am unable to see any legal difference here. Only "this player" believed that he was making the closing (third consecutive) pass. The "other player" (in the case Ton described) believed that his previous call had been followed by three passes, so the auction was over, and was simply putting his bid cards away, as opposed to making a fourth consecutive pass. These are very different situations, both factually and, IMO, legally. I would rule that the former had passed and the latter had not. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 15:40:14 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:40:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be> Message-ID: A recent thread suggests opening a line of discussion. The law provides for the actions of players during the auction- bid, double, redouble, pass. Of the set of four actions bids are defined, double is defined, and redouble is defined. And pass is defined as not electing any of the other three. Now, consider the auction 1C-P- P- ? Where ?= doing nothing for 1 minute ?= doing nothing for 5 minute ?= doing nothing for 40 minute ?= doing nothing for 10 hours ?= doing nothing for 1000 hours Is there a point at which it can be said that the player has elected to not bid, double, or redouble? Also worthy of consideration is the case: ?= doing something that is not a bid, double, or redouble [for instance, picking up one?s bidding cards] In other words, what is a pass? regards roger pewick From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 30 15:50:54 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:50:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <004101c7147d$a8bfd440$6c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> <004101c7147d$a8bfd440$6c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <467F84E7-45B9-4274-BBCF-2097FDDB5DC3@rochester.rr.com> On Nov 30, 2006, at 7:46 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > 'Subject to regulation' because regulation may > provide that the calls be left in situ whilst explanations > are given before the opening lead is faced. IMO, it would actually be preferable if this provision were *always* in place - or if it were in the laws, though I don't expect the latter to happen. From mandache at free.fr Thu Nov 30 16:22:14 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:22:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1164900134.456ef726a987b@imp2-g19.free.fr> Selon Sven Pran : > At every event I experience a lot of auctions that technically are never > "closed" because the last player to PASS just collects his bid cards. This > is so common that I could imagine a desirable change of the laws legalizing > this practice. The French "R?glement national des comp?titions", chapter "Screen Play": "The fact, for a player, of removing his calls with the obvious intent of replacing them in the bidding box is equivalent to Pass." In the "Application Field" introducing the chapter, it is said that the procedures described apply excusively to tournaments where screens are in use. I tried to find the EBU regulations on screen play, but as I forged my web navigation licence, I failed: Can you give me the right links? Best regards, Manuela From sarahamos at onetel.net Thu Nov 30 16:39:11 2006 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:39:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1164900134.456ef726a987b@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000c01c71495$aef9d640$0681f257@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? Selon Sven Pran : > At every event I experience a lot of auctions that technically are never > "closed" because the last player to PASS just collects his bid cards. This > is so common that I could imagine a desirable change of the laws > legalizing > this practice. The French "R?glement national des comp?titions", chapter "Screen Play": "The fact, for a player, of removing his calls with the obvious intent of replacing them in the bidding box is equivalent to Pass." In the "Application Field" introducing the chapter, it is said that the procedures described apply excusively to tournaments where screens are in use. I tried to find the EBU regulations on screen play, but as I forged my web navigation licence, I failed: Can you give me the right links? Best regards, Manuela In the White Book on EBU site Page 129 I think Mike _ ______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 30 16:48:37 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 02:48:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006401c71391$1fb15710$90a287d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Mark Twain: >+=+ "Hain't we got all the fools in the town > on our side? and ain't that a big enough > majority in any town?" > [Huckleberry Finn] +=+ Herman De Wael (L20F1 thread): [snip] >>the WBF LC can do that. I urge them to take my >>view, for the good of the game. >> >>Meanwhile, I accept that you can do as you wish, >>provided you allow me to act as I wish. Matthew 23:24 "Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From mandache at free.fr Thu Nov 30 17:13:17 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:13:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000c01c71495$aef9d640$0681f257@oakdene1> References: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1164900134.456ef726a987b@imp2-g19.free.fr> <000c01c71495$aef9d640$0681f257@oakdene1> Message-ID: <1164903197.456f031de60cc@imp2-g19.free.fr> Selon Mike Amos : > > I tried to find the EBU regulations on screen play, but, as I forged my web > navigation licence, I failed: Can you give me the right links? > I'm dyslexic, too... I meant EBL regulations. Mike, thank you all the same :o) Best, Manuela From jfchevalier at ffbridge.net Thu Nov 30 17:36:56 2006 From: jfchevalier at ffbridge.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?=) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:36:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000001c71411$4da6b900$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c71411$4da6b900$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <456F08A8.4090102@ffbridge.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061130/beac6608/attachment-0001.htm From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 30 17:49:20 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:49:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? In-Reply-To: References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> I would solve the problem Ton faced in a slightly different way, by including into L17E that "if, after less than three passes, an opening lead is faced, and dummy starts facing his cards, the auction period is also considered over and the players who did not pass are deemed to have done so." Roger Pewick wrote: > > A recent thread suggests opening a line of discussion. > > > > The law provides for the actions of players during the auction- bid, double, > redouble, pass. Of the set of four actions bids are defined, double is > defined, and redouble is defined. And pass is defined as not electing any > of the other three. > > > > Now, consider the auction 1C-P- P- ? > > > > > > Where > > ?= doing nothing for 1 minute > > ?= doing nothing for 5 minute > > ?= doing nothing for 40 minute > > ?= doing nothing for 10 hours > > ?= doing nothing for 1000 hours > > > > Is there a point at which it can be said that the player has elected to not > bid, double, or redouble? > > > > Also worthy of consideration is the case: > > > > ?= doing something that is not a bid, double, or redouble [for instance, > picking up one?s bidding cards] > > > > In other words, what is a pass? > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Nov 30 18:32:53 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:32:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120AE9@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache Sent: 30 November 2006 16:13 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? Selon Mike Amos : > > I tried to find the EBU regulations on screen play, but, as I forged my web > navigation licence, I failed: Can you give me the right links? > I'm dyslexic, too... I meant EBL regulations. Mike, thank you all the same :o) Best, Manuela _______________________________________________ There isn't a standing set of regulations for EBL events, instead the current regulations form part of the conditions of contest for a current event. AFAIK the latest event was the teams championship in Warsaw so I think you should look there http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/06warsaw/Rules2006.pdf 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 mustikka at charter.net Thu Nov 30 18:49:58 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:49:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c714a7$f4104770$3ed75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? Now Ton's story becomes a bit more complicated ... ton kooijman wrote: > > The nice thing here is that no other player assumed that the player in > question made a closing pass: The player made a cue bid (5???)on the way > to 6 or 7 spades, LHO doubled, partner passed, RHI passed and he, in a > blackout assuming the auction being closed asked his partner: 'have you > become ill?' and put his bidding cards in his box. His LHO within a split > second made the first lead. > The way the original was worded, the player in question did not make a distinction between the "picking up bidding cards because the bidding is over (4th hand)" and the "picking up cards to indicate a final pass (3rd hand)". So while the player did not in fact pass, his opponents could not be blamed for thinking the bidding was over and to make a lead. In this version however, the player adds a comment "Have you gone mad?" which should indicate, even to his partner, that he did not see the double. In such a case, I would allow the partner to say "the bidding is not over" and prevent opponents from leading. If sufficiently clear, I might even rule that opening leader should be sufficiently awake to realize that (presumed) declarer had not in fact wanted to pass, ergo his assumption that picking up the bidding cards meant passing was wrong and that he was therefor at fault for leading, and consider penalizing him for it. Assuming the lead was not gunshot-fast, there is nothing illegal or infractious (is this a word...) in taking advantage of an opponents error. Nor does it - or should it - matter what the bidder "wanted" or "intended" to do. He _did_ what he _did_, ie. in the OP case passed and ended up playing in a cuebid. Things happen. Inattention is often costly and the laws should cater to those who are inattentive of the game, IMO. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Nov 30 18:52:14 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:52:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <1164900134.456ef726a987b@imp2-g19.free.fr> References: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1164900134.456ef726a987b@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <456F1A4E.808@meteo.fr> Manuela Mandache a ?crit : > Selon Sven Pran : > > >>At every event I experience a lot of auctions that technically are never >>"closed" because the last player to PASS just collects his bid cards. This >>is so common that I could imagine a desirable change of the laws legalizing >>this practice. > > > The French "R?glement national des comp?titions", chapter "Screen Play": > "The fact, for a player, of removing his calls with the obvious intent of > replacing them in the bidding box is equivalent to Pass." ... which gives to think that most auction periods see 6 or 7 pass in a row at their end jpr > In the "Application Field" introducing the chapter, it is said that the > procedures described apply excusively to tournaments where screens are in use. > > I tried to find the EBU regulations on screen play, but as I forged my web > navigation licence, I failed: Can you give me the right links? > > Best regards, > > Manuela > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From mustikka at charter.net Thu Nov 30 19:40:34 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:40:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be> <000b01c714a7$f4104770$3ed75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000f01c714af$05add860$3ed75047@DFYXB361> (snipped. then Herman wrote) In this version however, the player adds a comment "Have you gone mad?" which should indicate, even to his partner, that he did not see the double. In such a case, I would allow the partner to say "the bidding is not over" and prevent opponents from leading. If sufficiently clear, I might even rule that opening leader should be sufficiently awake to realize that (presumed) declarer had not in fact wanted to pass, ergo his assumption that picking up the bidding cards meant passing was wrong and that he was therefor at fault for leading, and consider penalizing him for it. Raija: Assuming the lead was not gunshot-fast, there is nothing illegal or infractious (is this a word...) in taking advantage of an opponents error. Nor does it - or should it - matter what the bidder "wanted" or "intended" to do. He _did_ what he _did_, ie. in the OP case passed and ended up playing in a cuebid. Things happen. Inattention is often costly and the laws should cater to those who are inattentive of the game, IMO. Should not cater... From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Nov 30 20:25:41 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:25:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <004101c7147d$a8bfd440$6c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000801c71462$02d5e030$6400a8c0@WINXP> <004101c7147d$a8bfd440$6c9487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <456F3035.6090400@NTLworld.com> [Gratttan Endicott] +=+ I could envisage a footnote saying that, with bidding boxes and subject to regulation, a player whose pass will close the auction is deemed to have passed if he removes his calls. 'Subject to regulation' because regulation may provide that the calls be left in situ whilst explanations are given before the opening lead is faced [Nige1] The Bridge rule about ending the auction is refreshingly lucid compared with most modern efforts. True to type, BLMLers want to make it more complex and subjective. Much better would be to *enforce current rules* where they are clear and simple :) In the original case, the auction did not end and three players knew it had not ended. It was hard for dummy to say anything without giving unauthorised information, but IMO, he should still have drawn attention to the error in procedure and he, too should have called the director, Since it would be hard to resume the auction after the play is over, the director should consider scrapping the board. Since there was a manifest and deliberate flouting of procedure, he should impose procedural penalties. Of course, Grattan is right that the law book should be *updated* to include rules about some of the innovations over the last 60 years (like bidding boxes) . But that is a different matter :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Nov 30 22:19:38 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:19:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Justice down under In-Reply-To: <456BA76C.3060604@NTLworld.com> References: <456BA76C.3060604@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <456F4AEA.3070501@NTLworld.com> [nige2] Tided up a bit... but... who have acted legally? Oscar the Owl? The Secretary Bird? Richard's bird? > [Richard Hills] >> For example, suppose that this Nigellian hypothetical exists. The >> Director is friendly with a particular pair who never revoke, but >> who also never notice an inadvertent revoke by their opponents. The >> Director has some spare time, so she elects to amuse herself by >> kibitzing a table, and "normally" enough chooses her friends' table. >> [nigel] > A more typical example :) > > :) JUSTICE DONE - AND SEEN TO BE DONE - AT KANGAROO COURT TEAMS :) > > In the last 8-board match of a multiple teams championship, the Chimp > and the Hog need a a massive score to win the event. The Chimp and Hog > have already downed a few drinks in premature celebration of their > impending victory; so they are getting careless. > They are pitted against the Toucan and the Walrus, each of whom is > depressed by the other's mistakes. They are out of conention and want > to go home. > Oscar the Owl, who bet heavily on the Chimp's team, is an interestd > spectator. > On the first board, as declarer, the Walrus cashes his aces and kings > and concedes the rest. There is no play of the remaining cards that > will allow the defence to take any trick but the Chimp accepts the > concession. > > On the second board the Hog is two down in his redoubled partscore but > the Chimp enters the score as making on the pick-up slip and the > Toucan signs it. > > The match continues rapidly, in like manner, until the penultimate > board when the Chimp declares a small slam with a trump suit of KJ97 > in hand, opposite doubleton 32. He leads twice from an entryless > dummy to pick up QT8 of trumps on his right. > > After all this, the last board is an anticlimax. The chimp declares > 7S. The Walrus leads the Ace of hearts but the Chimp ruffs it > (revoking in the process) and then makes an invalid claim for the > remaining tricks. The Toucan stretches his wings. "It's a pleasure to > meet a pair of fast players", he chortles. > > Oscar, the kibitzer, is delighted that the law forbids him from > reporting the Chimp's lapses. > The Secretary Bird, chief tournament director, rushes up, just in time > to witness the last two boards. Shocked by the results on the early > deals of the round, he is worried that hands may have been > misboarded. The Secretary Bird has also bet on the Chimp so he is > relieved that he too may adopt the role of wise monkey :) > > Champagne and Cherry Brandy all round :) > > > From herman at hdw.be Thu Nov 30 22:57:08 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:57:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000b01c714a7$f4104770$3ed75047@DFYXB361> References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be> <000b01c714a7$f4104770$3ed75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <456F53B4.3070003@hdw.be> raija wrote: > > > Assuming the lead was not gunshot-fast, The way Ton told the story the second time, it may well have been. > there is nothing illegal or > infractious (is this a word...) in taking advantage of an opponents error. But the problem here is that the opponent had not made an error - except one in his mind. He has not passed, and therefor the lead is during the bidding period. There can be no question of taking advantage of an error if that error is not made. > Nor does it - or should it - matter what the bidder "wanted" or "intended" > to do. He _did_ what he _did_, ie. in the OP case passed and ended up > playing in a cuebid. No, he did NOT pass. He took away his bidding cards, which is the correct way of acting once (you think) the bidding is over. All of you may well rule that taking away the bidding cards means passing, but only if that is what a player intends to do. > Things happen. Inattention is often costly and the > laws should cater to those who are inattentive of the game, IMO. > I agree - but then so are the opponents in this case. They have misinterpreted their opponent's mistake. They should have asked "did you pass?" rather than assume he did. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Thu Nov 30 22:52:01 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:52:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? In-Reply-To: <456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be> <456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> Message-ID: In message <456F0B90.4000208 at hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >I would solve the problem Ton faced in a slightly different way, by >including into L17E that "if, after less than three passes, an opening >lead is faced, and dummy starts facing his cards, the auction period >is also considered over and the players who did not pass are deemed to >have done so." > That would also cover then instance where the pass out seat; * Does not use the pass card * Does not put his cards back in the bidding box * Does pick up his score card and write in the contract Can we have this in the new law book please? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From adam at irvine.com Thu Nov 30 23:49:22 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:49:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:49:20 +0100." <456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <200611302226.OAA02252@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > I would solve the problem Ton faced in a slightly different way, by > including into L17E that "if, after less than three passes, an opening > lead is faced, and dummy starts facing his cards, the auction period > is also considered over and the players who did not pass are deemed to > have done so." The way you've worded this, this means that after 1C-P-P, opener's LHO, holding KJT8753 of clubs, can prevent his partner from doing something embarrassing such as bidding a new suit or notrump, by leading and hoping dummy is taken in and doesn't notice that there was no final pass. Are you sure this is what you want? Or is there something implied that I've missed? -- Adam From zebulon at hot.ee Thu Nov 30 13:50:48 2006 From: zebulon at hot.ee (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jaak=20K=E4nd=20?=) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:50:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Failure to alert Message-ID: <20061130125240.6A9BC3E22B@mh3-4.hot.ee> Hi! 16-board team match. Only on the last 16th board EW found, that NS playing Precision Club with 1NT 13-15 balanced. Before that in 13th brd North opened 1NT not alerted. EW treated that as 15-17 NT and therefore E didn't double with 14 HCP and balanced hand. Later W bid 2S and took 10 tricks. EW playing different defences against weak (up to 15 points)/ strong (14+ points) NTs. If EW know, that 1NT opening is 13-15, East would double, and then it's easy to reach 4S. After finishing 16th board (last in match), EW complained about result in 13th board. What must do TD (or AC)? Will result of 13th brd stay? Or will be result changed to 4S made or must be there some weighted score? Best regards Jaak K?nd, Estonia ------------------------------ Ohoo, Linnalehte saab lugeda ka internetis: http://www.linnaleht.ee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061130/d56dbc81/attachment-0001.htm From zebulon at hot.ee Thu Nov 30 14:00:29 2006 From: zebulon at hot.ee (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jaak=20K=E4nd=20?=) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:00:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Failure to alert (corrected posting) Message-ID: <20061130130030.CA8EC388D9@mh3-4.hot.ee> Hi! (Forgot to add prevoius posting, that match played on-line. Convention cards were not available, but players allowed to self-alert conventional bids) 16-board team match. Only on the last 16th board EW found, that NS playing Precision Club with 1NT 13-15 balanced. Before that in 13th brd North opened 1NT not alerted. EW treated that as 15-17 NT and therefore E didn't double with 14 HCP and balanced hand. Later W bid 2S and took 10 tricks. EW playing different defences against weak (up to 15 points)/ strong (14+ points) NTs. If EW know, that 1NT opening is 13-15, East would double, and then it's easy to reach 4S. After finishing 16th board (last in match), EW complained about result in 13th board. What must do TD (or AC)? Will result of 13th brd stay? Or will be result changed to 4S made or must be there some weighted score? Best regards Jaak K?nd, Estonia ------------------------------ Ohoo, Linnalehte saab lugeda ka internetis: http://www.linnaleht.ee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061130/b3c1f783/attachment.htm