From henk at amsterdamned.org Fri Dec 1 01:01:00 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:01:00 +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! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card 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 Fri Dec 1 01:01:01 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for November 2006 Posts From ----- ---- 48 svenpran (at) online.no 47 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 45 herman (at) hdw.be 37 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 33 twm (at) cix.co.uk 22 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 16 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 16 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 15 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 10 john (at) asimere.com 9 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 8 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 4 tkooij (at) tiscali.nl 4 schoderb (at) msn.com 4 roger-eymard (at) wanadoo.fr 4 mustikka (at) charter.net 4 mandache (at) free.fr 4 ehaa (at) starpower.net 4 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 4 blml (at) wrightnet.demon.co.uk 4 agot (at) pop.ulb.ac.be 4 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 3 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 3 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 3 adam (at) irvine.com 3 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 sarahamos (at) onetel.net 2 kgrauwel (at) hotmail.com 2 jjlbridge (at) free.fr 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 hermandw (at) hdw.be 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 1 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 1 rob.bosman (at) eds.com 1 picatou (at) uqss.uquebec.ca 1 jfchevalier (at) ffbridge.net 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 1 andre.kriner (at) gmail.com 1 Martin.Sinot (at) Micronas.com 1 B.Schelen (at) IAE.NL From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Dec 1 02:32:40 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:32:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? References: <200611302226.OAA02252@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <00a901c714e8$9e1baad0$6400a8c0@rota> Adam Beneschan writes: > The way you've worded this, this means that after 1C-P-P, opener's > LHO, holding KJT8753 of clubs, can prevent his partner from doing > something embarrassing such as bidding a new suit or notrump, by > leading and hoping dummy is taken in and doesn't notice that there was > no final pass. Are you sure this is what you want? Or is there > something implied that I've missed? He can do that anyway under the current Laws. If he leads prematurely, his partner must pass, and now his premature lead is a penalty card and becomes the actual lead. (Of course, he could have known that this enforced pass would work to his advantage, and the TD will adjust.) From mustikka at charter.net Fri Dec 1 03:36:19 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:36:19 -0800 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be><000b01c714a7$f4104770$3ed75047@DFYXB361> <456F53B4.3070003@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000301c714f1$7bc01c10$3ed75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > 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. > > -- Going this route, all common habits which are always condoned, should also become illegal. For example calling a card from dummy without naming its suit and rank: Declarer says *play* and the opponent behind dummy sits and waits for declarer to name a suit and rank of a card to be played from dummy??? Or worse, says "Did you call a card from dummy". Or should he call the Director because an infraction has occurred (declarer used illegal phrase to call a card from dummy). Tongue in cheek... I think innocent habits locally used and perfectly well understood, such as picking up one's bidding cards and putting them in the box (means "pass" in the last seat to pass) or calling dummy's cards in other manner than what the Laws prescribe, should not become feed for bridge lawyers or cause for someone to survive his own error or inattention. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 04:35:48 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:35:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <200611291522.kATFMuRQ009775@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611291522.kATFMuRQ009775@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <456FA314.7090002@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Roger Pewick" > 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. It shouldn't be a matter of opinion; it should be covered by the bid box regulations. The practical ruling you will get in the ACBL is pretty much the one Roger advocates, though. Personally (and David S., whom we greatly miss has written to the same effect), I think some provision should be made to protect players who follow the correct procedure. > 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. You've missed the first and most important part of the definition. Pass is defined as _a call_. If no call has occurred under the applicable regulations, there cannot have been a pass. (Don't expect an ACBL TD to rule this way, though.) > From: "Sven Pran" > 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"! If the player has not made a call, he should be free to choose whatever call he likes. If the bidding box regulations say the player has called, then any change should be subject to the usual rules. > 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! Depending on exactly what the player's misunderstanding was, he might well wish to do something other than pass. If under the regulations he has not yet called, why shouldn't he be allowed to do so? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 1 04:45:21 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:45:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <200611291558.kATFwOWZ018023@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200611291558.kATFwOWZ018023@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <456FA551.5010900@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "ton kooijman" >> 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. I think someone has already mentioned it, but L15A1 seems exactly on point. It may not have been designed for this situation, but the literal text seems clear to me. Of course it has that word "normally," which gives the TD discretion to do whatever he wants, but the only reason I can see for scrapping boards is if one team has done something nefarious and thereby benefited by causing the extra four boards to be played. If that has happened, it should be fairly clear which boards to scrap. If not, just issue a large PP to make sure the villains lose the match. As someone else has mentioned, if VPs are used, you want to apply the correct scale. Or just multiply the IMP difference by 24/28, which should be close enough. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 1 06:48:04 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 16:48:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Australian Directors' Bulletin, August 1999, page 16, "Exploring the Laws", written by Queensland Chief Director, Reg Busch: >Defender plays two cards > >Defender West is to lead. He means to play >the C2, but two cards, the C2 and the C10 >fall on the table. What is your ruling? > >Law 58B2: "The player designates the card he >proposes to play; when he is a defender, >each other card exposed becomes a penalty >card (see Law 50)." > >Note "proposes to play", not "intended to >play". This means that the player has the >right to nominate either card as the card >proposed to be played, whatever his original >intention may have been. In ruling here, >you should advise the defender that he may >nominate either card as the one proposed. >If he nominates the C2, then the C10 becomes >a major penalty card (because it is an >honour). If he nominates the C10, then the >C2 becomes a *minor* penalty card under Law >50 (it was a non-honour and accidentally >played). > >Supposing the player had said at the time of >calling you "I meant to play the C2, but the >C10 also fell out"? It could be argued >that, if he now chooses the C10 as the card >to be played, then the C2 should be a major >penalty card, because it was played >deliberately and not accidentally. > >Authoritative opinion (Endicott / Schoder) >is that this was not the intention of the >Law. The card not selected becomes a major >or minor penalty card solely on the basis of >its rank. Richard Hills: I note that the "authoritative opinions" of Grattan and Kojak were given in 1999, their salad days when they were green in judgement. Now that they have reached the age of discretion, their "authoritative opinions" may possibly have changed. :-) Anyway, an opinion is merely an opinion. If a Law is ambiguous, as is clearly the case with Law 58B2, then the WBF Laws Committee is empowered to give an officially binding interpretation of that Law. And if the WBF LC has not yet issued such an interpretation, then Zones and/or National Authorities are empowered to give a temporary interpretation of that Law, which only gets superseded if or when the WBF LC subsequently interprets or amends the ambiguous Law. So the English Bridge Union has indeed opted to interpret Law 58B2, but has cleverly assumed that 1999 "authoritative opinions" must be automatically ipso facto incorrect. :-) Updated 2006 edition of EBU White Book, 58.2: "When two cards are both visible the player designates the card he proposes to play. This does not need to be the card he originally intended. If he is a defender the remaining card is a penalty card but it is only a minor penalty card if it is not the card he originally intended,and is not an honour." Richard Hills: I suspect that the compiler of the EBU White Book may have used his well-known silver- tongued oratory to persuade the English Bridge Union to ignore the two "authoritative opinions" of 1999. A problem I noted was that the compiler did not admit that any alternative Law 58B2 interpretation (which was contrary to his own 58B2 interpretation) could ever conceivably be arguable. When I quibbled about this new White Book clause during the proof-reading stage, this exchange of emails occurred -> Richard Hills quibble, August 2006: "The mere fact that you see the need to create a new interpretation in the second edition of the White Book, rather than let TDs read Laws 58B2 and 50B for themselves, suggests that that new interpretation is _not_ difficult to argue with. :-)" Compiler obvious response, August 2006: "Not so. Lots of things are obvious **once pointed out** which are not otherwise. Realising something that can be extracted from the Laws is a normal pitfall. Try giving a non-director an opening lead out of turn and ask him to find it in the Laws. "So the fact that we have realised a problem and solved it does not mean the solution is arguable." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Dec 1 09:31:38 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:31:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Failure to alert (corrected posting) In-Reply-To: <20061130130030.CA8EC388D9@mh3-4.hot.ee> References: <20061130130030.CA8EC388D9@mh3-4.hot.ee> Message-ID: <1Gq3o2-1hh6Vk0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Hi Jaak, From: Jaak K?nd ? > (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? No TD will (should) change the score, nor any AC. If you play a 16 board team-match and don't mind opponents system and if you play a two-way defence against 1 NT and don't mind opponents NT-range, and if you play 12 boards and don't mind to ask a single question about it, who should help you ???? Regards Peter From herman at hdw.be Fri Dec 1 09:46:54 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:46:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <000301c714f1$7bc01c10$3ed75047@DFYXB361> References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be><000b01c714a7$f4104770$3ed75047@DFYXB361> <456F53B4.3070003@hdw.be> <000301c714f1$7bc01c10$3ed75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <456FEBFE.3070806@hdw.be> raija wrote: > > Going this route, all common habits which are always condoned, should also > become illegal. For example calling a card from dummy without naming its > suit and rank: Declarer says *play* and the opponent behind dummy sits and > waits for declarer to name a suit and rank of a card to be played from > dummy??? Or worse, says "Did you call a card from dummy". Or should he > call the Director because an infraction has occurred (declarer used illegal > phrase to call a card from dummy). Tongue in cheek... > I did notice the tongue in cheek. > I think innocent habits locally used and perfectly well understood, such as > picking up one's bidding cards and putting them in the box (means "pass" in > the last seat to pass) or calling dummy's cards in other manner than what > the Laws prescribe, should not become feed for bridge lawyers or cause for > someone to survive his own error or inattention. > I agree with you. But this case presents the opposite problem. Here we have a player who did nothing wrong, and who is punished for it because we don't rule against others who do something wrong. There is no regulation which says that someone who picks up his bidding cards has thereby passed. Only because we allow players to get away with such lazyness, has such a pseudo-regulation become more or less standard. And now you are going to rule according to a pseudo-regulation, and you are going to say to a player who did nothing wrong "tough luck". "Feed for bridge lawyers" you say. With obvious dislike. Yet the bridge lawyer here is not the guy who ends up in the crazy contract, but his opponent, who -technically- made a lead during the auction and is now using a pseudo-regulation to get you to rule in his favour. You are clearly ruling with the seat of your pants (and I don't blame you for that - I feel that that is often what leads you to a correct ruling myself) but you need to clearly see who the innocent party is in this case. (and now I am talking about the second version of Ton's, with a lightning-fast lead by opponent and a dummy who has noticed what has gone wrong and who asks TD to allow the bidding to continue). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Fri Dec 1 09:56:59 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Failure to alert In-Reply-To: <20061130125240.6A9BC3E22B@mh3-4.hot.ee> References: <20061130125240.6A9BC3E22B@mh3-4.hot.ee> Message-ID: <456FEE5B.20505@hdw.be> Hello Jaak, did we have Estonians on the list before this? If we did, then a double welcome to Jaak! Jaak K?nd wrote: > Hi! > > 16-board team match. > > Only on the last 16th board EW found, that NS playing Precision Club > with 1NT 13-15 balanced. > I am assuming there are other reasons why this could be so late. I would not accept that 16 boards are played without knowing the basic system of your opponents. At the very least, I'd expect a pair that sits down to play 16 boards to take the opponent's CC and read the first 1/3rd of one side, with the basic system. I would not accept this case as a ruling therefore. But I had a case where on the 16th board, a pair opened a 1NT which was weak, and they were playing variable NT. This particular aspect was not on the front of their CC, so I ruled in favour of the opposing side. > 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? > I will not comment on the actual ruling. We would need the actual cards for that anyway. But as far as asking for a ruling goes, there are only two limits of time, which are the start of the next board and the end of the correction period. The correction period has not ended (should be half an hour later) so there can be a ruling. And in the cases of MI, there is no limit about the next board (like there is for revokes), and there are many rulings asked for only when scoring. So yes, there is room here for a ruling, and wrong alerts or wrong CC's can still be considered. > Best regards > > Jaak K?nd, Estonia > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 1 10:14:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Failure to alert (corrected posting) In-Reply-To: <1Gq3o2-1hh6Vk0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > 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. > No TD will (should) change the score, nor any AC. > If you play a 16 board team-match and don't > mind opponents system and if you play a > two-way defence against 1 NT and don't > mind opponents NT-range, and if you > play 12 boards and don't mind to ask a > single question about it, who should help > you ???? Well, I'd probably adjust if the site/match regulations were "Any 1N range outside 15-18 must be disclosed to opponents before play and alerted whenever the bid is made.". Basically if the disclosure regulations were broken and the NOS had good reason to expect opps to be playing a 15-17 NT in the circumstances they have a case. I stress that I have no idea what regulations were actually in force. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 1 11:34:26 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:34:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Failure to alert (corrected posting) In-Reply-To: References: <1Gq3o2-1hh6Vk0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061201111914.027f1540@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:14 1/12/2006 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: I'd probably adjust if the site/match regulations were "Any 1N range outside 15-18 must be disclosed to opponents before play and alerted whenever the bid is made." >Basically if the disclosure regulations were broken and the NOS had good >reason to expect opps to be playing a 15-17 NT in the circumstances they >have a case. I stress that I have no idea what regulations were >actually in force. Notice that the fact that a pair plays a Precision-type club doesn't mean they're playing weak or semi-weak notrumps. See for example Sontag's book, where Precision is matched with a 15-17 NT opening. Therefore, if the regulations said weak NT should be pre-alerted, the fact that the pair already explained (or pre-alerted) their 1C opening wouldn't be enough. That's a ruling I had to do before. Best regards Alain >Tim > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 1 12:04:04 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:04:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be><456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001201c71538$95fc24b0$17a487d9@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: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is Pass? > 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? > -- +=+ ? ;-) We might perhaps extend and simplify the principle - "A player shall pass if at his turn in the auction his partner and an opponent so determine". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Fri Dec 1 12:49:15 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:49:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb><456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be><456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> <001201c71538$95fc24b0$17a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002701c7153e$baa268f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What is Pass? > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ***************************** >> >> Can we have this in the new law book please? >> -- > +=+ ? ;-) > We might perhaps extend and simplify the principle - > "A player shall pass if at his turn in the auction his > partner and an opponent so determine". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think the model for the passout seat should be based on the same idea as declarer's played card. "If it's obvious he passed then he's passed". Same as declarer has played a card if it's obvious he has. I play cards by sticking them to my forehead occasionally just for example. "... or by taking action in such a manner as to indicate a pass". I'm all for consistency in style, it's easier to interpret. John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Dec 1 12:58:22 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:58:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002c01c71540$003286b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Updated 2006 edition of EBU White Book, 58.2: > > "When two cards are both visible the player > designates the card he proposes to play. > This does not need to be the card he > originally intended. If he is a defender the > remaining card is a penalty card but it is > only a minor penalty card if it is not the > card he originally intended,and is not an > honour." Yeah, I spotted this one in a tournament about 1997, and we kicked it around for a while. At the time I ruled per Kojak's 1999 view as it is clear to me that a Probst cheat can take advantage. After a while I got howled down, and the "intention not relevant" interpretation was handed down to EBU TDs at a training course. So I rule per the White book in EBU events and per the WBF in events where the sponsor is not the EBU. ... but then I'm always in trouble with the EBU :) John > > Richard Hills: > > I suspect that the compiler of the EBU White > Book may have used his well-known silver- > tongued oratory to persuade the English > Bridge Union to ignore the two "authoritative > opinions" of 1999. > > A problem I noted was that the compiler did > not admit that any alternative Law 58B2 > interpretation (which was contrary to his own > 58B2 interpretation) could ever conceivably > be arguable. > > When I quibbled about this new White Book > clause during the proof-reading stage, this > exchange of emails occurred -> > > Richard Hills quibble, August 2006: > > "The mere fact that you see the need to > create a new interpretation in the second > edition of the White Book, rather than let > TDs read Laws 58B2 and 50B for themselves, > suggests that that new interpretation is > _not_ difficult to argue with. :-)" > > Compiler obvious response, August 2006: > > "Not so. Lots of things are obvious **once > pointed out** which are not otherwise. > Realising something that can be extracted > from the Laws is a normal pitfall. Try > giving a non-director an opening lead out of > turn and ask him to find it in the Laws. > > "So the fact that we have realised a problem > and solved it does not mean the solution is > arguable." > > > Season's greetings > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > Your Rights at Work > worth voting for > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Dec 1 13:06:32 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:06:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <200611291558.kATFwOWZ018023@cfa.harvard.edu> <456FA551.5010900@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004901c71541$2406ee40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? > > As someone else has mentioned, if VPs are used, you want to apply the > correct scale. Or just multiply the IMP difference by 24/28, which > should be close enough. As i said, read law 15A1. They played boards they were not scheduled to play and the result stands. ... and, Sreve, adjust the score by root(24/28) if it's imps. Why are we discussing this? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From herman at hdw.be Fri Dec 1 13:53:48 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:53:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? In-Reply-To: <002701c7153e$baa268f0$0701a8c0@john> References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb><456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be><456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> <001201c71538$95fc24b0$17a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002701c7153e$baa268f0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <457025DC.4010106@hdw.be> John Probst wrote: >> >>+=+ ? ;-) >> We might perhaps extend and simplify the principle - >> "A player shall pass if at his turn in the auction his >> partner and an opponent so determine". >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > I think the model for the passout seat should be based on the same idea as > declarer's played card. "If it's obvious he passed then he's passed". Same > as declarer has played a card if it's obvious he has. I play cards by > sticking them to my forehead occasionally just for example. "... or by > taking action in such a manner as to indicate a pass". I'm all for > consistency in style, it's easier to interpret. > I would prefer if alternate methods were not allowed. If an opponent wishes to condone an alternate method, that is his problem. We've been ruling like this for a long time already. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The separate problem of the auction period not being able to close if there is no third pass should IMO be resolved by an inclusion into L17E (if the opening lead is accepted, the auction is over). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 1 16:03:34 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:03:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb><456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be><456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> <001201c71538$95fc24b0$17a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c7153e$baa268f0$0701a8c0@john> <457025DC.4010106@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004601c71559$fb24e400$77eb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is Pass? > > If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > +=+ The irony of this trite delusion is that it translates to "For those who do not see the fracture it ain't broke' ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 1 16:14:41 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:14:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? In-Reply-To: References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb> <456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be> <456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061201100419.02e46b10@pop.starpower.net> At 04:52 PM 11/30/06, Steve wrote: >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? I don't think we want a law that says that the auction is over if the opening lead is faced, dummy starts facing his cards, and third hand (or declarer) immediately says, "Wait a minute, I still have a call to make here." We may need to add something to cover this sort of thing: "If,... starts facing his cards, and no immediate objection is raised by any player, the auction period..." Of course, that would raise the issue of what we mean by "immediate". If we were to define it as "until the (objecting) player has played to the first trick", ISTM that the result would have the same effect as does the current law. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Dec 1 16:59:11 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:59:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Failure to alert (corrected posting) In-Reply-To: <20061130130030.CA8EC388D9@mh3-4.hot.ee> References: <20061130130030.CA8EC388D9@mh3-4.hot.ee> Message-ID: <4570514F.5060502@NTLworld.com> [Jaak K?nd] > (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? > [nige1] If opponents did announce "Precision", as they would before any serious match, then 1N would be assumed to be less than 16 HCP. Hence, arguably, it doesn't require an alert. It 's hard to believe that the match was so relaxed, that a pair didn't realize their opponents were playing a strong club until after the last board. I suppose that the opponent who opened 1N on the thirteenth board had a 15 count. If so, perhaps, the director should adjust to 4S=. From adam at irvine.com Fri Dec 1 18:01:05 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:01:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:32:40 EST." <00a901c714e8$9e1baad0$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <200612011638.IAA10980@mailhub.irvine.com> David Grabiner wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes: > > > 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? > > He can do that anyway under the current Laws. If he leads prematurely, his > partner must pass, and now his premature lead is a penalty card and becomes > the actual lead. (Of course, he could have known that this enforced pass > would work to his advantage, and the TD will adjust.) OK, I missed that---but Herman's proposal still wouldn't work in the same way without some modification, since there would be no "enforced pass" involved in the situation I've described using Herman's rules, and L23 would thus not apply (read the text of L23 carefully). Mind you, I'm not trying to figure out a way to tweak the wording to make sure it covers all cases. I think the whole idea is a poor one, because it means a player in the passout seat who is thinking about what to do can have his right to make a call taken away from him. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 1 19:03:55 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:03:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01c71540$003286b0$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >Yeah, I spotted this one in a tournament about 1997, and >we kicked it around for a while. At the time I ruled per >Kojak's 1999 view as it is clear to me that a Probst >cheat can take advantage. After a while I got howled >down, and the "intention not relevant" interpretation >was handed down to EBU TDs at a training course. So I >rule per the White book in EBU events and per the WBF in >events where the sponsor is not the EBU. ... but then >I'm always in trouble with the EBU :) Australian Directors' Bulletin, August 2000, page 18, "Exploring the Laws", written by Queensland Chief Director, Reg Busch: >>West is to lead to South's contract of 4S. However >>East makes the opening lead out of turn, but in doing >>so, manages to put both the CQ and H8 face up on the >>table! How do you rule? (If East is asked, he will >>tell you that he intended to play the H8 but >>accidentally also pulled the card next to it). >> >>Henk Uijterwaal, a top director in the Netherlands, >>reported this question on the Net. It was one of a >>series of practical questions in the Dutch examination >>for senior directors, who were given five minutes to >>decide their ruling. Almost none got it right! Richard Hills: I am not particularly surprised about that, given that blml is split down the middle on which of the two alternative interpretations of Law 58B2 is correct. Reg Busch: >>This is not an everyday occurrence at the bridge table >>(thank heaven), but it is worth discussing here >>because it is a very useful exercise in exploring >>some important Laws, and learning to find our way >>around the Law Book. [big snip] >>I must insert a caveat here. Some experienced >>directors would not agree with the above. They point >>to the *definition of minor penalty card*: >> >>"A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed >>inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or >>in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor >>penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card >>exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of >>turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a >>major penalty card..." >> >>They argue that if East is asked about or volunteers >>the information that he meant to play the H8, then >>this card was not played inadvertently but with >>intent, so that it simply cannot be a _minor_ penalty >>card by definition, but must be a _major_ penalty >>card. >> >>I cannot agree with this view. Law 58B could easily >>have allowed for consideration of the offender's >>intended play if it so wished. In fact, it avoids >>doing so. As far as this Law is concerned, there are >>two cards faced on the table and East has the option >>of nominating one of them as his lead, with the other >>becoming a major or minor penalty card depending on >>its rank. Even if East had volunteered that he meant >>to play the H8, this is not relevant to the >>application of Law 58B. [big snip] >>Wait. Let's look at the definition of a minor penalty >>card again. *Law 50B* finishes with these words: >>"when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all >>such cards become major penalty cards." >> >>Under this Law, it would seem that, once declarer >>requires the [out-of-turn opening] lead of the CQ to >>be retracted and it becomes a major penalty card, then >>automatically the H8 also becomes a _major_ penalty >>card. Or would this apply only once declarer has >>exercised his [out-of-turn opening] lead rights in >>relation to the CQ? I incline to the former view, and >>see declarer has now having [out-of-turn opening] lead >>lead rights in relation to both clubs and hearts. >>Others may take the latter view. There sometimes >>seems to be an inconsistency between one Law and >>another. [big snip] >>directors' forums will always be a paradise for the >>nitpickers. Richard Hills: In my opinion, "sometimes seems to be an inconsistency" and "paradise for nitpickers" are perhaps overly mild understatements in the "Yes Minister" tradition. As, for example, this quote from the famous BBC TV series: "Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do not appreciate the significance of 'significant'." Reg Busch: >>So my answer to the question would be: >> >>1. Ask East which card he proposes to play, indicating >>the implications re minor and major penalty cards. >>Ignore any comment by East as to his intentions, but >>warn West that East's comments are unauthorised >>information. >> >>2. If East nominates the CQ, explain South's options. >>If he accepts the lead either by seeing dummy or by >>making North declarer, then the H8 remains as a minor >>penalty card. If he requires the lead to be >>retracted, then both the CQ and the H8 become major >>penalty cards, with Law 51 applying. Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From herman at hdw.be Fri Dec 1 19:18:01 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:18:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? In-Reply-To: <004601c71559$fb24e400$77eb403e@Mildred> References: <20061130115830.8096442CE21@hitweb><456EE21B.9040302@hdw.be><456F0B90.4000208@hdw.be> <001201c71538$95fc24b0$17a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><002701c7153e$baa268f0$0701a8c0@john> <457025DC.4010106@hdw.be> <004601c71559$fb24e400$77eb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <457071D9.501@hdw.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > >>If it ain't broke, don't fix it. >> > > +=+ The irony of this trite delusion is that it translates to > "For those who do not see the fracture it ain't broke' > ~ G ~ +=+ > Well, Grattan, if you believe it's broke, please fix it! That's your job, and yours alone (well and the other members of your committee). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From herman at hdw.be Fri Dec 1 19:19:30 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:19:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? In-Reply-To: <200612011638.IAA10980@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200612011638.IAA10980@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <45707232.8080107@hdw.be> Adam Beneschan wrote: > David Grabiner wrote: > > >>Adam Beneschan writes: >> >> >>>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? >> >>He can do that anyway under the current Laws. If he leads prematurely, his >>partner must pass, and now his premature lead is a penalty card and becomes >>the actual lead. (Of course, he could have known that this enforced pass >>would work to his advantage, and the TD will adjust.) > > > OK, I missed that---but Herman's proposal still wouldn't work in the > same way without some modification, since there would be no "enforced > pass" involved in the situation I've described using Herman's rules, > and L23 would thus not apply (read the text of L23 carefully). > > Mind you, I'm not trying to figure out a way to tweak the wording to > make sure it covers all cases. I think the whole idea is a poor one, > because it means a player in the passout seat who is thinking about > what to do can have his right to make a call taken away from him. > Only with the help of his partner! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 1 19:19:35 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:19:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 15A1 (was 25 something?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004901c71541$2406ee40$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >As I said, read law 15A1. They played boards they were not >scheduled to play and the result stands. ... and, Steve, >adjust the score by root (24/28) if it's imps. > >Why are we discussing this? Law 15A1: "If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round: The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board." Richard Hills: I read the word "normally" as containing an implied footnote: "If the players play a board not designated for them to play in the current _session_, then the score shall not stand. "And if, in a knockout teams match, a Director's error causes the players to play too many boards, then _normally_ the entire match shall be replayed." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Dec 2 06:18:38 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 16:18:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Gut yontiff, Pontiff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >BLML usage statistics for November 2006 > >Posts From >----- ---- > 48 svenpran (at) online.no > 47 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au > 45 herman (at) hdw.be Richard Hills: In the 2005 Ashes cricket series, England defeated the long-time holders Australia by only two runs (the narrow margin of victory in the decisive Second Test). [Note: In the current Ashes series, England has also bounced back from an embarrassing First Test loss to play impressively in the (still ongoing) Second Test.] Congratulations to Sven Pran for finally dethroning me as the most loquacious blmler by the even narrower margin of only one posting. In a private email from Grattan Endicott to me, he wrote: >>Merry politically correct occasions, >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ to which I replied: >>>The late great Isaac Asimov noted that >>>"Happy holidays, your Holiness," >>>translated into Yiddish was: >>> >>>"Gut yontiff, Pontiff." I will be taking a week's happy holidays, so I can catch up on my science-fiction reading and my movie watching. Because I will be away from my computer for a week, this is a golden opportunity for Sven Pran to defend his title - although if I was a betting man, I would put my money on dark horse Herman De Wael to win December. :-) Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From herman at hdw.be Sat Dec 2 09:05:22 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:05:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gut yontiff, Pontiff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457133C2.3060408@hdw.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>BLML usage statistics for November 2006 >> >>Posts From >>----- ---- >> 48 svenpran (at) online.no >> 47 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au >> 45 herman (at) hdw.be > I thought I had decided to keep quiet! > > Richard Hills: > > In the 2005 Ashes cricket series, England > defeated the long-time holders Australia by > only two runs (the narrow margin of victory > in the decisive Second Test). > > [Note: In the current Ashes series, England > has also bounced back from an embarrassing > First Test loss to play impressively in the > (still ongoing) Second Test.] > Please note that I am an England supporter. Not Barmy Army quality, but happy to be able to see highlights for once (the BBC are the only English channel on our sets and they have not broadcast any cricket in the last 5 years). > >>>>The late great Isaac Asimov noted that >>>>"Happy holidays, your Holiness," >>>>translated into Yiddish was: >>>> >>>>"Gut yontiff, Pontiff." > > > I will be taking a week's happy holidays, so > I can catch up on my science-fiction reading > and my movie watching. > As someone who has read the entire SF output of IA, I can only say, enjoy, Richard! > Because I will be away from my computer for > a week, this is a golden opportunity for > Sven Pran to defend his title - although if > I was a betting man, I would put my money on > dark horse Herman De Wael to win December. > > :-) > Who knows? Maybe someone could bowl me a yorker in the form of DwS-bait? > > Season's greetings > Same to you, and to all blml-ers who are taking summer holidays (or winter ones, up here). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 1 10:14:26 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:14:26 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__What_is_Pass=3F?= References: Message-ID: <456FF271.000001.17761@CERAP-MATSH1> Steve said : 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 AG : and several other usual gestures, like nodding to declarer ; or opening one's hand in partner's direction when it's partener's lead, inviting him to do so. These are considered not to be incorrect in not-too-formal settings. Also some utterances, like "your lead", or "my lead ?". We could have a paragraph saying that any word or gesture, by a player in pass-out seat, indicating that one won't bid is equivalent to a final pass and allows for the lead. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061201/c9506fbe/attachment.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/20061201/c9506fbe/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/20061201/c9506fbe/attachment-0001.gif From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Dec 3 00:51:48 2006 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:51:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] blml usage statistics (Novembre) Message-ID: <45721194.4060509@aol.com> If I haven't misunderstood the list, Herman is listed twice, with different emails or for some other reason. So he has unjustly been placed third. Actually I think he is second, ex-aequa with R. Hills. Ciao,JE From john at asimere.com Sun Dec 3 03:35:42 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 02:35:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] blml usage statistics (Novembre) References: <45721194.4060509@aol.com> Message-ID: <001b01c71683$ba6e0dd0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: [blml] blml usage statistics (Novembre) > If I haven't misunderstood the list, Herman is listed twice, with > different emails or for some other reason. So he has unjustly been > placed third. Actually I think he is second, ex-aequa with R. Hills. > Ciao,JE Nope, this is ok, it's his two personae, the one that is a very competent TD, and the other that believes in the HdW school. cheers john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Dec 3 10:53:53 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:53:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Justice down under In-Reply-To: <456F4AEA.3070501@NTLworld.com> References: <456BA76C.3060604@NTLworld.com> <456F4AEA.3070501@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <45729EB1.1060003@NTLworld.com> I hope it isn't too late for the WBFLC to slow the trend towards a Cheats' Charter. Laws that allow too much *subjectivity* are one problem. Players worry about fairness if different directors often give different rulings on identical agreed facts. Laws that restore so-called *equity*, for example 12C3, are another problem. They save directors from hassle but reduce the deterrent for law-breakers. Since not all infractions are ruled against, such laws ensure that law-breakers harvest a long-term profit. (An international database to record all infractions might mitigate this effect). L76B that bans reports of suspected irregularities, is unique to the surreal world of Bridge Law and seems morally wrong. On the face of it, it would seem to make (for example) the Reese-Shapiro proceedings retrospectively illegal. It should also be scrapped. :) L81C6 is a law that most players would regard as eminently sensible. Many directors and even some players, however, are under the impression that a *Wise Monkey* law supervenes: They imagine that (unlike law-enforcers in any other legal context) directors are meant to ignore an infraction unless they are specifically asked for a ruling. I hope that no such rule exists. It would flatly contradict L81C6. With L76B it would form a pernicious combination. Is it really endorsed by so-called "interpretations" like the EBU White Book? If so, why are no directors up in arms in protest? A few seem so keen on a peaceful life that they trot out two flawed arguments: (i) Some quibble over the word *normally* in L81C6 -- without noticing that this word qualifies *all* the director's duties -- and is presumably included to release the director from his duty in *abnormal* circumstances - for example during nuclear attack :( (ii) Others point out that a director can't watch all tables at once. They claim, that if he prevents an individual infraction, it is somehow unfair to the *law-breaker*. A bizarre notion of justice! Imagine a policemen advancing such an argument when he stumbles on a mugging. [TFLB 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. [TFLB 81C6 ] The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 3 16:02:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 15:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <456FA314.7090002@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: I can commend the EBU (not screens) regulations in this area. Bidding cards are not picked up until the face-down lead has been made and any questions answered. Tim From henk at ripe.net Mon Dec 4 07:16:49 2006 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:16:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] blml usage statistics (Novembre) In-Reply-To: <45721194.4060509@aol.com> References: <45721194.4060509@aol.com> Message-ID: <4573BD51.7010207@ripe.net> Jeff, Jeff Easterson wrote: > If I haven't misunderstood the list, Herman is listed twice, with > different emails or for some other reason. Herman is subscribed twice and posts from both addresses. This confuses the script generating the statistics. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Lawyer: "Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--" # Witness: "Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment." From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 4 10:16:24 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:16:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] blml usage statistics (Novembre) References: <45721194.4060509@aol.com> <4573BD51.7010207@ripe.net> Message-ID: <002a01c71789$20a39ba0$9abe87d9@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: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Jeff Easterson" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] blml usage statistics (Novembre) > Jeff, > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > If I haven't misunderstood the list, Herman is listed twice, > > with different emails or for some other reason. > > Herman is subscribed twice and posts from both addresses. > This confuses the script generating the statistics. > > +=+ As also in the case of my messages despatched from grandeval or gesta addresses. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 6 04:29:58 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:29:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <200612011643.kB1GhMG7021859@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612011643.kB1GhMG7021859@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45763936.3090507@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John Probst" > As i said, read law 15A1. They played boards they were not scheduled to play > and the result stands. ... and, Sreve, adjust the score by root(24/28) if > it's imps. Sorry, John, but I don't think that last is right. If you are going to apply the 24-board VP scale, 24/28 is the right factoring. It's an unbiased estimator of the score that would have been obtained in a 24-board match. The square root comes in if you are establishing a new VP scale. What this boils down to is whether you want to measure IMP difference (my view) or "sigmas difference" (John's view). Either way, it's a very minor point. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 6 04:32:25 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:32:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200612011641.kB1Gfvab021587@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612011641.kB1Gfvab021587@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <457639C9.2070109@cfa.harvard.edu> >>Updated 2006 edition of EBU White Book, 58.2: >> >>"When two cards are both visible the player >>designates the card he proposes to play. >>This does not need to be the card he >>originally intended. > From: "John Probst" > Yeah, I spotted this one in a tournament about 1997, and we kicked it around > for a while. At the time I ruled per Kojak's 1999 view as it is clear to me > that a Probst cheat can take advantage. After a while I got howled down, > and the "intention not relevant" interpretation was handed down to EBU TDs > at a training course. So I rule per the White book in EBU events and per the > WBF in events where the sponsor is not the EBU. ... but then I'm always in > trouble with the EBU :) I'm curious how any kind of cheat can "take advantage" by exposing two cards at a single turn. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Wed Dec 6 04:41:07 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:41:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Failure to alert (corrected posting) In-Reply-To: <200612011637.kB1GbXE6020679@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612011637.kB1GbXE6020679@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45763BD3.5000404@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Peter Eidt" > If you play a 16 board team-match and don't > mind opponents system and if you play a > two-way defence against 1 NT and don't > mind opponents NT-range, and if you > play 12 boards and don't mind to ask a > single question about it, who should help > you ???? The relevant question is whether the opponents complied with the disclosure obligations imposed by the SO. If the SO required alerts and convention cards (as most do), and those were absent, there is a L21B, 75A, or 40B problem. If the opponents provided all the disclosure required, and "you" failed to ask questions, it's "your" problem (L21A). There's no way to rule on a specific case without knowing the regulations that applied. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Dec 6 05:40:33 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 23:40:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Failure to alert (corrected posting) References: <200612011637.kB1GbXE6020679@cfa.harvard.edu> <45763BD3.5000404@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004501c718f0$ab4964c0$6400a8c0@rota> Steve Willner writes: >> From: "Peter Eidt" >> If you play a 16 board team-match and don't >> mind opponents system and if you play a >> two-way defence against 1 NT and don't >> mind opponents NT-range, and if you >> play 12 boards and don't mind to ask a >> single question about it, who should help >> you ???? > > The relevant question is whether the opponents complied with the > disclosure obligations imposed by the SO. If the SO required alerts and > convention cards (as most do), and those were absent, there is a L21B, > 75A, or 40B problem. If the opponents provided all the disclosure > required, and "you" failed to ask questions, it's "your" problem (L21A). However, many SOs expect experienced players to protect themselves; this is official policy in the ACBL. There may be a technical infraction of failure to alert or announce the NT range, but there is also a reasonable expectation that players in a 16-board match should have a basic familiarity with their opponents' system, and thus the SO can refuse to make an adjustment. This was an on-line match, so a player could ask before bidding without passing information to his partner. From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 6 13:34:28 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:34:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200612011641.kB1Gfvab021587@cfa.harvard.edu> <457639C9.2070109@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004201c71932$df647370$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>Updated 2006 edition of EBU White Book, 58.2: >>> >>>"When two cards are both visible the player >>>designates the card he proposes to play. >>>This does not need to be the card he >>>originally intended. > >> From: "John Probst" >> Yeah, I spotted this one in a tournament about 1997, and we kicked it >> around >> for a while. At the time I ruled per Kojak's 1999 view as it is clear to >> me >> that a Probst cheat can take advantage. After a while I got howled down, >> and the "intention not relevant" interpretation was handed down to EBU >> TDs >> at a training course. So I rule per the White book in EBU events and per >> the >> WBF in events where the sponsor is not the EBU. ... but then I'm always >> in >> trouble with the EBU :) > > I'm curious how any kind of cheat can "take advantage" by exposing two > cards at a single turn. Once the Probst cheat has infracted he knows he has to tell the TD he was intending to play the honour, regardless of his original intent. Now the TD perforce will rule the other card a mpc, regardless of jurisdiction. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 6 13:43:41 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:43:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? References: <200612011643.kB1GhMG7021859@cfa.harvard.edu> <45763936.3090507@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <004b01c71934$28b087c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 25 something ? >> From: "John Probst" >> As i said, read law 15A1. They played boards they were not scheduled to >> play >> and the result stands. ... and, Sreve, adjust the score by root(24/28) >> if >> it's imps. > > Sorry, John, but I don't think that last is right. If you are going to > apply the 24-board VP scale, 24/28 is the right factoring. It's an > unbiased estimator of the score that would have been obtained in a > 24-board match. The square root comes in if you are establishing a new > VP scale. What this boils down to is whether you want to measure IMP > difference (my view) or "sigmas difference" (John's view). Either way, > it's a very minor point. I see your point. We can agree to disagree, but I have always thought direct factoring of imps is wrong (eg a 3/4 Howell butler pairs with a sitout) I want to play fewer boards if that's the case and get factored (because I expect to be above average). The spread of results, either in small fields, or with small number of boards is wider than large fields or long events. To correct for this we use all sorts of devices, and for imps I'm convinced we use sigmas. Suppose they'd played 96 instead of 24? Over half the time the result will be 20-0 won't it. cheers John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 6 14:46:11 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:46:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25 something ? In-Reply-To: <004b01c71934$28b087c0$0701a8c0@john> References: <200612011643.kB1GhMG7021859@cfa.harvard.edu> <45763936.3090507@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061206143157.027fa530@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:43 6/12/2006 +0000, John Probst wrote: >I see your point. We can agree to disagree, but I have always thought direct >factoring of imps is wrong (eg a 3/4 Howell butler pairs with a sitout) I >want to play fewer boards if that's the case and get factored (because I >expect to be above average). The spread of results, either in small fields, >or with small number of boards is wider than large fields or long events. To >correct for this we use all sorts of devices, and for imps I'm convinced we >use sigmas. I made some calculations some years ago, and it appeared that Gaussian error approximation was a good one. The average score of a match between equal-strength teams of intermediate level is 0 IMPs, of course, with a standard deviation of about 9 IMPs in a 8-board match, and of about 18 IMPs in a 32-board match. This is right : the standard deviation should increase as the square root of the number of boards, if these are deemed to have independent results (yes, I know the results aren't equally distributed, because of the vulnerability, but that's a minor concern). This means that : 1. The scale should take this into account, ie the scale for 32 boards should be the one for 8 boards, inflated twice. 2. It isn't that difficult to compare results obtained on inequal sets of boards. Nowadays, for example, the scale for 32 boards is to the one for 24 as 6 is to 5 (= 1.20), which is slightly more than the theoretical value of sqrt(4/3) (= 1.15). Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 6 15:02:32 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:02:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004201c71932$df647370$0701a8c0@john> References: <200612011641.kB1Gfvab021587@cfa.harvard.edu> <457639C9.2070109@cfa.harvard.edu> <004201c71932$df647370$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061206085538.035ec5f0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:34 AM 12/6/06, John wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > I'm curious how any kind of cheat can "take advantage" by exposing two > > cards at a single turn. > >Once the Probst cheat has infracted he knows he has to tell the TD he was >intending to play the honour, regardless of his original intent. Now >the TD >perforce will rule the other card a mpc, regardless of jurisdiction. So he has two choices: (a) a major pc, or (b) a minor pc after having made a presumably inferior (i.e. not his originally intended) play. Either one will less advantageous to his side than not having infracted in the first place. The "cheat" comes only after the infraction, when the player, in effect, chooses between penalties. I don't see this as "cheating" at all -- it looks to me like what the lawmakers intended, and seems reasonable. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 6 20:08:05 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 06:08:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] L26 - Lead penalties [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <456D8F03.2010400@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Although the TD should not ask "what do you have >in your hand", Richard Hills: Why "should not"? Herman De Wael: >he should try to find out what the reason was >for the error. Richard Hills: Why "should"? Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 6 20:22:11 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 06:22:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c71538$95fc24b0$17a487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ ? ;-) > We might perhaps extend and simplify the principle - > "A player shall pass if at his turn in the auction his > partner and an opponent so determine". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: In Canberra I am notorious for the Hills Penalty Double Convention (on one of my good days there is only one overtrick). So, all of my partners would also like this principle adopted: "If a player doubles, and if their partner requests (without pause for thought) that the double be cancelled, then the double is automatically changed to a pass. Law 16C applies." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 6 20:45:57 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 06:45:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Gut yontiff, Pontiff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>[Note: In the current Ashes series, England >>has also bounced back from an embarrassing >>First Test loss to play impressively in the >>(still ongoing) Second Test.] Herman De Wael: >Please note that I am an England supporter. Richard Hills: Please note that England have reached a stage of being beyond embarrassment, after setting a new record for the team with the highest declared score in the first innings who then still loses the game. I can imagine the English team's feelings in their second innings when they realised that the four wickets they wasted in their first innings declaration could have been useful. It is similar to the feeling of wasting two imps with a safety play, only to lose the knockout match by one imp. :-) Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Dec 6 20:55:24 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:55:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is Pass? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001201c71538$95fc24b0$17a487d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 06:22:11 +1100, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ ? ;-) >> We might perhaps extend and simplify the principle - >> "A player shall pass if at his turn in the auction his >> partner and an opponent so determine". >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Richard Hills: > >In Canberra I am notorious for the Hills Penalty Double >Convention (on one of my good days there is only one overtrick). > >So, all of my partners would also like this principle adopted: > >"If a player doubles, and if their partner requests (without >pause for thought) that the double be cancelled, then the >double is automatically changed to a pass. Law 16C applies." > In that case, I'd also like to cover the opposite scenario: "If a player doubles, and if their partner pulls it, and the doubler requests (without pause for thought) that their partner's bid be cancelled, then the bid is automatically changed to a pass. Law 16C applies." Perhaps my partner suspects I've been reading your book on penalty doubles, Richard ;-\ Brian. From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Wed Dec 6 22:45:28 2006 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:45:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <000001c71979$84bb67c0$0210a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <200612062145.kB6LjTqk012886@smtp30.hccnet.nl> South has: Ax Xxxx Jxxxx Xx Bidding goes (West deals, NS pass): 2NT-3H 3Sp-4C 4NT-5D 6Sp South asks after the meaning of 5D and is told by West that it shows 1 or 4 keycards with spades as trump. Before the opening lead East corrects this to 0 or 3 keycards. South now says he wants to double. As it happens, North has Kx of spades... How do you deal with this? From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Dec 6 23:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <200612062145.kB6LjTqk012886@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: Andre wrote: > South has: > Ax > Xxxx > Jxxxx > Xx > > Bidding goes (West deals, NS pass): > 2NT-3H > 3Sp-4C > 4NT-5D > 6Sp > > South asks after the meaning of 5D and is told by West that it shows > 1 or 4 keycards with spades as trump. > Before the opening lead East corrects this to 0 or 3 keycards. South > now says he wants to double. South will need to clarify to me how his wish to change his call relates to the MI. I suspect that his desire to change is based on the knowledge of the misunderstanding rather than the MI itself - which would not be grounds for allowing a change of call. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 6 23:55:38 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 23:55:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <200612062145.kB6LjTqk012886@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <001201c71989$a5bf9a80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Andre Steffens > South has: > Ax > Xxxx > Jxxxx > Xx > > Bidding goes (West deals, NS pass): > 2NT-3H > 3Sp-4C > 4NT-5D > 6Sp > > South asks after the meaning of 5D and is told by West that it shows 1 or > 4 > keycards with spades as trump. > Before the opening lead East corrects this to 0 or 3 keycards. South now > says he wants to double. > As it happens, North has Kx of spades... > How do you deal with this? The facts: South has been given misinformation by West during the auction and East has correctly called attention to this misinformation before the opening lead was faced. On being summoned to the table the Director shall offer the last player to call for the non-offending side (i.e. South) the option to retract his final pass provided he maintains that his original final pass was a result of the misinformation as such. If he selects this option the auction continues from there on until there has again been three consecutive passes. After the play the Director may investigate if in his opinion South's desire to double the contract was indeed a result of the corrected information and not for instance the result of learning that there probably had been a misunderstanding between East and West. Any reasonable doubt in this investigation shall be resolved towards South having had a legitimate reason for changing his call. If the Director finds that South did not have such legitimate reason and that East/West have been damaged by South's change of call he may award an adjusted score. Sven From mandache at free.fr Thu Dec 7 00:16:07 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:16:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <200612062145.kB6LjTqk012886@smtp30.hccnet.nl> References: <200612062145.kB6LjTqk012886@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <1165446967.45774f37af225@imp7-g19.free.fr> Quoting Andre Steffens : > South has: > Ax > Xxxx > Jxxxx > Xx > John, X is back! Any netherlandophobic stories available? > Bidding goes (West deals, NS pass): > 2NT-3H > 3Sp-4C > 4NT-5D > 6Sp > > South asks after the meaning of 5D and is told by West that it shows 1 or 4 > keycards with spades as trump. > Before the opening lead East corrects this to 0 or 3 keycards. South now > says he wants to double. Thus uttering some UI... The first thing to do is check EW's CC in order to determine whether there is ME or MA. ISTM that South has no reason to double other than West's mistake on the number of keycards - BTA this is AI for him and if ME occured he can change his final pass (the auction period is not over yet and North did not make a subsequent call). I would like to be wrong :o) Anyway, there must not be many EW having played 6S without AK in trumps... Best, Manuela > As it happens, North has Kx of spades... > How do you deal with this? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Thu Dec 7 01:22:23 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 00:22:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 References: <200612062145.kB6LjTqk012886@smtp30.hccnet.nl> <1165446967.45774f37af225@imp7-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <003901c71995$c449c960$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "Andre Steffens" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 21B1 > Quoting Andre Steffens : > >> South has: >> Ax >> Xxxx >> Jxxxx >> Xx >> > > John, X is back! Any netherlandophobic stories available? The trouble with the scheming Dutch They offer little, want too much. Is that the sort of thing? cheers john > >> Bidding goes (West deals, NS pass): >> 2NT-3H >> 3Sp-4C >> 4NT-5D >> 6Sp >> >> South asks after the meaning of 5D and is told by West that it shows 1 or >> 4 >> keycards with spades as trump. >> Before the opening lead East corrects this to 0 or 3 keycards. South now >> says he wants to double. > > Thus uttering some UI... > > The first thing to do is check EW's CC in order to determine whether there > is ME > or MA. ISTM that South has no reason to double other than West's mistake > on the > number of keycards - BTA this is AI for him and if ME occured he can > change his > final pass (the auction period is not over yet and North did not make a > subsequent call). > > I would like to be wrong :o) Anyway, there must not be many EW having > played 6S > without AK in trumps... > > Best, > > Manuela > >> As it happens, North has Kx of spades... >> How do you deal with this? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 7 01:25:10 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 00:25:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 References: Message-ID: <000201c71996$52496900$6607e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 21B1 > Andre wrote: > >> South has: >> Ax >> Xxxx >> Jxxxx >> Xx >> >> Bidding goes (West deals, NS pass): >> 2NT-3H >> 3Sp-4C >> 4NT-5D >> 6Sp >> >> South asks after the meaning of 5D and is told by West that it shows >> 1 or 4 keycards with spades as trump. >> Before the opening lead East corrects this to 0 or 3 keycards. South >> now says he wants to double. > > South will need to clarify to me how his wish to change his call relates > to the MI. I suspect that his desire to change is based on the > knowledge of the misunderstanding rather than the MI itself - which > would not be grounds for allowing a change of call. > > Tim > +=+ I share Tim's scepticism. I do not perceive anything about the South hand which varies if there is one less control on his right and one more on his left. We should also be certain as to the timing of South's question - at which point did he enquire about the meaning of the 5D bid? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 7 01:59:12 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 00:59:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 References: <200612062145.kB6LjTqk012886@smtp30.hccnet.nl> <1165446967.45774f37af225@imp7-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000201c7199b$b56d4150$73e0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Andre Steffens" >> > > South has no reason to double other than West's > mistake on the number of keycards - BTA this is > AI for him and if ME occurred he can change his > final pass (the auction period is not over yet and > North did not make a subsequent call). > +=+ He can change his final pass if it is "probable that he made the call as the result of misinformation given to him by an opponent". First I would wish to ascertain that he obtained the incorrect explanation before he made his final pass - if not he cannot have based his call on it. Second, I would want to hear his explanation why he claims that if West had given him the correct reply to his original question he would have called differently (although unaware that any misunderstanding had occurred and that West did not have the complementary number of controls). The fact that a misunderstanding has occurred is AI to South following East's correction but he did not have that knowledge when he made his final pass, nor could he have inferred it at that time. The law does not suggest that learning of a mix-up by opponents is grounds for a change of call; the basis for changing the call has to be that it was (probably) based upon the incorrect information given and that if he had been given the correct information his action would (quite possibly) have been different. My view on appeal would be that South has no case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 7 03:43:56 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:43:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites Message-ID: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com> On RGB, there is a debate about article by John Shuster, in the ACBL district 9 Journal, describing a convention that assigns different meanings to your bids, depending on whether or not you accept an opponent's insufficient bid. Currently players like David Stevenson who believe that such agreements are legal have a considerable advantage. I seem to remember Grattan Endicott insisting that, without specific permission, you must not employ agreements that are geared to taking advantage of irregularities by opponents. What is the WBF position? and the position under local jurisdictions? IMO, anyway, the laws should be simplified to make such agreements more difficult -- for instance: the option of accepting an insufficient bid, should be removed from the law-book. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 7 06:43:51 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:43:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45777FEC.6000603@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >On RGB, there is a debate about article by John Shuster, in the ACBL >district 9 Journal, describing a convention that assigns different >meanings to your bids, depending on whether or not you accept an >opponent's insufficient bid. Currently players like David Stevenson >who believe that such agreements are legal have a considerable >advantage. Richard Hills: Or a considerable disadvantage, due to the vastly increased chance of an unforced error created by a memory lapse when a Stevensonian rare and idiosyncratic agreement is finally deployed. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >What is the WBF position? [snip] >the option of accepting an insufficient bid, should be removed from >the law-book. Motto of the Hogwarts school: "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus" Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Dec 7 10:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <000001c719aa$78869890$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > South will need to clarify to me how his wish to change his call > > relates > > to the MI. I suspect that his desire to change is based on the > > knowledge of the misunderstanding rather than the MI itself - which > > would not be grounds for allowing a change of call. > > I fully agree with the last statement here, but I shall like to hear > how the director can decide this and make a ruling during the > auction without revealing facts about South's hand to the other > players and thereby making normal play and scoring of the board > impossible? We have had this argument before Sven. I believe the responsibility for allowing a call to be withdrawn rests with the TD. The laws are unclear on whether that responsibility lies with the TD or the player. > And what do you do if South afterwards appeals your ruling that he > has no cause for changing his final pass and shows overwhelming > evidence that he indeed had such cause. The same thing you will do if you permit South to change his call and the other side later appeals that he should not have been allowed to do so. I'll adjust the previous ruling as a TD error. > I don't care to discuss what such evidence > might be, that question is rather irrelevant as long as we cannot > completely discard the possibility. One possibility is that that the 6S bidder has limited his hand previously and thus cannot hold sufficient key-cards. > This is exactly the same principle we use when there is suspicion of a > violation of Law 16A2. A Director in Norway who inspects the cards > held by a suspected player and then makes a ruling is likely to have > his director's license revoked. > > Law 16 is clear on this principle, why should we not enforce the same > principle also with Law 21B1? In UI situations there is no immediate TD decision to be made. In Law21 cases (as in L25a/b cases) there is an immediate decision needed. If necessary the TD can take the player away from the table in order to hear what he has to say. Mostly it's not going to make a difference because both you and I are saying something like "You may not change your call simply because you realise there has been a misunderstanding" before allowing a change immediately (as you would always do) or, if the player still indicated a desire to change, by talking to him further away from the table (as I would do). BTW in L16 situations it is sometimes pragmatic (perhaps there are no hand records) for the TD to rule "Play on..call me back if.., I'm just going to make a note of the bidding and hand" - this doesn't create UI providing the hand is looked at only *after* ruling "Play on". Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 7 12:30:40 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:30:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c719f3$200786e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads .......... > > Law 16 is clear on this principle, why should we not enforce the same > > principle also with Law 21B1? > > In UI situations there is no immediate TD decision to be made. Oh yes, there is! I can remember some 40 years ago when tournament directors looked at players' hands and announced that he allowed or prohibited the call made by a suspected violator of what is now Law 16B2. That seemed to be the normal procedure until someone realized that in doing so the Director really destroyed the board. In Law21 > cases (as in L25a/b cases) there is an immediate decision > needed. I just do not see any sensible reason why this is important in L21 cases but not in L16 cases. If necessary the TD can take the player away from the table in > order to hear what he has to say. Mostly it's not going to make a > difference because both you and I are saying something like "You may not > change your call simply because you realise there has been a > misunderstanding" before allowing a change immediately (as you would > always do) or, if the player still indicated a desire to change, by > talking to him further away from the table (as I would do). > > BTW in L16 situations it is sometimes pragmatic (perhaps there are no > hand records) for the TD to rule "Play on..call me back if.., I'm just > going to make a note of the bidding and hand" - this doesn't create UI > providing the hand is looked at only *after* ruling "Play on". Even if there are hand records the Director must not make any ruling during the auction or play if the players could know that the Director based his ruling on knowledge from such records. Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 7 13:08:47 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:08:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003b01c719f8$9310bd00$d8af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:43 AM Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites > On RGB, there is a debate about article by John Shuster, in the ACBL > district 9 Journal, describing a convention that assigns different > meanings to your bids, depending on whether or not you accept an > opponent's insufficient bid. Currently players like David Stevenson who > believe that such agreements are legal have a considerable advantage. > > I seem to remember Grattan Endicott insisting that, without specific > permission, you must not employ agreements that are geared to taking > advantage of irregularities by opponents. What is the WBF position? and > the position under local jurisdictions? > +=+ It may be that discussion has modified my opinion. What I believe currently is that there is no authorization in the laws for basing a call on an illegal call (see Law 16). The effect of the laws is obscure, even murky, when under Law 27 an insufficient bid is "treated as legal". This does not make it a legal call but it is treated as though it were. So how, I ask myself, does the statement in Law 16 cope with this? I suggest that, whether from John Shuster, David Stevenson, or from a member of the WBF Laws Committee, no assertion on the legality of the method carries authority. For the time being the solution rests with subordinate regulation. In drafting a new code of laws I argue that a clearer authority should be established for regulation of such agreements. As to the policy, I am opposed to exposure of players of lesser experience to such methods; I am neutral on its desirability in the upper echelons of the game. The WBF Systems Policy is silent on the matter; in WBF events the question reduces to the fundamental problem "do the laws authorize it?" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Dec 7 13:22:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <000401c719f3$200786e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Oh yes, there is! I can remember some 40 years ago when tournament > directors looked at players' hands and announced that he allowed or > prohibited the call made by a suspected violator of what is now Law > 16B2. That seemed to be the normal procedure Indeed (and it is still a legal procedure in some rubber bridge clubs). Then the laws changed. Now in UI cases (at duplicate) the only ruling is "Play on..call me back." Law21 and Law25 are different. The TD *must* rule on whether (and under what constraints) a change is permitted. My view is that the TD should investigate (away from the table if necessary) sufficiently that when he permits a call to be changed he has done so correctly. Your view is that the TD should make the player responsible for the decision and review that decision at the end. Neither practice is obviously required/forbidden by law. With regard to Law25a/b the official EBU position is that the TD should definitely establish under which law a change is being permitted *before* allowing the change (talking to the player away from the table if necessary). I'm not aware of similar guidance wrt L21 but I'm content to follow a similar principle. Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 7 15:20:16 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:20:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <003b01c719f8$9310bd00$d8af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com> <003b01c719f8$9310bd00$d8af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45782320.80108@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ It may be that discussion has modified my opinion. What I believe > currently is that there is no authorization in the laws for basing a call on > an illegal call (see Law 16). The effect of the laws is obscure, even > murky, when under Law 27 an insufficient bid is "treated as legal". This > does not make it a legal call but it is treated as though it were. So how, > I ask myself, does the statement in Law 16 cope with this? I suggest > that, whether from John Shuster, David Stevenson, or from a member > of the WBF Laws Committee, no assertion on the legality of the method > carries authority. For the time being the solution rests with subordinate > regulation. > In drafting a new code of laws I argue that a clearer authority should > be established for regulation of such agreements. As to the policy, I am > opposed to exposure of players of lesser experience to such methods; > I am neutral on its desirability in the upper echelons of the game. > The WBF Systems Policy is silent on the matter; in WBF events the > question reduces to the fundamental problem "do the laws authorize it?" [nige1] IMO, Bridge rules are too complex and lay themselves open to this kind of exploitation. Why do the laws enable a player to accept a bid out of turn or an insufficient bid? Why give options to a player, who is not declarer, as to how he may deal with an opponent's irregularity? It's this kind of unnecessary sophistication that permits a legal guru to gain advantage from agreements about regulations. To refine such laws in obscure WBF minutes or local commentaries like the EBU White Book makes a bad situation worse. It increases the advantage of the secretary bird over the ordinary player. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 7 16:07:53 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:07:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com> References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061207095329.02b6c830@pop.starpower.net> At 09:43 PM 12/6/06, Nigel wrote: >On RGB, there is a debate about article by John Shuster, in the ACBL >district 9 Journal, describing a convention that assigns different >meanings to your bids, depending on whether or not you accept an >opponent's insufficient bid. Currently players like David Stevenson who >believe that such agreements are legal have a considerable advantage. > >I seem to remember Grattan Endicott insisting that, without specific >permission, you must not employ agreements that are geared to taking >advantage of irregularities by opponents. What is the WBF position? As best I can tell, they don't seem to have one. >and >the position under local jurisdictions? The ACBL forbids any agreements whatsoever specific to actions after an opponent's irregularity. >IMO, anyway, the laws should be simplified to make such agreements more >difficult -- for instance: the option of accepting an insufficient bid, >should be removed from the law-book. I would strongly disagree, for two reasons: (1) It may be potentially advantageous to the NOS, which has the opportunity to exercise its creativity by choosing from an expanded set of available calls. This can lead to a variety of interesting possibilities, particularly where, as in the ACBL, specific agreements are not permitted, and one must go with "the seat of one's pants". I'd hate to see this fascinating, if rare, opportunity to exercise pure partnership bidding judgment be lost. (I should confess that I have a reputation for accepting insufficient bids far more often than most.) (2) The current law deals quite nicely with the case where the IB'er's LHO just takes a call over the IB without the TD having been called first for a ruling. If you make doing so illegal, you need a whole new way of coping with this not uncommon occurance. The result may be to introduce more complexity, with more "mind reading" required, than what Nigel's proposed change would eliminate in the cases where the action stops and the TD is called immediately. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 7 16:14:41 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:14:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <000401c719f3$200786e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c719f3$200786e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061207100846.02adcc10@pop.starpower.net> At 06:30 AM 12/7/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > > > In Law21 > > cases (as in L25a/b cases) there is an immediate decision > > needed. > >I just do not see any sensible reason why this is important in L21 >cases but >not in L16 cases. Because in L21 cases, the TD must decide immediately whether to permit a change of call per L21B1 (i.e. whether "it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent"). L16 offers no analogous possibility for "rolling back" the auction; the available remedies for infraction are limited to adjusting the obtained score after the fact. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Dec 7 16:58:10 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:58:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com> <003b01c719f8$9310bd00$d8af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001e01c71a18$7e76ca40$4101a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ***************************** > "Never laugh at live dragons." > 'The Hobbit' > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 2:43 AM > Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites > > >> On RGB, there is a debate about article by John Shuster, in the ACBL >> district 9 Journal, describing a convention that assigns different >> meanings to your bids, depending on whether or not you accept an >> opponent's insufficient bid. Currently players like David Stevenson who >> believe that such agreements are legal have a considerable advantage. >> >> I seem to remember Grattan Endicott insisting that, without specific >> permission, you must not employ agreements that are geared to taking >> advantage of irregularities by opponents. What is the WBF position? and >> the position under local jurisdictions? >> > +=+ It may be that discussion has modified my opinion. What I believe > currently is that there is no authorization in the laws for basing a call > on > an illegal call (see Law 16). The effect of the laws is obscure, even > murky, when under Law 27 an insufficient bid is "treated as legal". This > does not make it a legal call but it is treated as though it were. So how, > I ask myself, does the statement in Law 16 cope with this? I suggest > that, whether from John Shuster, David Stevenson, or from a member > of the WBF Laws Committee, no assertion on the legality of the method > carries authority. For the time being the solution rests with subordinate > regulation. > In drafting a new code of laws I argue that a clearer authority > should > be established for regulation of such agreements. As to the policy, I am > opposed to exposure of players of lesser experience to such methods; > I am neutral on its desirability in the upper echelons of the game. > The WBF Systems Policy is silent on the matter; in WBF events the > question reduces to the fundamental problem "do the laws authorize it?" > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am confused here - my usual state of affairs.. L16C gives the NOS the right to base its calls on withdrawn calls. What we are discussing here is L75A "...AGREEMENTS must arise from the calls...." Perhaps an example will make it clearer. W N E S 1H 2D X At this point N calls for the director and explains that 2D was a mispull. The director allows a change of call to 3D and the auction now goes W N E S 1H 3D P P 3S Now as I understand it (and I probably don't) L16C gives W the right to base his 3S call on East's withdrawn sputnik double. However L75A does not allow of any agreement that he has done so. So if E now passes they almost certainly have an illegal agreement. Have I got this right? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date: 07/12/2006 01:27 From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 7 21:11:04 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:11:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c71a3b$d3021470$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > Oh yes, there is! I can remember some 40 years ago when tournament > > directors looked at players' hands and announced that he allowed or > > prohibited the call made by a suspected violator of what is now Law > > 16B2. That seemed to be the normal procedure > > Indeed (and it is still a legal procedure in some rubber bridge clubs). > Then the laws changed. > > Now in UI cases (at duplicate) the only ruling is "Play on..call me > back." Law21 and Law25 are different. The TD *must* rule on whether > (and under what constraints) a change is permitted. My view is that the > TD should investigate (away from the table if necessary) sufficiently > that when he permits a call to be changed he has done so correctly. > Your view is that the TD should make the player responsible for the > decision and review that decision at the end. > Neither practice is obviously required/forbidden by law. > > With regard to Law25a/b the official EBU position is that the TD should > definitely establish under which law a change is being permitted *before* > allowing the change (talking to the player away from the table if > necessary). I'm not aware of similar guidance wrt L21 but I'm content > to follow a similar principle. When I have to rule either Law 25A or Law 25B, I follow the same principle of not giving away any indication on the offender's cards with my ruling. I ask all players at the table their impressions and opinions on whether the offender appeared to having changed his mind or just made a slip of the tongue (sorry slip of the hand), and then base my ruling on the responses I receive. So far this has worked for me. When I explain the reason for my questions the players have so far always come up with unanimous answers. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 7 21:19:10 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:19:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061207100846.02adcc10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01c71a3c$f4c80e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: 7. desember 2006 16:15 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 21B1 > > At 06:30 AM 12/7/06, Sven wrote: > > > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > > > > > In Law21 > > > cases (as in L25a/b cases) there is an immediate decision > > > needed. > > > >I just do not see any sensible reason why this is important in L21 > >cases but > >not in L16 cases. > > Because in L21 cases, the TD must decide immediately whether to permit > a change of call per L21B1 (i.e. whether "it is probable that he made > the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an > opponent"). L16 offers no analogous possibility for "rolling back" the > auction; the available remedies for infraction are limited to adjusting > the obtained score after the fact. And why do you think Law 16 is written this way? My point is that exactly the same reason for writing Law 16 this way is relevant also for Laws 21 and 25. And exactly the same procedure of postponing the decision to allow or reject a particular call under law 16 can be applied on the similar question under the other laws. We do not interfere during the auction or play if such interference is likely to disclose particulars about a hand to the other players but instead adjust afterwards if we find that such interference had really been in order. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 7 21:14:58 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:14:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061207095329.02b6c830@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c71a3c$a23d1320$31d8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularities > At 09:43 PM 12/6/06, Nigel wrote: > >> On RGB, there is a debate about article by John Shuster, > > in the ACBL district 9 Journal, describing a convention > > that assigns different meanings to your bids, depending on > > whether or not you accept an opponent's insufficient bid. > > Currently players like David Stevenson who believe that > > such agreements are legal have a considerable advantage. >> >>I seem to remember Grattan Endicott insisting that, without >>specific permission, you must not employ agreements that >>are geared to taking advantage of irregularities by opponents. >>What is the WBF position? > > As best I can tell, they don't seem to have one. > +=+ I responded in a posting to blml earlier today. I agree that there appears to be no statement in WBF General Conditions of Contest or the Systems Policy. This being so, the Laws of the Game determine the question - the Director will make a decision using his powers under Law 81C5. The EBL has no standing Conditions of Contest. For each tournament fresh regulations are prepared - the regulations for the last occasion are laid out and any updates are written in. For the August 2006 Teams Championships the regulations contained the following prohibition: " No prior agreement is permitted by which a varied meaning of a call or play applies only after a question asked, a reply given, or an irregularity." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ < >>and the position under local jurisdictions? > > The ACBL forbids any agreements whatsoever specific to > actions after an opponent's irregularity. > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 7 22:00:13 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:00:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <45782320.80108@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >Why do the laws enable a player to accept a bid out of >turn or an insufficient bid? Why give options to a >player, who is not declarer, as to how he may deal >with an opponent's irregularity? It's this kind of >unnecessary sophistication that permits a legal guru >to gain advantage from agreements about regulations. Richard Hills replies: Before the 1975 Lawbook, Nigel's desired lack of sophistication did exist. If a non-offending player decided to call the director, in some cases that player had fewer options than if that player had blithely bid on due to failing to notice the irregularity. But I submit that it was the pre-1975 situation which benefited the legal gurus who had memorised the Laws, since they knew when extra rights were gained by not summoning the director. Nowadays these are fundamental Laws -> Law 9B1(c): >>Summoning the Director does not cause a player to >>forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be >>entitled. Law 9B1(d): >>The fact that a player draws attention to an >>irregularity committed by his side does not affect >>the rights of the opponents. Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 7 23:11:34 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:11:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <000b01c71a3c$f4c80e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000b01c71a3c$f4c80e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Because in L21 cases, the TD must decide immediately whether to >> permit >> a change of call per L21B1 (i.e. whether "it is probable that he made >> the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an >> opponent"). L16 offers no analogous possibility for "rolling >> back" the >> auction; the available remedies for infraction are limited to >> adjusting >> the obtained score after the fact. > > And why do you think Law 16 is written this way? My point is that > exactly > the same reason for writing Law 16 this way is relevant also for > Laws 21 and > 25. And exactly the same procedure of postponing the decision to > allow or > reject a particular call under law 16 can be applied on the similar > question > under the other laws. > > We do not interfere during the auction or play if such interference is > likely to disclose particulars about a hand to the other players > but instead > adjust afterwards if we find that such interference had really been in > order. I'm sorry, Sven, but this doesn't make sense. In the Law 16 case, as Eric points out, there is no option for the director to change what has already happened in the auction. In Law 21 or 25 cases, there is such an option. One might even say in the latter cases there are circumstances where making or allowing such a change is *required* by the laws. To fail to find out whether the circumstances will permit a change of call seems a clear misapplication of the director's duty to rule in accordance with the laws. Put it another way: it seems clear to me that the intent of Laws 21 and 25 is to allow a player to change, under certain circumstances, a call he has already made, and for the auction to then proceed normally from the point of the change. There would then be no question of adjusting the score (absent "could have known" considerations). To fail to permit such lawful changes, and to then say "I'll look at it later and adjust the score if it looks like I should have allowed the change" is clearly, to me, director error. When a law gives the TD a way to handle a situation (allow a player to change his call if certain conditions apply) then the TD does best to follow that law. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 8 11:27:39 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:27:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com><003b01c719f8$9310bd00$d8af87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001e01c71a18$7e76ca40$4101a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000601c71ab4$38c46920$519b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barton" To: Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites > > I am confused here - my usual state of affairs.. > L16C gives the NOS the right to base its calls > on withdrawn calls. What we are discussing > here is L75A "...AGREEMENTS must arise > from the calls...." > > Perhaps an example will make it clearer. > W N E S > 1H 2D X > At this point N calls for the director and > explains that 2D was a mispull. > The director allows a change of call to 3D > and the auction now goes > W N E S > 1H 3D P P > 3S > > Now as I understand it (and I probably don't) > L16C gives W the right to base his 3S call on > East's withdrawn sputnik double. However > L75A does not allow of any agreement that he > has done so. So if E now passes they almost > certainly have an illegal agreement. > > Have I got this right? > +=+ I believe not. In 75A the words "of the current deal" are significantly different from "of the legal auction". The words in the Law include anything outside of the legal auction which is 'authorized' in the remainder of the laws. Your case is removed to a distance from the subject of insufficient bids. By which I intend that the one does not flow automatically into the other and inferences from discussion of the one need to be tested in their relevance to the other. In your example the Director will no doubt be suspicious that North, hearing the double, wishes to pre-empt the auction with his change of bid. He is no longer able to change it under 25B, so it is interesting to see whether the Director will allow that 2D was 'inadvertent', and whether indeed there is judged to have been 'pause for thought'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Fri Dec 8 12:14:46 2006 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (ciska zuur) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 References: <000b01c71a3c$f4c80e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <02fa01c71aba$11eccf80$0201a8c0@laptop> Sorry, I'm somewhat puzzled. I agree that it would be ideal to judge immediately, in the same way as it is 25A or 25B. However My problem with a direct decision is that an arbiter in a few seconds has to decide whether or not a change of bid is allowed. Sometimes it really depends on the biddingsystem, the level of players etc. etc. To find out (also or even specially for a good arbiter) you need to see the cards, to consult the System card, to judge ets, and it is all info for the (other) players: Suppose, you say: NO, not allowed: partner and opps will achieve some info. In 25A versus B it is much more clear. Of course there is alos a gray area, but not so large. Ciska Zuur ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 21B1 > > On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> Because in L21 cases, the TD must decide immediately whether to permit >>> a change of call per L21B1 (i.e. whether "it is probable that he made >>> the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an >>> opponent"). L16 offers no analogous possibility for "rolling back" the >>> auction; the available remedies for infraction are limited to adjusting >>> the obtained score after the fact. >> >> And why do you think Law 16 is written this way? My point is that >> exactly >> the same reason for writing Law 16 this way is relevant also for Laws 21 >> and >> 25. And exactly the same procedure of postponing the decision to allow >> or >> reject a particular call under law 16 can be applied on the similar >> question >> under the other laws. >> >> We do not interfere during the auction or play if such interference is >> likely to disclose particulars about a hand to the other players but >> instead >> adjust afterwards if we find that such interference had really been in >> order. > > I'm sorry, Sven, but this doesn't make sense. In the Law 16 case, as Eric > points out, there is no option for the director to change what has > already happened in the auction. In Law 21 or 25 cases, there is such an > option. One might even say in the latter cases there are circumstances > where making or allowing such a change is *required* by the laws. To fail > to find out whether the circumstances will permit a change of call seems > a clear misapplication of the director's duty to rule in accordance with > the laws. > > Put it another way: it seems clear to me that the intent of Laws 21 and > 25 is to allow a player to change, under certain circumstances, a call he > has already made, and for the auction to then proceed normally from the > point of the change. There would then be no question of adjusting the > score (absent "could have known" considerations). To fail to permit such > lawful changes, and to then say "I'll look at it later and adjust the > score if it looks like I should have allowed the change" is clearly, to > me, director error. > > When a law gives the TD a way to handle a situation (allow a player to > change his call if certain conditions apply) then the TD does best to > follow that law. > > > From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 8 16:17:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 15:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000201c71a3c$a23d1320$31d8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I responded in a posting to blml earlier today. I agree that > there appears to be no statement in WBF General Conditions > of Contest or the Systems Policy. There is such a statement "WBF Systems Policy is the complete set of regulations concerning the use of systems and conventions in WBF championships." The WBF then goes on to categorise three types of events: 1. Anything 2. Anything but HUM 3. Anything but HUM or Brown sticker. Generally agreements of this type will fall into the "anything" category (and thus be permitted) but an agreement to play a "pass condoning a POOT" as showing values would be classified as a HUM. Other jurisdictions approach system regulation from the opposite direction by explicitly allowing a range of conventional meanings. In such jurisdictions the exact wording of each permission would determine the legality of the convention over an opposing irregularity. > The EBL has no standing Conditions of Contest. For each > tournament fresh regulations are prepared - the regulations for > the last occasion are laid out and any updates are written in. > For the August 2006 Teams Championships the regulations > contained the following prohibition: > > " No prior agreement is permitted by which a varied meaning > of a call or play applies only after a question asked, a reply > given, or an irregularity." I'm curious as to under what law the regulation was written - if under law40D the word conventional can be assumed between "prior" and "agreement" but its omission is likely to cause confusion. I doubt many players were aware of the additional system restrictions included only in the CoC and would suggest that the statement on the EBL website "The EBL Systems Policy, Alerting Policy and Psyching Bidding Guidelines are identical to the WBF's" would provide an extremely strong defence for any pair which fell foul of a ruling under the regulation. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 8 17:42:35 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:42:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <02fa01c71aba$11eccf80$0201a8c0@laptop> References: <000b01c71a3c$f4c80e60$6400a8c0@WINXP> <02fa01c71aba$11eccf80$0201a8c0@laptop> Message-ID: <9984CA8B-A813-4AF7-814A-E94A7C654385@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:14 AM, ciska zuur wrote: > My problem with a direct decision is that an arbiter in a few > seconds has to decide whether or not a change of bid is allowed. Assuming, of course, that partner has not yet called. :-) > Sometimes it really depends on the biddingsystem, the level of > players etc. etc. To find out (also or even specially for a good > arbiter) you need to see the cards, to consult the System card, to > judge ets, and it is all info for the (other) players: Suppose, you > say: NO, not allowed: partner and opps will achieve some info. "would you, given correct information before you made your last call, have made a different call at that turn? Note that I am not asking if you wish *now* to change your call." If he answers yes, allow the change. wtp? I would rather do that and adjust the score later if his assertion turns out not to be believable than to not even consider the question Law 21B requires me to consider. From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 8 20:05:21 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 20:05:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <9984CA8B-A813-4AF7-814A-E94A7C654385@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c71afb$cee9c9d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ......... > Assuming, of course, that partner has not yet called. :-) > > > Sometimes it really depends on the biddingsystem, the level of > > players etc. etc. To find out (also or even specially for a good > > arbiter) you need to see the cards, to consult the System card, to > > judge ets, and it is all info for the (other) players: Suppose, you > > say: NO, not allowed: partner and opps will achieve some info. > > "would you, given correct information before you made your last call, > have made a different call at that turn? Note that I am not asking if > you wish *now* to change your call." If he answers yes, allow the > change. wtp? > > I would rather do that and adjust the score later if his assertion > turns out not to be believable than to not even consider the question > Law 21B requires me to consider. A very good approach! You could add that his statement might be challenged and judged upon after the play of the board is completed. This is in fact the precise approach I take, except that I use slightly different words. And to round up my comments on L21 and L25: I just do not understand those who argue that because the Director is not explicitly forbidden in laws 21 and 25 to look at the cards before making an intermediate ruling (as he is in Law 16) it is quite OK for him to do just that in L21 and L25 situations. IMO they have not understood the reasoning behind the wording of Law 16. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Dec 9 01:01:37 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:01:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061128155812.0280f020@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>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 >>premise that 2+2=5. He proceeded to do it in the following way : >> >>"From 2+2=5, subtract 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." Richard Hills: While the Roman Catholic Church has a hierarchical system of governance, with the Pope holding supreme delegated authority as the infallible Vicar (steward or regent) of Christ, Jewish legend has a different approach to religious governance. Gerard W. Hughes, God in All Things, pages 196-197: >There is a long tradition in Judaism that the world is upheld at >any given time by the presence of thirty-six Just People, known as >the Lamed-wah. Through no fault of their own, the Lamed-wah bear >the burden of the sin and guilt of the world; a burden which leads >them from one disaster to another. They are not necessarily aware >of their destiny as Lamed-wah, 'The Just', but they endure their >intolerable burdens while retaining their trust in God, their love >for themselves and for their neighbour. According to the legend, >the world would die of its own corruption without the incorruptible >fidelity of 'The Just'." Richard Hills: In my opinion, the Bridge Laws surrogates for the Lamed-wah would be (in alphabetical order) Grattan Endicott, Ton Kooijman and William Schoder for their efforts in shouldering the intolerable burdens of rewriting what is a somewhat corrupt 1997 Lawbook. William Schoder, "Beware of the leopard thread", 23 December 2004: >>>Ah come'on now, Mr. Hills. Are you trying to make bridge a game >>>to be enjoyed all over again? Pity the poor analysts of the Laws >>>-- you're not even looking for hidden and esoteric meanings! Why, >>>if such were to continue, we'd even expect to be educating the >>>novices, enforcing the laws for all, and there would be little >>>difference in knowing that the rotation of bidding and play go to >>>the left, and that the LHO of the declarer makes the opening lead, >>>and that trumps are a good thing to have, and that the suits rank >>>in a certain order, what takes a trick, etc., etc., and expecting >>>the players to know what game they are playing. We might even >>>include requiring people to know the voluminous and intricate >>>rules (Laws) - which are a hell-of-a-lot shorter and more concise >>>than cricket, football (American or otherwise), baseball, chess, >>>and poker. And then, we might again find the joy, fun, >>>gratification, and satisfaction of playing this game with a >>>modicum or more of preparation and increased proper procedure and >>>ethics at the tables. I most emphatically do NOT subscribe to the >>>philosophy that the players don't need to know the Laws. >>> >>>What a radical thought, I must be heading for my dotage. >>> >>>Kojak Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Dec 9 12:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:09 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 In-Reply-To: <000201c71afb$cee9c9d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > *From:* "Sven Pran" > *To:* "blml" > *Date:* Fri, 8 Dec 2006 20:05:21 +0100 > > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > ......... > > Assuming, of course, that partner has not yet called. :-) > > > > > Sometimes it really depends on the biddingsystem, the level of > > > players etc. etc. To find out (also or even specially for a good > > > arbiter) you need to see the cards, to consult the System card, to > > > judge ets, and it is all info for the (other) players: Suppose, > > > you > > > say: NO, not allowed: partner and opps will achieve some info. > > > > "would you, given correct information before you made your last > > call, > > have made a different call at that turn? Note that I am not asking > > if > > you wish *now* to change your call." If he answers yes, allow the > > change. wtp? > > > > I would rather do that and adjust the score later if his assertion > > turns out not to be believable than to not even consider the > > question > > Law 21B requires me to consider. > > A very good approach! You could add that his statement might be > challenged > and judged upon after the play of the board is completed. > > This is in fact the precise approach I take, except that I use > slightly > different words. > > And to round up my comments on L21 and L25: I just do not understand > those who argue that because the Director is not explicitly > forbidden in laws 21 and 25 to look at the cards before making an > intermediate ruling (as he is in Law 16) Looking isn't forbidden in L16 cases - it's simply unnecessary because the only thing the TD has to say is "Play on" > it is quite OK for him to do just that in L21 and L25 situations. L25 cases require the TD to rule under what conditions a call may be withdrawn/changed. There simply isn't an option to rule "Ok, you may change your call under L25a but I'll decide later if it should have been 25b". If one permits a change under 25a and later realises one should have used L25b it's TD error. The process for determining which law applies is not defined but custom and practice in EBU land including talking to the player away from the table (if necessary). IMO L21 is similar to L25 - the TD (and the TD alone) has responsibility for determining (at the time of his ruling) whether a change of call is permitted (this fits with the tone of Law10). Tim From sarahamos at onetel.net Sat Dec 9 13:33:27 2006 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:33:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000701c71b8e$3a608ae0$7a82f257@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>>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 >>>premise that 2+2=5. He proceeded to do it in the following way : >>> >>>"From 2+2=5, subtract 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." > > Richard Hills: > > While the Roman Catholic Church has a hierarchical system of > governance, with the Pope holding supreme delegated authority as > the infallible Vicar (steward or regent) of Christ, Jewish legend > has a different approach to religious governance. > > Gerard W. Hughes, God in All Things, pages 196-197: > >>There is a long tradition in Judaism that the world is upheld at >>any given time by the presence of thirty-six Just People, known as >>the Lamed-wah. Through no fault of their own, the Lamed-wah bear >>the burden of the sin and guilt of the world; a burden which leads >>them from one disaster to another. They are not necessarily aware >>of their destiny as Lamed-wah, 'The Just', but they endure their >>intolerable burdens while retaining their trust in God, their love >>for themselves and for their neighbour. According to the legend, >>the world would die of its own corruption without the incorruptible >>fidelity of 'The Just'." > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the Bridge Laws surrogates for the Lamed-wah would be > (in alphabetical order) Grattan Endicott, Ton Kooijman and William > Schoder for their efforts in shouldering the intolerable burdens of > rewriting what is a somewhat corrupt 1997 Lawbook. I can understand that you might think the law book corrupted but not how it could be corrupt Mike From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Dec 9 14:02:02 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:02:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c71b8e$3a608ae0$7a82f257@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>rewriting what is a somewhat corrupt 1997 Lawbook. Mike Amos: >I can understand that you might think the law book >corrupted but not how it could be corrupt Richard Hills: A classic example of an interpretation of the Lawbook corrupting, and an absolute interpretation of the Lawbook corrupting absolutely is Law 73C. Despite repeated "beware of the leopard" advice on how Law 73C should be interpreted, luminaries such as Jeff Rubens and Ron Klinger instead choose to interpret Law 73C as its words are written. That is, Rubens and Klinger logically argue that after unauthorised information you "should" make the call that you would have normally made, rather than make the call that the Director "should" subsequently rule is legal. In my opinion, any interpretation of Law (as, for example, the De Wael School) which advocates taking an arguably illegal action has a corrosively corrupt effect on the game of bridge. The good news is that the 2008 Lawbook will have had all traces of the 1997 Lawbook's corruption totally expunged. Only 387 days to wait. :-) Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Dec 9 18:08:36 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:08:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061207095329.02b6c830@pop.starpower.net> References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061207095329.02b6c830@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> Eric Landau wrote: > I would strongly disagree [that the laws be simplified to make such > agreements more difficult -- for instance: the option of accepting an > insufficient bid, should be removed from the law-book], > for two reasons: > (1) It may be potentially advantageous to the NOS, which has the > opportunity to exercise its creativity by choosing from an expanded set > of available calls. This can lead to a variety of interesting > possibilities, particularly where, as in the ACBL, specific agreements > are not permitted, and one must go with "the seat of one's pants". I'd > hate to see this fascinating, if rare, opportunity to exercise pure > partnership bidding judgment be lost. (I should confess that I have a > reputation for accepting insufficient bids far more often than most.) > > (2) The current law deals quite nicely with the case where the IB'er's > LHO just takes a call over the IB without the TD having been called > first for a ruling. If you make doing so illegal, you need a whole new > way of coping with this not uncommon occurance. The result may be to > introduce more complexity, with more "mind reading" required, than what > Nigel's proposed change would eliminate in the cases where the action > stops and the TD is called immediately.] > The protagonists of conventions that depend on options available over opponent's infractions, are highly resistant to laws and regulations banning such agreements. For example, we are told that an obscure ACBL regulation bans such agreements but the original article appeared in an ACBL district magazine. Also, some might argue that you don't always need an *agreement* to take advantage of an opponent's infraction. Suppose, for example: Your normal agreement is to play take-out doubles over pre-ements. LHO opens 3H, out of turn. The director tells partner his options and he elects to accept the opening bid and double. IMO, that is likely to be penalties. Not by convention or agreement. Just *general bridge knowledge*. I assume that this is one of Eric Landau's "interesting possibilities". IMO, the only simple legal counter to such agreements is to remove the options; but I agree with Eric: such a solution creates its own problems, perhaps including more director calls. It is important that the *new edition of the laws* makes it crystal clear whether such conventions are legal. Otherwise, *secretary birds* who currently use them will continue to enjoy an advantage over other players who haven't considered the possibilities or regard them as illegal or unsporting. From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 9 18:52:10 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 18:52:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel ............. > Also, some might argue that you don't always need an *agreement* to take > advantage of an opponent's infraction. Suppose, for example: Your normal > agreement is to play take-out doubles over pre-ements. LHO opens 3H, out > of turn. The director tells partner his options and he elects to accept > the opening bid and double. IMO, that is likely to be penalties. Not > by convention or agreement. Just *general bridge knowledge*. I assume > that this is one of Eric Landau's "interesting possibilities". The laws are already crystal clear here: Once partner has accepted this opening bid out of turn it is to be treated as if it were legal; that is as if LHO was in fact the dealer. So your agreements on doubles over pre-empts obviously apply, and if you have any other understanding with your partner on the double in this case that will be a concealed partnership understanding. Sven > IMO, the only simple legal counter to such agreements is to remove the > options; but I agree with Eric: such a solution creates its own > problems, perhaps including more director calls. > > It is important that the *new edition of the laws* makes it crystal > clear whether such conventions are legal. Otherwise, *secretary birds* > who currently use them will continue to enjoy an advantage over other > players who haven't considered the possibilities or regard them as > illegal or unsporting. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 10 00:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 23:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > The laws are already crystal clear here: Once partner has accepted > this opening bid out of turn it is to be treated as if it were > legal; that is as if LHO was in fact the dealer. So your agreements > on doubles over pre-empts obviously apply, and if you have any other > understanding with your partner on the double in this case that will > be a concealed partnership understanding. I'm sorry Sven but are you completely on drugs here? I'll alert the double as penalties (in a jurisdiction where such doubles are alertable). There's nothing "concealed" about the understanding! Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 10 00:56:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 23:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > It is important that the *new edition of the laws* makes it crystal > clear whether such conventions are legal. Bog off Nigel. The laws are crystal clear that convention regulation is a matter for the SO not the laws. And a penalty double of 3H isn't conventional and isn't (and shouldn't be) subject to regulation anyway. Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Dec 10 01:53:56 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:53:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <457B5AA4.7060405@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] > The laws are already crystal clear here: Once partner has accepted this > opening bid out of turn it is to be treated as if it were legal; that > is as > if LHO was in fact the dealer. So your agreements on doubles over > pre-empts > obviously apply, and if you have any other understanding with your > partner > on the double in this case that will be a concealed partnership > understanding. > [nige1] I fear that Sven underestimates the rationalizing skills of those with agreements contingent on irregularities. Were I devil's advocate on behalf of such a secretary bird, I'd argue that law 29A below doesn't force me to treat the call by a player who opens out of turn as if he made the same call as dealer. Both auctions may be *legal* but they're different. I've discussed only what to do over a *normal* 3H opener. I've no understanding after 3H bid out of turn and then legally accepted. An analogy: I told an opponent that we play negative doubles at all levels. He queried "even if I overcall 7S?" I confessed that I'd unilaterally abandon our agreement in that unexpected event. Nevertheless. Sven's argument reveals another simple legal change that would outlaw some agreements based on irregularities: If you condone an insufficient call (or call out of turn) then the irregularity becomes *unauthorised information* to you. Unfortunately, such an interpretation isn't implicit in current law. Anyway it's hard for a naive player to abide by a law that insists that he ignores his most recent memory. IMO, *removing LHO's options* is a simpler more effective solution. An third simple solution would be to clearly legalize such agreements, informing players now and in the new edition of the laws. [TFLB 29A] Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 10 02:03:15 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:03:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20061207095329.02b6c830@pop.starpower.net> <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000a01c71bf7$aa590020$45c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularities >> > It is important that the *new edition of the laws* > makes it crystal clear whether such conventions > are legal. Otherwise, *secretary birds* who currently > use them will continue to enjoy an advantage over > other players who haven't considered the possibilities > or regard them as illegal or unsporting. > +=+ Having followed this topic with close attention to its detail I realize that the long trail has led at least to the identification of D.W.Stevenson as a 'Secretary Bird'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 10 02:07:57 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:07:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000b01c71bf7$ab450dd0$45c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > The good news is that the 2008 Lawbook will have had > all traces of the 1997 Lawbook's corruption totally > expunged. Only 387 days to wait. > > :-) > > ;-) > +=+ "It will, I believe, be generally agreed that eradication of corruption from any society is not just a difficult task: it is without dispute, an impossible objective." Obafemi Awolowo. +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 10 03:03:42 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 21:03:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <457B5AA4.7060405@NTLworld.com> References: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> <457B5AA4.7060405@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <13F1B257-0D50-4535-B0FD-122D5A01704F@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 9, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Nigel wrote: > I fear that Sven underestimates the rationalizing skills of those with > agreements contingent on irregularities. This statement implies that there *are* people with such agreements. There may or may not be, but I have seen no evidence that there are, and certainly no evidence that there are enough such people as to make a concern for the lawmakers. That being the case, it seems to me this is a tempest in a teapot. Surely there are more interesting legal questions we can address, aren't there? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 10 05:24:14 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:24:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <13F1B257-0D50-4535-B0FD-122D5A01704F@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Surely there are more interesting legal questions we can >address, aren't there? Richard Hills: An oldie but a goodie is attached. Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for * * * Letters of Marque : Heidi Bond's blog of life as a weird Michigan law student December 09, 2003 Sauron: Offer and acceptance "As a small token of your friendship Sauron asks this," he said: "that you should find this thief," such was his word, "and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will. Find it, and three rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old shall be returned to you, and the realm of Moria shall be yours for ever. Find only news of the thief, whether he still lives and where, and you shall have great reward and lasting friendship from the Lord. Refuse, and things will not seem so well. Do you refuse?" J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, "The Council of Elrond" It seems to me that's really two, maybe three separate offers. The first seems to be unambiguously an offer for a unilateral contract (to find the supposedly piddling ring for three of the Dwarf rings of power plus the estate of Moria), to be completed by performance. D?in wouldn't want to bind himself to produce a ring; it's too risky. This seems like the straight-forward reward scenario envisioned as a prototypical offer for a unilateral contract. A few comments on material facts: You might say that Sauron should have disclosed the Balrog living in the deeps of Moria. But the Dwarves had ancient records of Moria which probably mention this, and Sauron is old enough to imagine that the Dwarves knew. It seems silly to require disclosure of a fact which, though admittedly material, is known to both parties, even though they never actually mention it to each other. The same sort of reasoning applies to the fact that the Dwarven rings are actually tainted (although Dwarves tend to resist his power a little better than men). The second (offer to exchange news of the whereabouts of the ring and owner in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship) also seems like a unilateral contract, for the same reason; it's not clear that the Dwarf-lords would be able to get information about the ring, and so again, it looks like a standard reward scenario. But then we get to the last statement. "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." There are (at least) two ways I can think of to view this. One possibility is that Sauron is not actually proposing unilateral contracts at all. After all, a reasonable interpretation of his offers would be that they were unilateral, but we're talking about Dark Lord Sauron who really wants to enslave all the free peoples. He might not contemplate reasonable contracts. In fact, given the ease with which agents of the Dark exact damages from lackeys who fail them, it seems possible that in Mordor, where the shadows lie, all contracts are bilateral, no matter how ridiculous it seems to contemplate such a thing. So maybe what he's saying is that if they fail to produce the ring or any information, he'll exact expectation damages. But this reading doesn't really make sense given the express language of the offer. The Messenger from Mordor isn't claiming that if they fail to deliver the ring they'll suffer expectation damages unto the fourth generation. He's saying "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." The "Refuse" comment modifies the offer. The law doesn't contemplate expectation damages if you don't accept an offer, although Sauron might. So it seems to me that the proper reading of this is that there are three bilateral contracts. You give me the One Ring in exchange for these three tainted Dwarven rings and Moria (bilateral contract) if you find the Ring (condition precedent). You give me information about the One Ring in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship (bilateral contract) if you find such information (condition precedent). You promise to make a good faith effort to find the One Ring or information about it, or I march my Wargs and goblin hordes to your doorstep and make mincemeat of you all (bilateral contract; if the Dwarves agreed to it, but wanted out they could argue duress). Now suppose D?in agrees to this, and finds the Ring. Could Sauron enforce this contract to get the Ring? If the contract were valid, this might be one of those things where specific performance would be allowed. The item is unique. And damages are nearly impossible to calculate. If they produce the Ring, Sauron rules over all the peoples of Middle Earth and orcs overrun everything. Sauron gets his body back. He can blink his eyes. He can use eye drops. If your eye had been wreathed in flame for millennia, how would you value that? Damages are clearly uncertain. And enforcing the contract wouldn't require that the court do much by way of babysitting. So it seems like a straight-forward contract for a unique item, where specific performance may be contemplated. On the other hand, there's a little problem with the Ring. See, Sauron can use it to enslave everybody. And courts don't like specific performance in cases which smack of personal servitude. The problem is, though, this is a case of first impression. Normally they eschew specific performance in the case of, say, employment contracts, where the proximate result of the contract is that someone is forced to do work they don't want to. We?ve never had a case of supernatural exchange, where you?re forced to give over something that would enslave all the Free Peoples of the earth. Some courts might understandably balk at this result. But others would say that what Sauron does with the ring to enslave people really doesn't matter. After all, if this was a standard employment contract, and all you could do was collect money damages, you might very well use the money to employ someone else. The Dwarves would argue that this is disanalogous in the extreme, since you'd be employing someone who freely chose to be there. The Ring, they'd say, would rob Men, Hobbits, and Elves of their free will. Ultimately, I don't think Sauron should win this one; even the most conservative judges would balk at the idea that the right of contract is so sacred that we should throw away everyone's collective ability to make free choices. If anything should be void on grounds of public policy, this contract's it. But we can't underestimate the corrupting power of the Ring. It wants to go back to him, my preciousss. Luckily there are a few other issues that can be raised in defense of the Dwarves right to toss the Ring (if found) in Mount Doom rather than handing it over to a powerful, evil corrupt Maia. For one, there's a bit of a misunderstanding. See, Sauron labels this Ring as "the least of Rings" but really he can use it to enslave everyone. The Dwarves might well say "What? We thought you meant that plastic decoder thing that Isildur stole from your breakfast cereal - Elrond's had that as a memento of the War of the Ring forever! Damn. But we had no contract for this Ring." Unfortunately, it seems that there was evidence that the Dark Lord made it clear exactly which Ring he meant. It's not listed here, but it's pretty clear that Sauron knew that the Dwarves knew that he was talking about Bilbo's ring. So the Dwarves knew which ring he meant, and Sauron knew which ring he meant, and if his description was possibly not as descriptive as we might like, there was clear evidence of intent. There was no misunderstanding about which Ring the parties intended. The Dwarves might claim that Sauron's description was fraudulent. After all, he did sort of describe it as "a trifle" when in fact it was the most powerful Ring ever. Sauron might try to get around this by saying, "Look, it was me. I'm pure evil. What were you expecting, fair and open dealing?" But it seems kind of bizarre to claim a contract wasn't fraudulent because you're known to be a fraud. Yes, the Dwarves shouldn't have trusted his statements. But just because it would be foolish for them to believe Sauron's valuation of the Ring doesn't mean that he's allowed to misrepresent. So Sauron's best argument was that he wasn't fraudulent at all. True, he undervalued the Ring. Significantly. But this is probably the standard sort of puff that appears in the bargaining process; each party downplays the worth of the item he wants, to try and get as good a price as possible. The Dwarves' best argument is that the contract is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The One Ring itself is of incalculable value. The rings that the Dwarf- sires possessed of old are almost certainly worth more than $5,000,000 a piece, let alone $5,000. Plus Moria is a vast mining tract, so the promise to hand it over can't be conveyed by an oral contract. It's hard to imagine that a disembodied all-seeing eye wreathed in flame can produce a signed writing, and besides, all I see are oral conversations in hissed whispers, maybe a palant?r conversation or two - nothing, really, that would satisfy the memorandum required by the Statute. I was going to go on and do the bit where the D?in answers and discuss whether it's acceptance (it's not) or refusal (it's not) or a counter-offer (it's not) but quite frankly, what I did above was plenty exhausting (and admittedly strained in parts, but hey, my preciouss, what did you expect? The contracts case, it hurts us, yess it does). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 10 05:38:02 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:38:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c71bf7$ab450dd0$45c8403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >+=+ "It will, I believe, be generally agreed that eradication >of corruption from any society is not just a difficult task: it >is without dispute, an impossible objective." > Obafemi Awolowo. +=+ Disputed by Stephen R. Covey, The 8th Habit, pages 25-26: "I've worked with organizations around the world for over forty years and have been a student of the findings of the great minds who have studied organizations. Most of the great cultural shifts - ones that have built great organizations that sustain long-term growth, prosperity and contribution to the world - started with the choice of one person. Sometimes that one person was the formal leader - the CEO or president. Very often it started with someone else - a professional, a line manager, someone's assistant. Regardless of their position, these people first changed themselves from the inside out. Their character, competence, initiative and positive energy - in short, their moral authority - inspired and lifted others. They possessed an anchored sense of identity, discovered their strengths and talents, and used them to meet needs and produce results. People noticed. They were given more responsibility. They magnified the new responsibility and again produced results. More and more people sat up and noticed. Top people wanted to learn of their ideas - how they accomplished so much. The culture was drawn to their vision and to them. "People like this don't get sucked into or pulled down for long by all the negative, demoralizing, insulting forces in the organization. And interestingly, their organizations are no better than most organizations. To some degree, they're all a mess. These people just realize that they can't wait for their boss or the organization to change. They become an island of excellence in a sea of mediocrity. And it's contagious." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Dec 10 10:42:02 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:42:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP><457B5AA4.7060405@NTLworld.com> <13F1B257-0D50-4535-B0FD-122D5A01704F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00c601c71c42$613c75c0$6ebd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites > > On Dec 9, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Nigel wrote: > > > I fear that Sven underestimates the rationalizing skills > > of those with agreements contingent on irregularities. > > This statement implies that there *are* people with > such agreements. There may or may not be, but I have > seen no evidence that there are, and certainly no > evidence that there are enough such people as to > make a concern for the lawmakers. That being the case, > it seems to me this is a tempest in a teapot. Surely there > are more interesting legal questions we can address, > aren't there? > +=+ Be not impatient, Ed. This subject has been aired in various places for some time now. The European Championship regulations have introduced a prohibition. There may well be players, stratospherically located, who have incorporated such methods - with appropriate and necessary disclosure on convention cards. The English Bridge Union was contemplating a possible restriction of them - I am unsure whether this made progress. I do think each SO is entitled to consider whether such agreements are desirable in some/all competitions, and by what method they may be regulated if it is its wish to avoid the infection of the masses. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Dec 10 15:22:28 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:22:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000a01c71bf7$aa590020$45c8403e@Mildred> References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20061207095329.02b6c830@pop.starpower.net> <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> <000a01c71bf7$aa590020$45c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <457C1824.9000103@NTLworld.com> Sorry Grattan I sent this to you twice when I meant to send it to BLML :( [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Having followed this topic with close attention to its detail I > realize that the long trail has led at least to the identification of > D.W.Stevenson as a 'Secretary Bird'. > [nige1] Well David is one of many posters, here and on RGB, who agree with the author of the original article that such agreements are legal and useful. I'm unsure whether any individual correspondent is brave enough to admit that he, himself, employs them; but the publicity ensures that they will become increasingly popular in any jurisdiction under which they are not explicitly banned. From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Dec 10 16:30:00 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:30:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <457C1824.9000103@NTLworld.com> References: <45777FEC.6000603@NTLworld.com><6.1.1.1.0.20061207095329.02b6c830@pop.starpower.net> <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> <000a01c71bf7$aa590020$45c8403e@Mildred> <457C1824.9000103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2h8on2l7nas94ddn9uu50ck8u7jf8kc679@meadows.pair.com> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:22:28 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >[nige1] >Well David is one of many posters, here and on RGB, who agree with the >author of the original article that such agreements are legal and >useful. I'm unsure whether any individual correspondent is brave enough >to admit that he, himself, employs them; but the publicity ensures that >they will become increasingly popular in any jurisdiction under which >they are not explicitly banned. > I have a vague recollection of this having been raised before, but I can't remember the resolution, if any. Take an example of a Precision pair using the various asking bids, and an opponent decides to interfere, but does so with an insufficient bid. For example, say the bidding goes (opponents silent) 1C (16+) 1H (positive in hearts) 2H (asks about responder's hearts) Responder actually has a 6+ card suit with two top honours, and would normally bid 3H (5 steps) to show that, but now RHO makes an insufficient overcall of 1S. Assuming that the Precision pair are playing pass = 1st step, double = 2nd step over interference, are they allowed to accept the insufficient bid and bid 2D as the 5th step to show the 6+ and two honours? Furthermore, are they allowed to have agreed in advance that they will ALWAYS accept an insufficient bid under these circumstances, and just take advantage of the extra bidding room? I suppose there's also one final question. If this continuation of steps from the insufficient bid is allowed, are you also able to add in steps which involve not accepting the insufficient bid, e.g. on the auction 1C-(p)-1H-(p)-2H-(1S) pass = 1st step double = 2 steps 1NT = 3 steps 2C = 4 steps 2D = 5 steps 2H = 6 steps 2S = 7 steps reject the IB, then pass if corrected to 2S = 8 steps reject the IB, then double if corrected to 2S = 9 steps Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 10 17:44:31 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:44:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c71b8e$3a608ae0$7a82f257@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: It has been said that every comedian would like to play Hamlet. I, therefore, have created a 12-page Word document which interweaves quotes of the day with my personal reflections on the Gospel according to Mark. If any blmler would like a copy of this document, please send me a private email. Season's greetings Richard James Hills, Mentor National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 10 19:56:52 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:56:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <2h8on2l7nas94ddn9uu50ck8u7jf8kc679@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <000a01c71c8c$f4de5880$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brian Meadows ............ > I have a vague recollection of this having been raised before, > but I can't remember the resolution, if any. Take an example of a > Precision pair using the various asking bids, and an opponent > decides to interfere, but does so with an insufficient bid. For > example, say the bidding goes (opponents silent) > > 1C (16+) 1H (positive in hearts) > 2H (asks about responder's hearts) > > Responder actually has a 6+ card suit with two top honours, and > would normally bid 3H (5 steps) to show that, but now RHO makes > an insufficient overcall of 1S. > > Assuming that the Precision pair are playing pass = 1st step, > double = 2nd step over interference, are they allowed to accept > the insufficient bid and bid 2D as the 5th step to show the 6+ > and two honours? > > Furthermore, are they allowed to have agreed in advance that they > will ALWAYS accept an insufficient bid under these circumstances, > and just take advantage of the extra bidding room? > > I suppose there's also one final question. If this continuation > of steps from the insufficient bid is allowed, are you also able > to add in steps which involve not accepting the insufficient bid, > e.g. on the auction 1C-(p)-1H-(p)-2H-(1S) > > pass = 1st step > double = 2 steps > 1NT = 3 steps > 2C = 4 steps > 2D = 5 steps > 2H = 6 steps > 2S = 7 steps > reject the IB, then pass if corrected to 2S = 8 steps > reject the IB, then double if corrected to 2S = 9 steps I am in doubt about the last part of this "agreement" but as I have told here on BLML before I had a similar case in the Norwegian premier league some 25 years ago: I "gave" Helge Vinje the opportunity to have an additional 5 steps available after a jump bid to Culbertson's 4NT asking bid by his partner Arild Torp and RHO intervening with 4D. And I am still convinced that my ruling was correct so that it was only a question of their ability to utilize these additional 5 bidding steps they received so quite unexpectedly. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 10 22:07:52 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:07:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c71bf7$aa590020$45c8403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Having followed this topic with close attention to >its detail I realize that the long trail has led at least to >the identification of D.W.Stevenson as a 'Secretary >Bird'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: While one of my bridge nicknames is "The Tasmanian Rueful Rabbit". My favourite bridge nickname is that bestowed upon me by the late Keith McNeil (director of "Bidding Forum" in Australian Bridge for two decades): "The Ubiquitous One". Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary: >>ubiquity, n. >> >>The gift or power of being in all places at one time, but >>not in all places at all times, which is omnipresence, an >>attribute of God and the luminiferous ether only. This >>important distinction between ubiquity and omnipresence >>was not clear to the mediaeval Church and there was much >>bloodshed about it. Certain Lutherans, who affirmed the >>presence everywhere of Christ's body were known as >>Ubiquitarians. For this error they were doubtless damned, >>for Christ's body is present only in the eucharist, though >>that sacrament may be performed in more than one place >>simultaneously. In recent times ubiquity has not always >>been understood -- not even by Sir Boyle Roche, for >>example, who held that a man cannot be in two places at >>once unless he is a bird. Season's greetings Richard James Hills, Mentor National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Sat Dec 9 12:43:58 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:43:58 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Law_21B1?= References: Message-ID: <457AA17E.000001.70493@CERAP-MATSH1> Tim said : Looking isn't forbidden in L16 cases - it's simply unnecessary because the only thing the TD has to say is "Play on" # I see this as a classic dilemma, in the original sense : either the TD has no use of the knowledge of the player's hand - and why should one look at it then ? ; or one has, but only at the cost of transmitting heavy UI : the cure is worse than the disease. Not forbidden, that's true, but strongly discouraged in every TD course. And it happened that I answered "I'm not allowed to do it", rather than "I'd rather not do it", if only to avoid players insisting that I do. Tim said : IMO L21 is similar to L25 - the TD (and the TD alone) has responsibility for determining (at the time of his ruling) whether a change of call is permitted (this fits with the tone of Law10). # It's barely possible that the AC get items of information that weren't available to the TD on the spur of the moment (from the pair's posted agreements, for example), whose effect is to give them good reason to overrule the TD's opinion about which part of the law applies. Best regards Alain Tim _______________________________________________ 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/20061209/45854141/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/20061209/45854141/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/20061209/45854141/attachment-0001.gif From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 11 11:25:12 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:25:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog Probst): >You are seriously evil :) Richard Hills: Hi, John (and Nigel): Apropos of the attachment below, I remind you that the catchphrase of the movie The Prestige was the question: "Are you watching closely?" [attachment automatically deleted by blml server] Season's greetings Richard James Hills, Mentor National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for P.S. An obvious magic trick in the attachment above is that I have inverted the main text and the footnotes. The really interesting stuff is in the footnotes, while the main text contains merely supplementary material. I used the traditional magician's trick - misdirection - by injecting a very large amount of wit and humour into the main text. There are a very large number of subtle or interlocking or nested magic tricks in the attachment above. As a Christmas puzzle, see how many you can find. I will email a full explanation on Boxing Day. Merry Overlithe Elrond From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 11 15:51:32 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:51:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:52 PM 12/9/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Nigel >............. > > Also, some might argue that you don't always need an *agreement* to > take > > advantage of an opponent's infraction. Suppose, for example: Your > normal > > agreement is to play take-out doubles over pre-ements. LHO opens > 3H, out > > of turn. The director tells partner his options and he elects to > accept > > the opening bid and double. IMO, that is likely to be penalties. Not > > by convention or agreement. Just *general bridge knowledge*. I assume > > that this is one of Eric Landau's "interesting possibilities". > >The laws are already crystal clear here: Once partner has accepted this >opening bid out of turn it is to be treated as if it were legal; that >is as >if LHO was in fact the dealer. So your agreements on doubles over >pre-empts >obviously apply, and if you have any other understanding with your partner >on the double in this case that will be a concealed partnership >understanding. That misses Nigel's point entirely. Sven says that "your agreements... obviously apply", but Nigel is talking about cases where common, ordinary bridge logic tells you that your agreements obviously cannot apply and still make sense, without the need for "any other understanding". So you do what makes sense in the context of the hand, "not by convention or agreement[;] just *general bridge knowledge*", and hope your partner's application of "general bridge knowledge" more or less parallels your own. You cannot have a "concealed partnership agreement" without having a partnership agreement. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 11 16:57:29 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:57:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061211163920.0212b280@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:51 11/12/2006 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > Sven says that "your agreements... obviously apply", but Nigel is > talking about cases where common, ordinary bridge logic tells you that > your agreements obviously cannot >apply and still make sense, without the need for "any other >understanding". So you do what makes sense in the context of the hand, >"not by convention or agreement[;] just *general bridge knowledge*", >and hope your partner's application of "general bridge knowledge" more >or less parallels your own. You cannot have a "concealed partnership >agreement" without having a partnership agreement. An example I can offer is the case where you open a weak 2S and LHO overcalls 2H. Some play that a double of 2S - (3H) is a general game try, kind of cue-bid. But if partner doubles 2H, "common bridge knowledge" tells us he has a good, albeit misfitting hand, wants to nail them, and can't double the substitute 3H bid (to say this double is for penalties because of the insufficient bid *would* be a change of agreements) - not to mention the fact that they probably won't dare bid it. Even if you don't play penalty doubles of such overcalls, even if you don't play any penalty doubles, this is one. No need for an understanding. There remains to determine whether "meta-agreements" , general rules, would be disallowed here. After the bidding goes : 3D (4C) , your 4S bid would be natural, but the bidding goes : 3D (3C), so you jump at the opportunity to bid a FNJ 3S, because all below-game competitive new suits over preempts are FNJs. Allowed or not ? It isn't an agreement about a post-infraction situation, but it is a specific agreement nevertheless. Allowed or not ? Best regards Alain From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 11 18:33:40 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:33:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Law_21B1?= In-Reply-To: <457AA17E.000001.70493@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <457AA17E.000001.70493@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <930D67F9-E31C-468F-975B-2C52564CEB81@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 9, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > It's barely possible that the AC get items of information that > weren't available to the TD on the spur of the moment (from the > pair's posted agreements, for example), whose effect is to give > them good reason to overrule the TD's opinion about which part of > the law applies. Bad example, IMO, but be that as it may, as far as I'm concerned what an AC may or may not do later has nothing to do with the proper performance of the TD's duties. I don't believe a TD should even consider it when making a ruling. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 11 18:39:19 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:39:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061211163920.0212b280@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> <457AED94.7080307@NTLworld.com> <000101c71bba$c0a19370$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20061211163920.0212b280@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 11, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > It isn't an agreement about a post-infraction situation, but it is a > specific agreement nevertheless. Allowed or not ? If it's not, then one must toss *all* pertinent agreements, and call on the basis of "general bridge knowledge" alone, uncolored by any consideration of agreements at all. I don't think *anyone* can consistently do that. Nor do I think that the laws should require it. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 11 21:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > So you do what makes sense in the context > of the hand, "not by convention or agreement[;] just *general bridge > knowledge*", and hope your partner's application of "general bridge > knowledge" more or less parallels your own. That can be true but I think the reason many of us have actual agreements in these situations is because we have encountered similar infractions and one us has said "You would have taken a double as penalty?", or indeed we doubled on bridge logic and discovered that partner was indeed on the same wavelength. I have no doubt that such agreements are disclosable. There may be a small number of pairs who have actually trawled through their entire system and made specific adaptations for insufficient bids etc. but I think those are in a tiny minority compared to those who have had relevant 5 second conversations after an auction like 1S-(1H)-Xneg to the effect that awaiting a correction to 2H and doubling would now be for penalties. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 11 22:30:05 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:30:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211161145.02bf6630@pop.starpower.net> At 03:10 PM 12/11/06, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > So you do what makes sense in the context > > of the hand, "not by convention or agreement[;] just *general bridge > > knowledge*", and hope your partner's application of "general bridge > > knowledge" more or less parallels your own. > >That can be true but I think the reason many of us have actual >agreements in these situations is because we have encountered similar >infractions and one us has said "You would have taken a double as >penalty?", or indeed we doubled on bridge logic and discovered that >partner was indeed on the same wavelength. I have no doubt that such >agreements are disclosable. > >There may be a small number of pairs who have actually trawled through >their entire system and made specific adaptations for insufficient bids >etc. but I think those are in a tiny minority compared to those who have >had relevant 5 second conversations after an auction like 1S-(1H)-Xneg >to the effect that awaiting a correction to 2H and doubling would now be >for penalties. Everything Tim writes makes sense. It also makes total and obvious nonsense of any prohibition against having any such agreements. Such "agreements" as those Tim describe are disclosable, regardless of whether they are implicit or explicit. But implicit agreements are inevitable, as soon as you've encountered the situation for the first time -- having "doubled on bridge logic and discovered that partner was indeed on the same wavelength" *creates* an implicit agreement, which requires disclosure if the situation arises again in the future. Once such an agreement has been created, it is impossible to "uncreate" it, regardless of what one's SO has to say about its legal status. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 11 22:58:36 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:58:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c71d6f$82420a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >............. > > > Also, some might argue that you don't always need an *agreement* to > > take > > > advantage of an opponent's infraction. Suppose, for example: Your > > normal > > > agreement is to play take-out doubles over pre-ements. LHO opens > > 3H, out > > > of turn. The director tells partner his options and he elects to > > accept > > > the opening bid and double. IMO, that is likely to be penalties. Not > > > by convention or agreement. Just *general bridge knowledge*. I assume > > > that this is one of Eric Landau's "interesting possibilities". > > > >The laws are already crystal clear here: Once partner has accepted this > >opening bid out of turn it is to be treated as if it were legal; that > >is as > >if LHO was in fact the dealer. So your agreements on doubles over > >pre-empts > >obviously apply, and if you have any other understanding with your > partner > >on the double in this case that will be a concealed partnership > >understanding. > > That misses Nigel's point entirely. Sven says that "your agreements... > obviously apply", but Nigel is talking about cases where common, > ordinary bridge logic tells you that your agreements obviously cannot > apply and still make sense, without the need for "any other > understanding". So you do what makes sense in the context of the hand, > "not by convention or agreement[;] just *general bridge knowledge*", > and hope your partner's application of "general bridge knowledge" more > or less parallels your own. You cannot have a "concealed partnership > agreement" without having a partnership agreement. Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, understandable language why an opening bid out of turn that has been made legal (accepted by the offender's LHO) is to be treated any different from the same opening bid in the same position except that this time the bid is made in turn? There was no question of insufficient bid in this case so please avoid referring to the rules on IB. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Dec 12 00:29:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000001c71d6f$82420a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, > understandable language why an opening bid out of turn that has been > made legal (accepted by the offender's LHO) is to be treated any > different from the same opening bid in the same position except that > this time the bid is made in turn? Because dealer has not yet called. The dealer and (vulnerability) remain as on the board even if another player makes the first "treated as legal" bid. Tim > > There was no question of insufficient bid in this case so please avoid > referring to the rules on IB. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 12 01:41:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:41:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c71d86$44bf2830$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > > Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, > > understandable language why an opening bid out of turn that has been > > made legal (accepted by the offender's LHO) is to be treated any > > different from the same opening bid in the same position except that > > this time the bid is made in turn? > > Because dealer has not yet called. The dealer and (vulnerability) > remain as on the board even if another player makes the first "treated > as legal" bid. And exactly what makes an opening bid by someone who mistakenly thinks he is the dealer any different from the same opening bid by the same player in the same position when he really is the dealer? Unless you establish a real difference between these two opening bids your declared agreements on your subsequent calls will necessarily apply equally in both situations. Sven From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 12 03:31:21 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:31:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200612061600.kB6G0NNu016049@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612061600.kB6G0NNu016049@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <457E1479.8010006@cfa.harvard.edu> >>I'm curious how any kind of cheat can "take advantage" by exposing two >>cards at a single turn. > From: "John Probst" > Once the Probst cheat has infracted he knows he has to tell the TD he was > intending to play the honour, Why would the TD ask him what he was intending? As you indicate, the player's original intent is unknowable without mind reading. Fortunately, the Laws say there's no reason to find out what it was. I don't see what the problem is. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Dec 12 03:50:11 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:50:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <200612071518.kB7FIgOR019732@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612071518.kB7FIgOR019732@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <457E18E3.7030500@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > What I believe > currently is that there is no authorization in the laws for basing a call on > an illegal call (see Law 16). The effect of the laws is obscure, even > murky, when under Law 27 an insufficient bid is "treated as legal". This > does not make it a legal call but it is treated as though it were. I confess I find it hard to see the distinction between "legal" and "treated as legal," at least after the fact. Of course the initial IB was illegal at the time it was made, but that's doesn't seem relevant once it's accepted. > For the time being the solution rests with subordinate > regulation. Let us suppose a given SO has the following convention rule: "In response to an opening bid, doubles, redoubles, and jump bids may have any meaning. No other conventions are authorized." There is no mention of insufficient bids. Which of the following agreements is legal within such an SO: 1. 1S-1C(accepted)-x (=penalty) 2. 1S-1C(accepted)-x (=takeout) 3. 1S-1C corrected to 2C-x (=takeout, this pair's agreement over 1S-2C) 4. 1S-1C corrected to 2C-x (=penalty, not the agreement over 1S-2C) > The European > Championship regulations have introduced a prohibition. Do you have the text handy? Which if any of the above agreements would be prohibited? > In drafting a new code of laws I argue that a clearer authority should > be established for regulation of such agreements. Clarity is to be admired. I hope practicality won't be neglected. > As to the policy, I am > opposed to exposure of players of lesser experience to such methods; What methods are you opposed to? And why are they a problem? From: Nigel > Suppose, for example: Your normal > agreement is to play take-out doubles over pre-ements. LHO opens 3H, out > of turn. The director tells partner his options and he elects to accept > the opening bid and double. IMO, that is likely to be penalties. Not > by convention or agreement. Just *general bridge knowledge*. Suppose you find yourself partnering someone who reads BLML, and this auction occurs. Do you believe you have an agreement? Suppose it comes up for the second time in the same partnership. What then? If you believe such agreements are undesirable or perhaps illegal, what do you expect partnerships who have experienced the situation to do? From: "Sven Pran" > if you have any other understanding with your partner > on the double in this case that will be a concealed partnership > understanding. I don't think anyone is suggesting that one's understandings should be concealed. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 12 08:35:34 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:35:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, >>understandable language why an opening bid out of turn that >>has been made legal (accepted by the offender's LHO) is to >>be treated any different from the same opening bid in the >>same position except that this time the bid is made in >>turn? Tim West-Meads: >Because dealer has not yet called. The dealer and >(vulnerability) remain as on the board even if another >player makes the first "treated as legal" bid. Richard Hills: The deranged theory of General Semantics, which was popularised by the equally deranged science-fiction writer A.E. van Vogt, is, in fact, deranged. But... Even a deranged theory may accidentally incorporate a valid axiom. And the deranged theory of General Semantics does have a solitary valid axiom, to wit -> "A difference which makes no difference is no difference." Ergo, Tim West-Meads' posting is deranged, but Sven Pran's posting is ranged. :-) Season's greetings Richard James Hills, Mentor National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 12 08:40:29 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:40:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 21B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <930D67F9-E31C-468F-975B-2C52564CEB81@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >...what an AC may or may not do later has nothing to do with >the proper performance of the TD's duties. I don't believe a >TD should even consider it when making a ruling. WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in a judgemental matter, having consulted appropriately, that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. The desire is that the Director shall not rule automatically in favour of the non-offending side when he is in no doubt that a true judgement requires him to rule otherwise." Season's greetings Richard James Hills, Mentor National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Dec 12 09:09:28 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:09:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000101c71d86$44bf2830$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c71d86$44bf2830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <457E63B8.9040707@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : >>On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >>Sven wrote: >> >>>Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, >>>understandable language why an opening bid out of turn that has been >>>made legal (accepted by the offender's LHO) is to be treated any >>>different from the same opening bid in the same position except that >>>this time the bid is made in turn? >> >>Because dealer has not yet called. The dealer and (vulnerability) >>remain as on the board even if another player makes the first "treated >>as legal" bid. > > > And exactly what makes an opening bid by someone who mistakenly thinks he is > the dealer any different from the same opening bid by the same player in the > same position when he really is the dealer? > > Unless you establish a real difference between these two opening bids your > declared agreements on your subsequent calls will necessarily apply equally > in both situations. following an opening bid in turn rho has a choice of n possible attitudes: n legal calls. following the same opening bid out of turn, he has n+1 possible attitudes, with the additionnal option not to accept the bid out of turn. the difference makes that his optimal strategy to assign some meaning to different calls may be different. jpr > > Sven > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 12 10:56:33 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:56:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212104747.02124410@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:10 11/12/2006 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote: >That can be true but I think the reason many of us have actual >agreements in these situations is because we have encountered similar >infractions and one us has said "You would have taken a double as >penalty?", or indeed we doubled on bridge logic and discovered that >partner was indeed on the same wavelength. I have no doubt that such >agreements are disclosable. Isn't there written somewhere that bids based on bridge logic are *not* subject to disclosure ? >There may be a small number of pairs who have actually trawled through >their entire system and made specific adaptations for insufficient bids >etc. but I think those are in a tiny minority compared to those who have >had relevant 5 second conversations after an auction like 1S-(1H)-Xneg >to the effect that awaiting a correction to 2H and doubling would now be >for penalties. We recently had a conversation to the point that (2NT) pass (1NT) 2C would be the same as (1NT) 2C, which is conventional (RHO being a 'smart' guy who's able to induce us into passing 1NT when he holds a yarborough ... bidding after LHO had shown 20+ and RHO 15+ would be a bad idea). Apparently, this is allowed in our country, but aside from this the point was : we were on the same wavelength because of our (unwritten) meta-agreements (when placed in an unusual overcalling situation, do as you would have done if RHO's bid was an opening bid with similar meaning). This isn't, IMOBO, a 'specific agreement'. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 12 11:07:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:07:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <457E63B8.9040707@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000201c71dd5$66a9c4b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > Sven Pran a ?crit : > >>On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > >>Sven wrote: > >> > >>>Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, > >>>understandable language why an opening bid out of turn that has been > >>>made legal (accepted by the offender's LHO) is to be treated any > >>>different from the same opening bid in the same position except that > >>>this time the bid is made in turn? > >> > >>Because dealer has not yet called. The dealer and (vulnerability) > >>remain as on the board even if another player makes the first "treated > >>as legal" bid. > > > > > > And exactly what makes an opening bid by someone who mistakenly thinks > he is > > the dealer any different from the same opening bid by the same player in > the > > same position when he really is the dealer? > > > > Unless you establish a real difference between these two opening bids > your > > declared agreements on your subsequent calls will necessarily apply > equally > > in both situations. > > following an opening bid in turn rho has a choice of n possible > attitudes: n legal calls. following the same opening bid out of turn, he > has n+1 possible attitudes, with the additionnal option not to accept > the bid out of turn. the difference makes that his optimal strategy to > assign some meaning to different calls may be different. True, but without "prior announcement" (Law 40A) such impact of accepting or not accepting an opening call out of turn on the partnership agreements is illegal. There is no way "general bridge knowledge and experience" can be claimed as foundation for applying different agreements after a particular opening call depending on whether that opening call originally was in turn or out of turn and accepted. There are of course OBOOT situations where a player gets the opportunity to make a call which he otherwise would not be able to make and some "general" inference to be drawn from the fact that he chose this opportunity, but the inference from such choices cannot be extended to change the meaning of his call from what has been previously announced. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Dec 12 11:35:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000101c71d86$44bf2830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > And exactly what makes an opening bid by someone who mistakenly > thinks he is the dealer any different from the same opening bid by > the same player in the same position when he really is the dealer? Nothing, insofar as I am aware, it wouldn't be legal to vary the meaning of a pre-emptive BOOT since that would be predicated on BOOTing deliberately. > Unless you establish a real difference between these two opening bids > your declared agreements on your subsequent calls will necessarily > apply equally in both situations. Why? If the pre-empt is in turn opps have legitimately stolen my bidding space. If the pre-empt is OOT I have the *option* of retrieving that bidding space (for myself or my partner). If I decline that option there are inferences available to partner. Those inferences may be part of a disclosable understanding (if we have previously encountered/discussed the situation) or may be general bridge principles (if we have not). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Dec 12 11:35:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212104747.02124410@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > > Isn't there written somewhere that bids based on bridge logic are > *not* subject to disclosure ? The end of L75C says "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." However this is subordinate to the beginning of L75C "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..". Thus once a piece of general K&E becomes a matter of PA/PE it crosses the line to disclosable. Tim From herman at hdw.be Tue Dec 12 12:23:49 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:23:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061212104747.02124410@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20061212104747.02124410@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <457E9145.4020503@hdw.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Isn't there written somewhere that bids based on bridge logic are *not* > subject to disclosure ? > No there is not. There is written that you are not at fault for not answering things which may be described as bridge logic, but that is not the same as saying that they are not disclosable. Example: If I play against you, and I tell you my 2D contains a weak two in a major, then I have told you enough. But if I play against a beginner, I must say "six cards in hearts or spades, below an opening". That does not equate to saying that I should not disclose to you, only that you cannot complain to the director for my incomplete explanation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 12 14:07:55 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:07:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Loss from conformity - was Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00e201c71dee$acdfd280$35c087d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > General Semantics +=+ The history books may record that General Semantics was a World War I officer who executed his orders from GHQ in London with scrupulous fidelity to the language in which they were set. Whether it will be recorded also that casualties within his command were significantly above the average is not certain. +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Dec 12 14:17:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000201c71dd5$66a9c4b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > True, but without "prior announcement" (Law 40A) such impact of > accepting or not accepting an opening call out of turn on the > partnership agreements is illegal. L40A isn't relevant - in the sense that if we only ever apply Law40A it would be illegal to respond 2H to 1N showing spades if one had a partnership understanding that it showed spades. If one reads Law40A with the bracketed clause removed "A player may make any call or play, without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." It is relatively easy to see that no permission is granted for any call based on a partnership understanding. We use L40B (or at least the common interpretation thereof) "It is legal to make a call or play based on a partnership understanding providing an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning or his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. The SO generally dictates which sequences are required to be on the CC and how it should be completed. The EBU CC doesn't have a section for "meaning of doubles after OOT opposing pre-empts". The SO establishes principles for alerting (a penalty double of a pre-empt is alertable in the EBU for example). Additional info is disclosed in response to questions under L75C. In general terms the TD might ask a question such as "Is this particular agreement sufficiently unusual that it should be noted on the CC despite there being no specific requirement, AND, had it been so disclosed might opps have bid differently." In cases of an infraction we are going to assume (for these purposes) that the infraction was accidental and could in no way have been influenced by the NOS agreements. Tim From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 12 15:20:06 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:20:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c71df8$9feb2070$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ......... > L40A isn't relevant - in the sense that if we only ever apply Law40A it > would be illegal to respond 2H to 1N showing spades if one had a > partnership understanding that it showed spades. > > If one reads Law40A with the bracketed clause removed "A player may make > any call or play, without prior announcement, provided that such call or > play is not based on a partnership understanding." It is relatively > easy to see that no permission is granted for any call based on a > partnership understanding. When the Devil reads the Bible ..... Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Dec 12 16:34:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:34 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000901c71df8$9feb2070$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > When the Devil reads the Bible ..... He reads the same words as everybody else. I think it was David Burn who pointed out (a long time ago) that the laws didn't explicitly allow calls based on partnership understanding. Interpretation allows "Calls based on a PU where there has been prior announcement" (L40A, seldom applied since few SOs require prior announcements) and "Calls..properly disclosed as per SO regulation" (L40b and covering CCs, alerts, question answering etc). Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 12 17:50:49 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:50:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05DB87BF-6DDE-4C26-A845-830C548C2B67@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Sven wrote: >> >> Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, >> understandable language why an opening bid out of turn that has been >> made legal (accepted by the offender's LHO) is to be treated any >> different from the same opening bid in the same position except that >> this time the bid is made in turn? > > Because dealer has not yet called. The dealer and (vulnerability) > remain as on the board even if another player makes the first "treated > as legal" bid. Sorry, Tim, but this is not clear and understandable to me. Can you elucidate? From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 12 10:38:38 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:38:38 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= References: <457E63B8.9040707@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <457E789D.000001.96809@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- Jean-Pierre said (answering Sven) : following an opening bid in turn rho has a choice of n possible attitudes: n legal calls. following the same opening bid out of turn, he has n+1 possible attitudes, with the additionnal option not to accept the bid out of turn. the difference makes that his optimal strategy to assign some meaning to different calls may be different. AG : There are other elements here, that could militate in favour of a change in strategies. Those who believe in varying style (do not react twice to the same situation in the same way, if only to keep them guessing), or warning principles (double a player once, that'll teach them, then cool down, because they probably did, too) will see new considerations appear when the same player opens on two deals in a row. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061212/ca2bac68/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/20061212/ca2bac68/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/20061212/ca2bac68/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 12 16:32:58 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:32:58 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= References: <000901c71df8$9feb2070$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <457ECBA8.00000D.96809@CERAP-MATSH1> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads .......... > L40A isn't relevant - in the sense that if we only ever apply Law40A it > would be illegal to respond 2H to 1N showing spades if one had a > partnership understanding that it showed spades. > > If one reads Law40A with the bracketed clause removed "A player may make > any call or play, without prior announcement, provided that such call or > play is not based on a partnership understanding." It is relatively > easy to see that no permission is granted for any call based on a > partnership understanding. This is a classical sophism, an error in using elementary logic. Just because they took trouble to say "any call is allowed if not based on partnership understanding", it doesn't follow that "no call is allowed if based on partnership understanding", but merely that "in other cases, i.e. when based on partnership understanding, it is not automatically allowed : it is possible that some / any / all calls might be disallowed". And of course that's how we handle it : some understandings are indeed disallowed by several authorities. Possibly "all" in some tournaments (individuals). Regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061212/93ab12f6/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/20061212/93ab12f6/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/20061212/93ab12f6/attachment-0001.gif From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 12 18:04:00 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:04:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D7EA771-5104-4F18-AC21-6956FE963FD1@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:35 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Thus once a piece of general K&E becomes a matter of PA/PE it crosses > the line to disclosable. Perhaps it does. Should it? When something is derivable from general knowledge, one expects that opponents will be able to figure it out as well as our side can. I fail to see how partnership experience, or even partnership agreement changes that. Or are we in the politically correct mode of "assisting" players who refuse to think for themselves? :-( From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Dec 12 18:07:01 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:07:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <05DB87BF-6DDE-4C26-A845-830C548C2B67@rochester.rr.com> References: <05DB87BF-6DDE-4C26-A845-830C548C2B67@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 11, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: >>Because dealer has not yet called. The dealer and (vulnerability) >>remain as on the board even if another player makes the first "treated >>as legal" bid. > > Sorry, Tim, but this is not clear and understandable to me. Can you > elucidate? The player has enough authorized information to show a different auction. Dlr W N E S 1H 1S can be a different auction than Dlr W N E S 1H 1S (The former auction can potentially say the 1S overcaller does not have a hand better described by a 1S opening bid.) I too am baffled why players are not allowed to use this information. -Todd From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 12 19:07:59 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:07:59 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net> Message-ID: <457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- The player has enough authorized information to show a different auction. Dlr W N E S 1H 1S can be a different auction than Dlr W N E S 1H 1S (The former auction can potentially say the 1S overcaller does not have a hand better described by a 1S opening bid.) I too am baffled why players are not allowed to use this information. AG : They are ! This isn't conventional, but mere bridge logic. The fact you allowed the OOOT means you had reasons for doing so, and what else could it be ? Of course, opponents will know, too. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061212/ef8050ba/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/20061212/ef8050ba/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/20061212/ef8050ba/attachment-0001.gif From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Dec 12 19:54:34 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:54:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= In-Reply-To: <457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net> <457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : They are ! This isn't conventional, but mere bridge logic. The fact you allowed the OOOT means you had reasons for doing so, and what else could it be ? Of course, opponents will know, too. It could be something more exotic by partnership agreement, if that were allowed. -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 12 23:20:40 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:20:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000001c71d6f$82420a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c71d6f$82420a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061212164708.02d4feb0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:58 PM 12/11/06, Sven wrote: >On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > That misses Nigel's point entirely. Sven says that "your agreements... > > obviously apply", but Nigel is talking about cases where common, > > ordinary bridge logic tells you that your agreements obviously cannot > > apply and still make sense, without the need for "any other > > understanding". So you do what makes sense in the context of the hand, > > "not by convention or agreement[;] just *general bridge knowledge*", > > and hope your partner's application of "general bridge knowledge" more > > or less parallels your own. You cannot have a "concealed partnership > > agreement" without having a partnership agreement. > >Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, understandable >language why an opening bid out of turn that has been made legal (accepted >by the offender's LHO) is to be treated any different from the same >opening >bid in the same position except that this time the bid is made in turn? Short answer: Because an opening bid out of turn that has been made legal *is* different from the same opening bid in turn; to pretend that it isn't is to ignore reality. If my LHO opens 1C in turn, my 1S overcall covers a wide range of hands. If my LHO opens 1C out of turn, I can choose to either accept it and overcall 1S or refuse it and open 1S. Common sense, a.k.a. "general bridge knowledge and experience", dictates that I will attempt to bifurcate the hands on which I might call 1S into those with which I will overcall and those with which I will open (perhaps, for example, choosing the overcall on a hand that meets the minimum strength agreement for an overcall but not for an opening bid). My partner will assume, based on his own common sense, that there is a latent message in my choice. Absent an agreement about the criterion I am using, my partner will have to guess what that message is. But it makes no sense to mandate that he pretend otherwise, which could force him to make a totally illogical call. A clearer example: If I'm the dealer and my RHO opens 3H, I can accept it and overcall 3S, or I can reject it and open 1S (or 2S). I will select the former only if I'm comfortable bidding my spades at the three-level. I don't need an agreement for partner to figure that out. Surely he's entitled to use the information, which derives from pure logic (no relevant agreement) and patently legal actions on my part (no UI). And -- to return to the original topic of the thread -- regardless of what he guesses (about my choice) or what he does, we will thereafter have an implicit agreement about such situations perforce, unless he never sees my hand. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 13 02:41:52 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:41:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <0D7EA771-5104-4F18-AC21-6956FE963FD1@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c71e5a$eb95ee30$2dab403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites > > > When something is derivable from general knowledge, > one expects that opponents will be able to figure it out > as well as our side can. I fail to see how partnership > experience, or even partnership agreement changes > that. Or are we in the politically correct mode of > "assisting" players who refuse to think for themselves? > :-( > +=+ It is quite uncertain what is 'general' knowledge. The Director is left to make the judgement.whether a piece of knowledge is really generally known or not. I think he has to say 'no' more often than 'yes'. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 13 03:02:52 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:02:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net> <457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Profit from irregularites > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> AG : They are ! This isn't conventional, but mere >> bridge logic. The fact you allowed the OOOT means >> you had reasons for doing so, and what else could it >> be ? Of course, opponents will know, too. > > It could be something more exotic by partnership > agreement, if that were allowed. > > -Todd > +=+ But what is a lawful basis for departing from the meanings inscribed on the convention card? To be lawful would it not require, at the very least, a declaration of method on the CC? Otherwise partner may diagnose but the tools available to the partnership are apparently restricted to those pre-announced. Is that not so? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ methods From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Dec 13 03:35:28 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:35:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061212164708.02d4feb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c71d6f$82420a90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20061212164708.02d4feb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <457F66F0.2050008@NTLworld.com> > [Eric Landau] > Short answer: Because an opening bid out of turn that has been made > legal *is* different from the same opening bid in turn; to pretend that > it isn't is to ignore reality. > > If my LHO opens 1C in turn, my 1S overcall covers a wide range of > hands. If my LHO opens 1C out of turn, I can choose to either accept > it and overcall 1S or refuse it and open 1S. Common sense, a.k.a. > "general bridge knowledge and experience", dictates that I will attempt > to bifurcate the hands on which I might call 1S into those with which I > will overcall and those with which I will open (perhaps, for example, > choosing the overcall on a hand that meets the minimum strength > agreement for an overcall but not for an opening bid). My partner will > assume, based on his own common sense, that there is a latent message > in my choice. Absent an agreement about the criterion I am using, my > partner will have to guess what that message is. But it makes no sense > to mandate that he pretend otherwise, which could force him to make a > totally illogical call. > > A clearer example: If I'm the dealer and my RHO opens 3H, I can accept > it and overcall 3S, or I can reject it and open 1S (or 2S). I will > select the former only if I'm comfortable bidding my spades at the > three-level. I don't need an agreement for partner to figure that > out. Surely he's entitled to use the information, which derives from > pure logic (no relevant agreement) and patently legal actions on my > part (no UI). > > And -- to return to the original topic of the thread -- regardless of > what he guesses (about my choice) or what he does, we will thereafter > have an implicit agreement about such situations perforce, unless he > never sees my hand. > [Nige1] QED. Surely Eric Landau's argument is conclusive. And even if such agreements are (or become) illegal. they seem hard to prevent, practically. IMO, such agreements are bad for the game because you need a detailed knowledge of the law to fully exploit all such opportunities. Bridge is moving away from "Auction Whist" towards a cross between "Cheat" and "Diplomacy". Each new complex sophisticated regulation or law opens up more differing interpretations and exploits that accelerate that trend. Grist to the director's mill but poor fare for players. IMO the rules need to be *simplified* as well as *clarified* to reduce the scope for controversy. It's the best way to preserve the essential enjoyable nature of the game. For example, removing options (when an opponent makes an insufficient call or call out of turn or whatever) could help. (This would create other problems but with the application of common sense, they could be handled more mechanically). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 13 04:19:50 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:19:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >It has been said that every comedian would like to play Hamlet. >I, therefore, have created a 12-page Word document which >interweaves quotes of the day with my personal reflections on >the Gospel according to Mark. > >If any blmler would like a copy of this document, please send >me a private email. A 25-page expanded VHS boxed set trilogy, covering Mark, Luke and Acts is now available on request as a zipped Word doc. Season's greetings Richard James Hills, Mentor National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for From herman at hdw.be Wed Dec 13 09:39:38 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:39:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= In-Reply-To: <000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net> <457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net> <000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <457FBC4A.8070900@hdw.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Hear my words carefully. > Some are spoken not by me, > but by a man in my position." > ~ Norman McCaig. > ===================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:54 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Profit from irregularites > > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> AG : They are ! This isn't conventional, but mere >>> bridge logic. The fact you allowed the OOOT means >>> you had reasons for doing so, and what else could it >>> be ? Of course, opponents will know, too. >> It could be something more exotic by partnership >> agreement, if that were allowed. >> >> -Todd >> > +=+ But what is a lawful basis for departing from the > meanings inscribed on the convention card? To be > lawful would it not require, at the very least, a declaration > of method on the CC? Otherwise partner may diagnose > but the tools available to the partnership are apparently > restricted to those pre-announced. Is that not so? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > methods > The problem with that argument, Grattan, is that if you are going to disallow such mentions on the CC, the players will not put them there. Thereafter, whenever a pair seem to have an understanding, the fact that this understanding was not mentioned on the CC will not mean anything, and the TD will sometimes assume that the agreement was there, even if it wasn't on the CC. Compare it to the L18/L19 business. Whenever a player opens below this range, the TD assumes it's by agreement and no CC can convince him otherwise. (Which IMO is not a bad thing). The conclusion is that it is unwise to prohibit agreements concerning the acceptation of illegal bids. Illegal bids will happen, people will accept them, and the agreements that are made cannot be unmade. The conclusion is that whenever a pair have encountered an insufficient bid, they are no longer allowed to play together. Board one of the first match against Italy in the European championship will then see an OBOOT at both tables. Why not accept that pairs who have studied their methods to the point of including insufficient bids have some advantage and let them keep it? As to the suggestion of disallowing the acceptance altogether: how are you going to distinguish between a clever player who accepts in order to use the bidding space and the stupid one who accepts because he hasn't noticed the irregularity. Are you going to punish the small infraction more than the big one. I for sure don't always check who's dealer if my RHO opens the bidding. I am looking at my cards at that time, and try to decide what to do within a reasonable time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Dec 13 09:25:45 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:25:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c71d6f$82420a90$6400a8c0@WINXP><6.1.1.1.0.20061212164708.02d4feb0@pop.starpower.net> <457F66F0.2050008@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000401c71e92$d9b14380$8caa87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ Irregularites is irregular irregularities? +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Dec 13 11:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Réf._:_Re:__Profit_from_irregularites In-Reply-To: <000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ But what is a lawful basis for departing from the > meanings inscribed on the convention card? Convention card requirements are an SO matter. In most jurisdictions there is no requirement that the meaning of every call in every sequence be on the convention card (probably on the grounds that a 700 page CC would be impractical). Typically the SO decides what things require pre-disclosure (and designs a CC to reflect that). Often there is a general space along the lines of "other agreements of which opponents should take note". If an agreement is used but not so listed there is sometimes a possibility of damage to opponents from the lack of predisclosure. It seems obvious to me that predisclosure is not an issue when it comes to BOOTs/IBs because they are not deliberate. In most jurisdictions the sequence "(3x OOT)-X" is not listed on the CC and thus there is no meaning on the CC from which to depart. Nevertheless I would give significant consideration to possible damage if partner of the BOOTer received no alert/warning when consulting the CC (if the agreement differed to what was played over 3x in turn). Of course damage would be limited to possible choices moving forward - not to the prior auction. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Dec 13 12:22:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Réf._:_Re:__Profit_from_irregularites In-Reply-To: <457ECBA8.00000D.96809@CERAP-MATSH1> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > Just because they took trouble to say "any call is allowed if not > based on partnership understanding", it doesn't follow that "no call > is allowed if based on partnership understanding", but merely that "in > other cases, i.e. when based on partnership understanding, it is not > automatically allowed : Um, yes - that is pretty much what I said. L40A doesn't tell us whether or not such calls are allowed so we must look elsewhere. Luckily we don't have to look very far since we find L40b where the semantic structure "May not..unless.." is sufficient to interpret as "May..providing". In the case of conventional calls there is also the possibility of regulation (under L40d) forbidding (or indeed mandating) certain usage. My point was that only by considering L40a/b/d/e in conjunction can we determine whether a particular usage is legal - not by any one of those in isolation. L40A legalises: Bids not based on a partnership understanding and bids based on previously announced understandings L40B legalises: Bids based on partnership understandings subject to an expectation of them being understood and/or proper disclosure (and also warns us that the disclosure mechanism is a matter of SO regulation). L40D warns us that certain (otherwise legal) conventional bids may be restricted by SO regulation. L40E warns us that certain pre-disclosure may be required by the SO (other than by pre-announcement). Personally I don't see any sophism or particularly flawed logic in the above. OK one can argue the semantic case that a bid becomes illegal if improperly disclosed but that goes against the spirit of L40C and the custom and practice in most jurisdictions (ie we do not rule "illegal bid" if a transfer is unalerted/unannounced but we adjust if the failure to disclose according to regulation may have caused damage). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Dec 13 12:22:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <0D7EA771-5104-4F18-AC21-6956FE963FD1@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:35 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Thus once a piece of general K&E becomes a matter of PA/PE it > > crosses the line to disclosable. > > Perhaps it does. Should it? > > When something is derivable from general knowledge, one expects that > opponents will be able to figure it out as well as our side can. The laws make no reference to "general knowledge" per se. Only to "his GK&E" where the his refers to a specific player. When I sit down at a bridge table *my* GK and E includes playing tens of thousands of hands with hundreds of partners and a variety of systems, about 100 books, various magazine articles, the BLML mailing list, discussions with other players, lessons I had at school, TD training courses and probably other stuff besides. Most of the time I expect to be better at figuring stuff out than my opponents (whose own general knowledge is somewhat less). I am not expected to share any of that knowledge with opponents and I couldn't care less if they are unable to figure things out. The moment John Probst sits down opposite me some of what was "general" opposite a stranger becomes specific to my partnership. (Hands we have played together, bits of books we have discussed, topics we can both remember contributing to on BLML as well as the various agreements/understandings we have developed). That creates a requirement for disclosure. I have a duty to ensure that opponents understand our shared experience to the extent that the inferences available to me are also available to them. Of course I still don't care whether they are able to make use of those inferences as well as I can myself - the opponent will still need to be able to think for himself. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 13 12:54:29 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:54:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net><457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net><000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> <457FBC4A.8070900@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c71eb0$1ae9dd40$400ae150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Profit from irregularites As to the suggestion of disallowing the acceptance altogether: how are you going to distinguish between a clever player who accepts in order to use the bidding space and the stupid one who accepts because he hasn't noticed the irregularity. Are you going to punish the small infraction more than the big one. I for sure don't always check who's dealer if my RHO opens the bidding. I am looking at my cards at that time, and try to decide what to do within a reasonable time. < +=+ Well, Herman, I do not believe that should be a judgement for me to make. It is true that I do not believe methods of the kind should be used in a tournament largely peopled with inexperienced players, but at higher levels I am detached from the argument and can be persuaded. Yet this does not matter since my stance is that sponsors, promoters, organizers of events should have a proprietorial right to determine what methods will be allowed players in them. So my view is to remit the subject to the sponsoring bodies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From herman at hdw.be Wed Dec 13 14:28:07 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:28:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= In-Reply-To: <000101c71eb0$1ae9dd40$400ae150@Mildred> References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net><457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net><000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> <457FBC4A.8070900@hdw.be> <000101c71eb0$1ae9dd40$400ae150@Mildred> Message-ID: <457FFFE7.2090509@hdw.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "Hear my words carefully. > Some are spoken not by me, > but by a man in my position." > ~ Norman McCaig. > ===================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:39 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Profit from irregularites > > > As to the suggestion of disallowing the acceptance > altogether: how are you going to distinguish between > a clever player who accepts in order to use the > bidding space and the stupid one who accepts > because he hasn't noticed the irregularity. Are you > going to punish the small infraction more than the > big one. I for sure don't always check who's dealer > if my RHO opens the bidding. I am looking at my > cards at that time, and try to decide what to do > within a reasonable time. > < > +=+ Well, Herman, I do not believe that should be > a judgement for me to make. It is true that I do not > believe methods of the kind should be used in a > tournament largely peopled with inexperienced players, > but at higher levels I am detached from the argument > and can be persuaded. Yet this does not matter since > my stance is that sponsors, promoters, organizers of > events should have a proprietorial right to determine > what methods will be allowed players in them. So my > view is to remit the subject to the sponsoring bodies. It was not to you, Grattan and the WBFLC, that I was directing this argumentation, but rather to the SOs who might be thinking that such a regulation might be needed or workable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From tzimnoch at comcast.net Wed Dec 13 18:05:55 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:05:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= In-Reply-To: <000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net> <457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net> <000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <458032F3.6080403@comcast.net> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" >>It could be something more exotic by partnership >>agreement, if that were allowed. > > +=+ But what is a lawful basis for departing from the > meanings inscribed on the convention card? To be > lawful would it not require, at the very least, a declaration > of method on the CC? Otherwise partner may diagnose > but the tools available to the partnership are apparently > restricted to those pre-announced. Is that not so? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think this argues in a circle. It's not allowed because laws and regulations are currently written to forbid it. It is not impossible to reword one, the other, or both to allow players the freedom of method to capitalize on their opponents' mistakes. I think it's unreasonable to expect that players with a certain level of experience would want to treat auctions with irregularities the same as auctions without. -Todd From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Dec 13 19:07:20 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:07:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net><457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net><000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> <458032F3.6080403@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000d01c71ee1$881968f0$4101a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Profit from irregularites > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" >>>It could be something more exotic by partnership >>>agreement, if that were allowed. >> >> +=+ But what is a lawful basis for departing from the >> meanings inscribed on the convention card? To be >> lawful would it not require, at the very least, a declaration >> of method on the CC? Otherwise partner may diagnose >> but the tools available to the partnership are apparently >> restricted to those pre-announced. Is that not so? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I think this argues in a circle. It's not allowed because > laws and regulations are currently written to forbid it. It > is not impossible to reword one, the other, or both to allow > players the freedom of method to capitalize on their > opponents' mistakes. > > I think it's unreasonable to expect that players with a > certain level of experience would want to treat auctions > with irregularities the same as auctions without. > > -Todd > What is required here is some degree of creative writing in describing your agreements. Example:- Most doubles of suit bids are non-penalty - take out, responsive, game try or competitive. However when logically not required for these purposes, will be penalty. The agreement is written this way so that for example 1S P 2S 3H X is a game try in Spades, whereas 1S P 2S P P 3H P P X will be for penalty as not being required for take out. Now 4H out of turn and accepted followed by double is covered by our normal agreements as penalty, (because not logically required for takeout since partner could decline to accept it) whereas a double of 4H in turn remains as takeout. Is this legal? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** . -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.433 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/584 - Release Date: 12/12/2006 23:17 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 13 18:57:22 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:57:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__Profit_from_irregularit?= =?iso-8859-1?q?es?= References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net><457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net><000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> <458032F3.6080403@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000601c71ee1$83f820e0$8008e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Profit from irregularites > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" >>>It could be something more exotic by partnership >>>agreement, if that were allowed. >> >> +=+ But what is a lawful basis for departing from the >> meanings inscribed on the convention card? To be >> lawful would it not require, at the very least, a declaration >> of method on the CC? Otherwise partner may diagnose >> but the tools available to the partnership are apparently >> restricted to those pre-announced. Is that not so? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I think this argues in a circle. It's not allowed because > laws and regulations are currently written to forbid it. It > is not impossible to reword one, the other, or both to allow > players the freedom of method to capitalize on their > opponents' mistakes. > > I think it's unreasonable to expect that players with a > certain level of experience would want to treat auctions > with irregularities the same as auctions without. > > -Todd > +=+ I think it is typical of the kind of understanding that should be listed under "Other aspects of System which Opponents should note" or under "Important notes that don't fit in Elsewhere". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 13 19:17:30 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:17:30 -0000 Subject: [blml]Réf. : Re: Profit from irregularites References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net><457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net><000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred><457FBC4A.8070900@hdw.be> <000101c71eb0$1ae9dd40$400ae150@Mildred> Message-ID: <002201c71ee2$f415a590$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml]R?f. : Re: Profit from irregularites Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] R?f. : Re: Profit from irregularites As to the suggestion of disallowing the acceptance altogether: how are you going to distinguish between a clever player who accepts in order to use the bidding space and the stupid one who accepts because he hasn't noticed the irregularity. Are you going to punish the small infraction more than the big one. I for sure don't always check who's dealer if my RHO opens the bidding. I am looking at my cards at that time, and try to decide what to do within a reasonable time. < +=+ Well, Herman, I do not believe that should be a judgement for me to make. It is true that I do not believe methods of the kind should be used in a tournament largely peopled with inexperienced players, but at higher levels I am detached from the argument and can be persuaded. Yet this does not matter since my stance is that sponsors, promoters, organizers of events should have a proprietorial right to determine what methods will be allowed players in them. So my view is to remit the subject to the sponsoring bodies. I can live with this one, We do allow SO's to state what is permitted. However i think that the guidance from mount Olympus should not be seen to sway one way or the other. For a national SO to forbid such agreements in national events however beggars belief. cheers John ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 13 19:29:00 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:29:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004101c71ee4$8f5b4a90$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >It has been said that every comedian would like to play Hamlet. >>I, therefore, have created a 12-page Word document which >>interweaves quotes of the day with my personal reflections on >>the Gospel according to Mark. >> >>If any blmler would like a copy of this document, please send >>me a private email. > > A 25-page expanded VHS boxed set trilogy, covering Mark, Luke > and Acts is now available on request as a zipped Word doc. I suggest we should all hold off until the New Year Sales when we should be able to pick up all four at half price, together with The Acts, The Revelations and a signed poster thrown in for good measure. (btw I enjoyed Mark) cheers john > > > Season's greetings > > Richard James Hills, Mentor > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > Your Rights at Work > worth voting for > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 13 19:32:35 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:32:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061211094223.02b342e0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c71d6f$82420a90$6400a8c0@WINXP><6.1.1.1.0.20061212164708.02d4feb0@pop.starpower.net> <457F66F0.2050008@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004a01c71ee5$0f997dd0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites > > For example, removing options (when an opponent makes an insufficient > call or > call out of turn or whatever) could help. (This would create other > problems but with > the application of common sense, they could be handled more mechanically). > Good idea! ?? remove the possibility of extracting maximum possible advantage from an irregularity. Ensure that we penalise the NOs as much as possible! As usual nigel you are talking rubbish. john > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Dec 13 19:33:37 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:33:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120B01@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- +=+ I think it is typical of the kind of understanding that should be listed under "Other aspects of System which Opponents should note" or under "Important notes that don't fit in Elsewhere". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ___________________________ Why would our partnership's special agreements over opponent's infractions be something "which opponents should note" or "Important"? Opponents are hardly going to decide whether or not to make an insufficient bid based on whether we have special agreements over it. 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 13 22:21:21 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:21:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <0D7EA771-5104-4F18-AC21-6956FE963FD1@rochester.rr.com> References: <0D7EA771-5104-4F18-AC21-6956FE963FD1@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061213161436.02b74c10@pop.starpower.net> At 12:04 PM 12/12/06, Ed wrote: >On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:35 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Thus once a piece of general K&E becomes a matter of PA/PE it crosses > > the line to disclosable. > >Perhaps it does. Should it? > >When something is derivable from general knowledge, one expects that >opponents will be able to figure it out as well as our side can. I >fail to see how partnership experience, or even partnership agreement >changes that. Or are we in the politically correct mode of >"assisting" players who refuse to think for themselves? :-( It should. The object is to meet Ed's expectation, "that opponents will be able to figure it out as well as our side can". When we can "figure it out" without having to think about it because we have an agreement covering it, the opponents must be allowed to do "as well as our side can", which requires their having knowledge of the agreement too. What need not be disclosed is what we actually do figure out from general K&E, not what we *could* figure out if we didn't have an agreement. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 13 22:42:24 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:42:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities In-Reply-To: <000101c71eb0$1ae9dd40$400ae150@Mildred> References: <457EE1B5.6040309@comcast.net> <457EEFFE.000001.09437@CERAP-MATSH1> <457EFAEA.40607@comcast.net> <000301c71e5a$f8729fe0$2dab403e@Mildred> <457FBC4A.8070900@hdw.be> <000101c71eb0$1ae9dd40$400ae150@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061213163450.02b73ac0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:54 AM 12/13/06, gesta wrote: >From: "Herman De Wael" > >As to the suggestion of disallowing the acceptance >altogether: how are you going to distinguish between >a clever player who accepts in order to use the >bidding space and the stupid one who accepts >because he hasn't noticed the irregularity. Are you >going to punish the small infraction more than the >big one. I for sure don't always check who's dealer >if my RHO opens the bidding. I am looking at my >cards at that time, and try to decide what to do >within a reasonable time. >< >+=+ Well, Herman, I do not believe that should be >a judgement for me to make. It is true that I do not >believe methods of the kind should be used in a >tournament largely peopled with inexperienced players, >but at higher levels I am detached from the argument >and can be persuaded. Yet this does not matter since >my stance is that sponsors, promoters, organizers of >events should have a proprietorial right to determine >what methods will be allowed players in them. So my >view is to remit the subject to the sponsoring bodies. But what we're talking about here is removing the option to accept certain irregular calls. After fixing the laws in various places over the years, we are now in the comfortable situation where a player cannot do anything inadvertantly over an irregularity that he can't also do intentionally. Therefore you can never lose any rights by calling the TD. This is an important, and currently well-established, principle of our laws, and ISTM that we should not be allowing SOs to unilaterally do away with it. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 13 21:49:59 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:49:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120B01@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <000101c71f14$28ad9520$59cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites > > > > -----Original Message----- > > +=+ I think it is typical of the kind of understanding that > should be listed under "Other aspects of System which > Opponents should note" or under "Important notes that > don't fit in Elsewhere". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ___________________________ > > Why would our partnership's special agreements over opponent's > infractions be something "which opponents should note" or "Important"? > > Opponents are hardly going to decide whether or not to make an > insufficient bid based on whether we have special agreements over it. > > Robin > +=+ It is my view that they are entitled to prior notification of your special agreements and this is a type of agreement not universally adopted and which they may wish to discuss beforehand, not when they have an accident. I do not think you can have a concealed arramngement and an alert when it happens may be too late for opponents' purposes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 14 03:44:37 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:44:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120B01@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120B01@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <4580BA95.1020407@NTLworld.com> [Robin Barker] > [Grattan Endcott] > +=+ I think it is typical of the kind of understanding that > should be listed under "Other aspects of System which > Opponents should note" or under "Important notes that > don't fit in Elsewhere". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ___________________________ > > Why would our partnership's special agreements over opponent's > infractions be something "which opponents should note" or "Important"? > > Opponents are hardly going to decide whether or not to make an > insufficient bid based on whether we have special agreements over it. [nige1] Legal guru opinion seems split as to whether... - Agreements/inferences that profit from irregularities are legal? - they are legal after accepted BOOTs? - they are legal after accepted IBs? - They are legal under WBF jurisdiction? - They are legal under local jurisdictions in particular - - EBU - - ACBL. Some ACBL officials claim that they are illegal but nobody has yet quoted published chapter and verse to demonstrate that they are illegal. Players and club-level directors, whom I have consulted, are under the impression that they are illegal. So Ed Reppert may be right - so far, these sort of agreements may be mainly the prerogative of a few secretary birds with an intimate knowledge of local regulations. I agree with players (including Richard Pavlicek) who rue trends towards the exploitation of little known legal loopholes. To us, they seem to detract from the *spirit of the game*. These questions are among many unresolved controversies. While they remain unresolved, more people will use them to advantage. Grattan implies that the WBFLC has deliberately and sensibly devolved such grey areas to local SO regulation. Unfortunately, the WBFLC seems to have neglected to inform each SO of the specific holes in TFLB that it is expected to plug. Anyway, that approach seems flawed. IMO instead, the WBFLC should specify a *complete* set of *default* rules for Bridge (including what to do about bidding boxes, convention cards, alerting and whatever). A local SO could still opt out of such defaults and substitute its own preferences (for example written bidding). The present rules are unclear. IMO they are also too complex. In the cases under discussion, IMO, it would help to remove options. Of course, that would cause a problem when the next player makes a call before he notices his RHO's BOOT or IB. Rather than enter further into the realm of fairy-bridge, so loved by BLMLers, under a draconian new law, the director would scrap the board, penalizing only the player who made the *last* call. An alternative would be designate the irregularity as unauthorised information to both sides; but I don't think that really works. Anyway, ridicule is to be expected when any simple constructive suggestion is mooted on BLML; and If there is a better solution, I am sure the WBFLC will find it. I am confident that the current WBFLC will grasp these nettles. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 14 06:33:52 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:33:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004101c71ee4$8f5b4a90$0701a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Elrond half-elven: >>>>It has been said that every comedian would like to play Hamlet. >>>>I, therefore, have created a 12-page Word document which >>>>interweaves quotes of the day with my personal reflections on >>>>the Gospel according to Mark. >>>> >>>>If any blmler would like a copy of this document, please send >>>>me a private email. Elrond half-elven: >>>A 25-page expanded VHS boxed set trilogy, covering Mark, Luke >>>and Acts is now available on request as a zipped Word doc. John (MadDog) Probst: >>I suggest we should all hold off until the New Year Sales when we >>should be able to pick up all four at half price, together with >>The Acts, The Revelations and a signed poster thrown in for good >>measure. (btw I enjoyed Mark) >> >>cheers john Westley (The Princess Bride): >As you wish. Elrond half-elven: A multi-page Director's cut DVD boxed set quaternion, covering Mark, Luke, Acts and Revelations has the following extras included: Signed posters for John Probst and Nigel Guthrie (who was a great Mentor to me on the footnotes), Many. many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, Easter Eggs, Many. many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, Easters, And a ticking grandfather clock. >>>>>But it stopped >>>>>Dead >>>>>Never to run again >>>>>When the old man died Merry Overlithe Elrond half-elven Your Rights at Work worth voting for Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department?s website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 14 11:55:03 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:55:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120B01@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> <4580BA95.1020407@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000201c71f6e$7d0df9c0$afc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularities >> > > Grattan implies that the WBFLC has deliberately > and sensibly devolved such grey areas to local SO > regulation. Unfortunately, the WBFLC seems > to have neglected to inform each SO of the specific > holes in TFLB that it is expected to plug. Anyway, > that approach seems flawed. > +=+ First, I agree with Nigel that, as far as possible when the Laws leave a matter to the SO for regulation it is often useful if the laws provide a default position. It does require, of course, in respect of each such situation that colleagues should concur. Since the shaping of laws is a negotiation between views derived from a number of diverse bridge cultures, it can hardly be that any one opinion will prevail consistently. Where I believe the Code of Laws that is developing to replace the 1997 Laws will have an advantage over past years is in the fact that the single official version of the Laws will be presented worldwide on the internet, available for any and every TD to access if he encounters a problem. Hopefully we will be able to add, when settled, an appendix of illustrations of intended interpretations and applications to which we will be able to add from time to time, meeting the Presidential wish that the WBF should develop a Jurisprudence for international application. The target would be to meld harmoniously the opinions deriving from the various bridge regions represented on the WBF standing Laws and Appeals Committees. Ton Kooijman has taken on the task of producing a basic set of examples for his colleagues to consider; he has the kind of brain that is well adapted to the job and we should all wish him joy with it. Finally, I think Nigel underestimates the difficulties in communicating WBFLC decisions to interested parties around the world. Our minutes are circulated. What I hear from TDs who get in touch with me is that some NBOs (even some prominent NBOs) and some Zones are not all that good at passing information to them - some, of course, may be slow in inclining to the WBF line at times. Although a little patience is called for, in my opinion there is real hope. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 14 14:04:27 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:04:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Prophet from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c71f6e$7d0df9c0$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >the Laws will be presented worldwide on the internet, >available for any and every TD to access if he encounters a >problem. Hopefully we will be able to add, when settled, >an appendix of illustrations of intended interpretations and >applications to which we will be able to add from time to >time, meeting the Presidential wish that the WBF should >develop a Jurisprudence for international application. The >target would be to meld harmoniously the opinions [snip] > Finally, I think Nigel underestimates the difficulties Mithrandir: The difficult we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer. Perhaps this "impossible" task could be completed this weekend? Merry Overlithe Elrond half-elven Your Rights at Work worth voting for Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department?s website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Dec 14 14:11:49 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:11:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities In-Reply-To: <000201c71f6e$7d0df9c0$afc9403e@Mildred> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120B01@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> <4580BA95.1020407@NTLworld.com> <000201c71f6e$7d0df9c0$afc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <92i2o2h8r67338jnft5r755151g4pdgf56@meadows.pair.com> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:55:03 -0000, Grattan wrote: <...> > Finally, I think Nigel underestimates the difficulties in >communicating WBFLC decisions to interested parties >around the world. Our minutes are circulated. What I hear >from TDs who get in touch with me is that some NBOs >(even some prominent NBOs) and some Zones are not all >that good at passing information to them - some, of course, >may be slow in inclining to the WBF line at times. I think you over-state the difficulties. If the will is there, it's simple enough to (at least) improve things. Firstly, as you and Nigel agree, the WBF needs to state a default position, not just leave a hole for the Zones/NBOs/SOs to fill in as (or if?) they see fit. In addition to circulating its minutes as it presently does, the WBF also needs either to establish (preferably) a web site, or if you can't do that then an announcements-only mailing list, which most grass-roots TDs will be able to access, even if only by having a club member print off the various minutes for them. If the details of the web site or mailing list are spread by word of mouth (BLML and rec.games.bridge would be the obvious starting points) it won't take that long for word to get around. The WBF then needs to make the default action that its minutes are implemented, and if you want to allow an override, then force the overriders to take the action required. "In the absence of a published override to the contrary by your Zone / NBO / SO, the following will take effect from ". Bridge is nothing special in this regard. If you have an information bottleneck, such as some Zones / NBOs / SOs might be for whatever reason, then you have to accept that the strict hierarchical structure isn't working. Bypass whoever or whatever is the cause of the bottleneck, and make them take positive action to override the default position. Sure, doing this will tread on some toes. The question is which the WBF sees at the more important, getting word of its decisions to the people who actually have to direct the game, or keeping all the various levels of the bridge hierarchy happy with their own (perceived) importance. The WBF may not want to do this, if you think the political repercussions will be too great then that's your decision - but communicating your decisions down to the grass roots is *NOT* difficult *IF* you really want to do it. Brian. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Dec 14 15:12:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000101c71f14$28ad9520$59cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ It is my view that they are entitled to prior notification of your > special agreements and this is a type of agreement not universally > adopted and which they may wish to discuss beforehand, not when > they have an accident. The TD can handle it on a case by cases basis. If the agreement is to play penalty doubles of OOT pre-empts I can't see any importance in having the agreement on the CC rather than merely alerting the double. Penalty doubles are legal and the OS is expected to have agreements already in place to handle them. Indeed even if a TD decided prior disclosure would rate as "important" it will be rare indeed for any damage to occur since the range of possible methods in this situation is usually limited to putting down dummy glumly (on rare occasions one may be able to bid a good suit of one's own but that requires no special arrangements). OTOH if the agreement of an Acol pair is to play "Precision after a POOT by opps not accepted" I can see that a degree of damage is possible from lack of prior opportunity to discuss. The principle remains that we are not suggesting that these conventional uses are illegal, but rather we should consider possible damage from lack of prior disclosure (just as we would for a an otherwise legal convention that a pair had omitted from the CC but duly alerted and described properly). Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 14 20:20:12 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:20:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities In-Reply-To: <000201c71f6e$7d0df9c0$afc9403e@Mildred> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226120B01@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> <4580BA95.1020407@NTLworld.com> <000201c71f6e$7d0df9c0$afc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4581A3EC.5010904@NTLworld.com> > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ First, I agree with Nigel that, as far as possible > when the Laws leave a matter to the SO for regulation > it is often useful if the laws provide a default position. It > does require, of course, in respect of each such situation > that colleagues should concur. Since the shaping of laws > is a negotiation between views derived from a number of > diverse bridge cultures, it can hardly be that any one > opinion will prevail consistently. > Where I believe the Code of Laws that is developing > to replace the 1997 Laws will have an advantage over > past years is in the fact that the single official version of > the Laws will be presented worldwide on the internet, > available for any and every TD to access if he encounters a > problem. Hopefully we will be able to add, when settled, > an appendix of illustrations of intended interpretations and > applications to which we will be able to add from time to > time, meeting the Presidential wish that the WBF should > develop a Jurisprudence for international application. The > target would be to meld harmoniously the opinions deriving > from the various bridge regions represented on the WBF > standing Laws and Appeals Committees. Ton Kooijman > has taken on the task of producing a basic set of examples > for his colleagues to consider; he has the kind of brain that > is well adapted to the job and we should all wish him joy > with it. > Finally, I think Nigel underestimates the difficulties in > communicating WBFLC decisions to interested parties > around the world. Our minutes are circulated. What I hear > from TDs who get in touch with me is that some NBOs > (even some prominent NBOs) and some Zones are not all > that good at passing information to them - some, of course, > may be slow in inclining to the WBF line at times. > Although a little patience is called for, in my opinion > there is real hope. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [nige1] Thank you Grattan. All players will congratulate the WBFLC for undertaking the mammoth task of providing default rules. We are especially grateful to Ton Kooijiman for volunteering to collect illustrative examples. IMO, such examples should be *borderline* For example, "this opening 1N bid is legal (by agreement) but if you substituted a nine for a ten, it would be illegal". These are especially useful in cases where a director must use "judgement" rather than apply a metric or decide on simple objective facts. IMO, the difficulty of circulating a correction, deletion or addition to the laws would be reduced if WBFLC *edited a web edition* of the laws; so that the affected new law read as proper English. Using HTML (or whatever) it is easy to highlight, index, and date such changes (for those interested in only the latest amendments). This would be especially useful for the majority of Bridge clubs that have PCs with web access. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Fri Dec 15 03:56:56 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:56:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <200612122230.kBCMUKWt015097@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612122230.kBCMUKWt015097@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45820EF8.5010309@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > And -- to return to the original topic of the thread -- regardless of > what [partner] guesses (about my choice) or what he does, we will thereafter > have an implicit agreement about such situations perforce, This is, of course, the main point. Experienced partnerships _will have_ agreements about accepted or rejected IBs and BsOOT. There is no way to avoid that. SOs can limit such agreements to exactly the same extent they can limit agreements in normal auctions, and SOs can require disclosure, but they cannot prevent such agreements from existing short of breaking up partnerships as soon as the situation occurs. > Grattan Endicott +=+ But what is a lawful basis for departing from the > meanings inscribed on the convention card? Perhaps that the auction is different? Over 1NT-, my 2H bid shows hearts. Over 1NT-P-, it shows spades. What's the lawful basis for this distinction? Over 1NT-1H-, I don't know what 2H should show, but there's no obvious legal reason it has to mean the same thing it would in some different auction. > To be > lawful would it not require, at the very least, a declaration > of method on the CC? Given a CC of finite size, most partnerships will have lots of agreements not on it. Are all those agreements illegal? No one is suggesting that conventions that are generally illegal should be allowed after infractions. (At least I haven't seen anyone suggest it.) I would like those who think agreements after opponents' infractions are a bad thing to explain exactly what the problem is. Such agreements are unfamiliar, I suppose, but what's wrong with that? Or if unfamiliarity is a problem, the answer would seem to be appropriate publicity, not pretending to ban agreements. From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 15 09:37:26 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:37:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <45820EF8.5010309@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner ........... > Perhaps that the auction is different? Over 1NT-, my 2H bid shows > hearts. Over 1NT-P-, it shows spades. What's the lawful basis for this > distinction? > > Over 1NT-1H-, I don't know what 2H should show, but there's no obvious > legal reason it has to mean the same thing it would in some different > auction. If I opened 1NT, my LHO bid 1H and my partner accepted the 1H bid and bid 2H I would assume that he accepted the 1H insufficient bid for the purpose of being able to making his own 2H transfer bid. (If he did not accept the IB chances are big that my LHO would correct to 2H and destroy our auction). This is not a matter of agreements; this is plain and simple logic. Generally I expect one of two reasons for accepting an IB: Avoiding being shut out from, or forced to an undesired higher level in the auction, or being able to trap opponents in bid which seems favourable to my side. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 15 12:35:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > If I opened 1NT, my LHO bid 1H and my partner accepted the 1H bid and > bid 2H I would assume that he accepted the 1H insufficient bid for > the purpose of being able to making his own 2H transfer bid. (If he > did not accept the IB chances are big that my LHO would correct to > 2H and destroy our auction). > > This is not a matter of agreements; this is plain and simple logic. The *first* time it happens it's a matter of logic. It's also logic that partner has a constructive hand having declined the opportunity to bid 1S (presumably weak) and 2S (either over 1H or a changed 2H) and given his RHO a chance to show H support with a X of 2H. Typically there will be a brief discussion after the hand. The *second* time it happens there is a shared logical conclusion and a discussion - or, as we call it, "a partnership agreement". Of course it would also be "logical" to play 1N-(1H)-2H as having the same meaning as (1H)-1N-(P)-2H which I play 2H as Staymanic and Inv+ values. I have firm agreements as to how to compete after 1N-(2H) or 1N-(P) with various hand-types. Why should I suffer being put on a less firm footing after 1N-(1H), clearly an infraction by opponents, than I would have been had they not infracted? I'm pretty sure a TD won't be offering me any redress if it turns out that partner and I were on different wavelengths as to the meaning of 2H (or any other call I might choose with or without acceptance). I suppose I can handle it by saying that if the SO has made it illegal to have agreements over IBs by opps then any such IB will automatically be a "could have known" offense and subject to adjustment (this would also be the case were it made illegal to condone an IB). For those who proclaim concern for weaker players then surely it is obvious that the mooted cure is far worse than any perceived disease. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 15 15:23:48 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:23:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <45820EF8.5010309@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612122230.kBCMUKWt015097@cfa.harvard.edu> <45820EF8.5010309@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061215090941.02c23860@pop.starpower.net> At 09:56 PM 12/14/06, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > And -- to return to the original topic of the thread -- regardless of > > what [partner] guesses (about my choice) or what he does, we will > thereafter > > have an implicit agreement about such situations perforce, > >This is, of course, the main point. Experienced partnerships _will >have_ agreements about accepted or rejected IBs and BsOOT. There is no >way to avoid that. SOs can limit such agreements to exactly the same >extent they can limit agreements in normal auctions, and SOs can require >disclosure, but they cannot prevent such agreements from existing short >of breaking up partnerships as soon as the situation occurs. > > > Grattan Endicott > +=+ But what is a lawful basis for departing from the > > meanings inscribed on the convention card? > >Perhaps that the auction is different? Over 1NT-, my 2H bid shows >hearts. Over 1NT-P-, it shows spades. What's the lawful basis for this >distinction? > >Over 1NT-1H-, I don't know what 2H should show, but there's no obvious >legal reason it has to mean the same thing it would in some different >auction. > > > To be > > lawful would it not require, at the very least, a declaration > > of method on the CC? > >Given a CC of finite size, most partnerships will have lots of >agreements not on it. Are all those agreements illegal? > >No one is suggesting that conventions that are generally illegal should >be allowed after infractions. (At least I haven't seen anyone suggest >it.) > >I would like those who think agreements after opponents' infractions are >a bad thing to explain exactly what the problem is. Such agreements are >unfamiliar, I suppose, but what's wrong with that? Or if unfamiliarity >is a problem, the answer would seem to be appropriate publicity, not >pretending to ban agreements. A reasonable compromise might be to prohibit players from having any conventional agreements that apply exclusively over opponents' irregularities. A less reasonable compromise (IMO), but still well within the scope of L40D, would prohibit the use of any conventional agreements over opponents' irregularities. Right now, we have two problems: (1) SOs that do not seem to understand the difference between "any conventional agreements over opponents' irregularities" and "any agreements whatsoever over opponents' irregularities". Barring the former may or may not be ill-advised, but barring the latter is patently nonsensical, for the reasons Steve elaborates on. (2) The WBF's insistence that, L40D notwithstanding, SOs are free to legislate restrictions that apply to "any agreements whatsoever". Even if the resulting regulations are patently nonsensical. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From john at asimere.com Fri Dec 15 15:27:01 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:27:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention Message-ID: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. cheers John From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 15 16:47:46 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:47:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John Probst > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. Yes: Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. Sven From sarahamos at onetel.net Fri Dec 15 18:00:11 2006 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:00:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention >> On Behalf Of John Probst >> 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black >> >> Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > > Yes: > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > convention. > > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > But Sven that doesnt make it a convention There are three clauses in the definition willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named) or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) Mike > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri Dec 15 18:55:12 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:55:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net> Sven Pran wrote: >>On Behalf Of Steve Willner >>Perhaps that the auction is different? Over 1NT-, my 2H bid shows >>hearts. Over 1NT-P-, it shows spades. What's the lawful basis for this >>distinction? >> >>Over 1NT-1H-, I don't know what 2H should show, but there's no obvious >>legal reason it has to mean the same thing it would in some different >>auction. > > If I opened 1NT, my LHO bid 1H and my partner accepted the 1H bid and bid 2H > I would assume that he accepted the 1H insufficient bid for the purpose of > being able to making his own 2H transfer bid. (If he did not accept the IB > chances are big that my LHO would correct to 2H and destroy our auction). > > This is not a matter of agreements; this is plain and simple logic. My logic functions differently from yours. I could bid 1S forcing, 2S preemptive, and 2H lebensohl. In the legal sense, why not? After this comes up at the table, we'd have a definite agreement which logic applies and this must be disclosed as necessary. Although low on the practical effect, I do hope the next edition of the laws untangles disclosure requirements from agreement legality. L40B -> "Players must disclose all partnership understandings in accordance with regulations." L40F -> "Players may not use unsanctioned conventions." -Todd From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Fri Dec 15 21:07:06 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:07:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> References: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <4583006A.5010804@cs.elte.hu> Mike Amos wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" > > > >>>On Behalf Of John Probst >>>4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black >>> >>>Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. >>> >>> >>Yes: >> >>Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning >>other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last >>denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) >>there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a >>convention. >> >>The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. >> >> >> >But Sven that doesnt make it a convention > > >There are three clauses in the definition > >willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination >named) > >or high-card strength > >or length (three cards or more) there > >IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > > No, it does not show high card strength in general, it does not mean: "I have good heart-suit". It shows exactly the Ace of hearts, so YES, this is a convention. >(at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) > > Of course I agree with the last clause. Laci >Mike > > > > > >>Sven >> >> >> From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 20:43:12 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:43:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of John Probst > > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > > > > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > > Yes: > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > convention. > > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional. It only has to be one of the possibilities to be not conventional - willingness to play OR high-card strength OR length. Wayne > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 20:44:45 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:44:45 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> References: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612151144q31b931e6qd50a48ff406cb709@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Mike Amos wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > > >> On Behalf Of John Probst > >> 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > >> > >> Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > > > > Yes: > > > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > > convention. > > > > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > > > But Sven that doesnt make it a convention > > > There are three clauses in the definition > > willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination > named) > > or high-card strength > > or length (three cards or more) there > > IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > > (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) > Why is it poor? It clearly gives three conditions one of which must be met to make the bid non-conventional. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 20:47:00 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:47:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <4583006A.5010804@cs.elte.hu> References: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> <4583006A.5010804@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612151147y7af6ab9ek102f6e0b6c78106e@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > Mike Amos wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Sven Pran" > > > > > > > >>>On Behalf Of John Probst > >>>4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > >>> > >>>Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > >>> > >>> > >>Yes: > >> > >>Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > >>other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > >>denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > >>there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > >>convention. > >> > >>The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > >> > >> > >> > >But Sven that doesnt make it a convention > > > > > >There are three clauses in the definition > > > >willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination > >named) > > > >or high-card strength > > > >or length (three cards or more) there > > > >IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > > > > > No, it does not show high card strength in general, it does not mean: "I > have good heart-suit". It shows exactly the Ace of hearts, so YES, this > is a convention. > Last time I check most authorities considered the Ace a high-card. There is no "in general" in the definition. Why do you feel the need to add it. 5H shows high-card strength in hearts it is therefore by the definition not conventional. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 15 22:24:12 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:24:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net> References: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061215161418.02b49a40@pop.starpower.net> At 12:55 PM 12/15/06, Todd wrote: >"Players may not use unsanctioned conventions." Excuse me? Did I miss a smilie? "Unsanctioned" isn't the same as "forbidden". Players may use any conventions they choose to unless some applicable regulatory body makes a rule forbidding them from doing so. There is no need for anyone to positively "sanction" a convention before it can be used. Else it would be illegal to play any conventions at all in the jurisdiction of an SO that has no policies whatsoever with regard to the use of any conventions. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 15 22:38:56 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:38:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061215162649.02b65aa0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:43 PM 12/15/06, Wayne wrote: >On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of John Probst > > > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > > > > > > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is > values. > > > > Yes: > > > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the > last > > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards > or more) > > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a > call a > > convention. > > > > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > >It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional. > >It only has to be one of the possibilities to be not conventional - >willingness to play OR high-card strength OR length. ISTM that a call that "conveys a meaning [of] high-card strength" is one that means "I have high-card strength". That is different from one that means "I have specifically the ace". The definition of "convention" may have been written with the intent of treating "high-card strength or length" as applying to showing specific high cards or lengths as well as to merely showing "some strength" or "some length", as Wayne suggests, but that's far from clear from the wording. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From tzimnoch at comcast.net Fri Dec 15 22:46:36 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:46:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061215161418.02b49a40@pop.starpower.net> References: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20061215161418.02b49a40@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <458317BC.2040606@comcast.net> Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:55 PM 12/15/06, Todd wrote: >>"Players may not use unsanctioned conventions." > > Excuse me? Did I miss a smilie? "Unsanctioned" isn't the same as > "forbidden". Players may use any conventions they choose to unless > some applicable regulatory body makes a rule forbidding them from doing > so. There is no need for anyone to positively "sanction" a convention > before it can be used. Else it would be illegal to play any > conventions at all in the jurisdiction of an SO that has no policies > whatsoever with regard to the use of any conventions. I agree with you, but we've been repeatedly told that wasn't the intent. For what it's worth, the ACBL makes their position clear. In its various convention charts appears the phrase, "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed." I don't remember seeing a similar blanket provision in the EBU's Orange Book. I see it as a matter of semantics and you can achieve the same effect (or a different effect) in a number of ways. -Todd From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 15 23:36:23 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:36:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net><6.1.1.1.0.20061215161418.02b49a40@pop.starpower.net> <458317BC.2040606@comcast.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites > Eric Landau wrote: >> At 12:55 PM 12/15/06, Todd wrote: >>>"Players may not use unsanctioned conventions." >> >> Excuse me? Did I miss a smilie? "Unsanctioned" isn't the same as >> "forbidden". Players may use any conventions they choose to unless >> some applicable regulatory body makes a rule forbidding them from doing >> so. There is no need for anyone to positively "sanction" a convention >> before it can be used. Else it would be illegal to play any >> conventions at all in the jurisdiction of an SO that has no policies >> whatsoever with regard to the use of any conventions. > > I agree with you, but we've been repeatedly told that wasn't > the intent. > > For what it's worth, the ACBL makes their position clear. > In its various convention charts appears the phrase, "Unless > specifically allowed, methods are disallowed." I didn't recall such a statement in the GCC so I just looked it up- and it is there, now. I further perused the chart and I saw no method including an opening of 1H or 1S. The GCC is clear. Opening bids of 1H and/or 1S are forbidden. regards roger pewick >I don't > remember seeing a similar blanket provision in the EBU's > Orange Book. > I see it as a matter of semantics and you can achieve the > same effect (or a different effect) in a number of ways. > > -Todd From john at asimere.com Fri Dec 15 23:38:42 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:38:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john><000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP><2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061215162649.02b65aa0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001d01c72099$c5a839d0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > At 02:43 PM 12/15/06, Wayne wrote: > >>On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: >> > > On Behalf Of John Probst >> > > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black >> > > >> > > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is >> values. >> > >> > Yes: >> > >> > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning >> > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the >> last >> > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards >> or more) >> > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a >> call a >> > convention. >> > >> > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. >> >>It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional. >> >>It only has to be one of the possibilities to be not conventional - >>willingness to play OR high-card strength OR length. > > ISTM that a call that "conveys a meaning [of] high-card strength" is > one that means "I have high-card strength". That is different from one > that means "I have specifically the ace". The definition of > "convention" may have been written with the intent of treating > "high-card strength or length" as applying to showing specific high > cards or lengths as well as to merely showing "some strength" or "some > length", as Wayne suggests, but that's far from clear from the wording. > That would seem to leave the interpretation open to the SO. Supposing you have the agreement that all bids below game once the suit is agreed show the Ace. It would seem to me that this would be interpreted as conventional if we go that route. I am open on this one and as usual we are not in consensus here :) John > > Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 23:59:06 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:59:06 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061215162649.02b65aa0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061215162649.02b65aa0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612151459m11a12402w5776e1ec17ef15c4@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:43 PM 12/15/06, Wayne wrote: > > >On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > On Behalf Of John Probst > > > > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > > > > > > > > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is > > values. > > > > > > Yes: > > > > > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > > > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the > > last > > > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards > > or more) > > > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a > > call a > > > convention. > > > > > > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > > > >It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional. > > > >It only has to be one of the possibilities to be not conventional - > >willingness to play OR high-card strength OR length. > > ISTM that a call that "conveys a meaning [of] high-card strength" is > one that means "I have high-card strength". That is different from one > that means "I have specifically the ace". The definition of > "convention" may have been written with the intent of treating > "high-card strength or length" as applying to showing specific high > cards or lengths as well as to merely showing "some strength" or "some > length", as Wayne suggests, but that's far from clear from the wording. > An interesting argument Eric. We can apply the same reasoning to "length" or "willingness to play". "I have specifically the ace" is a subset of "I have high-card strength". "I have a five-card major" is a subset of "I have length" "My longest suit is spades and I am willing to play there" is a subset of "I am willing to play in spades". Are five-card majors conventional? I think "high card strength" includes cue-bids that show a high-card (specific or not) in the suit bid. A response to a specific ace-ask is just a species of cue-bid. Wayne From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 16 00:16:52 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:16:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] convention References: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> <2a1c3a560612151144q31b931e6qd50a48ff406cb709@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > On 16/12/06, Mike Amos wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] convention >> >> >> >> On Behalf Of John Probst >> >> 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black >> >> >> >> Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. >> > >> > Yes: >> > >> > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning >> > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the >> > last >> > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or >> > more) >> > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a >> > call a >> > convention. >> > >> > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. >> > >> But Sven that doesnt make it a convention >> >> >> There are three clauses in the definition >> >> willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last >> denomination >> named) >> >> or high-card strength >> >> or length (three cards or more) there >> >> IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention >> >> (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) >> > > Why is it poor? > > It clearly gives three conditions one of which must be met to make the > bid non-conventional. > > Wayne There is a serious problem where the LC defines convention. It lies in the fact that all communication, bridge and otherwise, is by convention and therefore to define the word inherently differently for the acts that are similar taxes one's ability to keep straight where one is. Far better to leave convention alone and define 'regulatable convention'. Whether or not it is a good thing is open to debate. However, providing a definition does not mean that it will be a satisfactory one let alone a good one. The case in point is that TFLB definition of convention is nonsense: Consider where the definition is revised to: Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named). However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. Languagewise this makes sense. Not that it is a satisfactory definition- being less than needed- for bridge. And thus it is nonsense. What about. Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. Languagewise this makes sense [well, sort of]. However, I suspect that the powers do not want to say such a thing. For that alone it is not a satisfactory definition. But it too is less than is needed-for bridge. And thus it too is nonsense. And what about putting them together. Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. Languagewise this does not make sense. And since it does not make sense [as in less than intelligible beginning at the point ', or high-card.....'] it too is nonsense. One further point about the duality role of convention. When 2H by agreement promises 5-11 hcp by the dictionary that overall strength is shown by convention; not withstanding the specification in TFLB definition ..' However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.' regards roger pewick From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 00:27:32 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:27:32 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: References: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> <2a1c3a560612151144q31b931e6qd50a48ff406cb709@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612151527o205d5885h9408de51e7cf4add@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Roger Pewick wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > > > On 16/12/06, Mike Amos wrote: > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Sven Pran" > >> To: "blml" > >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:47 PM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] convention > >> > >> > >> >> On Behalf Of John Probst > >> >> 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > >> >> > >> >> Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > >> > > >> > Yes: > >> > > >> > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > >> > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the > >> > last > >> > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > >> > more) > >> > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a > >> > call a > >> > convention. > >> > > >> > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > >> > > >> But Sven that doesnt make it a convention > >> > >> > >> There are three clauses in the definition > >> > >> willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > >> denomination > >> named) > >> > >> or high-card strength > >> > >> or length (three cards or more) there > >> > >> IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > >> > >> (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) > >> > > > > Why is it poor? > > > > It clearly gives three conditions one of which must be met to make the > > bid non-conventional. > > > > Wayne > > There is a serious problem where the LC defines convention. It lies in the > fact that all communication, bridge and otherwise, is by convention and > therefore to define the word inherently differently for the acts that are > similar taxes one's ability to keep straight where one is. Far better to > leave convention alone and define 'regulatable convention'. Whether or not > it is a good thing is open to debate. > > However, providing a definition does not mean that it will be a satisfactory > one let alone a good one. The case in point is that TFLB definition of > convention is nonsense: > > > Consider where the definition is revised to: > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > denomination named). However, an agreement as to overall strength does not > make a call a > convention. > > Languagewise this makes sense. Not that it is a satisfactory definition- > being less than needed- for bridge. And thus it is nonsense. > > What about. > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys high-card > strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to > overall strength does not make a call a convention. > > > Languagewise this makes sense [well, sort of]. However, I suspect that the > powers do not want to say such a thing. For that alone it is not a > satisfactory definition. But it too is less than is needed-for bridge. And > thus it too is nonsense. > > And what about putting them together. > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > convention. > > Languagewise this does not make sense. The lawbook definition makes sense to me what are you seeing that I am not? Wayne From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 16 01:00:58 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:00:58 -0600 Subject: [blml] convention References: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP><000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1><2a1c3a560612151144q31b931e6qd50a48ff406cb709@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560612151527o205d5885h9408de51e7cf4add@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > On 16/12/06, Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Wayne Burrows" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:44 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] convention >> >> >> > On 16/12/06, Mike Amos wrote: >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Sven Pran" >> >> To: "blml" >> >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:47 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [blml] convention >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Behalf Of John Probst >> >> >> 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black >> >> >> >> >> >> Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is >> >> >> values. >> >> > >> >> > Yes: >> >> > >> >> > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a >> >> > meaning >> >> > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the >> >> > last >> >> > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or >> >> > more) >> >> > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a >> >> > call a >> >> > convention. >> >> > >> >> > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in >> >> > Hearts. >> >> > >> >> But Sven that doesnt make it a convention >> >> >> >> >> >> There are three clauses in the definition >> >> >> >> willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last >> >> denomination >> >> named) >> >> >> >> or high-card strength >> >> >> >> or length (three cards or more) there >> >> >> >> IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention >> >> >> >> (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) >> >> >> > >> > Why is it poor? >> > >> > It clearly gives three conditions one of which must be met to make the >> > bid non-conventional. >> > >> > Wayne >> >> There is a serious problem where the LC defines convention. It lies in >> the >> fact that all communication, bridge and otherwise, is by convention and >> therefore to define the word inherently differently for the acts that are >> similar taxes one's ability to keep straight where one is. Far better to >> leave convention alone and define 'regulatable convention'. Whether or >> not >> it is a good thing is open to debate. >> >> However, providing a definition does not mean that it will be a >> satisfactory >> one let alone a good one. The case in point is that TFLB definition of >> convention is nonsense: >> >> >> Consider where the definition is revised to: >> >> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning >> other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last >> denomination named). However, an agreement as to overall strength does >> not >> make a call a >> convention. >> >> Languagewise this makes sense. Not that it is a satisfactory definition- >> being less than needed- for bridge. And thus it is nonsense. >> >> What about. >> >> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys high-card >> strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as >> to >> overall strength does not make a call a convention. >> >> >> Languagewise this makes sense [well, sort of]. However, I suspect that >> the >> powers do not want to say such a thing. For that alone it is not a >> satisfactory definition. But it too is less than is needed-for bridge. >> And >> thus it too is nonsense. >> >> And what about putting them together. >> >> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning >> other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last >> denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or >> more) >> there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call >> a >> convention. >> >> Languagewise this does not make sense. > > The lawbook definition makes sense to me what are you seeing that I am > not? > > Wayne For instance what is -high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there.? To me it sounds as if a call that names a suit containing honor strength it is a convention. As in it meets the defintion of convention. And it sounds as if a call that names a suit containing three card length it is a convention. As in it meets the defintion of convention. It does seem that a few things might well be absent, such as agreements promising length in a suit not named etc... One thing also is that the definition says that it is a call that is a convention. Well that is nonsense. A convention is an agreement (to a call), not a call itself [which is defined as something else.] regards roger pewick From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 16 00:37:14 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:37:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularities References: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net><6.1.1.1.0.20061215161418.02b49a40@pop.starpower.net><458317BC.2040606@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000201c720a7$044b75f0$60df403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularities > > >>I don't remember seeing a similar blanket provision in >>the EBU's Orange Book. > +=+ It depends what you are looking for. The approach of the Orange Book is that the methods permitted in an event are defined. The positive statements of what is permitted exclude other methods. The phrase 'the methods permitted' is key. However, the Orange Book regulations are drafted so that 'the methods' are defined as categories of meanings. It is the English Bridge Union's way of avoiding Roger's assertion that, because they are unlisted, certain calls are not allowed under ACBL regulations that he quotes. The Orange Book covers any call that may occur but restricts the meanings that may attach to it in specified levels of competition. 'Sanctioned' and 'unsanctioned' would be relevant terms to use in the EBU. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 16 01:19:54 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:19:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c720a7$e94d6820$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of John Probst > > > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > > > > > > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > > > > Yes: > > > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > > more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make > > a call a convention. > > > > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > > > > It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional. No, that is precisely NOT what the 5H bid shows. A suit with KQJ is of 50% greater strength than a suit with only the Ace. What the 5H bid shows is exactly the Ace of Hearts, not the high card strength in Hearts. Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 01:35:46 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:35:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: References: <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> <2a1c3a560612151144q31b931e6qd50a48ff406cb709@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560612151527o205d5885h9408de51e7cf4add@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612151635y7e2b9126sb6212ba36450a43c@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Roger Pewick wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 5:27 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > > > On 16/12/06, Roger Pewick wrote: > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Wayne Burrows" > >> To: "blml" > >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:44 PM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] convention > >> > >> > >> > On 16/12/06, Mike Amos wrote: > >> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> From: "Sven Pran" > >> >> To: "blml" > >> >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:47 PM > >> >> Subject: Re: [blml] convention > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> On Behalf Of John Probst > >> >> >> 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is > >> >> >> values. > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes: > >> >> > > >> >> > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a > >> >> > meaning > >> >> > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the > >> >> > last > >> >> > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > >> >> > more) > >> >> > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a > >> >> > call a > >> >> > convention. > >> >> > > >> >> > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in > >> >> > Hearts. > >> >> > > >> >> But Sven that doesnt make it a convention > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> There are three clauses in the definition > >> >> > >> >> willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > >> >> denomination > >> >> named) > >> >> > >> >> or high-card strength > >> >> > >> >> or length (three cards or more) there > >> >> > >> >> IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > >> >> > >> >> (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) > >> >> > >> > > >> > Why is it poor? > >> > > >> > It clearly gives three conditions one of which must be met to make the > >> > bid non-conventional. > >> > > >> > Wayne > >> > >> There is a serious problem where the LC defines convention. It lies in > >> the > >> fact that all communication, bridge and otherwise, is by convention and > >> therefore to define the word inherently differently for the acts that are > >> similar taxes one's ability to keep straight where one is. Far better to > >> leave convention alone and define 'regulatable convention'. Whether or > >> not > >> it is a good thing is open to debate. > >> > >> However, providing a definition does not mean that it will be a > >> satisfactory > >> one let alone a good one. The case in point is that TFLB definition of > >> convention is nonsense: > >> > >> > >> Consider where the definition is revised to: > >> > >> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > >> other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > >> denomination named). However, an agreement as to overall strength does > >> not > >> make a call a > >> convention. > >> > >> Languagewise this makes sense. Not that it is a satisfactory definition- > >> being less than needed- for bridge. And thus it is nonsense. > >> > >> What about. > >> > >> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys high-card > >> strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as > >> to > >> overall strength does not make a call a convention. > >> > >> > >> Languagewise this makes sense [well, sort of]. However, I suspect that > >> the > >> powers do not want to say such a thing. For that alone it is not a > >> satisfactory definition. But it too is less than is needed-for bridge. > >> And > >> thus it too is nonsense. > >> > >> And what about putting them together. > >> > >> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > >> other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > >> denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > >> more) > >> there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call > >> a > >> convention. > >> > >> Languagewise this does not make sense. > > > > The lawbook definition makes sense to me what are you seeing that I am > > not? > > > > Wayne > > For instance what is -high-card strength or length (three cards or more) > there.? > > To me it sounds as if a call that names a suit containing honor strength it > is a convention. As in it meets the defintion of convention. > And it sounds as if a call that names a suit containing three card length it > is a convention. As in it meets the defintion of convention. > > It does seem that a few things might well be absent, such as agreements > promising length in a suit not named etc... > > One thing also is that the definition says that it is a call that is a > convention. Well that is nonsense. A convention is an agreement (to a > call), not a call itself [which is defined as something else.] > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. I think the to be conventional the call needs to convey a meaning other than: 1. willingness to play ... 2. high card strength 3. length That is a call is not a convention if it shows any one of those three things unless it also conveys some other meaning like length in another suit or strength in another suit or potentially offering to play in some other suit (denomination). For a different qualifier other than "other than" then we would need to explicit write that: Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or *shows* high-card strength or *shows* length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 01:43:56 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:43:56 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000701c720a7$e94d6820$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> <000701c720a7$e94d6820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612151643w4b573393vbdfc3fab1954c1c2@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > On Behalf Of John Probst > > > > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > > > > > > > > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > > > > > > Yes: > > > > > > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning > > > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > > > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or > > > more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make > > > a call a convention. > > > > > > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts. > > > > > > > It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional. > > No, that is precisely NOT what the 5H bid shows. A suit with KQJ is of 50% > greater strength than a suit with only the Ace. What the 5H bid shows is > exactly the Ace of Hearts, not the high card strength in Hearts. > Sven what you write implies that an Ace is not a high-card. Who cares whether there is a stronger (in terms of high-cards) suit. That does not detract from the fact that showing an ace is showing high-card strength. By your reasoning the only sorts opening bids that show length in a suit are like short club or diamond openings that show 3+ cards in the suit bid. Other bids like five-card majors or six-card weak twos or seven-card pre-empts do not show length they show 5+ cards or 6 cards or 7 cards respectively. Even a 3+ card club might not show length by your reasoning since it might exclude 9-card suits that open something else. The definition says that if the bid shows high-card strength in the suit then it is not conventional (unless there is some other meaning - not willingness to play or length). An ace is a particular sort of high-card strength so showing that meets the requirement of a bid showing high-card strength just as showing a five-card suit meets the requirement of showing length. Wayne From tzimnoch at comcast.net Sat Dec 16 02:59:19 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:59:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: References: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net><6.1.1.1.0.20061215161418.02b49a40@pop.starpower.net> <458317BC.2040606@comcast.net> Message-ID: <458352F7.5070602@comcast.net> Roger Pewick wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > I didn't recall such a statement in the GCC so I just looked it up- and it > is there, now. I further perused the chart and I saw no method including an > opening of 1H or 1S. The GCC is clear. Opening bids of 1H and/or 1S are > forbidden. I believe you are correct that no conventional 1H or 1S opening bids are currently allowed in the ACBL. They cannot prevent you from opening 1H or 1S naturally with as few as 8HCP as they only have the power to regulate conventions and extra-light openings. -Todd From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 16 03:43:38 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:43:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites References: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net><6.1.1.1.0.20061215161418.02b49a40@pop.starpower.net> <458317BC.2040606@comcast.net> <458352F7.5070602@comcast.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularites > Roger Pewick wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> I didn't recall such a statement in the GCC so I just looked it up- and >> it >> is there, now. I further perused the chart and I saw no method including >> an >> opening of 1H or 1S. The GCC is clear. Opening bids of 1H and/or 1S are >> forbidden. > > I believe you are correct that no conventional 1H or 1S > opening bids are currently allowed in the ACBL. While what I said is not in conflict with the above it is not what I said as what I said was that the GCC forbids methods that open the bidding 1H and/ or 1S irrespective of what meaning is attached. regards roger pewick >They cannot > prevent you from opening 1H or 1S naturally with as few as > 8HCP as they only have the power to regulate conventions and > extra-light openings. > -Todd From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Dec 16 04:23:26 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:23:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> [John Probst] > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > [nige1] IMO, if this is not a convention then the WBFLC definition of convention is flawed and needs to be clarified. To most players this 5H bid is *conventional* because its has meaning isn't obvious unless you've agreed it. IMO canape, fourth suit, cue bids, fit jumps and trial bids may all be *natural* in some sense. In spite of any official definition, however, they are all conventions. The "Conventonal" category should include any bid for which you have an agreed a meaning other than the most obvious meaning. IMO *natural* and *artificial* are the disjoint sets. Conventional bids, however, include all artificial bids and many natural bids. It is quite plain that disclosable and alertable bids should include not only all artificial bids; but also any *natural* bid with a *conventional meaning* or *negative inferences* that may not be obvious to opponents. From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 05:59:38 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:59:38 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612152059w7d5187a2p479425edec718e22@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Nigel wrote: > [John Probst] > > 4N P 5H. 4N is direct Ace ask, not Black > > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values. > > > [nige1] > > IMO, if this is not a convention then the WBFLC definition of convention > is flawed and needs to be clarified. To most players this 5H bid is > *conventional* because its has meaning isn't obvious unless you've > agreed it. > Yes you have agreed it. But this is just the same as agreeing 1H (2C) 2D is natural and forcing or natural and not forcing. Neither of these are conventions IMHO according the law book definition but either requires a special partnership agreement. In the context that 4NT will be based on a hand with a strong long suit a bid showing where your values are seems to me to be 'natural'. A special agreement that this shows specifically an ace is no different than a special agreement that is shows some other sort of high-card values with respect to defining the bid as conventional or non-conventional. There are many many situations where I have special agreements with my partner. I find that that sort of approach to the game helps. Some of these are convention according to the law book definition some are non-convention all are special agreements that might not be shared by other players. There are some situations analogous to the 4NT where we make a cue-bid showing a control (high-card) without explicitly agreeing a suit. While these are non-conventional IMHO there are certainly alternative and completely different non-conventional agreements that a partnership could have. This may make some agreements even though non-conventional alertable but it doesn't make them conventional. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 16 06:24:06 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 06:24:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612151643w4b573393vbdfc3fab1954c1c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c720d2$68cfac50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ........... > > > It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional. > > > > No, that is precisely NOT what the 5H bid shows. A suit with KQJ is of > 50% > > greater strength than a suit with only the Ace. What the 5H bid shows is > > exactly the Ace of Hearts, not the high card strength in Hearts. > > > > Sven what you write implies that an Ace is not a high-card. > > Who cares whether there is a stronger (in terms of high-cards) suit. > That does not detract from the fact that showing an ace is showing > high-card strength. I could have agreed with you if the 5H bid showed at least 4 HCP in Hearts, or maybe even if it showed exactly 4 HCP in Hearts or something in that respect. The point is that the 5H bid does not show "strength" in Hearts, it shows a particular card. And that is not the same. > By your reasoning the only sorts opening bids that show length in a > suit are like short club or diamond openings that show 3+ cards in the > suit bid. Other bids like five-card majors or six-card weak twos or > seven-card pre-empts do not show length they show 5+ cards or 6 cards > or 7 cards respectively. Even a 3+ card club might not show length by > your reasoning since it might exclude 9-card suits that open something > else. > > The definition says that if the bid shows high-card strength in the > suit then it is not conventional (unless there is some other meaning - > not willingness to play or length). An ace is a particular sort of > high-card strength so showing that meets the requirement of a bid > showing high-card strength just as showing a five-card suit meets the > requirement of showing length. Can we agree that the definition of "Conventional" is flawed? The opening call of PASS in a strong pass system is NOT conventional. The opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is NOT conventional. The opening bid of 2C (strong) in a natural system is NOT conventional. They all show "general strength"! The response 1D to an opening bid 1C in Vienna and the strength scale responses sometimes used to for instanced the strong 2C opening bid are NOT conventional. They show "general strength", namely strength within particular ranges. I cannot define a convention but I know it when I see it. Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 06:55:27 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:55:27 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000001c720d2$68cfac50$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612151643w4b573393vbdfc3fab1954c1c2@mail.gmail.com> <000001c720d2$68cfac50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612152155l5b0fb995qd10adb3d752e7c5b@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ........... > > > > It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional. > > > > > > No, that is precisely NOT what the 5H bid shows. A suit with KQJ is of > > 50% > > > greater strength than a suit with only the Ace. What the 5H bid shows is > > > exactly the Ace of Hearts, not the high card strength in Hearts. > > > > > > > Sven what you write implies that an Ace is not a high-card. > > > > Who cares whether there is a stronger (in terms of high-cards) suit. > > That does not detract from the fact that showing an ace is showing > > high-card strength. > > I could have agreed with you if the 5H bid showed at least 4 HCP in Hearts, > or maybe even if it showed exactly 4 HCP in Hearts or something in that > respect. The point is that the 5H bid does not show "strength" in Hearts, it > shows a particular card. And that is not the same. I don't follow your logic here at all. Showing an ace in the suit named is showing high-card strength in the suit named even if it is particular strength. There is nothing in the definition that says it has to show general strength. Showing an ace is a subset of all of the agreements that would comply with the requirement to show high-card strength. > > > By your reasoning the only sorts opening bids that show length in a > > suit are like short club or diamond openings that show 3+ cards in the > > suit bid. Other bids like five-card majors or six-card weak twos or > > seven-card pre-empts do not show length they show 5+ cards or 6 cards > > or 7 cards respectively. Even a 3+ card club might not show length by > > your reasoning since it might exclude 9-card suits that open something > > else. > > > > The definition says that if the bid shows high-card strength in the > > suit then it is not conventional (unless there is some other meaning - > > not willingness to play or length). An ace is a particular sort of > > high-card strength so showing that meets the requirement of a bid > > showing high-card strength just as showing a five-card suit meets the > > requirement of showing length. > > Can we agree that the definition of "Conventional" is flawed? I am yet to be convinced of this. > > The opening call of PASS in a strong pass system is NOT conventional. A conventional pass is defined elsewhere. > The opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is NOT conventional. > The opening bid of 2C (strong) in a natural system is NOT conventional. > They all show "general strength"! > The response 1D to an opening bid 1C in Vienna and the strength scale > responses sometimes used to for instanced the strong 2C opening bid are NOT > conventional. They show "general strength", namely strength within > particular ranges. The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid conventional. If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it is a convention. 1C strong, 2C strong and 1D (over 1C) weak are all conventional since none of them show willingness to play or strength or length in the named denomination. > > I cannot define a convention but I know it when I see it. > I doubt that many would accept this as a substitute for a definition. Wayne From tkooij at tiscali.nl Sat Dec 16 09:50:37 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:50:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> Message-ID: IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) Mike That sounds like a poor conclusion. If the fact that somebody draws a wrong conclusion from a statement (definition) makes the statement (definition) poor there is nothing but poverty in this world. ton From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 16 10:48:51 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:48:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Friend in distress. Message-ID: <001d01c720f7$7c3caa70$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +=+ I have received word that Richard Hills is unwell and in hospital. I do not have any details. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 11:07:04 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:07:04 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <4583b363.6c4bc72d.5eea.55d8SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <000401c7206a$7bdea700$18419058@oakdene1> <4583b363.6c4bc72d.5eea.55d8SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612160207n6591426egf83b9884093ef56b@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, ton kooijman wrote: > IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > > (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) > > Mike > > That sounds like a poor conclusion. If the fact that somebody draws a wrong > conclusion from a statement (definition) makes the statement (definition) > poor there is nothing but poverty in this world. > Agreed. Explain how the conclusion that 5H is not conventional is poor. It seems exactly in accord with the law to me. Wayne From sarahamos at onetel.net Sat Dec 16 11:07:17 2006 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:07:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <20061216083740.AF93710446@sgrsil32.onetel.net.uk> Message-ID: <001801c720f9$f76fbff0$18419058@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton kooijman" To: "'Mike Amos'" ; "'Sven Pran'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [blml] convention > IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > > (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) > > Mike > > That sounds like a poor conclusion. If the fact that somebody draws a > wrong > conclusion from a statement (definition) makes the statement (definition) > poor there is nothing but poverty in this world. > > ton I exaggerated. The point I was trying to make was, that when there is room for discussion amongst serious and informed students of the game and at least some doubt amongst us as to whether for example 5H showing the Ace is, or is not, a convention, then that makes the statement (definition) poor. :) Mike > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 16 11:14:37 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:14:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <20061216091346.F17A21C00084@mwinf3312.me.freeserve.com> Message-ID: <003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton kooijman" To: "'Mike Amos'" ; "'Sven Pran'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > > (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) > > Mike > > That sounds like a poor conclusion. If the fact that somebody > draws a wrong conclusion from a statement (definition) makes > the statement (definition) poor there is nothing but poverty in > this world. > > ton > +=+ I agree. Over the years there have been repeated occasions when the definition of 'convention' has been questioned and fresh attempts have been made to define the word for the purposes of law and regulation. It is one of those words where we all know what we are trying to say but which slips from grasp when we try to nail it down. I have had the benefit of opinion from Edgar Kaplan, Ralph Cohen, Ton, and other luminaries on this subject, and I am conscious that there is still a lacuna to bridge. But it does no good if players attack the subject with pedagogic sophistry - no way to assist the game. As to the case above, the key element, the primary message of 5H is that the suit is controlled and for me that message is fundamentally different from the message 'shows high card strength'. Patience, we are working on it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 11:22:02 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:22:02 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20061216091346.F17A21C00084@mwinf3312.me.freeserve.com> <003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612160222k35921015x1088d1d0fb38ab04@mail.gmail.com> On 16/12/06, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] > ***************************** > "Never laugh at live dragons." > 'The Hobbit' > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton kooijman" > To: "'Mike Amos'" ; > "'Sven Pran'" ; > "'blml'" > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:50 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > > > IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention > > > > (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is) > > > > Mike > > > > That sounds like a poor conclusion. If the fact that somebody > > draws a wrong conclusion from a statement (definition) makes > > the statement (definition) poor there is nothing but poverty in > > this world. > > > > ton > > > +=+ I agree. Over the years there have been repeated occasions > when the definition of 'convention' has been questioned and fresh > attempts have been made to define the word for the purposes of > law and regulation. It is one of those words where we all know > what we are trying to say but which slips from grasp when we try > to nail it down. I have had the benefit of opinion from Edgar Kaplan, > Ralph Cohen, Ton, and other luminaries on this subject, and I am > conscious that there is still a lacuna to bridge. But it does no good > if players attack the subject with pedagogic sophistry - no way to > assist the game. As to the case above, the key element, the primary > message of 5H is that the suit is controlled and for me that message > is fundamentally different from the message 'shows high card strength'. > Patience, we are working on it. I disagree with your interpretation of the primary message. If the primary message was that the suit was controled you might make this bid with a void (or even a singleton or void). Partner asked for a specific sort of control - an ace which is a high-card. Therefore the bid meets the definition of showing high-card strength in the suit bid. The primary message of the bid is that it shows an ace - a high-card, a specific type of high-card strength. If the bid showed a control only (that could be shortage) then I would agree that the bid was by definition conventional. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Dec 16 11:28:08 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:28:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061215162649.02b65aa0@pop.starpower.net> References: <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.co m> <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061216112016.0213bec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:38 15/12/2006 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >ISTM that a call that "conveys a meaning [of] high-card strength" is >one that means "I have high-card strength". That is different from one >that means "I have specifically the ace". In this case, I'd say the 5H call is a treatment (in that is is directly liked to the suit named by way of high-card strength, but with some specific properties), but still not a convention. However, some treatments are indeed alertable. Similar cases might include : - never-solid-suit strong jump shifts (Morehead / Schenken) ; - cue-bids, 1st round brfore second, or old-Italian (make 1 cue-bid per Ace you possess, even if it isn't your Ace you show) ; - fit-jumps. It is widespread knowledge that you shan't FJ on Ace-empty, but you'd do it on KJ, the same high-card strength (Theron's idea IIRC). Best regards Alain >The definition of >"convention" may have been written with the intent of treating >"high-card strength or length" as applying to showing specific high >cards or lengths as well as to merely showing "some strength" or "some >length", as Wayne suggests, but that's far from clear from the wording. > > >Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Dec 16 11:42:26 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:42:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <001801c720f9$f76fbff0$18419058@oakdene1> References: <20061216083740.AF93710446@sgrsil32.onetel.net.uk> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061216113316.021391c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:07 16/12/2006 +0000, Mike Amos wrote: >I exaggerated. The point I was trying to make was, that when there is room >for discussion amongst serious and informed students of the game and at >least some doubt amongst us as to whether for example 5H showing the Ace is, >or is not, a convention, then that makes the statement (definition) poor. >:) Mmmh. Then 90% at least of law texts are poorly written, if one should judge by the number of suits based on interpretation of each and every one. I'd rather say no definition is perfect, and their precision is limited by the degree of complexity we want tu put into them. In the"general" section, I'd accept that said degree remain mild. Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Dec 16 14:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000701c720a7$e94d6820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > No, that is precisely NOT what the 5H bid shows. A suit with KQJ is > of 50% greater strength than a suit with only the Ace. What the 5H > bid shows is exactly the Ace of Hearts, not the high card strength > in Hearts. Technically the 5H bid does not show "exactly the HA", it shows high-card strength including, but not limited to, the HA - but I don't think that is actually relevant. One simply cannot maintain the position that a bid which shows an ace doesn't promise high card strength. "High card strength" is a general term which admits of various subsets amongst which I have seen (in various contexts): Ace, Ace or King, two of the top three honours, KJT or better, Ace or KQ, at least QJx. If we are to rule that any specificity as to high card strength makes the bid conventional then many people are opening conventional weak 2s without realising it. Similarly 4/5/6+ cards is a subset of 3+ cards and again we will have to rule conventionality for such length related specificity. The allusions to 5H being a "control" bid are unhelpful. Typically control bids don't promise high card strength since they can me made on a singleton/void. Note to Nigel: It doesn't matter, for EBU alerting purposes, whether 5H is conventional or not. It's above the level of 3N and not an opening bid so it's not alertable. As with any bid agreements as to exact meaning are disclosable. Tim. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 16 18:29:18 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:29:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Profit from irregularites In-Reply-To: References: <000401c72024$40a316d0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4582E180.2060508@comcast.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20061215161418.02b49a40@pop.starpower.net> <458317BC.2040606@comcast.net> <458352F7.5070602@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > what I said was that the GCC forbids methods that open the bidding > 1H and/ > or 1S irrespective of what meaning is attached. Also 1NT, if your argument is valid. However, while the GCC doesn't explicitly say that it applies only to conventions, and not to natural bids, it does include "convention" in its name, it does say "the conventions listed below must be allowed..." and I daresay the ACBLLC is as aware as we here on blml that SOs have no right to regulate natural bids (at least where such bids at the one level show at least 8 HCP). So IMO your argument is not valid. I would agree that the ACBL would do well to add the word "conventional" before "methods" in the statement you quoted, . :-) From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 16 22:02:24 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:02:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612152155l5b0fb995qd10adb3d752e7c5b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000901c72155$7cd1a7c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ........... > I don't follow your logic here at all. Showing an ace in the suit > named is showing high-card strength in the suit named even if it is > particular strength. There is nothing in the definition that says it > has to show general strength. Showing an ace is a subset of all of > the agreements that would comply with the requirement to show > high-card strength. Strength is measured in HCP, not in the existence of a particular honour card. ............. > > Can we agree that the definition of "Conventional" is flawed? > > I am yet to be convinced of this. > > > > > The opening call of PASS in a strong pass system is NOT conventional. > > A conventional pass is defined elsewhere. Where (in the laws)? > > The opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is NOT conventional. > > The opening bid of 2C (strong) in a natural system is NOT conventional. > > They all show "general strength"! > > The response 1D to an opening bid 1C in Vienna and the strength scale > > responses sometimes used to for instanced the strong 2C opening bid are > NOT > > conventional. They show "general strength", namely strength within > > particular ranges. > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > conventional. It does indeed! See the last clause in the definition of a Convention: However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. > If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it > is a convention. You had better read the complete definition. > > 1C strong, 2C strong and 1D (over 1C) weak are all conventional since > none of them show willingness to play or strength or length in the > named denomination. > > > > I cannot define a convention but I know it when I see it. > > > > I doubt that many would accept this as a substitute for a definition. Neither do I. Sven From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 22:50:42 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 16:50:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0612161350k38718f77o1de451d623f7ac25@mail.gmail.com> On 12/15/06, Nigel wrote: > IMO canape, fourth suit, cue bids, fit jumps and trial bids may all be > *natural* in some sense. In spite of any official definition, however, > they are all conventions. > > The "Conventonal" category should include any bid for which you have an > agreed a meaning other than the most obvious meaning. IMO *natural* and > *artificial* are the disjoint sets. Conventional bids, however, include > all artificial bids and many natural bids. Pray tell, what does "obvious" mean? If a North American hears a 1S opening, its obvious that this shows 5+ Spades. If a Brit hears a 1S opening, its obvious that this shows 4+ Spades. Personally, I don't think that basic definitions that form the foundation for the Laws should be based on anything as subjective as what people think is "obvious". I see no reason why a bidding system based on showing longer suits first is necessarily any more obvious than one that uses canape principles. > It is quite plain that disclosable and alertable bids should include not > only all artificial bids; but also any *natural* bid with a > *conventional meaning* or *negative inferences* that may not be obvious > to opponents. I'm somewhat confused. At one point in time you were extremely vocal that the alert system should be based on departures from a "standard" system. You now seem to be suggesting that the set of alertable bids should include: A: All conventional bids B. All bids that depart from the standard system C. I'm sure there must be a "C" as well Might I suggest that we just alert each and every bid that we make. The system is very easy to remember and administer and ensures that no one can complain that we missed an alert. Of course, the system doesn't convey any useful information, but at least we get to say alert a lot. -- "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't" Will Rogers From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 23:34:53 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:34:53 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000901c72155$7cd1a7c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612152155l5b0fb995qd10adb3d752e7c5b@mail.gmail.com> <000901c72155$7cd1a7c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612161434l52759186p298e1a9c2468e8f1@mail.gmail.com> On 17/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ........... > > I don't follow your logic here at all. Showing an ace in the suit > > named is showing high-card strength in the suit named even if it is > > particular strength. There is nothing in the definition that says it > > has to show general strength. Showing an ace is a subset of all of > > the agreements that would comply with the requirement to show > > high-card strength. > > Strength is measured in HCP, not in the existence of a particular honour > card. > And this is decreed where? You can't just make something up like this Sven and expect everyone or anyone to believe you. > ............. > > > Can we agree that the definition of "Conventional" is flawed? > > > > I am yet to be convinced of this. > > > > > > > > The opening call of PASS in a strong pass system is NOT conventional. > > > > A conventional pass is defined elsewhere. > > Where (in the laws)? Yes see Law 30C "A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named" > > > > The opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is NOT conventional. > > > The opening bid of 2C (strong) in a natural system is NOT conventional. > > > They all show "general strength"! > > > The response 1D to an opening bid 1C in Vienna and the strength scale > > > responses sometimes used to for instanced the strong 2C opening bid are > > NOT > > > conventional. They show "general strength", namely strength within > > > particular ranges. > > > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > > conventional. > > It does indeed! See the last clause in the definition of a Convention: > However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > convention. IMO that is a wrong reading of this part of the definition. 1C Precision 16+ hcp any distribution. "16+ hcp" this does not make this call a convention but the "any distribution" being a meaning other than "offer to play in clubs" or "high cards in clubs" or "length in clubs" does. Compare this with: 1C 8-11 with clubs or 1C 11-20 with clubs or 1C 14+ with clubs or even 1C 20+ with clubs The 8-11, 11-20, 14+ or 20+ being agreements as to overall strength does not make these bids conventional and since they all show length in clubs they are not conventions therefore all of these bids meet the requirement for a non-conventional bid. What I am saying is the sentence "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." does not negate the requirement for a non-conventional bid to show "willingness to play" or "length" or "strength". That sentence is necessary though since without it Grattan's pedagogic sophist could argue that the meaning "11-20 hcp" is a meaning "other than ...". It simply states that the agreement to overall strength does not in itself make the call conventional it does not go further and state that an agreement to overcall strength makes the call non-conventional. The conventionality or otherwise of a call is determined by the previous sentence in the definition. > > > If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the > > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the > > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it > > is a convention. > > You had better read the complete definition. > I have many times and it makes sense to me. > > > > 1C strong, 2C strong and 1D (over 1C) weak are all conventional since > > none of them show willingness to play or strength or length in the > > named denomination. > > > > > > I cannot define a convention but I know it when I see it. > > > > > > > I doubt that many would accept this as a substitute for a definition. > > Neither do I. But you seem to be willing to rule as if that is your rule. As a director the laws bind you to the rules (and regulations) as written - L81B2 "The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation." Wayne From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Sun Dec 17 02:59:35 2006 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:59:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612151459m11a12402w5776e1ec17ef15c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061215162649.02b65aa0@pop.starpower.net> <2a1c3a560612151459m11a12402w5776e1ec17ef15c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4584A487.8080501@cs.elte.hu> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >An interesting argument Eric. > >We can apply the same reasoning to "length" or "willingness to play". > >"I have specifically the ace" is a subset of "I have high-card strength". > >"I have a five-card major" is a subset of "I have length" > >"My longest suit is spades and I am willing to play there" is a >subset of "I am willing to play in spades". > >Are five-card majors conventional? > >I think "high card strength" includes cue-bids that show a high-card >(specific or not) in the suit bid. A response to a specific ace-ask >is just a species of cue-bid. > >Wayne > > > 1H-2D 2N-3H 3S-4C... Playing 2/1, 3H assigns hearts as trumpsuit. 3S and 4C are both cuebids (first or second roud). Do you mean that 3S is not conventional (surely Ace or King of spades); 4C is conventional (maybe shortness)? Laci From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 04:30:31 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:30:31 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <4584A487.8080501@cs.elte.hu> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061215162649.02b65aa0@pop.starpower.net> <2a1c3a560612151459m11a12402w5776e1ec17ef15c4@mail.gmail.com> <4584A487.8080501@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612161930u74de046ew4e5e5a01b199df31@mail.gmail.com> On 17/12/06, Laszlo Hegedus wrote: > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >An interesting argument Eric. > > > >We can apply the same reasoning to "length" or "willingness to play". > > > >"I have specifically the ace" is a subset of "I have high-card strength". > > > >"I have a five-card major" is a subset of "I have length" > > > >"My longest suit is spades and I am willing to play there" is a > >subset of "I am willing to play in spades". > > > >Are five-card majors conventional? > > > >I think "high card strength" includes cue-bids that show a high-card > >(specific or not) in the suit bid. A response to a specific ace-ask > >is just a species of cue-bid. > > > >Wayne > > > > > > > 1H-2D > 2N-3H > 3S-4C... > > Playing 2/1, 3H assigns hearts as trumpsuit. 3S and 4C are both cuebids > (first or second roud). Do you mean that > 3S is not conventional (surely Ace or King of spades); > 4C is conventional (maybe shortness)? > That is exactly what the definition says: 3S shows high-card strength in spades therefore is not conventional 4C could be a shortage so does not show high-cards strength therefore is conventional (nor does it offer to play or show length). Grattan has hinted that the definition is supposed to mean something else but he has not explained exactly what that something is. Others to have dismissed this as flawed logic but have not as far as I have seen produced an arguement except one that requires you to accept that an ace is not "high-card strength" - presumably they would extend that logic to cue-bids that show an ace or a king. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 17 10:35:21 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:35:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612161434l52759186p298e1a9c2468e8f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > ........... > > > > Strength is measured in HCP, not in the existence of a particular honour > > card. > > > > And this is decreed where? Not in the laws, but since Culbertson days the strength of a hand has always been a measurement where the combination of all high cards has been expressed as a measurement of that hand. Currently the official" (if anything can be called official in this matter) strength scale is based on the scale Ace counts 4, King 3, Queen 2 and Jack 1. ........ > > > A conventional pass is defined elsewhere. > > > > Where (in the laws)? > > Yes see Law 30C "A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it > promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it > artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit > named" Yes, you got me there. > > > > > > The opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is NOT conventional. > > > > The opening bid of 2C (strong) in a natural system is NOT > conventional. > > > > They all show "general strength"! > > > > The response 1D to an opening bid 1C in Vienna and the strength > scale > > > > responses sometimes used to for instanced the strong 2C opening bid > are > > > NOT > > > > conventional. They show "general strength", namely strength within > > > > particular ranges. > > > > > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > > > conventional. > > > > It does indeed! See the last clause in the definition of a Convention: > > However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > > convention. > > IMO that is a wrong reading of this part of the definition. That is where we disagree, but on the other side I believe I have got you exactly where I wanted. In my opinion all my examples are indeed "Conventional" although according to your reading of the definitions (I believe) the consequence would be that they are not. Now back to the 5H bid we were discussing. The argument for this bid to be not conventional was I believe that it showed "high card strength" in Hearts. My argument is that the bid does not only show strength, it shows a very special strength, and that this difference is sufficient for the bid to be considered a conventional bid. I do not think we can get any further, but let me remind you (and others) that the term "conventional" calls in bridge goes back to the days of Culbertson and was originally reserved for calls that were not "according to Culbertson" but even including some of Culbertson's conventions like the takeout double over an opening bid. And still the apparent intention with classifying certain calls as conventional is the need for a distinction between "natural" calls and "not natural" calls", a distinction that is impossible to establish universally simply because what is "natural" in one environment may be highly unusual in another. Thanks for the discussion Sven From tkooij at tiscali.nl Sun Dec 17 10:50:26 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:50:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: +=+ As to the case above, the key element, the primary message of 5H is that the suit is controlled and for me that message is fundamentally different from the message 'shows high card strength'. Patience, we are working on it. That is not the case as presented. I agree with Grattan that showing a control is not the same as conveying a meaning about high card strength. But in the case as presented 5H showed the ace of hearts and not a void. That I consider a meaning about high card strength. If somebody disagrees may I know with what argument? ton From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 11:48:29 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:48:29 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612161434l52759186p298e1a9c2468e8f1@mail.gmail.com> <000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612170248t2293c5d6ib64b4e936e59c78b@mail.gmail.com> On 17/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > > ........... > > > > > > Strength is measured in HCP, not in the existence of a particular honour > > > card. > > > > > > > And this is decreed where? > > Not in the laws, but since Culbertson days the strength of a hand has always > been a measurement where the combination of all high cards has been > expressed as a measurement of that hand. Currently the official" (if > anything can be called official in this matter) strength scale is based on > the scale Ace counts 4, King 3, Queen 2 and Jack 1. Well i agree with your concerns about whether this can be called official. > > ........ > > > > A conventional pass is defined elsewhere. > > > > > > Where (in the laws)? > > > > Yes see Law 30C "A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it > > promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it > > artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit > > named" > > Yes, you got me there. > > > > > > > > > The opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is NOT conventional. > > > > > The opening bid of 2C (strong) in a natural system is NOT > > conventional. > > > > > They all show "general strength"! > > > > > The response 1D to an opening bid 1C in Vienna and the strength > > scale > > > > > responses sometimes used to for instanced the strong 2C opening bid > > are > > > > NOT > > > > > conventional. They show "general strength", namely strength within > > > > > particular ranges. > > > > > > > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > > > > conventional. > > > > > > It does indeed! See the last clause in the definition of a Convention: > > > However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > > > convention. > > > > IMO that is a wrong reading of this part of the definition. > > That is where we disagree, but on the other side I believe I have got you > exactly where I wanted. > > In my opinion all my examples are indeed "Conventional" although according > to your reading of the definitions (I believe) the consequence would be that > they are not. Wrong my reading is that they are conventions. > > Now back to the 5H bid we were discussing. The argument for this bid to be > not conventional was I believe that it showed "high card strength" in > Hearts. > > My argument is that the bid does not only show strength, it shows a very > special strength, and that this difference is sufficient for the bid to be > considered a conventional bid. Just consider that the definition includes a possibility of length and a possibility of strength from including a bid from being conventional. It is fair to assume from this that the law makers thought that there was some type of bids that showed strength in a suit that did not necessarily show length otherwise they could have omitted the reference to showing strength and the reference to showing length would have sufficed. I can think of no bid other than a control showing cue-bid that shows strength in a suit without necessarily showing length. Therefore I conclude that this is exactly the sort of bid that the law makes non-conventional. > > I do not think we can get any further, but let me remind you (and others) > that the term "conventional" calls in bridge goes back to the days of > Culbertson and was originally reserved for calls that were not "according to > Culbertson" but even including some of Culbertson's conventions like the > takeout double over an opening bid. If it was intended we keep with that practice then the definition could define a convention as something that was not according to Culbertson. > > And still the apparent intention with classifying certain calls as > conventional is the need for a distinction between "natural" calls and "not > natural" calls", a distinction that is impossible to establish universally > simply because what is "natural" in one environment may be highly unusual in > another. In terms of the law the definition of convention is only needed for conventional insufficient bids, conventional calls out of rotation and limiting the power of the sponsoring organization to regulate conventions. I suppose sponsoring organizations might also refer to conventions in their regulations. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 11:51:41 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:51:41 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <458512e7.005efcca.5575.37aeSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <458512e7.005efcca.5575.37aeSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612170251x7902cf10vdf4873ad23a1c56c@mail.gmail.com> On 17/12/06, ton kooijman wrote: > +=+ As to the case above, the key element, the primary > message of 5H is that the suit is controlled and for me that message > is fundamentally different from the message 'shows high card strength'. > Patience, we are working on it. > > > That is not the case as presented. I agree with Grattan that showing a > control is not the same as conveying a meaning about high card strength. But > in the case as presented 5H showed the ace of hearts and not a void. > That I consider a meaning about high card strength. > If somebody disagrees may I know with what argument? > Ton I am struggling to reconcile your position ... previous you said "That sounds like a poor conclusion" I thought that was in response to Mike's statement: "IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention" now you seem to arguing that the 5H bid is not a convention. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 17 12:20:27 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:20:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <200612171046.kBHAka6A008121@mail29.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000101c721cd$5a9c1820$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of ton kooijman > +=+ As to the case above, the key element, the primary > message of 5H is that the suit is controlled and for me that message > is fundamentally different from the message 'shows high card strength'. > Patience, we are working on it. > > > That is not the case as presented. I agree with Grattan that showing a > control is not the same as conveying a meaning about high card strength. > But > in the case as presented 5H showed the ace of hearts and not a void. > That I consider a meaning about high card strength. > If somebody disagrees may I know with what argument? If the meaning of the 5H bid had been "showing strength" I do not quite understand why the same bid should not have been made with KJ in Hearts? We all know that no matter how strong the Heart suit is in high card points the only thing that matters in this case is the Ace and only the Ace. Failing to bid 5H in this situation denies the Ace, but it certainly does not deny strength in the Heart suit. To me this all means that the 5H bid is indeed conventional. A side question: I play multi 2D opening bid which of course is conventional by all measures. The "conventional" answers to this opening bid include 2S which is invitation to game if the opener happens to have a weak Heart hand but it shows willingness to play in 2S if the opener has a weak spade hand. Should this answering bid be treated as non conventional "because it shows willingness to play in spades"? Notice that the bid may be given even with a void in spades! (It typically shows a decent hand with good support in Hearts). Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 17 13:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven, Can you just confirm that in your interpretation a 2H opening bid which promises "two of the top three honours" (ie would not be opened with AJxxxx) is conventional, as is an agreement that the minimum suit quality requirement for a vulnerable 2H bid of KJTxxx (A76543 would not suffice) is also conventional? I think you need to understand that "specific high card strength" is not "other than high card strength". It's the same as the standards we apply to length - the definition says "3+" but we don't rule bids as conventional merely because they promise 4+/5+/6+ etc. The legal definition really *isn't* hard to understand or to work with. It accords with the concepts of showing length/values/stoppers naturally (as well as the "OK, I'm prepared to play here" usage. > In my opinion all my examples are indeed "Conventional" although > according to your reading of the definitions (I believe) the > consequence would be that they are not. I think you are misreading the phrase in law "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." This phrase means that a call which is not conventional (by virtue of conveying willingness to play, length, or HCS) does not *become* conventional merely by the additional attachment of a value range. Where a call carries none of the "natural" meanings it will be conventional regardless of whether a range of values is attached. (Precision 1C/1D, Acol2C etc are all conventional). Tim From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 17 14:27:57 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:27:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c721df$2aa9e770$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven, > > Can you just confirm that in your interpretation a 2H opening bid which > promises "two of the top three honours" (ie would not be opened with > AJxxxx) is conventional, as is an agreement that the minimum suit > quality requirement for a vulnerable 2H bid of KJTxxx (A76543 would not > suffice) is also conventional? If the 2H opening bid could be made based solely upon the high card strength, i.e. for instance with AK and nothing more, then certainly it would be conventional. But the 2H opening bid primarily shows a six card suit with a certain strength. Showing the strength as such is not the (primary) feature of that bid. The 5H bid we are discussing is only showing the Ace of Hearts, the strength and/or length of the heart suit is immaterial. THAT makes that bid conventional to me. > I think you need to understand that "specific high card strength" is not > "other than high card strength". It certainly is. When the strength of a suit is not the objective of a call but a side effect of that call there is a difference. ........... > I think you are misreading the phrase in law "However, an agreement as > to overall strength does not make a call a convention." This phrase > means that a call which is not conventional (by virtue of conveying > willingness to play, length, or HCS) does not *become* conventional > merely by the additional attachment of a value range. Where a > call carries none of the "natural" meanings it will be conventional > regardless of whether a range of values is attached. (Precision 1C/1D, > Acol2C etc are all conventional). The existence of the single word "however" in this clause makes me believe that the meaning is that the _otherwise_ "not conventional" call does not become conventional just because it specifies an overall strength. It cannot IMHO be taken to make an otherwise conventional call _not_ conventional simply because it happens to indicate a particular overall strength level. As all calls (by agreement or understanding) somehow indicate a particular strength level or strength range the consequence of the latter understanding above would be that any call can be claimed to be not conventional. Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 17 15:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000301c721df$2aa9e770$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > > Can you just confirm that in your interpretation a 2H opening bid > > which > > promises "two of the top three honours" (ie would not be opened with > > AJxxxx) is conventional, as is an agreement that the minimum suit > > quality requirement for a vulnerable 2H bid of KJTxxx (A76543 would > > not suffice) is also conventional? > If the 2H opening bid could be made based solely upon the high card > strength, i.e. for instance with AK and nothing more, then certainly > it would be conventional. Actually if the 2H bid promised "At least the HKQ, may have additional length/honours." it certainly WOULDN'T be conventional (Unusual, and probably useless, but not conventional). > But the 2H opening bid primarily shows a > six card suit with a certain strength. Showing the strength as such > is not the (primary) feature of that bid. When I agree to play sound weak 2s (promising at least two of the top 3 honours) the honours are as integral to the bid as the agreed length, but you are missing the point. If I play 2H as showing "at least 5H, an outside 4 card minor" then the "outside four card minor" is a meaning "other than" the allowable ones and 2H is conventional. If you insist that *specific* agreements as to the nature of high card strength requirements are "other than HCS" you must apply the rule consistently. Thus they are "other than" regardless of whether length is promised. I, OTOH, treat such agreements as a *subset* of HCS - and thus permit any arrangements (except denials, obviously) as to honour holdings in the bid suit without ruling a bid conventional. > If the meaning of the 5H bid had been "showing strength" I do not > quite understand why the same bid should not have been made with KJ in > Hearts? In exactly the same way that if I promise "two of top 3" I won't open on AJxxxx but will open on KQxxxx. The precise strength of the former doesn't meet the agreed requirements of the partnership. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 17 15:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612170251x7902cf10vdf4873ad23a1c56c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > > Ton I am struggling to reconcile your position ... > previous you said > > "That sounds like a poor conclusion" > > I thought that was in response to Mike's statement: Wayne, Ton was saying that Sven's inability to understand the definition did not justify (of itself) the conclusion that the definition itself was flawed. Ie it was a reference to the statement "(at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is)". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 17 15:48:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000101c721cd$5a9c1820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > A side question: I play multi 2D opening bid which of course is > conventional by all measures. The "conventional" answers to this > opening bid include 2S which is invitation to game if the opener > happens to have a weak Heart hand but it shows willingness to play in > 2S if the opener has a weak spade hand. > > Should this answering bid be treated as non conventional "because it > shows willingness to play in spades"? Yes it shows "willingness" but since you have written above that it carries an additional meaning of "G.Invite in H" (which is clearly not related to spades in any way) it should be obvious it is conventional. This distinguishes it from a non-conventional 2H response "willingness to play in 2H, promises nothing about any other suit, denies sufficient values for game opposite a wk2 in H". Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Dec 17 16:19:23 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:19:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0612161350k38718f77o1de451d623f7ac25@mail.gmail.com> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0612161350k38718f77o1de451d623f7ac25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45855FFB.8050103@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] > Pray tell, what does "obvious" mean? If a North American hears a 1S > opening, its obvious that this shows 5+ Spades. If a Brit hears a 1S > opening, its obvious that this shows 4+ Spades. Personally, I don't > think that basic definitions that form the foundation for the Laws > should be based on anything as subjective as what people think is > "obvious". I see no reason why a bidding system based on showing > longer suits first is necessarily any more obvious than one that uses > canape principles. > > [nige1] I agree. We all seem to disagree about the practical meaning of basic terms. A long time ago, I tried to define *natural* *artificial* and *conventional* in a Bridge article. I felt that conventional calls are those with an agreed meaning that was not immediately obvious. I defined *natural* as the opposite of *artificial* I started by defining a "natural" call as call that seriously advances the suggestion that the last contract or denomination become the final contract or denomination. Thus, if you are bidding suits, it would be natural to mention your suits in order of diminishing length. ( I feel that this to be on the right lines but I soon realised that most players regard as natural any methods to which they are accustomed. So that, in America, the SAYC Canape 1C openers are redefined "natural". Local regulations adapt their definition of "natural" to their interpretation of local tastes of local experts. So the "Natural" category grew to encompass each new fad: Cue bids, Trial bids, Fit jumps and so on. The motivation may to be to save experts from having to alert or to divulge their cunning practices. > [richard willey] > I'm somewhat confused. At one point in time you were extremely vocal > that the alert system should be based on departures from a "standard" > system. You now seem to be suggesting that the set of alertable bids > should include: > > A: All conventional bids > B. All bids that depart from the standard system > C. I'm sure there must be a "C" as well > > Might I suggest that we just alert each and every bid that we make. > The system is very easy to remember and administer and ensures that no > one can complain that we missed an alert. Of course, the system > doesn't convey any useful information, but at least we get to say > alert a lot. > > [nige1] I'm afraid you're right, Richard :) [A] The current disclosure system depends on local alert regulations. Alert regulations *implicitly* define a set of calls, from which you alert departures. This is an ad hoc collection of mostly "natural bids". Law-makers seem reluctant to admit that this defines a local *standard system* of a kind :) Of course, nobody would want to play it (: [B] IMO it would be better to define a *playable* simple system from which to alert departures. Arguably this would be less of a burden on your memory because the standard system would be a coherent whole -- that you could even use yourself in a pinch (for example with a pick-up partner). [C] Even better if the *standard system* were global,. Then players wouldn't have to learn different alert regulations for each SO. The playing field would be more level. International Standard system competitions -- even individual competitions -- would be facilitated. Bridge might even become a popular spectator sport (again). [D] Best would be to *announce* [rather than *alert*] departures from a *standard system* . Opponents would also have the option to switch off all your announcements. This would accelerate the game and almost eliminate one of the main sources of unauthorised information. If you disagree with all this, you are in good company. No law-maker and few BLMLers will publicly endorse this approach . Fortunately, events on-line are rapidly overtaking legislation and ordinary players are voting with their feet -- I mean keyboards. -- SAYC is rapidly assuming the role of "Standard system". I became aware of this when my Bridge class asked me to teach them it rather than my current Acol. -- On BBO, the system can automatically announce the agreement pertaining to a call to opponents only -- a brilliant innovation. . From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 16:53:12 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:53:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <45855FFB.8050103@NTLworld.com> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0612161350k38718f77o1de451d623f7ac25@mail.gmail.com> <45855FFB.8050103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0612170753j3b2572f8he1aa997132870020@mail.gmail.com> A few comments here: > A long time ago, I tried to define *natural* *artificial* and > *conventional* in a Bridge article. I felt that conventional calls are > those with an agreed meaning that was not immediately obvious. I > defined *natural* as the opposite of *artificial* > > I started by defining a "natural" call as call that seriously advances > the suggestion that the last contract or denomination become the final > contract or denomination. Thus, if you are bidding suits, it would be > natural to mention your suits in order of diminishing length. ( If you are trying to have an intelligible discussion you should really try to avoid changing the definition of words that have a well established meaning. "Natural", "artificial", and "conventional" are already defined. Trying to change this nomenclature doesn't advance the discussion, rather, it destroys people's ability to communicate. Case in point... I am going to extract quote from later on in your posting: "So that, in America, the SAYC Canape 1C openers are redefined 'natural'." Canape is a well established / well defined term. Standard American 1C openings have nothing to do with canape principles. You might enjoy throwing arround expressions like "canape", however, this type of ignorant statement detracts from the point that you are trying to make. I also think that its a mistake to introduce Electronic Bridge into this discussion. I agree with your basic point: Once the Full Disclosure application transitions into widespread use it will have a revolutionary impact on alerts and announcements in the electronic playing environment. From my perspective, the most significant change will be that the alert regime will become a user configurable option. I can have the FD application alert all artifical bids. My partner can have the FD application alert all bids that don't match SAYC. The opponents will be alerted if any bids correspond to their own version of Polish Club. Effectively, ease of automation allows us to sidestep a lot of nasty little problems. Equally significant, the FD application will create a host of new issues. However, I don't expect that any of this will have much impact on the traditional face-to-face game, nor does it have anything to do with the definition of "conventional" -- "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't" Will Rogers From sarahamos at onetel.net Sun Dec 17 17:13:05 2006 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:13:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: Message-ID: <001201c721f6$3bf43500$a30d9058@oakdene1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > Wayne wrote: >> >> Ton I am struggling to reconcile your position ... >> previous you said >> >> "That sounds like a poor conclusion" >> >> I thought that was in response to Mike's statement: > > Wayne, Ton was saying that Sven's inability to understand the definition > did not justify (of itself) the conclusion that the definition itself > was flawed. Ie it was a reference to the statement "(at the very least > this demonstrates what poor definition this is)". > > Tim > > Grattan As to the case above, the key element, the primary message of 5H is that the suit is controlled and for me that message is fundamentally different from the message 'shows high card strength'. Ton But in the case as presented 5H showed the ace of hearts and not a void. That I consider a meaning about high card strength. If somebody disagrees may I know with what argument? Well well well A discussion about whether 5H is a "grobbelysmack" would be about as useful. It seems to me that unless words can be defined clearly they cannot usefully be written into Laws and Regulations. What I think is, that we need to look at those laws (and maybe regulations) where we use the term "convention" and see if we can use some other term that we can define or agree upon. Eg in Law 40 D we might replace coventions with agreements Mike Amos > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 17 18:17:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:17:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c721ff$3c9c6cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > A side question: I play multi 2D opening bid which of course is > > conventional by all measures. The "conventional" answers to this > > opening bid include 2S which is invitation to game if the opener > > happens to have a weak Heart hand but it shows willingness to play in > > 2S if the opener has a weak spade hand. > > > > Should this answering bid be treated as non conventional "because it > > shows willingness to play in spades"? > > Yes it shows "willingness" but since you have written above that it > carries an additional meaning of "G.Invite in H" (which is clearly not > related to spades in any way) it should be obvious it is conventional. > > This distinguishes it from a non-conventional 2H response "willingness > to play in 2H, promises nothing about any other suit, denies sufficient > values for game opposite a wk2 in H". Please distinguish between "alertable" and "conventional", the latter as _you_ understand the laws. Remember that there is nothing in the laws that makes an alertable call conventional although there is a very strong correlation. The 2S response is definitely alertable whenever the alert system is used, that is out of question. I asked you what makes that call conventional the way you read and understand the definition of conventional in the laws. You can hardly find any call that only conveys just one meaning so stating that the 2S bid conveys a meaning other than (actually "in addition to") willingness to play in spades and therefore is conventional would be similar to saying that a raise of 1S directly to 4S conveys a meaning of no interest to play in any other contract than 4S "in addition to" willingness to play in spades and is therefore conventional. The fact is that both the 2S bid over 2D (multi) and the 4S bid over 1S show willingness to play in spades but we both agree (I assume) that the first is indeed conventional and the second is not. How does this fit the definition of conventional? My answer is: By focusing on the primary nature of the call in question and the situation in which it is made. Using this principle on the 5H bid that started this thread: It is also conventional; the fact that that bid shows a particular strength in hearts is a side effect and not the primary nature of that call. Sven From john at asimere.com Sun Dec 17 18:44:52 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:44:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <000401c721ff$3c9c6cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c72203$0e784dc0$0701a8c0@john> Sven: > > Using this principle on the 5H bid that started this thread: It is also > conventional; the fact that that bid shows a particular strength in hearts > is a side effect and not the primary nature of that call. > CAB vs natural responses then? 2C 2H shows the HA vs hearts (and a positive). I don't think it matters which. Neither is conventional by my reading of the Law. In one case we show length (and the strength of hand aspect is covered by Law) and in the other we show strength. Obviously the method is diclosable in each case, but that's not the issue. (and indeed CAB responses are probably alertable on basis of "unusual") but it doesn't make the CAB reponse conventional. We would not have the third part of the definition unless one was presuming a High card was an option. this OR this OR that. John > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Dec 17 19:33:22 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:33:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <200612152022.kBFKMOnd007795@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612152022.kBFKMOnd007795@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <45858D72.2070300@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Wayne Burrows" > It only has to be one of the possibilities to be not conventional - > willingness to play OR high-card strength OR length. Under a literal reading of the definition, that isn't quite right. Showing any or none of the three meanings or overall strength is irrelevant to the classification, but if a call shows anything else _besides_ those things, then it's a convention. There's also a WBFLC minute saying, in effect, that negative inferences don't make a call a convention. The fact that people are disagreeing about a particular call shows that the definition isn't easy to understand. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Dec 17 21:10:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:10 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000401c721ff$3c9c6cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Please distinguish between "alertable" and "conventional", the latter > as _you_ understand the laws. I made no mention of "alertable" - that's purely down to the SO regulations. I rule that 2S is conventional because it carries the message "I have a game invite in Hearts". I don't care whether the "primary" message is that or "I am willing to play in 2S", there are two messages one of which is clearly related to Hearts. > You can hardly find any call that only conveys just one meaning so I agree that it is necessary that one discounts purely negative inferences (e.g. "I have no longer suit than", "Shows 4+S but denies 4H") when considering relevant meanings. > stating that the 2S bid conveys a meaning other than (actually "in > addition to") willingness to play in spades It is also necessary that we read "Other than" as *including* "or in addition to" How > By focusing on the primary nature of the call > in question and the situation in which it is made. The *primacy* of content is irrelevant. We check *all* the agreements against the three criteria. Even if the bid says "I am willing to play in H AND I have length AND I have a certain high card strength" it will be deemed conventional if there is a 4th priority message "I also have a 4 card minor". > Using this principle on the 5H bid that started this thread: It is > also conventional; the fact that that bid shows a particular > strength in hearts is a side effect and not the primary nature of > that call. Sven, we are talking about a 5H bid whose primary (and indeed only) direct message is "I have specific HCS in Hearts". Tim From mustikka at charter.net Sun Dec 17 21:23:30 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:23:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] convention References: Message-ID: <001801c72219$37ff1820$3ed75047@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > Sven wrote: > >> Please distinguish between "alertable" and "conventional", the latter >> as _you_ understand the laws. > > I made no mention of "alertable" - that's purely down to the SO > regulations. I rule that 2S is conventional because it carries the > message "I have a game invite in Hearts". I don't care whether the > "primary" message is that or "I am willing to play in 2S", there are two > messages one of which is clearly related to Hearts. > >> You can hardly find any call that only conveys just one meaning so > > I agree that it is necessary that one discounts purely negative > inferences (e.g. "I have no longer suit than", "Shows 4+S but denies > 4H") when considering relevant meanings. > >> stating that the 2S bid conveys a meaning other than (actually "in >> addition to") willingness to play in spades > > It is also necessary that we read "Other than" as *including* "or in > addition to" > How > >> By focusing on the primary nature of the call >> in question and the situation in which it is made. > > The *primacy* of content is irrelevant. We check *all* the agreements > against the three criteria. Even if the bid says "I am willing to play > in H AND I have length AND I have a certain high card strength" it will > be deemed conventional if there is a 4th priority message "I also have a > 4 card minor". > >> Using this principle on the 5H bid that started this thread: It is >> also conventional; the fact that that bid shows a particular >> strength in hearts is a side effect and not the primary nature of >> that call. > > Sven, we are talking about a 5H bid whose primary (and indeed only) > direct message is "I have specific HCS in Hearts". > > Tim > I am still following this neverending thread with interest. The thread has expanded to other auctions than the OP one. A comment on Tim's point. In the OP case 4NT (asking for specific aces), the 5H call has two other meanings than just showing the ace of hearts. It also says "I do not have ace of clubs" and further, "I do not have ace of diamonds" (unless the response structure shows higher ace first...hehe). While conveying the ace of hearts, it also informs about two other suits, so could be analogous to the Multi example where 2S also informs about hearts in addition to willingness to play in spades. Anyway, I will let you gurus fight it out, but I still think 5H is a convention....I have not yet been able to buy the arguments presented by many respected blml'ers... Raija From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 17 23:47:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:47:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c7222d$564d2ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ......... > Sven, we are talking about a 5H bid whose primary (and indeed only) > direct message is "I have specific HCS in Hearts". No, the message is: "I have the Ace of Hearts". The actual strength of this particular card which I have is in this context of absolutely no concern. If the query had been for a card with no high card points value the answer would still have been either: "I have that particular card" or "I don't have that particular card". Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 17 23:53:03 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Dec 17, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >>> ........... >>> >>> Strength is measured in HCP, not in the existence of a particular >>> honour >>> card. >>> >> >> And this is decreed where? > > Not in the laws, but since Culbertson days the strength of a hand > has always > been a measurement where the combination of all high cards has been > expressed as a measurement of that hand. Currently the official" (if > anything can be called official in this matter) strength scale is > based on > the scale Ace counts 4, King 3, Queen 2 and Jack 1. "Official"? Pfui. Points don't take tricks. Fits take tricks. Is there anyone posting on blml who does not know that "points" are a lousy measure of strength in anything other than two balanced hands? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 18 00:04:34 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:04:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000401c721ff$3c9c6cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c721ff$3c9c6cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7A57BC3A-ACAA-4B34-ABEC-809412BE1158@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 17, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > there is nothing in the laws that makes an alertable call > conventional although there is a very strong > correlation. There is nothing in the laws that makes a call alertable. That decision is left to SOs. As far as the laws are concerned, any or all calls might be made alertable. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 18 00:33:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:33 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <001801c72219$37ff1820$3ed75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: Raija wrote: > In the OP case 4NT (asking for specific aces), the 5H call has two > other meanings than just showing the ace of hearts. It also says "I > do not have ace of clubs" and further, "I do not have ace of > diamonds" (unless the response structure shows higher ace > first...hehe). While conveying the ace of hearts, it also informs > about two other suits, so could be analogous to the Multi example > where 2S also informs about hearts in addition to willingness to play > in spades. The difference with the Multi 2S response is that the message about Hearts is a *positive* one. Steve Willner has already alluded to the WBF minute about purely negative inferences not making a bid conventional. NB this is fundamental to the definition since every bid I can think of (with the possible exception of 7N) has some negative inferences. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 18 00:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000501c7222d$564d2ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > *From:* "Sven Pran" > *To:* "blml" > *Date:* Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:47:31 +0100 > > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ......... > > Sven, we are talking about a 5H bid whose primary (and indeed only) > > direct message is "I have specific HCS in Hearts". > > No, the message is: "I have the Ace of Hearts". OK, if you prefer "I have HCS in H, specifically the ace" > The actual strength of this particular card which I have is in this > context of absolutely no concern. It is of concern to the law-makers. If the specific card(s) shown has/have "high card strength" the bid is not conventional. > If the query had been for a card > with no high card points value the answer would still have been > either: "I have that particular card" or "I don't have that > particular card". But in that case the answer would have a meaning "other than" HCS in the suit bid (albeit it might still not be conventional if it showed extra length). Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 18 11:20:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:20 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ed wrote: > "Official"? Pfui. Points don't take tricks. Fits take tricks. > > Is there anyone posting on blml who does not know that "points" are a > lousy measure of strength in anything other than two balanced hands? Probably not ;). FWIW the closest I can find to "official" recognition of high card strength has nothing to do with points but instead is the definition of Honour: Any Ace, King, Queen, Jack or 10. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 18 11:28:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:28:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: Message-ID: <008201c7228f$7784d450$1ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 11:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > > The actual strength of this particular card > > which I have is in this context of absolutely > > no concern. > > It is of concern to the law-makers. If the > specific card(s) shown has/have "high card > strength" the bid is not conventional. > +=+ This is inaccurately stated. Showing high card strength does not make a bid conventional but it is conventional if it conveys a parallel, a secondary, message that falls outside of the three descriptions in the definition of 'convention'. It is not whether there is a meaning that falls within these that determines whether it is conventional, it is whether it conveys a meaning outside of them, either as its only meaning or in addition to any other meaning it may have. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 18 11:29:00 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:29:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <200612152022.kBFKMOnd007795@cfa.harvard.edu> <45858D72.2070300@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <008301c7228f$7864fb20$1ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > Showing any or none of the three meanings or > overall strength is irrelevant to the classification, > but if a call shows anything else _besides_ those > things, then it's a convention. There's also a WBFLC > minute saying, in effect, that negative inferences don't > make a call a convention. > +=+ This is right. Whether or not the call conveys a meaning within the three descriptions in the definitions, if it conveys a meaning, or an additional meaning, that is not within those descriptions it is conventional. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 18 12:07:27 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:07:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <008301c7228f$7864fb20$1ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000601c72294$b476feb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott .............. > +=+ This is right. Whether or not the call conveys a > meaning within the three descriptions in the definitions, > if it conveys a meaning, or an additional meaning, that > is not within those descriptions it is conventional. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ We can now dissect the arguments used on the 5H bid discussed: The 5H bid conveys the information of some strength in Hearts and this meaning is within one of the descriptions for the call not being conventional. (Whether this information is positive information or inference is at this stage immaterial.) The 5H bid also conveys the (positive) information that the player holds a particular card, i.e. the Ace in Hearts, and this meaning is not within any of the three descriptions for a call not being conventional. I take Grattan's last statement to the effect that this last meaning of the 5H bid makes that call conventional, an interpretation with which I in case fully agree. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 18 13:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000601c72294$b476feb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > The 5H bid also conveys the (positive) information that the player > holds a particular card, i.e. the Ace in Hearts, and this meaning is > not within any of the three descriptions for a call not being > conventional. Sven, please stop trying to twist things. The message about the HA *relates* to HCS in Hearts. It is not "other than HCS". Whether we count the five honour cards or the four "point" cards a message relating to possession of one (or more) of those cards, either specifically or "2 of 3" or "3 of 5" or whatever is *within* the definition of showing HCS. Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 18 13:21:41 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:21:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john><458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0612161350k38718f77o1de451d623f7ac25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001b01c7229f$2fcac1f0$85ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "richard willey" To: "Nigel" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > I'm somewhat confused. < +=+ That's conventions for you. The number of messages on here about them has been very high in a discussion lasting almost forever. And where have we arrived? Well, you tell me. Mike Amos says "when there is room for discussion amongst serious and informed students of the game and at least some doubt amongst us as to whether for example 5H showing the Ace is, or is not, a convention, then that makes the definition poor". Or, perhaps, the reading of them. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 18 13:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <001b01c7229f$2fcac1f0$85ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > Mike Amos says "when there is room for discussion > amongst serious and informed students of the game and at > least some doubt amongst us as to whether for example 5H > showing the Ace is, or is not, a convention, then that makes > the definition poor". > Or, perhaps, the reading of them. Or perhaps the communication thereof. It would surely be helpful were you simply to endorse Ton's clear statement that messages about specific high card(s) in the bid suit are included within the allowed meanings of "high card strength". Of course if you feel unable to endorse that opinion it would be helpful to acknowledge that the definition is clearly flawed. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Dec 18 13:59:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <008201c7228f$7784d450$1ba787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > It is of concern to the law-makers. If the > > specific card(s) shown has/have "high card > > strength" the bid is not conventional. > +=+ This is inaccurately stated. No it isn't. It was in response to, for example, bidding 3D to say "I have the D7"*. The D7 is neither an honour nor of any HCP value - I would expect us all to agree the 3D bid to be conventional. In comparison a 3D bid saying "I have the DA (or A/K, or AK)", would *not* be conventional. It was a given in the context that there was *NO* secondary message in either case. * I agree this may be a convention of limited utility! Tim From herman at hdw.be Mon Dec 18 15:25:25 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:25:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4586A4D5.3040804@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > No it isn't. It was in response to, for example, bidding 3D to say "I > have the D7"*. > * I agree this may be a convention of limited utility! > > Tim > Not if you're playing the beer rule. Of course, if you have the D7, I will try and get the contract in my hand. So perhaps a convention denying the D7 might be more interesting. Of course, provided that you always use it! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 18 15:44:21 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:44:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612151459m11a12402w5776e1ec17ef15c4@mail.gmail.co m> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <000901c72060$5df6c0b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560612151143w7711e19dnd38877b2ab1f535c@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061215162649.02b65aa0@pop.starpower.net> <2a1c3a560612151459m11a12402w5776e1ec17ef15c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218092847.02bb93e0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:59 PM 12/15/06, Wayne wrote: >On 16/12/06, Eric Landau wrote: > > > ISTM that a call that "conveys a meaning [of] high-card strength" is > > one that means "I have high-card strength". That is different from one > > that means "I have specifically the ace". The definition of > > "convention" may have been written with the intent of treating > > "high-card strength or length" as applying to showing specific high > > cards or lengths as well as to merely showing "some strength" or "some > > length", as Wayne suggests, but that's far from clear from the wording. > >An interesting argument Eric. > >We can apply the same reasoning to "length" or "willingness to play". > >"I have specifically the ace" is a subset of "I have high-card strength". > >"I have a five-card major" is a subset of "I have length" > >"My longest suit is spades and I am willing to play there" is a >subset of "I am willing to play in spades". > >Are five-card majors conventional? An agreement that a call shows some minimum length in the bid suit must "convey a meaning [of] length... there" even in the more restrictive reading of the definition. That would make five-card majors not conventional, because playing five-card majors an opening bid in a major shows five or more. But if it promised exactly five, no less and no more, it would be. >I think "high card strength" includes cue-bids that show a high-card >(specific or not) in the suit bid. A response to a specific ace-ask >is just a species of cue-bid. I do tend to agree with Wayne that the less restrictive meaning is the preferable one. I merely point out that the current definition could be interpreted either way. Standard cue bids are an odd duck, since they show neither "length" nor "strength", but rather control, which is something else entirely. Beginners are taught to cue-bid a suit with either the ace ("high-card strength") or a void (clearly something else). If we parse the definition carefully, a cue-bid of a void must be a conventional call, notwithstanding that accepted common practice does not treat it as such. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 18 16:04:22 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:04:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john> <458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218095247.02bd58d0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:23 PM 12/15/06, Nigel wrote: >IMO, if this is not a convention then the WBFLC definition of convention >is flawed and needs to be clarified. To most players this 5H bid is >*conventional* because its has meaning isn't obvious unless you've >agreed it. > >IMO canape, fourth suit, cue bids, fit jumps and trial bids may all be >*natural* in some sense. In spite of any official definition, however, >they are all conventions. > >The "Conventonal" category should include any bid for which you have an >agreed a meaning other than the most obvious meaning. IMO *natural* and >*artificial* are the disjoint sets. Conventional bids, however, include >all artificial bids and many natural bids. > >It is quite plain that disclosable and alertable bids should include not >only all artificial bids; but also any *natural* bid with a >*conventional meaning* or *negative inferences* that may not be obvious >to opponents. That may be true in everyday English, but the lexicon of bridge is a jargon of its own, in which Nigel's assertions are nonsense; statements like "conventional bids... include... many natural bids" or phrases like "natural bid with a conventional meaning" are patently self-contradictory. Bids can be "conventional" or "natural", and bids can be "alertable" or "not alertable", but these are strictly orthogonal; one has nothing to do with the other. "The most obvious meaning of a call" may well be a conventional one, and some "less obvious" meaning may be completely natural. Conflating those dimensions can only hamper intelligent discussion. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Mon Dec 18 17:50:28 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:50:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B7226C9CF93@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> I really don't understand what the fuss is all about. So perhaps I can inject some seasonal irreverance. > So perhaps a convention denying the D7 might be more interesting. The Bacon 2S bid show the singleton beer card, or your normal 2S opener. http://www.poorbridge.com/?misc=4 So, playing Bacon, all other calls deny singleton D7. Robin -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael Sent: 18 December 2006 14:25 To: blml Subject: Re: [blml] convention Tim West-Meads wrote: > No it isn't. It was in response to, for example, bidding 3D to say "I > have the D7"*. > * I agree this may be a convention of limited utility! > > Tim > Not if you're playing the beer rule. Of course, if you have the D7, I will try and get the contract in my hand. So perhaps a convention denying the D7 might be more interesting. Of course, provided that you always use it! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 18 19:53:27 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:53:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20061216091346.F17A21C00084@mwinf3312.me.freeserve.com> <003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218134517.02b532f0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:14 AM 12/16/06, Grattan wrote: >But it does no good >if players attack the subject with pedagogic sophistry - no way to >assist the game. When members of this forum attack various subjects with pedagogic sophistry, they do so in order to point out where the various laws in TFLB are subject to attack with pedagogic sophistry, in order to help those whose aim it is to write laws that are not subject to attack with pedagogic sophistry. ISTM that if we succeed in helping them accomplish this, it will indeed to some good and "assist the game". But that can only be accomplished if TPTB pay attention to those attacks, rather than dismiss them as mere noise. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 18 20:19:51 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:19:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000901c72155$7cd1a7c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612152155l5b0fb995qd10adb3d752e7c5b@mail.gmail.com> <000901c72155$7cd1a7c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218140512.02b53600@pop.starpower.net> At 04:02 PM 12/16/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > > conventional. > >It does indeed! See the last clause in the definition of a Convention: > However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a >convention. > > > If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the > > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the > > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it > > is a convention. > >You had better read the complete definition. I think it is Sven who is misreading the definition, by overlooking the import of the word "however", which makes the second sentence relevant only if the first sentence applies. A bid is always conventional if it doesn't show at least one of strength, length, or willingness to play, which is all Wayne has said. It is also conventional, by the first sentence of the definition, if it does show one or more of those but also carries some additional message. The second sentence creates an exception (implicit in the use of "however") to the latter, in the particular case where the additional message is limited to "an agreement as to overall strength". If my agreement about my heart bid is solely that it shows hearts (length, strength, or willingness to play), it is non-conventional. If it shows hearts *and in addition* shows clubs it is conventional (showing clubs is a "meaning other than" length, strength, or willingness to play). If it shows hearts *and in addition* promises at least 13 HCP (also a meaning other than length, strength ("there"), or willingness to play), it is not conventional, but would be absent the second sentence of the definition. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 18 20:34:39 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:34:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612161434l52759186p298e1a9c2468e8f1@mail.gmail.com> <000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218142736.02b524d0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:35 AM 12/17/06, Sven wrote: >I do not think we can get any further, but let me remind you (and others) >that the term "conventional" calls in bridge goes back to the days of >Culbertson and was originally reserved for calls that were not >"according to >Culbertson" but even including some of Culbertson's conventions like the >takeout double over an opening bid. Once upon a time, back in Culbertson's day, "convention" was used as a synonym for "non-standard agreement". That became unworkable about 40 years ago, when players and lawmakers discovered that they no longer had a consensus agreement as to what was "standard" (it took the ACBL about another 10 years to realize that had happened, and to stop regulating "non-standard" agreements such as weak two-bids or limit raises as "conventions"). In today's lexicon, "conventional" and "non-standard" are unrelated; a bid may be either, neither or both. We've come a long way, baby. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 18 22:21:40 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:21:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <5i31ng$3cmaua@mx04.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <5i31ng$3cmaua@mx04.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218160656.02b76c30@pop.starpower.net> At 04:50 AM 12/17/06, ton wrote: >That is not the case as presented. I agree with Grattan that showing a >control is not the same as conveying a meaning about high card >strength. But >in the case as presented 5H showed the ace of hearts and not a void. >That I consider a meaning about high card strength. >If somebody disagrees may I know with what argument? "High-card strength" by itself is not a "meaning". So does the reference to high-card strength in the definition refer to a call whose message is specifically "I have high-card strength" or to a call whose message is "about high card strength" (as Ton assumes above)? The later is a broad superset of the former. Although an ace may be a subset of "high-card strength", the *message* "I have the ace" is not in any way a subset of the *message* "I have high-card strength". The question isn't whether showing the ace is "a meaning about high-card strength" -- it obviously is -- but rather whether the word "about" (as opposed to, say, "of"), which does not appear in the definition, is or is not implicit in the actual wording. FWIW I agree with Ton that it would be preferable if it were assumed to be, but the wording we have cannot be parsed to exclude the possibility that it was not intended to be. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 18 22:35:24 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:35:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000101c721cd$5a9c1820$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <200612171046.kBHAka6A008121@mail29.nsc.no> <000101c721cd$5a9c1820$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218162523.02b751e0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:20 AM 12/17/06, Sven wrote: >I play multi 2D opening bid which of course is conventional >by all measures. The "conventional" answers to this opening bid include 2S >which is invitation to game if the opener happens to have a weak Heart >hand >but it shows willingness to play in 2S if the opener has a weak spade >hand. > >Should this answering bid be treated as non conventional "because it shows >willingness to play in spades"? Notice that the bid may be given even >with a >void in spades! (It typically shows a decent hand with good support in >Hearts). It should be treated as conventional precisely because it does *not* "convey the meaning" that you are willing to play in spades. It conveys the meaning that you are willing to play in spades *only* if partner has the spade suit, which you do not know when you bid 2S. Those are very different meanings. If they weren't, an opening spade bid that promised a spade void would be non-conventional on the grounds that you are willing to play in spades if partner has eight or more of them. In contrast, a spade bid on a void when partner has already shown eight or more of them does indeed show an unqualified "willingness to play", and is therefore not conventional. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 18 22:56:46 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:56:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000401c721ff$3c9c6cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c721ff$3c9c6cd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218164454.02b65eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:17 PM 12/17/06, Sven wrote: >Please distinguish between "alertable" and "conventional", the latter as >_you_ understand the laws. Remember that there is nothing in the laws that >makes an alertable call conventional although there is a very strong >correlation. > >The 2S response is definitely alertable whenever the alert system is used, >that is out of question. I asked you what makes that call conventional the >way you read and understand the definition of conventional in the laws. > >You can hardly find any call that only conveys just one meaning so stating >that the 2S bid conveys a meaning other than (actually "in addition to") >willingness to play in spades and therefore is conventional would be >similar >to saying that a raise of 1S directly to 4S conveys a meaning of no >interest >to play in any other contract than 4S "in addition to" willingness to play >in spades and is therefore conventional. > >The fact is that both the 2S bid over 2D (multi) and the 4S bid over >1S show >willingness to play in spades but we both agree (I assume) that the >first is >indeed conventional and the second is not. How does this fit the >definition >of conventional? My answer is: By focusing on the primary nature of >the call >in question and the situation in which it is made. I don't think "the primary nature of the call" can be well-defined or gets us anywhere. We can solve the dilemma far more simply just by recognizing that a conditional qualification to a statement carries a meaning that is "in addition to" the statement itself. 4S over 1S carries the meaning, "I am willing to play in 4S, period", and is non-conventional. 2S over 2D carries the meaning, "I am willing to play in 2S only if that is your suit", which is a different message, and, by virtue of the added meaning (i.e. the qualification), a conventional one. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 19 00:51:54 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:51:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218164454.02b65eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c722ff$7f53c630$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ......... > I don't think "the primary nature of the call" can be well-defined or > gets us anywhere. We can solve the dilemma far more simply just by > recognizing that a conditional qualification to a statement carries a > meaning that is "in addition to" the statement itself. 4S over 1S > carries the meaning, "I am willing to play in 4S, period", and is > non-conventional. 2S over 2D carries the meaning, "I am willing to > play in 2S only if that is your suit", which is a different message, > and, by virtue of the added meaning (i.e. the qualification), a > conventional one. Somehow you have made my point precisely in (at least) two different posts. I have tried to show the ridiculous results from reading only a part of the "conventional" definition. If we are satisfied with the "willingness to play" clause in this definition then 2S over multi 2D would be not conventional, which that bid indeed is. We have a similar situation with the 5H bid under discussion: It may be argued that it "shows strength", but the fact is that it conveys another meaning as well: The possession of a particular and identified card. And this additional meaning is not covered by any of the three fundamental meanings, at least one of which is required for each meaning that is conveyed by a call for that call to be classified as not conventional. Grattan formulated this very well in one of his posts. Sven From john at asimere.com Tue Dec 19 01:14:23 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:14:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: Message-ID: <004b01c72302$a366ab70$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > Raija wrote: > >> In the OP case 4NT (asking for specific aces), the 5H call has two >> other meanings than just showing the ace of hearts. It also says "I >> do not have ace of clubs" and further, "I do not have ace of >> diamonds" (unless the response structure shows higher ace >> first...hehe). While conveying the ace of hearts, it also informs >> about two other suits, so could be analogous to the Multi example >> where 2S also informs about hearts in addition to willingness to play >> in spades. > > The difference with the Multi 2S response is that the message about > Hearts is a *positive* one. Steve Willner has already alluded to the WBF > minute about purely negative inferences not making a bid conventional. > NB this is fundamental to the definition since every bid I can think of > (with the possible exception of 7N) has some negative inferences. 7N with you has substantial negative inference. it's about to cost me a lot of money :) cheers John > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 19 13:26:51 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:26:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <20061216091346.F17A21C00084@mwinf3312.me.freeserve.com><003b01c720fb$13c9a250$039187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20061218134517.02b532f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000501c72369$84fb7a00$f0bb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > When members of this forum attack various > subjects with pedagogic sophistry, they do so > in order to point out where the various laws in > TFLB are subject to attack with pedagogic > sophistry, in order to help those whose aim it > is to write laws that are not subject to attack > with pedagogic sophistry. ISTM that if we > succeed in helping them accomplish this, it > will indeed to some good and "assist the game". > But that can only be accomplished if TPTB > pay attention to those attacks, rather than > dismiss them as mere noise. > +=+Indeed. And yes, 'messages' are received. Not that their motivation is sure in every instance. Some of them rattle a bit. As to the extent of their influence upon the deliberations of the movers and shakers, this remains to be seen when the marvels and the mysteries are revealed in the light of the new dawn. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 19 15:17:04 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:17:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612181658j3b450568h4a4d233a30b0d8b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c72378$5bda9d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> This posting was received directly from Wayne. I assume the reason for it not so far having reached blml is that Wayne sent it with html formatting rather than as plain text. Everybody should be aware that html formatted messages to blml will be held until a moderator has approved it. -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Burrows [mailto:wjburrows at gmail.com] Sent: 19. desember 2006 01:58 To: Sven Pran; blml Subject: Re: [blml] convention On 19/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .........? The difference is this: ? The other meaning you ascribe to 5H is that it shows an ace and an ace is a subset of high-card strength; My comment: And Ace is a special sort of strength and explicitly showing an Ace cannot be considered showing strength as such. If the agreement were that the 5H bid shows strength it should have been made also with for instance KQ(x) or KJ(x) in Hearts. When this is not the case then that bid does not show strength, it shows a particular card; and that is an entirely different matter. ? The 2S bid showing willingness to play in spades has another meaning invitational or better in hearts (or something similar). ? Sven I have two questions: ? 1.? What is a bid in common use that shows high-card strength in a denomination but does not show length or willingness to play in the denomination?? In other words what were the law makers intending to be covered by the 'high card strength' clause? My comment: I cannot read the law makers' minds but I can immediately figure out one typical situation answering your major question: In a competitive auction a player bids opponent's suit to show sufficient strength in this suit so that they can play in NT if his partner covers the other unbid suits. (IMO this bid _is_ conventional!) ? 2. Do you agree by your logic that five-card majors are conventional since they have another meaning additional to showing length - that length must be five or more cards. My comment: Definitely not. A bid that by agreements must show a suit of length greater than the minimum specified for the bid to be a member of a certain class of bids is still a member of that class. (The situation would have been different had the class specified an exact length rather than a minimum length.) Compare this with a bid that by agreements shows a particular card. The fact that such bids cannot be made without holding the card in question even when the hand holds alternative cards with similar strength in the suit excludes such bids as members of the class of bids "showing strength". Such bids are instead members of the class of bids that show "particular cards". Sven? From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 19 15:27:30 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:27:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: References: <000501c7222d$564d2ec0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061219091314.02b56610@pop.starpower.net> At 06:43 PM 12/17/06, twm wrote: > > *From:* "Sven Pran" > > > > No, the message is: "I have the Ace of Hearts". > >OK, if you prefer "I have HCS in H, specifically the ace" Well, "I have HCS in H" is one message, and "specifically the ace" is a second, additional, message. The question is whether the latter makes the bid conventional. As I suggested in my earlier reply to Ton, the answer depends on what we think the opposite of "a meaning other than" HCS is. Is it a meaning that conveys a message that *is* possession of HCS, or a meaning that conveys a (positive) message *about* possession of HCS? The first part of Sven's two-part message is the former; the second part is the latter, as is, therefore, the composite message in total. Until the lawmakers provide us with an interpretation (and, we hope, rewrite the definition to make that interpretation clear), we do not know. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mustikka at charter.net Mon Dec 18 17:31:50 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:31:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] Terms Message-ID: <002101c722c2$0572adf0$3ed75047@DFYXB361> Natural Artificial Conventional Non-conventional Any other terms in this "group of terms" ? The current thread Convention that was started by John Probst prompts me to bring this up. It seems to me (of course I am feeble enough of mind that I could have misunderstood) that some people here consider Conventional to be the opposite of Natural. IMO that is not true, e.g. fit jumps. Is there an authoritative description of each of those terms? Convention is defined in the Laws, but the others? Peace on earth to all blml'ers. Raija -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061218/8716141c/attachment.htm From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 01:58:00 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:58:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000001c722ff$7f53c630$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218164454.02b65eb0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c722ff$7f53c630$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612181658j3b450568h4a4d233a30b0d8b2@mail.gmail.com> On 19/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ......... > > I don't think "the primary nature of the call" can be well-defined or > > gets us anywhere. We can solve the dilemma far more simply just by > > recognizing that a conditional qualification to a statement carries a > > meaning that is "in addition to" the statement itself. 4S over 1S > > carries the meaning, "I am willing to play in 4S, period", and is > > non-conventional. 2S over 2D carries the meaning, "I am willing to > > play in 2S only if that is your suit", which is a different message, > > and, by virtue of the added meaning (i.e. the qualification), a > > conventional one. > > Somehow you have made my point precisely in (at least) two different > posts. > I have tried to show the ridiculous results from reading only a part of > the > "conventional" definition. If we are satisfied with the "willingness to > play" clause in this definition then 2S over multi 2D would be not > conventional, which that bid indeed is. > > We have a similar situation with the 5H bid under discussion: It may be > argued that it "shows strength", but the fact is that it conveys another > meaning as well: The possession of a particular and identified card. And > this additional meaning is not covered by any of the three fundamental > meanings, at least one of which is required for each meaning that is > conveyed by a call for that call to be classified as not conventional. > > Grattan formulated this very well in one of his posts. The difference is this: The other meaning you ascribe to 5H is that it shows an ace and an ace is a subset of high-card strength; The 2S bid showing willingness to play in spades has another meaning invitational or better in hearts (or something similar). Sven I have two questions: 1. What is a bid in common use that shows high-card strength in a denomination but does not show length or willingness to play in the denomination? In other words what were the law makers intending to be covered by the 'high card strength' clause? 2. Do you agree by your logic that five-card majors are conventional since they have another meaning additional to showing length - that length must be five or more cards. Wayne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061219/147d8f74/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Dec 19 16:20:19 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:20:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <001b01c7229f$2fcac1f0$85ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <000d01c72055$15f84690$0701a8c0@john><458366AE.2030001@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0612161350k38718f77o1de451d623f7ac25@mail.gmail.com> <001b01c7229f$2fcac1f0$85ac87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <45880333.6030302@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ That's conventions for you. The number of messages on here about > them has been very high in a discussion lasting almost forever. And > where have we arrived? Well, you tell me. > Mike Amos says "when there is room for discussion amongst > serious and informed students of the game and at least some doubt > amongst us as to whether for example 5H showing the Ace is, or is not, > a convention, then that makes the definition poor". Or, perhaps, > the reading of them. > ~ G ~ +=+ [nige1] I agree with Mike Amos (and Eric Landau); and I'm still confused about Grattan's position on this issue: is the definition too wide? too ambiguous? or too sophisticated for many directors to understand? One of the latter two statements is true. IMO, the first step is to simplify definitions. Clarity will follow. If the definition is unambiguous, please will Grattan say plainly whether 5H showing the HA is a convention, according to the current legal definition? And is the 5H cuebid the kind of basic illustrative example that Ton Kooijman will append to the new law book? From tkooij at tiscali.nl Tue Dec 19 17:15:39 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:15:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000701c72378$5bda9d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Wayne: ? The other meaning you ascribe to 5H is that it shows an ace and an ace is a subset of high-card strength; My comment: And Ace is a special sort of strength and explicitly showing an Ace cannot be considered showing strength as such. Ton: It must be my incompetence of understanding English, which is told to me by a lot of people explaining why they feel to be right. But my knowledge of mathematics/logic is still such that I think that the statements by Wayne above don't make sense. How can one say that an ace is a subset of HCS, but being special cannot be considered to show strength as such? Nor do I understand what Eric is saying, but that indeed might be explained by my shortcomings. Could you try again? ton From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Dec 19 18:43:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218160656.02b76c30@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > Although an ace may be a > subset of "high-card strength", the *message* "I have the ace" is not > in any way a subset of the *message* "I have high-card strength". The phrase used by law is "conveys a meaning other than..". To say that a specific agreement as to the nature of HCS is "other than" makes no sense of the language. > Until the lawmakers provide us with an interpretation (and, we > hope, rewrite the definition to make that interpretation clear), we > do not know. I know! The bidding goes 1S-(1H).. "I'm sorry I thought he opened 1C" and I, as TD, pick up the CC and say "Oh dear - I see you have agreed that your vulnerable overcalls always show at least two honours in the bid suit. I'm afraid specific agreements about showing high-card strength make the 1H bid conventional and your partner is barred throughout - L27b." Now I *know* that the pair is going to decide I'm completely off my trolley - how on earth, they will say, can having an agreement about suit quality make the bid conventional?". Sven meanwhile maintains that showing specific strength (e.g at least an ace) is a meaning "other than" but showing specific length (ie 5+ rather than 3+) is not - there is no consistency in that interpretation. Neither does it make sense to me when he talks of KJx having "equivalent strength" to an Ace. In the context of declaring 3N the latter holding is, IMO, slightly stronger than stiff Ace while in the context of trying to make a grand slam it is significantly weaker. Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 20:00:37 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:00:37 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <4588103b.33584efc.074a.320eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <000701c72378$5bda9d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <4588103b.33584efc.074a.320eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612191100h3675dbe1v35eeb7da5a995d07@mail.gmail.com> On 20/12/06, ton kooijman wrote: > > > > > Wayne: > > > The other meaning you ascribe to 5H is that it shows an ace and an ace is a > subset of high-card strength; > > My comment: And Ace is a special sort of strength and explicitly showing an > Ace cannot be considered showing strength as such. > > > Ton: > It must be my incompetence of understanding English, which is told to me by > a lot of people explaining why they feel to be right. > But my knowledge of mathematics/logic is still such that I think that the > statements by Wayne above don't make sense. How can one say that an ace is a > subset of HCS, but being special cannot be considered to show strength as > such? It is indeed my problem that Sven fixed. Somehow unintentionally my email was sent with HTML. I sent it to BLML and to Sven since I had some questions that I directed to him. Sven kindly forwarded it to BLML with his own comments enclosed. So in the above the first paragraph is mine and the paragraph starting "My comment..." is Sven's I believe. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 20:13:47 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:13:47 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000701c72378$5bda9d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612181658j3b450568h4a4d233a30b0d8b2@mail.gmail.com> <000701c72378$5bda9d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612191113kc2e6ac2w6e3ca35935b3b161@mail.gmail.com> On 20/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > This posting was received directly from Wayne. I assume the reason for it > not so far having reached blml is that Wayne sent it with html formatting > rather than as plain text. Everybody should be aware that html formatted > messages to blml will be held until a moderator has approved it. > Thanks Sven. My mail is automatically using Rich Text and I am not sure why. I don't recall changing a setting. > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne Burrows [mailto:wjburrows at gmail.com] > Sent: 19. desember 2006 01:58 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > > On 19/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ......... > The difference is this: > > The other meaning you ascribe to 5H is that it shows an ace and an ace is a > subset of high-card strength; > > My comment: And Ace is a special sort of strength and explicitly showing an > Ace cannot be considered showing strength as such. > > If the agreement were that the 5H bid shows strength it should have been > made also with for instance KQ(x) or KJ(x) in Hearts. When this is not the > case then that bid does not show strength, it shows a particular card; and > that is an entirely different matter. The above two paragraphs are Sven's. I cannot see why you do not also use the analogous argument that five-card majors don't show length - if they showed length they would show three or more cards - 'five card majors don't show length they show particular length'. > > The 2S bid showing willingness to play in spades has another meaning > invitational or better in hearts (or something similar). > > Sven I have two questions: > > 1. What is a bid in common use that shows high-card strength in a > denomination but does not show length or willingness to play in the > denomination? In other words what were the law makers intending to be > covered by the 'high card strength' clause? > > My comment: I cannot read the law makers' minds but I can immediately figure > out one typical situation answering your major question: > > In a competitive auction a player bids opponent's suit to show sufficient > strength in this suit so that they can play in NT if his partner covers the > other unbid suits. (IMO this bid _is_ conventional!) Ok. > 2. Do you agree by your logic that five-card majors are conventional since > they have another meaning additional to showing length - that length must be > five or more cards. > > My comment: Definitely not. A bid that by agreements must show a suit of > length greater than the minimum specified for the bid to be a member of a > certain class of bids is still a member of that class. (The situation would > have been different had the class specified an exact length rather than a > minimum length.) So in your opinion a response to Stayman showing exactly four hearts/spades ; a weak two showing exactly six-cards; a weak three showing exactly seven cards are all conventions. Is this correct? > Compare this with a bid that by agreements shows a particular card. The fact > that such bids cannot be made without holding the card in question even when > the hand holds alternative cards with similar strength in the suit excludes > such bids as members of the class of bids "showing strength". > > Such bids are instead members of the class of bids that show "particular > cards". We can easily make own classes that bids but that is irrelevant. The question we need to answer is does the bid have a meaning that does not show high-card strength in the suit bid. Please show us all a hand that has the hA but does not have high-card strength in hearts? I am curious. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 19 20:17:09 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:17:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c723a2$47f4d410$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ............. > I know! The bidding goes 1S-(1H).. "I'm sorry I thought he opened 1C" > and I, as TD, pick up the CC and say "Oh dear - I see you have agreed > that your vulnerable overcalls always show at least two honours in the > bid suit. I'm afraid specific agreements about showing high-card > strength make the 1H bid conventional and your partner is barred > throughout - L27b." Now I *know* that the pair is going to decide I'm > completely off my trolley - how on earth, they will say, can having an > agreement about suit quality make the bid conventional?". You are indeed off the trolley to use your own words. The overcall has already met the condition "willingness to play in that denomination", and the additional agreement on the suit quality does not make this call a convention. (Read the definitions again!) > > Sven meanwhile maintains that showing specific strength (e.g at least an > ace) is a meaning "other than" but showing specific length (ie 5+ rather > than 3+) is not - there is no consistency in that interpretation. And that is not what I maintain. The 5H bid does _not_ show "at least" an Ace; it shows exactly the Ace and does not care at all about the strength of the Heart suit. > Neither does it make sense to me when he talks of KJx having "equivalent > strength" to an Ace. In the context of declaring 3N the latter holding > is, IMO, slightly stronger than stiff Ace while in the > context of trying to make a grand slam it is significantly weaker. Sure it is, and that is precisely why the 4NT bid asks for Ace(s) and not for strength. Even holding KQJT in hearts does not qualify for a 5H response to that 4NT bid so there cannot in any way be argued that the 5H bid "shows strength", it shows the Ace and nothing but the Ace - period. Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 20:19:13 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:19:13 +1300 Subject: [blml] Terms In-Reply-To: <002101c722c2$0572adf0$3ed75047@DFYXB361> References: <002101c722c2$0572adf0$3ed75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612191119t23046058wf91587de4b0b2c0@mail.gmail.com> On 19/12/06, raija wrote: > > Natural > Artificial > Conventional > Non-conventional > > Any other terms in this "group of terms" ? > > > The current thread Convention that was started by John Probst prompts me to > bring this up. It seems to me (of course I am feeble enough of mind that I > could have misunderstood) that some people here consider Conventional to be > the opposite of Natural. IMO that is not true, e.g. fit jumps. > > Is there an authoritative description of each of those terms? > Convention is defined in the Laws, but the others? > > > Peace on earth to all blml'ers. > > Raija > > Treatment is another term that is used. Part of the problem IMO is that convention has a precise definition in the laws but a different everyday usage. At times this has been quasi-official with for example the ACBL in the past regulating weak twos as conventions. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 21:16:56 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:16:56 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000101c723a2$47f4d410$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c723a2$47f4d410$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612191216q4b420b3ak48ccbc30053a71ca@mail.gmail.com> On 20/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ............. > > I know! The bidding goes 1S-(1H).. "I'm sorry I thought he opened 1C" > > and I, as TD, pick up the CC and say "Oh dear - I see you have agreed > > that your vulnerable overcalls always show at least two honours in the > > bid suit. I'm afraid specific agreements about showing high-card > > strength make the 1H bid conventional and your partner is barred > > throughout - L27b." Now I *know* that the pair is going to decide I'm > > completely off my trolley - how on earth, they will say, can having an > > agreement about suit quality make the bid conventional?". > > You are indeed off the trolley to use your own words. The overcall has > already met the condition "willingness to play in that denomination", and > the additional agreement on the suit quality does not make this call a > convention. (Read the definitions again!) > Sven you cannot already meet the condition. The condition requires you to examine all requirements of the bid and see if any of those is outside the three exceptions if so then the bid is conventional. That is willingness to play is not enough you need no other meaning outside those explicitly written in the definition. If it was as you say then 2H = H+minor etc would be not conventional since they show willingness to play in hearts. > > > > Sven meanwhile maintains that showing specific strength (e.g at least an > > ace) is a meaning "other than" but showing specific length (ie 5+ rather > > than 3+) is not - there is no consistency in that interpretation. > > And that is not what I maintain. The 5H bid does _not_ show "at least" an > Ace; it shows exactly the Ace and does not care at all about the strength of > the Heart suit. So a 5H that shows at least the Ace would be ok? That is what showing the Ace means if you think about it. > > > Neither does it make sense to me when he talks of KJx having "equivalent > > strength" to an Ace. In the context of declaring 3N the latter holding > > is, IMO, slightly stronger than stiff Ace while in the > > context of trying to make a grand slam it is significantly weaker. > > Sure it is, and that is precisely why the 4NT bid asks for Ace(s) and not > for strength. Even holding KQJT in hearts does not qualify for a 5H response > to that 4NT bid so there cannot in any way be argued that the 5H bid "shows > strength", it shows the Ace and nothing but the Ace - period. In the same way Stayman does not ask for length it asks for a 4-card major therefore you would argue that 2H/S rebids are conventional. > Wayne From svenpran at online.no Tue Dec 19 21:38:01 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:38:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612191113kc2e6ac2w6e3ca35935b3b161@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c723ad$93c64f30$6400a8c0@WINXP> > From: Wayne Burrows > > ......... > I cannot see why you do not also use the analogous argument that > five-card majors don't show length - if they showed length they would > show three or more cards - 'five card majors don't show length they > show particular length'. No, "at least five card length" is a subset of "at least three card length" but an Ace (and nothing mentioned about other cards) is not a subset of "strength" - it is a subset of "particular cards". ........... > So in your opinion a response to Stayman showing exactly four > hearts/spades ; a weak two showing exactly six-cards; a weak three > showing exactly seven cards are all conventions. Is this correct? You got it the wrong way round! If the definition of a non-conventional bid for instance was that it shows exactly 4 cards on the one-level, 5 cards on the two-level and 6 cards on the three-level then a bid that by agreements shows 5 or more cards on the one-level, 4 cards (Stayman response) or 6 cards (weak two) on the two-level and 7 cards on the three-level would indeed be conventional. However, when the definition says "at least 3 cards" or "at least 4 cards" then the door is wide open for specifying a stricter agreement like at least 5 cards for an opening bid in majors on the one-level. See the difference? ............. > We can easily make own classes that bids but that is irrelevant. The > question we need to answer is does the bid have a meaning that does > not show high-card strength in the suit bid. Please show us all a > hand that has the hA but does not have high-card strength in hearts? > I am curious. If the 5H bid could be made on any hand holding a heart suit with that strength you could have had a case. But as the strength is not in question your bid does not show that strength, it shows something different namely the particular card. If the bid shows strength then it must be applicable to any hand satisfying the strength in question, and the 5H bid is not applicable to any hand not holding the AH regardless of the strength of that hand (or the strength of the heart suit held by that hand). Look at it from another angle: If you do not bid 5H you deny holding the AH (unless you have another Ace to show with higher priority), but you do not deny strength in hearts. Therefore the 5H bid does _not_ show strength! (Basic information theory) Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 19 22:10:14 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:10:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612181658j3b450568h4a4d233a30b0d8b2@mail.gmail.co m> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218164454.02b65eb0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c722ff$7f53c630$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560612181658j3b450568h4a4d233a30b0d8b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061219160424.02b69c10@pop.starpower.net> At 07:58 PM 12/18/06, Wayne wrote: >1. What is a bid in common use that shows high-card strength in a >denomination but does not show length or willingness to play in the >denomination? In other words what were the law makers intending to be >covered by the 'high card strength' clause? Fragment bids, fit-showing jumps (as most folks play them) and natural game tries come to mind. I'm confident that if I took a few more minutes I could come up with others. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Dec 19 22:21:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000101c723a2$47f4d410$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > You are indeed off the trolley to use your own words. The overcall has > already met the condition "willingness to play in that denomination", > and the additional agreement on the suit quality does not make this > call a convention. (Read the definitions again!) Please don't be frigging ridiculous. If "I have x honours" is a meaning "other than HCS" it is as sure as hell a meaning other than "willingness to play". Meeting one (or two or three) of the conditions for being "not a convention" isn't what makes a bid "not a convention". It is the existence (or otherwise) of any meaning OUTSIDE those three. Tim From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 22:25:43 2006 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Skj=E6ran?=) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:25:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000901c72155$7cd1a7c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612152155l5b0fb995qd10adb3d752e7c5b@mail.gmail.com> <000901c72155$7cd1a7c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 16/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ........... > > I don't follow your logic here at all. Showing an ace in the suit > > named is showing high-card strength in the suit named even if it is > > particular strength. There is nothing in the definition that says it > > has to show general strength. Showing an ace is a subset of all of > > the agreements that would comply with the requirement to show > > high-card strength. > > Strength is measured in HCP, not in the existence of a particular honour > card. Strenght is measured in different ways. The Milton Work high card points is only one of these. Others are Wiener points, ZAR points and controls (ace=2, king=1). There are many more. None of these are part of the laws. If you deviced an opening bid of 4NT to ask for suits with 2+ controls, where 5C denied the possesion of 2+ controls in any suit, and 5H showed 2+ controls in hearts etc., this 5H bid would be non-conventional after Sven's reasoning, since it shows strenght in hearts (at least 2 controls). We're all able to work out that this does show the ace and doesn't deny other honour cards in the suit. How should this be different from the 5H bid in this thread? -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > ............. > > > Can we agree that the definition of "Conventional" is flawed? > > > > I am yet to be convinced of this. > > > > > > > > The opening call of PASS in a strong pass system is NOT conventional. > > > > A conventional pass is defined elsewhere. > > Where (in the laws)? > > > > The opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is NOT conventional. > > > The opening bid of 2C (strong) in a natural system is NOT conventional. > > > They all show "general strength"! > > > The response 1D to an opening bid 1C in Vienna and the strength scale > > > responses sometimes used to for instanced the strong 2C opening bid are > > NOT > > > conventional. They show "general strength", namely strength within > > > particular ranges. > > > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > > conventional. > > It does indeed! See the last clause in the definition of a Convention: > However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a > convention. > > > If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the > > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the > > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it > > is a convention. > > You had better read the complete definition. > > > > > 1C strong, 2C strong and 1D (over 1C) weak are all conventional since > > none of them show willingness to play or strength or length in the > > named denomination. > > > > > > I cannot define a convention but I know it when I see it. > > > > > > > I doubt that many would accept this as a substitute for a definition. > > Neither do I. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 22:26:00 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:26:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000301c723ad$93c64f30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612191113kc2e6ac2w6e3ca35935b3b161@mail.gmail.com> <000301c723ad$93c64f30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612191326l6e82b037oc3eeece80f71b095@mail.gmail.com> On 20/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > From: Wayne Burrows > > > ......... > > I cannot see why you do not also use the analogous argument that > > five-card majors don't show length - if they showed length they would > > show three or more cards - 'five card majors don't show length they > > show particular length'. > > No, "at least five card length" is a subset of "at least three card length" > but an Ace (and nothing mentioned about other cards) is not a subset of > "strength" - it is a subset of "particular cards". > I am sorry Sven but this is nonsense. Let me enumerate the cases. For this argument I will assume high-card-strength is A-K-Q-J points (it could be extended to include 10s and others but this argument should suffice). The possible combinations of high-cards are: AKQJ* AKQ* AKJ* AQJ* KQJ AK* AQ* AJ* KQ KJ QJ A* K Q J *8 of the 15 combinations of high-cards include the Ace. This is exactly what a subset is. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 22:27:56 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:27:56 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000301c723ad$93c64f30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612191113kc2e6ac2w6e3ca35935b3b161@mail.gmail.com> <000301c723ad$93c64f30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612191327y755857d0xe35685f278109214@mail.gmail.com> On 20/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > So in your opinion a response to Stayman showing exactly four > > hearts/spades ; a weak two showing exactly six-cards; a weak three > > showing exactly seven cards are all conventions. Is this correct? > > You got it the wrong way round! > > If the definition of a non-conventional bid for instance was that it shows > exactly 4 cards on the one-level, 5 cards on the two-level and 6 cards on > the three-level then a bid that by agreements shows 5 or more cards on the > one-level, 4 cards (Stayman response) or 6 cards (weak two) on the two-level > and 7 cards on the three-level would indeed be conventional. However, when > the definition says "at least 3 cards" or "at least 4 cards" then the door > is wide open for specifying a stricter agreement like at least 5 cards for > an opening bid in majors on the one-level. See the difference? > Not at all. Is this a wind-up? Why do you allow a more stricter agreement for suit length but not for high-card strength? Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 22:32:44 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:32:44 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000301c723ad$93c64f30$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612191113kc2e6ac2w6e3ca35935b3b161@mail.gmail.com> <000301c723ad$93c64f30$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612191332re84d76fj85def66cdf289074@mail.gmail.com> On 20/12/06, Sven Pran wrote: > > We can easily make own classes that bids but that is irrelevant. The > > question we need to answer is does the bid have a meaning that does > > not show high-card strength in the suit bid. Please show us all a > > hand that has the hA but does not have high-card strength in hearts? > > I am curious. > > If the 5H bid could be made on any hand holding a heart suit with that > strength you could have had a case. But as the strength is not in question > your bid does not show that strength, it shows something different namely > the particular card. > > If the bid shows strength then it must be applicable to any hand satisfying > the strength in question, and the 5H bid is not applicable to any hand not > holding the AH regardless of the strength of that hand (or the strength of > the heart suit held by that hand). > > Look at it from another angle: If you do not bid 5H you deny holding the AH > (unless you have another Ace to show with higher priority), but you do not > deny strength in hearts. Therefore the 5H bid does _not_ show strength! > > (Basic information theory) That implies a very restrictive definition of strength. There is nothing in the law that prevents me from using a metric that evaluates any suit with an ace as stronger than any hand without an ace. This is certainly the evaluation that is commonly used when investigating slam. (High-Card Points are simply a guide better used in other contexts). Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 22:36:45 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:36:45 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061219160424.02b69c10@pop.starpower.net> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218164454.02b65eb0@pop.starpower.net> <000001c722ff$7f53c630$6400a8c0@WINXP> <2a1c3a560612181658j3b450568h4a4d233a30b0d8b2@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061219160424.02b69c10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612191336p3ea82bvbb936e2081de58f2@mail.gmail.com> On 20/12/06, Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:58 PM 12/18/06, Wayne wrote: > > >1. What is a bid in common use that shows high-card strength in a > >denomination but does not show length or willingness to play in the > >denomination? In other words what were the law makers intending to be > >covered by the 'high card strength' clause? > > Fragment bids, fit-showing jumps (as most folks play them) and natural > game tries come to mind. I'm confident that if I took a few more > minutes I could come up with others. > Length is defined as three or more cards so we are talking about - Fragment bids on a doubleton or singleton, fit-showing jumps on a doubleton or a singleton and natural game tries on a doubleton or singleton. All of those things are possible but in my experience are not very common. A fragment is usually a three-card suit (length); fit-jumps are usually four or more cards (length) and natural game tries are usually three or more cards. Wayne From john at asimere.com Tue Dec 19 22:42:58 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:42:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218164454.02b65eb0@pop.starpower.net><000001c722ff$7f53c630$6400a8c0@WINXP><2a1c3a560612181658j3b450568h4a4d233a30b0d8b2@mail.gmail.com><6.1.1.1.0.20061219160424.02b69c10@pop.starpower.net> <2a1c3a560612191336p3ea82bvbb936e2081de58f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003801c723b6$a6896270$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > On 20/12/06, Eric Landau wrote: >> At 07:58 PM 12/18/06, Wayne wrote: >> >> >1. What is a bid in common use that shows high-card strength in a >> >denomination but does not show length or willingness to play in the >> >denomination? In other words what were the law makers intending to be >> >covered by the 'high card strength' clause? >> >> Fragment bids, fit-showing jumps (as most folks play them) and natural >> game tries come to mind. I'm confident that if I took a few more >> minutes I could come up with others. >> > > Length is defined as three or more cards so we are talking about - > Fragment bids on a doubleton or singleton, fit-showing jumps on a > doubleton or a singleton and natural game tries on a doubleton or > singleton. > > All of those things are possible but in my experience are not very > common. A fragment is usually a three-card suit (length); fit-jumps > are usually four or more cards (length) a fit jump shows 2 suits, so is conventional. I agree with the others and natural game tries are > usually three or more cards. > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 19 23:02:11 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:02:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <5g92v7$66vav7@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <000701c72378$5bda9d90$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5g92v7$66vav7@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061219162111.02b6beb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:15 AM 12/19/06, ton wrote: >Nor do I understand what Eric is saying, but that indeed might be >explained >by my shortcomings. Could you try again? I must confess that I am having difficulty myself with the semantics of the distinction I'm trying to explain. But I will try again. What, exactly, does "a meaning other than... high-card strength" mean? We can interpret it as "a meaning that does not reveal high-card strength". If that's correct, as Wayne asserts, then showing the ace is *not* "a meaning other than high-card strength". Or we can interpret it as "a meaning other than 'high-card strength'" (note the added quote marks). "The ace" is not a synonym for "high-card strength"; these do not have the same meaning. So the meaning "the ace" is "a meaning other than 'high-card strength'". If that's the correct interpretation, as Sven asserts, then showing the ace *is* "a meaning other than high-card strength". Does that help? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 20 00:12:15 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <003801c723b6$a6896270$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000501c723c3$202eee90$6400a8c0@WINXP> I think time has come for me to prove irrefutably that there is no such thing as a conventional call. To accomplish this I use the arguments from all those lovers of bridge lawyering who claim that a call that shows strength is not conventional (even when the strength showed is implied from really showing a particular card or possibly something else). "Strength" is a property of any bridge hand, and also a property of any of the four different suits that constitute a bridge hand. It must be expressed on a scale from a minimum value to a maximum value. The actual scale is immaterial for this proof, but we must realize that each value on the scale including the minimum and maximum values represents a specific strength. For simplicity I shall refer to the common HCP scale in this proof. Whenever a call is made, that call shows a hand of general strength within the range 0 HCP to 37 HCP, and if the call names or implies a particular suit then the call further shows that the strength of that suit in the hand is within the range 0 HCP to 10 HCP. So each and every call made shows "strength" and thus satisfies the condition: The call shows high-card strength. Therefore no call can ever be conventional. Before attempting any objection please note that the definition in the laws says nothing to the effect that the strength showed must be above a certain minimum, below a certain maximum or within a certain range. QED This concludes my contributions to this discussion on conventions. Bye Sven From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Dec 20 01:03:36 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:03:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061218164454.02b65eb0@pop.starpower.net><000001c722ff$7f53c630$6400a8c0@WINXP><2a1c3a560612181658j3b450568h4a4d233a30b0d8b2@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20061219160424.02b69c10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <01e301c723ca$4d249ec0$6400a8c0@rota> Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:58 PM 12/18/06, Wayne wrote: > >>1. What is a bid in common use that shows high-card strength in a >>denomination but does not show length or willingness to play in the >>denomination? In other words what were the law makers intending to be >>covered by the 'high card strength' clause? > > Fragment bids, fit-showing jumps (as most folks play them) and natural > game tries come to mind. I'm confident that if I took a few more > minutes I could come up with others. A better example is the feature rebid by a weak 2-bid opener, because that bid is often on a doubleton (and could even be a stiff ace). 2H-2NT-3D could be made on a hand like xx KQTxxx Ax xxx, which does not have length in diamonds and does not want to play in diamonds. Other bids which show stoppers are similar: 1S-2C-3C-3D is likely to be a diamond stopper but may not show length. Is an ordinary cue-bid a convention if the cue-bid cannot be a void, as on the auction 1NT-3S-4D? This must show the DA (or possibly the king, depending on your cue-bidding agreements), since the 1NT opener cannot have a void. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 20 03:38:29 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:38:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] quote of the day [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >A 25-page expanded VHS boxed set trilogy, covering Mark, Luke >and Acts is now available on request as a zipped Word doc. Apologies for delays in filling requests. I am on (very) temporary sick leave, and should be back at my computer early next year. Best wishes Richard James Hills, mentor National Training Branch (02) 6225 6285 Your Rights at Work worth voting for Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department?s website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 20 14:42:56 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:42:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <2a1c3a560612161434l52759186p298e1a9c2468e8f1@mail.gmail.com><000001c721be$ac26b830$6400a8c0@WINXP> <6.1.1.1.0.20061218142736.02b524d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c72449$22f347d0$61df403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > Once upon a time, back in Culbertson's day, "convention" > was used as a synonym for "non-standard agreement". That > became unworkable about 40 years ago, when players and > lawmakers discovered that they no longer had a consensus > agreement as to what was "standard" (it took the ACBL > about another 10 years to realize that had happened, and to > stop regulating "non-standard" agreements such as weak > two-bids or limit raises as "conventions"). In today's lexicon, > "conventional" and "non-standard" are unrelated; a bid may > be either, neither or both. < WBFLC minutes: August 1998: " Consideration was given to the definition of 'convention'. The Committee held the definition in the laws to be adequate. In writing the definition the intention was not to deem it conventional if a natural opening bid carried an inference as a matter of general bridge knowledge that the hand held no longer suit than the one named." January 2000: " The Secretary was invited to state what difficulty he had with the present definition of 'convention'. The Secretary pointed to the manner in which his own NBO and the ACBL, and perhaps others, are regulating the use of non- conventional calls. For the purpose they forbid the use of any conventional bid in conjunction with certain natural actions that do not conform to given standards (e.g. "may not use any convention with any opening bid that does not meet the standards of the 'rule of 18' ", or 'may not use Stayman with any opening 1NT that may have fewer than 10 points".) He was also aware that in one section of its System Policy the WBF regulates the use of a call that is natural according to the definition in the laws. He is of the opinion, therefore, that the sensible thing for the committee to do is to redefine the power to regulate granted in Law 40D. As an Interim measure he has suggested the adoption of a definition for 'convention' that will meet the needs of these bodies, and which will also clear up other matters in which the definition is problematic. The suggested definition (applying in the auction) is: "any special partnership understanding". Mr Martel and others agreed that the current definition is flawed but felt that the suggested definition may introduce other problems. It was concluded that more thought needs to be given to the subject. It may be a matter to be deferred until the next major revision. " Why do I quote these? To note the fact that the inadequate nature of the wording of the definition to express the intention of the law has long been recognized. But tomorrow is another day. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Wed Dec 20 23:00:03 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:00:03 +0900 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000601c72449$22f347d0$61df403e@Mildred> References: <000601c72449$22f347d0$61df403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200612202200.AA06638@geller204.nifty.com> IIRC, Edgar Kaplan invented the word "treatment" to discuss a natural bid (like an inverted minor raise, e.g. 1D-2D, showing 4+ diamonds, denying a four card major, and 1 round forcing) which showed strength/length different than would be expected by most players and which needed to be alerted. Kaplan's idea was that treatments needed to be disclosed but not regulated. In the 1980s Marty Bergen and disciples started to open ridiculously weak "weak 2s", sometimes with only 4 cards, and weak opening systems like EHAA or Mosquito came along. These didn't do very well against expert players but were very effective against weaker players. The ACBL issued regulations barring or restricting such tactics that were technically illegal under the laws, so it was necessary to change the laws to sort-of legitimize such regulations. I didn't really follow any of this closely but there was a long series of editorials (leading articles) in the Bridge World decrying such regulations. So the bottom line seems to be that in addition to the inherent difficulty of defining exactly what's a convention and what's not (this doesn't really seem to be a big problem, despite some of the recent posts here), the definition of convention was stretched to allow some treatments (very light openings) to be restricted. -Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >***************************************** >"Hear my words carefully. >Some are spoken not by me, >but by a man in my position." > ~ Norman McCaig. >===================================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 7:34 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > >> >> Once upon a time, back in Culbertson's day, "convention" >> was used as a synonym for "non-standard agreement". That >> became unworkable about 40 years ago, when players and >> lawmakers discovered that they no longer had a consensus >> agreement as to what was "standard" (it took the ACBL >> about another 10 years to realize that had happened, and to >> stop regulating "non-standard" agreements such as weak >> two-bids or limit raises as "conventions"). In today's lexicon, >> "conventional" and "non-standard" are unrelated; a bid may >> be either, neither or both. >< >WBFLC minutes: >August 1998: " Consideration was given to the definition of >'convention'. The Committee held the definition in the laws to >be adequate. In writing the definition the intention was not to >deem it conventional if a natural opening bid carried an >inference as a matter of general bridge knowledge that the >hand held no longer suit than the one named." >January 2000: " The Secretary was invited to state what >difficulty he had with the present definition of 'convention'. The >Secretary pointed to the manner in which his own NBO and >the ACBL, and perhaps others, are regulating the use of non- >conventional calls. For the purpose they forbid the use of any >conventional bid in conjunction with certain natural actions >that do not conform to given standards (e.g. "may not use any >convention with any opening bid that does not meet the >standards of the 'rule of 18' ", or 'may not use Stayman with >any opening 1NT that may have fewer than 10 points".) He >was also aware that in one section of its System Policy the >WBF regulates the use of a call that is natural according to >the definition in the laws. He is of the opinion, therefore, that >the sensible thing for the committee to do is to redefine the >power to regulate granted in Law 40D. As an Interim measure >he has suggested the adoption of a definition for 'convention' >that will meet the needs of these bodies, and which will also >clear up other matters in which the definition is problematic. The >suggested definition (applying in the auction) is: "any special >partnership understanding". Mr Martel and others agreed that >the current definition is flawed but felt that the suggested >definition may introduce other problems. It was concluded that >more thought needs to be given to the subject. It may be a >matter to be deferred until the next major revision. " > >Why do I quote these? To note the fact that the inadequate >nature of the wording of the definition to express the intention >of the law has long been recognized. But tomorrow is another >day. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Wed Dec 20 23:28:50 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:28:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:00:03 +0900." <200612202200.AA06638@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200612202204.OAA21301@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Geller wrote: > In the 1980s Marty Bergen and disciples started to open ridiculously > weak "weak 2s", sometimes with only 4 cards, and weak opening > systems like EHAA or Mosquito came along. These didn't do very > well against expert players but were very effective against weaker > players. The ACBL issued regulations barring or restricting such > tactics that were technically illegal under the laws, so it was necessary > to change the laws to sort-of legitimize such regulations. I didn't > really follow any of this closely but there was a long series of > editorials (leading articles) in the Bridge World decrying such > regulations. > > So the bottom line seems to be that in addition to the inherent > difficulty of defining exactly what's a convention and what's not > (this doesn't really seem to be a big problem, despite some of > the recent posts here), the definition of convention was stretched > to allow some treatments (very light openings) to be restricted. No, I don't think this is what happened. I don't know the situation with EHAA/Moscito. But with regard to Bergen's ridiculous weak 2's, what happened was that the ACBL passed a regulation defining any weak 2 that could be on fewer than 5 cards, or could be fewer than 5 HCP, to be a convention that was illegal in all events. This caused an outcry, since it made no sense that the ACBL could simply decree something to be a "convention" that clearly wasn't. So the ACBL rescinded the regulation and put forth a new one; the new regulation did not attempt to define such weak 2's as conventions, but it made all conventions in the follow-up auction after a non-conforming weak 2 illegal. But as far as I recall, no Laws were changed. The definition of "convention" was not altered at all in the Laws. Except for the brief period when the ACBL had a bogus regulation on the books, non-conforming weak 2's were not considered conventional, either before or after. Conventional bids, which were now illegal when used after a non-conforming weak 2, were just as conventional before the incident as they were afterwards, by the definition of "convention". And they could have been regulated just as much before this incident as afterwards, according to the Laws. The only controversy, I think, is that even though it's clear that certain rebids and responses can be banned, according to the letter of the Law---banning *all* conventions after certain natural bids and treatments has been considered by some to be tantamount to banning the natural bids and treatment themselves, which would be illegal (i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in this case). I think this was a new question that required an interpretation of the Laws, and all the organizations involved have interpreted the Laws to conclude that such bans are legal. But this doesn't have anything to do with the question of "what is a convention?". Anyway, I don't think your statements---"it was necessary to change the laws to sort-of legitimize such regulations" and "the definition of convention was stretched"---are accurate, at least not according to my recollection of what transpired. -- Adam From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Dec 21 04:37:19 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:37:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "raija" > In the OP case 4NT (asking for specific aces), the 5H call has two other > meanings than just showing the ace of hearts. It also says "I do not have > ace of clubs" and further, "I do not have ace of diamonds" If you want to argue that 5H is a convention, this is the right sort of argument to make. The counter-argument is that nearly every bid in real bidding systems carries similar negative inferences, and few people think that makes them conventions. From: Grattan Endicott WBFLC minutes: > August 1998: " Consideration was given to the definition of > 'convention'. The Committee held the definition in the laws to > be adequate. In writing the definition the intention was not to > deem it conventional if a natural opening bid carried an > inference as a matter of general bridge knowledge that the > hand held no longer suit than the one named." Thanks, Grattan. I had forgotten the "as a matter of general bridge knowledge." Does that mean that a 1H opening showing a possible canape if the hand type is two-suited is a convention in the US but not in Italy? Since the minute applies only to opening bids, it seems the negative inference Raija points out makes 5H a convention after all. I doubt everyone will be happy with the implications. > From: "ton kooijman" > Over the years there have been repeated occasions > when the definition of 'convention' has been questioned and fresh > attempts have been made to define the word for the purposes of > law and regulation. It is one of those words where we all know > what we are trying to say but which slips from grasp when we try > to nail it down. I am not so sure everyone agrees on exactly what "convention" should include. The difficulty of writing an unambiguous definition, on the other hand, cannot be questioned. As we have seen, any "is it a convention" thread produces a flood of posts on BLML. It's common for people I respect to disagree on the answers. > From: "Wayne Burrows" (and Eric Landau agrees) > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > conventional. If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it > is a convention. I think that probably was the original intent, but it's not what the words actually say. According to a literal reading, none of the above factors matters. The bid is a convention if it shows anything _other than_ any of those four meanings. Of course the literal reading is absurd: it means a strong club showing any distribution is not a convention. Probably there should be an "at least one of" applied to the three major meanings, but no such words are in the text. > From: Nigel > To most players this ... bid is > *conventional* because its [] meaning isn't obvious unless you've > agreed it. I don't know any bid that has a meaning that is obvious without agreement. (Somebody mentioned 7NT, but even that could show a wide variety of hand types... not that it matters.) I have just about convinced myself that an unambiguous definition that conforms to most people's idea of "convention" is impossible. I believe a good definition is possible if you are willing to restrict it to bids that show _length_ (but not shortness) in a suit other than the one named. The alternatives are no definition at all or Sven's definition, "I know one when I see one." From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 21 04:59:18 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:59:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] convention References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] convention >> From: "raija" >> In the OP case 4NT (asking for specific aces), the 5H call has two other >> meanings than just showing the ace of hearts. It also says "I do not >> have >> ace of clubs" and further, "I do not have ace of diamonds" > > If you want to argue that 5H is a convention, this is the right sort of > argument to make. The counter-argument is that nearly every bid in real > bidding systems carries similar negative inferences, I believe there is an issue with language and it is not a quibble. If I understand the agreement correctly it is not a negative inference that 5H denies the CA and the DA. It is a positive communication that it denies those cards. regards roger pewick >and few people > think that makes them conventions. > From: Grattan Endicott> WBFLC minutes: >> August 1998: " Consideration was given to the definition of >> 'convention'. The Committee held the definition in the laws to >> be adequate. In writing the definition the intention was not to >> deem it conventional if a natural opening bid carried an >> inference as a matter of general bridge knowledge that the >> hand held no longer suit than the one named." > > Thanks, Grattan. I had forgotten the "as a matter of general bridge > knowledge." Does that mean that a 1H opening showing a possible canape > if the hand type is two-suited is a convention in the US but not in Italy? > > Since the minute applies only to opening bids, it seems the negative > inference Raija points out makes 5H a convention after all. I doubt > everyone will be happy with the implications. > >> From: "ton kooijman" >> Over the years there have been repeated occasions >> when the definition of 'convention' has been questioned and fresh >> attempts have been made to define the word for the purposes of >> law and regulation. It is one of those words where we all know >> what we are trying to say but which slips from grasp when we try >> to nail it down. > > I am not so sure everyone agrees on exactly what "convention" should > include. The difficulty of writing an unambiguous definition, on the > other hand, cannot be questioned. > > As we have seen, any "is it a convention" thread produces a flood of > posts on BLML. It's common for people I respect to disagree on the > answers. > >> From: "Wayne Burrows" > (and Eric Landau agrees) >> The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid >> conventional. If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the >> denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the >> denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it >> is a convention. > > I think that probably was the original intent, but it's not what the > words actually say. According to a literal reading, none of the above > factors matters. The bid is a convention if it shows anything _other > than_ any of those four meanings. Of course the literal reading is > absurd: it means a strong club showing any distribution is not a > convention. Probably there should be an "at least one of" applied to > the three major meanings, but no such words are in the text. > >> From: Nigel >> To most players this ... bid is >> *conventional* because its [] meaning isn't obvious unless you've >> agreed it. > > I don't know any bid that has a meaning that is obvious without > agreement. (Somebody mentioned 7NT, but even that could show a wide > variety of hand types... not that it matters.) > > I have just about convinced myself that an unambiguous definition that > conforms to most people's idea of "convention" is impossible. I believe > a good definition is possible if you are willing to restrict it to bids > that show _length_ (but not shortness) in a suit other than the one > named. The alternatives are no definition at all or Sven's definition, > "I know one when I see one." From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 21 09:14:39 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:14:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta at tiscali.co.uk] ***************************** "Never laugh at live dragons." 'The Hobbit' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > (and Eric Landau agrees) > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > > conventional. If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the > > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the > > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it > > is a convention. > > I think that probably was the original intent, but it's not what the > words actually say. ^^^^ +=+ No. The original intention was that if a call conveys a positive message not within these areas it is a convention. If it is the case that it also carries a message that does fall within these areas this does not nullify its status as a convention. My notes on the discussions are quite clear on this point. Concerning 5H my opinion is that it does show high card strength but in parallel it conveys a second message about control of the suit. This is not a willingness to play in the suit, nor is it length in the suit; we are left to consider whether this message is subsumed within 'high card strength' - and in my opinion this second message is not about 'strength'. Therefore, leaving to one side what may be desirable, I regard the bid as technically conventional. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 21 10:21:21 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:21:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <458A5211.30508@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] > Concerning 5H my opinion is that it does show high card strength > but in parallel it conveys a second message about control of the suit. > This is not a willingness to play in the suit, nor is it length in the suit; > we > are left to consider whether this message is subsumed within 'high card > strength' - and in my opinion this second message is not about 'strength'. > Therefore, leaving to one side what may be desirable, I regard the bid > as technically conventional. > [nige1] Thank you Grattan for making your interpretation crystal clear. For completeness, Grattan, please confirm that, in any slam investigation auction, *all* control-showing cue bids (even if they promise the A or K rather than a shortage) are *conventional*? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 21 10:21:40 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:21:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] > Concerning 5H my opinion is that it does show high card strength > but in parallel it conveys a second message about control of the suit. > This is not a willingness to play in the suit, nor is it length in the suit; > we > are left to consider whether this message is subsumed within 'high card > strength' - and in my opinion this second message is not about 'strength'. > Therefore, leaving to one side what may be desirable, I regard the bid > as technically conventional. > [nige1] Thank you Grattan for making your interpretation crystal clear. For completeness, Grattan, please confirm that, in any slam investigation auction, *all* control-showing cue bids (even if they promise the A or K rather than a shortage) are *conventional*? From herman at hdw.be Thu Dec 21 11:07:09 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:07:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> OK, this thread has been going on for quite some while. Now please tell me, why do we bother. I see two places where the conventionality of a bid can become an issue. In a third place, there is absolutely no distinction between conventional and non-conventional bids. Both are equally disclosable. The second place where conventions are mentioned in the lawbook is where it says that an SO can regulate the use of conventions. It is clear that a) this distinction is largely overlooked and b) must be considered up for a change. I urge the WBFLC to delete the reference to conventions in the next lawbook and allow an SO to regulate what they want. This leaves us with the first place where conventionality is an issue: insufficient bids. If the insufficient bid is conventional, or if the next higher bid in the same strain is conventional, then the call cannot be changed without penalty. Here, we do need some definition of conventionality. Maybe the WBFLC would do best in deleting the word conventional in this Law and replace it with a direct condition. Such as: if the bid does not show willingness to play in the strain mentioned, ... This may well alter the precise application of this Law, but has the benefit of removing a contentious definition from the lawbook. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 21 13:01:45 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:01:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Two questions about alerts and explanations arose among our group. We'd very much appreciate your comments on them. 1. The bidding : N E S W 1C 1H X p 1S 2D Now South asks West whether they have 2-suited conventions. Assume they indeed play that 2NT shows 55+ in hearts and diamonds ; apparently that's what South would like to know ; but they play it "strong or weak". Should West : a) answer affirmatively, and volunteer the information that 2NT would have been strong/weak, so that partner probably has an intermediate-strength 55. b) answer affirmatively, and that's all, because if South wants to know whether a 55 is still possible, he should ask. c) answer affimatively, and that's all, because 2D seems to show 55 anyway (bridge logic ; with 54, double) and because an experienced player should know there are hands unsuitable for a 2NT bid anyway (poor O/DR). 2. You have an agreement that weak suits may be bypassed ; for example, you might answer 1NT to 1C within the usual range, while holding a weak 4-card major. This should be disclosed, and the letter of most regulations say you've to alert everytime such a bypass would be unexpected ; this means nearly any low-level bid is alertable, and makes it unpractical. So, is it enough to put such an agreement into the 'important notes' section, or pre-alert it ? Thank you for your advice. Alain From sarahamos at onetel.net Thu Dec 21 13:34:27 2006 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (Mike Amos) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:34:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] convention References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000d01c724fc$5a915160$d42c9058@oakdene1> Now this this I agree absolutely Early on in this thread we had Ton and Grattan telling us that the definition was ok and that it was us who couldn't read it properly. Then we had them coming up with diametrically opposite opinions In Law 40 what SOs do is reglulate agreements so replace conventions with agreements. In other Laws make what changes you see fit. And then we can get on with Christmas and cease our endless theological wranglings Best wishes for the holiday Mike (off to Switzerland fog and travel arrangements permitting) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] convention > OK, this thread has been going on for quite some while. > > Now please tell me, why do we bother. > > I see two places where the conventionality of a bid can become an issue. > > In a third place, there is absolutely no distinction between > conventional and non-conventional bids. Both are equally disclosable. > > The second place where conventions are mentioned in the lawbook is > where it says that an SO can regulate the use of conventions. It is > clear that a) this distinction is largely overlooked and b) must be > considered up for a change. I urge the WBFLC to delete the reference > to conventions in the next lawbook and allow an SO to regulate what > they want. > > This leaves us with the first place where conventionality is an issue: > insufficient bids. If the insufficient bid is conventional, or if the > next higher bid in the same strain is conventional, then the call > cannot be changed without penalty. Here, we do need some definition of > conventionality. Maybe the WBFLC would do best in deleting the word > conventional in this Law and replace it with a direct condition. Such > as: if the bid does not show willingness to play in the strain > mentioned, ... > This may well alter the precise application of this Law, but has the > benefit of removing a contentious definition from the lawbook. > > > -- > 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 Thu Dec 21 14:17:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:17 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > Concerning 5H my opinion is that it does show high card > strength but in parallel it conveys a second message about control > of the suit. But that is true of many agreements regarding high card strength. For example an agreement to play a 2H opener* as promising at least two of the top three honours also the conveys the message of "control" (albeit only "1st or second round control"). After 1C-3C a I play 3D as showing sufficient HCS to "control" the suit - albeit in this case I mean the "control" as being sufficient to prevent opps running 5 quick tricks against 3N (A,Ax,KQ,KTx,QJx,JT9x all do that). Control is not incidental to HCS, the degree of control a hand has promised is a function of exactly what HCS the bid is agreed to show. *NB, it makes no difference that 2H also shows both length and willingness to play - if "control" is a meaning "other than HCS" it is also a meaning "other than" willingness and length. BTW, I find wholly unable the position Grattan has taken that while he and Ton disagree on the meaning of the definition there is no evidence of the definition being severely flawed. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Dec 21 14:33:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:33 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000d01c724fc$5a915160$d42c9058@oakdene1> Message-ID: Mike wrote: > And then we can get on with Christmas and cease our endless > theological wranglings Yes, but... This case originally arose after an auction 4N-(p)-4H. 4H was established to be a brain fart (intended as showing the HA but the player thought the 4 level to be sufficient!) rather than an inadvertent IB and thus the *current* L27b1/b2 distinction actually mattered. Everybody involved would have agreed that a correction to 5H would have conveyed absolutely *NO* information that an immediate 5H would not have conveyed so the ruling hinged only on whether 5H should have been ruled conventional. A similar auction for consideration is 1N-(P)-2C(stay)-(3D)-2S (where 2S bidder didn't notice the 3D bid). Tim From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 21 14:38:28 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:38:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c72505$4c861bb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Two questions about alerts and explanations arose among our group. We'd > very much appreciate your comments on them. > > 1. The bidding : > N E S W > 1C 1H X p > 1S 2D > > Now South asks West whether they have 2-suited conventions. This question is "questionable". South should ask for a (complete) explanation of the auction so far (i.e. East's calls) and may follow up with the above question on whether they have 2-suited conventions in their system and in case what such (or other) alternative calls would have shown. > Assume they indeed play that 2NT shows 55+ in hearts and diamonds ; > apparently that's what South would like to know ; but they play it "strong > or weak". > > Should West : > a) answer affirmatively, and volunteer the information that 2NT would have > been strong/weak, so that partner probably has an intermediate-strength > 55. If that is the agreement/understanding then yes, absolutely. > b) answer affirmatively, and that's all, because if South wants to know > whether a 55 is still possible, he should ask. This is precisely why leading questions are "questionable". 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, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. Notice that "inference drawn from his general knowledge and experience" only includes inference that should be expected obvious also to the opponents. > c) answer affimatively, and that's all, because 2D seems to show 55 anyway > (bridge logic ; with 54, double) and because an experienced player should > know there are hands unsuitable for a 2NT bid anyway (poor O/DR). This seems poor excuses for not giving a full explanation. > > 2. You have an agreement that weak suits may be bypassed ; for example, > you > might answer 1NT to 1C within the usual range, while holding a weak 4-card > major. > This should be disclosed, and the letter of most regulations say you've to > alert everytime such a bypass would be unexpected ; this means nearly any > low-level bid is alertable, and makes it unpractical. > So, is it enough to put such an agreement into the 'important notes' > section, or pre-alert it ? That depends on your (local) regulations for using alert. If the alert in such situations is not explicitly exempted I would rule that it is compulsory. Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 21 15:01:38 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:01:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <458A93C2.9000405@NTLworld.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > Two questions about alerts and explanations arose among our group. We'd > very much appreciate your comments on them. > > 1. The bidding : > N E S W > 1C 1H X p > 1S 2D > > Now South asks West whether they have 2-suited conventions. > Assume they indeed play that 2NT shows 55+ in hearts and diamonds ; > apparently that's what South would like to know ; but they play it "strong > or weak". > > Should West : > a) answer affirmatively, and volunteer the information that 2NT would have > been strong/weak, so that partner probably has an intermediate-strength 55. > b) answer affirmatively, and that's all, because if South wants to know > whether a 55 is still possible, he should ask. > c) answer affimatively, and that's all, because 2D seems to show 55 anyway > (bridge logic ; with 54, double) and because an experienced player should > know there are hands unsuitable for a 2NT bid anyway (poor O/DR). > > 2. You have an agreement that weak suits may be bypassed ; for example, you > might answer 1NT to 1C within the usual range, while holding a weak 4-card > major. > This should be disclosed, and the letter of most regulations say you've to > alert everytime such a bypass would be unexpected ; this means nearly any > low-level bid is alertable, and makes it unpractical. > So, is it enough to put such an agreement into the 'important notes' > section, or pre-alert it ? > [nige1] As a player I reckon you should (d) Answer affirmatively *and* admit that 2N would show H&D weak/strong *but* not infer that partner has intermediate strength if there are other possible explanations. "Bridge Logic"or no, if 2D promises 5 I think you should say so, I am sure that bypassing weak suits isn't alertable. If any law-maker tried to impose such a judgement, Ely Culbertson would come back and haunt him :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 21 15:12:17 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:12:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <000101c72505$4c861bb0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221150756.02804080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:38 21/12/2006 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > b) answer affirmatively, and that's all, because if South wants to know > > whether a 55 is still possible, he should ask. > >This is precisely why leading questions are "questionable". > >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, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general >knowledge and experience. I do agree. However, it has been expressed before on blml that any question should be taken as "please explain", so that e.g. - if one asks you the range of that 2H opening, you have to volunteer the explanation that it is two-suited ; - if one asks you whether you play weak twos (following e.g. your 2H passed-hand overcall), you must volunteer the explanation that you play Multi. *even if that's not what was asked* So, although leading questions should be avoided, they should also be treated as legalg. I've never felt at ease with that principle, and that's why I told in the discussion under question. FWIW, I'd welcome a ruling that leading questions are disallowed altogether. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 21 15:27:59 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:27:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221150756.02804080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c7250c$371ab180$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .......... > I do agree. However, it has been expressed before on blml that any > question > should be taken as "please explain", so that e.g. > - if one asks you the range of that 2H opening, you have to volunteer the > explanation that it is two-suited ; > - if one asks you whether you play weak twos (following e.g. your 2H > passed-hand overcall), you must volunteer the explanation that you play > Multi. True, but that does not make leading questions proper. > > *even if that's not what was asked* > > So, although leading questions should be avoided, they should also be > treated as legalg. I've never felt at ease with that principle, and that's > why I told in the discussion under question. > FWIW, I'd welcome a ruling that leading questions are disallowed > altogether. Law 20F: 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 (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). It is specifically illegal (Law 20B) to have only a part of an auction restated, and it is considered improper (when playing without screens) to ask for an explanation of a specific call that has been made. This of course includes leading questions. Still this happens so regularly that it by necessity is treated as legal and OK, however with the risk of passing more unauthorized information to partner than would have been the case had correct procedure been followed. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 21 17:07:57 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:07:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <000201c7250c$371ab180$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c7250c$371ab180$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0AF53CC9-AA2A-40AC-85B1-B285EDDE7062@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Still this happens so regularly that it by necessity is treated as > legal and > OK, however with the risk of passing more unauthorized information to > partner than would have been the case had correct procedure been > followed. So if "everybody" violates the law, we must in effect change the law? Or in fact ignore it? It's a game; I suppose that's the pragmatic solution, but I don't like it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 21 17:20:28 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:20:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <0AF53CC9-AA2A-40AC-85B1-B285EDDE7062@rochester.rr.com> References: <000201c7250c$371ab180$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000201c7250c$371ab180$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221171437.0213cda0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:07 21/12/2006 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >So if "everybody" violates the law, we must in effect change the law? >Or in fact ignore it? It's a game; I suppose that's the pragmatic >solution, but I don't like it. The will of the Men is expressed in the Law, and the Law protects them and punishes them (French Declaration of Rights). Some could argue that, as long as UI from biased questions can be dealt with efficiently using the Laws, specific questions might be tolerated by the same Law. I'd like to disallow specific questions, but only because I feel that UI canNOT be dealt with efficiently. Ed's right in invoking pragmaticism ; if one had to give all details in all explanations of all bids, we'd rether limit session to a dozen of boards. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 21 17:28:08 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:28:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] FW: alertability Message-ID: <000501c7251d$000ade20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Sorry Ed, I forgot to change the "to" address before pressing "send" > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Still this happens so regularly that it by necessity is treated as > > legal and > > OK, however with the risk of passing more unauthorized information to > > partner than would have been the case had correct procedure been > > followed. > > > So if "everybody" violates the law, we must in effect change the law? > Or in fact ignore it? It's a game; I suppose that's the pragmatic > solution, but I don't like it. No, Law 20 describes correct procedures, but except for the clause that a review of the auction must include all calls made there is no clause in Law 20 (or elsewhere) that makes leading questions or questions on specific calls illegal. That is why I use the word "improper". The consequence of an "improper" question is that the amount of UI caused by this question can be greater than it should have been with the correct procedure. That in itself is no violation of law but can impose restrictions on partner's subsequent choices among alternative actions. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 17:34:35 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:34:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <200612202204.OAA21301@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200612202204.OAA21301@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221111535.02b911e0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:28 PM 12/20/06, Adam wrote: >Robert Geller wrote: > > > In the 1980s Marty Bergen and disciples started to open ridiculously > > weak "weak 2s", sometimes with only 4 cards, and weak opening > > systems like EHAA or Mosquito came along. These didn't do very > > well against expert players but were very effective against weaker > > players. The ACBL issued regulations barring or restricting such > > tactics that were technically illegal under the laws, so it was > necessary > > to change the laws to sort-of legitimize such regulations. I didn't > > really follow any of this closely but there was a long series of > > editorials (leading articles) in the Bridge World decrying such > > regulations. > > > > So the bottom line seems to be that in addition to the inherent > > difficulty of defining exactly what's a convention and what's not > > (this doesn't really seem to be a big problem, despite some of > > the recent posts here), the definition of convention was stretched > > to allow some treatments (very light openings) to be restricted. > >No, I don't think this is what happened. I don't know the situation >with EHAA/Moscito. But with regard to Bergen's ridiculous weak 2's, >what happened was that the ACBL passed a regulation defining any weak >2 that could be on fewer than 5 cards, or could be fewer than 5 HCP, >to be a convention that was illegal in all events. This caused an >outcry, since it made no sense that the ACBL could simply decree >something to be a "convention" that clearly wasn't. So the ACBL >rescinded the regulation and put forth a new one; the new regulation >did not attempt to define such weak 2's as conventions, but it made >all conventions in the follow-up auction after a non-conforming weak 2 >illegal. > >But as far as I recall, no Laws were changed. The definition of >"convention" was not altered at all in the Laws. Except for the brief >period when the ACBL had a bogus regulation on the books, >non-conforming weak 2's were not considered conventional, either >before or after. Conventional bids, which were now illegal when used >after a non-conforming weak 2, were just as conventional before the >incident as they were afterwards, by the definition of "convention". >And they could have been regulated just as much before this incident >as afterwards, according to the Laws. The only controversy, I think, >is that even though it's clear that certain rebids and responses can >be banned, according to the letter of the Law---banning *all* >conventions after certain natural bids and treatments has been >considered by some to be tantamount to banning the natural bids and >treatment themselves, which would be illegal (i.e. the whole is >greater than the sum of its parts in this case). I think this was a >new question that required an interpretation of the Laws, and all the >organizations involved have interpreted the Laws to conclude that such >bans are legal. But this doesn't have anything to do with the >question of "what is a convention?". > >Anyway, I don't think your statements---"it was necessary to change >the laws to sort-of legitimize such regulations" and "the definition >of convention was stretched"---are accurate, at least not according to >my recollection of what transpired. What was changed was not the definition of "convention", but L40D itself, with the addition of the second sentence, explicitly permitting regulation of light initial actions. This was added at the ACBL's behest, to insure the legitimacy post facto of their regulatory constraints on weak two-bids and "mini" notrump openings. This should have put paid to the idea that the power to regulate conventions in the first sentence of L40D allows for regulations that forbid the use of any conventions after some disparaged non-conventional bid. But the WBF has explicitly deemed such regulations legitimate, and the ACBL, I believe, still uses this tactic. Indeed, we are told by Grattan that the WBF has interpreted the power to regulate conventions so broadly as to permit prohibitions on the use of any conventions whatsoever under any circumstances by any partnership whose methods incorporate any agreement of any kind that the regulators do not like. The bottom line today is that zones are completely free to regulate bidding methods however they choose, without regard to the apparent constraints on that power in L40D. So Adam is correct, but Robert's recollection is close enough to the facts to make no practical difference as far as regulation of agreements is concerned. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 18:24:37 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:24:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221121008.02b78010@pop.starpower.net> At 10:37 PM 12/20/06, Steve wrote: >Thanks, Grattan. I had forgotten the "as a matter of general bridge >knowledge." Does that mean that a 1H opening showing a possible canape >if the hand type is two-suited is a convention in the US but not in Italy? I'll let Grattan answer the question, but ISTM that that would certainly make a lot of sense. [snip] >I think that probably was the original intent, but it's not what the >words actually say. According to a literal reading, none of the above >factors matters. The bid is a convention if it shows anything _other >than_ any of those four meanings. Of course the literal reading is >absurd: it means a strong club showing any distribution is not a >convention. Probably there should be an "at least one of" applied to >the three major meanings, but no such words are in the text. Others have said the same about the literal reading, but I disagree. It would be absolutely correct if the relevant sentence didn't start with "however". That it does, though, makes it not an absolute statement, but rather a further condition (in this case an exception) attached to the previous sentence. Parsing the defintion carefully reveals that its ambiguity, as I've suggested previously, comes from the use of "other than". By telling us what a conventions isn't, rather than what it is, we are left to determine for ourselves what the "opposite" of each of the enumerated "meanings" is. That creates the substantial "grey area" into which the dispute over the ace-showing 5H bid falls. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 18:44:17 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:44:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221122818.02b7b1a0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:59 PM 12/20/06, Roger wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > >> From: "raija" > >> In the OP case 4NT (asking for specific aces), the 5H call has two > other > >> meanings than just showing the ace of hearts. It also says "I do not > >> have > >> ace of clubs" and further, "I do not have ace of diamonds" > > > > If you want to argue that 5H is a convention, this is the right sort of > > argument to make. The counter-argument is that nearly every bid in > real > > bidding systems carries similar negative inferences, > >I believe there is an issue with language and it is not a quibble. If I >understand the agreement correctly it is not a negative inference that 5H >denies the CA and the DA. It is a positive communication that it denies >those cards. A negative inference (from a positive statement) is what can be deduced from knowing that if it were false some other statement would have been chosen instead. That 5H denies the CA and the DA derives from the knowledge that if either was held, the 5H bidder would have chosen to bid 5C or 5D, respectively, instead of 5H, rather than deriving from the explicit message of the 5H bid. It is, in fact, a textbook example of a negative inference. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 18:59:59 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:59:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221124938.02b7b300@pop.starpower.net> At 03:14 AM 12/21/06, Grattan wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > > > conventional. If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the > > > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the > > > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination > then it > > > is a convention. > > > > I think that probably was the original intent, but it's not what the > > words actually say. > >+=+ No. The original intention was that if a call conveys a positive >message not within these areas it is a convention. If it is the case that >it also carries a message that does fall within these areas this does not >nullify its status as a convention. My notes on the discussions are quite >clear on this point. Wayne, I believe, intended to point out a consequence of the defintion rather than restating the definition in its entirety, so Grattan's "No" strikes me as a serious overbid. The only contradiction between Wayne's statement and Grattan's -- and I don't think this is what Grattan had in mind -- is that a bid that has no meaning whatsoever would be conventional in Wayne's formulation but not in Grattan's. Perhaps we should start a thread on whether a totally meaningless bid is or is not a convention. On second thought, though... Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 21 19:08:18 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:08:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] FW: alertability In-Reply-To: <000501c7251d$000ade20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221185444.021397e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:28 21/12/2006 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >there is no clause in Law >20 (or elsewhere) that makes leading questions or questions on specific >calls illegal. That is why I use the word "improper". > >The consequence of an "improper" question is that the amount of UI caused by >this question can be greater than it should have been with the correct >procedure. There are cases where those "improper" questions are necessary. I remember having mentioned this case before, but it seems pertinent again. We have an agreement that, unless specifically discussed on seeing opp's CC, we treat : - all NF 1C opening bids as natural ; - all F1 1C openings as strong, even if they aren't (eg Roman Club, Swedish 2-step) ; with very different approaches to overcalling. Notice that this is allowed in our country. 1C, alert, I ask for an explanation, and get a list of 11 meanings, some of which are rather obscure. Now, only one thing will help me, and I ask : "please tell me, is that bid forcing ?" If this is disallowed, how can I know ? (dealing with UI is a horse of another color) Remember that an explanation should include all interesting features of the bid, not features of responses to it, for obvious UI reasons. Also, "forcing / NF" might mean something else than "requesting / not requesting another bid"(e.g. you'll alert "NF free bids" by PH, because it means something else than "might incidentally be passed by weak opener"). For those reasons, it is felt that "F/ NF" isn't one of those "interesting features". Best regards, Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 19:39:12 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:39:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221130254.02b7a090@pop.starpower.net> At 05:07 AM 12/21/06, Herman wrote: >This leaves us with the first place where conventionality is an issue: >insufficient bids. If the insufficient bid is conventional, or if the >next higher bid in the same strain is conventional, then the call >cannot be changed without penalty. Here, we do need some definition of >conventionality. Maybe the WBFLC would do best in deleting the word >conventional in this Law and replace it with a direct condition. Such >as: if the bid does not show willingness to play in the strain >mentioned, ... >This may well alter the precise application of this Law, but has the >benefit of removing a contentious definition from the lawbook. I agree with Herman that it would be beneficial to rewrite L27B1(a) without reference to "conventional[ity]". But, IMO, it would be better to make it broader, not narrower, by allowing the substitution without penalty if the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination carry essentially the same meaning, regardless of whether that meaning is or is not conventional. But the real problem with any such formulation, whether it be what we have, Herman's suggestion, or mine, is that an insufficient bid cannot, by itself, have any "meaning" at all -- for a partnership to assign a specific meaning to an insufficient bid would manifest prima facie an intention to violate L72B2. At best, it can only have the meaning it would have had had the auction gone as the insufficient bidder imagines it had. For those who disparage laws that require "mind reading", the laws on insufficient bids are as egregious as any in TFLB. And even an infallible mind reader will wind up stimied by the totally muddled and confused, who have been known to blurt out a bid without any clear idea, real or imagined, of what the auction to that point was. I doubt that there's an experienced TD anywhere who hasn't heard, "I don't know what I was thinking; it just came out." Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 21 20:23:24 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:23:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] FW: alertability In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221185444.021397e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c72535$7d1cc3c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > At 17:28 21/12/2006 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > there is no clause in Law 20 (or elsewhere) that > > makes leading questions or questions on specific > > calls illegal. That is why I use the word "improper". > > > > The consequence of an "improper" question is that the > > amount of UI caused by this question can be greater > > than it should have been with the correct procedure. > > There are cases where those "improper" questions are necessary. I remember > having mentioned this case before, but it seems pertinent again. > > We have an agreement that, unless specifically discussed on seeing opp's > CC, we treat : > - all NF 1C opening bids as natural ; > - all F1 1C openings as strong, even if they aren't (eg Roman Club, > Swedish > 2-step) ; > with very different approaches to overcalling. > Notice that this is allowed in our country. > > 1C, alert, I ask for an explanation, and get a list of 11 meanings, some > of > which are rather obscure. > Now, only one thing will help me, and I ask : "please tell me, is that bid > forcing ?" > If this is disallowed, how can I know ? (dealing with UI is a horse of > another color) > > Remember that an explanation should include all interesting features of > the > bid, not features of responses to it, for obvious UI reasons. Also, > "forcing / NF" might mean something else than "requesting / not requesting > another bid"(e.g. you'll alert "NF free bids" by PH, because it means > something else than "might incidentally be passed by weak opener"). For > those reasons, it is felt that "F/ NF" isn't one of those "interesting > features". > > Best regards, > > Alain This is all very well, but you must remember that whenever you ask a question you create UI to your partner. Whether or not this UI is significant is irrelevant; your partner is in any case subject to the restrictions in Law 16A. (If the UI has little significance then the restrictions will be correspondingly minimal.) The fact that you claim you need to focus on some special aspects with your question does not relieve your partner from the consequences of the UI you create. Whether or not a particular call is forcing is of course part of the information that must be clear from the explanation offered, so a follow-up question on that information must be in order if the matter is still unclear after the initial explanation. But just asking "Is this call forcing or not?" is definitely not in order. (And I don't see the difference between "requesting" and "forcing for a round".) Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 21 20:41:34 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:41:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disputed concession Message-ID: <458AE36E.2060708@NTLworld.com> [based loosely on a case under discussion in Bridge Talk http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=1985&st=0] The Chimp and The Hog encountered this interesting board in their match against Karapet and the Walrus. Karapet S:65432 H:AKQJT982 D- Chimp C- Hog S:7 S- H:76543 H- D:AKQJT9 D:76543 C:7 Walrus C:A65432 S:AKQJT98 H- D- C:KQJT98 Chimp Karapet Hog Walrus (1D) 2H (2S) _X (_P) _P (3C) _X (3N) AP When the Chimp opened 1D, the Hog decided to muddy the waters with a psychic spade response in the hope of eventually buying the contract in diamonds. The Walrus knew what to do to 2S and 3C but he became aware of a cunning glint in the Hogs's eye and decided to let opponents stew in 3N undoubled. Karapet could not believe his luck. He almost managed a twisted smile. "I'll take the first eight and you can have the rest", he said as he snapped out his hearts from the top down, in the manner approved by Sven Pran. "Wait a second protested the Walrus, I also have top spades to cash". "Aha" interrupted the Chimp, relieved to salvage something from the wreck, "The knowledge that Walter has spade winners is unauthorised information to Karapet". He gets his spades only if there is no other plausible switch. "Let us get a ruling" suggested Karapet, quietly confident because, after cashing his hearts, he had nothing but spades to lead. The Secretary Bird was excited when told what had happened. "All claim law is peculiar but wait until I've explained the effect of WBFLC minute 2001-10-28#10!" He chirped. "Only a few in the know can apply such obscure interpretations, so Karapet is a bit unfortunate that he called me. The Walrus disputed Karapet's concession of 5 tricks, so the concession is cancelled and Karapet's exposed cards are penalty cards. Defenders were shocked into incredulous silence; but the Chimp was already working out how to take maximum advantage. The Chimp turned to Karapet, "Please play the eight then deuce of hearts, he smirked. After winning H:4, the Chimp cashed his six diamonds, demanding that Karapet match each diamond with a heart. When the Chimp cashed the the promoted H:765. the Walrus was squeezed in the black suits. "12 tricks" gloated the Chimp "A supremely *equitable* ruling". From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Dec 21 21:09:45 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:09:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disputed concession In-Reply-To: <458AE36E.2060708@NTLworld.com> References: <458AE36E.2060708@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <458AEA09.9060406@NTLworld.com> [based loosely on a case under discussion in Bridge Talk http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=1985&st=0] The Chimp and The Hog encountered this interesting board in their match against Karapet and the Walrus. Karapet S:65432 H:AKQJT982 D- Chimp C- Hog S:7 S- H:76543 H- D:AKQJT9 D:765432 C:8 Walrus C:A765432 S:AKQJT98 H- D:8 C:KQJT9 Chimp Karapet Hog Walrus (1D) 2H (2S) _X (_P) _P (3C) _X (3N) AP When the Chimp opened 1D, the Hog decided to muddy the waters with a psychic spade response in the hope of eventually buying the contract in diamonds. The Walrus knew what to do to 2S and 3C but he became aware of a cunning glint in the Hogs's eye and decided to let opponents stew in 3N undoubled. Karapet could not believe his luck. He almost managed a twisted smile. "I'll take the first eight and you can have the rest", he said as he snapped out his hearts from the top down, in the manner approved by Sven Pran. "Wait a second protested the Walrus, I also have top spades to cash". "Aha" interrupted the Chimp, relieved to salvage something from the wreck, "The knowledge that Walter has spade winners is unauthorised information to Karapet". He gets his spades only if there is no other plausible switch. "Let us get a ruling" suggested Karapet, quietly confident because, after cashing his hearts, he had nothing but spades to lead. The Secretary Bird was excited when told what had happened. "All claim law is peculiar but wait until I've explained the effect of WBFLC minute 2001-10-28#10!" He chirped. "Only a few in the know can apply such obscure interpretations, so Karapet is a bit unfortunate that he called me. The Walrus disputed Karapet's concession of 5 tricks, so the concession is cancelled and Karapet's exposed cards are penalty cards. Defenders were shocked into incredulous silence; but the Chimp was already working out how to take maximum advantage. The Chimp turned to Karapet, "Please play the eight then deuce of hearts, he smirked. After winning H:4, the Chimp cashed his six diamonds, demanding that Karapet match each diamond with a heart. When the Chimp cashed the the promoted H:765. the Walrus was squeezed in the black suits. "12 tricks" gloated the Chimp "A supremely *equitable* ruling". From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 22:29:27 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:29:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221160831.02b70eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:01 AM 12/21/06, Alain wrote: >1. The bidding : >N E S W >1C 1H X p >1S 2D > >Now South asks West whether they have 2-suited conventions. >Assume they indeed play that 2NT shows 55+ in hearts and diamonds ; >apparently that's what South would like to know ; but they play it >"strong >or weak". > >Should West : >a) answer affirmatively, and volunteer the information that 2NT would >have >been strong/weak, so that partner probably has an >intermediate-strength 55. >b) answer affirmatively, and that's all, because if South wants to know >whether a 55 is still possible, he should ask. >c) answer affimatively, and that's all, because 2D seems to show 55 >anyway >(bridge logic ; with 54, double) and because an experienced player should >know there are hands unsuitable for a 2NT bid anyway (poor O/DR). West should answer affirmatively and volunteer an explanation of the 2NT agreement. Unless, however, the fact that it is intermediate-strengh derives from agreement or experience ("implicit agreement") rather than solely the logic of the situation, it need not be stated. Of course, with inexperienced opponents, one may want to do so anyhow as a matter of active ethics, but one should in that case make it clear that what is being disclosed is an inference rather than an agreement. >2. You have an agreement that weak suits may be bypassed ; for >example, you >might answer 1NT to 1C within the usual range, while holding a weak >4-card >major. >This should be disclosed, and the letter of most regulations say >you've to >alert everytime such a bypass would be unexpected ; this means nearly any >low-level bid is alertable, and makes it unpractical. >So, is it enough to put such an agreement into the 'important notes' >section, or pre-alert it ? Not if it would be genuinely unexpected, but that would strike me as odd. In North America, it is "general knowledge and experience" that some partnerships will bypass a weak four-card major and others won't; I would expect that to be nearly universal. The ACBL has explicitly stated that neither practice requires an alert. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 22:41:02 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:41:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000d01c724fc$5a915160$d42c9058@oakdene1> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> <000d01c724fc$5a915160$d42c9058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221163150.02b67860@pop.starpower.net> At 07:34 AM 12/21/06, Mike wrote: >In Law 40 what SOs do is reglulate agreements so replace conventions with >agreements. I would offer an analogy to the laws against discrimination in the U.S. Those laws (by virtue of identifying "protected classes") specify the criteria based on which public accommodations *may* discriminate against certain customers. But the fact is that they discriminate illegally (by refusing service to protected classes) all the time. That is hardly an argument for making such discrimination legal. The bridge community would be much better served if L40D were enforced against those SOs that regularly violate it, rather than changed to accommodate them. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 22:50:24 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:50:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c724fc$5a915160$d42c9058@oakdene1> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221164413.02b694b0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:33 AM 12/21/06, twm wrote: >A similar auction for consideration is 1N-(P)-2C(stay)-(3D)-2S (where 2S >bidder didn't notice the 3D bid). It is similar only if opener is obligated to bid 3S on the actual auction whenever he holds a four-card spade suit. Where I play, it is quite common to agree that 2C may be bid with an appropriately shaped zero-count, so that would be a somewhat unusual agreement. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 21 23:06:40 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:06:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221150756.02804080@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20061221150756.02804080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221165242.02b6c5c0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:12 AM 12/21/06, Alain wrote: >So, although leading questions should be avoided, they should also be >treated as legalg. I've never felt at ease with that principle, and >that's >why I told in the discussion under question. >FWIW, I'd welcome a ruling that leading questions are disallowed >altogether. Legally improper questions must be tolerated as a practical matter. When the opponents cue bid on the eighth round of a complex auction, it is a lot easier on both sides if you can ask whether the bidder must have first-round control in lieu of the legally mandated request for an explanation of the entire auction. SOs can, and should, regulate the abuse of leading questions, but should not disallow them altogether. As our local TDs are fond of reminding us, duplicate bridge is a timed event. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 22 00:24:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221164413.02b694b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > *From:* Eric Landau > *To:* Bridge Laws Discussion List > *Date:* Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:50:24 -0500 > > At 08:33 AM 12/21/06, twm wrote: > > >A similar auction for consideration is 1N-(P)-2C(stay)-(3D)-2S > (where 2S bidder didn't notice the 3D bid). > > It is similar only if opener is obligated to bid 3S on the actual > auction whenever he holds a four-card spade suit. Not "obligated", but if one chooses to correct to 3S (as I would holding a 4324 or 5323 hand) is it subject to L27b1b or L27b2? > Where I play, it > is quite common to agree that 2C may be bid with an appropriately > shaped zero-count, so that would be a somewhat unusual agreement. Likewise - but that doesn't make bidding 3S wrong. Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 00:51:07 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:51:07 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221124938.02b7b300@pop.starpower.net> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <6.1.1.1.0.20061221124938.02b7b300@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612211551t73694c69m6505e525ca298ad3@mail.gmail.com> On 22/12/06, Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:14 AM 12/21/06, Grattan wrote: > > >From: "Steve Willner" > > > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > > > > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid > > > > conventional. If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the > > > > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the > > > > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination > > then it > > > > is a convention. > > > > > > I think that probably was the original intent, but it's not what the > > > words actually say. > > > >+=+ No. The original intention was that if a call conveys a positive > >message not within these areas it is a convention. If it is the case that > >it also carries a message that does fall within these areas this does not > >nullify its status as a convention. My notes on the discussions are quite > >clear on this point. > > Wayne, I believe, intended to point out a consequence of the defintion > rather than restating the definition in its entirety, so Grattan's "No" > strikes me as a serious overbid. The only contradiction between > Wayne's statement and Grattan's -- and I don't think this is what > Grattan had in mind -- is that a bid that has no meaning whatsoever > would be conventional in Wayne's formulation but not in Grattan's. > > Perhaps we should start a thread on whether a totally meaningless bid > is or is not a convention. On second thought, though... > I couldn't resist commenting sorry Eric. At the 2006 National Championships in New Zealand the chief director announced after the event had already started that a "random 1S" over a Precision 1C was not going to be allowed. I do not know what process if any was followed to make this ruling. This in spite of the fact that the regulations explicitly allowed "any defense" versus strong artificial openings. The 1S bid in question (not in my arsenal) basically showed a hand that was unsuitable for some other action - even Pass was defined in their system. So 1S was automatic if your hand did not qualify for any other action. It occurs to me now that 1S is not a convention as it has no "other meaning". All we would know about 1S is based on the negative inferences of not making another bid. I guess the regulation made at the national championships was illegal. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 22 03:23:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:23:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612211551t73694c69m6505e525ca298ad3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c72570$3d84b2a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............... > At the 2006 National Championships in New Zealand the chief director > announced after the event had already started that a "random 1S" over > a Precision 1C was not going to be allowed. I do not know what > process if any was followed to make this ruling. This in spite of the > fact that the regulations explicitly allowed "any defense" versus > strong artificial openings. > > The 1S bid in question (not in my arsenal) basically showed a hand > that was unsuitable for some other action - even Pass was defined in > their system. So 1S was automatic if your hand did not qualify for > any other action. > > It occurs to me now that 1S is not a convention as it has no "other > meaning". All we would know about 1S is based on the negative > inferences of not making another bid. > > I guess the regulation made at the national championships was illegal. There is nothing illegal about that except possibly that the regulation was announced rather late! The point is that the bid does not indicate willingness to play in the named denomination, nor does it show length or strength in that denomination, so it is conventional all right. Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Fri Dec 22 03:40:52 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:40:52 +0900 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000701c72570$3d84b2a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000701c72570$3d84b2a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200612220240.AA06651@geller204.nifty.com> >The point is that the bid does not indicate willingness to play in the named >denomination, nor does it show length or strength in that denomination, so >it is conventional all right. I agree it could legitimately have been barred in CofC issued before the event started. But before the event commenced, >> the regulations explicitly allowed "any defense" versus >> strong artificial openings. So, while the SO would have been within their rights to forbid "the random 1S" in regulations issued before the event started, can they legitimately change the CofC after the event is underway (save correction of obvious typographical errors)? -Bob Sven Pran ????????: >> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >............... >> At the 2006 National Championships in New Zealand the chief director >> announced after the event had already started that a "random 1S" over >> a Precision 1C was not going to be allowed. I do not know what >> process if any was followed to make this ruling. This in spite of the >> fact that the regulations explicitly allowed "any defense" versus >> strong artificial openings. >> >> The 1S bid in question (not in my arsenal) basically showed a hand >> that was unsuitable for some other action - even Pass was defined in >> their system. So 1S was automatic if your hand did not qualify for >> any other action. >> >> It occurs to me now that 1S is not a convention as it has no "other >> meaning". All we would know about 1S is based on the negative >> inferences of not making another bid. >> >> I guess the regulation made at the national championships was illegal. > >There is nothing illegal about that except possibly that the regulation was >announced rather late! > >The point is that the bid does not indicate willingness to play in the named >denomination, nor does it show length or strength in that denomination, so >it is conventional all right. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 22 03:55:51 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:55:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <200612220240.AA06651@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000801c72574$b13038b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Geller [mailto:geller at nifty.com] > Sent: 22. desember 2006 03:41 > To: Sven Pran > Cc: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] convention > > > >The point is that the bid does not indicate willingness to play in the > named > >denomination, nor does it show length or strength in that denomination, > so > >it is conventional all right. > I agree it could legitimately have been barred in CofC issued before the > event started. > > But before the event commenced, > >> the regulations explicitly allowed "any defense" versus > >> strong artificial openings. > So, while the SO would have been within their rights to forbid > "the random 1S" in regulations issued before the event started, > can they legitimately change the CofC after the event is underway > (save correction of obvious typographical errors)? > > -Bob Normally no. But I should grant them that possibility if they for whatever reason found it necessary with this late regulation in order to avoid ridiculous situations which could destroy the enjoyment of the game for most participants. (This is not to be taken as a statement in favour or against said regulation!) I believe (frankly I am not sure) that we have (or at least have had) a similar regulation in Norway classifying such bids as Brown Stickers. Sven From geller at nifty.com Fri Dec 22 04:16:53 2006 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:16:53 +0900 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000801c72574$b13038b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000801c72574$b13038b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200612220316.AA06652@geller204.nifty.com> If the opponents are allowed to use a convention (strong 1C) we should be allowed to use any convention of our choosing against it. If they can't cope with the "random 1S" let them play go back to a playing a natural system! This is a matter of equity though, not law. The laws as they now stand would seem to treat defenses to conventions as conventions themselves and allow regulation of countermeasures by the SO. -Bob Sven Pran writes: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Geller [mailto:geller at nifty.com] >> Sent: 22. desember 2006 03:41 >> To: Sven Pran >> Cc: blml >> Subject: Re: [blml] convention >> >> >> >The point is that the bid does not indicate willingness to play in the >> named >> >denomination, nor does it show length or strength in that denomination, >> so >> >it is conventional all right. >> I agree it could legitimately have been barred in CofC issued before the >> event started. >> >> But before the event commenced, >> >> the regulations explicitly allowed "any defense" versus >> >> strong artificial openings. >> So, while the SO would have been within their rights to forbid >> "the random 1S" in regulations issued before the event started, >> can they legitimately change the CofC after the event is underway >> (save correction of obvious typographical errors)? >> >> -Bob > >Normally no. > >But I should grant them that possibility if they for whatever reason found >it necessary with this late regulation in order to avoid ridiculous >situations which could destroy the enjoyment of the game for most >participants. (This is not to be taken as a statement in favour or against >said regulation!) > >I believe (frankly I am not sure) that we have (or at least have had) a >similar regulation in Norway classifying such bids as Brown Stickers. > >Sven > > ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 22 05:01:49 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:01:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221165242.02b6c5c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20061221150756.02804080@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061221165242.02b6c5c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > When the opponents cue bid on the eighth round of a complex > auction, it is a lot easier on both sides if you can ask whether the > bidder must have first-round control in lieu of the legally mandated > request for an explanation of the entire auction. Besides, if you ask for an explanation of the entire auction you will, 99% of the time, get blank looks, incredulity, and probably a director call. What you will *not* get, even after they call the TD, is an explanation of the entire auction. :-( From tkooij at tiscali.nl Tue Dec 19 17:25:06 2006 From: tkooij at tiscali.nl (ton kooijman) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:25:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Terms In-Reply-To: <002101c722c2$0572adf0$3ed75047@DFYXB361> Message-ID: It really is a difficult issue. We seem to have used 'treatments' as another group of special calls. With a good definition of conventional it should be clear what non-conventional is. And it would be convenient if we declare non-natural being the same as artificial, unless treatments complete the bidding universe. Why does blml not take it as a real challenge to give workable definitions of all of these. Putting the emphasis on creation instead of criticism. We need these definitions. ton _____ From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of raija Sent: maandag 18 december 2006 17:32 To: BLML Subject: [blml] Terms Natural Artificial Conventional Non-conventional Any other terms in this "group of terms" ? The current thread Convention that was started by John Probst prompts me to bring this up. It seems to me (of course I am feeble enough of mind that I could have misunderstood) that some people here consider Conventional to be the opposite of Natural. IMO that is not true, e.g. fit jumps. Is there an authoritative description of each of those terms? Convention is defined in the Laws, but the others? Peace on earth to all blml'ers. Raija -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061219/16428143/attachment.htm From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 19 18:26:20 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:26:20 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__convention?= References: <5hd8vm$1j72n@ironin.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <458820BB.000001.59605@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- (Ton) It must be my incompetence of understanding English, which is told to me by a lot of people explaining why they feel to be right. But my knowledge of mathematics/logic is still such that I think that the statements by Wayne above don't make sense. How can one say that an ace is a subset of HCS, but being special cannot be considered to show strength as such? # I'll have a shot at it - not that I agree with Ton, BTW. If your 1S opening shows 4+ (or 5+), don't alert it. If your 1S opening shows 4+, but not 5 (possible when using Canap?), some SO s say you've to alert it. If your 1S opening shows 4+ and denies 4+ hearts (Swedish two-step), you've to alert it. If your 1NT opening shows a balanced 15-17 (or anything), it isn't alertable If it shows a balanced 15-17 with 4 spades, it is. So, sometimes, a subset of a non-alertable set is alertable. This means that it isn't absurd to say that an Ace-showing cue (subset of strength-showing) is alertable. BTW, I've seen written that ace-showing responses to 2C openings should be alerted, because if one doesn't they could be taken as length-showing (which can't be said of the case under discussion). In our case, it isn't that 5H doesn't show strength, it is that it doesn't show "strength". Credit that to Chomsky. Best regards, Alain. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061219/37452e46/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/20061219/37452e46/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/20061219/37452e46/attachment-0001.gif From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 21 18:53:33 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:53:33 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__convention?= References: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221111535.02b911e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <458ACA1B.000001.58805@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- (Eric) What was changed was not the definition of "convention", but L40D itself, with the addition of the second sentence, explicitly permitting regulation of light initial actions. This was added at the ACBL's behest, to insure the legitimacy post facto of their regulatory constraints on weak two-bids and "mini" notrump openings. It doesn't affect 2-bids, as it is written. Rather, it's there for allowing such restrictions as the Rule of 18. Notice that, while the debate over the 5+/5+ weak-2 law was raging, some bigwigs used the Rule of 19 -used at that time by the Dutch- as an example showing how ridiculous restrictions might be. It seems that they changed their opinions. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061221/09a6e960/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/20061221/09a6e960/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/20061221/09a6e960/attachment-0001.gif From herman at hdw.be Fri Dec 22 09:22:16 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:22:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061221130254.02b7a090@pop.starpower.net> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061221130254.02b7a090@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <458B95B8.5020502@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:07 AM 12/21/06, Herman wrote: > >> This leaves us with the first place where conventionality is an issue: >> insufficient bids. If the insufficient bid is conventional, or if the >> next higher bid in the same strain is conventional, then the call >> cannot be changed without penalty. Here, we do need some definition of >> conventionality. Maybe the WBFLC would do best in deleting the word >> conventional in this Law and replace it with a direct condition. Such >> as: if the bid does not show willingness to play in the strain >> mentioned, ... >> This may well alter the precise application of this Law, but has the >> benefit of removing a contentious definition from the lawbook. > > I agree with Herman that it would be beneficial to rewrite L27B1(a) > without reference to "conventional[ity]". But, IMO, it would be better > to make it broader, not narrower, by allowing the substitution without > penalty if the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination carry essentially the same meaning, regardless of > whether that meaning is or is not conventional. > > But the real problem with any such formulation, whether it be what we > have, Herman's suggestion, or mine, is that an insufficient bid cannot, > by itself, have any "meaning" at all -- for a partnership to assign a > specific meaning to an insufficient bid would manifest prima facie an > intention to violate L72B2. At best, it can only have the meaning it > would have had had the auction gone as the insufficient bidder imagines > it had. For those who disparage laws that require "mind reading", the > laws on insufficient bids are as egregious as any in TFLB. > > And even an infallible mind reader will wind up stimied by the totally > muddled and confused, who have been known to blurt out a bid without > any clear idea, real or imagined, of what the auction to that point > was. I doubt that there's an experienced TD anywhere who hasn't heard, > "I don't know what I was thinking; it just came out." > So the solution is: don't look at the insufficient bid at all. Don't make the "meaning of the insufficienct bid" a factor in deciding on the possibility of penalty-free change. Of course the additional meanings given to it are UI to partner. Come to think of it, if the insufficient bid is UI, then why not simply always allow a change to the next higher bid. This solves problems like: 1NT-(3C)-2H oops, I did not see 3C. Without 3C, 2H is transfer to spades. With 3C, 3H is transfer to spades. Acceptable! Maybe a thought? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From agot at pop.ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 22 11:19:40 2006 From: agot at pop.ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:19:40 +0100 (Paris, Madrid) Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A__convention?= References: <458B95B8.5020502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <458BB13C.000004.19993@CERAP-MATSH1> -------Message original------- (Herman) So the solution is: don't look at the insufficient bid at all. Don t make the "meaning of the insufficienct bid" a factor in deciding on the possibility of penalty-free change. Of course the additional meanings given to it are UI to partner. Agree. In most cases, we'll even not know what the meaning of the insufficient bid would be, because we'll not know what the player thought. e.g. 1D 3H 3D a) didn't see 3H at all: 3D = limit raise b) saw 1H : 3D = preemptive raise c) saw 2H : 3D = transfer-cue = asks for stopper (probably long clubs) d) saw 3H, but mispulled and didn't realize : could be anything, because we don't know what he did want to pull. If the TD has to ask which, in order to determine what the right penalty is, then the TD, and not the player, is creating UI ... even if he does it away from the table, because the type of penalty will tell the players what happened. But don't agree with > 1NT-(3C)-2H oops, I did not see 3C. Without 3C, 2H is transfer to > spades. With 3C, 3H is transfer to spades. Acceptable! because this would be a way to create a transfer in a situation when it doesn't exist (at least in some partnerships). Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061222/a9f207b7/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/20061222/a9f207b7/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/20061222/a9f207b7/attachment-0001.gif From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 22 11:33:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:33:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001601c725b4$b38c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Dec 21, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > When the opponents cue bid on the eighth round of a complex > > auction, it is a lot easier on both sides if you can ask whether the > > bidder must have first-round control in lieu of the legally mandated > > request for an explanation of the entire auction. > > Besides, if you ask for an explanation of the entire auction you > will, 99% of the time, get blank looks, incredulity, and probably a > director call. What you will *not* get, even after they call the TD, > is an explanation of the entire auction. :-( If the Director knows his job you will! Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Fri Dec 22 17:09:36 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:09:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Terms References: Message-ID: <001d01c725e3$93542e40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton kooijman" To: "'raija'" ; "'BLML'" Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Terms > It really is a difficult issue. We seem to have used 'treatments' as > another > group of special calls. With a good definition of conventional it should > be > clear what non-conventional is. > > And it would be convenient if we declare non-natural being the same as > artificial, unless treatments complete the bidding universe. > > Why does blml not take it as a real challenge to give workable definitions > of all of these. Putting the emphasis on creation instead of criticism. > We > need these definitions. This is obviously sensible. Perhaps, since we are unable to agree on this forum we should try to decide, absent Law and regulation which do not seem to have helped, whether the status of my 5H call is to be treated as natural or not for the purposes of law 27B. That done we could begin to work towards ton's objective. John > > > > ton > > > > _____ > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of raija > Sent: maandag 18 december 2006 17:32 > To: BLML > Subject: [blml] Terms > > > > Natural > > Artificial > > Conventional > > Non-conventional > > > > Any other terms in this "group of terms" ? > > > > > > The current thread Convention that was started by John Probst prompts me > to > bring this up. It seems to me (of course I am feeble enough of mind that I > could have misunderstood) that some people here consider Conventional to > be > the opposite of Natural. IMO that is not true, e.g. fit jumps. > > > > Is there an authoritative description of each of those terms? > > Convention is defined in the Laws, but the others? > > > > > > Peace on earth to all blml'ers. > > > > Raija > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 22 17:58:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:58:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Terms In-Reply-To: <001d01c725e3$93542e40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <002e01c725ea$68de42c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John Probst ............. > This is obviously sensible. Perhaps, since we are unable to agree on this > forum we should try to decide, absent Law and regulation which do not seem > to have helped, whether the status of my 5H call is to be treated as > natural > or not for the purposes of law 27B. That done we could begin to work > towards > ton's objective. John Well, as I have demonstrated with my proof "ad absurdum", if your 5H bid is accepted as not conventional there cannot exist any bid at all that is conventional. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 22 17:58:56 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:58:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <001601c725b4$b38c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001601c725b4$b38c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2006, at 5:33 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > If the Director knows his job you will! Heh. Last time this happened, the director said to me "which bid do you want to know about?" I rest my case. :-) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Dec 22 19:20:23 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:20:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: References: <001601c725b4$b38c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <458C21E7.4060705@NTLworld.com> [Ed Reppert] > Heh. Last time this happened, the director said to me "which bid do > you want to know about?" I rest my case. :-) > [nige1] IMO, rather than insist that you describe each alerted call in the auction, the law should recommend that you answer the question "From your partner's calls what can you tell about his hand?" Apart from the main meaning of each individual call, there are subtle inferences that gradually accumulate into significance during successive calls; and probabilities that reinforce each other to become near certainties. IMO, most players feel justified in refraining from divulging such holistic understandings. Apart from improving disclosure, it would save time. From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 20:20:01 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 08:20:01 +1300 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061221123804.027fa6f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20061221150756.02804080@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061221165242.02b6c5c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612221120h4d062a03nae256b2e36cc81b9@mail.gmail.com> On 22/12/06, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > When the opponents cue bid on the eighth round of a complex > > auction, it is a lot easier on both sides if you can ask whether the > > bidder must have first-round control in lieu of the legally mandated > > request for an explanation of the entire auction. > > Besides, if you ask for an explanation of the entire auction you > will, 99% of the time, get blank looks, incredulity, and probably a > director call. What you will *not* get, even after they call the TD, > is an explanation of the entire auction. :-( > The most common response I get to an "Explain the auction?" question is 1. The blank stares you mention 2. Followed by "We have never heard a question like that before" Wayne From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 22 20:49:44 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:49:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <458C21E7.4060705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003101c72602$55f55500$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel > [Ed Reppert] > > Heh. Last time this happened, the director said to me "which bid do > > you want to know about?" I rest my case. :-) > > > [nige1] > > IMO, rather than insist that you describe each alerted call in the > auction, the law should recommend that you answer the question "From > your partner's calls what can you tell about his hand?" > > Apart from the main meaning of each individual call, there are subtle > inferences that gradually accumulate into significance during successive > calls; and probabilities that reinforce each other to become near > certainties. > > IMO, most players feel justified in refraining from divulging such > holistic understandings. > > Apart from improving disclosure, it would save time. My favourite question is (before I make the opening lead): "From your auction what are we entitled to know about your hands?" Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 22 21:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Terms In-Reply-To: <002e01c725ea$68de42c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Well, as I have demonstrated with my proof "ad absurdum", if your 5H > bid is accepted as not conventional there cannot exist any bid at > all that is conventional. Sven, your soi-disant "proof" was pitiful. Even if we accept the absurdity that a bid that can be made on a void or singleton deuce (see Law1) showed "high card strength" it wouldn't matter. A bid which shows HCS *and* also shows another suit would still be conventional. Thus fit jumps are conventional (show length in the other suit), splinters are conventional (show length in trumps), transfers are conventional (show length in the next suit up) etc, etc. The difference with the original 5H bid is that it does not promise anything in any other suit. I reiterate, it doesn't matter how many of the three possible "non-conventional" meanings apply when there is an additional meaning unrelated to any of those meanings. Tim From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Dec 22 21:57:37 2006 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Nigel) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:57:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Strong? Message-ID: <458C46C1.5020909@NTLworld.com> The Orange Book insists that to qualify for say a Benjamin 2C bid by agreement, a hand must be "strong", this is it must be *rule of 25* and *14 HCP or more*. While I would prefer no restrictions at all, if there must be some, I'd far rather that they be objectively defined in this way. My partner suggested I post a specific example to test EBU resolve. By agreement would you be allowed to treat the following hand as strong? S:AKT98765 H:AQT98 D- C- From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 22 22:24:40 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:24:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Terms In-Reply-To: <001d01c725e3$93542e40$0701a8c0@john> References: <001d01c725e3$93542e40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061222144819.02b80eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:09 AM 12/22/06, John wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "ton kooijman" > > > It really is a difficult issue. We seem to have used 'treatments' as > > another > > group of special calls. With a good definition of conventional it > should > > be > > clear what non-conventional is. > > > > And it would be convenient if we declare non-natural being the same as > > artificial, unless treatments complete the bidding universe. > > > > Why does blml not take it as a real challenge to give workable > definitions > > of all of these. Putting the emphasis on creation instead of > criticism. > > We > > need these definitions. > >This is obviously sensible. Perhaps, since we are unable to agree on this >forum we should try to decide, absent Law and regulation which do not >seem >to have helped, whether the status of my 5H call is to be treated as >natural >or not for the purposes of law 27B. That done we could begin to work >towards >ton's objective. Allow me to suggest that that 5H bid is not a convention, nor is it not a convention. It is neither. An "asking bid", such as Stayman or Blackwood, is meaningless without an agreed set of responses. And a set of responses is meaningless without an agreement as to what the bid being responded to is. That makes logical hash out of the notion of determining whether an asking bid is conventional without regard to its responses, or whether a response is conventional without regard to the bid being responded to. Surely we can agree that Blackwood is "a convention". But what is Blackwood? Is it the 4NT asking bid? Is it the ace-showing responses? What it really is, of course, is both of them together. Nobody would suggest that the 4NT bid and each of its responses is a separate convention. If they were, it would make sense to allow 4NT but ban its responses, or to permit only some of the responses but ban others. That would be patently nonsensical. Whatever the definition of "convention" is, it can only be logically applied to the asking bid and the responses taken as a whole. 5H is neither a convention nor not a convention because it is not a bidding agreement. It is but one piece of a bidding agreement. Whether it is conventional or not conventional depends on whether the agreement of which it is but one piece is deemed to be a convention or not. As to John's question of how it *should* be treated for the purpose of applying L27B "absent Law and regulation which do not seem to have helped", I have suggested elsewhere that we need to rewrite L27B so the answer doesn't matter. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Dec 22 23:36:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Strong? In-Reply-To: <458C46C1.5020909@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > The Orange Book insists that to qualify for say a Benjamin 2C bid by > agreement, a hand must be "strong", this is it must be *rule of 25* > and *14 HCP or more*. But the OB actually says "Rule of 25, or equivalent playing strength subject to an absolute minimum of 14 HCP." Please note the position of the single comma. It is only hands which fail to meet the Ro25 which are subject to the "absolute minimum of 14 HCP" requirement. For it to be an *and* the requirement would read "Rule of 25 or equivalent playing strength, subject to an absolute minimum of 14 HCP." > S:AKT98765 H:AQT98 D- C- A hand which =Ro26: AKT985,AJT987,x,- would be my suggestion. Alternatively you might wish to challenge OB11c1 "The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 19." with AT98765,KT9876,-,-. Tim From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Dec 23 00:23:24 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:23:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] Wrong board Message-ID: <004501c72620$30316160$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Two pairs bid the wrong board, one bidding 1NT-3NT. The opening lead is a heart and immediately the mistake is noticed. When the notrump bidders play the board later, the bidding is the same and the TD rules no problem, play on, and goes away. But the opening lead is not a heart this time. What now? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 23 01:08:35 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:08:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Strong? In-Reply-To: <458C46C1.5020909@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003201c72626$7d841790$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Nigel > The Orange Book insists that to qualify for say a Benjamin 2C bid by > agreement, a hand must be "strong", this is it must be *rule of 25* and > *14 HCP or more*. While I would prefer no restrictions at all, if there > must be some, I'd far rather that they be objectively defined in this way. > My partner suggested I post a specific example to test EBU resolve. By > agreement would you be allowed to treat the following hand as strong? > > S:AKT98765 H:AQT98 D- C- Maximum four losers and this distribution? Sure! I open 2C on this hand. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 23 01:14:20 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:14:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong board In-Reply-To: <004501c72620$30316160$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003301c72627$4aad9b60$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French > Two pairs bid the wrong board, one bidding 1NT-3NT. The opening > lead is a heart and immediately the mistake is noticed. When the > notrump bidders play the board later, the bidding is the same and > the TD rules no problem, play on, and goes away. > > But the opening lead is not a heart this time. What now? Law 15C only applies if the error is discovered during the auction period. In this case the auction period has ended and the play period begun so either Law 15A or Law 15B should have been used. Director's error. Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Dec 23 05:35:58 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:35:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] Wrong board References: <003301c72627$4aad9b60$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006201c7264b$da78c8e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Marvin French > > Two pairs bid the wrong board, one bidding 1NT-3NT. The opening > > lead is a heart and immediately the mistake is noticed. When the > > notrump bidders play the board later, the bidding is the same and > > the TD rules no problem, play on, and goes away. > > > > But the opening lead is not a heart this time. What now? > > Law 15C only applies if the error is discovered during the auction period. > In this case the auction period has ended and the play period begun so > either Law 15A or Law 15B should have been used. > But does a faced opening lead, no further play, really make it a played board? This was a barometer game, each pair of tables sharing a set of preduplicated boards. Conditions of play for the game are that both pairs are equally responsible for playing the right boards. When the original defenders played the board against the right pair on the next round, the bidding was the same and of course the same lead was made. I would have thought that the original heart lead would be UI in the second case, and go from there. I can see that declarer might be adversely limited by the UI, but he was partially at fault for starting the board not scheduled for play that round. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 22 20:07:24 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:07:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <200612220316.AA06652@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000801c72574$b13038b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <200612220316.AA06652@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061222135246.02b907b0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:16 PM 12/21/06, Robert wrote: >If the opponents are allowed to use a convention (strong 1C) >we should be allowed to use any convention of our choosing against it. >If they can't cope with the "random 1S" let them play go back to a >playing a natural system! > >This is a matter of equity though, not law. The laws as they now >stand would >seem to treat defenses to conventions as conventions themselves and >allow regulation of countermeasures by the SO. Once upon a time the ACBL explicitly permitted any and all defenses to opponents' conventional methods (they made them "class A", which, in the scheme they were using at the time, meant they were allowed at all levels of competition), but, alas, that is no longer their policy. TPTB appeared to have reversed themselves after being taken by surprise by players experimenting with non-standard approaches to defending against common, everyday conventional methods, such as takeout doubles. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 23 09:04:29 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:04:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong board In-Reply-To: <006201c7264b$da78c8e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c72668$f98d4db0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Marvin French > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > On Behalf Of Marvin French > > > Two pairs bid the wrong board, one bidding 1NT-3NT. The opening > > > lead is a heart and immediately the mistake is noticed. When the > > > notrump bidders play the board later, the bidding is the same > and > > > the TD rules no problem, play on, and goes away. > > > > > > But the opening lead is not a heart this time. What now? > > > > Law 15C only applies if the error is discovered during the auction > period. > > In this case the auction period has ended and the play period > begun so > > either Law 15A or Law 15B should have been used. > > > But does a faced opening lead, no further play, really make it a > played board? Law 15C: "If, during the auction period..." Law 17E: "The auction period ends when ... after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced ..." TD should not concern himself with whether or not the board had been "played", he should determine if the auction period had ended. As I have stated before: Director's error. > This was a barometer game, each pair of tables sharing a set of > preduplicated boards. Conditions of play for the game are that both > pairs are equally responsible for playing the right boards. > When the original defenders played the board against the right pair > on the next round, the bidding was the same and of course the same > lead was made. > I would have thought that the original heart lead would be UI in the > second case, and go from there. I can see that declarer might be > adversely limited by the UI, but he was partially at fault for > starting the board not scheduled for play that round. Irrelevant. (Did you play a quasi-barometer with scoring after each other round instead of after each round?) Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 22 20:43:14 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:43:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] alertability In-Reply-To: <001601c725b4$b38c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001601c725b4$b38c8420$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061222144107.02b7bcf0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:33 AM 12/22/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > > Besides, if you ask for an explanation of the entire auction you > > will, 99% of the time, get blank looks, incredulity, and probably a > > director call. What you will *not* get, even after they call the TD, > > is an explanation of the entire auction. :-( > >If the Director knows his job you will! What you won't get is home for dinner. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 22 19:34:17 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:34:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <000701c72570$3d84b2a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <2a1c3a560612211551t73694c69m6505e525ca298ad3@mail.gmail.com> <000701c72570$3d84b2a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061222132049.02b9fa10@pop.starpower.net> At 09:23 PM 12/21/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >............... > > At the 2006 National Championships in New Zealand the chief director > > announced after the event had already started that a "random 1S" over > > a Precision 1C was not going to be allowed. I do not know what > > process if any was followed to make this ruling. This in spite of the > > fact that the regulations explicitly allowed "any defense" versus > > strong artificial openings. > > > > The 1S bid in question (not in my arsenal) basically showed a hand > > that was unsuitable for some other action - even Pass was defined in > > their system. So 1S was automatic if your hand did not qualify for > > any other action. > > > > It occurs to me now that 1S is not a convention as it has no "other > > meaning". All we would know about 1S is based on the negative > > inferences of not making another bid. > > > > I guess the regulation made at the national championships was illegal. > >There is nothing illegal about that except possibly that the >regulation was >announced rather late! > >The point is that the bid does not indicate willingness to play in the >named >denomination, nor does it show length or strength in that denomination, so >it is conventional all right. Sven is wrong here, and his confusion clearly demonstrates why the negative phraseology in the definition of "convention" causes problems. "The point", such as it is, is that a bid does *not* need to carry any of the three specified "messages" in order to be non-conventional. What the definition requires is that it *not* carry any message other than those in order to be non-conventional. A bid that carries no message at all obviously cannot carry a message "other than" the usual suspects, hence cannot be deemed a convention under the current definition. If we want to be allowed to treat a totally meaningless bid as a "convention", we need a new definition. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From sarahamos at onetel.net Sat Dec 23 17:04:50 2006 From: sarahamos at onetel.net (sarahamos at onetel.net) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:04:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Strong? Message-ID: <20061223160450.ikcz1irny808c0sk@mailzone.onetel.net.uk> Quoting Tim West-Meads : > Nigel wrote: > >> The Orange Book insists that to qualify for say a Benjamin 2C bid by >> agreement, a hand must be "strong", this is it must be *rule of 25* >> and *14 HCP or more*. > > But the OB actually says "Rule of 25, or equivalent playing strength > subject to an absolute minimum of 14 HCP." > > Please note the position of the single comma. It is only hands which > fail to meet the Ro25 which are subject to the "absolute minimum of 14 > HCP" requirement. For it to be an *and* the requirement would > read "Rule of 25 or equivalent playing strength, subject to an absolute > minimum of 14 HCP." > >> S:AKT98765 H:AQT98 D- C- > snip Tim is quite correct and nigel has misquoted / misunderstood the regulation I think you should expect that there will be some modification of the regulation although this will probably not satisfy everyone including Tim. The point of the regulation is to protect others - if we allow any "8 playing tricks" we will have players opening on KQJxxxxxx and nothing or even QJxxxxxxxx. Now opponents say they have been mislead into thinking they were opposed by a strong hand. Mike > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 22 20:39:22 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:39:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <458B95B8.5020502@hdw.be> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061221130254.02b7a090@pop.starpower.net> <458B95B8.5020502@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061222141153.02b95380@pop.starpower.net> At 03:22 AM 12/22/06, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > At 05:07 AM 12/21/06, Herman wrote: > > > >> This leaves us with the first place where conventionality is an issue: > >> insufficient bids. If the insufficient bid is conventional, or if the > >> next higher bid in the same strain is conventional, then the call > >> cannot be changed without penalty. Here, we do need some definition of > >> conventionality. Maybe the WBFLC would do best in deleting the word > >> conventional in this Law and replace it with a direct condition. Such > >> as: if the bid does not show willingness to play in the strain > >> mentioned, ... > >> This may well alter the precise application of this Law, but has the > >> benefit of removing a contentious definition from the lawbook. > > > > I agree with Herman that it would be beneficial to rewrite L27B1(a) > > without reference to "conventional[ity]". But, IMO, it would be > better > > to make it broader, not narrower, by allowing the substitution without > > penalty if the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the > > same denomination carry essentially the same meaning, regardless of > > whether that meaning is or is not conventional. > > > > But the real problem with any such formulation, whether it be what we > > have, Herman's suggestion, or mine, is that an insufficient bid > cannot, > > by itself, have any "meaning" at all -- for a partnership to assign a > > specific meaning to an insufficient bid would manifest prima facie an > > intention to violate L72B2. At best, it can only have the meaning it > > would have had had the auction gone as the insufficient bidder > imagines > > it had. For those who disparage laws that require "mind reading", the > > laws on insufficient bids are as egregious as any in TFLB. > > > > And even an infallible mind reader will wind up stimied by the totally > > muddled and confused, who have been known to blurt out a bid without > > any clear idea, real or imagined, of what the auction to that point > > was. I doubt that there's an experienced TD anywhere who hasn't > heard, > > "I don't know what I was thinking; it just came out." > >So the solution is: don't look at the insufficient bid at all. Don't >make the "meaning of the insufficienct bid" a factor in deciding on >the possibility of penalty-free change. Of course the additional >meanings given to it are UI to partner. >Come to think of it, if the insufficient bid is UI, then why not >simply always allow a change to the next higher bid. This solves >problems like: >1NT-(3C)-2H oops, I did not see 3C. Without 3C, 2H is transfer to >spades. With 3C, 3H is transfer to spades. Acceptable! >Maybe a thought? A good thought, IMO, that could be the basis for a workable approach. If the IB isn't accepted, allow the correction, regardless of what it, or the IB, "means", with the only explicit "penalty" being the restrictions on partner's subsequent calls imposed by virtue of the fact that the IB itself is UI. Let the IB'er worry about what the corrected bid means; if it means something significantly different from what he intended, which is the problematic case, the fact that his partner will be under UI restrictions will be sufficient to discourage him from making it in the first place, invoking the full panoply of penalties imposed for any other choice. If the IB is accepted, the issue of what the IB'er thought the auction was, and therefore what he intended the IB to mean, becomes solely a problem for his partner (but not the Law) to try to cope with. The risk of getting it wrong would be, by itself, a sufficient implicit "penalty" for the IB. We will, of course, find ourselves having to cope with the UI that will surely arise when the IB'er improperly blurts it out ("Oh, I thought he bid..."), but that's just everyday UI of the usual sort. This way, the only "mind reading" we would have to do would be of the same nature as for any other UI adjudication. At least that kind of "mind reading" is familiar; we're used to doing it, and know how to cope. The result would be to greatly simplify the laws governing IBs, which can only be a good thing. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Dec 23 20:14:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Strong? In-Reply-To: <20061223160450.ikcz1irny808c0sk@mailzone.onetel.net.uk> Message-ID: Mike wrote: > I think you should expect that there will be some modification of the > regulation although this will probably not satisfy everyone > including Tim. Well, I find it embarrassing that my NBO thinks "Rule of.." is any sort of way to define hand strength but that's hardly my responsibility. I don't have any agreements involving opening hands (at the 1 level) that are not within a king of average strength so I don't let the regs bother me too much. > The point of the regulation is to protect others - if we allow any "8 > playing tricks" we will have players opening on KQJxxxxxx and > nothing or even QJxxxxxxxx. These people should not be protected from themselves, let them play whatever they want - all I ask is that they don't *describe* such bids as "strong". Tim From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 20:54:20 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 08:54:20 +1300 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20061222141153.02b95380@pop.starpower.net> References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061221130254.02b7a090@pop.starpower.net> <458B95B8.5020502@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061222141153.02b95380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560612231154k401d1711tcb247ac30d9a38c@mail.gmail.com> On 23/12/06, Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:22 AM 12/22/06, Herman wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 05:07 AM 12/21/06, Herman wrote: > > > > > >> This leaves us with the first place where conventionality is an issue: > > >> insufficient bids. If the insufficient bid is conventional, or if the > > >> next higher bid in the same strain is conventional, then the call > > >> cannot be changed without penalty. Here, we do need some definition of > > >> conventionality. Maybe the WBFLC would do best in deleting the word > > >> conventional in this Law and replace it with a direct condition. Such > > >> as: if the bid does not show willingness to play in the strain > > >> mentioned, ... > > >> This may well alter the precise application of this Law, but has the > > >> benefit of removing a contentious definition from the lawbook. > > > > > > I agree with Herman that it would be beneficial to rewrite L27B1(a) > > > without reference to "conventional[ity]". But, IMO, it would be > > better > > > to make it broader, not narrower, by allowing the substitution without > > > penalty if the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the > > > same denomination carry essentially the same meaning, regardless of > > > whether that meaning is or is not conventional. > > > > > > But the real problem with any such formulation, whether it be what we > > > have, Herman's suggestion, or mine, is that an insufficient bid > > cannot, > > > by itself, have any "meaning" at all -- for a partnership to assign a > > > specific meaning to an insufficient bid would manifest prima facie an > > > intention to violate L72B2. At best, it can only have the meaning it > > > would have had had the auction gone as the insufficient bidder > > imagines > > > it had. For those who disparage laws that require "mind reading", the > > > laws on insufficient bids are as egregious as any in TFLB. > > > > > > And even an infallible mind reader will wind up stimied by the totally > > > muddled and confused, who have been known to blurt out a bid without > > > any clear idea, real or imagined, of what the auction to that point > > > was. I doubt that there's an experienced TD anywhere who hasn't > > heard, > > > "I don't know what I was thinking; it just came out." > > > >So the solution is: don't look at the insufficient bid at all. Don't > >make the "meaning of the insufficienct bid" a factor in deciding on > >the possibility of penalty-free change. Of course the additional > >meanings given to it are UI to partner. > >Come to think of it, if the insufficient bid is UI, then why not > >simply always allow a change to the next higher bid. This solves > >problems like: > >1NT-(3C)-2H oops, I did not see 3C. Without 3C, 2H is transfer to > >spades. With 3C, 3H is transfer to spades. Acceptable! > >Maybe a thought? > > A good thought, IMO, that could be the basis for a workable approach. > > If the IB isn't accepted, allow the correction, regardless of what it, > or the IB, "means", with the only explicit "penalty" being the > restrictions on partner's subsequent calls imposed by virtue of the > fact that the IB itself is UI. Let the IB'er worry about what the > corrected bid means; if it means something significantly different from > what he intended, which is the problematic case, the fact that his > partner will be under UI restrictions will be sufficient to discourage > him from making it in the first place, invoking the full panoply of > penalties imposed for any other choice. > > If the IB is accepted, the issue of what the IB'er thought the auction > was, and therefore what he intended the IB to mean, becomes solely a > problem for his partner (but not the Law) to try to cope with. The > risk of getting it wrong would be, by itself, a sufficient implicit > "penalty" for the IB. We will, of course, find ourselves having to > cope with the UI that will surely arise when the IB'er improperly > blurts it out ("Oh, I thought he bid..."), but that's just everyday UI > of the usual sort. > > This way, the only "mind reading" we would have to do would be of the > same nature as for any other UI adjudication. At least that kind of > "mind reading" is familiar; we're used to doing it, and know how to cope. > > The result would be to greatly simplify the laws governing IBs, which > can only be a good thing. > No no no no no ... Someone will just make the agreement that ... 1NT (2S) 2D = transfer and ... 1NT (2S) 3D = natural and we will not know until we collect sufficient evidence that they have an agreement. And that could take a long time when relevant cases only come up every other tournament or so. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 22 19:02:34 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:02:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Terms In-Reply-To: <5i31ng$3it8h7@mx04.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <002101c722c2$0572adf0$3ed75047@DFYXB361> <5i31ng$3it8h7@mx04.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061222100142.02b93eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:25 AM 12/19/06, ton wrote: >It really is a difficult issue. We seem to have used 'treatments' as >another group of special calls. With a good definition of conventional >it should be clear what non-conventional is. >And it would be convenient if we declare non-natural being the same as >artificial, unless treatments complete the bidding universe. >Why does blml not take it as a real challenge to give workable >definitions of all of these. Putting the emphasis on creation instead >of criticism. We need these definitions. > > >---------- >From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >[mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of raija > >Natural >Artificial >Conventional >Non-conventional > >Any other terms in this "group of terms" ? > >The current thread Convention that was started by John Probst prompts >me to bring this up. It seems to me (of course I am feeble enough of >mind that I could have misunderstood) that some people here consider >Conventional to be the opposite of Natural. IMO that is not true, >e.g. fit jumps. > >Is there an authoritative description of each of those terms? >Convention is defined in the Laws, but the others? I think we are overwhelmed with terminology. In fact, we only need to bifurcate the set of possible agreements into two classes, one called "natural", "non-conventional" or some such, the other called "artificial", "conventional" or whatever. TFLB should pick one term for each of those two classes and use it consistently. I'll use "natural" and "conventional". That means we need only specifically define "conventional" bids; "natural" bids are whatever's left. Since the trouble we've been having with the current definition derives from its negative phraseology (that troublesome "other than"), we should attempt a positively phrased one. That will require a "laundry list" approach: "A call is conventional if it: A, B,... or Z." We might find it easier to have more than one list, for instance one for suit bids, one for notrump bids, and one for passes, doubles and redoubles. Some examples: "Carries a positive message about a suit or suits other than the one named (e.g. transfers, two-suited bids)." "Shows length or values in an unspecified suit or suits (e.g. multi, 'one-suited' doubles of NT)." "Makes an inquiry that is unrelated to the denomination named (e.g. Stayman, Blackwood)." Of course, the list could get rather long, but if it is sufficiently in accord with players' "I know it when I see it" common sense that is not necessarily a drawback. My first example contains the key phrase "positive message". That's there to avoid making virtually every call conventional by virtue of negative inferences. We don't want to make, for example, an ordinary weak two-bid into a convention just because it denies a side four-card suit by agreement, or make an ordinary 1S opening a convention because it denies hearts, diamonds or clubs longer than one's spades. So we will need a definition of a "negative inference". Indeed, we will need that definition before we can evaluate the appropriateness of potential items on the "laundry list". It won't be easy to come up with a good list, but at least the result will eliminate much of the ambiguity in the current laws. And the list could wind up being as "dynamic" as the ACBL's list of alertable agreements, but that's not a problem, since it has virtually no consequence with respect to what players are actually required to do at the table. That said, why bother? Will the next lawbook need to make the distinction at all? AFAICT, the current lawbook makes use of the term in only five Laws: 20, 27, 29, 30 and 40. Let's look at them one by one: The word "conventions" appears in L20F2, but that law is universally interpreted and applied by treating "conventions" as a synonym for "agreements", and should be using the latter term; I suspect the inappropriate reference to "conventions" is a misleading leftover from old law. L27 is currently problematic, as we've discussed in this forum many times. It ought to be significantly revised along lines several of us have suggested, making the correction without penalty dependent on whether the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination have essentially the same meaning, regardless of whether that meaning is natural or conventional. That would solve the problem of having to deal with the contradiction inherent in the notion of a "conventional insufficient bid", which, by other laws, may not exist. L29C says that if a COOT is conventional, L30-32 should be read as applying to the denomination specified rather than to the denomination named. But if a call is not conventional, then the denomination specified *is* the denomination named. So L29C can be eliminated simply by rewriting L30-32 to apply to the denomination specified in all cases. L30 requires a definition of a conventional pass, but that definition is explicitly given in L30C, so for this law no other general definition of "conventional" is needed. That leaves L40D, for which a definition of "convention" is clearly required. Or, rather, it would be required if L40D meant anything. But -- most unfortunately, IMO -- it doesn't. The WBF has interpreted it out of existence, maintaining steadfastly that SOs can regulate any agreements whatsoever using the power granted by L80F, L40D notwithstanding. Since it is a logical no-op, it can simply be expunged, or (as Grattan has hinted that it might well be) rewritten to explicitly grant SOs the power to regulate partnership understandings of any kind without reference to whether they are or are not conventional. So why should we beat our brains out trying to solve the very difficult problem of defining a concept that could just as easily be eliminated from the Law altogether? Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061222/8bf94e1f/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 26 16:21:54 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:21:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] convention In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560612231154k401d1711tcb247ac30d9a38c@mail.gmail.com > References: <200612181556.kBIFu04l006886@cfa.harvard.edu> <458A016F.7010800@cfa.harvard.edu> <003a01c724d8$2e2e7180$a9cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <458A5224.4050907@NTLworld.com> <458A5CCD.4000009@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061221130254.02b7a090@pop.starpower.net> <458B95B8.5020502@hdw.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20061222141153.02b95380@pop.starpower.net> <2a1c3a560612231154k401d1711tcb247ac30d9a38c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20061226094751.02a62d40@pop.starpower.net> At 02:54 PM 12/23/06, Wayne wrote: >On 23/12/06, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>If the IB isn't accepted, allow the correction, regardless of what it, >>or the IB, "means", with the only explicit "penalty" being the >>restrictions on partner's subsequent calls imposed by virtue of the >>fact that the IB itself is UI. Let the IB'er worry about what the >>corrected bid means; if it means something significantly different from >>what he intended, which is the problematic case, the fact that his >>partner will be under UI restrictions will be sufficient to discourage >>him from making it in the first place, invoking the full panoply of >>penalties imposed for any other choice. >> >>If the IB is accepted, the issue of what the IB'er thought the auction >>was, and therefore what he intended the IB to mean, becomes solely a >>problem for his partner (but not the Law) to try to cope with. The >>risk of getting it wrong would be, by itself, a sufficient implicit >>"penalty" for the IB. We will, of course, find ourselves having to >>cope with the UI that will surely arise when the IB'er improperly >>blurts it out ("Oh, I thought he bid..."), but that's just everyday UI >>of the usual sort. >> >>This way, the only "mind reading" we would have to do would be of the >>same nature as for any other UI adjudication. At least that kind of >>"mind reading" is familiar; we're used to doing it, and know how to cope. >> >>The result would be to greatly simplify the laws governing IBs, which >>can only be a good thing. > >No no no no no ... > >Someone will just make the agreement that ... > >1NT (2S) 2D = transfer and ... > >1NT (2S) 3D = natural > >and we will not know until we collect sufficient evidence that they >have an agreement. And that could take a long time when relevant >cases only come up every other tournament or so. Wayne's example is problematic only if his hypothetical pair not only makes such an agreement, but also refuses to admit to having done so. At some point some partnership may do exactly that, but I don't believe that this is much of a consideration. It is simply another manifestation of the problem we face when writing the laws in general: We can either make laws under which it will not be paticulary difficult to appropriately punish pairs that cheat ands then lie about it, or we can make laws that impose what we believe are appropriate penalties for genuinely inadvertant infractions. The Law, IMO correctly, leans strongly towards the latter. On the practical side, the investigative methodology available to our TDs and ACs relies heavily on asking questions and assuming that we are getting truthful answers. We could take an approach far more oriented towards eliminating the potential for outright cheating and lying (in this specific case, for example, we could simply drop L27B1 altogether), but the undesirable outcomes from such solutions will outweigh the beneficial ones. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 27 12:57:00 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:57:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Terms References: <002101c722c2$0572adf0$3ed75047@DFYXB361><5i31ng$3it8h7@mx04.lnh.mail.rcn.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20061222100142.02b93eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c729ae$25915bc0$a705e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott At match-point. Suppose you discover that your opponents might have used UI. You have not called for a TD when you played the board and you have not told your opponents that you might want a TD to rule. Are you entitled to get a ruling within half an hour from when it happend, after end of session or another period? Law 79 C? Does it matter if you have been informed by other players? At teams tournament The same question. Are you entitled to get a ruling within half an hour from when it happend, after end of that match or another period? Law 79 C? Does it matter if you have been informed by other players? Torsten -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061229/d0e53686/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 25 01:57:27 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 00:57:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Greetings Message-ID: <000b01c727c0$16565830$6e09e150@Mildred> Grattan Endicott